Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
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:

Eze 20:5
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 

Eze 24:25
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 mailing list