Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

On 17/11/2005 22:12, Karl Randolph wrote:

> ...
>
> > > The root meaning of (WLM is from unknownness, i.e. a period of 
> > > time whose length is not known. "Eternity" is a subset of that 
> > > understanding.
> > >
> > >      
> > This is the etymological fallacy,
> >    
>
> No way! ...

Just to clarify, the etymological fallacy here is in the link you made 
between the meaning of `olam and the alleged "root meaning" of 
unknownness. Since you make no mention of this link, neither defending 
it against my criticism nor reasserting it, I assume that you are 
tacitly withdrawing this part of you assertion.


> ... (WLM is used a few hundred times in Tanakh, 
> many times for events that have a duration that is not 
> specified, many times it is unknown. For past to past 
> continuing, probably the best translation would be "from 
> old" without specifying the starting date. Many of the 
> events are for an unspecified, unknown to the listener, 
> time in the future. "Eternal" is a subset of this concept, 
> but not always correct for each context, in fact it is 
> often incorrect.
>  

You and others keep asserting this, but no one has been able to quote me 
even one case where `olam refers to a time which in the future is ever 
expected to finish, at least within subjective experience, or in the 
past had any known start time. The start or end time is not simply 
unknown, it is subjectively as far in the past or future as it could 
possibly be. If you know of any counter-examples, please tell me. But in 
the absence of other evidence I will continue to hold that "eternal" is 
the core meaning of `olam rather than some subset.

>  
>
> > ...     compounded by being based on a 
> > rather dubious etymology. There are at least two roots (LM in 
> > Hebrew, as is clear from the Arabic cognates.
> >    
>
> Let's not get into this again, as I have already and totally 
> rejected this as being pure speculation based on dubious 
> presuppositions without any historical documentation.
>
> In other words, BDB don't impress me.
>  

My argument is not based on BDB but on my personal knowledge of the two 
Arabic words I quoted.

> ...
>
> Therefore, and admittedly this is at least partially a 
> theological answer, the period of "forever" if you want to 
> insist it was called that for all the laws in Torah ended two 
> millennia ago. Even your interpretation has that period 
> ending at the return of Jesus, still not eternity. 
> Consequently (WLM cannot have a core meaning of 
> "eternity" or "forever" if understood from a New Testament 
> perspective.
>  

I don't want to get into New Testament perspectives - although you have 
misunderstood my interpretation, which is not that the period will end 
at the return of Jesus, but rather that it will continue for ever. But 
the NT perspectives are irrelevant if we are looking at the meaning of 
the word `olam in the Hebrew Bible, for that meaning is what it meant to 
the original Hebrew authors who (as even the NT tells us, 1 Peter 
1:10-12) did not have the benefit of the NT perspective. The Hebrew 
Bible should be understood from its own perspective, and only when it is 
properly understood as such can it be reexamined from the NT 
perspective, or from whatever other later perspective may interest you.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/