Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Dear Bill,

Thanks for the advice. I certainly wish I was more familiar with 
Jewish commentators. Unfortunately I don't have a convenient library 
with copies of Rashi etc. I also don't know where Rashi was coming 
from on this one. It seems he was answering some sort of 
interpretation of B:R")$IYT as "first of a series". Did he also have 
some particular theological reason to be opposed to the idea of 
creation ex nihilo?

Despite Rashi, Hosea 1:2 is not the same construction as Genesis 1:1 
as there is no BE- introducing the time clause (also the following 
verb is WAYYIQTOL). I accept that this is a somewhat parallel case, 
and that this shows that a finite verb CAN be in a construct relation 
with a noun. I never denied that. But there is no ambiguity here. The 
proposal that there is a similar construct chain in Genesis 1:1 
depends on the reader being expected to understand in this verse a 
very rare construction (indeed one without any exact parallel) when 
the verse can be understood perfectly well with a common construction. 
I think it is a sound principle that if something can be understood 
according to either a common construction or a very rare one, one 
should normally prefer the interpretation with the common 
construction. The other verses quoted are not relevant to my argument 
as I never denied that in the proper context B:R")$IYT could be a 
construct.

Rashi's comment that "barashonah" should have been used is 
interesting, and I am glad that you have explained it better. 
BFRI)$ONFH is nowhere used for "in the beginning" in the absolute 
sense, rather it means "first(ly)" in a series as opposed to "next" or 
"second(ly)", or perhaps "previously", "earlier". So the meaning of 
the passage is probably not "First God created the heavens and the 
earth... Next he said "Let there be light"..." I'm not sure if anyone 
has ever tried to translate it like that (perhaps that is what Rashi's 
opponents were doing), I haven't. No, the word which is used, R")$IYT, 
seems to mean not the first of a series of things but rather the 
beginning of one thing. So it is commonly used in the construct, 
defining of what it is the beginning. Here, where (on my 
interpretation) it is used as an absolute and with no preceding 
context, the meaning must be the absolute beginning of time.

Also I don't have Rashi's arguments on Proverbs 8:24 to compare with. 
But when I read there:

B.:)"YN-T.:HOMOWT XOWLFL:T.IY B.:)"YN MA(:YFNOWT NIK:B.AD."Y-MFYIM

I don't see how else I can understand this except that there was a 
time when there were no depths and no springs of water. I am 
astonished not at myself but at Rashi for his statement. Or did he 
have a different text in front of him? (Incidentally, I was not 
following Christian teaching either in my interpretation of this 
passage, as a list member pointed out to me off-list.)

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: SV: Gilgamesh and Creation
Author:  <cctr114 AT cantva.canterbury.ac.nz> at Internet
Date:    20/01/2000 16:02


Peter Kirk wrote:-

>In the earlier thread I argued on the basis of Hebrew grammar and 
>Hebrew grammar alone for the "traditional" translation of Genesis 1:1. 
>The fact that many generations of Christian (and Jewish) scholars have 
>understood the verse in that way does not make it wrong! Any of the 
>other proposed translations involve finding in this verse a 
>syntactical structure which (as far as I know, and no-one has offered 
>counter-examples) occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible: a 
>prepositional temporal phrase forming a complete clause in itself, 
>with no preceding verb and separated from the following clause by a 
>WAW which is not part of a WAYYIQTOL verb form. If anyone can provide 
>any other examples of this construction in the Hebrew Bible, please 
>let me know.

I went over to our library to read Rashi's comments on Gen 1:1 again. 
He says that Hosea 1:2 has the same grammatical contruction. He
also uses a number of other verses including Gen 10:10, Deaut 18:4 and 
Jer 26:1 to bolster his point that "The text does not intend to point 
out the order of the acts of creation - to state that these (heaven and 
earth) were created first, for it if intended to point this out,
it should have written barashonah bara eth hashamayim" (I put the 
vowels in the unpointed text.)

Commenting on Wisdom (Miss, Mrs or Ms) Peter wrote:-

>So there was not
>much there when God started, not even the chaotic deep of Genesis 1:2. 
>Sounds like creation ex nihilo to me, with wisdom being the first 
>created thing, followed by the things mentioned in Genesis 1:1-2.

You shouldn't go on ignoring important Jewish interpretors like 
Rashi simply because Christian scholars understand the verse 
differently. Rashi at one points says that if you want to believe 
the verse speaks about creation ex nihilo then "you should be 
astonished at yourself", because the water is present without ever 
having been created.

I would urge you to read this important commentator before you 
continue to insist the text is describing creation ex nihilo.

Bill Rea, Information Technology Services, University of Canterbury  \_ 
E-Mail b dot rea at its dot canterbury dot ac dot nz                 </   New
Phone   64-3-364-2331, Fax     64-3-364-2332                        /)  
Zealand

Unix Systems Administrator                                         (/'





---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.