Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 76 of 98 (757095)
05-03-2015 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
05-02-2015 1:11 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
If the language does not contain a way to indicate the pluperfect, then it is not reasonable to assume that you can tell when using the pluperfect in a translation is incorrect.
Biblical Hebrew had no verb of tense.
All verbs in Biblical Hebrew are verbs of action, either perfect (completed action) or imperfect (on going action).
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2015 1:11 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 05-03-2015 10:22 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 98 (757100)
05-03-2015 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
05-03-2015 8:48 AM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
This is why I keep having trouble grasping exactly what is going on with the verbs in biblical Hebrew. Everyone describes the verbs as being merely aspectual, but labels the verbs as though they contain tense information as well. It's not just you, by the way.
Here is the difference:
quote:
Wikipedia on Perfect:
The perfect is a verb form that indicates that an action or circumstance occurred earlier than the time under consideration, often focusing attention on the resulting state rather than on the occurrence itself.
quote:
Wikipedia on Perfective:
The perfective aspect (abbreviated pfv), sometimes called the aoristic aspect, is a grammatical aspect used to describe an action viewed as a simple wholea unit without interior composition.
...
Aspects such as the perfective should not be confused with tense; perfective aspect can apply to events situated in the past, present, or future.
See, the perfect is a tense and denotes relative time information as tenses do (along with other information). The perfective on the other hand is an aspect and does not denote relative time information but speaks only to the completedness of the action (as you have said).
Many sources I have read on this in an attempt to gain a quick understanding of the situation describe the verb system as you have: perfect/imperfect, completed/uncompleted. But these two don't really go together; only one can be true. Either biblical Hebrew has a perfect/imperfect distinction and so encodes tense information in the verb or it does not encode tense information and so has a perfective/imperfective distinction.
And then it is probably more nuanced than that with the waw-consecutive and all, but even as it stands at a basic level the descriptions aren't adequate to convey the specifics of the situation.
A lot of it, I am sure, boils down to the fact that all the sources are aimed at laymen looking to learn quickly and easily with little technical background (not that something you can get off Wikipedia in ten minutes should even be considered 'technical background', but hey). That with the fact that providing an English gloss pretty much ensures confusion with tenses (since all English verbs carry tense information), and it's an outright mess trying to get to the truth of it without buying some $30 peer-reviewed journal article off the Internet.
So maybe you can clear this up. Is it perfect/imperfect or perfective/imperfective?
ABE:
Oh, and so far I have just been going with the descriptions given and assuming everyone means 'perfective' and 'imperfective' when they say 'perfect' and 'imperfect'. If indeed there is tense information in the verbinformation that denotes relative timethen 'perfect' and 'imperfect' are probably okay terms, but then we have to say that the 'tense' is not 'ambiguous'.
ABE2:
Maybe this explanation I just found will help: Biblical Hebrew Grammar for Beginners (PDF). I'm reading it now to find out.
On second thought, that source looks pretty bad...
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2015 8:48 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 12:27 PM Jon has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 78 of 98 (757164)
05-04-2015 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Jon
05-02-2015 10:26 AM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
quote:
And I did discuss it, in three of my points. Here they are again:
All the verbs in question are in the same tense/aspect and so translating them into the same tense/aspect in English seems reasonable,
Yes, the verbs are all in the same grammatical form. But this does not mean that they should all be translated the same way. The proper translation depends not only on grammatical form, but also on literary context.
quote:
The waw-consecutive indicates that the events of each verse take place after the events described in the verses before,
Yes, normally. The waw-consecutive is the normal form for narrative, and is normally translated "and then x happened, and then y happened, ..."
quote:
The authors had means of indicating events completed prior to the events in consideration if, indeed, that was the story they were trying to tell, but they did not avail themselves of these means.
What are these other means?
So far as I know, the waw-consecutive should normally be translated as past tense. But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or pluperfect.
quote:
I quoted the whole thing in this thread; just follow the links. Here's the waw-consecutive: ו
And here's arachnophilia's quote of the text from Gen 2:4—25 (which you can find a link to in Message 58):
.אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם
.וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה
. וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
.וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה
. וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר
.וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע
.וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים
.שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב
.וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם
.וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ
.וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת
.וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ
. וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
.וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת
.וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ
.וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ
.וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה
.וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם
.וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת
.עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד
.וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ
He posted it one verse per line, so all you have to do is count down to find the verses in question. Do you see the waw-consecutive at the beginning of each line?
There is one clear case in the above text where the waw-consecutive should be translated as pluperfect: the beginning of 2:15, "and God had placed man in the garden". This repeats the information of 2:8 "and then God placed man in the garden", after an aside describing the garden.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Jon, posted 05-02-2015 10:26 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Jon, posted 05-04-2015 4:53 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 98 by arachnophilia, posted 09-10-2015 12:32 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 79 of 98 (757167)
05-04-2015 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Jon
05-03-2015 10:22 AM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
quote:
This is why I keep having trouble grasping exactly what is going on with the verbs in biblical Hebrew. Everyone describes the verbs as being merely aspectual, but labels the verbs as though they contain tense information as well. It's not just you, by the way.
...
See, the perfect is a tense and denotes relative time information as tenses do (alokng with other information). The perfective on the other hand is an aspect and does not denote relative time information but speaks only to the completedness of the action (as you have said).
"Tense" in western languages and "tense" in Biblical Hebrew are two different things. Your Wikipedia entry for "perfect" does not apply very well to Biblical Hebrew.
Hebrew grammars normally say that Biblical Hebrew has two tenses, perfect and imperfect, but that these have nothing to do with time. They denote only aspect (complete or incomplete), not time. It may be more accurate for grammarians to use the term "perfective" instead of "perfect", but all of the old grammars use the term "perfect" and most modern ones follow suit.
FYI, I taught a brief overview of Biblical Hebrew for some folks in my church a few years ago. Here are the resources that I recommended:
Top recommendations for learning the language:
Allen P. Ross. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Page H. Kelley. Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Other texts:
John A. Cook and Robert D. Holmstedt. Biblical Hebrew: A Student Grammar.
Paul Jouon and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rome: Editrice Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 2006.
Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Older texts, good for reference: (public domain: available from books.google.com)
A.B. Davidson. An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901.
A.B. Davidson. Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902.
GKC: Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, edited and enlarged by E. Kautsch, translated by G.W. Collins and A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898.
And here are some websites that I recommended:
Animated Hebrew
Hebrew for Christians
Ancient Hebrew Research Center
Edited by kbertsche, : Cleaned up book references

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Jon, posted 05-03-2015 10:22 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 05-04-2015 5:41 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 05-08-2015 11:55 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 98 (757209)
05-04-2015 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by kbertsche
05-04-2015 11:40 AM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
But this does not mean that they should all be translated the same way.
Of course.
The waw-consecutive is the normal form for narrative, and is normally translated "and then x happened, and then y happened, ..."
Of course.
What are these other means?
I was referring particularly to 2:8 which uses a different verb form for 'form'.
'Plant' uses the imperfective+waw-consecutive. 'Form' is in the perfective. It's apparently the same situation with 'take' from 2:22.
It also occurs in 2:2, 1:29, etc.
Maybe you can explain to me what is going on in these cases.
But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or pluperfect.
Can you provide an example?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 11:40 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 11:00 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 98 (757210)
05-04-2015 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by kbertsche
05-04-2015 12:27 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
It may be more accurate for grammarians to use the term "perfective" instead of "perfect", but all of the old grammars use the term "perfect" and most modern ones follow suit.
That's exactly the information I was looking for.
Thanks!
I will check out those links too.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 12:27 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 82 of 98 (757218)
05-04-2015 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jon
05-04-2015 4:53 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Jon writes:
I was referring particularly to 2:8 which uses a different verb form for 'form'.
'Plant' uses the imperfective+waw-consecutive. 'Form' is in the perfective. It's apparently the same situation with 'take' from 2:22.
It also occurs in 2:2, 1:29, etc.
Maybe you can explain to me what is going on in these cases.
I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,
quote:
the normal way to express a pluperfect idea (also called a ‘flashback’) in Classical Hebrew narrative is by the use of the perfect verb form (also called the qatal form), commonly introduced in a narrative with a subordinating conjunction such as ’ăer or k, or with some sentence element preposed to the verb.
Jon writes:
kbertsche writes:
But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or pluperfect.
Can you provide an example?
I already did, at the end of the message that you replied to! The beginning of 2:15 is a waw-consecutive which is probably best translated as a pluperfect, "and God had placed the man in the garden".
And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals".
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Jon, posted 05-04-2015 4:53 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jon, posted 05-04-2015 11:26 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 85 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 3:46 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 98 (757219)
05-04-2015 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
05-04-2015 11:00 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,
quote:
the normal way to express a pluperfect idea (also called a ‘flashback’) in Classical Hebrew narrative is by the use of the perfect verb form (also called the qatal form), commonly introduced in a narrative with a subordinating conjunction such as ’ăer or k, or with some sentence element preposed to the verb.
But now the question is whether that would apply to the cases in question (the verbs at the beginning of 2:8 and 2:19).
