Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Syriac ; was BH verbal system

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Syriac ; was BH verbal system
  • Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:21:58 +0100

Dear Randall,

We have now come to a point which is beside the focus of his list, namely, Classical Hebrew. But because our discussion has some bearing on the BH verbal system, I sum up a few points in my final post in this thread.

My view is that Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, as well as the Hebrew and Aramaic of the DSS and Ben Sira were aspectual languages-they did not have tenses. Syriac, whose oldest witness is from the first part of the first century C.E., is a language which developed from the earlier Aramaic languages/dialects, and its verbal system evolved by the way of a grammaticalization process. Such a process means that a particular word form which has several different uses or functions, over time looses these uses/functions, until the form only has one use and it fully grammaticalized. I do not think that Syriac is an aspectual language; my point was that the grammaticalization process from an aspectual to a tense system was not completed when the Peshitta was made, because we see some examples of QATAL used with future reference. BTW, in my study of all the verbs of the Tanakh I have not seen traces of a similar grammaticalization process; but the verbal system (as far as aspect and tense is concerned) of the oldest parts is exactly the same as the youngest part. But there are some innovations in the youngest books, though.

As far as Greek is concerned, I know that there is a semantic and functional difference between indicative, subjunctive, and optative. Perhaps I should have used "communication" instead of "function" in my question. The issue at stake is the QATAL in Matthew 24:15 and its real force. I take it as future and you take it as "sujunctive." You have a point when you refer to the Greek text where we find a subjunctive, because the Peshitta is a translation of the New Testament. On the other hand, there is some evidence that Matthew was first written in Hebrew (the latest evidence being a Coptic manuscript from the Schöyen collection in Oslo). So the Peshitta translator could have been influenced by the Hebrew text as well. In any case, the words expressed in Matthew 24:15 was first expressed in Hebrew.

Let us then look back at the Greek text of John 3:14. Because of the conjunction, the clause with the subjunctive verb "destroy" is a purpose clause, and therefore the clause could not have an indicative verb. Grammatically speaking, the clause is volitive-it shows the intentions of the subject. But what does the clause communicate to the reader? The subject is God, and the will of God will with certainty be fulfilled. Thus, the grammar of the clause signals uncertainty (volition), but pragmatically speaking the clause signals certainty; therefore the clause in reality signals certainty.

In "The Grammar of Greek", by J. H: Moulton, vol I, pp. 184, 185, it is shown that subjunctive can have three forces, namely, volitive, delibarative, and futuristic. and Moulton says that "in the later papyrii the subjunctive may be seen for the simple future." In Matthew 24:15 the pragmatic meaning that is signalled is certainty: the prophecy of Daniel will be fulfilled, and when you see "the abomination..." then you shall... Because of this, I view the Syriac QATAL as simple future. Even if the Peshitta translators only used the Greek text of Matthew, because of the pragmatic certainty, which also is found in the Greek text, the translators could have used and indicative verb in Syriac. Particularly may this be so because Greek subjunctive can stand for simple future. Moreover, the translators could also have used the Hebrew Vorlage, which would not have distinguished between volition and future reference. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Greek subjunctive verb of Matthew 24:15 cannot be used to find the real force of the Syriac QATAL in Matthew 24:15. When a passage of the source text formally grammatically is volitive but pragmatically "indicative," a translator may use an indicative verb in the target text.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo



>
I use one passage as an example, namely, John 3:16. A strictly
literal translation would be: "For God loved the world so much that
he gave his only-begotten /unique son, in order that everyone showing
faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." The
word "destroy" is subjunctive, and the question is: Is the meaning
that the one showing faith in Jesus *perhaps* will not be destroyed,
or does Jesus mean that the one showing faith *with certainty* will
not be destroyed but have everlasting life? In other words: does the
subjunctive form here have the same function as an indicative?


I would have to say, No, the subjunctive does not have the same
function as the indicative. the clauses are in the world of
'intention' not the world of 'indicative'.
If you know that the speaker will make good on his intentions,
then it is the character of the speaker and not the grammar that is
dictating.

ERRWSO
IWANHS



--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicalulpan.org
randallbuth AT gmail.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page