ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Discussion must focus on the Hebrew text (including text criticism) and its ancient translations, not on archaeology, modern language translations, or theological controversies.
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote:When Rashi explains that, He explained that it is a construct state of noun + verb (which common in the Bible).
It doesn't seem to be all that common. Aside from the Hosea verse and the one in question from Genesis, do you know of more verses that have a construct followed by a finite verbal form? I'd like to see more examples of this.

Thanks,
Jason
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ducky »

I wrote a few clear examples above
קרית חנה דוד
כל ימי התהלכנו

and when I wrote common I also refer to other styles which usually you don't notice them because they seem natural, (I don't remember an example right now, but when I see it by accident I will write it).
David Hunter
User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 1920
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by Jason Hare »

ducky wrote:I wrote a few clear examples above
קרית חנה דוד
כל ימי התהלכנו

and when I wrote common I also refer to other styles which usually you don't notice them because they seem natural, (I don't remember an example right now, but when I see it by accident I will write it).
תודה. מעריך את זה.
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel
The Hebrew Café
יוֹדֵ֣עַ צַ֭דִּיק נֶ֣פֶשׁ בְּהֶמְתּ֑וֹ וְֽרַחֲמֵ֥י רְ֝שָׁעִ֗ים אַכְזָרִֽי׃
ספר משלי י״ב, י׳
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ralph »

ducky wrote:
(when one says "construct state", the other Hears "no article")
That is really interesting.. I was thinking merely 'of', but yeah no explicitly written definite article is a rule.. I hadn't thought about it in the context of when there is a prefix like Bet there but that explains also why we see for example Gen 31:34 בְּבֵ֥ית אָבִֽינוּ׃
ducky wrote: he doesn't write the word בראשית with Qamats as an example - because that word in that form is not used in the Bible at all, and he only uses Biblical words for his explanation of alternatives.

So instead of using the word בראשית (with Qamats), he writes בראשונה (with Qamats) which is the Biblical word for that meaning (which has the same meaning of בראשית with Qamats).
very interesting

And his choice of Barishonah, that you mention may well be an indirect reference to a point regarding shva and kamatz. As you say. I hadn't spotted that at all.

Now putting aside the shva and kamatz and regarding the issue that it's a noun followed by a verb here and not a noun followed by a noun.

The Hosea 1:2 reference that Rashi gives is a good example of construct noun followed by a verb, though is only one example..

Do any of his other examples deal with a construct noun followed by a verb, Or do you have any examples, and if so, can you give Book Chapter and Verse reference?

Thanks

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ducky »

I wrote above, to my comment to Jason two clear examples of this kind of construct state
קרית חנה דוד
כל ימי התהלכנו
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ducky »

Here is another one
בְּיוֹם הִצִּיל י״י אֹתוֹ
2Sam 22:1
Notice the Sheva in the prefix B.
David Hunter
ducky
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ducky »

And here is another one
Psalm 81:6
שְׂפַת לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶשְׁמָע

(I'll stop here)
David Hunter
ralph
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:20 am

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by ralph »

If I want to translate the first verse with Beraishit as construct, and without butchering the rest of it i.e. without butchering the verb bara, then I can add these two little words "of when". (particles I suppose).

"In the beginning of when God created the heaven(s) and the earth"

It's not wrong English, there's nothing invalid with it.. A nicer construction might be "In the beginning of God creating the heaven and the earth", but that's a bit far from the hebrew, it butchers the verb bara.

The beginning of when is ok. For example https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Begi ... BZ43429BQQ "the beginning of when women started working" or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistor ... _Armenians "during the beginning of when a Mesopotamian Dark Age was occurring" (funnily enough "During the beginning of when God created the heavens and the earth" works nicely, and adding the word 'during' when using "of when", does perhaps sound better in English.. I think perhaps bet prefix can be translated as during?)

I know that often when two words are connected, it is reflected in the trope(i.e. the marks for cantillation and punctuation), so for example a phrase would have a conjunctive trope on the first word and a disjunctive trope on the second word. e.g. to use the ashkenazi terms a mercha on the first word and a tipcha on the second. The common, mercha tipcha combination.

whereas I notice that the word beraishit has a tipcha on that word, and tipcha is a disjunctive accent. Which i'd have thought tends to mean there perhaps isn't such a phrase-like connection between that word and the next one or next ones?

Here are three other ways. besides "of when".

NRS Genesis 1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

OKE Genesis 1:1 In the first times the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

PJE Genesis 1:1 At the beginning (min avella) the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

(And ironically it's the YLT - youngs LITERAL translation) that seems to butcher the verb bara!)
YLT Genesis 1:1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

Infact one could still say it's construct and translate it as "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"!

Because a noun in construct, when followed by a verb, doesn't have to be, and I guess can't be translated or understood with "of".

2Sam 22:1 בְּיוֹם הִצִּיל י״י אֹתוֹ In the day -that- the LORD delivered him

So one could say why have a particle there if you don't need one. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And yeah berashit can be seen as construct and thus connected to what follows, even without a particle there. As a construct noun with a verb that follows it, needn't be followed by an implied 'of'. (as the example from 2 Sam 22:1 shows). So if "in the beginning of" seems a bit forced, one needn't say it.

Ralph Zak
Ralph Zak
Mira de Vries
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2019 7:35 pm

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by Mira de Vries »

My translation would be something like
"When The Almighty began creating the heaven and the earth, the earth was [but] a thought and an idea..."
or if you prefer:
"When The Almighty began creating the heaven and the earth, the earth was vacant and unoccupied..."
Mira de Vries
Schubert
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:05 pm
Location: Canada

Re: ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

Post by Schubert »

Here's my two bits (to use an English, or at least North American, expression).

"In the beginning of when..." is grammatically correct but awkward. It does not make for easy reading and for that reason I do not see it as good English prose.

However, I want to take a step back from the translation of Genesis 1:1 and make a more general comment about translation from one language to another. In doing a translation, one needs to be clear about the purpose of the particular translation.

For example, if the purpose is to be produce a readable flowing translation, tracking every nuance of the original language will not always be possible. At the risk of perhaps butchering a metaphor: translation is not like a mathematical equation where it's possible to reduplicate everything exactly.

Another type of translation is where one is prepared to surrender a level of readability in an attempt to mirror the original as far as possible – including grammatical structure.

My sense is that different translation purposes underlie part (not all) of the discussion around Genesis 1:1 (and perhaps certain other recent threads.)
John McKinnon
Post Reply