Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Peter Kirk wrote:

>Dear Rolf,
>
>Thank you for your response. Let me first say a few things about
>scientific method. I appreciate your desire to work by falsification
>rather than confirmation, and your insistence that just a few
>counter-examples are sufficient to falisfy a theory. I am a little
>sceptical, especially because of textual difficulties. But with
>falsification you have to be very sure of your ground; you need to
>confirm your falisification 100%, not just 90%. What I am saying here
>is that your alleged falisifications are not at all certain because of
>possible alternative explanations. Even if the alternative
>explanations are only 10% likely, the falsification fails.
>
>I do not accept that there are any wayyiqtols in Habakkuk with
>unambiguously non-past meaning. At least the examples you have given
>are not unambiguous. I understand your difficulty with the idea of an
>embedded past narrative in a prophecy; perhaps the answer is that
>wayyiqtol can be used for sequential narratives even when these are
>non-past. Alternatively, perhaps only v.6 is to be taken as predictive
>and the rest as desriptive of the Babylonians.
>
>The BHS compilers have taken an alternative and quite possible view of
>the wayyiqtols in Habakkuk, that they are mistakes in pointing or
>copying for original weyiqtols. This would actually be a very probable
>copying error for scribes to harmonise the rare weyiqtol form to the
>common wayyiqtol. This is not an argument that these two forms were
>originally a single form.
>
>Here is a possible translation of Habakkuk 9-11 (based on the one you
>sent):
>
>9 they all come bent on violence.
>Their hordes advanced like a desert wind
>and gathered (WAYYIQTOL) prisoners like sand.
>10 They were deriding kings and scoffing at rulers;
>they were laughing at all fortified cities.
>They built (WAYYIQTOL) earthen ramps and captured (WAYYIQTOL) them.
>11 Then they swept (QATAL) past like the wind
>and went on (WAYYIQTOL).
>They are guilty men,
>whose own strength is their god.
>
>Peter Kirk


Dear Peter,

Paul and Rod recently asked about my views of the problematic verses in
Habakkuk, and I would like to say something about how I approach a text in
order to translate it.

The first question I must ask is: Who is the target group? The degree of
literalness depends of the purpose of the translated text. (In order to be
brief I will not elucidate this). I view the words of a language
(particularly verbs and nouns) as semantic signals of concepts in the minds
of those speaking the language.  Each concept has a core which is quite
clear but becomes fuzzy towards its edges. The context does not generate
new meaning, but illuminates which side of each concept the author wants to
make visible. Thus the combination of words in clauses conveys meaning.

Honestly speaking, I see little use in starting an analysis by  classifying
the text in "narrative" and "discourse", and further in "hortatory
discourse" etc (to see verbal patterns, however, the categories are
useful). The writers were not aware of such categories and did not arrange
their texts and choose his verbs in the light of such categories.  However,
the writers arranged their text on the basis of emphasis (e.g. "I say."
versus "It is I who say."), on the basis of thematic roles; the semantic
relationship between the agent and the patient (e.g. the agent acts on the
patient, the patient is acted upon by the agent, the agent lets another
agent have a part in the action, two agents act upon one another, The agent
leads the patient through the end of an action and into a state, the agent
leads the patient into a state.). Further did the writers arrange their
text on the basis of theme/rheme (old and new information) and on the basis
of definiteness and indefiniteness (mass/count nouns, singular/plural,
article/no article) and on the basis of mood, etc.

The basic tool I use when I translate is simply oldfashioned grammatical
analysis. I take the stems into account to find the thematic roles, look at
the verbs in the light of the three semantic categories underlying the
vendlerian categories, dynamicity, durativity, and telicity (which
particularly is important to differentiate between stative and fientive
verbs), look at the word order to fine theme/rheme, at the verb form and
the context to find mood and at the context to fix the time setting. I will
use Habbakkuk as an example.

What is the setting of Hab 1:5-11? We find the following indications in vv
5,6: The prophet speaks about a work which will occur "in their days", and
HINNE followed by a participle always refer to the future. Thus we have a
prophecy about the future, and we expect to find verbs with future meaning
(predicted actions) and present meaning (characteristics).  We cannot
exclude that verbs with past meaning can occur in such a setting, but that
would be unusual and we would expect clear markers in such a case. In
v 11 we find the adverb )FZ which must refer to a particular time/situation
either in the past or in the future. There is nothing in the context
suggesting a past reference, and because the whole setting is future, we
must conclude that it is future (Interestingly, "The Dictionary of
Classical Hebrew", 1993, D. J.A. Clines, I, 167,168, uses Hab 1:11 as an
example of the future meaning of  )FZ followed by a QATAL. another example
is Isaiah 33:23.) The words of v 5 that you will not believe even if it is
told, also excludes a past meaning of v 11. The task, therefore is to find
the predicative verbs with future meaning and the verbs describing the
Chaldeans with present (gnomic) meaning. I suggest the following
translation:



9. all of it comes (YIQTOL) for violence.
the trust of their faces is forward  (NOMINAL),
and it gathers (WAYYIQTOL) captives like the sand.
10. As for its part, it will scoff (YIQTOL) at kings,
and princes shall be a scorn to it (NOMINAL).
It will laugh (YIQTOL) at every stronghold,
heap up (WAYYIQTOL) dirt and capture (WAYYIQTOL) it.
11. Then it will pass by (QATAL)  like a wind,
it will transgress (WAYYIQTOL) and become guilty (WEQATAL);
this its power is god to it (NOMINAL).


