Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Philip Engmann <philipengmann AT yahoo.com>]

Dear Listees, how can I get a copy of the Dead Sea
Scrolls online.

I need it for my MPhil Thesis.

Thanks.

Philip Engmann



PS Sorry for my earlier posting. It was out of line.


--- Biblical Hebrew digest
<b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
> B-HEBREW Digest for Monday, April 01, 2002.
> 
> 1. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 2. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 3. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 4. Psalm 2:12 and Proverbs 31 ben/bar
> 5. Psalm 2:12 and Proverbs 31 ben/bar
> 6. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 7. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 8. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 9. Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> From: "Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>
> Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:24:29 +0200
> X-Message-Number: 1
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Thanks for your post. It has clarified the situation
> 
> at least for me.
> 
> >Ian, you seem to assume that my understanding of
> Genesis 1:1 is
> >contradicted by Isaiah 45:18. This is a logical
> jump, and an inaccurate
> >one, ...
> 
> This I can see now after having read all the current
> 
> post. I was working on the notion that you had read 
> Gen 1:1 as an indication of creatio ex nihilo,
> citing 
> Isa 45:18 as showing that God did not create thw was
> 
> aimed at the notion that God had already started the
> 
> creation in Gen 1:1.
> 
> >...as during this thread I have never stated my
> understanding of the
> >chapter as a whole and how this first verse fits
> into it. You have
> >criticised me for this, and with some
> justification, but I have avoided
> >this partly because I have wanted to focus
> attention on the text in
> >question and not on the theological constructs
> which are inevitably
> >linked with any broader understanding.
> 
> I did feel that it was extremely difficult to come
> to 
> any definitive understanding of Gen 1:1, rejecting
> the 
> indications I had attempted to give with regard to
> the 
> time phrases I went to lengths over and not reading
> it 
> in the broader context of the whole passage.
> 
> >But you have now put me into a position where I am
> obliged to consider
> >the wider discourse level structure of the chapter.
> I should stress that
> >my understanding of this is provisional and
> uncertain. But here is my
> >that understanding:
> >
> >1:1 is an introductory summary, or perhaps even a
> title, summarising the
> >entire process of creation as described in 1:3-2:3.
> >
> >1:2 is not apparently sequential to 1:1 (no
> WAYYIQTOL verbs) but
> >describes the situation either at the beginning of
> or before the process
> >of creation. (The X-QATAL verbs have their regular
> pluperfect force.) I
> >might translate "Now the earth had been formless
> and empty...".
> >
> >1:3, with the first WAYYIQTOL verbs, gives the
> first events of creation,
> >which took place when the situation was still as
> described in 1:2. This
> >is not sequential to 1:1 but the first of a series
> of steps (finishing
> >at 2:3) which were summarised in 1:1.
> >
> >You will note that I am not actually talking about
> creation ex nihilo
> >here, but rather describing a process of creation
> from pre-existing
> >chaos. I find this theologically and
> philosophically difficult as I am
> >also one of those influenced by Greek philosophy
> and theology dependent
> >on it. But I am forced to agree with you, Ian, that
> the Hebrew text does
> >not describe creation ex nihilo (although LXX
> probably does).
> 
> How does the LXX work though. Is the creation merely
> 
> in the first verse? Either one reads the verb, an 
> aorist, as a punctiliar past event or an ingressive 
> (or inceptive) aorist. It would be very hard to 
> justify the punctiliar reading, ie that the heavens 
> and the earth were created at once as per v.1, for 
> what is then the point of the following verse? So, I
> 
> would favour an ingressive reading, ie "in the 
> beginning God began to create..."
> 
> >But I stand by my grammatical parsing of 1:1 as a
> single finite clause,
> >consisting of B- plus absolute noun as an adverb
> phrase of time,
> >followed by finite verb, subject, and complex
> object.
> 
> I don't really understand how you can necessarily
> stand 
> by this parsing. The b-noun time phrase structure
> can be 
> followed clauses with various forms of the verb
> including 
> finite verbs, in imperfects and perfects, as well as
> 
> infinitives and imperatives, so there is no problem
> of 
> verb form following b-noun time phrases. I have
> provided 
> examples of complex clause structures governed by
> bywm 
> (eg Ob.11), so there is no reason why such things
> can't be 
> governed by br'$yt. We agree that the first
> narrative event 
> is in v.3, while v.2 provides background
> information.
> 
> Why do you prefer your parsing? 
> 
> Nevertheless, as a provisional and uncertain reading
> of the 
> creation passage Gen 1:1-3 (and on to 2:3), the
> above seems 
> coherent.
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Re: BR)$YT, the continuing saga.
> From: Lawrence May <lgmay AT mindspring.com>
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:03:50 -0700
> X-Message-Number: 2
> 
> Okay! okay!  I don't know the meaning of the word
> for BR)$yt.  Its meaning has been
> perfectly obscured.  Now what is the Hebrew or
> Aramaic word for the Greek word eschatos
> as in eschatology? That's the word I am looking for.
>  Lest it become
> scatology, lets end it..  The discussion has not
> given me any more understanding of
> Genesis 1:1.
> 
> Peter Kirk wrote:
> 
> > Ian, you seem to assume that my understanding of
> Genesis 1:1 is
> > contradicted by Isaiah 45:18. This is a logical
> jump, and an inaccurate
> > one, as during this thread I have never stated my
> understanding of the
> > chapter as a whole and how this first verse fits
> into it. You have
> > criticised me for this, and with some
> justification, but I have avoided
> > this partly because I have wanted to focus
> attention on the text in
> > question and not on the theological constructs
> which are inevitably
> > linked with any broader understanding.
> >
> > But you have now put me into a position where I am
> obliged to consider
> > the wider discourse level structure of the
> chapter. I should stress that
> > my understanding of this is provisional and
> uncertain. 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/