Stand-Alone Perfect and Imperfect examples with identical 'time' meanings

[Jason Hare]

I make the choice to take the historical documents as being accurate. It is those historical documents that make the claim for Mosaic authorship.

You on the other hand have absolutely no evidence to contradict the historical record. All you have is theory, theory born in the first decade of the 19th century then based on a belief in evolution combined with antisemitism, started by people with names like Vater (1805), De Wette (1806), Gesenius (1815) (the dates in parentheses are publication dates) and others. Only later do we get names like Reuss (1835) and his student Graf (1859). But that is all theory, with no data to back it up.

The same type of faith declaration could be, and is, made of the Qurʾān by Muslims. "Historical documents" has a nice ring to it. I'm sure that they are just as unbiased as we would expect from ancient authors. After all, miracles have everything to do with history. You like to take the position of the righteous believer, but nothing is added to the Scriptures by just acting like they are simple records of all factual events. I understand that this is your faith position, but please stop trying to push it off as a serious study of history.

As for the cognate languages, in Biblical times speakers of the different languages mutually could not understand each other. So saying that studying those languages will help in understanding Biblical Hebrew is like studying Dutch or Norwegian in order better to understand English. Does that recommendation make sense for studying English? Then why would it make sense in understanding Biblical Hebrew?

The way that you make these connections is just weird. One would think that you would draw similarities to the study of the various Romance languages and what can be added in terms of understanding one (say, Spanish) by the added benefit of knowing the literature of another (say, French or Portuguese). Why not compare apples to apples?

[kwrandolph]

I understand that this is your faith position, but please stop trying to push it off as a serious study of history.

Maybe I should have been more clear. your theory that you espouse is no less a faith position than is mine, therefore no more of a serious study of history. I mention my reasons for espousing my understanding of history, and rejecting your faith position on history, not to try to proselytize you, you can take it or leave it, that’s your choice, rather to make my position clear so that there’s no misunderstanding.

As for the cognate languages, in Biblical times speakers of the different languages mutually could not understand each other. So saying that studying those languages will help in understanding Biblical Hebrew is like studying Dutch or Norwegian in order better to understand English. Does that recommendation make sense for studying English? Then why would it make sense in understanding Biblical Hebrew?

The way that you make these connections is just weird. One would think that you would draw similarities to the study of the various Romance languages and what can be added in terms of understanding one (say, Spanish) by the added benefit of knowing the literature of another (say, French or Portuguese). Why not compare apples to apples?

I don’t understand your objection here. Norwegian and Dutch are both close cognates to English. Around 80% of spoken English is still derived from Anglo-Saxon, a Germanic language.

The same is true of Spanish—if you want to master the intricacies of the language, you can’t do so by studying French or Portuguese, you do so by immersing yourself into Spanish. In fact, studying French or Portuguese will actually make it harder for you to master Spanish as a second language.

For all of us, Biblical Hebrew is a second learned language. Why mix up our minds by studying cognate languages?

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Maybe I should have been more clear. your theory that you espouse is no less a faith position than is mine, therefore no more of a serious study of history.

A position that assumes nothing other than natural explanations cannot be said to be a faith position. Believing in talking donkeys, water backing up like walls to the right and left, people walking on water, the earth stopping in its rotation, the raising of the dead... these are things that can only be accepted on faith, since they have nothing to do with our experience of the real world. Seeing the Bible as the product of human invention, just like the Iliad and the Aenid, is not a position of faith. It is simply how we relate to EVERY text in the history of mankind. You are arguing for special pleading for one religious text while ignoring the fact that every other religion in the world has their own claim to the same conclusions, just about a different book than the one that you think really represents the deep magic of existence.

It's fine for you to believe in magic and all. Lots of people do. However, when it is becomes the basis of your interpretation of the text, you cannot expect other people to accept it. Believe in magic all you want, but don't imagine that I need to believe in things that don't happen in real life in order to properly understand or interpret an historical text. I don't have to believe in Hera to understand and appreciate the Iliad, for example. Nor must I believe in Yahweh or any other deity in order to appreciate and interpret the Bible.

[Jason Hare]

For all of us, Biblical Hebrew is a second learned language. Why mix up our minds by studying cognate languages?

Everyone else in the area of biblical Hebrew will tell you that we have only clarity to be gained from examining languages from the time and place in which Hebrew developed, not "mixing up our minds." When there are disputes and confusion within the Hebrew language, light may be brought from other languages that have similar expressions and structures. You're probably alone in thinking and arguing otherwise.

[Chris Watts]

When there are disputes and confusion within the Hebrew language, light may be brought from other languages that have similar expressions and structures. You're probably alone in thinking and arguing otherwise.

