Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:1-3, was: Alter's translation

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:1-3, was: Alter's translation
  • Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:06:13 +0000

On 22/11/2005 16:41, Herman Meester wrote:

...

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 ;)


Fair enough, but you are not going to convince me if you can't find any other example.

...

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. ...


I didn't quite imply that, although I consider that they were only human (but with apologies to anyone who considers them to have been divinely inspired and protected from error). But there are several possibilities here. One is that the Masoretes made a mistake. Another is that for some obscure reason (and you wrote "BH syntax has not yet been well described.") it was considered appropriate not to use the article here, so that re'shit is an indefinite absolute noun.

...

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.


What is probably the oldest Jewish tradition we have (although I suppose we cannot be sure that it has not been amended by Christians) is the Septuagint, which clearly translates as a main clause "In the beginning God created...". And Karl mentioned another Jew writing earlier than any of your sources, the apostle John, whose wording in 1:1 clearly reflects this Septuagint interpretation. I understand from BHS that the Samaritan Pentateuch has a long "a" vowel following the initial bet, which would seem to suggest pronunciation with a qamats rather than a sheva.

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.


If you study how discourse and WAYYIQTOL verbs actually work, you will understand that the situation is by no means this simple. It is certainly normal for a WAYYIQTOL verb to link back to a pre-existing state and not just an action, and in this case the pre-existing state, into which God spoke, is that described in verse 2. While I certainly do not reject the traditional view as completely as some do, it certainly needs some adjustment.

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.


This is interesting theology, but that should not control linguistics. Anyway, if you take v.1 to be a summary of the whole of chapter 1 and v.2 as starting the story again from the beginning, which is one possible interpretation (the alternative being that v.1 describes a first stage of creation which led to the state in v.2), that fits your theology as well.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page