[b-hebrew] The use of the Yiqtol in Isaiah 1:21

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Wed Apr 22 07:16:33 EDT 2009

Dear Yitzhak,

Now I understand your question. For a study of Hebrew verbs I will 
only use Hebrew manuscripts and not Greek ones. So, Arguments from 
the LXX have no value in this context. There are few textual 
problems with the verses from Nehemiah in Hebrew manuscripts. I chose 
the verses as examples because we find two YIQTOLs and three 
WAYYIQTOLs  with past reference in them.

My dissertation builds on an analysis of 79,574 finite and infinite 
verbs in the MT, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the Inscriptions. In 
it 2,106 passages with 4,261 verbs are analyzed and translated. Here 
you can find many more examples.

Best regrds,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo

>On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Rolf Furuli wrote:
>>  Dear Yitzhak,
>>  I do not understand your question. Please rephrase it, and I will answer it.
>I am using here the text of the BHQ Nehemiah.
>I also looked up the relevant chapter here:
>Of the various verses in question, 3:14 has ybnnw, and 3:15 has ybnnw
>wy+tllnw in the MT.
>3:15 has no dagesh in the -y- and in the conventional ways of reading the
>verbs, this would means it has a waw conjunctive rather than a waw
>conversive, and should be read as imperfect, "future".
>However, the verses have a formulaic construction and so we would
>naturally raise the question whether the wy(myd of 3:15 is to be seen
>as any different from the other wy(myd's of the chapter.
>Now, in comparison with 3:12 hw) wbnwtyw we might have even been
>wise enough to suggest that perhaps 3:14 hw) ybnnw is a misreading
>for either h)w wbnw "he and his son", since y and w were relative similar
>in the Aramaic script, and the pronominal -n- could have been added by
>the "correcting" scribe, or alternatively, h)w wbnyw for similar reasons.
>In reading the Septuagint, we find something very interesting:
>3:15 YBN/NW	--- ''
>3:15 W/Y+LL/NW	--- ''
>That is, 3:14 is indeed read by the Septuagint as "and his sons" and
>the 3:15 verbs are simply not there.
>In other words, on the particular verbs that are out of place in the
>conventional understanding of the verb, we have the Septuagint that
>suggests some type of textual corruption.
>Now, the Septuagint could be "wrong" and the MT could represent more
>accurately the original author's intent.  We also have issues to consider
>such as lectio difficilior.  Yet all this is besides the point.  The
>very fact that
>the Septuagint has alternate readings here casts doubt on the legitimacy
>of these verbs as "bona fide" "conventional" "yiqtols".
>We didn't even have to pick these verbs.  There are (using your numbers)
>some 80000 verbs to choose from.  Why did you pick those for which the
>textual witnesses cast doubt on the legitimacy of the very examples?  Why
>not give an example that is so obvious and so blatant and also free of any
>reasonable textual contest?  After all, there are 80000 verbs to choose
>Yitzhak Sapir
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list