Dear Carl,
In my view, the hyperbolic claim regarding Jeremiah 38:9 is an ad hoc
explanation. The reason for it is the view that the WAYYIQTOL form
is perfective, and a perfective verb should not have an egressive
force or refer to the future. Therefore, when the map does not fit
the terrain, the terrain is wrong. A WEQATAL would be no problem, as
Randall shows.
A interesting example of such ad hoc explanations, is the discussion
between the two Semitists, (the Norwegian) Harris Birkeland and F.
R. Blake in the 1950s. The issue was 130 WAYYIQTOLs that different
scholars claimed had present or future reference. Both scholars
believed that WAYYIQTOL is perfective or represents past tense. After
both had carefully considered the WAYYIQTOLs, both came to the same
conclusion: These 130 WAYYIQTOLs could not be used as evidence that
the form was not perfective or had past tense. However, the reasons
for their conclusion were diametrically opposed. Birkeland use a kind
of linguistic gymnastics, and found that none of the WAYYIQTOLs. save
one or two, had present or future reference. Blake concluded that
most of the WAYYIQTOLs did have present or future reference. But he
claimed that they were wrongly pointed and were WEYIQTOLs. When the
conclusions of a study are drawn before the study starts, the study
is biased, and can hardly be called scientific at all.
I see no hyperbole at all in Numbers 17:27. According to Chapter 16,
the people were not obedient, and 14,700 died. The basis for the
words of the people in 17:27 is that if God is so demanding, so
bloodthirsty, that even if they came close to the tabernacle, they
would die (17:28), then we all will die is the feelings. I translate
17:27-28 in the following way:
27. And the sons of Israel said to Moses: "Look! We will (certainly)
die (QATAL); we will (certainly) perish (QATAL) ; all of us will
(certainly )perish (QATAL). 28 Anyone approaching, coming near to the
dwelling (tabernacle) of YHWH, shall die (YIQTOL). Must we (really)
end up expiring (QATAL+infinitive)?
I have added "certainly" in parentheses. The reason is that when the
verb is not clause initial in a clause with future reference, QATAL
is not the default form used. Therefore, when it is used, it may or
may not add some emphasis. There is nothing strange with the clauses
of vv. 27 and 28; and there is not problematic that we see four
QATALs and one YIQTOL with future reference.
I have a list of 997 WAYYIQTOLs with non-past reference, 965 QATALs
with future reference, 2,505 QATALs with present reference, 50
WEYIQTOLs with past reference, and 1,027 YIQTOLs with past reference.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Rolf:
I think that student has a point. I disagree with it, based on my
understanding of Biblical Hebrew language, but to reject it as
"preconceived conclusions" does not do him justice.
An example of hyperbole is found in Numbers 17:27 (verse 12 in
English) where Israel said "We are expiring, we are lost, all of us
are lost!" when that was not true. So we cannot reject the
possibility of hyperbole out of hand.
Karl W. Randolph.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Rolf Furuli
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Randall,
This is an excellent example of how the text is read in the light of
preconceived conclusions., instead of drawing one's conclusions on
the text taken at face value. When the text dose not fit one's
conclusions, the text is explained away. But there are many more
similar examples.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Exaggeration.
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
