BR)$YT, the continuing saga.

Glenn Blank glennblank at
Mon Apr 1 16:50:19 EST 2002

From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 at>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:24:29 +0200

>How does the LXX work though. Is the creation merely 
>in the first verse? Either one reads the verb, an 
>aorist, as a punctiliar past event or an ingressive 
>(or inceptive) aorist. It would be very hard to 
>justify the punctiliar reading, ie that the heavens 
>and the earth were created at once as per v.1, for 
>what is then the point of the following verse? So, I 
>would favour an ingressive reading, ie "in the 
>beginning God began to create..."

Neither inceptive nor punctiliar, but perhaps a third alternative (actually
what Peter suggested when he wrote

>1:1 is an introductory summary, or perhaps even a title, summarising the
>entire process of creation as described in 1:3-2:3.

That is, quite often on the BGreek list, the proposition has been argued
that the aorist tense in Greek does not indicate punctiliar action, as
traditionally taught, but instead action as seen 
*from the perspective of that discourse* as being puntiliar -- that is, an
action *presented* as an entity rather than as a process --  which would be
appropriate if 1:1 is an introductory summary, presenting the whole of
single event: 
     "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," 
while in 1:3-2:3, the process of the creation is elaborated.  Same event,
duration of time, but presented first as a summary, and then as an
elaboration of the process.

Ian, do I understand your proposal correctly, that BR), along with the first
two "clauses" of 1:2, are in multiple construct with BR)$YT, or are a
multiple subordinate clause?  Then would you say that the third clause in
1:2 is the first independent clause?  Or the first clause of 1:3?

In either case, they begin with a W-.  My understanding was that W- links
parallel structures:  that is, an independent clause to a preceding
independent clause, or subordinate clause to a parallel subordinate clause. 
If, then, BR) is not the finite verb of an independent clause, what is the
independent clause to which the W- links W)MR in verse 3 (to which the W- in
1:2c links that main clause)?  The first clause that does not have a W- is
verse 27.  Does that mean that 1:1-26 is one long subordinate complex?  Or
have I misunderstood the function of W-?

glenn blank
Pensacola FL

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list