Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Construct + Finite = Relative?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Construct + Finite = Relative?
  • Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 09:44:18 -0700


A follow-up on the discussion of this matter:

Peter and Liz both objected to the Gesenius-based rendering "In
the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth" partly
because there is no Hebrew equivalent of "when" in the text. I
pointed out that Gesenius seems to suggest that the combination
of construct plus finite clause produces a relative-clause kind of
sense. Waltke and O'Connor seem to concur. On p.156 they say

"Relative clauses after prepositionally used constructs are found; in
these three [sic] examples the relative clause is asyndetic (or
headless, i.e. lacks a relative pronoun):"

They give the examples of Jer 2:8 and Exod 4:13; the former has a
finite (yiqtol) clause after )AXA:R"Y and the latter after B:YAD.

They continue:

"The relative clause may be used after a construct noun with no
prepositional force;"

They give the example of Isa 29:1, the "city where" example we
have already looked at. Their second example is Gen 39:20 Qere,
which they acknowledge includes a relative pronoun. From there
they go on to illustrate clauses where a construct is used before a
non-relative, giving Lev 25:48 and 1 Sam 25:15 as examples. They
conclude this section with the following:

"It is also possible for a construct of no prepositional force to stand
before a non-relative clause. This construction is extremely rare."

They give the example of Hos 1:2, T:XIL.AT DIB.ER YHWH
B:Ho$"A( which they translate "The beginning *of YHWH-spoke*
through Hosea."

This last one seems rather significant for testing this approach on
Gen 1:1, since it is clearly a construct and involves temporal
indicators (though obviously it doesn't use R"$IYT...). I'm not sure I
agree with their translation, but it does suggest that a construct
before this kind of finite clause in a temporal setting is possible. It
also might have some bearing on the presence of the W at the
beginning of Gen 1:2, since the next clause in Hosea begins with a
wayyiqtol.

Again, I'm not sure I buy this approach to Gen 1:1, but it does
seem to have some material to back it up.



Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Éist le glór Dé."




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page