[b-hebrew] verb forms--perfect as future
michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net
michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net
Fri Apr 13 16:45:58 EDT 2007
I'm not sure that it was possible for Naomi to have sold the property in the
manner which you are describing for two reasons. First, as I understand the
inheritance rights given in Numbers 27:8-11, Naomi did not have any personal
claim to the property.
It looks to me like Ruth 4:5 states that he had to marry Ruth to acquire the
Second, Ruth 4:9 tells us that Boaz purchased the property directly from
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter at qaya.org>
To: <michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verb forms--perfect as future
> On 13/04/2007 04:47, michaelabernat9001 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> I know some of the members reject the idea that the perfect is used for
>> the future so I spent a few minutes examining some of the passages used
>> to support this concept.
>> While I can understand how some of these passages may be considered a
>> matter of interpretation, there were two that I could not see how the
>> perfect could be translated as a past tense--Ruth 4:3 and 2 Kings 5:20.
>> Ruth 4:3 reads
>> 3 וַיֹּאמֶר לַגֹּאֵל חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ
>> מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי הַשָּׁבָה מִשְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב׃
>> Rth 4:3 And he said unto the near kinsman: 'Naomi, that is come back out
>> of the field of Moab, SELLETH the parcel of land, which was our brother
>> I can't see how you could translate sells as a past tense. Verse 4 makes
>> it plain that the property has not been sold yet. I can understand how
>> one could take this as a present tense-- "Naomi is in the process of
>> selling" or as a future "Naomi will sell." But "Naomi sold" seems to be
>> excluded by context.
> I wonder if this is a misunderstanding of the whole scenario of Ruth, and
> the process of redeeming land. I know that many English translations
> interpret this scenario as you did. But it seems to me that a more likely
> scenario is as follows: Naomi has already sold this plot of land, perhaps
> while she was still in Moab to support herself in her widowhood there.
> Presumably she sold it to some unrelated third party. But, according to
> Leviticus 25:25, Elimelech's nearest relative has a duty to buy back the
> property from the third party, to keep it with Elimelech's family. As the
> very nearest relative is unwilling to do this, Boaz as the next nearest
> performs this duty. On this interpretation, no problem with the verb
>> 2 Kings 5:20 reads
>> 20 וַיֹּאמֶר גֵּיחֲזִי נַעַר אֱלִישָׁע אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה חָשַׂךְ
>> אֲדֹנִי אֶת־נַעֲמָן הָאֲרַמִּי הַזֶּה מִקַּחַת מִיָּדוֹ אֵת
>> אֲשֶׁר־הֵבִיא חַי־יְהוָה כִּי־אִם־רַצְתִּי אַחֲרָיו וְלָקַחְתִּי
>> מֵאִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה׃
>> 2Ki 5:20 But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said:
>> 'Behold, my master hath spared this Naaman the Aramean, in not receiving
>> at his hands that which he brought; as the LORD liveth, I will surely RUN
>> after him, and take somewhat of him.'
>> Verse 20 describes what Gehazi plans to do. He does not carry through
>> with this action until the following verse.
> Here the QATAL verb is in a subordinate clause after KI 'IM as part of an
> oath formula, which may explain the unusual verb usage. Other examples of
> a QATAL with this formula are noted in GKC 149.
> Peter Kirk
> E-mail: peter at qaya.org
> Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
> Website: http://www.qaya.org/
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/759 - Release Date: 4/12/2007
> 7:58 PM
More information about the b-hebrew