Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol

Dear Lee,

Thanks for your kind reply.
I think you are right concerning the relationship between x-qatal #16 in Judg. 1:9 and wayyiqtol #17 in 1:10.  Indeed, *we'aHar yaredû* marks the beginning of a new phase in the wars of Judah. The same construction x-qatal marks new episodes in the account of the conquest in the following verses: v. 16 (the Kenites), v. 21 (the Benjaminites), v. 29 (the Ephraimites), v. 30 (Zebulun), v. 31 (the Asherites), and v.  33 (Naphtali).  On the contrary, the wars of other tribes are not related separately--the House of Joseph (v. 22) is connected with the Benjaminites (v. 21), as is Manasseh (v. 27). Note that in the last case *welo' hôrîsh menashsheh* (v. 27) is a negative wayyiqtol, not x-qatal, because a negative x-qatal would be different-- see *we'eprayim lô' hôrîsh* (v. 29), that is the X element is preposed to the negative form lo'+verb; also see vv. 30, 31, and 33.

I think you are also right that x-qatal #16 indicates Judah's campaign in general and the following wayyiqtol forms give the details. Now, the x-qatal #16 SYNTACTICALLY depends on the following wayyiqtol #17, in the sense that it can not stand alone, however GRAMMATICALLY it is not dependent, in the sense that it is not preceded by a subordinating conjunction like *kî*. Therefore I would not translate that x-qatal  with a subordinate clause.

We have here an example of CHRONOLOGICALLY non-sequential wayyiqtol (see my previous posting). A similar thing is found in the previous verses 4-6. There the order of the exposition is peculiar--Judah defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites at Bezek (v. 4); they found Adoni-bezek, fought against him and defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites (v. 5); Adoni-bezek fled, they pursued him etc. (v. 6). The order is as follows: A (Canaanite-Perizzites), B (Adoni-bezek), A (Canaanites-Perizzites), B (Adoni-bezek). Therefore the wayyiqtol *wayyimSe'û" in v. 5 has most probably an explicating function as has *wayyakkû* later in the same verse. I would translate as follows: "ACTUALLY they found Adoni-bezek at Bezek and fought against him, AND THUS they defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites. THEN (Adoni-bezek fled..."

This phenomenon raises the problem of ORDER--how are we to evaluated the order of a text? H. Weinrich (among others, I suppose) taught us to distinguish between TENSE and TIME. This distinction is clear in English as is in German--Tempus and Zeit. The two levels are distinct; they may coincide but may also diverge. We may narrate the future or predict the past. Therefore I think that we must keep the two levels separate and not let the TIME--or the actual course of the events as we understand them--interfere with the syntactic function of the TENSES used to describe them.  Actually, the writer may wish to manipulate the order of the events and arrange them in a way that fits his strategy of communication. HIS ORDER may be different from the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. Now, he produces his order by chosing appropriate verbforms and other constructions of a given language. Our task is to try to understand and respect his order. That is why a correct syntactical analysis is the basis of the interpretation. It is only the first step, but a necessary one. Unfortunately this step is normally neglected.

Fot those who read Italian--I hve examined complete chapters of BH prose (Josh. 1-6; Judg. 1-8, except chap. 5; 2 Samuel 5-7 // 1 Chronicles 11-17; and *the use of wayehî* in Exod. 1-14) in _Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica_ (Jerusalem 1991).

Sorry for the long posting.

Alviero Niccacci

On  02/20/99 (Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol) Lee R. Martin wrote:


> Dear Friends,
> Many thanks for the fine responses from Prof. Niccacci and Bryan Rocine.
> One more question.  What is the relationship between ## 16&17?  Bryan said
> that #16 indicates a new time frame, and he is correct. However, is #17

> subsequent to #16, or is #16 a summary of #17ff ?  Consider the following

> translations of verse 10:
>
> NRS  Judah went against the Canaanites ...
> NAB Judah also marched against the Canaanites ...
> NKJ  Then Judah went against the Canaanites ...
> NJB  Judah next marched on the Canaanites ...
>
> The NRS, along with KJV, REB, and many other translation, seems to view v. 9
> as a summary that includes v. 10, that is, the "Canaanites living in the
> hill country" (v.9)  would include the "Canaanites in Hebron" (v.10).  The
> NAB, NKJ, NJB, as well as Reina-Valera, (which uses "luego" to begin v.10)
> seem to suggest that v. 9 is previous to v. 10 and two marches are in view.
> My understanding of  x-qatal causes me to lean toward one march, not two.
> Or, to put it another way, v.9 is a campaign, and v. 10 is one march in the
> campaign.  I would translate vv. 9-10 paraphrastically "Aftward, when the
> Judahites went south to make war on the Canaanites living in the highlands,
> the Negev, and the Shephelah, they marched against the Canaanites in
> Hebron...."
>
> Is this reasonable?
>
>
> "Lee R. Martin" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 16 x-qatal - And afterward the children of Judah went down to fight
> >                    against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain,
> >                    and in the south, and in the valley.
> > 17 wayyiqtol - And Judah went against the Canaanites that dwelt
> >                         in Hebron: ... and they slew Sheshai, and .....
> >
>
> --
>
> Lee R. Martin
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
> Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
> Church of God Theological Seminary
> http://www.earth.vol.com/~lmartin/

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel

Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email           mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il