Jump to content

finding links between KJVS and BHS-W4


Chris Echols

Recommended Posts

So, I'm trying to see if a hebrew word soom, seem is used in different places in the KJVS with differing verb forms. I get a search window with the KEY 7760, then another with the BHS VERB -Qal and another VERB -Piel. I've tried using the construct window to compare the HITS of these windows, but of course I run into the language problem.

 

I know I'm probably going about this all wrong, but I know I should be able to do this or at least come close right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris is looking for ‏שׂום/‏שׂים (often "place," "put," "set," etc.).

 

This verb appears in Hebrew in the Qal (583x), Hifil (3x; Ezek 14.8; 21.21; Job 4.20), Hofal/PassiveQal (once each of the Ketiv/Qere forms in Gen 24:33), so the real question might be how differently the Qal is translated in English.

 

For this task, I'd search the KJVS for [KEY H7760], and then click Details and view the Analysis tab for a list of glosses/translations of this verb. In general, of course, searching the original language tagged texts will be much more precise and give more reliable results.

 

If you have the BHS-W4 open in parallel with the KJVS, you can also use the instant key words highlighting to see the corresponding Hebrew or English depending over which text you're mousing.

 

A final caveat is that this verb (like many others) is found in various syntactical constructions which will not be adequately captured by the one key number per word tagging. Studying a dictionary entry for שׂים should make this very clear (e.g., HALOT lists at least 21 different categories under the Qal, and BDB, 22 categories arranged under five headings under the Qal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris is looking for ‏שׂום/‏שׂים (often "place," "put," "set," etc.).

 

That is correct. In a nutshell, I heard this preacher whom I deeply respect and trust say that many OT scriptures were translated in the causative rather than the permissive. For instance in Ex 15:26b says " I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." He says it should be better translated "I will ALLOW none of these diseases".

 

Doing a quick internet search I find that this notion comes from Robert Young's Analytical Concordance. Since I really don't know much about Hebrew and am in no way a scholar, It was only last night that I realized that Hebrew has different verb modes. So I'm going to pick up Hebrew for Dummies just so I'll have a better understanding. However I cannot find other scholars who talk about permissive vs. causative modes. So I'm wondering what this is all about.

 

Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Hebrew for Dummies is about modern Hebrew, therefore I doubt that it will be of much help with regard to biblical Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are interested in learning Biblical Hebrew (for no cost) I would highly recommend Charles Grebe's website: http://animatedhebrew.com/

 

He has an excellent array of materials available which he uses in a classroom setting.

 

His lectures are designed to be used with Alan Ross' Biblical Hebrew book - which is also coincidentally available from Accordance.

 

http://www.accordancebible.com/store/detai...pid=Ross+Hebrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Hebrew for Dummies is about modern Hebrew, therefore I doubt that it will be of much help with regard to biblical Hebrew.

 

That's what I'm gathering, but she does cover biblical Hebrew and likens it shakesperean english to our modern English with most differences being word order. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are interested in learning Biblical Hebrew (for no cost) I would highly recommend Charles Grebe's website: http://animatedhebrew.com/

 

He has an excellent array of materials available which he uses in a classroom setting.

 

Awesome. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I'm gathering, but she does cover biblical Hebrew and likens it shakesperean english to our modern English with most differences being word order. Is that correct?

 

My understanding is that modern Hebrew has an Indo-European verbal system artificially imposed on a Semitic language.

 

That is, languages such as English, French, Latin and Greek have concepts of past, present and future tense expressed by verbs.

 

Semitic languages, in this case biblical Hebrew, have instead the concepts of complete and incomplete action in their verbal systems.

 

Modern Hebrew, however, has past, present and future tenses.

 

Eliezer Ben‑Yehuda (1858

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is correct. In a nutshell, I heard this preacher whom I deeply respect and trust say that many OT scriptures were translated in the causative rather than the permissive. For instance in Ex 15:26b says " I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee." He says it should be better translated "I will ALLOW none of these diseases".

 

Doing a quick internet search I find that this notion comes from Robert Young's Analytical Concordance. Since I really don't know much about Hebrew and am in no way a scholar, It was only last night that I realized that Hebrew has different verb modes. So I'm going to pick up Hebrew for Dummies just so I'll have a better understanding. However I cannot find other scholars who talk about permissive vs. causative modes. So I'm wondering what this is all about.

I'm assuming you are referring to this discussion?

 

The terminology of "permissive" vs. "causative" (as best as I can infer from the cited snippets, not having Young's works at hand) appears to be limited to the specifically theological (and I would argue, here subjective) consideration of divine motive (and not about its many mundane uses); today, however, "causative" is used primarily as a grammatical description of certain Hebrew verbal stems (typically, but not exclusively, Piel and Hiphil) having that semantic type (German Aktionsart). The theological interpretation cannot be automatically drawn from the verb's forms (morphology), which exhibit a range of concrete and abstract senses of "setting/putting/placing." I doubt Young's assertion would be considered authoritative by most contemporary scholars (which is not to say that everything new is better or more correct!), and I would disagree with Young as he has been presented--the evidence does not warrant his conclusion, and I maintain that a translation like "bring" is more helpful.

 

This discussion also highlights for me why Accordance and its resources are essential and worth paying for by serious students of the Bible, especially when contrasted to much of what is available for free (owing to expiration of copyright) on the web. With all due respect to scholars of the past, it is fair to say that Young's 19th-century understanding of Hebrew rested on a primitive basis by the standards of what is taught today. The tremendous archaeological and textual discoveries of the 19th (e.g., the decipherment of Akkadian and Babylonian cuneiform) and 20th (to name just two of the most important sources, the discovery of Ugaritic and the Dead Sea Scrolls) centuries have revolutionized our understanding of Hebrew and the Hebrew scriptures. Accordance provides the best, most accurate, cutting-edge texts and tools (sometimes even taking into account print works!) for searching and improving our understanding of the ancient biblical languages and dialects. As carefully as you should handle the results you get from Accordance searches, you have to be even more critical with respect to much of what is recycled from the premodern era, especially those that treat matters of biblical history, archaeology, and languages. And again, please note that I am not making a blanket judgment on the value or importance of the history of biblical exegesis and interpretation—we still have much to learn and re-learn from our forebears—only pointing out that some branches of investigation have been effectively discredited by advances in the last few centuries (with respect to both sources and methods).

 

I close with an anecdote related by my professor of Hebrew, who first visited Israel after he had published a grammar of biblical Hebrew. Eager to use what he knew, he attempted to say "Look, there's your car! Let's go!" but reported that the natives heard him say the equivalent of "Behold, thy chariot! Arise! Let us go forth!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

So... A year later, I'm still running across ministers causing me to question the idea of the causative/permissive hebrew verb. So now my question is, what would me the most recent scholarly work that discusses the topic of the causative/permissive verb tense. I can only find the notion in older scholarship (for instance, Grammer of the Hebrew Language, by George Bush). But I wonder about the scholarship of a Hebrew Grammer book by George Bush http://www.accordancebible.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...