Biblical Hebrew Forum

[kgraham0938 AT comcast.net]

@Vadim:

I don't know anything about Russian.  But I am sure you understand what you 
wrote below.  I understand what you are saying (well at least the English 
part), but it seems to me that only one part of your translation is focused 
on the tense of the verb 'EH:YEH if I am reading you correctly.

What I mean is that, I had gathered from your earlier post that because 
'EH:YEH was an imperfect it should be future tense.  But your personal 
translation has the first 'EH:YEH as future and the second as present. 
i.e."as I live."

By the way, I know nothing about Russian, so that part of your argument went 
right over my head.
--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> Sure, that is what I suggest. Palliative refusal, that is the sense of verb 
> asher verb. Remember, Moses didn't tell the name to the people, though he 
> asked for the name specifically to prove his authority to Israelites. Seems 
> like he wasn't told the name, just a comment that he is dealing with 
> ancestral God. 
> 
> "As I live" is my interpretation of "I will be" or "I will become," and I 
> marked it thus. cf., for example, Russian-Hebrew idiomatic oath, þÔÏÂ Ñ ÔÁË 
> ÖÉÌ! which could be vaguely translated, "Let me live so!" or "I will so 
> live!" 
> 
> Vadim Cherny 
> 
> > 
> > Vadim, you said YHWH offered an oath? If you think that then YHWH did not 
> answer Moses' question so to speak. And where are you getting the "as I 
> live" part? 
> > 
> > > He said, 'Thus you will say to children of Israel, 'I will be [As I 
> live], he sent me to you.''" 
> > > Instead of telling the name, God offered Moses to take an oath before 
> the 
> > > people. 
> > > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Thu Sep 15 08:31:32 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [63.240.76.28])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941A64C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:31:32 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 204.127.205.145 ([204.127.205.145])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
        id <2005091512313201300d9vlce>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:31:32 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by 204.127.205.145;
        Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:31:32 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:31:32 +0000
Message-Id: 
<091520051231.15891.432969A3000BE85D00003E132200762302C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Masoretic vocalization of the name
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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, 15 Sep 2005 12:31:32 -0000

@ Alexander:

So if I am reading this correctly, basically because of the revia, there was 
confusion as to whether or not YHWH had a holem over the vav?

So then BHS went without it, and Jewish  bibles kept the holem there, not 
that is something I would have never have guessed.

--
Kelton Graham 
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message -------------- 

> It was discussed on page 144 in his book: 
> 
> This complex system of multiple qeres produced numerous errors within the 
> same codex. For example, in the codex B19a, which is considered by 
> specialists to be one of the best copies, there are seven different 
> pointings of the Tetragram. The most frequent error is the transformation 
> of 
> the vowels e, a of the qere into e, o, a (Gn 3:14 9:26 18:17; Ex 3:2 
> 13:3,9,12,15 14:1,8; Lv 23:34 25:17; Dt 31:27 32:9 33:12,13; 1S 1:11; 1K 
> 3:5; Jr 2:37 3:1,21,22,23,25 4:1,3,4,8; 5:2,3,9,18,19,22,29; 6:9; 8:13 
> 30:10 
> 36:8; Ezk 33:23 44:5 46:13; Os 10:3; Na 1:3; Ml 3:23; Ps 15:1 40:5 47:6 
> 100:5 116:5,6; Pr 1:29), or the vowels e, i into e, o, i (1K 2:26; Is 50:4; 
> Jr 1:6 7:20; Ezk 2:4 3:11,27 5:5 8:1 12:10 13:16 14:21,23 16:36 17:9 20:39 
> 21:33 22:31 23:32 24:6,14; 26:21 28:2 30:22 33:25 35:11 36:2 39:17 43:27 
> 46:16; Za 9:14; Ps 73:28). 
> 
> QERE ADONAY ÈLOHIM 
> usual hw:hy³ (e, ,a) hwIhy³ (e, ,i) 
> Gn 3:14 h/:hy³ (e,o,a) hwIhyO (è, ,i) Gn 15:2, 8 
> Ps 144:15 hw:hy} (a, ,a) h/Ihy³ (e,o,i) 1K 2:26 
> h/IhyO (è,o,i) Jg 16:28 
> 
> The situation is identical for other codices. The most frequent error is 
> the transformation e, a into e, o, a, thus the changing of the form YeHWaH 
> into YeHoWaH, which one finds in the Aleppo codex (Ezk 3:13; etc.) and in 
> the Or4445 codex (Ex 16:7; 40:29; etc.) These errors are very old and can 
> be 
> observed on reproductions of biblical fragments (P. Kahle - Masoreten des 
> Westens Stuttgart 1927 Ed. V.V.W. Kohlhammer p. 17/1 sheet 930 p.19/3 sheet 
> 946 p.24/8 sheet 1017) dated between 700 and 900. Something that doubtless 
> facilitated this kind of error, in spite of the scrupulous attention of the 
> copyists, was the presence of a sign of cantillation, the rebia, which was 
> very difficult to differentiate from the point representing the vowel o. 
> So, 
> from the twelfth to the fifteenth century CE the qere e, a (kept by the 
> present BHS) changed into e, o, a (kept by the former BHK) which would 
> become the standard qere in Jewish Bibles. 
> 
> 
> --- 
> 
> Alexander Oldernes 
> Norway 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Peter Kirk" 
> To: "Yigal Levin" 
> Cc: "b-hebrew" 
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:29 PM 
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Masoretic vocalization of the name 
> 
> 
> > On 15/09/2005 11:53, Yigal Levin wrote: 
> > 
> >>The Aleppo Codex, if I remember correctly, does have the holam over the 
> >>he. 
> >>So the Leningrad's spelling the Tetragrammaton without it, picked up by 
> >>BHS, 
> >>seems to be unique. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > You do not remember correctly. Let me repost here a passage from 
> > Gertoux's book posted here by Alexander Oldernes on 18th July this year: 
> > 
> >> The situation is identical for other codices. The most frequent error 
> >> is the transformation e, a into e, o, a, thus the changing of the form 
> >> YeHWaH into YeHoWaH, which one finds in the Aleppo codex (Ezk 3:13; 
> >> etc.) 
> >> and in the Or4445 codex (Ex 16:7; 40:29; etc.) These errors are very old 
> >> and can be observed on reproductions of biblical fragments (P. Kahle - 
> >> Masoreten des Westens Stuttgart 1927 Ed. V.V.W. Kohlhammer p. 17/1 sheet 
> >> 930 p.19/3 sheet 946 p.24/8 sheet 1017) dated between 700 and 900. ... 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > Whatever we might think of the characterisation as "errors", this makes 
> > it very clear that the regular pointing in the Aleppo codex is 
> > sheva-qamats, but that sheva-holam-qamats is found occasionally e.g. at 
> > Ezekiel 3:13. 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Peter Kirk 
> > peter AT qaya.org (personal) 
> > peterkirk AT qaya.org (work) 
> > http://www.qaya.org/ 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > No virus found in this outgoing message. 
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. 
> > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.25/102 - Release Date: 
> > 14/09/2005 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > b-hebrew mailing list 
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> b-hebrew mailing list 
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew 
>From VadimCherny AT mail.ru  Thu Sep 15 08:45:16 2005
Return-Path: <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mx2.mail.ru (mx2.mail.ru [194.67.23.122])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258554C006
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:45:15 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from [80.90.225.150] (port=42263 helo=vadim)
        by mx2.mail.ru with asmtp 
        id 1EFt72-000JZi-00; Thu, 15 Sep 2005 16:45:14 +0400
Message-ID: <008301c5b9f3$97d1aea0$261d000a@vadim>
From: "Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>
To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
References: <43271159.1000409 AT isot.com> <004a01c5b942$3f307e90$261d000a@vadim>
        <4328A844.1060401 AT qaya.org> <003f01c5b9b8$290d0f90$261d000a@vadim>
        <43296063.6000400 AT qaya.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:46:43 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] tenses - Ex 3:14
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
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, 15 Sep 2005 12:45:16 -0000

> >The thing is, "would" in this and other examples denotes future tense,
but
> >deictic shifts relativize the future.
> >
> English "would", originally the past tense of "will",

exactly. Future tense transposed in the past

> has several meanings. One of these is indeed a future tense transposed
into the
> past
>

even though "would" may be used in several meanings, it is assumed that
English has future tense.
The same logic applies to Hebrew: it has future tense, but sometimes
grammatical future tense has irregular meaning - which, however, is always
explicit in the context, and need not be guessed about by interpreters.

We may start by defining future tense. I suggest to understand it as
referring to future from narrator's viewpoint, not reader's or the
narrator's contemporaries. This definition allows to treat verbs as having
tenses regardless of the deictic shifts.

Vadim Cherny