Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

George Athas wrote:

> Paul Zellmer wrote:
>
> > [...]Similarly, just because YCR in verse 7 refers to YHWH God making 
> > something (man)
> > which
> > context indicates was the first of its kind, this does not imply that the 
> > animals,
> > etc., which were YCR'd in verse 19 were things that were the first of 
> > their kind.
> > Besides, YCR in itself does not imply the causing something to come 
> > alive.  Verse 7
> > had two actions take place before man lived.  Is it not completely 
> > reasonable to see
> > that verse 19 could describe God forming the *shapes* of all the animals, 
> > etc.?
>
> The idea of YCR is to fashion or form something from a material that you 
> have. Thus, man
> is formed out of the dust. Similarly, the animals are formed out of the 
> ground. The woman
> is [lit] "built" or "put together" out of the man's rib (yes, Lewis, we 
> know what other
> connotations are involved in that word tzela` <g>). Unless you are willing 
> to say that the
> man was around but had no shape before YHWH forms him, then it seems fairly 
> illegitimate
> to say something along the same lines about the animals. It seems quite 
> clear what is
> being said: "X did not exist, until YHWH took some Y-stuff and formed it 
> into an X."
>

George,

I apparently did not make my point clear, so let's use an old teaching 
technique and back up
to find out where our mutual understanding diverged.

1) Jason Carter asked about an argument put forth in a discussion he was 
having.  The
argument, while made by an atheist, was actually an attack on a literal 
reading of the
biblical accounts, specifically questioning the order of creation.  The 
grammatical form that
was being focussed on was the wayyiqtol in 2:19.
2) Mark Joseph, citing W&O'C, proposes an English pluperfect understanding of 
the
construction.  You countered the idea of translating a wayyiqtol as a 
pluperfect by addressing
Mark's examples, but you never say what to do in this case.  Your response 
kicks off a post by
Dave Washburn, who points to this as another example of the weaknesses of the 
discourse
analysis approach.  (This posting might well become infamous as "the party 
line" posting.)
And that has been the direction the discussion has taken.
3) Skipping past the details of posts by John Ronning, Dave, and Randall 
(Bryan's hadn't come
through by that time), I still was not satisfied with any of the answers 
given Jason.  Oh,
they were all okay, but they did not really give him any more to stand with 
than, "The ones
who have talked with me about this seem divided, and their explanation of the 
use of the
wayyiqtol here is extremely complex and hard to follow."  [My interpretation 
and summary of
the posts that I have read.]  And I personally think he has a better argument 
than that.
Hence my posting.

Now perhaps I left implied too much of my observations, and that is where we 
are diverging.
So please allow me to revise and expand that posting:

1) I see nothing here that would cause this narrative from demanding the rare 
pluperfect
interpretation here in 2:19.  [Apparently unlike Dave, I see the narrative 
starting in 2:4
with the )"LLeH ToWLiDoWT formula.]  The only apparent reason for proposing 
such an
interpretation is to resolve the seeming discord between the orders of 
creation between this
account and 1:1-2:3.  Therefore the wayyiqtol string here describes events in 
the order in
which they occurred.
2) I am starting from the proposition that the two accounts are not 
incompatible.  [To state
one's assumptions in order to note recognition of possible sources of error 
is, as I was
taught, acceptable to the scientific method.]
3) The verb YCR means, as you correctly pointed out, to form something out of 
existing
material.  It does *not* necessarily  mean, however, to form something *which 
is the first of
its kind* out of existing material.
4) Verse 2:7 splits the creation of man described in 1:27 with the word BR) 
into two
activities: YCR and NPX, the forming and the giving of life.  Therefore YCR 
is *not* an exact
synonym for BR).
5) Verse 2:19 uses only the word YCR with regard to the formation of the 
animals, etc.

*Therefore* I see this as a likely description of the events which does not 
require
interpreting the wayyiqtol as a pluperfect: God created the birds and the 
land animals (and
everything else, but these are the items in focus).  He then created man, 
with both 1:27a and
2:7 describing the same event.  In 2:19, God formed out of land (pre-existing 
material) at
least the forms of the animals and birds.  Whether these forms were living 
creatures or
statues or possibly even drawings, *they themselves* did not exist before.  
What they
represented *could* and in the view of this description *did*.

George, I don't think I'm violating the sense of the Hebrew word here, nor am 
I forced to
correlate the two accounts with an admittedly rare interpretation of a common 
grammatical
form.  Therefore I see it in complete agreement with your "common sense 
reading of the text."

> BTW, Paul, what does "HTH" mean?
>

Several months ago (or perhaps a couple years now) a very common close for 
posts on this list
was "Hope This Helps."  I forget who first shortened it down to HTH, and it 
admittedly is not
very common now.  But I still like it.

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph