Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rodney K. Duke" <dukerk AT appstate.edu>]

Dear Colleagues,

I would appreciate any thoughts about the clause sequences in Ezek
44:9-12.  In particular I would like to know how the text
linguists/discourse practitioners understand: (a) the use of the
x+yiqtols in relationship to the weqatals in the context of instruction,

(b) the two uses of wehavu which do not seem to be macro-syntactic
markers, and (c) the use of y'n asher with a yiqtol.

(This is a difficult passage to read "freshly," since it so often has
been read with Josiah's dispossessed Levites and Wellhausen's
reconstruction of the history of the levitical priesthood in mind,
although the text makes no mention of Josiah's actions and other
elements about the nature of the cult that Wellhausen assumed.)

1 x+qatal, intro to reported speech = Thus says the Lord
                GOD
2 x+lo'+yiqtol, neg. injunction = Every son of a foreigner
                ... will not enter into my holy place, even
                every son of a foreigner...
3 asher+nom. cl., rel cl. for description = who is in
                the midst of the sons of Israel;
4 kiy 'im + x +[*yiqtol], instruction = but rather, the
                Levites [will enter],
5 asher+qatal, rel. cl. for past background = who became
                distant from me,
6 b+inf, temporal cl. cotemp. w/#5 = when Israel wandered
                away
7 asher+qatal, rel. cl. past background = who went away
                from me after their idols.
8 weqatal, instruction = And they* will bear their* guilt.
9 weqatal (wehayvu), new parag? continues instruction? =
                And they shall be servants*, overseers, of
                the gates of the house and servants* of the
                house.
10 x+yiqtol, *instruction = They themselves will slaughter
                the whole-burnt offering and the sacrifice
                for the people.
11 x+yiqtol, *instruction = They themselves will stand
                before them [the people] to serve them.
12 y'n asher+*yiqtol, past(?) reason, protasis for what
                follows? = Because they served them before
                their idols
13 weqatal (wehayvu) seems to complement #12 = and they
                were to the house of Israel a stumbling of
                iniquity;
14 'l-kn + qatal,(x+qatal) seems to be apodosis of #12 =
                therefore, I lifted my hand against them
                [house of Israel, Levites, or both?]
15 nom cl, descriptive comment? speech formula closing or
                opening? = an oracle of the Lord GOD
16 weqatal, instruction = And they will bear their guilt
[Forms an inclusio with #8 and might set 8-16 off as a unit; however the

clause is missing in the LXX.]

Notes/Comments:
4 kiy 'im sometime is used with ellipsis and implies the previous verb.
I think that this grammatical possibility leads to a different
understanding of the text than how it has been traditionally translated
and understood (i.e. the cultic role of the Levites as found in P is
being re-instated with stricter guidelines), but that is not the focus
of my question here.

8 I have taken my lead from J. Milgrom and think that this phrase is
probably used here as it is used in P.  There it is a technical phrase
that has no idea of punishment, but is an assignment of responsibility
for preventing cultic encroachment.  As such a technical phrase, the
implied antecedents are: "and they [the Levites] will bear their [the
people's] guilt."  Note that the speech is directed mainly toward the
"rebellious house of Israel" vs 6.

9 I agree with Milgrom that in a technical, cultic context, mshrt refers

to guard duty against cultic encroachment, which is one of the main
offenses the house of Israel is being charged with (see vv 6-8).  It
would be better translated here as "guards" than as "servant."

10 & 11  It is here that Ezekiel's envisioned cultic practice becomes
stricter than that in P and is more than just a re-establishing of what
is found in P.  It would seem that these two instructions would be set
off more; however, some discourse linguists see x+yiqtols as off-line or

topicalization.  How should they be explained here?

12 Problem explaining the yiqtol.  In every occurrence I have found, y'n

asher is followed by qatal, except in one other place where it is yiqtol

and the context is clearly future and modal, but that case is in Ezekiel

(12:12).  LXX reads qatal.  (Furuli's approach might work here: the
action of serving is being viewed as part of the larger event of being a

stumbling.  Or Rocines' approach might work: serving is the action that
they did as causers of stumbling.)  Ideas?

Thank in advance for any input!

--
Rodney K. Duke
Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608
(O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu