Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: The "times" of Isaiah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ROGLAND AT rullet.LeidenUniv.nl
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re: The "times" of Isaiah
  • Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 08:50:27 +0100 (MET)


Dear Rolf,

I also attempt to analyse the verb forms in terms of speech (S),
event (E), and reference (R) times. If I understand you
correctly, you are saying that in the _koh 'amar yhwh_ formula S
and R are the same, producing present "meaning". What I am trying
to determine is how you would analyse E in such cases. It seems
to me that your syllogism is as follows:

Major premise: If the formula represents God's voice, then 'amar
has a present meaning.
Minor premise: The formula represents God's voice (see your examples
from Jeremiah).
Conclusion: 'amar has a present meaning.

Your reasoning is perfectly sound, but it is the major premise
which I am questioning. In some instances, as Krispenz notes and
as you yourself seem to admit, there are cases where a present
meaning is excluded. But this overturns your major premise and
thus the syllogism is invalid.

> In 33:19 it is said that the formula is directed "to Jeremiah", and by same
> way of reasoning by which we conclude that the words "to me" exclude
> present meaning, we must conclude that "to Jeremiah" excludes past meaning
> or even something similar to English Perfect.

I don't follow your reasoning here. What is it about "to
Jeremiah" that excludes a past meaning?

Another point is that the
> prophets seem to be God's mouthpiece, and I think that both past meaning
> and what corresponds to English perfect are *lame* compared with the
> forceful "Thus SAYS YHWH" (I have not yet had time to read Krispenz'
> article).

A number of grammarians (e.g. Pardee, JCL Gibson, etc.) take the
formula as reflecting "the prophetic consciousness of having
received a message from Y." (Davidson-Gibson, para. 57 rem. 3).
This is perfectly compatible with the view that the prophets are
God's mouthpiece. The crucial point, it seems to me, is
determining the time of the event (E) referred to. I think we can
account for the data in a much simpler way by saying that the
formula refers to a past event in all cases, rather than saying
that it refers to a past event in some cases (cf. the examples in
Krispenz) while in other cases it has a present meaning. The
article by Krispenz is well worth reading.

Yours,

Max Rogland
Leiden University




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page