Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter_Kirk AT sil.org]

Bryan wrote:

[snip]

another case in which the study of tense, aspect, and modality helps us is 
in Exo 10:20 re Pharaoh:  vay:xazzeq yhvh 'et leb par:`oh velo' $illax... 
Most English translations use the simple past for both verbs and 
conjunction, "And YHWH hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the 
children of Israel go."  But the study of tense, aspect and modality has 
shown us that the qatal is not used in Biblical narrative to advance the 
story time.  What that means is that YHWH did not harden P's heart, *and 
then* P did not send forth the people where causation is left dubious.  it 
means that  the hardening and the (not) sending are wrapped up in one event 
so that causation is now explicit.  i like the KJV best:  "... the LORD 
hardened Pharoah's heart so that he would not let..."

[snip]

Sorry, I don't like this KJV translation on other grounds, that it 
prejudges an important theological issue which is left open in the 
Hebrew. Or does the Hebrew clearly imply that YHWH caused Pharaoh's 
action? How about taking QATAL here with pluperfect force: "the LORD 
hardened Pharaoh's heart, for he had not let..."? Perhaps not quite fo 
suitable to the context. But this is more "Arminian" against the KJV's 
more "Calvinist" interpretation. Does the Hebrew clearly favour one 
over the other? If not, best to stick to the neutral "and" even if the 
Hebrew is not actually sequential.

Peter Kirk