Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Herman Meester <crazymulgogi AT gmail.com>]

Dear Peter,
To be sure, I do not think the masoretes are never wrong, or that they
are divinely inspired. I just think it is highly unlikely they would
not have known exactly what they were handing down to us in this case;
we are talking about the first verses of Tora, not something somewhere
in Chronicles.

I admit, "בראשית BR)$YT" may have been meant as "in the beginning". My
intent was, however, to respect MT first, and then try to make sense
of it; only if that really doesn't work we could look for extra-MT
solutions, like emendations and the like.

Don't you think by the way, the parallel with Gen 2,4-7 is remarkable?
It supports "my" understanding of Gen 1,1-3 very well.

About LXX, it's true it's an old source, yet it's a translation made
in Egypt for a Greek audience. The translators and how good their
Hebrew was we may never know, and how much did they adjust the Hebrew
text to fit their theology?

About my theology with the "light" and so on, I do agree with you: we
first have the text and its syntax, and then theology. However, I did
start wih the former and then saw it produced the latter. You see, I'm
not much of a theologian at all ;)

Regards
Herman


2005/11/23, 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/
>
>