Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Shalom, Haver,

Rodney Duke wrote:
> 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,

I would not call this passage run-of-the-mill instruction.
For one, it does not contain the occasional imperative that
marks the major behavioral goal that an Instructional
Discourse is designed to achieve.  The imperatives directed
to Eze in v. 5 do not count because they are part of a
different layer of communication than the passage in
question, that layer in which YHVH exhorts Eze as to just
how he should receive the following "statutes" and
"instructions."  YHVH's reference, in v. 5 to the coming
discourse as "statutes" (xuqot) and "instructions" (torot)
should be understood in a very liberal, almost figurative
sense, IMO.  I suggest the terms "statute" and "instruction"
are used to refer to a future reality with rhetorical terms
that stress the unavoidability of this future.  After all,
YHVH is depicted (v. 4) as bringing Eze about Jerusalem to
give him visions of a future reality in which a mysterious
order, the "sons of Tsadoq" have a place of honor, but the
polluted priesthood is sanctioned.  I would say that Eze is
to present the message to his audience not so much as
instruction, but as a *description* of that future reality,
and I would label vv. 9-12 appropriately as an *Expository
Discourse* about the future.

A Predictive Narrative would make heavier use of the
weqatal, as you have noticed, but we see tyhe heavy use of
X-yiqtol is this passage.  The X-yiqtol, I would say is a
type of nominal clause, and ranks fairly high in the
discourse profile scheme of Expository Discourse, which is
designed to make statements rather than move forward
narrative time.  For instance, I would translate the first
X-yiqtol of the passage (v. 9) "It is the stranger, the
uncircumscribed of heart, the uncircumscribed of flesh who
will not enter my sanctuary--no stranger at all that is in
the midst of Israel."  My use of the formula "It
is...who..." is to give the sense that the clause is nominal
by virtue of its word order rather than active.

>
> (b) the two uses of wehavu which do not seem to be
macro-syntactic
> markers, and

I think you will note that in Eze the weqatal of hyh is used
as a copula in the future, a "will be," plain and simple.
The use of vehayu in this passage is further evidence that
the passage is expository rather than instructional.  I
don't think vehayah ever means "and may he become..." in
Eze, although I can't say I have scrutinized all the
weqatals of hyh, and I am more than willing to be corrected.

>(c) the use of y'n asher with a yiqtol.

This could be a yiqtol giving repetitive, habitual action in
the past.

<snip>

>
> 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.

Referring to venos'u:  Perhaps, and viewing the passage as
strictly instructional rather than expository would
encourage this interpretation of venos'u as merely an
alteration in cultic practice.  On the other hand, viewing
the passage as expository tends toward an interpretation of
venos'u as a sanction or punishment.  In regards to the
latter interpretation, doesn't the very mention, in this
context, of the unfaithful priesthood which served before
its fetishes suggest that venos'u refers to a sanction?
Perhaps, after all, we're talking about only one
interpretation viewed two ways.  I.e., a change in cultic
practice is defintiely a part of the new order, but the
change in cultic practice would also certainly be favorable
to those who served faithfully and be a demotion for those
who had polluted the service of YHVH.

<snip>

> 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?

In Expository Discourse the mainline is the verbless clause.
Some grammarians suggest that any clause in which the finite
verb comes in second position is a "verbless clause" of a
sort, called a complex nominal clause in which the predicate
happens to contain a clause with a finite verb.  If the
passage is indeed expository, such nominal X-yiqtols may
qualify as mainline clauses.  Such clauses are stative and
off-the-line in genres that tell stories.  In contrast,
stative clauses are mainline clauses in a genre devoted to
exposition.



Shalom,
Bryan



B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267