Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Alviero Niccacci  wrote,


> 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.


I have not claimed that an author always narrated the events "as they
happened", so in principle I accept your suggestions. My point, however,
was that 2Kings 20 and Isaiah 38 are doublettes, i.e. the accounts were not
written independently, but one of the accounts was copied from the other.
In such cases we would not expect a difference in the temporal setting.

 For instance, in the 470 verses in BH which are doublettes, I found the
following differences:
24 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and qatal in the doublette.
4 examples of yiqtol  in one verse and weqatal in the doublette.
6 examples of yiqtol in one verse and qatal in the doublette.
7 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and yiqtol in the doublette.
2 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and weyiqtol in the doublette (one is
our example).
5 examples of wayyiqtol in one verse and a participle or an infinitive in
the doublette.
11 examples of yiqtol in one verse and a weqatal, infinitive or participle
in the doublette.

In none of these situations is it evident that a change of time setting is
the reason for the choice of different verbs. As a matter of fact, *all*
the verb forms (yiqtol, weyiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal, and weqatal) can be
used for past, present and future. This indicates that none of the forms
are diametrical opposites, but there are common elements in all forms (or I
would say: "in both forms" because I view yiqtol, weyiqtol, and wayyiqtol
as semantically identical and weqatal and qatal as semantically identical),
to the effect that all forms *can* be used for any situation, except
conative situations where only imperfective forms can be used. Looking from
a pragmatic point of view, I find the scheme of your grammar correct in
most cases. In my view, the scheme is correct because of the strong
linguistic convention regarding narrative texts, not because a particular
form can be restricted to one particular use.

Back to our verses. You say that the question of 2 Kings 20:8
chronologically came before the account of v 7, and this is possible. But
would you also say that the question of Isaiah 38:22 came before the
account of v 21?  If so, why? If Isaiah 38:22  chronologically came after
the account of v 21, would that not be a strong argument in favour of the
same order in 2Kings 20:7,8 because the accounts are doublettes?

These questions may reveal a potential circularity in your discourse model:
If we decide that wayyiqtol has this meaning and function, and weyiqtol has
this meaning and function and so forth, we will interprete a particular
construction with wayyiqtol or wyiqtol according to our view. But then we
have no independent control, because we have already decided the meaning
and function of verb forms.  Would you also, for instance, have
interpretated 2 Kings 20:8 as being prior to v 7 if the vowelpoints were
lacking and if also the second lqh was lacking?
A possible way to reduce circularity would be to compare *all* the
weyiqtols and wayyiqtols of the Bible in the light of temporal setting and
aspect to see what would appear.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo