Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk" <Peter_Kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: "'Biblical Hebrew'" <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
  • Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:51:54 +0100


Ian, I agree with you that there are six days of creation described in
the structure you outline here. And I agree with you that the first of
those days was probably not creation ex nihilo, that matter had somehow
come into being outside that structure of six days. What I am suggesting
as at least possible is that verse 1 is a brief account, outside and
apart from that structure of six days, of how that undifferentiated,
chaotic matter came into being.

Several books of the Hebrew Bible (but not Genesis) start with WAYYIQTOL
verbs. But they are part of an ongoing narrative history of Israel and
start with the next significant event in that history. A friend of mine
has written a paper, which may be published shortly, on how the books of
the Bible fit together in a framework using such verb forms and other
discourse markers. Niccacci wrote something similar a few years ago, in
Italian I think but that shouldn't be a problem for you.

Peter Kirk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Hutchesson [mailto:mc2499 AT mclink.it]
> Sent: 16 August 2002 04:31
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
>
> >Ian, you may believe that it is a "fact that the creation took place
> >over six days", like "Creation Scientists".
>
> Straw man. We are dealing with texts. You know that.
> The text is clear *in what it says*, Peter, ie that
> the cosmos was created in six days. You just choose
> to believe in creatio ex nihilo, despite what the
> text says.
>
> >But I really think that you
> >should give some justification for making such assertions which are
far
> >from self-evident, even as the perspective of the author of Genesis
1.
>
> How does each day begin, Peter?
>
> Is it not true that every creative day (excluding the
> first for the moment) starts with the same specific
> formula? Do you find the same formula on day one? Do
> you find the material before that formula in any way
> analogous with materials found on other days?
>
> You've had a long time to fabricate something to
> circumvent the clear literary structure of the
> passage. All I can see is that you turn a blind eye
> to it, as you have always done.
>
> >As far as I can see, the text as we have it clearly states that
certain
> >creative events took place before God said "Let there be light",
>
> All you've shown is that there is one case in
> which r'$yt acts as an absolute in the OT/HB, then
> you assume br'$yt in Gen 1:1 must be absolute,
> against the ancient Jewish tradition.
>
> >according to the normal understanding of the WAYYIQTOL verb here (at
the
> >start of v.3) which is to indicate sequence after some preceding
event.
>
> That's why Numbers and 1 Samuel commence with
> wayyiqtols, right?
>
> Each day starts with a wayyiqtol (the same).
> Why should day one start any differently given
> the formal nature of the passage?
>
> >This analysis may be debatable, but it is not a self-evident "fact"
that
> >it is false.
>
> What is self-evident is the physical structure of the
> creation account.
>
> Day 1, v3 wy'mr 'lhym yhy 'wr
> Day 2, v6 wy'mr 'lhym yhy rqy`
> Day 3, v9 wy'mr 'lhym yqww hmym
> Day 4, v14 wy'mr 'lhym yhy m'rt
> Day 5, v20 wy'mr 'lhym y$rcw hmym $rc
> Day 6, v24 wy'mr 'lhym twc' h'rc np$ hyh
>
> The only difference between the first and the rest is
> the fact that the rest are preceded with an indication
> of the end of the previous day.
>
> To be more specific about the content of the passage,
> each of the first three days is strictly related to
> the following three. Many times I've shown this:
>
> Formation Population
> 1 light/dark 4 sun/moon (& stars)
> 2 water/sky 5 fish/birds
> 3 land 6 animals & humans
>
> Again a formal structure this time in content is clear.
> Wanting to make the first day reach back to v1 totally
> destroys this structure, as the material in vv1-2 is
> unrelated to anything on the fourth day.
>
> Again, $mym is specifically created and named on day
> two, as is 'rc on day three. So what was actually
> created in your analysis in v1? Umm, the raw materials
> perhaps and not the heavens and the earth? (Perhaps
> the text should say that, instead what it says.)
>
> It all makes your analysis overtly unacceptable. This
> is why you ignore the text as a whole.
>
> The only thing that's missing for you, Peter, is: "and
> there was evening and there was morning, day zero" to
> understand when day one starts.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: [Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-hebrew-
> 14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page