Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

boqer tov, Rolf,

> 
> Because you are one of the moderators I accept your decision, and will
> allways explicitly include BH material in every post.  However, the
> methodological question should not be clouded by the theological one.
> There are all kinds of persons on b-hebrew, from the one who has just
> started with Hebrew to the teacher. All are free to voice their opinion
and
> all are free to use methods of interpretation which are more or less
sound.
> I think it would be fine if all of us time and again looked at the way we
> work and ask: Am I using a scientific methododlogy? Can I improve my
> principles? On the basis of such questions do I think that the the
> principles related to syllogisms are very important for those interested
in
> b-hebrew. I will return to that in another post.  Here I want to outline
a
> method for ascertaining whether a language has tenses or not, to
illustrate
> the importance of thinking systematically and of using a scientific
> framework.

point accepted, but this is not a forum for the discussion of philosophy,
scientific method, or New Testament theology in and of themselves.  other
list members also crossed the line of acceptable topics during the "i am
that i am" thread, but it's all quite sloppy.  there's acceptable stuff
mixed in with unacceptable.  the idea is that that particular thread got
somewhat off-topic.  list members knew it, and i hope we're back on track
now.

<snip>

> I have made a preliminary test with the Hebrew HAYYOM ("today", "now").
As
> we have seen, past tense means that RT is *before* (C) and future tense
> means that RT is *after* (C). The deictic center (C) in all examples is
> HAYYOM, 

speaking of methodology:  do you need for a deictic center a point in time?
 if yes, then hayyom is a bit problematic because it's a period of time
rather than a point, especially in BH where hayyom can refer to time itself
rather than a twenty-four hour period or "today."  in either BH or Eng i
can theoretically use an intrinsically perfective, past tense form to refer
to a point earlier in this day.

and this means that past-tense verbs and future-tense verbs cannot
> be used in the clauses where (C) is HAYYOM, only verbs with present tense
> or verbs lacking tense can be used in this context. Let us look at a few
> examples:
> 
> QATAL USED WITH HAYYOM
> 
>  Deuteronomy 8:19. And if you forget the LORD your God and go after 
other
> gods and serve them  and worship them, I solemnly warn you (HA(IDOTI; LXX
> has present: DIAMARTUROMAI) this day that you shall surely perish.
> 
> PARTICIPLE  USED WITH HAYYOM
> 
> Deuteronomy 11:26  Behold, I set (NOTEN) before you this day a blessing
and
> a curse:
> 
> YIQTOL AND WAYYIQTOL USED WITH HAYYOM
> 
> 2. Samuel 3:8. Then Abner was (WAYYIXAR) very angry over the words of
> Ish-bosheth, and said (WAYYOMER),  "Am I a dog's head of Judah? This day
I
> keep showing loyalty ()E(E:SE) to the house of Saul your father, to his
> brothers, and to his friends, and have not given you (HIMCITIKF) into the
> hand of David; and yet you charge me (WATTIPQOD, LXX has present:
> EPIZHTEIS..) today with a fault concerning a woman.
> 
>  More examples could have been given, but when examples of qatal, yiqtol,
> wayyiqtol and the participle can be found together with hayyom, they all
> either represent present tense or are time indifferent. Particularly 2
> Samuel 3:8 is interesting.  There are three wayyiqtols, two with past
> meaning and one with present meaning, a fact which indicates that all
> meanings are conversational pragmatic implicatures and not are semantic.
> The last wayyiqtol is directly governed by hayyom, and the preceding
yiqtol
> is directly governed by another occurrence of hayyom.  Thus RT coincides
> with C in both cases, 

i disagree.  there's room for distinct RT and C's in hayyom.

and neither can there be any semantic difference
> between the yiqtol and thge wayyiqtol nor can any of them indicate past
> tense, but their present meaning must also be due to cenversational
> pragmatic implicature.  We are fortunate to have a wayyiqtol in this
verse,
> as wayyiqtols seldom occur with adverbials such as hayyom because wa- is
> also a particle.
> 

take Abner's words alone.  isn't the yiqtol simply generic?  "i show" or "i
do"?  and the qatal--anterior to the wayyiqtol, "i had delivered"; and the
wayyiqtol--an over-and-done-with event from a moment before, "but you
charged me."  i like the present tense translation of the wayyiqtol, "but
then you charge me" because Ishbosheth was still standing before Abner, in
a sense, with the accusation in hand,  a Hebrew participle poqed would have
been appropriate, but the wayyiqtol more effectively represents the
sequence of events, "i had delivered...but THEN you charged me..."  Abner
may have been at a loss to exress so strongly the *sequence* if he had
chosen the participle.  maybe _'az poqed 'atah_ would have done it, but
that doesn't strike me as real BH.

Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)