mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Mar 17 11:12:40 EST 2002
>No, Ian, my silence does not imply consent. You may well be right that
>the first creative act was "Let there be light!". The problem is that
>that begs the question of the origin of the formless earth and waters.
What makes you think they need, or the writer thought
they had, origins?
>I accept that if you look at verse 1 alone bereshit could mean what you
>say, but in my opinion that causes so many problems when the context is
>widened that an alternative understanding has to be preferred.
I've seen nothing to suggest this.
>Ecclesiastes 12:3 is an interesting case, but differs from Genesis 1:1-2
>in that there is a relative pronoun she-.
Whoops. Too much in a hurry. Try, with the same aim,
ie to show the government of complex subordination:
bywm bxry by$r'l
w'$' ydy lzr` byt y`qb
w'wd` lhm b'rc mcrym
w'$' ydy lhm l'mr 'ny yhwh 'lhykm
bywm qxty mhm 't-m`wzm m$w$ tp'rtm
't mxmd `ynyhm
w't-m$h np$m bnyhm wbnwtyhm
(And I'm running out.)
>You might be able to argue
>that there is an implicit or elided relative pronoun in Genesis 1:1,
>which would at least regularise the syntax.
Naaah. I don't think that would be justifiable.
>You seem to have moved the goalposts by demanding that a parallel must
>be not just b- plus a syntactically absolute noun but that it must also
>be semantically unqualified. But barishona is used in this sense,
>absolute and unqualified e.g. Gen 13:4.
I said this on 14/03/02:
>>You know that there are no examples of unqualified r'$yt
>>and the writers show a preference for using r'$wn for an
>>unqualified statement regarding a beginning.
The only problem with my statement is that I didn't specify
b- here, which has been a criterion from the start.
I don't think I have moved the goalposts.
More information about the b-hebrew