Verse 7 starts with a nominal (stative) clause, which indicates a
*description* of the Chaldean nation. It seems that this description
continues to the end of v 8, and I would translate these two verses by
English present. Because of the definite reference of the action in v 11,
indicated by the adverb, I use future from this point and to the end of v
11.
The second clause of  verse 9 is lexically difficult. I would have a
footnote here in a translation.
Its tense is indicated by the preceding clause and the WAYYIQTOL in the
third clause must be translated by the same tense.  To translate this
WAYYIQTOL with past tense because WAYYIQTOL usually is used with past
meaning in narratives, is in my view to do violence to the Hebrew text. The
three clauses of the verse are syntactically coordinated, (explicitly
expressed by the waw of the WAYYIQTOL), they are semantically coordinated
(they express three similar characteristics of the Chaldeans), and they
must therefore have the same tense. There is absolutely nothing in the
context suggesting that the other WAYYIQTOLS, the QATAL and the WEQATAL
have past meaning.
-----

But, if both YIQTOL, WAYYIQTOL, QATAL, and WEQATAL can be translated by the
same tense, why could not just one verb form be used? As stated several
times, I see just two forms, a prefix-conjugation and a suffix-conjugation.
But still, why two forms if they are translated similarly?

Waltke/O'Connor (352-359) has a very fine discussion of the problems of
rendering the Hebrew stems into English. The book shows that all nuances
expressed by the stems can be rendered into English, but sometimes this
must occur by circumlocution. In some instances would a literal translation
even be strange. We can use the Hithpael of v 10 as an example. I view it
as factitive (it brings itself into the state of scoffing kings) or less
likely, habituative (it has the habit of scoffing kings) (ibid 424-432).
The reason for the use of the Hitpael is not certain, and both because of
this and of the fact that a factitive sense is difficult or unnecessary to
express in English, I translate the vers as if it were a Qal.

This may illustrate why both prefix-forms and suffix-forms often are
translated similarly into English. The lexical meaning of the verbs, their
Aktionsart, the context, and linguistic convention are much more important
for choosing the English tense than the conjugations. However, the two
conjugations, which I view as peepholes or subjective viewpoints, may be
used in combinations with the mentioned characteristics to express
particular nuances. This is so because some characteristics are more
readily combined with a closeup narrow view than with a broad view from a
distance.

Take a habitual situation as an example. This can be expressed either
lexically or grammatically. In 1 Sam 1:3, a WEQATAL is used in a clause
describing a habitual action, but in v 7, the same is described by a
YIQTOL.  In v 3 the habituality is exclusively *lexically* described  (by
the adverbial), in v 7 it is both lexically ( by the adverbial) and
grammatically (by the imperfective aspect) described. Even if we removed
the adverbial in v 7, the clause could be interpreted as habitual because
of the aspect. Thus a habitual situation can be described by a QATAL, but
in that case we need information from the context, a YIQTOL  can, on the
other hand, be used to signal a habitual situation alone.
Conative situations is also exclusively expressed (grammatically) by
imperfective verbs, while ingressive states are expressed by perfective
verbs.

There is always a difference between the prefix-conjugation and the
suffix-conjugation, but because this difference is subjective, it need not,
and in many instances cannot be expressed in English (in a strictly literal
study Bible, however, the difference can be expressed in almost all cases).
In the cases above, the differences between the conjugations, as far as
translation is concerned, are quite clear. In other instances it need to be
investigated. For example, what is the difference between QATAL/WEQATAL
used with future meaning and YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL used with future meaning? It
seems that a broad viewpoint into the future from some distance normally
would include a complete (not completed)  situation, while a narrow view
with focus on a small part of an event is not complete. Because of this,
the linguistic convention seemed to be that QATAL/WEQATAL used for the
future would often indicate an emphasis or certainty which lacked in the
use of YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL for the future (I am still investigating this).  It
is being discussed by linguists whether English has a future *tense* or
whether only mood is expressed by verbs with future meaning.  One area
which I will investigate, is whether QATAL/WEQATAL used for the future
indicate the indicative mood and YIQTOL/WAYYIQTOL indicate "subjunctive".


What I have written above indicates that the conjugations can, in
combinations with other factors, create different nuances. But, while there
is a difference between the conjugations in "meaning" or presentation
inside the Hebrew presupposition pool, there is in many instances no need
to translate the conjugations differently into English, because no part of
the English verbal system either overtly or covertly is a counterpart to a
Hebrew conjugation. Some literal translations take great pains to translate
the conjugations differently, and this can be a service to the readers of
"study bibles", but even such translations are not able to make the
distinction in *every* case. The described model can account for *any*
finite verb form in the Bible, and there may be two reasons for this:
Either the model is too vague, and therefore meaningless, because any datum
can be accounted for, or it gives a true representation of the Hebrew
verbal system.


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo