Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG]

Dear Moon,

You wrote:

1 Sam 28:3 retrieves the first piece of information with a 
non-narrative 
construction [x+qatal]; then it goes with CONTINUATION wayyiqtol:
(2)
  (a) Now Samuel had died [x+qatal]
  (b) and all Israel had made lament [wayyiqtol] for him
  (c) and they had buried him [Idem].

<snip>

To preserve the similarity or symmetry between the mainline of the 
narrative and a digression, I would translate 1 Sam 28:3 as follows:

(3)
  (a) Now Samuel had died [x+qatal]
  (b) All Israel made lament [wayyiqtol] for him
  (c) They buried him [Idem].

Notice that wayyiqtols after x-qatal are translated to simple past 
clauses.
If many English speakers like (3) better than (2), it may be 
considered 
another evidence that English simple past is quite similar to 
wayyiqtol.

I like (3) better than (2)...

Peter Kirk's reply:

I am afraid that I, as a native English speaker, prefer (2) to (3). 
Obviously the translators of the English version you quote did so 
also, and not just those translators; NRSV, RSV, NIV, TEV, CEV, REB 
all use a string of past perfects here (New Living Translation uses 
three past perfects and one simple past in this verse); of the modern 
translations I have here, only NJV follows your (3). (Could the Jewish 
translators be so immersed in b-hebrew that their English syntax is 
drawn to the Hebrew model?) I do not absolutely reject (3), but to me 
it seems colloquial and inappropriate to a formal text such as a Bible 
translation (or one using high-level and archaic phrases like "made 
lament"). So I am afraid that we must conclude that this is a place 
where Hebrew and English differ, and that English does not preserve 
nice symmetries etc.

By the way, I looked also at French versions. BFC, TOB and Segond all 
use a series of plus-que-parfaits at this point. This casts some doubt 
on the observation that French plus-que-parfait is continued with 
passe simple. LXX and Russian both read as if Samuel's death was 
sequential with verse 2.

You do not mention the last clause of this verse, another X-qatal 
which seems to be a further flashback to a time before Samuel's death; 
at least this is an action which seems to fit better with the picture 
of the early part of Saul's reign. The English of most of the Bible 
versions has no way of indicating the further flashback, which is 
indicated in the Hebrew by the further X-qatal and in NJV by a second 
past perfect.

Peter Kirk