Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard AT ont.com>]

B. M. Rocine wrote:

> I would say that not only is the Torah very specific, but I would say 
> that we should (at least temporarily) assume the choices a 
> speaker/writer has made in *any* document are purposeful. This mental 
> giving of oneself to any text is really only another term for *reading* 
> or *close reading*.
>
> Unfortunately there are a lot of linguistic choices the writers of the 
> Tanakh have made that are not commonly even noticed, let alone 
> appreciated or understood.  We can hardly get past the first verse or 
> two of Bere'shit before we are stumped as to why Moshe used the 
> linguistic options he did.  In my more discouraged moods it makes me 
> wonder if we can read Hebrew.  In my encouraged moods, it makes reading 
> the Tanakh like a pioneering adventure or like mining for gold.
>
> Case in point:  Why did Moshe use qatal of HYH in Gen. 1:2 veha'arets 
> hayetah tohu vabohu rather than a noun sentence?
>
> Did you ever hear Orson Well's old radio broadcast of "War of the 
> Worlds"?  As NYC being put in a death sleep by the poison gas of 
> invading Martians a lone human voice keeps repeating over a two-way 
> radio "Is anybody there?  Is anybody there?"
>
>  
HH: The problem is that writing style is a personal matter, and I cannot 
explain why other people choose this word rather than that, or this 
sentence organization rather than some other one. Since writing is 
self-expression, which is often somewhat spontaneous and uncalculated, 
even the writer might not be able to give clear reasons why he chose one 
form or expression over another possible one. I am often surprised by 
the things I write.

HH: But if I have to guess why there is a qatal HYH in Gen 1:2, I would 
say that this is only the second sentence of this book, and the author 
might have wanted a main verb in the sentence, even if it was giving 
circumstantial information. It is important descriptive information and 
so is somewhat on a level with verse 1 and verse 3. He puts the main 
verb at the start, and this facilitates the following less complete 
clauses, which can have their foundation in the main verb of the first 
clause.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard