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: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:49:02 +0000

On 19/11/2005 23:39, Karl Randolph wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>

On 19/11/2005 21:52, Karl Randolph wrote:


Yes, this is a possible case of past `olam meaning rather less than "ever since creation" - if you assume that Jeremiah knew about the flood, the Tower of Babel etc., which not everyone would.


A literate, religious Jew of the priestly clan not knowing this? ..... ..? At least seven centuries after it was written?


Well, the last part is the assumption which not everyone would share - although I would certainly hold that Genesis was written before Jeremiah's time, without committing myself to how long before.


There are many other similar usages in Tanakh for the past, I don't need to repeat them.

Similarly, (WLM referring to the future does not necessarily mean "forever" or "eternity", though it may, depending on context, unless you use "forever" and "eternity" in a highly idiosyncratic manner.


.... I am simply using them to describe the understanding of the original Hebrew Bible authors, which was not informed by the New Testament.


Moses and the other authors of Tanakh knew that (WLM when referring to the past did not mean "forever" nor "eternity", rather it referred to a span of time whose limits were unknown (which could include "forever" or "eternity" as one possible understanding), there is no reason to assume that they had a different definition for the term when they referred to the future. It doesn't happen today. It makes no sense to claim it happened in the past.


Karl, you can assert what you like about Moses and the other authors, but without evidence your assertion is valueless.

You are making a claim concerning the thoughts of the original authors for which there is not only no evidence, but it goes against logic too.


My claim is based on the evidence of how `olam is actually used in biblical Hebrew, when the texts are read without theological presuppositions. As for my suggested meaning for the word being illogical, you ought to know by now that semantics regularly defies the rules of what might presuppose to be logical. There is in fact absolutely no reason to assume that `olam in past contexts has the same meaning as `olam in future contexts - although I don't actually see a big difference, even though in the past context `olam might have been used loosely of the remote past rather than the time going right back to creation. After all, we can say in English "this thread has been going on for ever", even though in fact it's about a week. Does that mean that in English "ever" means "an unknown period which might be as short as a week"? Does it mean that "ever" has different definitions in past and future? No, it means someone was using hyperbole. I don't say Jeremiah was using hyperbole, but perhaps an originally hyperbolic use of `olam for "a long time" had gradually become a regular usage, like a dead metaphor. There are many examples in English of usages which were originally hyperbole but are now in general use, such as "He's been gone for ages" and "I'm starving".

--
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