Genesis 2:19 -- long
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:22:23 -0500 (00917839343, 199901312122.QAA18761@emh1.pa.net)
NANCY
I did not reply to this post by Carter earlier because I have been rather
busy with school (midterms to grade, marking period grades to compute,
lesson plans for the third marking period, instructional materials to
prepare, etc.) and also because I do not know Hebrew and therefore can
neither make nor address arguments based upon Hebrew grammar. But,
apparently Carter doesn't know Hebrew, either, so his arguments on the WAW
consecutive are based upon the say-so of others.
>
>CARTER
>After talking to Turkel concerning the Gen 2:19 thing, he
>realized the problem and decided to give it full coverage on his webpage. I
>have
>significantly (well..a little) helped out in some of his study, but
>considering
>he does have better research access that I, I simply will refer you all
>to his reply which will online as of 1/31/99.
NANCY
Turkel's reply has been posted on-line, but you'll have to pardon me for not
rushing to read it. I have read several of Turkel's on-line posts and he has
shown himself to be as dishonest as he is nasty. If I have some time to
spare today, I might skim it.
>CARTER
>If you would like a basic synopsis, it is basically that the WAW(VAV)
>consecutive does not rule out a translation in pluperfect, indeed,
>a pluperfect is translated in many areas in the Bible alongside the
>connecting WAW consec.
NANCY
Would you please provide a list of these many areas where a WAW consecutive
is translated with a past perfect? Would you also explain to us the
circumstances under which an imperfect WAW consecutive should be translated
with a past perfect?
CARTER
As I have researchd more, I have seen this
>more apparent and explained more concisely.
>
>Just to tide you over, at bottom I have included two letters which provide
>a summary of the argument from some folks online that are more
>knowledgable than I.
NANCY
So you are just relying on the say-so of other (unnamed) inerrantists, eh?
<snip Carter's comment to Bjorn>
CARTER
>-------------------
>Reply 1.
>
>Gen. 2:19 begins with VaYYiTSeR; the verb "YaTSaR" in the imperfect with
>a WAW consecutive. Waltke and O'Connor ("Introduction to the Syntax of
>Biblical Hebrew", pp. 544-546) say that "It (imperfect with a WAW
>consecutive) shows in Hebrew meanings equivalent to those of the suffix
>(perfect) conjugation." Earlier, on p. 490, they had already shown that
>the suffix conjugation can have a pluperfect meaning; later, on p. 552,
>they show that the imperfect with a WAW consecutive can also have a
>pluperfect meaning, giving as examples "The Lord *had said* (Hebrew:
>VaYeDaBBeR) to Moses" (Num. 1:47-49) and "The Lord *had said* (Hebrew:
>VaYYoMeR) to Moses" (Ex. 4:18-19).
NANCY
The JPS TANAKH does say, in Numbers 1:48, "For the LORD had spoken to
Moses." But none of the translations I have (JPS, KJV, NAB, RSV) uses a past
perfect in Ex. 4:18-19. I wonder if Waltke and O'Connor explain the
circumstances in which an imperfect with a WAW consecutive has a past
perfect meaning? I do not have a copy of Waltke and O'Connor's book so I
cannot check the accuracy of this claim nor can I check the context of the
remarks included in Carter's argument.
Earlie, Joseph Crea posted this from a Hebrew grammar:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gesenius (or his editors and redactors) say this about that usage
(section 111 a, page 326):
"The IMPERFECT with WAW CONSECUTIVE (see sections 49 a-g) serves to
express actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal
or logical sequel of actions, events or states mentioned immediately before.
The IMPERFECT CONSECUTIVE is use in this way most frequently as the
NARRATIVE TENSE, corresponding to the Greek AORIST or the Latin HISTORIC
PRESENT. As a rule the narrative is introduced by a perfect, and then
continued by means of imperfects with WAW CONSECUTIVE."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NANCY
You have not given any evidence that the imperfect with WAW consecutive in
Gen. 2:18-19 does not express an action or event that is to be regarded as
the temporal or logical sequel of action or event mentioned immediately
before. Under what circumstances is the imperfect with WAW consecutive used
to express an action or event that was completed before the action or event
that immediately precedes it instead of being sequel of the action?
CARTER
>Keil & Delitzsch say the same thing
>in more words:
NANCY
This is a rather incomplete citation, don't you think? Are these men the
Keil and Delitzsch to whom you refer?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conservative, authoritative and evangelistic writers
Carl Friedrich Keil of Saxony (1807-1888) was professor of Old and New
Testament Exegesis and Oriental
Languages at the theological facitlity of Dorpat. Professor Keil was
very conservative in his theology. Standing entirely
against the modern criticism of his time, all his writings take the
view that the Old and New Testaments are the
inspired Word of God. His desire to see the Gospel spread was so great
that he trained a whole generation of
conservative ministers for evangelism in the Baltic provinces. This
zeal is reflected in the pages of this great
commentary. His contributions to the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary
include: Genesis to Esther; Jeremiah;
Lamentations; Ezekiel; Daniel; and the Minor Prophets.
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890), of Hebrew parentage, was a conservative
Lutheran professor and expositor at Leipzig in
Saxony. Professor Delitzsch strongly defended the Divine inspiration
and historical accuracy of the Bible
against all the modernistic speculations of the school of Wellhausen.
He took such a lively interest in the
conversion of Jews to Christ that he translated the New Testament into
Hebrew for them. In 1886 he founded a
seminary in Leipzig to prepare missionaries to the Jews. His
contributions to the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary
include: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Isaiah.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NANCY
Hmmmm. You cite a commentary written by "scholars" who assumed inerrancy.
>CARTER (quoting from Keil and Delitzsch?)
"The circumstance that in verse 19 the formation of the
>beasts and birds is connected with the creation of Adam by the imperfect
>with WAW consecutive constitutes no objection to the plan of creation
>given in chapter 1. The arrangement may be explained on the supposition,
>that the writer, who was about to describe the relation of man to the
>beasts went back to their creation, in the simple method of the early
>Semitic historians, and placed this first instead of making it
>subordinate; so that our modern style of expressing the same thought
>would be simply this; 'God brought to Adam the beasts which He had
>formed'." They buttress this with a long footnote referring to other
>instances of such a style (main point, followed by chronologically
>earlier subordinate point, expressed in English by a pluperfect)
in 1
>Kings 7:13
(where Solomon sends for Huram to build the temple, though the
>temple had already been described in chapter 6),
NANCY
A past perfect is not used in the JPS TANAKH, RSV, KJV, or NAB translations.
Is an imperfect with WAW consecutive used here?
CARTER
and in Judges 2:6 (where
>the Hebrew imperfect with WAW consecutive VaYeSHaLLaC is translated by
>the pluperfect "had sent" in the NIV),
NANCY
And also in the KJV, but not in JPS, RSV, or NAB. In this particular verse,
it seems that the "had sent" is past perfect in relation to what follows and
not to what precedes it. So I don't see how this helps your argument
concerning Gen. 2:18-19.
"When Joshua [had] dismissed the people, the Israelites went to their
allotted territories and took possession of the land" (JPS with the "had"
inserted by me).
It is obvious, whether one used a simple past tense or a past perfect that
Joshua dismissed the people, then the Israelites went to their allotted
territories (consecutive events). Gen. 2:19 also indicates the sequence of
events: God formed the critters, then brought them to the man.
CARTER
referring to the events that had
>already been described in the first chapter.
NANCY
But there is no indication in the text that Gen. 2:19 is referring to events
that had been described in the first chapter.
>CARTER
>So, Gen. 2:19 can be read as a pluperfect; of course, it can also be read
>as a simple past tense, carrying along the narrative, and creating a
>contradiction.
NANCY
Even if you read it as a past perfect, it would be a completed action only
in relation to what follows, not in relation to what came before. Can you
give us any examples in the bible where the WAW consecutive is used to
indicate a sequence of events in which one event was completed before the
preceding event? I do not know Hebrew (and I surmise that you don't, either)
and I don't have a Hebrew grammar to which I can refer. But, based upon the
examples you have given, I see no evidence that the imperfect with WAW
consecutive was used in the manner you are asserting for Gen 2.
CARTER
Leupold (p. 130)
NANCY
Would that be Herbert Carl Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1970)?
CARTER
makes an amusing comment here: "It would
>not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate *yatsar* as a pluperfect in
>this instance.
NANCY
And what justification does Leupold give for using a past perfect tense in
this instance?
CARTER (quoting Leupold)
The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly
>the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many
>points as possible."
NANCY
Oh, I see. The plain reading of the text as being sequential creates a
contradiction and, therefore, using a past perfect is justified because it
gets rid of the contradiction.
>CARTER
>Since the grammar permits either translation,
NANCY
This has not been established.
CARTER
and since both translations
>read smoothly in context,
NANCY
Not exactly, Carter. The use of the past perfect does not read smoothly in
context. In fact, it makes the passage nonsensical. Your interpretation has
Yahweh deciding to make a helpmate for the man, parading the animals in
front of the man but not finding a helpmate among them, and then making the
woman. You have said that Yahweh puts on his little dog and pony show in
order to make the man appreciate his need for a companion and to reinforce
his dominion over the animals, but the text does not support this
interpretation. The text plainly says that Yahweh decided to make a helper
for the man, created the animals, but when none of the animals proved to be
a fit helper, he created the woman. Your interpretation requires adding to
the text a lot of stuff that just isn't there, and you justify this by
assuming the inerrancy of the bible.
CARTER
a lot will depend on what presuppositions one
>brings to the text.
Someone who reads the Bible as revelation from God
>will translate VaYYiTSeR as a pluperfect, resulting in no contradiction.
>Someone who sees the Bible as the record of the religious experiences of
>certain Semitic peoples, pieced together in the 5th century BC by a
>redactor, will tend to translate VaYYiTSeR as a simple past, resulting in
>a contradiction.
NANCY
And someone who reads this passage objectively, with no expectations either
way, will see the contradictions and will realize that the attempt to get
rid of this contradiction through the use of a past perfect tense does not
work.
CARTER
And neither side will ever convince the other side that
>they are wrong; especially since the two groups take a different view as
>to the relationship between chapters one and two.
