Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> >If we look carefully the Hebrew (MT - BHS) of Habakkuk 1:6-11, it is
> >quite possible to understand these verb forms according to their
> >regular Hebrew meanings, and not take them to indicate something
> >different from regular prose.

<snip>

> Dear Peter,
>
> Your explanation above illustrates why an extreme use of discourse analysis
> with the meaning of the different forms fixed beforhand can do violence to
> the Hebrew text.

And, Rolf, your exchange here is a clear example of the agenda I
referred to during the past couple days.  (Please note, I did not use
the word "hidden." That was a word *you* supplied yesterday.)  You
apparently already had a clear picture as to what was going on in this
passage.  And you also apparently think that you have a clear
understanding of the explanations which will be used if the passages are
looked at using discourse analysis.

Can you not question the accuracy of the analysis of others? Of course
you can.  But when, oh, when are you ever going to demonstrate the
superiority of your way?

> The view that WAYYIQTOL is a past tense have in my opinion
> the same negative effect, particularly in a book such as Habaqquq where
> there are other WAYYIQTOLS with non-past meaning (e.g. 1:3; 2:5, and 3:19).
>

So what exactly is the role of wayyiqtol in the book?  Why did the
writer pick it?

> As to the intention of the writer, 1:5 explicitly says that what follows is
> a prophecy of the future.  I am not aware of any other prophecy in the
> Bible where past acts of the one the prophecy speaks about are recorded in
> the midst of predictions about the future. Note also that the compilers of
> BHS had difficulties with the verbs of the verses, as is shown in the notes.
>
> Would you please translate the verses to show us how the supposed
> embeddeness and past meaning show up in a translation. Are there other
> translations which are similar to this translation of yours?
>

And do you have a better explanation, or is this passage a problem no
matter which model is used?  If the latter is the case, then why select
it specially to poke holes in the discourse analysis model.  (As far as
I know, the BHS compilers who "had difficulties with the verbs of the
verses" are not promoters of discourse analysis.)

Regards,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Isabela, Rep. of Philippines

zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph