Biblical Hebrew Forum

[doug.kasten AT juno.com (Doug Kasten)]

Paul,

Thanks for your musings.

You wrote:
"I've spent a bit of time thinking about this since you brought up the
verse, and I'm not sure if the average English reader, taking this verse
in isolation, or even taking everything from verse 10-17, *would*
necessarily think everything was going according to plan if "allowed
themselves" were not included here.  Of course, I have no idea what the
normal interpretation would be in the language in which you work.  But,
were the tolerative form not used in this case, I feel certain that an
uninitiated reader of English would see the retreat as being another
failure.  Although there was an unknown ambush set, a "simple" passive
here would imply that Joshua and Israel were not planning on being driven
back.

What clues the reader in to this actually being a part of the plan is the
relating of the plan in verses 4-9.  Verse 5 makes it clear that the
flight of the army was on purpose.  Now, this might be considered a bit
far from verse 15, so that might be why the translators felt it necessary
to express the tolerative here."

I agree that the recoverability of the ruse in the minds of the "average"
(when you find one let me know) reader might be tough.  However, what's
been lost in my initial Niphal question is the relationship of vv14-17 to
the wider context and the relation of this brief passage to that context.

8:14 begins with WAYYHI followed by 'r'h' 'to see' in the infinitive,
King of Ai as S.  (Sorry, folks, I need to work on the
transcription--which if I could type out at this stage I myself couln't
read.)  I've been looking into the nature of WAYYHI and in addition to
that WAYYHI followed by a verb of perception in the infinitive.  If, as I
suspect, WAYYHI performs a disjunctive feature within this context, the
verb of perception could be cluing us in to see things as the King of Ai
sees them.  Here's my translation, based on NIV for v.14 with this in
mind:

Meanwhile, back in the city, the king of Ai was watching all of this.  So
he and all the men of the city hurried out early in the morning to meet
Israel in battle at a certain place overlooking the Arabah.  (But he did
not know that an ambush had been set against him behind the city.) 

My argument then is this: Don't use the niphal to express the idea
desired (the notion that Israel was letting themselves be beaten back),
but mark it elsewhere in the narrative.  That's what I've tried to do in
the beginning of the above verse; I've attempted a "meanwhile back at the
ranch" feel in order to have the mental 'camera' position itself inside
the King of Ai's head.  We see things from his perspective.  Granted,
this is removed from the context of 8:5 by a few verses.  But if the
disjunction is 'appropriately' marked, perhaps that won't matter as
much....

Issue two:
There is a narrative pattern.  "We will do X"(direct speech)  "They did
X". (see  Josh 2:1 and 3:6 for examples.  Here, between 8:5 and 8:15 we
have:
"We will flee from them" (NIV) and 
"Joshua and all Israel let themselves be beaten back"

Even granting the tolerative view of the niphal, it appears that the more
typical narrative formula is broken and the disjunctivity marked with
WAYYHI is in fact exemplified by the way the narrative proceeds.

If you've got further thoughts, I'm all ears.

Peace,
Doug


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]