Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] verb forms--perfect as future

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peter AT qaya.org>
  • To: michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verb forms--perfect as future
  • Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:08:33 +0100

On 13/04/2007 04:47, michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net wrote:
I know some of the members reject the idea that the perfect is used for the
future so I spent a few minutes examining some of the passages used to
support this concept.
While I can understand how some of these passages may be considered a matter
of interpretation, there were two that I could not see how the perfect could
be translated as a past tense--Ruth 4:3 and 2 Kings 5:20.
Ruth 4:3 reads
3 וַיֹּאמֶר לַגֹּאֵל חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר לְאָחִינוּ לֶאֱלִימֶלֶךְ
מָכְרָה נָעֳמִי הַשָּׁבָה מִ‍שְּׂדֵה מוֹאָב׃

Rth 4:3 And he said unto the near kinsman: 'Naomi, that is come back out of
the field of Moab, SELLETH the parcel of land, which was our brother
Elimelech's;

I can't see how you could translate sells as a past tense. Verse 4 makes it plain that the property has not
been sold yet. I can understand how one could take this as a present tense-- "Naomi is in the process
of selling" or as a future "Naomi will sell." But "Naomi sold" seems to be
excluded by context.

I wonder if this is a misunderstanding of the whole scenario of Ruth, and the process of redeeming land. I know that many English translations interpret this scenario as you did. But it seems to me that a more likely scenario is as follows: Naomi has already sold this plot of land, perhaps while she was still in Moab to support herself in her widowhood there. Presumably she sold it to some unrelated third party. But, according to Leviticus 25:25, Elimelech's nearest relative has a duty to buy back the property from the third party, to keep it with Elimelech's family. As the very nearest relative is unwilling to do this, Boaz as the next nearest performs this duty. On this interpretation, no problem with the verb tense.

2 Kings 5:20 reads

20 וַיֹּאמֶר גֵּיחֲזִי נַעַר אֱלִישָׁע אִישׁ־הָאֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה חָשַׂךְ
אֲדֹנִי אֶת־נַעֲמָן הָאֲרַמִּי הַזֶּה מִ‍קַּחַת מִ‍יָּדוֹ אֵת אֲשֶׁר־הֵבִיא
חַי־יְהוָה כִּי־אִם־רַצְתִּי אַחֲרָיו וְלָקַחְתִּי מֵ‍אִתּוֹ מְאוּמָה׃


2Ki 5:20 But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said: 'Behold, my master hath spared this Naaman the Aramean, in not receiving at his hands that which he brought; as the LORD liveth, I will surely RUN after him, and take somewhat of him.'

Verse 20 describes what Gehazi plans to do. He does not carry through with
this action until the following verse.

Here the QATAL verb is in a subordinate clause after KI 'IM as part of an oath formula, which may explain the unusual verb usage. Other examples of a QATAL with this formula are noted in GKC 149.

--
Peter Kirk
E-mail: peter AT qaya.org
Blog: http://www.qaya.org/blog/
Website: http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page