I already did, at the end of the message that you replied to!
I was thinking of something outside of the creation myths perhaps. And, to me at least, the simple past seems perfectly fine in 2:15. It just orients the audience back into the narrative after the rant about Eden and its relation to the author's present world.
Any cases where a construction like that found in Gen 2:6—9, for example, is unarguably translated into the pluperfect?
And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals".
I will read it. I will respond to it. Hopefully within the next 24 hours.
I will say before I read it, though, that a translation of "God had made the animals..." creates as many problems as it solves for those who believe the accounts consistent.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 11:00 PM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by NoNukes, posted 05-05-2015 9:09 AM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 98 (757224)
05-05-2015 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Jon
05-04-2015 11:26 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
But now the question is whether that would apply to the cases in question (the verbs at the beginning of 2:8 and 2:19).
It is not a settled question that it applies anywhere. But just because it applies once does not mean it applies everywhere. It is possible that one of the 'cues' for when to apply it is that the story of creation is well known and that the proper tense is the one that tells the story correctly. If so, then we'd never be able to decide based on simply looking at the verbs.

Je Suis Charlie
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Jon, posted 05-04-2015 11:26 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 98 (757227)
05-05-2015 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by kbertsche
05-04-2015 11:00 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals".
He identifies no 'grammatical clues'. His argument for the pluperfect is entirely apologetic. Where is his discussion of the 'grammatical clues' in his response to the charge that had the pluperfect sense been intended the author could easily have indicated as much?
quote:
"The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why" (pdf) from Tyndale Bulletin:
Perhaps the simplest explanation comes from the fact that both accounts are strongly anthropocentric: they see man as the pinnacle of God's creative work, the one for whom the earth and its animals exist. Putting the animals' formation in 2:19 directly after 2:18, where God sets about making a helper suitable for the man, reinforces this point: even though physically the animals were made before man, yet conceptually their creation was in anticipation of their subservience to his governance, and therefore in God's mind the animals were a logical consequence of the making of man. Since Genesis 1 had established the physical order so that the audience would not mistake it, the author/editor was free to use this literary device to make this theological point. (p. 139)
If there is some particular part of Collins' argument that you think really closes the case, then go ahead and quote it and we can discuss it. But I don't see anything in that paper that forms an even half-decent argument, especially on the grounds of language, for the pluperfect in Gen 2:19.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by kbertsche, posted 05-04-2015 11:00 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 05-05-2015 5:58 PM Jon has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 86 of 98 (757229)
05-05-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jon
05-05-2015 3:46 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Jon writes:
He identifies no 'grammatical clues'. His argument for the pluperfect is entirely apologetic. Where is his discussion of the 'grammatical clues' in his response to the charge that had the pluperfect sense been intended the author could easily have indicated as much?
Are you reading the same paper that I am?!?
Look at page 127-128, where Collins outlines three conditions:
quote:
"The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why" (pdf) from Tyndale Bulletin:
...the wayyiqtol may express pluperfect time when one or more of the following three conditions are met:
(1) Some anaphoric reference explicitly points back to a previous event. This is Buth’s first condition, and in addition to the verses explained by Buth, this would explain 1 Kings 21:8-9; 2 Kings 7:18-19; and possibly 2 Samuel 13:34 as discussed below.39
(2) The logic of the referent described requires that an event presented by a wayyiqtol verb form actually took place prior to the event presented by a previous verb.40 This would explain. e.g., Joshua 18:8, as well as those passages explained in Buth’s second condition.41
(3) The verb begins a section or paragraph. This was the sole instance allowed by Driver, in which he agreed that ‘the chronological principle’ of the wayyiqtol might be ‘in abeyance’. Note that this also helps explain 2 Samuel 13:34 (discussed below).42
  —Collins
On page 123 Collins gives the example of 1 Kings 21:8-9:
quote:
And she [Jezebel] wrote (wattiktōb) letters in the name of Ahab and she sealed them (wattaִhtōm) with his seal and she sent (wattilaִh) letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city, who sat with Naboth, (9) and she wrote (wattiktōb) in the letters, saying...
The beginning of verse 9 is dischronological; it jumps backward in time. It is best translated as a pluperfect, "and she had written in the letters". This is similar my earlier claim that the beginning of Gen 2:15 should be translated as "and God had placed the man in the garden". But 1 Kings 21:9 is a clearer example than Gen 2:15.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 3:46 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 8:34 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 98 (757231)
05-05-2015 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by kbertsche
05-05-2015 5:58 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
Are you reading the same paper that I am?!?
I sure hope so!
