Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Title: Re: 2Ki 20:7 and Isa 38:21

On  03/07/99 (Re: 2Ki 20:7 and Isa 38:21) Bryan Rocine and Rolf Furuli wrote:


> Dear Bryan
>
      <snip>
> > you wrote

> >
> >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).

        <snip>
>
> 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.
>

        <snip>

> >
> >In defense of the MT as is, I can suggest the possibility that v. 8 is a
> >back-loop in the narration.
> >
>
> Regards
> Rolf

Dear Bryan Rocine and Rolf Furuli,

I take the opportunity of this exchange between you concerning 2 Kgs 20:7 vs. Isa 38:21 to suggest a possible solution to the problem--a solution similar to that seemingly suggested by Bryan--and also add a consideration on the broader subject of how a narrative is structured, and finally on the basics of BH syntax.

According the MT the two texts read as follows:
- Isa 38:21 "Isaiah said, Let them bring a cake of figs, and apply to the boil, that he may recover."
- 2 Kgs 20:7 " Isaiah said, Bring a cake of figs. They took it and put it on the boil and he recovered."

The question of Hezekiah in 2Kgs 20:8--""What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me...?"--need not militate against the soundness of wayyiqtol in  the previous verse.
Let us look at similar cases.

- (1) Gen 37:21 "Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hands, and said,  Let us not take his life."  + 37:22 (Reuben gives the brothers his advise) "in order to rescue him out of their hand, to restore him to his father."==The rescuing itsel happened after 37:22.
- (2) 2 Sam 5:7 "Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David" + 5:8 "David said on that day,  Whoever would smite the Jebusites, let him strike the water channel.."==The taking of Zion happened after David's words in 5:8.
- (3) Josh 2:4 "The woman took the two men and hid each one of them (separately) and said..." + 2:6 "Now she had brought them up to the roof, and hid them with the stalks..."==In 2:4 the hiding of the spies is quickly narrated; once the emergency is over, 2:6 resumes the information of 2:4 and adds the details of the hiding.
Another possible case is Judg 4:18 versus 4:19. I would refer to my _Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica_ (1991), pages 157 and 210.

In these cases, apparently the narrator wants to inform the reader from the outset of the outcome of the event, and afterwards he narrates the details.

Similarly in 2 Kgs 20:7 the narrator first gives the final outcome of the event,  then the details.
Further, there is no justification in translating with a pluperfect the wayyiqtol's in Josh 2:4, e.g. "But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them..." (RSV, similarly JPS). If and when the writer wishes to indicate anteriority (i.e. a "recovered" piece of information) he uses not wayyiqtol but x-qatal as in Josh 2:6.

I would note that we should try to understand the way the narrator structures his information and to avoid recunstructing the course of the events "as they happened" or as we would narrate them.  Again, I would stress the necessity of distinguishing time (or the actual course of the events) and tense (or the means used by the narrator to convey his information).
Of course, this reasoning presupposes a basic understanding of the function(s) of the verbforms in BH. This is achieved by appropriately comparing sentences having a finite verbform in the first place with sentences having a finite verbform in the second place. Therefore, that reasoning can hardly be labelled as circular.
In other words, until we agree on the structure and function of the basic sentences we will continue discussing and producing arguments that run the risk of being misleading.

In my opinion the basic problem of BH syntax is to understand the function of verb-first versus verb-second sentences. The rest will come as a consequence.

Peace and all good,

Alviero Niccacci

Please, in your reply put the addressee name in the subject
=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=
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
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
     Professors Email  mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il
      Students Email mailto:sbfstud AT netvision.net.il
o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o