Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard AT ont.com>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Genesis 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void
  • Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 11:58:07 -0500

Dear Herman and Schmuel,

A completely different viewpoint, but imho a very legitimate one
(there's been a nice controversy about this on this forum before) is
to reanalyse the syntax of Gen 1,1-3.
I don't think we should go over the entire discussion, but I'll just
give here a translation that represents the syntactic viewpoint of
Rashi, Ibn Ezra, the Stone Chumash, quite a few scholars I know in
Leiden, Alter's translation, etc.

"In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth - when
the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of
the deep, and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the
waters - God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

As far as Hebrew syntax is concerned, this is, I think, the most
plausible analysis.
The result is that the first actual verb (as a predicate, not in a
circumstantial clause) is "[God] said". As we know, in Jewish
"theology" the simple act of God "speaking" is what creates, this is
the nicest analysis of this passage. The words "[b-reshit] bara" can't
really be the first predicate of the Tora, because it's a perfect (in
smichut), not an "imperfect consecutive"- form. The idea that "light",
rather than "heaven(s) and earth" was created first
is of course very symbolic, and a great image. It is actually a
scientific fact, too (for those who like to reconcile the biblical
account with the science of astronomy).


HH: Schmuel doesn't know Hebrew well, so I will interject that it seems misleading to say, as you seem to say, that a perfect cannot be the first predicate of the Tora. There's no requirement that the first predicate be in the imperfect consecutive. Actually, that seems less likely to me. Am I missing part of your argument? If you claim that many narrative books begin with an imperfect consecutive, therefore Genesis must, that's inadequate reasoning. There can be a first book of first events, so that an imperfect consecutive (which marks continuation) could be inappropriate. While the objection to the traditional view is that b-reshit cannot stand by itself as "in the beginning," the objection to the newer view you present is that bara would normally be expected to be an infinitive in the idea you present. Also, the whole construction seems very complicated and drawn out in Hebrew.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page