|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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: quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: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:Yes, normally. The waw-consecutive is the normal form for narrative, and is normally translated "and then x happened, and then y happened, ..." quote: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon writes:
I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,
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. quote: Jon writes:
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". kbertsche writes:
Can you provide an example? But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or 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". 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Jon writes:
Are you reading the same paper that I am?!? 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?Look at page 127-128, where Collins outlines three conditions: quote: On page 123 Collins gives the example of 1 Kings 21:8-9:
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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:
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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:
quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024