Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JoeWallack AT aol.com]

In a message dated 6/4/2007 5:22:29 AM Central Daylight Time,  peter AT qaya.org 
writes:

JW:
> As I indicated, Gesenius' earlier publication asserted that  the Hebrew  
> definite article did not always indicate the  definite in Hebrew! He 
subsequently  
> corrected himself to assert  that the Hebrew definite article always means 
the  
> definite in  Hebrew. ...

Joe, do you have any evidence that Gesenius corrected  himself, taken 
from his own publications before his death in 1842? Or is  your statement 
more correctly that later editors of Gesenius corrected him  or one 
another? This makes a difference because you make this a personal  matter 
by saying "This was an embarrassing mistake for him".

--  
Peter Kirk




JW:
I previously posted this here:

""Lehrgebäude" was Gesenius' previous grammatical work that he refers to as  

"Lehrg.". On page 211 of Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old  

Testament, based on Gesenius' later work, he discusses the letter,  HEH:

 

"(2) the definite article,...similar laws are followed in Heb. as  in Gr. and 

in modern languages;...It will be well, however, to treat with care,  a 

subject which has been discussed of late...and on this, it will be well to 
add  

some original observations. The question has been raised...whether the 
definite  

article can ever be used for the indefinite. To this it must be replied, that 
 

the definite article can never rightly be said to be used for the  

indefinite;"

 

This indicates that Gesenius' thinking has changed on the subject and he is  

now more inclined to see a straight-forward meaning to the Hebrew definite  

article. What follows is where Gesenius now sees exceptions:

 

"however, there are many ideas which would be thought of and expressed as  

definite by the Hebrews, which, from their being taken indefinitely in Greek, 
 

German, French [or English], would be without the article;...The 
peculiarities  

in the Hebrew usage, in this matter, may be arranged in certain classes, 

almost  all of which, however, rest on the principle that the article is 
prefixed 

to  known things." 

 

Here Gesenius is now referring to idioms. Note that "[or English]" is the  

Editor's contribution. Gesenius generally uses European languages for  

comparison. Regarding:

 

"In such cases in English the indefinite article is mostly used."

 

above, is this the Editor's comment?

 

Gesenius goes on to categorize this exception as follows:

 

(a) to nouns which denote objects and classes of things which are known to  

all.

 

(b) to abstract nouns

 

(c) after the article of comparison

 

(d) prefixed to collectives

 

Now there is no longer any category fitting:

 

"treats the definite article here as special 



but as an example of a  category of usage (section #126 q-r). They say: 



"Peculiar to Hebrew is  the employment of the article to denote a single 



person or thing  (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore 



not capable of  being defined) as being present in the mind under given  



circumstances."

 

Gesenius continues:

 

"After these remarks it is needless to state that there is no noun, which  

has the article, which both cannot and even ought not to be taken  
definitely."

 

So, per Gesenius here, if a Hebrew author used the definite article, the  

author intended a definite subject although if an idiom is used, another  

language may translate with the indefinite article if it falls within one of 
the  

above categories. And, as the Brits say. "the cruncher", Gesenius says:

 

"As to the instances which I formerly brought forward in contradiction to  

this (Lehrg. p.655), they may be explained as follows"

 

So, in the words of Earnest in the classic The Importance of Being  Earnest, 

when it was revealed at the very end that his name really was  Earnest, "As I 

said.""
 
JW:
So it appears to me that Gesenius was publishing on the subject of Hebrew 
grammar 
before knowing the proper usage of the Hebrew Definite article. I think of 
that as 
"embarrassing". If you can think of a better adjective though I'm open to 
suggestions.
 
Joseph
 
 




************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.