Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Bryan

>Hi Rolf,
>
>you wrote:
>>suggests a future/modal setting for both 2 Kings 20:7 and Isaiah 38:21.
>The
>>versions tend to agree with this setting. Regarding the last verb xyh,
>>according to my notes which I cannot check at the moment, we find the
>>following renderings:
>>2 Kings 20:7; LXX: future, Peshitta: waw + participle, Vulgate:  perfect,
>>Targum: waw + perfect, Ge'ez: waw + subjunctive
>>Isaiah 38:21; adjective + future, Peshitta: waw + participle, Vulgate,
>>present passive; Targum: waw + imperfect, Ge'ez: waw + subjunctive.
>>The problems of differentiating between weyiqtol and wayyiqtol in
>unpointed
>>texts is also adequately illustrated by these two verses. Just delete the
>>vowels, and try to find the time setting without them.
>>
>>To the TAM-niks on the list: would you argue for a similar time setting,
>or
>>that Isaiah uses a future/modal setting and that 2 Kings uses a past
>>setting?
>
>Taken as is in the MT, I would say the two passages display a different
>arrangement of narrator's text and character's text (or direct speech).  In
>2 Ki 20:7, the character's text ends after one clause containing an
>imperative.  The wayyiqtol's are narrator's text.  In contrast, I would say
>the Isa 38:21 is all character's text (except for the initial speech intro
>formula).  As you have pointed out, several translations seem to cast doubt
>onthe pointing of the 2 Ki text.  2 Ki 20:8 also, logically seems to put
>the wayyiqtols in some doubt.  I would not be inclined to use this
>"doublet" to make conclusions about the verbal system, would you?  I don't
>really see your point.

The points I tried to convey was:
(1) In the doublettes of the Bible we do not expect a change of the time
setting; because the same situation is portrayed. The question of Hezekiah
in 2 Kings 20:8 is hardly meaningful if v 7 tells that he actually was
healed. The fact that we find the same question in Isaiah 38:22 as we do in
2 Kings 20:7, and Isaiah 38:21 is modal, clearly suggests that the verb(s)
of 2 Kings 20:7 also should be taken as modal/future, and speaking against
any back-loop. Note that the versions not only speak against past time in 2
Kings 20:7, but also suggest that the verb qxh is not original. This verb
is lacking in the LXX, the Syriac and the Ge'ez version, and if this was
original, the text of 2 kings 20:7 would even be closer to isaiah 38:21.

(2) Try to work with Isaiah 38:21-22 and 2 Kings 20:7,8 in unpointed texts
(where even qxh is lacking). There would be absolutely nothing in such
texts suggesting which points hould be chosen. This shows the dilemma of
the Masoretes, and for us it is a text that lends itself readily to a wrong
pointing. The evidence we have, suggests in my view that we have parallel
texts with the same time setting where 2 Kings 20:7 was "wrongly"  pointed
by the Masoretes.

>
>I can understand the draw to the Masoretes to point weyiqtols in 2 Ki 20:7
>as wayyiqtols.  All weyiqtols would signify all character's text.  The
>actualization of the healing would therefore go unrecorded in the narration
>portion of the text, a prospect that would leave the reader in a bit in the
>lurch.
>
>In defense of the MT as is, I can suggest the possibility that v. 8 is a
>back-loop in the narration.
>

Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo