Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: Karl Randolph <kwrandolph AT email.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II
  • Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:37:12 +0000

On 18/11/2005 01:14, Karl Randolph wrote:

...

The etymological fallacy is to insist that a lexeme has its meaning from its past, its root, without considering that it may have changed over time. That (WLM by Biblical times had as a necessary part of its meaning the concept of time indicates that there had been some change to its meaning though it still contained unknownness as part of its meaning. I don't insist on it having unknownness as part of its meaning because of its etymology, but because the context indicates that that meaning is there.


Fair enough. If you find the idea of unknownness in the context rather than in the etymology, you are not guilty of the etymological fallacy. You are simply guilty of bad exegesis and perhaps reading presuppositions into the text, for I have seen no examples of `olam where there is anything concept of unknownness indicated by the context.

...


This is a cultural fallacy.
Just because I didn't experience something personally, does that mean that my subjective view of it as being eternity? No. As a Christian, I expect Jesus to return some day, but not in my life time, so from my perspective do I consider his return an eternity away? No. My experience is that it is L(WLM, an unknown period yet to wait. To insist that it be within the solipsistic experience of the individual is not what the term means when it refers to a limited period of time.


You misunderstand me. To get away from the Christian idea of the coming of Jesus, let us consider the rather similar Hebrew Bible concept of the Day of the Lord. That is also expected in the future, but at a specific time, although probably not in the lifetime of those who wrote about it. Is the period from the present until the Day of the Lord referred to as `olam? I think not, because `olam is not used for a time whose end is anticipated, even if this is in the remote future. Rather, `olam is used of periods which will continue beyond the Day of the Lord.

...


Again a cultural fallacy.

..... The start or end time is not simply unknown, it is subjectively as far in the past or future as it could possibly be.


Again no.

Please can you explain this one? Any example where `olam is NOT "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.


As long as you insist on this rather solipsistic view of perception, which I say the ancients did not share, we will simply be talking past each other. What is evidence for me and others who share a longer view of perception is not so for you.


In other words, you have no argument against my view except for this ad hominem one, based on your own ideas of what perceptions "the ancients" (Hebrews? Greeks? Egyptians? Chinese?) shared. I accept that my idea of ancient Hebrew perceptions is not certain, but it is based on the evidence of how the word `olam is actually used in Hebrew.
...

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.

...


I don't understand your claimed New Testament perspective. It does not look like anything I understand when I read it.


I did not claim any New Testament perspective, I said that such perspectives are irrelevant for understanding the Hebrew Bible. And yes, I also pointed out that in the New Testament "for ever" (e.g. EIS TON AIWNA) refers to a period which is not terminated at the second coming of Jesus, which should be obvious to any NT reader, e.g. from Revelation 22:5 where the period starts after the return of Jesus.

All I did was to bring up the presupposition that the New Testament is a continuation of the Old, therefore what it says can clarify hard to understand passages in the Old, even to helping clarify the meanings of terms for those who share that presupposition. For reasons of public record to avoid misunderstanding, that is a presupposition that I share. From this presupposition, all those laws that were L(WLM had a finite end, but one that was unknown 1500 years earlier when they were given.


It is not a presupposition which you share with me. It is also not a presupposition which leads to the result you claim, unless you hold that God's reign (Exodus 15:18 etc) and his XESED (see Psalm 136 26 times, and many other places) end at the coming of Jesus.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page