Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 44:24

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 44:24
  • Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 08:53:46 +0200

Dear Chris,

See my comments below.

Fredag 27. September 2013 19:07 CEST skrev C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com>:
> Thank you, Ken.
>
> I do think that, as you mention, it is valid to discuss Biblical Greek on
> this forum as long as it is demonstrably tied to questions of Biblical
> Hebrew. In this case, the question was, "What can we discern of the
> Biblical Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 44:24 based on the Old Greek translation of
> this verse?" Corollary to that: "What do the aorist verbs (and participles)
> tell us about the Hebrew text?"

RF: There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew verb forms of
the Tanakh and the Greek verb forms in the LXX. Therefore, in my opinion,
the use of verbs in the LXX tells us nothing about the meaning of the verbs
in the Hebrew text.

>
> In response to your criticism of Porter, I think his theories have some
> merit, but they go too far in suggesting that Koine Greek is PURELY
> aspectual. His comments on the aorist as a timeless, background tense form
> are often helpful to remind the reader that aorist is not simply
> past-tense.
>
> HOWEVER, his reliance on Comrie's theories of verbal aspect is a bad move,
> in my opinion. Comrie described verbal aspect in terms of Russian (and
> similar Slavic languages), which is very unlike Koine Greek. (Full
> disclosure: I have been a professional Russian linguist for many years, so
> I speak from that perspective when I opine that Porter really does not
> understand Comrie. As a result, his theory is rightly to be criticized at
> those points where he relies on Comrie.)

RF: Your words above point to the most serious weakness in the studies of
Hebrew verbs. Certain definitions of aspect (among several possible
definitions) are chosen BEFORE the study starts, and the conclusion of
whether or not Hebrew is an aspectual language is based on these definitions.
The answer could have been different if other definitions were chosen.

The only remedy to this is to use units that are "smaller" than aspects, in
order to find whether there is a particular pattern in the use of verbs,
which would indicate that Hebrew is an aspectual language; and in that case,
what the definition of these aspects are. There are three such units, namely,
event time, reference time, and deictic center. Aspects can be described by
the relationship between event time and reference time. By applying these
parameters (units) to different languages, we will find that aspects must be
given different definitions in different languages, and some languages, such
as Norwegian, do not have aspects at all. The advantage of this approach is
that our definitions of Hebrew aspects are the RESULT of a careful study of a
great number of Hebrew verbs, and not definitions that are randomly or
haphazardly chosen BEFORE our study begins. This approach has some
resemblance to the use of the hermeneutic circle in other disciplines.

There is also a serious weakness in the use of the concept "tense" in the
study of Hebrew verbs. Whereas Comrie's definition of aspect is unclear and
misleading, because he to some extent he confuses aspect and aktionsart, his
definition of tense is absolutely clear. Whether Hebrew is a tense language
or not depends on whether there is a pattern between verb form and the
relationship between the deictic center and reference time. Thus, tense is
the function of the deictic center and reference time, and aspect is the
function of event time and reference time. The problem of many studies of
Hebrew verbs is that "tense" is not given a clear definition. And the result
of this is that it is not possible to distinguish between tense and temporal
reference. This again means that there are no attempts to find when a
temporal reference, say past reference, is based on the context
(conversational pragmatic implicature) and when it is an intrinsic part of
the verb form (semantic meaning
). I am aware of only one study of New Testament Greek where the mentioned
three parameters are used but no study of the verbs of any Semitic language,
except my dissertation on Hebrew verbs.

>
> In response to your concern that we my be getting off topic, I have no
> further comments on Isaiah 44:24, unless someone else on the forum would
> care to continue the discussion.
>
> On a somewhat related note, Ken: Is the forum aware of your scholarly work
> in Greek Isaiah? I imagine that this group would appreciate it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Chris Lovelace
>


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page