Syntax of Ge. 1:1-3 appears to be broken

[miketisdell]

In Ge. 1:3, ויאמר אלהים should be a simple V/S pair but this seems to have gotten confused because the way that predicate has been connected. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Robert Holmstedt]

I don't see a problem in the diagram -- the ב PP that begins in v. 1 is a large fronted adjunct to the wayyiqtol verb in v. 3. That wayyiqtol must continue after the subject because its complement is the direct speech.

 

In case anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf

Edited September 11, 2019 by Robert Holmstedt

[miketisdell]

I don't see a problem in the diagram -- the ב PP that begins in v. 1 is a large fronted adjunct to the wayyiqtol verb in v. 3. That wayyiqtol must continue after the subject because its complement is the direct speech.

 

In case anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf

 

 

In the original picture, can you see the highlighted text when the cursor is placed over the top level Predicate in vs. 3?

 

I did notice that a construct search appear to work correct i.e. the following search does return vs. 1:3:

 

 

And if I include the ESV English text, the associated highlights appear to be reasonably accurate for the English text, but not for the Hebrew. When only the search results are displayed, the Hebrew text is not highlighted. 

 

[miketisdell]

In the original picture, can you see the highlighted text when the cursor is placed over the top level Predicate in vs. 3?

 

I did notice that a construct search appear to work correct i.e. the following search does return vs. 1:3:

 

construct1.jpg

 

And if I include the ESV English text, the associated highlights appear to be reasonably accurate for the English text, but not for the Hebrew. When only the search results are displayed, the Hebrew text is not highlighted. 

 

syntax2.jpg

 

I am also curious about why the first clause is associated with vs. 1:1-2, but the last cause is independent? (Similar in vs. 1:6)

[Robert Holmstedt]

Aha. Well, highlighting is not my area. It's fairly complex with the syntax because I think they programmed it to follow the syntactic trees/nodes, not just the words. But, again, I can't give any authoritative answer.

 

V. 3 is an "independent" cause because it's a main clause. It is not subordinate/dependent on another clause. In contrast, v. 1 is a dependent phrase that has within it an unmarked relative clause. And v. 2 is a parenthesis, which almost always have a pragmatic-syntactic anchor in a preceding clause. Parentheses are thus kind of independent and kind of dependent. Odd critters. 

[Brian K. Mitchell]

In case if anyone is interested in trudging the many issues concerning the syntactic options for Gen 1:1-3, I've attached a forthcoming article (it should be out late this Fall or early Winter 2020).

 

2020 Eskhult FS Genesis 1.pdf

 

I'm very interested in the aforementioned issues, but then again aren't we all? If I had a dollar for everytime I have heard people argue over have Genesis 1:1 should be translated I would be a rich man.

[Robert Holmstedt]

I don't *argue* with anyone. I just describe how the syntax actually works (and doesn't work). And I don't need to fit it into any preconceived notions, since I am a creationist (theology) who doesn't pretend to be a geologist or physicist (science). It also helps that 1) I read ANE texts and 2) have a deep appreciation for the power and truth-potential of the literary genre "myth". 

 

[Michael Hunt]

Thanks for posting your article Robert. It is great that these types of PDF's can now be imported in to Accordance.

[Brian K. Mitchell]

I don't *argue* with anyone. I just describe how the syntax actually works (and doesn't work). And I don't need to fit it into any preconceived notions, since I am a creationist (theology) who doesn't pretend to be a geologist or physicist (science). It also helps that 1) I read ANE texts and 2) have a deep appreciation for the power and truth-potential of the literary genre "myth". 

 

Thanks for the recent feedback and for your continued work on the syntactical databases!

Anyway, I appreciate the syntax databases as I believe they do add to the discussion of whether part of the pericope could be taken as a dependent clause, an independent sentence, or a subordinate clause.

 

And, thanks for the article!

[Robert Holmstedt]

Glad to be of service. There is one more issue concerning Gen 1:1 that I did not address fully -- the use of the perfect היתה in v. 2 and implications for the syntactic choice. John Cook is writing that up and then we'll merge our two studies into a longer article we'll publish somewhere. It's nutty that the first 3 verses of the Bible are so deceptively complex.

[Michael Hunt]

Glad to be of service. There is one more issue concerning Gen 1:1 that I did not address fully -- the use of the perfect היתה in v. 2 and implications for the syntactic choice. John Cook is writing that up and then we'll merge our two studies into a longer article we'll publish somewhere. It's nutty that the first 3 verses of the Bible are so deceptively complex.

 

I was struck in reading your article Robert again by the thought of the sheer complexities of explaining "beginnings" in the light of one who is shown in this text (and the corpus that follows up from it) to be an eternal being who is above, beyond and over the beginnings and endings of all things. That idea in itself is nuttily complex.