[b-hebrew] QATAl vs. VAYYIQTOL: Can we make sense of this construction?
crazymulgogi at gmail.com
Fri Mar 31 12:33:26 EST 2006
Rolf Furuli may well be right:
For some reason (which, remains to be clarified), the author of Ezra
wanted 1,7 to begin with the words "we-hammelekh Koresh...". He then
could not proceed with a wayyiqtol-form, because as a wayyiqtol begins
with, what looks like, the word "and...", the sentence would be broken
Therefore, considerations of sentence order variation had the author
do what he did.
I agree there is no better instant explanation for this passage, but
as we have discussed before on this forum, I do not agree with mr.
Furuli's basic assumptions regarding the verbal system, which involve
activities on the part of the masoretes that I think have never taken
Cf. for an alternative vision, Galia Hatav, "Anchoring world and time
in biblical Hebrew",
Journal of Linguistics 40, 2004, 491-526.
As Ezra is a rather late text, we may not simply be able to compare
the syntax of, say, Deuteronomy ~ 2Kings with Ezra/Nehemia. The very
first sentence of Ezra is different too: it doesn't begin "wayhi
bi-shnat...", but u-vi-shnat... This may mean that the syntax of Ezra
would need its own, separate, description. If it's worth the trouble
For the same reason, for example, BH poetry needs its own independent syntax.
More information about the b-hebrew