Hallo Jason, I would like you to give me the most difficult, or the most disputed words from Biblical Hebrew that needed another cognate language in order to clarify the hebrew's meaning. As many as you wish, but the most controversial or difficult that definitely needed a known and absolute non-hebrew word in order to be able to understand a certain hebrew word.

Thanks
Chris watts

[Jason Hare]

When there are disputes and confusion within the Hebrew language, light may be brought from other languages that have similar expressions and structures. You're probably alone in thinking and arguing otherwise.

Hallo Jason, I would like you to give me the most difficult, or the most disputed words from Biblical Hebrew that needed another cognate language in order to clarify the hebrew's meaning. As many as you wish, but the most controversial or difficult that definitely needed a known and absolute non-hebrew word in order to be able to understand a certain hebrew word.

Thanks
Chris watts

Well, I don't have a list of cognate expressions or forms, but one thing that is discussed at length by John Cook in Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012) is the differentiation between two different forms yaqtul and yaqtulu in pre-biblical Hebrew becoming the yiqtol and the jussive/vayyiqtol, respectively, by the time of the Bible.

The historical-comparative data from Akkadian, Ugaritic, and El-Amarna Canaanite have been revolutionary with respect to the BHVS [biblical Hebrew verbal system]. The most important conclusion arrived at through the historical-comparative investigations is that WS originally possessed a Past prefix form yaqtul. Comparison of the Akkadian Past iprus with BH wayyiqtol and the Arabic syntagm lam yaqtul supported the supposition that a Past prefix form yaqtul existed in WS; the Ugaritic data, though not completely clear, appears to exhibit the form; and the Amarna Letters shows evidence of the form in second-millennium Canaanite. To these data may be added others from Amorite onomastica and NWS [Northwest Semitic] epigraphs.

John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé, vol. 7, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 118–119.

What's going on with the biblical Hebrew verb has caused such controversy and confusion, but taking evidence from other Semitic languages helps reconstruct what happened to result in the simplified system by which there is only qatal, yiqtol, wĕqatal and vayyiqtol. How did we get these forms? What was happening in the other languages at the time and previously? This is what clarifies the entire verb system in Hebrew. Without it, we are simply look at forms that seem to follow no rhyme or reason.

[Chris Watts]

This is what clarifies the entire verb system in Hebrew. Without it, we are simply look at forms that seem to follow no rhyme or reason.

I would like to make an observation here on this remark Jason: There have alsways been perfectly good translations from BH into English as far back as 1300 AD. In fact not much has changed, they understood everything as far as translation is concerned, and this without the benefits of comparisons with akkadian and ugaritic. Reading Wycliffes English and earlier is not a problem and I doubt he had access to comparitive middle eastern languages as they do today. What I was after however was a single case of a Non Hebrew word clarifying something in Biblical Hebrew. Since this appears to be more about the verbal system discussion - surely this is more about classification and historical linguist development which does not apper to me to have any adverse effect upon the process of translation down through the last 1600 years or more. Otherwise I see Karl's comments about this to be perfectly acceptable. That the Hebrew scriptures are self explanatory and are in themselves sufficient in that one does not need another language to translate anything in BH. Can you refute this objection Jason?

Kind regards
Chris watts

[kwrandolph]

Maybe I should have been more clear. your theory that you espouse is no less a faith position than is mine, therefore no more of a serious study of history.

A position that assumes nothing other than natural explanations cannot be said to be a faith position.

On the contrary, that is a de facto definition of a faith position. What you just described is Naturalism, along with Secular Humanism, Mahayana Buddhism and some others, one of the atheistic religions. By this opening sentence, have you revealed your faith position?

Believing in talking donkeys, water backing up like walls to the right and left, people walking on water, the earth stopping in its rotation, the raising of the dead... these are things that can only be accepted on faith, since they have nothing to do with our experience of the real world.

Your definition of “the real world”? What answer can you give that is not a matter of faith, i.e. a religion?

It appears that you have taken the faith position that the present is the key to the past. Is there any way to back up that faith position to guard against unexpected, unexplained events in the past?

Seeing the Bible as the product of human invention, just like the Iliad and the Aenid, is not a position of faith.

How is this not a faith statement, for which you have no evidence, neither to back it up nor to refute it?

It is simply how we relate to EVERY text in the history of mankind. You are arguing for special pleading for one religious text while ignoring the fact that every other religion in the world has their own claim to the same conclusions, just about a different book than the one that you think really represents the deep magic of existence.

The question is, which historical record is the most accurate?

To about 400 BC, our present understanding of history seems fairly accurate, i.e. within a decade or two of accuracy. Before that, the differing understandings of history start getting rather hairy.

