Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Karl,

This thread have become tedious and repetitive, and the only reason why I
write this post is that I recently have been working with the Habakkuk
commentary from Qumran, cave 1, and its use of (WLM throws light on the OT
concept.

You are of course right. Peter´s claim about a different future meaning of 
(WLM is idiosyncratic and has nothing to do with the science of lexical 
semantics. That a word, even one refering to
time, should have a different lexical meaning in a future contexts  in
contrast with past contexts  is something I have never seen that anybody
has claimed. But Peter has developed a personal view of lexical meaning of 
words
based on his training as a Bible translator, and he rejects the basic
psycholinguistic concepts that are fundamental for the study of applied
linguistics (non-Biblical translation), at least in Oslo.

Literal translation has been criticised because one English word choosen for
a Hebrew word can have unwanted connotations. The same can be true with
idiomatic translations as well, and the English word "eternal" is such an
example, because the modern concept signaled by this word evidently is
different from the concept of (WLM.  I bring a quote from one who has
written a dissertation dealing with the view of time in the ancient world: R 
Boman (1970) "Hebrew
Thought Compared with Greek", pp. 151, 152:

"The commonest word for boundless time is ´olam; according to the most
widespread and likeliest explanation the word is derived from ´alam meaning
"hide; conceal".  In the term ´olam is contained a designation of time
extending so far that it is lost to our sight and comprehension in darkness
and invisibility.  It is characteristic of the nature of this term that it
can be used of hoary antiquity as well as of the unbounded future, thus,
´olam is not an endlessly long time but simply a boundless time... Although 
in
the Old Testament ´olam always means time which is boundless in certain
respect, nothing is said therein of the objective duration of astronomical
time; it is always the concern of exegesis to ask in each case how far the
author´s gaze pursued time."

A study of the use of (WLM in the Habakkuk commentary confirms Boman´s
conclusions. We see here that (WLM is parallellized with "to the
generations" and "length of days," both expressions being unbounded.
In 5,20 man (one who is born from a woman) is introduced, and the parallel 
of
(WLM is "to generations" (DWRWT) and in  in V, 24 with "length of days"
W(WRK  YMYM.  In 9:18 we read about "the number of their "eternal" ((WLM )
generations," indicating that units constituting (WLM arecountable. In 14:11 
(WLM is applied to generations, in, 9:11 to angels, in 14:31 to gates, in 
15:9 to foundations, in 16:6 to a planting, in 16:8 to a fountain, and so 
forth.  I will also mention that MWM "blemish; injury" in the War scroll 7:4 
is qualified by (WLM - a injury whose healing takes an undisclosed amount of 
future time.

A claim that (WLM with future reference can *only* refer to unending time in 
the astronomical sense of the word cannot be proved; because of problem of 
induction, even a reading of all old extant Hebrew texts will not give such 
a proof. And if such a claim is not made, why should the modern word 
"eternal" be used to render (WLM?


Best regards

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 6:27 (time indefinite) II


> Peter:
>
> You have made the assertion that we need to consider
> that (WLM in the future had a different meaning than when
> it was used in the past. You have yet to demonstrate that
> assertion. You have not provided a single shred of
> evidence to support your assertion.
>
> A time descriptor does not change its meaning from past
> to future. "Five days" in the past, when used for the future,
> does not suddenly become fifty days, it's still five days.
> That is a fact which you want to deny.
>
> (WLM in the past referred to a long time where at least
> one end was not specified, often because it was unknown.
> By extension, that was sometimes used for eternity, but
> not always. You have yet to provide a reason that we
> should consider it differently for the future.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
> > On 22/11/2005 14:11, Awohili AT aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I really think the point is settled, but not in Peter's favor, so
> > > he  continues to jiggle with it.  Lexicographers from long ago
> > > have legitimized  "time indefinite" or "indefinite time" or
> > > "unbounded time" or whatever.  To  argue otherwise is to fly in
> > > the face of the facts. ...
> > >
> >
> > Solomon, while I will not continue to discuss this with Karl, I will
> > continue to discuss it with you. You and some others have continued to
> > assert that `olam, in the future sense, can refer to an indefinite or
> > uncertain time in the future. But NONE OF YOU HAVE PROVIDED A SINGLE
> > SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR
> > ASSERTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - except for those
> > explicitly based on Christian theology. Those are the FACTS, which I am
> > supporting, not flying in the face of.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter Kirk
> > peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> > peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> > http://www.qaya.org/
>
> --