Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: Re: Zech 8:14-15 (was Judges 13:5 and 13:7)

Dear Dave,

I do not intend to continue this discussion, but I will only point out two areas wher eour understanding of linguistics is different.

> My reason for using both a past and a
> future for the interpretation was
> that the decision (ZMM) to act was past, but the act (Y+B) is
> future.  In
> both vv. 14 & 15 the act that results from God's decision is
> expressed as
> an infinitive.  The time-reference of the infinitive must be
> determined
> from context.  The time reference of R(( in v. 14 is soon after
> the
> "determination" in the past, and is thus also past --
> "I determined, and I
> brought calamity."  The time reference of Y+B in v. 15 is
> soon after the
> "determination" in the immediate past, and is thus future
> -- "I just
> determined, and I will bring good."

In my view, the infinitive serving as a verbal complement is timeless. Together with the finite verb that govern it, it constitutes one unit. Thus it takes the temporal reference of the finite verb. You cannot split this unit (of finite verb and complement) either in verse 14 or 15 and say that the complement functions as a finite verb of its own in a new clause with a different time reference than the finite verb governing it. This means that the temporal refrence of ZMM and Y+B *must* be the same. And this is the way you translate below!

> One reason I chose a past tense
> translation of ZMM in v. 15 is the logic
> inherent in the semantics of ZMM -- how can you say that you are
> going to
> have something in mind tomorrow?  If you know you are going to
> have
> something in mind tomorrow, it's because you already have it in mind
> today.
> If you have it in mind today, it's because it came into your mind --
> you
> made a decision -- in the past, albeit perhaps the very recent
> past.  Thus,
> paraphrased with time cues, in Zechariah God is saying, "Just as
> in the
> distant past, in the time of your forefathers, I had in mind to
> bring
> disaster upon you ... I have just recently, in these days, decided --
> that
> is, I had in mind earlier today and still have in mind -- to do you
> good."

To appeal to lexical semantics to determine the time reference of a verb is tricky business indeed. This verb, and other verbs signalled a concept in the minds of the people having the same presupposition pool. Such a concept is rather broad with fuzzy edges, according to psycho-linguistic research, and the role of the context is to help the reader to see which part of the concept the author wants to make visible. The verb )MR may illustrate the point. The core of the concept it signals is the uttering of words, and on the basis of the context, we can see whether a command, a question or a prayer is meant.

The Semitic way of thinking is different from the English one. When you ask how someone "can have something in mind tomorrow" you use English logic and not Semitic logic. As to the concepts signalled by hebrew words such as verbs, we may speak of a "core-meaning", but the concept per se and its borders cannot be defined by those whose mother tongue is not Hebrew. Such concepts are *known* by native speakers, they cannot be defined. That is why it is so dangerous to use lexical semantics to fix the tense of a translation.

Let me illustrate. The core meaning of $LM is to be complete or whole. Connected with this, inside the concept are well-being and peace. But in some contexts the word is translated by "to pay". In Hebrew, as in other languages we find polysemy, but "to pay" does not signal a second concept; it is a part of the one concept that is made visible also when this translation is chosen. The thinking may be like this: If I sell something I am no longer whole or complete, but when a price is payed the wholeness is restored. Thus to pay is clearly a side of $LM. This Semitic thinking is foreign to English thinking.

Another example. The root (ZB with the core meaning "to leave" is common Semitic. But how can it be translated by "to save, resuce" in Aramaic? The reason is simple. In Accadian this root is written as EZEBUM, and the causative mark in that language is the prefix $. If this prefix is added, the meaning will be "to let leave", and this again is taken in the meaning "to save, rescue". The verb is found in Daniel 3:17 in the form $YZB with the meaning "to save". Again, this thinking is foreign to the English mind.

I agree that if you say in English that you are going to have something in mind tomorrow it is already in your mind today. But this is English and not Semitic thinking in that you restrict the area of the concept signalled by ZMM. There is much more to the concept than "to plan, to decide, and to purpose". There is no problem of using ZMM in the senses "to look for opportunities to do", or "to carry out a purpose", both which may refer to tomorrow. Please consider the passage below where the QATAL of ZMM is used with future reference

Jer. 51:12  (NIV) Lift up a banner against the walls of Babylon! Reinforce the guard, station the watchmen, prepare an ambush! The LORD will carry out his purpose, his decree against the people of Babylon.

