b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
- To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:32:31 +0300
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 Ian Hutchesson wrote:
< snip >
If Gen1:1-2 is in fact a heading, it doesn't need to be syntactically
hooked onto Gen1:3. (I'm only proposing one possible understanding of
Gen1:1-2, not advocating it.) However, I think it is clear that the writer
intended v3 to be understood as the *first* act of creation.
Dear Ian Hutschesson:
1) IMO Gen 1:1-2 does need be syntactically hooked onto Gen
1:3 because it is an offline construction, or background (sfondo, in
Italian). It is grammatically independent because it is not governed
by any subordinating conjunction--such as kî, 'im, ka'a$er, etc.--;
however it is syntactically dependent because an offline sentence
cannot stand alone in a text; e.g. in italiano: Io camminavo per la
strada, just as in English: I was walking on the road, cannot remain
alone, it needs to rely on a passato remoto (simple past) verb, which
in Italian (English) expresses mainline in historical narrative. This
applies even though that sentence is not grammatically dependent as
is, e.g., Mentre camminavo per la strada, While I was walking on the
road.
< . . . >
But we are not -- as I understand it -- dealing with "the adornment of
heaven and earth", but with a blow-by-blow description of the creation of
the constituents, day & night, sky and sea, land, etc.
< . . . >
If you accept that the phrase "heaven and earth" means "universe", can you
separate the parts of the phrase and use each part such that they have
separate significance? If so, then it would seem you will also have to
argue that according to 1:10 the earth was created a second time. I take
v10 as intending that the actual creation of the earth (in the literal
sense of 'rc) took place on the third day (just as vv7-8 indicate the
actual creation of the heavens).
I accept the notion that 't h$mym w't h'rc indicates "universe", but I
don't see that one can argue either that the 'rc of v2 represents an earth
created in v1 (which could merely be part of a general heading for which v2
is extra starting information), or that v1 is an antecedent of v2.
2) Besides syntax, interpretation is a major problem in Gen
1:1-2. On the one side, "heaven and earth" seem to be used in v. 1 as
polar terms to indicate the whole of creation (merismus). On the
other side, in v. 2 and following the two terms are taken up again in
their meaning according to the current use of each term. Note, BTW,
that they are taken up again in reverse order: heaven and earth (v.
1), earth (v. 2), heaven (v. 8).
I would understand Gen 1:1 ff. as follows--but we are really
in acque troppo profonde (in waters too deep), as you say--among
myth, literary convention, old conception of the universe, etc.
At the beginning of the creation of cosmos, what was commonly called
*'erec* was *tohû wabohû*; it was a *tehôm* covered with *mayim*;
over it there was *xo$ek* and the hovering spirit of God. The
different acts of creation (indicated with jussive yiqtol forms,
e.g., yehî, and narrative wayyiqtol, e.g. wayehî) are presented as a
series of separation and adornment.
First light is made and day is separated from night; then the
ky is made to separate the waters above from the waters beneath; then
the waters beneath are gathered together so that the earth is made to
appear--i.e., it is not really created a second time.
And so on, until the end of the first text, or pericope, of
the Bible, which is represented IMO by Gen 2:4. In fact this verse
takes up again the main terms of 1:1: heaven and earth (in reverse
order) and the verb create. Add that 2:4 shows such a compact
construction chiastically arranged in its two parts that I would
never dare to divide it in two parts as is done by the documentaty
hypothesis, wich assigns the two parts to different sources.
Grazie per l'attenzione. Pace e bene.
Alviero Niccacci
--
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
-
Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?
, (continued)
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Dave Washburn, 09/09/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/10/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, clayton stirling bartholomew, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/11/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Peter Kirk, 09/12/2000
- RE: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Liz Fried, 09/12/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- RE: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/14/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Dave Washburn, 09/15/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/18/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Ian Hutchesson, 09/18/2000
- Re: Construct + Finite = Relative?, Alviero Niccacci, 09/20/2000
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.