Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Isaac:
This time you came up with a good point.

I see no linguistic reason to say that BR) means anything other than
"create", which allows that its use in Ezekiel indicates that Ezekiel, the
man, was to create.

This is unlike SLX, which is never used except with God being the actor
(which gives insight to the New Testament, when Jesus forgave sins, those
who studied Tanakh questioned, "Who does he think he is?" Their question is
understandable in light of this background. I think most Christians are too
harsh on those questioners.).

As for the use of BR) in Qohelet 12, I understand the plural to be a
counterpart to the use of )LHYM, a plural noun to refer to a single God,
meaning that here the preacher is pointing to God as the creator. I think
that is further brought out in that human descent in no other case uses BR),
rather YLD in some form is used, therefore it is very unlikely that this
refers to elders or ancestors.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Isaac Fried <if AT math.bu.edu> wrote:

> Pere,
>
> The point is that there is a vast number of Hebrew speaking people
> today who think there is nothing special in BR) over YCR and (SH, and
> that there is no inherent reason why it should be thus limited in its
> usage and not be applied also to any creative or otherwise fantastic
> act by Man, and the same for SLX. Truly, it is no proof for no
> nothing but is yet an interesting observation on the workings of a
> living language deeply and engrossingly rooted in the TN"K. It is
> true that BR) appears in the HB mostly [entirely?] for a divine act,
> but I do not see any inherent reason why it should not appear, in a
> poetic burst, in a latter book, in the sense of bringing a person to
> the world.
> The BARE) of Ezekiel 21 is indeed enigmatic. The NAB renders it
> 'put', NIV puts it as 'make', the KJV tries his luck at 'choose',
> while Pere sees it as 'cut out'. It is a remarkable thing that the
> lofty BR) has such low-cast descendants.
> The situation in Qohelet is crystal clear:
> 1. If the yod in BOR)-EY-KA is a scribal error, then it is 'Creator'.
> 2. With a yod it is 'progenitors', which makes sense, and is the
> reason, methinks, for the yod's survival there. The author is
> advising the young to pay a visit to a nursing home to see not only
> life in bloom but also to observe how it wilts and melts away into
> past generations. Man does not have all the time in the world.
> I can fully sympathize with Ron Snider's balking at this prosaic
> usage of BR) but there is no way around it. There are no Creators.
>
> Isaac Fried, Boston University