My question is about the alternative interpretation given on page 110, note 22 of this excerpt of the Zohar, Pritzker Edition. The note posits that אלהים might have been created by the unnameable rather than אלהים Himself being the subject (Creator) in Genesis 1:1. That is, although unwritten by virtue of being unnameable, the unnameable is to be mentally "read" in between ברא and אלהים (or, a bit unlikelier, between בראשית and ברא).
At first glance, there seems to be two issues with that theory. First, the absence of את that would be followed by אלהים. But based on this comment, the direct object marker is not required.
Second, there is no waw preceding את השמים, as there is in את המים . But this other comment points to a passage where the use of waw occurs only in the last item of a list.
Furthermore, the note refers to a concern among the rabbis of the Talmud regarding this alternative interpretation, thereby indicating that these two "issues" are not grammatically untenable so as to disregard the theory that אלהים was the object in Genesis 1:1.
Could you provide some insight as to the feasibility of this alternative interpretation? Or are the Zohar proponents overly stretching the language on this issue? I am not asking for speculation on how it happened or who created who, but on the hermeneutical soundness of that theory.
Edited to add quote of the paragraphs at issue (see comment)
The subject of the verse, אלהים (Elohim), God, follows the verb, ברא (bara), created. In its typical hyperliteral fashion, the author(s) of the Zohar insists on reading the words in the exact order in which they appear, thereby transforming God into the object! This means that the subject is now unnamed, but that is perfectly appropriate because the true subject of emanation is unnamable. The opening words of the Bible no longer mean: In the beginning God created, but rather: With beginning [by means of the point of Hokhmah], the ineffable source created Elohim [the palace of Binah].
The rabbis of the Talmud were aware of the danger of misinterpreting Elohim as the object of that sentence, which could promote Gnostic dualism (see BT Megillah 9a; Rashi and Tosafot, ad loc.). Various early kabbalists also adopt such a reading.
(brackets and italics in original, collecting additional references)
These two paragraphs are part of note 22 on page 110 (or [1:15a]) of Zohar book Parashat Be-Reshit, roughly in the middle of the pdf indicated in the link.