Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

 On  05/12/99 (Re: die Flucht ins Prasens (was Ruth)) Rodney Duke wrote:

< long snip >
> 
> --------
> Neh. 3:13-15 (from Furuli's post of April 24, 1999):
> (13) The Valley Gate was repaired (qatal) by Hanun and the residents of
> Zanoah. They rebuilt it (qatal) and put (wayyiqtol) its doors and bolts
> and bars in place. They also repaired five hundred yards of the wall as
> far as the Dung Gate.
> (14) The Dung Gate was repaired (qatal) by Malkijah son of Recab, ruler
> of the district of Beth Hakkerem. He rebuilt it (yiqtol) and put
> (weyiqtol) its doors and bolts and bars in place.
> (15) The Fountain Gate was repaired (qatal) by Shallun son of Col-Hozeh,
> ruler of the district of Mizpah. He rebuilt it (yiqtol), roofing it over
> (weyiqtol) and putting (weyiqtol) its doors and bolts and bars in
> place.  He also repaired the wall of the Pool of Siloam, by the King's
> Garden, as far as the steps going down from the City of David.
> ------------
> What do you think?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Rodney


Dear Rodney Duke,

with reference to your post of May 5, 1999, I appreciate your attempt to bridge between discourse analysis (text types) and Rolf Furuli's position. However, I would like to comment on the text referred to there.

- Neh. 3:13-15 is an interesting text. Actually it is a part of a larger unit (3:1-32). This unit begins with wayyiqtol, which connects it to what precedes. Note that Sanballat's hearing of what was going on in Jerusalem brackets the unit--see 3:19 and 3:33.

After two narrative wayyiqtols in 3:1, there follows a long series of x-qatals (3:2-32). The (re)building of the Sheep Gate is narrated with wayyiqtol (3:1). It was Eliashib the high priest and his brethren the priests that built it and they are given prominence among the other builders. They are named in the mainline (wayyiqtol) while the others are named in a secondary line (x-qatal), which is related to the mainline.

Being composed of a long series of x-qatals, the text becomes a kind of a list. Each item in the list begins with x-qatal and is parallel to the others; all of them relate to the mainline wayyiqtol in 3:1. In one case (3:25) the verb *hexezîq* "repaired" is omitted. This confirms the assumption that in this x-qatal construction the verbform is not the main element of the sentence, i.e. it is not the "predicate", otherwise it could not be implied. In 3:26 a x-qatal construction is used in order to provide parenthetical information on the location of the houses of the temple servants.

Usually each item provides several pieces of information. After the initial x-qatal, they are conveyed with continuation wayyiqtols; x-qatals are used in order to  highlight a detail. E.g. 3:3: "The Fish Gate--the sons of Hassenaah built it (intial x-qatal); it was they that roofed it (x-qatal in order to highlight for some reason the personal pronoun preceding the verb) and set up (continuation wayyiqtol) its doors, locks, and bars."
(This translation--"The Fish Gate--the sons of Hassenaah built it"--is used in order to signal that the sentence is not mainline. In order to show this, an unsual word order could be adopetd; however, this is difficult, or even impossible, in English. That is why I adopted that translation, although the above x-qatal construction is not a "double sentence" as the translation suggests.)

The different gates of Jerusalem structure the text: the Sheep Gate (3:1), the Fish Gate (3:3), the Old Gate (3:6), the Valley Gate (3:13), the Dung Gate (3:14), the Fountain Gate (3:15), the Horse Gate (3:28), and the Seep Gate again (3:32). (In 3:29 a "keeper of the East Gate" is mentioned.) The names of the gates signal the main items in the list, i.e. the information concerning the Fish Gate extends from 3:1 to 3:2, the Fish Gate 3:3-5, the Old Gate (3:6-12), etc. For each gate details are given on the people who  worked, who helped, on what stretch of wall they repaired, etc.

A special problem is present in 3:14 and 15. The setting up of doors, lock, and bars is related with continuation wayyiqtols in 3:3, 6 and 13, while in 3:14 and 15 it is related with weyiqtol. In both cases the weyiqtol continues a x-yiqtol clause, not a x-qatal as in the other cases. Now, the difference between x-qatal and x- yiqtol in narrative is that between perfective and imperfective information. I would translate here: "it was he that was rebuilding it (x-yiqtol) and (?) was setting up (weyiqtol) its doors, locks, and bars" (3:14); similarly in 3:15. I added a question mark to my translation because weyiqtol usually carries volitive force; the usual continuation form of x-yiqtol when it is indicative (not volitive) is weqatal (or another x-yiqtol if a detail of the main information is to be highlighted). Therefore, a "regular" translation of 3:14 would be: "it was he that was rebuilding it (x-yiqtol) IN ORDER TO SET UP (weyiqtol) its doors, locks, and bars". For some reason (maybe because of the special configuration of the ground) the duration and difficulty of the work is highlighted here. The ancient versions translated as simple past and therefore some modern authors think that a wayyiqtol should be read instead of weyiqtol--which is indeed possible, although I would favor the Masoretic reading.

A list-like text as Neh. 3 probably provides information from archives or annals. A further characteristic of the annalistic style is to use a date or a reignal formula to start a new unit of text. In all these cases a x-qatal clause is found. I called this x-qatal an antecedent (or setting) construction. See, e.g., 1Kgs. 14:21 (Rehoboam); 15:1 (Abijam); 15:9 (Asa), etc.

Also see Judg. 1, which provides a list of the operations of the different tribes and clans in an annlistic style. The tribes/clans that are treated independently one from the other are introduced with a x-qatal construction, e.g., Judah (1:9), the Kenites (1:16), the Benjaminites (1:22), Ephraim (1,29), Zebulun (1,30), Asher (1:31), and Naphtali (1:33). Instead, the House of Joseph (1:22) and Manasseh (1:27) are introduced with wayyiqtols and are therefore connected with the Benjaminites, who start the list (1:21).

Lists of borders and settlements of the tribes in Josh. 14-21 are also worth study in this regard.

As far as my knowledge goes, exactly the same verbal system is used throughout the different phases of Hebrew, Mishanic Hebrew excluded. In the last months I have been studying Ben Sira--well, I think that he uses the different forms in the same way as classical Hebrew. Also the Hebrew of Qumran imitates the classical language exactly, as far as I can see. This Hebrew was most likely a learned language used by cultivated people, similar to what was Latin in Christian, esp. Catholic, university tradition. Note that I speak of verbal system only. Clear differences exist, of course, on morphology and lexicography.

Extrabiblical inscriptions also show the same verbal system as BH. I can affirm this also of the Stela of Mesha and other West Semitic inscriptions which I examined. I did not examine Ugaritic in this respect.

Peace and all good.

Alviero Niccacci


Studium Biblicum Franciscanum      Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem      Fax  +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel

Home Page:     http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email  	       mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il