Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: bereshit

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: "Biblical Hebrew" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: bereshit
  • Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:59:02 +0100


Peter,

Thanks for your response.

>Ian, the problem with the analysis of bereshit as a construct is that it
>seems either to leave verse 1 as a verbless fragment followed by a full
>sentence in verse 2,

Although a number of texts (mainly prophets) start with an
introductory fragment explaining what the text is about (and
one could interpret 1:1 to be so), I think there is a word
order problem with such a reading: v.2 is SV and needs to be
attached in my understanding to something which has normal
word order.

>or to require all three clauses of verse 2 as well
>as the remainder of verse 1 to be dependent on bereshit. You seem to
>prefer the latter of these options. But Paul pointed out the problem,
>that you require a unique (as far as he and I know) construction in
>which four whole clauses fill the place in a construct chain where a
>noun is expected. So Paul is right to ask you to find an unambiguous
>similar construction. You mentioned Numbers 7:1, and I agree that this
>could be understood as a string of clauses dependent on B:YOM, as in
>NRSV, but it can also be understood differently as in the JPS Tanakh and
>NIV and so this is not a strong argument.

I haven't got an NIV but my copy of JPS (perhaps old) follows
the structure followed by AV, ASV (1901!) and now you mention
it the NRSV. You will note,
however, that Num 7:1 was only a part of the whole argument,
though I should note that what follows the bywm is slightly
longer than what follows the br'$yt in Gen 1:1-2.

I cited a number of time phrases such as br'$yt and b'ywm
controlling clauses which are apparently VS. I also cited
Gen 6:1 which uses ky as the conjunction which governs a VS
clause followed by an SV clause. This is strictly analogous
with Gen 1:1-2, with gen 1:1 having the VS and v.2 having two
SVs (and a verbless phrase). I don't think two SVs change the
situation, they both admit their secondary nature.

Another example of bywm, 1Kgs 2:42, has two subordinate
clauses, really two verbs as the subject of each is the
same.

bywm c'tk w hlkt
on the day that you go out and walk abroad

[My JPS Tanakh reads (Num 7:1)

"And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of
setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed it and sanctified
it, and all the furniture thereof, and the altar and all the
vessels thereof, and had anointed them and sanctified them;"]

>Also Numbers 7:1 is
>structurally different from Genesis 1:2: the former is a sequence of
>WAYYIQTOL clauses, but the latter has X-QATAL and stative clauses.

I cited Num 7:1 for bywm controlling a number of subordinate
clauses, which you have questioned. The verb forms were not
a priority, as I gave other pointers which were more related
to specific structural similarities to Gen 1:1-2.

I think there is a strong case for reading br' 'lhym 't h$mym
w't h'rc as subordinated to br'$yt. If you want to argue to
the contrary, I think you'd have to supply at least one case
in which r'$yt was not qualified, but of the 28 cases I can
find, not one of them is unqualified. Unqualified uses tend
to be left to r'$wn or simply r'$. -- A few unqualified r'$yt
would be handy for a case to the contrary. If there are none
then obviously there is no case at all against br'Syt
subordinating the br' clause.

If the br' clause is subordinated to br'$yt then as you point
out there are two approaches to the analysis. An argument
against the structure of Num 7:1 doesn't deal with the basic
problem at hand and that is the relationship of br'$yt with
what follows. I have shown a number of other time phrases
requiring qualification which are parallel to Gen 1:1, so I
think I have a reasonable case for attaching br'$yt to what
follows. I think the argument against the length of the
subordination is secondary, though Gen 6:1 shows that the
structure as I have advocated for Gen 1:1-2, while shorter,
is to be found. Gen 1:2 simply supplies circumstances to the
beginning of the creation.

------------

I should add that the creation itself starts when God says,
"Let there be light", for without light there can be no day
to begin, so that the first light began the first day of the
creation. What comes before must be prelude.


Ian










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page