Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 AT earthlink.net>]

Steve,
> > From: Harold Holmyard
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:40 PM
> >
> > HH: Yes, the verb can mean "was" or "became," but the best current
> > scholarly thinking discounts the Gap Theory. One reason for this is that
> > the sentence starts with the noun subject, which suggests that the
> > statement is giving attendant circumstances. The second clause seems
> > clearly to be doing this. It is verbless, implying "and darkness was
> > over the surface of the deep." The third clause is the same way. It,
> > too, is verbless, except for a participle, saying that "the Spirit of
> > God was hovering over the surface of the water." In Hebrew when the
> > clause starts with a noun and is verbless, it often is giving attendant
> > circumstance. Here the attendant circumstances are to the fact that God
> > created the heavens and earth. Since the last two clauses seem to be
> > circumstantial, it is natural if the first clause is also
> > circumstantial: "the earth was empty and void." This general description
> > shows the starting point from which God's actions will develop the
> > world. Other scholars may take a different position, but that is what I
> > understand it to be saying.
> >     
>
> [Steve Miller] When a sentence starts with "and <noun>" as in Gen 1:2, it
> often indicates a break in the narrative as in Gen 2:5; 3:1; 4:1. The vast
> majority of the sentences in narrative begin "and <verb>".
>   


HH: Yes, it's a break that gives circumstantial information, background 
information.


> I thought that the 2nd and 3rd clauses of Gen 1:2 being verbless, just meant
> that they inherit the verb from the 1st clause. I thought this was very
> common in Biblical Hebrew.
>   


HH: There's no need to assume such an inheriting. Verbless clauses are 
standard in Hebrew.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard