Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Paul Zellmer" <smdirect AT bellsouth.net>]

Ian,

I see a strong disconnect between this post and the response of yesterday:

"Let me invent a criterion: if I see convincing evidence that a time phrase
such as br'$yt can stand at the beginning of a
book without any qualification, then I might consider it possible in the
case of Gen 1:1, otherwise I will consider the notion simply unsupportable
speculation."

It has been pointed out that we have clear indications from 2000+ years ago
that this is exactly how people much closer to the language chose to
translate this unit.  It is also true that this is the way that it has been
seen by Hebrew scholars of the past, the same scholars and translators to
whom you give so much credence when it comes to complex structures
supposedly governed by BY)M in Ezekiel.  You initially asked for comments,
you got some back, and you started defending your position like it was
obviously the best choice, even though no other scholar has ever tried to
tie all that package together like you have.  It still sounds to me like you
are already convinced.  At the very least, you are not allowing yourself to
be open to being guided by some whom have studied this language and seen its
forms more than have you.  So I have very good reason to "couch" my "comment
like that."

Paul Zellmer

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:05 AM
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: bereshit (translations) Paul
>
>
> >Since you have convinced yourself,
>
> Paul, you've got no reason to couch your comment
> like that. I have not convinced myself of
> anything. I don't operate like that -- and I have
> attempted to outline my procedures in the past.
>