Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Paul in an attempt to redefine time phrases and clauses 
as something else, responds to the fact that br'$yt is 
used in Jeremiah as a time when phrase, stating when 
the word of God came to Jeremiah in the following

>> Jer 26:1,
>> Jer 27:1,
>> Jer 28:1 (with the wyhy introducing it as with many bywm),
>> Jer 49:34

thus:

>No, Ian, they are of a completely different character.  The other instances
>of "time words" in your list, almost always YWM or its plural form, 

I haven't ever cited a plural form of bywm, have I, Paul? 
You're stretching things in an attempt to make your point.

>are words describing *duration* of time.  

This simply doesn't reflect the usage of these words. 
There is no sign of an intention to talk of duration with 
phrases such as bywm and b`t, but to locate an event in 
time. 

Look at Jos 9:12 for example and say if you think that 
the writer is thinking about duration, or is the bywm 
clause a time locative? When would Shimei died in 1 Kgs 
2:42? In Ps. 102:2 does bywm 'qr' indicate duration or 
when the speaker would like a speedy response?

>R)$YT in the cases you give refers to
>a *particular point or event*, the beginning of a series.  

Yes, a particular point *in time*, ie a time locative 
phrase, just as is the case with bywm and b`t, as a perusal 
of the uses of these terms indicate. ("It happened that ON 
THE DAY WHEN kings go out [to do battle], something 
happened.")

>I would say that
>there needs be a bit more groundwork laid that a "point" word is handled the
>same as a "duration" word before we can lump them together as "time" words
>and then go on to make conclusions, e.g., because YWM is handled in such a
>way, R)$YT can be interpreted the same way.

I have been arguing that we are not looking at ywm and 
r'$yt, but specifically bywm and br'$yt.

As your analysis seems not to reflect the corpus, I see no 
reason to contemplate your theory. It appears to me to be 
an unsupported side attempt to dismiss the parallels 
between bywm, b`t and br'$yt, now by saying that they are 
not comparable, when in fact they show similarities in form 
both in context, such as 

yhy bywm ... 
yhy br'$yt ... 

and in qualification

br'$yt works in constructs just as bym and b`t
br'$yt apparently takes clauses just as bywm and b`t

(And hopefully my examples from Isa 30:26b and Oba 11 show 
that there is no doubt that bywm can have multiple cluses.)

I see no reason why you would want to create the difference 
you are trying to here. In each case br'$yt, bywm and b`t 
answer the question "when?". This is the acid test, and I'd 
say in each case they do.


Ian