Look at page 127-128, where Collins outlines three conditions:
Okay, let's examine each of those three conditions in relation to Genesis' second creation myth. The first one:
Some anaphoric reference explicitly points back to a previous event. This is Buth's first condition, and in addition to the verses explained by Buth, this would explain 1 Kings 21:8-9; 2 Kings 7:18-19; and possibly 2 Samuel 13:34 as discussed below.
There's no evidence of this in Gen 2:19. In fact, the only way we can interpret the formation of animals in 2:19 as referring back to the creation of animals in 1:20—25 is if we assume they are a single and consistent story (i.e., that it must by necessity refer back to Gen 1 lest the stories contradict one another), which is to beg the question. Furthermore, based on several of the story's elements at this point it seems questionable that these can be considered the same event. Here are two of them:
  1. For starters, a straight-forward reading of Gen 2:18—19 has the man 'alone' and the animals created specifically to remedy this problem unlike in the first creation account where the animals are already created by the time man arrives on the scene.
  2. Secondly the 'fowl' in 1:20—21 are brought forth from the 'waters'. In Gen 2:19, the 'fowl' are formed 'out of the ground'.
Seeing Gen 2:19 as harkening back to the creation of animals as told in Gen 1:20—25 is thus not only fallacious on the grounds that it requires us to assume the truth of the very point in contention, but doesn't function with the storyline of the two accounts and, in fact, ignores additional contradictions (which, indeed, the use of the pluperfect alone cannot reconcile).
So much for that; let's look at the second of Collins' points:
The logic of the referent described requires that an event presented by a wayyiqtol verb form actually took place prior to the event presented by a previous verb.
Well, there's again no evidence that 2:19 is a reference, and 1:20—25 a referent, so there is little to say on this point. It rests on the first condition, and since the first condition is unsupported, so too is this one.
And now the third:
The verb begins a section or paragraph. This was the sole instance allowed by Driver, in which he agreed that 'the chronological principle' of the wayyiqtol might be 'in abeyance'.
This is the only condition met by 2:19, but it does not offer a compelling argument. As Collins claims, satisfaction of one of these conditions only means that 'the wayyiqtol may express pluperfect time' (p. 127), not that it necessarily does, so again, the decision to use the pluperfect still must rest on other considerations. So what are those considerations? Why should 'form' in 2:19 be put in the pluperfect while other verbs that begin their respective sections are translated into the simple past? Such considerations don't seem to exist for the verbs in 2:7, or 9 for example. Collins doesn't seem to have an answer for these important questions and it's probably because Collins' reason for preferring the pluperfect is only that doing so is technically possible and facilitates a harmonized reading of the creation accounts.
Collins has no language-based argument for preferring the pluperfect in 2:19. His reasonings are purely apologetic. And apologetics are pretty much useless in this venue, unless they can amount to more than an attempt at harmonization.
On page 123 Collins gives the example of 1 Kings 21:8-9:
1 Kings 21:8—9 isn't Genesis 2:19.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 05-05-2015 5:58 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by kbertsche, posted 05-05-2015 9:59 PM Jon has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 88 of 98 (757233)
05-05-2015 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Jon
05-05-2015 8:34 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
This is the only condition met by 2:19, but it does not offer a compelling argument. As Collins claims, satisfaction of one of these conditions only means that 'the wayyiqtol may express pluperfect time' (p. 127), not that it necessarily does, so again, the decision to use the pluperfect still must rest on other considerations. So what are those considerations? Why should 'form' in 2:19 be put in the pluperfect while other verbs that begin their respective sections are translated into the simple past? Such considerations don't seem to exist for the verbs in 2:7, or 9 for example. Collins doesn't seem to have an answer for these important questions and it's probably because Collins' reason for preferring the pluperfect is only that doing so is technically possible and facilitates a harmonized reading of the creation accounts.
I think we are talking past one another a bit.
1) I claim that there are grammatical hints that a waw-consecutive should be translated as a pluperfect, and that Collins' paper summarizes these hints. His three conditions are gleaned from a fairly thorough critical analysis of claims by earlier Hebrew grammarians. They do not seem to be based on "apologetic" considerations, but on solid grammatical arguments. You have not argued against (or even addressed) the grammatical basis of his three conditions.
2) The application of Collins' three conditions in any specific situation (e.g. Gen 2:19) could probably be argued either way. Grammatical arguments are rarely a "slam-dunk". Collins' grammatical conditions say that Gen 2:19 MAY be a pluperfect, but not that it absolutely MUST be.
Collins has no language-based argument for preferring the pluperfect in 2:19. His reasonings are purely apologetic. And apologetics are pretty much useless in this venue, unless they can amount to more than an attempt at harmonization.