Therefore, the crucial point for the choice of English tense for the rendering of ZMM is not lexical semantics, but the contect,namely, what is the *time reference* of "those days".

> The other reason I chose a past tense translation of ZMM is that
> there are
> many cases -- I would argue it is the norm -- in BH where a future
> action
> based on current events is expressed with X-YIQTOL or WEQATAL. 
> See 2 Sam
> 12:7-12.  In 7b-9 Nathan relays God's message explaining all
> that God did
> for David in the past, and what David did in the past -- with
> X-QATAL's and
> WAYYIQTOL's.  Then in vv. 10-12 God predicts what will happen to
> David in
> the future because of David's past actions -- with X-YIQTOL's
> and
> WEQATAL's.

Your words in this paragraph illustrates my basic criticism against modern Hebrew scholarship: grammatical theory (that I believe is faulty) has the upper hand both in textual criticism and in translation.

When the German Scholar Alexander Sperber emmigrated to the US before World war II he could read the original text ofOld Hebrew Bibles, he was shocked to discover that Kittel and his co-workers to some extent had emended the text of the Biblia Hebraica to conform with grammatical theory.

Sperber (A Historical Grammar of biblical Hebrew, 1966, pp 52.53) first quotes Kittel's words that his intention when making the mastertext (BH) was "to purge the text of 'obvious mistakes and errors of any kind'." Then he makes the following comment:

"In the light of Kittel's remarks ..there can be no doubt at all as to the meaning of the implied words "obvious mistakes and errors". They refer to any diviation from the rules and laws of Hebrew grammar. and it is just this attitude towards the Hebrew Bible, to give the right priority to The Grammar and to make the Scriptures conform to it, which I refuted by saying: "Whether he admits it or not, the exegete assumes that the laws of the Hebrew language, as laid down in the Hebrew grammar, are binding for the Bible. Whenever a discrepancy is discovered between the Bible and these "established" grammatical laws, the Bible is the loser: the text is "emended" so as to conform with the grammar... It is high time that bible scholars... approach the Bible not as schoolmasters teaching the prophets how Hebrew sentences should be formed and Hebrew words spelled, but as humble students of thses masters of Hebrew."

Exactly the same editorial attitude is seen in the BHS, particularly in the notes at the bottom of the pages where emendations often are suggested on the basis of grammatical theory rather than textual evidence. And not only that, but modern translators have exactly the same attitude: grammatical theory is given priority over the context.

It is true that YIQTOL and WEQATAL often have future reference. However, the same is true with HINNE, and 3.p.s of HAYA allways have future reference, except in a few cases. But none of these cases can be used to make grammatical rules! But this is what has been done regarding the finite verbs, and these rules have priority, although nobody has previously bothered to analyse *all* the verbs to see the real pattern of them.

In my analysis of all the verbs of the MT I have a list with 1.022 YIQTOLs (7,5 %) with past reference, 357 (5,9 %) WEQATALs with past reference and 965 (6,9 %) QATALs with future reference. But the real number should probably be doubled in each case. When grammatical theory is given priority, this has a cumulative effect. When it is believed that QATALs should not have future reference, less QATALs are translated by future tense, and it appears that the grammatical theory is vindicated. But the situation is in reality circular, translation is based on the theory, and the theory is justified by the translation.

> If in Zech 8:15 God wanted to express a future decision, He probably
> would
> have used X-YIQTOL.
>
> The interpretation of $WB as
> "again," which I accept, only reinforces my
> interpretation of ZMM as past.  God
> says, "I aquired a mind-set, in the
> days of your fathers, and did them harm
> ... I have again aquired a
> mind-set, at the current time, and will do you good."
>
> With all this in mind, I might translate as follows: This is what the
> Lord
> of Hosts says: "Just as I resolved to do you harm when your
> fathers
> provoked Me to anger," says the Lord of Hosts, "and I did
> not relent, in
> the same way in these days I have again resolved to treat Jerusalem
> and the
> house of Judah well.  Do not fear."
>
> If I were to translate it more freely, I would make a better
> parallel:
> "Just as I came to a resolution when your fathers provoked Me to
> anger, and
> I did not waver -- in that case it was a
> resolution to do them harm -- in
> the same way, once again in these days,
> I have come to an unwavering
> resolution, and you should be encouraged
> because this time it is a
> resolution to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of
> Judah."
>
> The implication is if God did not relent in His resolution to do
> harm, He
> will not relent in His resolution to do good.  This is
> reassuring.
> Dave Stabnow
>

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo