Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: The analysis of Deut 30:1-3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Trevor Peterson <06PETERSON AT cua.edu>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The analysis of Deut 30:1-3
  • Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 06:36:12 -0500


>===== Original Message From Moon-Ryul Jung <moon AT sogang.ac.kr> =====
>I found out that the NRSV translation and RSV translation of Deut 30:1-3,
>shown below, are followed by several other translations. I wonder what
>kind
>of analysis underlies them.
>
>RSV groups 30:1b and 30:2 into the KI (WHEN) clause. NRSV makes 30:1b and
>30:2 the condition of a conditional statement. Both are similar in that
>the main statement begins at 30:3.
>
>WHY is the most straightforward rendering as shown below not taken?

Why do you think your reading is the most straightforward? You basically have
a string of converted perfects, which can function grammatically as future
conditions of the protasis or future results of the apodosis. This is one of
the nagging interpretive problems in biblical Hebrew syntax. How did they get
through life without marking endings? They didn't tend to mark the end of
direct speech or of conditional protases, at least not in any way that we can
observe. Maybe they just did it with voice inflection when they were
speaking,
but it would be nice if they had an orthographic representation. (Then again,
English actually makes a clearer distinction with quoted direct speech in
print than in audible speech; so it's not too hard to understand why a
language would lack any convention at all for such marking.)

Anyway, I ask, because I tend to think that the break between protasis and
apodosis here is not all that straightforward, at least not grammatically
speaking. I would be inclined to think that the readings you cite are
actually
more natural, since I would personally expect a condition to divide neatly
between what one person or group does and what another does in response. Your
reading has the repentance of the people assured by divine promise,
conditioned only upon the event of captivity. As I recall, one of my teachers
suggested that this was a better reading, because the writer did in fact
think
the response of the people was being assured. I'm not saying that I would
rule
out the possibility, but if we're going to begin from what seems most natural
in reading a conditional statement, before we get to theologizing, I still
think the longer protasis makes more sense.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page