Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Nir cohen - Prof. Mat." <nir AT ccet.ufrn.br>]

karl,

see also my recent reply to steve miller.
> in case of gen 1:1 i must side with jerry, since at that point in

> nir: the story the sky was still not separated from the land, hence
> still did not exist, making 1:1 NECESSARILY a summary of the entire
> chapter.
> 
> karl: What? From the sounds of it, there were multiple places that were 
> included in the appellation of “heavens” שמים and at least one of which was 
> present in Genesis 1:1.

well, in gen 1:8 and 1:10 the naming of these objects is cited. it is 
therefore assumed the narrator wanted to imply that these onjects were still 
not
formed in 1:1-2. thus, as i wrote to steve, i interpret "haarec" in 1:2 as 
"the (pre land+sky) universe". but this was not the main point:...

> ...Though I can see your point, namely that this first verse carries the 
> big picture, and as we get further into the chapter, more and more details 
> come out.

yes, this is what i had in mind.

> But is that accurate? As it stands, we have the original creation, where 
> “The earth came into being lifeless and still, and darkness upon the face 
> of the deep and God’s spirit resting upon the face of the waters.” The rest 
> of the chapter adding motion and life.

the text says HAYTA, in QATAL, and not VATIHYEH in yiqtol. thus the plausible 
translation would be "was/had been"
and not necessarily "became" as you imply.

 consider also:
> 
> Genesis Chapter 22 בְּרֵאשִׁית
> א  וַיְהִי, אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, וְהָאֱלֹהִים, נִסָּה אֶת-אַבְרָהָם; 
> וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר
> הִנֵּנִי.       1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did 
> prove Abraham,
> and said unto him: 'Abraham'; and he said: 'Here am I.'
> 
> here, too, "god proved abraham" is a summary of the entire chapter, while 
> "and
> said to him" is already the starting point of the more detailed narrative.

this exactly was my point, as also observed by steve.

> 
> This one is a continuation from what happened before, it was not a 
> stand-alone narrative. “God tested Abraham and this is how…” Don’t let the 
> modern division into chapters and verses fool you.

well, i see is no indication in gen 1-21 to the trial which occurred in 22, 
as far as the bare text indicates. the rest is interpretation.

>  consider also:
> 
> Genesis Chapter 10 בְּרֵאשִׁית
> א  וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת בְּנֵי-נֹחַ, שֵׁם חָם וָיָפֶת; וַיִּוָּלְדוּ לָהֶם 
> בָּנִים, אַחַר הַמַּבּוּל.     1 Now these are
> the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them
> were sons born after the flood.
> 
> 
> The present division of chapters and verses came millennia after these 
> words were written. What is now put at the beginning of a section, may show 
> incorrect positioning contrary to the desires of the original authors.

granted. but this is the text we have to grope with.

 Consider Genesis 6:9 and 37:2. 
> "these are the generations..." is a summary, "and unto them..." is already
> part of the detailed narrative.
> 
i think that indeed 37:2 is a summary of previous material.

but 6:9 is clearly a title. observe that TOLDOT should not be translated as 
HISTORY but as DESCENDANTS, hence refers to the text which follows.

> 
> What makes you think that the following list was part of the original 
> document, and not added by a later author?

i only refer to the text as it is. i cannot speculate on the "original" text. 
normally oral tradition undergoes many transformations before
it attains its final form.

> 
> Stylistically, Genesis 2:4 is the closing of Genesis 1. (Literary style) 
> You may want to say that the first verse is an introduction, with 2:4 the 
> closing, like the quotation marks around a quote. But it makes just as much 
> sense, if not more sense, merely as the first step in a multi-step process.

i admit this is also a plausible interpretation.

nir cohen