Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Rodney and Alviero,

Thank you for your helpful comments on Neh 3.  I think an
attempt to encorporate the discussion of verbal semantics
and discourse analysis is essential!  Rolf Furuli and I had
a brief exchange about this very passage back in August
11-12 of this year under the subject heading "aspect and the
universal discourse paradigm" if you would care to see it or
comment on it.  It is available in our list archives that
may be accessed by going to

http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=b-hebrew&;
text_mode=0

In that exchange I played a game I should probably not have
played.  I "assigned" asspectual values to the prefixed and
suffixed verb forms that are probably the opposite of what
we actually usually find!  One of my points was merely to
illustrate that *whatever* the semantic values of the verb
forms, they do have an organizing value on a discourse, as
your comments also show.  In this post, I promise to take a
more "real" rather than "hypothetical" approach to the
passage.

On Neh 3:13-15 Alviero Niccacci wrote (enclosed in
arrow-points):
>Dear Rodney Duke,
>

<snip for the sake of space>

>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.
>

As I have said, the morpho-syntax has structuring value in
the text as well as the semantics.  In most cases each new
gate is introduced by what becomes a formula: 'et $a`ar "X"
banu "Y" as in vv. 3, 6, 13, 14, 15.  The exceptions are for
the first (Sheep) gate where the wayyiqtol is used: vayibnu
'et $a`ar hatso'n and the last (Horse) gate where the
meaning is distinct from the regular formula: me`al $a`ar
hasusim hexeziqu hacohanim...  In the latter case the repair
of a *gate* is actually not recounted, perhaps because the
Horse Gate itself was not in need of repair, so that only a
section of *wall* and its respective workers is mentioned.
In the former case, I would say the wayyiqtol is used rather
than the X-qatal because the account of the first (Sheep)
gate opens the whole section of vv. 1-32 about the whole
wall and all its gates.  The whole section is marked as *one
item* on the thread of Nehemiah's narrative by v. 1's
wayyiqtols and the section's unified, almost formulaic
character.

The choice of X-qatal to introduce each section is
convenient.  It fronts the name of each new gate, so that
the topicalizing value of the syntax is exploited.  In
addition, the attributive nature of the qatal is also
exploited.  The purpose of each section is *not* to move
forward narrative time.  I.e., we are not to view the Sheep
Gate as repaired first, and then the Fish Gate and so on.
Rather, all the gates are worked on at once, and the qatals
are used to label workers rather than describe work.  I
would translate rather literally one of these formulaic
clauses as follows:  "It was the "X" Gate that "Y" were
builders (of it).

Within any one of the "gate" sections, the wayyiqtol is used
to express sequence *within* the reparations of that gate.
Taking the Fish Gate (vv. 3-5) section as representative,
the sons of Hasna'ah are identified as the builders of the
gate, and the setters of its posts.  Setting the posts is
represented as essentially a paraphrase of building the
gate.  The wayyiqtol lends sequence to the account:  I.e.,
*then* (after setting the posts) they erected the door, its
locks, and its bars.

>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.
>

I'll also go with the MT as is, but I'll explain a little
differently.  I do not think the verb forms have
uncancellable aspectual value, except for (perhaps) the
wayyiqtol (perfective) and the (more assuredly) the verbal
participle (imperfective).  So an X-yiqtol here expresses
the same essential information as the X-qatal, only with a
different emphasis.  An X-qatal, hu' banahu would relate the
information attributively as "It was he who *was builder* of
it," while hu' yibnenu, as in vv. 14 and 15, relates the
information as action "It was he who *built* it."  I also
suggest there is little difference (aside from number) in
the real world meaning related by v. 14's veya`amid and v.
3's vayya`amidu.  Both are perfective and thereby lend
sequence to their respective "gate" sections.  But I will
distinguish that the weyiqtol is here perfective by virtue
of it's arguement, and the wayyiqtol by virtue of the
morphology as well as its arguement.

>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.
>

The possiblity that these passages originate from archives
may explain the unusual presence of the X-yiqtols and
weyiqtols in this passage, yes?  In other words, vv. 14 and
15 were doctored differently than the others in the chapter,
perhaps unintentionally, but not incorrectly.

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