Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Dear TAM-niks,
>
> So far I have not seen anybody comment on my Joshua question, so I repeat
> it below:
>
> The division of the promised land in Joshua 13-19 will, In addition to the
> building of the tabernacle, be a very fine place to compare verb forms.
> Here we find the same static situation of how the borders of the inherited
> lots "go out/went out", "pass/passed", "go up/went up", and "turn/turned".
> I can see no reason why the different verbs describing this static
> situation should have different meaning.
>
> Look at Joshua 16 and 17.
>
> 16:1 : One wayyiqtol and  one participle
> 16: 2-3: four weqatals
> 16:5: Two wayyiqtols
> 16: 8: One yiqtol and one weqatal
> 17:10: One wayyiqtol and one yiqtol
>
> Do you see any difference in tense or aspect in these verbs?

To give a "Jim West"-type response, yep.  (Actually, Jim, you've been doing 
much
better in giving more full explanations!)

> Or do they
> portray the same situation in a similar way without making differnt parts
> of the situation visible for the readers?

??? Like Dave, I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting here.  If you're 
asking if
all the verbs are saying the same basic stuff, nope.

Now for a bit fuller response:

What we have in these descriptions of the borders of the tribal inheritances 
is
imbedding of a genre rarely found in the Tanakh, a purely descriptive text 
that is
non-sequential, non-agent oriented, and non-future (in fact, non-time 
oriented).  It
is imbedded in a historical narrative, which has almost the exact opposite
characteristics (sequential, agent oriented, and, while non-future, 
definitely time
oriented).

In English, if I recall correctly, this type description is given without 
verbs; land
descriptions use nouns, adjectives, and prepositions only.  However we are 
not talking
about English structure.  We are trying to describe the Hebrew.

Because the description is imbedded in historical narrative, it starts off 
each
section with historical narrative-type features.  The difference between this 
genre
and the other non-historical narrative genres is that this genre is *not* 
dialogue or
quotation.  Therefore it does not use a distinct historical narrative marker, 
like the
wayyiqtol of )MR.  Rather, it uses a distinctly historical narrative form in 
the first
clause of each section  After that, it returns to the form that is 
characteristic of
its genre, in this case, a weqatal and its companion, X-yiqtol.  (Rolf, 
please note
something that you have not acknowledged in the past.  For some reason, BH 
seems to
make a distinction between the forms of verbs found clause initially and 
those found
postpositively in clauses.  I have noted in many of your posts that you 
select yiqtols
or qatals and question about their "time" without indicating that you 
recognize that
they are clausally postpositive.)

So, to go down your list, which I'll repeat:

16:1 : One wayyiqtol and  one participle

Wayyiqtol because this is the start of a section, so the broader historical 
narrative
"overpowers" the descriptive genre.
The participle is describing MDBR.

16: 2-3: four weqatals

Characteristic form for the descriptive genre.  I would suggest translating 
it into
English using the simple present, since time is not of significance in this 
genre.

16:5: Two wayyiqtols

The first is part of a section clause for historical narrative.  It's not 
even part of
the imbedded description, just like the wayyiqtol which you conveniently did 
not
mention in verse 4.  The second marks the section beginning for an imbedded
description.  Also, please note that both of these are not just wayyiqtols, 
but they
are wayyiqtols of HYH, which is normally used to introduce new sections in 
historical
narratives.

16: 8: One yiqtol and one weqatal

Actually an X-yiqtol and a weqatal, which are characteristic forms for the 
descriptive
genre.

17:10: One wayyiqtol and one yiqtol

Again, the section/"paragraph" beginning for an imbedded description. (And 
again, a
wayyiqtol of HYH.)  And the yiqtol is X-yiqtol again.

Bottom line: English may translate all these the same way, but I see the 
choice of the
verb forms in the Hebrew to be both significant, non-interchangable, and 
predictable,
given the overall genre and the imbedded genre.

All the above is IMHO.

HTH,

Paul
--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph