Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Charles Wiese" <cwiese AT mail.altelco.net>]

Gesenius' Hebrew grammar 159b,c it reads:

"2. The relation between condition and consequence may be expressed, as in 
English, by the simple juxtaposition of two clauses. At the same time, it is 
to be observed in general as a fundamental rule (in accordance with the 
original character of the two tenses), that the imperfect, with its 
equivalents (the jussive, cohortative, imperative, perfect consecutive, and 
participle), is used to express a condition and consequence which are 
regarded as being capable of fulfilment in present or future time, while the 
perfect represents a condition already fulfilled in the past, and its 
consequence as an accomplished fact. The other use of the perfect - to 
represent conditions regarded as impossible - occurs only in connexion with 
particles. 

  Examples: -
  c
  (a) Imperfect (cf. § 107 x) in protasis and apodosis, Jos 22:18, y Ps 
104:28 ff. !Wj+qol.yI2 ~h,l' !TeTi (if) thou givest unto them, they gather, 
&c.; y Ps 139:18, Pr 12:17, Jb 20:24, Ec 1:18, Neh 1:8; with an interrogative 
imperfect in the apodosis, Ju 13:12; with the jussive, Jb 10:16; with the 
cohortative, Pr. 1:23; with the perfect, Is 26:10 (yet will he not learn 
righteousness; the apodosis forcibly denies what the imperfect in the 
protasis had represented as still conceivable; cf. Ho 8:12); with the perfect 
consecutive, Gn 47:25, Ex 33:5; with the protasis suppressed, Jb 5:8 (see § 
107 x).

I am involved in a theological discussion at present in another forum but 
nobody on list including myself knows Hebrew very well. So, as I am 
understanding Gesenius, he seems to be saying that the sentence is 
hypothetical. To paraphrase the sentence would say something like "Even if 
God did give grace to the wicked they would not act righteously." Am I 
correct in my understanding of what Gesenius says here? If so, my next 
question is if there is reason to believe that Gesenius is mistaken in what 
he says on this construction? Keil & Delitzsch seem to agree with him but 
Oswalt seems to go a different route. Yet, Oswalt does not adress Gesenius' 
statement.

Sincerely,
Chuck Wiese
Grand Rapids, MI
>From abuian AT access4less.net  Fri Jan 28 05:45:04 2005
Return-Path: <abuian AT access4less.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from smtp3.ispsnet.net (smtp5.ispsnet.net [64.63.192.251])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C054C008
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:45:04 -0500 
(EST)
Received: from [64.63.221.242] (unverified [64.63.221.242])
        by smtp3.ispsnet.net (Joe 1) with ESMTP id 1743010
        for multiple; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:45:04 -0500
Message-ID: <41FA17BB.2090707 AT access4less.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:45:15 -0500
From: Trevor Peterson <abuian AT access4less.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Charles Wiese <cwiese AT mail.altelco.net>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 26:10
References: <002501c50505$6cb05d00$db7096ce@oemcomputer>
In-Reply-To: <002501c50505$6cb05d00$db7096ce@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
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: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:45:04 -0000

A couple of brief thoughts on this idea. First, although I haven't
studied through systematically the trend he lays out here, I have an
initial reason to doubt it. He's not accounting for the possibility
that, particularly in poetic texts, the prefixal verb form can have a
past meaning. Explain this however you like--an old preterite vestige, a
poetic convention, whatever--the trend seems to be there, anyway, and it
would make me hesitant about a blanket assumption that a prefixal form
in poetry can't refer to past conditions. My other reservation relates
to the context, which seems to be speaking in general terms, so time
reference might not even be at issue.

Having said that, my inclination in this context is to treat the
statement together with the last part of v. 9. As the protasis in v. 9
is a verbless clause and a general statement, I think it makes sense to
take the protasis here with the same semantic force. Also, the perfect
tense in the apodosis makes me think we shouldn't put too much
time-oriented force in them. So it's something like how it comes out in
English on a fairly literal rendering: The wicked is shown favor, and he
does not learn righteousness. In English, and I think in Hebrew, this is
basically a conditional--If the wicked is shown favor, he does not learn
righteousness. I think it's natural to assume that this principle would
apply in the future at least, although it wouldn't make much sense to
state it if it had never been seen at work in the past either.

Trevor Peterson
CUA/Semitics

Charles Wiese wrote:
> Gesenius' Hebrew grammar 159b,c it reads:
>
> "2. The relation between condition and consequence may be expressed, as in 
> English, by the simple juxtaposition of two clauses. At the same time, it 
> is to be observed in general as a fundamental rule (in accordance with the 
> original character of the two tenses), that the imperfect, with its 
> equivalents (the jussive, cohortative, imperative, perfect consecutive, and 
> participle), is used to express a condition and consequence which are 
> regarded as being capable of fulfilment in present or future time, while 
> the perfect represents a condition already fulfilled in the past, and its 
> consequence as an accomplished fact. The other use of the perfect - to 
> represent conditions regarded as impossible - occurs only in connexion with 
> particles.
>
>   Examples: -
>   c
>   (a) Imperfect (cf. § 107 x) in protasis and apodosis, Jos 22:18, y Ps 
> 104:28 ff. !Wj+qol.yI2 ~h,l' !TeTi (if) thou givest unto them, they gather, 
> &c.; y Ps 139:18, Pr 12:17, Jb 20:24, Ec 1:18, Neh 1:8; with an 
> interrogative imperfect in the apodosis, Ju 13:12; with the jussive, Jb 
> 10:16; with the cohortative, Pr. 1:23; with the perfect, Is 26:10 (yet will 
> he not learn righteousness; the apodosis forcibly denies what the imperfect 
> in the protasis had represented as still conceivable; cf. Ho 8:12); with 
> the perfect consecutive, Gn 47:25, Ex 33:5; with the protasis suppressed, 
> Jb 5:8 (see § 107 x).
>
> I am involved in a theological discussion at present in another forum but 
> nobody on list including myself knows Hebrew very well. So, as I am 
> understanding Gesenius, he seems to be saying that the sentence is 
> hypothetical. To paraphrase the sentence would say something like "Even if 
> God did give grace to the wicked they would not act righteously." Am I 
> correct in my understanding of what Gesenius says here? If so, my next 
> question is if there is reason to believe that Gesenius is mistaken in what 
> he says on this construction? Keil & Delitzsch seem to agree with him but 
> Oswalt seems to go a different route. Yet, Oswalt does not adress Gesenius' 
> statement.
>
> Sincerely,
> Chuck Wiese
> Grand Rapids, MI
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>