Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net>]

Peter,

I'm not sure that it was possible for Naomi to have sold the property in the 
manner which you are describing for two reasons. First, as I understand the 
inheritance rights given in Numbers 27:8-11, Naomi did not have any personal 
claim to the property.

It looks to me like Ruth 4:5 states that he had to marry Ruth to acquire the 
property.



Second, Ruth 4:9 tells us that Boaz purchased the property directly from 
Naomi.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Kirk" <peter AT qaya.org>
To: <michaelabernat9001 AT sbcglobal.net>
Cc: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] verb forms--perfect as future


> 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/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/759 - Release Date: 4/12/2007 
> 7:58 PM