Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/