Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Noam Eitan <bhebrew AT yahoo.com>]

Dear George,
 
Thanks for this summary. I have despaired of making sense of BH verbal 
system. There are places that tolerate the concept of past and future tenses, 
particularly narratives; in others, mostly in the prophets, when I try to 
play with switching verbs form past to future or infinitive and step back to 
get the feel of it, it looks like "anything goes", as long as you don't use 
the same conjugation repetitively (which would indicate emphasis.) The 
perfect/imperfect concept doesn't help me at all and I feel is foreign to BH. 
Can someone summarize for me the concept of "aspects" or refer me to an 
online source? I don't understand this concept - maybe that's where the money 
is -  Noam Eitan, Brooklyn, NY

George Athas <gathas AT hotkey.net.au> wrote:
Hi Chris!

As you've picked up, the WAW CONSECUTIVE is a very prickly subject in 
Biblical Hebrew. The problems do not all come down to the WAW CONSECUTIVE, 
though -- there are other peripheral issues involved.

Essentially, let me outline the old school of thought, and then outline some 
new currents.



                
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
>From formoria AT carolina.rr.com  Wed Jun  2 22:06:32 2004
Return-Path: <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com
        (ms-smtp-02-lbl.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.101])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB4E20043
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Wed,  2 Jun 2004 22:06:31 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from localhost ([69.132.147.0])
        by ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id
        i5326SNr028238; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:06:28 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 22:06:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] exodus, dating of linguistics
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482)
To: "George F. Somsel" <gfsomsel AT juno.com>
From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040602.204623.-384209.2.gfsomsel AT juno.com>
Message-Id: <9F1243B2-B502-11D8-8AE4-0005028E3A38 AT carolina.rr.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482)
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 02:06:32 -0000

Absolutely not all agree with the Documentary Hypothesis.

I've always been puzzled by the identification by JEDP backers of the=20
book of Deuteronomy as the "book of the law" found in the temple=20
disrepair. It hinges such a tremendously significant portion of an=20
already extremely hypothetical theory on an offhand remark in the=20
account of Josiah's reforms. And it does so without providing any real=20=

reason to make that leap. It's as though someone (Wellshausen or=20
whomever) saw the verse and theorized that this "book of the law" could=20=

be the very book I'm reading. Well, yes it could, but let's see how he=20=

got from hypothesis to conclusion without anything in between.

Can anyone offer any insight?

Best Salaams,

Brian Roberts


On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 08:46  PM, George F. Somsel wrote:

> Harold,
>
> At the risk of opening a can of worms, I think Peter and Uri were
> referring to JEDP and the Documentary Hypothesis.  According to this
> Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple and was the impetus for the
> Josianic reforms.  It was, shall I say, an "occassional piece", i.e.
> written for the occassion.  The histories were then written upon the
> program of Deuteronomy with the centralized sanctuary, etc.
>
> What some say may not have been so that Uri referenced is that not all
> agree to the Documentary Hypothesis.
>
> As regards your "the Bible tells me so" approach --
>
> "Things are not always as they seem.
> Skim milk oft masquerades as cream."
>
> gfsomsel
> ________
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 19:26:18 -0500 "Harold R. Holmyard III"
> <hholmyard AT ont.com> writes:
>> Dear Uri,
>>
>> What would some say may not have been so? Are
>> they saying that Deuteronomy was not written at
>> one time and place? The Book of Deuteronomy says
>> that it was.
>>
>> Deut. 31:9 =B6 So Moses wrote down this law and
>> gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who
>> carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and
>> to all the elders of Israel.
>>
>> Are they saying that the other literature, much
>> of Joshua-Kings, was not written later? Scripture
>> is clear that the events occurred later than the
>> writing of the Deuteronomic law by Moses. So they
>> must have been written later. Are they saying
>> that these other books do not echo the language
>> and themes of Deuteronomy. This is a matter of
>> judgment to some degree, but certainly a good
>> argument can be made for the fact that they do.
>> For example, Moses warned about rebellion from
>> God and God's punishment, and that is exactly
>> what Judges shows.
>>
>>                                 Yours,
>>                                 Harold Holmyard
>>
>>>   This may have been so, but, some would say,
>>> more likely not have been so. In short, sheer
>>> speculation, like much that has been speculated
>>> on this subject.
>>>
>>>   Uri
>>> Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org> wrote:
>>> the kind of model I have in mind is:
>>>
>>> 1) Deuteronomy was written at one time and place.
>>>
>>> 2) The other literature e.g. much of Joshua-Kings which so clearly
>>> echoes the languages and themes of Deuteronomy was written at a
>> later
>>> time, and potentially a different place, in imitation, either
>> deliberate
>>> or accidental, of Deuteronomy.
>>>
>>> Therefore, Michael's stylistic argument that Deuteronomy and
>>> Joshua-Kings were written at one time and place fails.
>> _______________________________________________
>> b-hebrew mailing list
>> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>