Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:


>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.
>

Dear Peter,

Your explanation above illustrates why an extreme use of discourse analysis
with the meaning of the different forms fixed beforhand can do violence to
the Hebrew text. The view that WAYYIQTOL is a past tense have in my opinion
the same negative effect, particularly in a book such as Habaqquq where
there are other WAYYIQTOLS with non-past meaning (e.g. 1:3; 2:5, and 3:19).

As to the intention of the writer, 1:5 explicitly says that what follows is
a prophecy of the future.  I am not aware of any other prophecy in the
Bible where past acts of the one the prophecy speaks about are recorded in
the midst of predictions about the future. Note also that the compilers of
BHS had difficulties with the verbs of the verses, as is shown in the notes.

Would you please translate the verses to show us how the supposed
embeddeness and past meaning show up in a translation. Are there other
translations which are similar to this translation of yours?


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo