Genesis Series: In a beginning

In a beginning, God had created the form of Heaven and the form of Earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Introduction

The opening phrase of Genesis as well as the entire Genesis One narrative is one of the most hotly debated phrases in all of Sacred Scripture.  Biblical scholars trained in ancient languages as well as others have dissected these words to the letter.  An interpreter is faced with a few different paths of translation and interpretation.  For my part I've chosen a road less taken.  This interpretative path is born from thinking outside the box over years.  One will be thoroughly imbued with these ideas over the course of many articles I have written on this subject.

The Opening Phrase

My understanding of the opening prepositional phrase is that God and the sacred author do not intend to communicate THE ABSOLUTE BEGINNING, i.e. beginning of all time or the creation ex nihilo event. Rather the they open the narrative, indefinitely, so as to allow for the understanding that there was a history prior to the main event postdicted in Gen 1:3.

My inspiration comes in part from a Hebrew language scholar, Robert Holmstedt. Holmstedt is a bright Hebrew language scholar I have encountered in my studies. His article 'The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1' (Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008) 56-67) provides a clear argument why the traditional understanding of an 'absolute beginning' is grammatically ill-founded.

There is much strife in the history of Gen 1:1 translations. The strife is founded on whether or not to translate the Hebrew noun bǝrēʾšît (beginning) in an absolute or construct state. Absolute state means the noun is marked in a grammatically independent form, e.g. the beginning. Absolute state showcases a human's ability to reify concepts so as to consummate higher order abstractions. So for example one takes a concept, i.e. beginning, and one treats this concept AS IF it has form and one could possibly relate to it.  Of course in reality this is impossible, but human's have this uncanny ability to treat concepts as if they were objects.  The root of our thinking prowess is in our sophisticated ability to treat our thought as if it had form.  This is will feature prominently in my interpretation.  A translator of a controversial text such as this one must understand the difference between an object (that which has form) and a concept (a relation between two or more objects, or a nest of concepts, worked out by the brain).

Construct state means the noun is grammatically bound to the following words liken to a genitive relation, e.g. beginning of. The issue is made complex since the noun beginning is a concept and lacks form.  Furthermore this noun is of time, i.e. temporal. Time is of course a concept . . . a brainwork.  Literally speaking time has no beginning or end.  In tongue and cheek I say that time began when God, an Angel, a human or animal first compared two or more motions.  And that is a perfect definition of time.  Time is a comparison between two or more motions where one motion is assumed as constant.  For example we compare our conception of Earth's rotation in relation to the Sun (Moon and stars) to Earth's orbit in relation to the Sun.  Notice how in both conceptions, rotation and orbit, we are relating two objects:  Earth and Sun.  And we assign scalar quantities to keep track of these motions.  Motion of course is two or more locations which an object assumes.  In order to conceive motion we need a minimum of two objects.

With these basics in mind let us look at the two proposals to account for the grammar of the opening phrase as summarized by Holmstedt as:

1. rēʾšît is a grammatically indefinite but semantically determined noun in the absolute state, used adverbially for absolute temporal designation. (Holmstedt)This proposal translates to the English, "In the beginning God created, etc" with the understanding that the sacred author is stating creation ex nihilo. 

2. rēʾšît is a grammatically and semantically indefinite noun in the construct state, used adverbially for temporal designation relative to a separate main event. (Holmstedt)

This translates to "When God began to create" with the understanding that the this preposition is linked to a main event in this case 'God said, "Let there be light."'

The most literal English translation would simply be: In beginning God created, etc. but this is impractical. In my view, the sacred author had no motions by which to compare what he had seen in a vision.  He did not know the time God took him too in his prophetic experience. He simply relates three objects: God and the Heaven and the Earth in an undefined memory.  It would seem that the sacred author start with three objects:  God, Heaven, Earth, and relates them together in this indefinite and undefined beginning.  He states that God created the Heaven and the Earth which is true, but for his narrative he states this as a given.

This beginning is defined by the first major motion, that is God, from Heaven, moving to enact the light event in relation to the Earth.  So this hotly debated beginning would seem wed to the light event which presupposes three existing objects:  God, Heaven and Earth.  Clearly the sacred author and God who inspired him did not intend to take us readers back to a creation ex nihilo event 'when' there is only God, and nothing else.  God alone with nothing else is enough to challenge our notion of motion, but clearly the sacred author had no intention to take us back to only God.  

The sacred author understands that God had done things prior to where the events of Genesis One begin. And besides it makes no sense that God's sphere, i.e. Heaven and the Earth would be created at the absolute beginning as if there is no lapse in time: a metric of motion. And yet the sacred author understands he is taken to the initiation of our history, that is God's act to transform a pre-existing astronomical object.  The sacred author did not have a timeline of the universe where he could mark the main event. To him, God from Heaven miraculously enters into an astronomical object's history.

The Matrix

Holmstedt uses the Masoretic text of the Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible dated to 1008 a.d. Holmstedt argues for the second position but he refines and clarifies their position to the opening phrase signalling a restrictive relative clause:

"In fact, only one grammatically sound explanation of the syntax of a noun in construct with a verb has surfaced: such sequences are unmarked relative clauses. This “construct-relative” option makes better sense of the fact that the noun in bǝrēʾšît lacks the article, and builds upon known Hebrew grammar."

A relative clause is a type of subordinate clause. It provides additional (but syntactically) non-crucial information about the matrix.  Matrix is a word derived from the Latin and is a variation of mater translated as mother.  In grammar the matrix is the main clause of the sentence, but in our Genesis 1 context the matrix is more.  The matrix is the main event not only of the first sentence of Genesis but of this entire narrative.  I call it the Light Event.  The matrix clause is 'And God said, "Let light happen".

In Holmstedt's view the syntax of the first three verses of Genesis is a compound-complex sentence. So according to this position the clause 'In a beginning, God had created the Heaven and the Earth' provides additional (but syntactically) non-crucial information to the matrix of the compound-complex sentence that is ' And God said, "Let light happen."' In other words verse one is a syntactical element of verse three.

Holmstedt argues in favor another feature known as the restrictive nature. He analyzes several Hebrew verses and compares the Hebrew to the Akkadian and Old South Arabian. He concludes

"any translation or semantic reading of a translation that would identify rēʾšît in Gen. i 1 as “the beginning” would fail to recognize the significance of relative clause syntax."

He follows by providing an explanation of the awkwardness of translating this Hebrew relative clause syntax into English. He provides his own translation:

"Admittedly, the implication of my analysis is significant. If rēʾšît is the head of an unmarked, restrictive relative clause, then Gen. i 1 as a whole can serve only one grammatical function: it is a stage-setting prepositional phrase, providing a temporal frame of reference only for what follows. Importantly, the temporal reference is relative to the event provided in the matrix clause (either v. 2 or v. 3). To reflect this linguistic analysis, a translation based on the one in (17) would be accurate. In the initial period that/in which God created the heavens and the earth . . ."

He concludes the article by stating the theological implications of his study. His study allows for an understanding of multiple stages to God's creative work prior to the parenthetic information of Gen 1:2 and the main event of Gen 1:3.

Arguments for 'In a beginning'

For my part I have adopted a rare position to the grammatical game provided from none other than Holmstedt himself! In the course of his paper he cites in his footnotes a third logical possible way of translating:

"There is a third logical possibility, that the noun rēʾšît should be taken as indefinite and in the absolute state, e.g., “in a beginning, God created . . .”. This option does not appear to have any adherents, . . . "

I adopted this possibility, "in a beginning' for several reasons. One is that maybe one other person has used it. This avoids the endless circles of debate, stodginess, and so on.  This translation is grammatically speaking, allowed in the Hebrew as well as the Latin tradition. The Latin Vulgate has "In principio". Latin has no articles. It is left to the translator to decide a definite or indefinite article when translating to English.

Another reason is that my understanding of this phrase is liken to the stock phrase "Once upon a time". "In a beginning" opens a story! It opens a thread of events after which the Earth will never be the sames.  Genesis One is prophetic prose narrative. It is a postdiction: a description of past events without error. At the primary level there is nothing particularly profound about this opening phrase.  Like Holmstedt said this phrase sets a stage or establishes a temporal realm in relation to the main light event.  This phrase simply opens a conceptual realm whereby the sacred author may unleash his narrative and the reader may begin processing the same. "In a beginning" means once in the past, a long long time ago.

Another reason I translated 'In a beginning' is my understanding that this Genesis One narrative begins to unfold long, long after creation ex nihilo. My reasoning beyond grammar runs something like this: It would be impractical for God to reveal all that he has done since the beginning of angels and the network of atoms, i.e. matter in a manner of a few verses. A few verses is insufficient to tell the story of the galaxies, and the stars, and all matter, let alone the Angels prior to the events communicated in the Gen 1 story. This prehistory could be trillions of years. And the same could be said concerning the the angels. This reasoning is in line with what the Gospel of John 21:25 proclaims:

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did, which, if each of these were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not be able to contain the books that would be written.

Similarly there are also many other things that God did prior to the main event, the matrix of this narrative which in a manner of speaking the world itself would not be able to contain the books that would be written. These other things include the creation ex nihilo: the sudden and miraculous arrival of the angels and the atoms. Then matter's development into structures, and their interactions, etc.; and the Angel's development including the Fall of the angels. We consider but a spark of all God has done and God simply has not revealed to us all things through the Bible. Creation ex nihilo happened long before the first event of the Genesis One story.

Some get offended by an interpretation contrary to absolute beginning. They argue that this interpretation is an attack on the creation ex nihilo dogma. Little do they consider whether or not the sacred author even had a clear conception of creation ex nihilo. This clear conception could have developed long after Genesis One was written when the Hellenist culture with its philosophy spread through the Holy Land. The sacred author implicitly believed in creation ex nihilo yet in his time there was no defined dogma as in our time.

Another counter argument would be that creation ex nihilo can be drawn out of other verses in the Bible. The Bible is thousands upon thousands of verses. God does not need to directly teach creation ex nihilo in the opening verse. Creation ex nihilo can be drawn out of many verses in the Bible. Too much emphasis has been placed on Gen 1:1.

Conclusion

'In a beginning' targets a time long ago in the past, only this time is long after creation ex nihilo. The phrase functions to open a temporal concept through which the sacred author may unleash his prophetic narrative and through which the reader may begin processing the same. The sacred author deliberately opens the prophetic narrative, indefinitely. He did this since he quite really did not know how far back in the process of creation God took him in his prophetic experience. He was being wise and honest in not choosing to use an article in the record of this prophetic history. God also made this choice and of course knew many things happened prior to that which he did as related in Genesis One. And yet this beginning is absolute in the sense that this story marks the time when God initiated the history of planet Earth as the sacred author knew it.

The indefiniteness allows for the understanding that there was a history prior to the information communicated in the Gen 1:2 and the main event communicated in Gen 1:3. God, from Heaven miraculously acts to transfigure the face of an astronomical object: Earth. This object may have existed for billions of years prior to His supernatural act to transform.

The lack of definite article in my translation precisely signifies the concept: obscurity, indefiniteness, ambiguity. And yet there is also a concept of absoluteness in the sense that the first event begins history as the sacred author knew it. The main event marks the beginning of Mankind, the animal kingdom and plant kingdom's story.
I assume that the Genesis One narrative does not begin at creation ex nihilo. I assume the Genesis One narrative begins at some indefinite time in the past billions, maybe even trillions of years subsequent to creation ex nihilo. I understand that the subject of the second verse, that is the Earth could have a long history prior to the miraculous events disclosed starting with Gen 1:3. Ultimately I am suggesting the idea that planet Earth had a history prior to the beginning of the events communicated in Genesis One. The planet existed long before the events of Genesis One happened. 

Addendum

After writing the above article many years ago I found another who adheres to my chosen translation: 'In a beginning' for the first word of Genesis 1 and Bible. It comes from the book Intercourses in the Book of Genesis by R. Gilboa. This book is a simplified version of his P.H.D. thesis presented to the University of Manchester and published in 1998. He seemed to be doing a doctorate in Biblical Hebrew. Here is an abstract from the book:

The very first word in Genesis indicates a certain mode of time. It is usually translated "In the beginning", but the particle 'the' is not part of the Hebrew text; the person who vocalized the word saw fit to give it an indefinite sense of time and not the sense of the all-embracing transcendental occurence: Be'Reshit, not Ba'Reshit,. Assuming that the voweller was conscious of what he was doing, and this is the approach stressed again and again in this paper, one cannot apply a cosmic interpretation to a text which avoids the cosmic. Therefore when the text states "בְּ·רֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים", it means to say only what is written: "in a beginning God created . . ." The problems of whether there were other beginnings or when was THE beginning (a question scientifically yet unsolved) are irrelevant for the story, and the practical text, by the very words used, seems to avoid unsolvable problems by relating only to an undefined time and a beginning that concern it. (Chapter II, p. 39)

I more or less agree with him. Grammatically, and by Faith I came to the same conclusion although there are other alternatives and a circle of never-ending debates. Biblical Hebrew studies is confusing because it is history.  It is not like any one of us can ask the sacred author personally what he intended.  And so one has to also apply some critical thinking and rational analysis tools in an assumption of Faith.

Even if his grammatical argument is unsound Gilboa's reasoning when taken in context to the referents 'the Heaven and the Earth' are sound. The object Heaven and the object Earth (object: that which has form) were not necessarily created simultaneously ex nihilo at THE absolute beginning of created objects.  Perhaps God created his house first and then the astronomical object Earth was created billions of years later.  It could have taken form for the atoms, and fundamental objects which constitute the atoms which God created ex nihilo.  Perhaps it was predestined, and at a time after some of the Angels fell elected to be the home of humans.

The sacred author relates the creation of these two objects (Heaven and Earth) in an indefinite beginning. He was a seer. He did not know when these two objects were created in relation to each other because this history was not relevant to his prophecy. All he knew is that God created the Heaven and the Earth prior to the events that he relates in his prophetic narrative. He relates them to God and states them since they are the relevant objects of his narrative. God acts to transfigure the face of the Earth from His house named Heaven, via the Spirit who is emitted to the astronomical object Earth. The Heaven of God is a relevant object in the dynamic of the events described in the Genesis 1 narrative. God from Heaven acts to change the face of the Earth.

Later in the same chapter Gilboa states:

The author, as discussed beforehand concerning A beginning, avoid the problem of THE beginning and states the existence of A God-creator. The powers of this God are directed toward a very specific creation. . . (p. 44)

The specific created object of the Genesis 1 narrative is the astronomical object named Earth.  Earth will be miraculously changed and its elements will be used to create an atmosphere, oceans, plants, animals, and finally Adam.  I think the Earth is an old dark star that naturally transitioned from an active fusion and compression phase to a cool and for the most part inactive phase (minus the core) after which all the fusion of the heavy elements, synthesis of chemicals, crystallization of minerals, and so on occurred for billions of years prior to the main light event of Genesis.  If not this then perhaps it was what scientists now call a rogue planet.

Beginning as stated in Genesis 1:1 is indefinite, obscure, uncertain, unclear, etc. The seer who communicated Genesis 1 had little idea of all the things God did prior to "and the Earth was an astonishing-desert . . . "Let light happen!"