Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky <hermeneutics AT kulikovskyonline.net>]

On 01:36 PM 12/08/2002 +1000, George Athas wrote:
> Actually Andrew, it is in the construct state. The only reason I see that 
> you might think it is not
> in the construct state is by analogy with Gen 1.1 which always gets 
> translated as an absolute,

Thanks for the response George. Good to hear from a fellow Aussie! 
Actually, I was confused about the state due to the parsing specified in 
the GRAMCORD BHS morph text.

>  "In
> the beginning". This, however, is a troublesome translation of Gen 1.1. I 
> refer you to B-Hebrew
> archives to access previous discussions on that issue.

So are you saying that bereshit in Gen 1:1 actually has the FORM of the 
construct but that results in an impossible or unlikely translation?

> Rest assured, however, that Jer 26.1 does start with a construct 
> expression: The construct chain
> involves the first three words -- ie, up to "Jehoiakim". And since 
> "Jehoiakim" is a personal noun
> (a name), it is automatically definite, thereby rendering the entire 
> construct chain definite. "At
> the beginning of the kingship of Jehoiakim ben-Josiah..."
>
> If the first word were not definite, it would have a qamets vowel beneath 
> the initial
> beth-preposition. However, it has a shewa, making a construct reading the 
> only real reading
> possible.

OK, so what you are saying is that contextually it is part of a construct 
chain, even though it has the form of an absolute?

cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky
Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web site:
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?