Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: qumran (was ruth)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: qumran (was ruth)
  • Date: Sun, 09 May 1999 20:59:33 -0400


If we look carefully the Hebrew (MT - BHS) of Habakkuk 1:6-11, it is
quite possible to understand these verb forms according to their
regular Hebrew meanings, and not take them to indicate something
different from regular prose. This passage deals with the general
characteristics of the Chaldeans and so uses yiqtol and weqatal forms.
But in verses 9-11a there is an embedded chronological narrative of
their procedure used in each attack (advance - gather prisoners -
build ramps - capture them - sweep past) - this is probably thought of
by the prophet as past, as what the Chaldeans have already done to
other cities. Thus we have a miniature embedded narrative using
wayyiqtol and X-qatal forms. Further embedded within this are the two
yiqtol forms of v.10 (scoff - laugh) which are again habitual and so
yiqtol.

I suspect that the LXX translators (not native speakers of Hebrew and
working from a consonantal text) missed the nuances and read weyiqtol
for wayyiqtol. As for the Qumran commentary, its writers reinterpreted
the Chaldeans as the Kittim or Romans, and so they had to reinterpret
the Hebrew text as entirely prophetic and future from Habbakuk's
viewpoint.

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page