Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

Rolf wrote:
<snip>

>I used 20 Bible translations in
> English, German, French and Norwegian to check my judgement whether a
form
> had past or non-past meaning. 

I am sure you realize that we cannot assign a meaning to verb forms in BH
based on how it is translated in other languages.  That would require a
one-for-one correlation between the forms in BH and the forms in the
translation.  Such a correlation doesn't exist, IMO.  So you must mean that
you used the translations to check your interpretation of the time of the
context or passage in question.  What we can demonstrate by diverse
translations of a particular BH verb form, is that there is not a
one-for-one correlation between the BH form and the forms in the target
languages.  Also IMO, a lot of energy is wasted trying to imagine a
higher-than-justified correspondance between BH forms and forms in other
languages.  My motto: let the BHs be BHs.

Actually the correlation between forms in BH and the forms in a translation
is quite high if we talk about the functions of the forms in prose rather
than meanings of the forms.  For instance, most languages have a preferred
form for carrying the main plotline of a narrative set in the past. 
Translations of BH prose should exhibit a high correlation between this
preferred form and the BH wayyiqtol.

Does that mean wayyiqtol is equal in meaning to, for example, the English
simple past?  I don't think the equivalency in meaning should be assumed,
nor do I think an absolute correspondence in meaning exists with the
English form.  The BH wayyiqtol makes explicit temporal/logical sequence in
a way that is achieved in English by the construction adverbial + simple
past form.

Is there a wide divergence among translations of a particular form in a
particular verse?  I think we should not be entirely surprised that this
happens.  First off, as I said, the forms in BH and the target language do
not correspond exactly, and second, conventions for how to *use* similar
forms (in the two languages) may diverge. For instance, in certain contexts
both the English simple past and the BH wayyiqtol can be used to represent
repetitive action in the past, but the use of the English simple past for
repetitive action is much more common in English whereas BH prefers the
yiqtol or weqatal:

1.  Bill *ran* the Boston Marathon every year.
2.  "thus he would do(yiqtol) yearly...thus she would provoke(yiqtol) her,
so she wept(wayyiqtol) and would not eat(yiqtol)" (1 Sam 1:7)

Rolf again:
There may in a few cases be possible to
> discuss the temporal setting. A very good indicater, however, that a form
> is problematic, is when the notes of BHS suggests something else without
> evidence. This is seen in many/most of the cases below.
> 
> 2 Samuel 1:10 (1)
> 1 Kings 13:33 (1)
> 2 Kings 19:23,24,25  (4)(the one of v 24 definitely has past meaning, the
> sequence in 23-25 of way,qat,wey,wey, qat,qat,wey,qat, qat,wey-qat argue
> that all have past meaning)

Rolf, you often cite the mix of verb forms in a particular passage to
assert the mix, in and of itself, explodes a particular model of the BH
verbal system.  You know that I'm hardly a "vav-conversive man." On the
other hand, your pointing to a verb mix as you do is a bit simplistic for
me.  Are we to marvel that 2 wayyiqtols, 3 qatals, four yiqtols, a
participle (or some such mix) are all used in one context?  I'm not too
confident anyone is marvelling yet.

For instance, without even looking up 2 KI 19:23-25, I can guess that the
wayyiqtol introduces a quotation.  The quotation, made of a mix of qatals
and weyiqtols, expresses the present circumstances by the qatals, and the
speaker's intentions by the weyiqtols, i.e. "here's what has transpired,
and here's what I intend."  I may be wrong; that's not the point.  All I am
suggesting is that the verb mix, in and of itself, does not say anything
about the meanings of the forms.

I take it that several translations have rendered the weyiqtols as past. 
So?

1.  Is it poetry?  If so they may be archaic or archaizing yiqtols, the
"old" Historical Narrative mainline form.

2.  Do the translators follow the LXX?  Maybe they are right to do so, and
the text they had is better than the MT.  As Niccacci has recently stated,
I prefer the MT most of the time.

3.  Is it direct speech embedded within narrative?  If the MT is correct,
the translators are wrong.  They should have translated the weyiqtols as
modals, probably volitional forms, "may he, let me, let us, I intend."

Not recalling much poetry in Kings, I would say #1 is unlikely.

Also, Rolf, I noticed many of your 60-something weyiqtols with past
reference come from Late Biblical Hebrew.  Don't you think this may be an
issue? 

Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13208

315-437-6744(w)
315-479-8267(h)