NANCY
Those who see Gen. 1 and 2 as two different traditions reached this
conclusion based upon the evidence. Those who advocate the use of the past
perfect do so based upon their belief that the bible is inerrant, a belief
that is held in spite of the evidence.
CARTER
By the way, there are
>further arguments on both sides, but I've only dealt with the question of
>the imperfect with WAW consecutive in this post.
>
>In any case, it is wrong to say that there has to be a contradiction here.
NANCY
Well, you haven't given any compelling evidence that the imperfect with WAW
consecutive should be translated with a past perfect here (and, indeed,
doing so requires all sorts of speculative nonsense to explain away the
problems this creates) or that these verses are not contradictory. All the
arguments you have given are either circular or from authority.
>CARTER
>-----------------
>
>Reply 2.
>
>THe narrative structure of the waw consecutive is simply logical to picture
>GOd
>declaring that it is not good that man is alone and
>SO forming the beasts of the field from the earth. The waw consecutive
>does not
>necessarily imply a sequential relationship.
NANCY
Are you seriously offering this as an argument? That Yahweh formed the beast
as a logical consequence of declaring that the man should not be alone?
>CARTER (continuing with an anonymous argument)
>In S.R. Driver's Hebrew Grammar I believe he more clearly states this concept:
>1 - that the Hebrew verb notifies the character WITHOUT fixing the date of
>the
>action
>2 - that of its two forms with which we have here more particularly to
>deal, one
>is calculated to describe an action as nascent and
>as imperfect ; the other to describe as completed.. Upon these two facts the
>whole theory of the tenses has to be constructed; and the latter fact, at any
>rate, will be most readily remembered by the use of terms which at once
>recall
>to the mind the distinction
>involved in it.
NANCY
As I understand it, Hebrew has two tenses for verbs, completed (perfect) and
incomplete (imperfect). If the animals had already been formed before Yahweh
made the man and decided he needed a helper, would that be a completed
action and require a perfect tense? Wouldn't the used of the imperfect
indicate that this action, the forming of the animals, was not completed
when Yahweh decided to make the man a helper? Does anyone on the list know
how Hebrew verbs operate in this respect?
>CARTER (quoting an unnamed person who is, apparently, quoting from Driver)
>To illustrate from another illustration from S.R. Driver
>"An Englishman says, "when I get there, it will be night". But a Pacific
>islander
>says"I am there, and it is night"
NANCY
And an ancient Roman would have said, "When I shall have arrived there
(future perfect), it will be night (future)." What is your point?
CARTER (continuing the unnamed person's argument)
Here one may observe the LOGICAL
>natureof the
>waw consecutive as opposed to the consecutive nature of it.
NANCY
How so? An explanation would be helpful. How does this show the logical
nature of the WAW consecutive as opposed to the consecutive nature of it?
How would an ancient Hebrew have said, "When I get there, it will be night"?
Would the imperfect be used for both verbs or would a perfect be used for
the first verb to indicate an action that would be complete at the time of
the action of the second verb? If both verbs would be imperfect, would a WAW
consecutive be used for both? For only one? If for only one, which one?
In Latin a future perfect tense would be used for the first verb in order to
indicate a future action that would be completed at the time the action of
the second verb (main verb) takes place. In Latin, the sequence of the
events is clearly indicated by the use of the future perfect and future
tenses. How does Hebrew indicate the sequence of events? Does it indicate a
relationship between events by using perfect tense to indicate that event A
would be completed when event B takes place? Or would it use an imperfect
tense because both event A and event B are incomplete?
Does the person making this argument know Hebrew?
CARTER (continuing unnamed person's argument)
Cannot a logical
>relationship be consecutive? Of course it can and often is. But this is
>determined by context, not the mere use of a pointed waw. First such
>consecution
>must be logical as is the tense itself, then it may be temporal.
NANCY
If I understood what this person was saying, I would try to address this
argument. Do you have any examples to illustrate what this argument is
saying? Having read this argument, I am left to wonder if this person knows
what "consecutive" and "sequential" mean. Do you have any evidence at all
that the imperfect with WAW consecutive does not indicate sequence?
>----------------
>
>Cheers!
>-Jason
>
>
>
>
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
PS For what it's worth, I looked up the verses cited by Jason above in the
Vulgate, and not one of them uses a pluperfect verb.
Ex 4:18 *abiit* [perfect] Moses et reversus est ad Iethro cognatum suum
dixitque ei vadam et revertar ad fratres meos in Aegyptum ut videam si adhuc
vivunt cui ait Iethro vade in pace
Num 2:1 *locutusque est* [perfect] Dominus ad Mosen et Aaron dicens
Judges 2:6 *dimisit* [perfect] ergo Iosue populum et abierunt filii Israhel
unusquisque in possessionem suam ut obtinerent eam
IKings7:13 *misit* [perfect] quoque rex Salomon et *tulit* [perfect] Hiram
de Tyro
Num1:47 Levitae autem in tribu familiarum suarum non *sunt numerati*
[perfect] cum eis 48 *locutusque est* [perfect] Dominus ad Mosen dicens