Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Herman:

First, where does the B- prefix become "when" where it is 
not in context with a term referring to time such as (T (e.g. 
B(T HHW) )? If this is the only example, then we can 
discount it as it has a perfectly good meaning translated 
as "In".

Secondly, this chapter grammatically is a series of short 
sentences where the waw- is put at the beginning of 
sentences to indicate a continuation of the action. Verses 
one and two are not subordinate clauses to verse three. If 
you want to argue that they are, then by the same logic 
verse three is a subordinate clause to verse four. Doesn't 
fit.

You asked, "... then how does
> ויאמר wayyomer follow up on ברא bara? "

Simple, it came later.

This "translation" by Alter sounds the same quality as that 
by the New English Bible where it "translated" WYHY as 
"Once upon a time ..." because they believed that the story 
that followed was a fairy tale. So Alter used creative 
translation to make it fit his philosophical presuppositions.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Meester" <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
> 
> However, here I do strongly disagree with those who want to keep the
> traditional translation "In the beginning G"d created...". It is
> simply not what the Hebrew says.
> 
> ...
> Peter, I disagree with your statement that a Wayyiqtol verb cannot be
> preceded by a subordinate clause. Gen 1,1-3 is an example! The fact
> that I can't mention other examples right now means I owe you one ;)
> 
> The main clause begins with ויאמר wayyomer, and this verb is preceded
> by an adverbial clause, constructed: in-beginning-of [(the fact that)
> G"d created Heaven and Earth...etc], G"d said: ...
> 
> It's not so strange to translate "When G"d began creating..." for in
> this way every word in Hebrew is given a place in English; ב B-
> becomes "when" and ראשית becomes "began". In other words, the meaning
> is in no way violated, and we can even call it a literal translation
> because although BHebrew works different, still all words reappear in
> English.
> 
> If we would say that ברא is the main verb, then we have two problems:
> first we have to solve the fact that בראשית is vocalised b'reshit and
> not ba-reshit. If we say that the masoretes made a mistake, this
> amounts to insult.
> Does anyone really think that the masoretes didn't see the problem of
> Gen. 1,1-3? Of course its grammar gives the impression that G"d didn't
> create everything from the beginning, but that ארץ eretz, תהו tohu,
> תהום t'hom etcetera were already there. The masoretes had opportunity,
> motive and time enough to change it into ba-reshit, and yet they did
> not! They've replaced "ktiv" with "qre" for less, and didn't even have
> to change a consonant! So any suggestion they were after all wrong is,
> frankly, rather ludicrous. I don't think they could never have been
> wrong, but certainly not here.
> 
> The Jewish tradition (using the MT itself all the time) does
> acknowledge that it *seems* that G"d faced a number of "tools" to
> create the earth with, but it has found answers in stead of emending
> the MT. One of the answers is that in Tora there is "no early or
> late", i.e. the real chronology of creation is not what we read in
> Gen. 1. Midrash B'reshit Rabba states that the creation of the several
> things described "were not specified" לא פירש and then finds places in
> other parts of Tanakh that do specify how that might have happened.
> Other traditions read בראשית creatively, such as "with [the sephira]
> "Reshit" He created...," (here we are approaching the mystical
> sphere); but nowhere have I found midrashim emending the text. If
> there are, I would like to hear about it.
> 
> The second problem then, if we turn ברא [bara] into the main verb, is
> that the other main verbs yet to come are all wayyiqtol verbs. If we
> are of the opinion that a wayyiqtol verb (the traditional view)
> follows up on an earlier, already told event/action, then how does
> ויאמר wayyomer follow up on ברא bara? First it says that G"d created
> "heaven and earth", in other words, "everything", and then it goed on
> describing al the things that happened? I don't think so.
> 
> To me, the very fact that the first main verb in the first main clause
> of the Hebrew Bible begins with "(G"d) said" is simply great. "Speech"
> and "word" are so important in the Bible that it is hardly a
> coincidence that the first thing G"d ever "did" (according to the
> Bible of course) when He started creating, was to "speak". Then, no
> less impressive is that the first "thing" that was created according
> to Genesis is "light". Light in all religions is the highest symbol
> for the divine. There is no better way of trying to approach what the
> idea "G"d" might mean, than to use the image of light.
> In other words, from both a syntactical and a religious point of view,
> the understanding of Gen 1,3 ויאמר wayyomer as the first main verb
> seems much better.
> 
> regards,
> Herman
> 
> 

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/