Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Vadim Cherny" <VadimCherny AT mail.ru>]

> In the context of this discussion you have essentially said that the 
> "imperfect" should be recognized as consistently representing a future 
> tense.

Rather generally than consistently; almost consistently. Something like if 
we had one word, "will/would" for "will" and "would." Yiqtol is such 
"will/would." Since "would" derives from "will," we see that English 
eventually differentiated idiomatic uses of the future tense, and allocated 
"would" for such uses, while classical Hebrew retained one form, yiqtol, 
both for future tense and for its derivatives which acquired new idiomatic 
meaning.

> The future tense may describe a past event because of a shift of the 
> deictic center. The fact that the imperfect may describe a past event 
> proves the deictic shift.

Not really. I suggest looking at the context to see whether deictic shift is 
plausible; usually, that would be emphatic narration. If the deictic shift 
is contextually plausible, and yiqtol used for the past reference, then yes, 
I see that as fairly certain (though not formally proved) case of the 
deictic shift.

> This brings us to the start of your email. . . "a hypothesis can be 
> accepted if no contradicting facts can be brought against it, and if the 
> hypothesis is simpler than others."
> Contradicting facts have been brought against your hypothesis. Short of 
> Moses tapping you on the shoulder and telling you that your hypothesis is 
> wrong, what evidence would you feel is sufficient to make you re-evaluate 
> your hypothesis?

Let me know how the facts contradict the hypothesis. The examples you 
offered are either:
- cases with very plausible deictic shift, or
- idiom ci-yiqtol (consider the consistent usage of ci-yiqtol in the sense 
"would" for habitual action), or
- in rare cases, like Ex37:16, expressions which make sense with future 
tense verb, but lack exact parallel in English.
Even Rolf mentioned that he counted less than a thousand examples of yiqtol 
for past reference. This is tiny percentage of all occureneces. Deducting 
very plausible deictic shifts and ci-yiqtols, we would have no more than a 
handful of doubtful cases where yiqtol is used for non-future reference. The 
tense hypothesis is predominantly consistent with the facts. Now, how 
consistent is the aspects hypothesis? Why in 1Kings21:6 yiqtol is used for 
obviously completed action? Those who don't accept the tense hypothesis 
should follow Rolf in rejecting aspects, as well.

Vadim Cherny