Genesis 2:19 -- long
Greg, Nancy, and James Todd todds@pa.net
Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:48:12 -0500 (00918298092, 199902060448.XAA06430@emh1.pa.net)
>
>>>Achilles
>>>Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it has been established already
>that
>>>neither, you, I, or Nancy claims to speak Hebrew. So "look back directly at
>>the
>>>Hebrew" is not a very helpful suggestion. We are rather trying to determine
>>>whether or not the explanation you posted by someone (unattributed?) who
>does
>>>claim to speak Hebrew made sense, and actually explained what it
>purported to
>>>explain.
>
>CARTER
>Considering I've been swamped with work the past two day, I haven't even
>been able to get online! :( so it may be a few days to even a week.
>However, my request for Nancy to look back a the Hebrew was not a claim to
>my expert knowledge in Hebrew, it was referencing the fact that Nancy was
>using a Latin translation to argue against my assertion,
NANCY
Well, Jason, if you have a rebuttal, post it. You asserted that the
imperfect with WAW consecutive was translated with a past perfect tense in
certain specific verses (Ex 4:19; Nu 2:1; Judg 2:6; IKi 7:13; Nu1:48). I
listed the translations in which a past perfect is not used and I also
pointed out that if Jerome had thought that the imperfect with WAW
consecutive should have been translated with a past perfect tense, he would
have used a pluperfect in his Latin translation. The fact is that Jerome did
not use a pluperfect. I offered Jerome's translations one more example of a
bible translation that does not use a past perfect for the imperfect WAW
consecutives that you cited.
Your source gave Num 1:47-49 and Ex 4:18-19 as specific examples of the
imperfect with WAW consecutive being translated with a past perfect. I
pointed out that while Num 1:47-49 is translated with "had spoken" in *some*
translations (I mentioned the JPS TANAKH, but it is also used in the KJV and
NAB, but not in the RSV, nor is a pluperfect used in the Vulgate), none of
these translations uses a past perfect for Ex 4:18-19 or for any of the
other verses you cited except Judges 2:6, which is translated with "had" in
the KJV, but not in any of the others (RSV, NAB, JPS, nor a pluperfect in
the Vulgate).
Of course, you have simply ignored this and posted another snipe. You seem
to have nothing else to offer beyond the assertions of your anonymous
sources, which were easily refuted simply by looking up the verses in
question in four English translations and one Latin.
CARTER
which I can't
>fathom any rational reason for doing since we are discussing Hebrew
>linguistics.
NANCY
We are discussing Hebrew syntax only insofar as it relates to how the
imperfect with WAW consecutive is translated. I have asked you to explain
some of the assertion you posted about the imperfect with WAW consecutive,
but instead of explanations you have provided only snotty remarks.
My citation of Jerome's translation of the verses certainly wasn't the
central point in my post. In fact, I appended it to the end of my post as a
FWIW. However, it is certainly germane to the discussion at hand. You are
asserting that "a pluperfect is translated in many areas in the Bible
alongside the connecting WAW consec.[sic]" You, or rather your sources,
cited five specific verses, hardly what any reasonable person would call
many, and it is even unclear if one of those verses, I Kings, is being
offered as an example of WAW consecutive or just as an example of a
particular Semitic writing style. Moreover, only two of the verses cited are
translated with a past perfect in any of the bible translations I have and
one of those is translated as such in only the KJV. Not only are your
sources incorrect in claiming that these verses are translated with a past
perfect tense, the information they cite is pretty sketchy, and does not
even include an explanation of the circumstances (i.e. context) in which an
imperfect with WAW consecutive does not express events that are not logical
or temporal sequels and could therefore be rendered with a past perfect tense.
>CARTER
>I only left the source unattributed because I doubt he would like to be
>bothered by anyone in the group. He barely had time (according to his
>letter) to answer me.
NANCY
Well, this certainly provides you with a convenient excuse for not providing
any evidence to back up the assertions.
CARTER
>Anyways,
NANCY
Anyways?
CARTER
you'll notice that the two letters which I sent included an
>explanation of the WAW consec straight from S.R. Driver,
NANCY
Did you? It is difficult to tell what is from Driver and what is simple the
opinions and assertions of your source. Read for yourself:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CARTER'S anonymous source:
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.
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" Here one may observe the LOGICAL
natureof the
waw consecutive as opposed to the consecutive nature of it. 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
I asked you to explain what the point of this illustration was and how this
showed the logical nature of the WAW consecutive as opposed to the
consecutive nature of it. I also asked you how the sentence in the
illustration would be expressed in Hebrew. You still haven't told us how
this illustration is relevant to your assertion that the imperfect with WAW
consecutive in Gen. 2:19 ought to be translated with a past perfect. I am
beginning to think that you really don't understand what your source says;
you just assume that it must be correct. I guess I don't understand what he
means because it seems to me that what he says indicates that Gen. 2:19 is a
logical sequel to the preceding verse.
CARTER
as well as the
>commentary by
>Keil & Delitzsch, as well as two other verses which use the WAW consec along
>with a pluperfect. Read the posts more carefully.
NANCY
Jason, I think you are the one who needs to read more carefully. You have
not addressed anything I have posted in response to your assertions. You
have not given any evidence or arguments to support your assertion. You
have not provided any evidence or argumentation to show that the imperfect
with WAW consecutive in Gen. 2:19 is not expressing an action that is the
logical sequel of the action immediately before it. All you have done is
posted an anonymous assertions that the imperfect with the WAW consecutive
can be translated with a past perfect (without explaining the circumstances
under which this is to be done) and a quote from a commentary written by two
19th century theologians who believed in biblical inspiration and who offer
that the writer of Gen 2 placed the creation of Adam first instead of making
it subordinate in the style of Semitic historians and who offer I Kings 7:13
as an example of this style; but they don't say if this verse has an
imperfect with WAW consecutive.
I have asked you some very specific questions concerning the assertions you
have posted, but instead of answers you have provided only insults. Have you
ever given any thought to the impression you are making on the xtians who
lurk here? Have you considered what they must think when they see that your
only response to an appeal for clarification and explanation is a smart-alec
remark? Do you think you are helping the cause of inerrancy when you avoid
answering direct and reasonable questions? As Farrell would say, Jason,
please don't stop. You are the best friend errancy could possibly have.
Nancy Todd
todds@pa.net
>
>Cheers,
>-Jason
>
>