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 _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
