Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
  • Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:01:52 -0500 (EST)



Interesting question. But what view exactly did Ewald put forward?

How about Psalm 72:2-11 as an example - but these are yiqtols not
qatals.

LXX, KJV, RV, NIV translate with future tenses and makes the psalm
Messianic. (NIV footnotes the alternative)

Delitzsch, NJB, NRSV, TEV, New Living Translation, 19th century
Turkish translate with "let him" type constructions, and the psalm
simply becomes a prayer.

Any correlation with religious views? Or with developing understanding
of Hebrew? Or simply with who prefers LXX to MT?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: BH, agendas and tenselessness?
Author: decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca at internet
Date: 14/02/1999 13:27


i continue my studies on that fateful year of 1826 when ewald came up
with his idea of the verbal system based on his study of sanskrit and
comparative indoeuropean studies. in part i have argued that this view
was motivated by 19th cent racism, a view not original with me.

i am interested in developing other ideas about other agendas, other
motivations beyond racist views of mind and language. i believe that
the tenselessness is functional in many ways.

one idea i want to explore is tenselessness and christian readings of
prophetic texts. this came up in my reading of literature aimed at
converting jews. jews familiar with hebrew and the prophetic texts
would not read crucial texts as required by christians. this involves
crucially the use of hebrew qatal, otherwise a past/perfective/realis
form. if the system **only** encodes aspect, then we are free to read
crucial texts as future and irrealis. so.... at a really basic level,
the tenseless approach is highly functional for christian apologists.

what do you think of this idea?

if you come across really good cases in respectable literature and
commentary that employs this argument in reading the prophets, I'd be
grateful for references. pamphlets from jews for jesus, e.g., wouldn't
count for me.

cheers
V
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Dr. Vincent DeCaen <decaen AT chass.utoronto.ca>
c/o Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations
4 Bancroft Ave., 2d floor
University of Toronto
Toronto ON, CANADA, M5S 1A1

Hebrew Syntax Encoding Initiative
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~decaen/hsei/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to
surrender it too soon or to the first comer. --Santayana

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page