[b-hebrew] Alter's translation (Was: Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II)
Herman Meester
crazymulgogi at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 11:41:39 EST 2005
2005/11/22, Peter Kirk <peter at qaya.org>:
> On 22/11/2005 05:42, Herman Meester wrote:
>
> >First of all we would have to be happy that Alter respected Hebrew
> >syntax unlike virtually all other commonly used translation, that in
> >fact all misunderstand Genesis' ouverture.
> >
> >
>
> Well, I can argue that one with you if you like, but it is a separate
> issue. I don't think you will find any other place in the Hebrew Bible
> where a WAYYIQTOL verb is preceded by a clause subordinate to it, which
> seems to be Alter's grammatical understanding. The only objection to the
> traditional "In the beginning God created..." understanding is that the
> first word of the Bible is indefinite and possibly construct - but then
> possibly that very first vowel point was really intended to be qamats
> rather than sheva.
(I decided not to discuss with English speakers the things that are
grammatically correct or not in English, because as a non-native
speaker I wouldn't really be able to judge.)
However, here I do strongly disagree with those who want to keep the
traditional translation "In the beginning G"d created...". It is
simply not what the Hebrew says.
Of course, Hebrew syntax is a difficult subject, we do not have any
biblical Hebrew native speakers around, so there's nobody to be asked
what way exactly a sentence is constructed. I believe we should look
very carefully without wanting the text to obey our preconceived
ideals of what Hebrew grammar works like. BH syntax has not yet been
well described. Even the syntax and morphology of wayyiqtol alone has
not been agreed upon (although it has been largely solved by Galia
Hatav in 2004).
Peter, I disagree with your statement that a Wayyiqtol verb cannot be
preceded by a subordinate clause. Gen 1,1-3 is an example! The fact
that I can't mention other examples right now means I owe you one ;)
The main clause begins with ויאמר wayyomer, and this verb is preceded
by an adverbial clause, constructed: in-beginning-of [(the fact that)
G"d created Heaven and Earth...etc], G"d said: ...
It's not so strange to translate "When G"d began creating..." for in
this way every word in Hebrew is given a place in English; ב B-
becomes "when" and ראשית becomes "began". In other words, the meaning
is in no way violated, and we can even call it a literal translation
because although BHebrew works different, still all words reappear in
English.
If we would say that ברא is the main verb, then we have two problems:
first we have to solve the fact that בראשית is vocalised b'reshit and
not ba-reshit. If we say that the masoretes made a mistake, this
amounts to insult.
Does anyone really think that the masoretes didn't see the problem of
Gen. 1,1-3? Of course its grammar gives the impression that G"d didn't
create everything from the beginning, but that ארץ eretz, תהו tohu,
תהום t'hom etcetera were already there. The masoretes had opportunity,
motive and time enough to change it into ba-reshit, and yet they did
not! They've replaced "ktiv" with "qre" for less, and didn't even have
to change a consonant! So any suggestion they were after all wrong is,
frankly, rather ludicrous. I don't think they could never have been
wrong, but certainly not here.
The Jewish tradition (using the MT itself all the time) does
acknowledge that it *seems* that G"d faced a number of "tools" to
create the earth with, but it has found answers in stead of emending
the MT. One of the answers is that in Tora there is "no early or
late", i.e. the real chronology of creation is not what we read in
Gen. 1. Midrash B'reshit Rabba states that the creation of the several
things described "were not specified" לא פירש and then finds places in
other parts of Tanakh that do specify how that might have happened.
Other traditions read בראשית creatively, such as "with [the sephira]
"Reshit" He created...," (here we are approaching the mystical
sphere); but nowhere have I found midrashim emending the text. If
there are, I would like to hear about it.
The second problem then, if we turn ברא [bara] into the main verb, is
that the other main verbs yet to come are all wayyiqtol verbs. If we
are of the opinion that a wayyiqtol verb (the traditional view)
follows up on an earlier, already told event/action, then how does
ויאמר wayyomer follow up on ברא bara? First it says that G"d created
"heaven and earth", in other words, "everything", and then it goed on
describing al the things that happened? I don't think so.
To me, the very fact that the first main verb in the first main clause
of the Hebrew Bible begins with "(G"d) said" is simply great. "Speech"
and "word" are so important in the Bible that it is hardly a
coincidence that the first thing G"d ever "did" (according to the
Bible of course) when He started creating, was to "speak". Then, no
less impressive is that the first "thing" that was created according
to Genesis is "light". Light in all religions is the highest symbol
for the divine. There is no better way of trying to approach what the
idea "G"d" might mean, than to use the image of light.
In other words, from both a syntactical and a religious point of view,
the understanding of Gen 1,3 ויאמר wayyomer as the first main verb
seems much better.
regards,
Herman
> >... "and God's breath hovering over the waters" is not a main clause in
> >the Hebrew equivalent, and it's not a main clause in English in this
> >translation, which to me is a great improvement.
> >
> >
>
> I am not sure what you mean by saying that this "is not a main clause".
> If your point is that this is subordinate to v.3, I have answered that
> one already, and Alter is not using any of the normal English ways of
> indicating a subordinate clause. In Hebrew main clauses can be verbless
> or have only a participle, and so this can be a main clause; but not in
> English, in which every clause must have an explicit verb. The correct
> English form of this as a main clause, or even as a subordinate clause
> introduced by "when", is "God's breath WAS hovering over the waters".
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter at qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>
More information about the b-hebrew
mailing list