Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>]

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/