It's fine for you to believe in magic and all. Lots of people do. However, when it is becomes the basis of your interpretation of the text, you cannot expect other people to accept it.

You mean like the magic of inventing a language that has never been observed? Then used to critique a language that has been observed? An example being proto-semitic?

Believe in magic all you want, but don't imagine that I need to believe in things that don't happen in real life in order to properly understand or interpret an historical text. I don't have to believe in Hera to understand and appreciate the Iliad, for example. Nor must I believe in Yahweh or any other deity in order to appreciate and interpret the Bible.

If you want to be accepted in what you say, stick with what the text actually says. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not, you’re on safe ground saying “The text says …” without adding your commentary based on your faith position/religion. The text says that Moses wrote the Torah about 1400 BC. It’s irrelevant whether you agree with the text or not, you have to agree that that’s what the text claims.

The Bible presents a coherent message, if you start with its initial claims. But we are not here to proselytize, we’re here merely to discuss the language of Biblical Hebrew. Because there’s only one book written in Biblical Hebrew, discussing the language used demands an accurate description of what the Bible claims. And for those like myself who trust its claims, there is double the urgency that we accurately understand its claims, therefore also accurately understand its language.

Karl W. Randolph.

[kwrandolph]

Well, I don't have a list of cognate expressions or forms, but one thing that is discussed at length by John Cook in Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012) is the differentiation between two different forms yaqtul and yaqtulu in pre-biblical Hebrew becoming the yiqtol and the jussive/vayyiqtol, respectively, by the time of the Bible.

What evidence is there for those forms in “pre-biblical Hebrew”? What “pre-biblical Hebrew” documents survive? Where can we see them? How do you know that they are Hebrew, and not another language? Or are these claims, like “proto-semitic”, merely guesses pulled out of thin air?

The historical-comparative data from Akkadian, Ugaritic, and El-Amarna Canaanite have been revolutionary with respect to the BHVS [biblical Hebrew verbal system]. The most important conclusion arrived at through the historical-comparative investigations is that WS originally possessed a Past prefix form yaqtul. Comparison of the Akkadian Past iprus with BH wayyiqtol and the Arabic syntagm lam yaqtul supported the supposition that a Past prefix form yaqtul existed in WS; the Ugaritic data, though not completely clear, appears to exhibit the form; and the Amarna Letters shows evidence of the form in second-millennium Canaanite. To these data may be added others from Amorite onomastica and NWS [Northwest Semitic] epigraphs.

John A. Cook, Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé, vol. 7, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 118–119.

What evidence is there that Akkadian, Ugaritic, and El-Amarna Canaanite predated Biblical Hebrew? Internal evidence from Genesis indicates that Moses took portions from older documents to author Genesis. Did he update the language when he wrote Genesis? If not, does that not indicate that Biblical Hebrew predated those other languages?

As for the dates of these other languages, how much do you trust the dates pushed by Kenneth Kitchen and his followers? I don’t. For example, I’ve seen three different dates for Raamses II—1300 BC (Kenneth Kitchen), 900 BC (David Rohl) and 600 BC. Which one is the accurate date? I have to admit that the 600 BC date has the strongest evidence that I have seen of the three. The dating of Ugaritic is connected to the date of Raamses II, so if Raamses II lived about 600 BC, then Ugaritic dates from about 800–600 BC, long after Biblical Hebrew was established.

If Raamses II lived about 600 BC, it then follows that Thutmoses II was ששק who sacked Jerusalem after Solomon died. There’s evidence in his victory temple that backs up that interpretation. Then the El-Amarna letters date from about 800 BC. Manetho really messed up our understanding of ancient history.

What's going on with the biblical Hebrew verb has caused such controversy and confusion, but taking evidence from other Semitic languages helps reconstruct what happened to result in the simplified system by which there is only qatal, yiqtol, wĕqatal and vayyiqtol. How did we get these forms? What was happening in the other languages at the time and previously? This is what clarifies the entire verb system in Hebrew. Without it, we are simply look at forms that seem to follow no rhyme or reason.

If one ignores those other languages, then the forms—qatal, yiqtol, wĕqatal and vayyiqtol—make perfect sense. It’s the mess as proposed by John Cook that follows no rhyme or reason.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

The problem is just that... if one ignores what we find in the other Semitic languages, we are left with a system in which "there is no tense" must be true. It's why there is no system or good sense in how you read biblical Hebrew, Karl. The use of the various forms in Hebrew is NOT random, and there IS tense and mood involved in the verbal system of Hebrew. Not recognizing that the forms emerged from different places in the linguistic history leaves one with the impression that this isn't the case, which is where you are.