I don't see why you call this "apologetic"? I see no apologetic basis in his statements. Rather, so far as I can see, all of his arguments are grammatically and literarily based.
There is certainly an overarching question of how one views Genesis and its main author or final redactor. Did this person intend to compose a harmonized literary unity, or did he intend to piece together contradictory accounts without trying to resolve the contradictions? This question has some philosophical components, but I see it as primarily a literary question, not an apologetic question.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 8:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 11:11 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 98 (757234)
05-05-2015 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by kbertsche
05-05-2015 9:59 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
1) I claim that there are grammatical hints that a waw-consecutive should be translated as a pluperfect, and that Collins' paper summarizes these hints. His three conditions are gleaned from a fairly thorough critical analysis of claims by earlier Hebrew grammarians. They do not seem to be based on "apologetic" considerations, but on solid grammatical arguments. You have not argued against (or even addressed) the grammatical basis of his three conditions.
I've addressed all three of his conditions. I laid out my complaints against the application of each one separately and clearly. To review:
  • Condition one assumes, when applied to Gen 2:19, that the mentioned formation of animals is a reference back to the events described in Gen 1:20—25. There is no evidence that this is the case.
  • Regarding condition two there is no indication, in Gen 2, that the events of v. 19 should be understood as occurring prior to the events of Gen 2:7, i.e., that the creation of animals should be considered as having been complete before the creation of man.
  • Finally, condition three only makes it possible on technical grounds to interpret the verb as having a pluperfect sense, with the final consideration as to whether or not to so interpret it resting on other factors.
And it's in discussing these other factors that Collins goes into the apologetics. To interpret a verb with this sense still requires considerations external to the verb itself and Collins offers no considerations outside of his desire to harmonize the two accounts. I quoted, specifically, where he argues on these grounds including his claim that:
quote:
"The Wayyiqtol as 'Pluperfect': When and Why" (pdf) from Tyndale Bulletin:
Since Genesis 1 had established the physical order so that the audience would not mistake it, the author/editor was free to use this literary device to make this theological point. (pp. 23—4)
He is reading Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1, and any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is inconsistency between the two accounts cannot begin with such a reading.
Rather, so far as I can see, all of his arguments are grammatically and literarily based.
Just because he spends 22 pages talking about Hebrew grammar doesn't mean his conclusion has anything to do with Hebrew grammar.
There is certainly an overarching question of how one views Genesis and its main author or final redactor. Did this person intend to compose a harmonized literary unity, or did he intend to piece together contradictory accounts without trying to resolve the contradictions? This question has some philosophical components, but I see it as primarily a literary question, not an apologetic question.
The intents and competency of the redactor are somewhat irrelevant. But looking at the job done with, for example, the Flood story, we get a sense that resolving technical difficulties with conflicting source materials wasn't really among the redactors' priorities.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by kbertsche, posted 05-05-2015 9:59 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by kbertsche, posted 05-06-2015 1:11 AM Jon has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 90 of 98 (757235)
05-06-2015 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
05-05-2015 11:11 PM


Re: The Pluperfect in 2:8?
I've addressed all three of his conditions.
No, you have not addressed the fundamental question of whether or not his three conditions are valid grammatical conclusions. You have only addressed the practical question of whether of not they apply to Gen 2.
I laid out my complaints against the application of each one separately and clearly.
Exactly. You have only addressed the application of these conditions to Gen 2, not the fundamental grammatical principles themselves. I've been more interested in exploring the grammatical principles. You earlier seemed to take the general position that the Hebrew waw-consecutive could not be used as a pluperfect. I believe that it can, and have been trying to explore this general grammatical question.
He is reading Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1, and any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is inconsistency between the two accounts cannot begin with such a reading.
But Gen 1 and 2 are part of a single composition, with Gen 1 intentionally placed before Gen2 for some reason. I highly doubt that the author/redactor intended his readers to skip chapter one and to read chapter 2 in isolation. I agree that any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is consistency or inconsistency between the two accounts cannot start by assuming its conclusion (either that they are consistent or that they are inconsistent). But I also believe that any honest attempt to understand the text must read Gen 2 in light of Gen 1, because this is the sequence that the author/redactor left us. Again, I see this as a literary issue, not an apologetic issue.
The intents and competency of the redactor are somewhat irrelevant. But looking at the job done with, for example, the Flood story, we get a sense that resolving technical difficulties with conflicting source materials wasn't really among the redactors' priorities.
I don't think these questions can be avoided. The author/redactor put the material in a certain sequence, apparently intending that it be read in this way.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 05-05-2015 11:11 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Jon, posted 05-06-2015 10:34 AM kbertsche has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024