Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: yiqtol in Judges 2:1 (Lee R. Martin)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: yiqtol in Judges 2:1 (Lee R. Martin)
  • Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:13:05 +0200


On 18/10/99 (yiqtol in Judges 2:1) Lee R. Martin wrote:


Dear Prof Niccacci and others,

I have been adhering to Alviero Niccacci's belief in the volitivity of
initial yiqtol. Judges 2:1 presents an interesting problem. 'a(aLeH ,
"brought up" seems to clearly be past tense, non-volitive. This verb,
however, has two spellings < >, eight times with patach, and
fifteen with segol. The ones with patach seem to be non-volitive and
the ones with segol seem to be cohortatives. I did not look at every
example. Has anyone investigated this question?



Dear Lee R. Martin,

The Masora parva notes that in 8 passages the verb form is written with patah, i.e. 'a`aleh as here. The 8 passages are in the Hiphil. Besides Judg 2:1, they are as follows: Exod 3:17 (which is probably "quoted" in Judg 2:1); 1Sam 28:11; 2Sam 24:24; Jer 30:17; 46:8; Psa 66:8; 137:6. The eight forms are Hiphil. (Jer 46:8 is also parsed as Hiphil in Even-Shoshan's Concordance). The forms with segol are qal. The Masoretes' counting of the forms is an aid as to check the spelling; it has no meaning with regard to syntax.

The syntactic problem of 'a`aleh in Judg 2:1 is indeed difficult to solve. Despite Radak's note that it is "a future instead of a past, and there are many (cases) like this one," the evidence is different. First-place yiqtol is clearly volitive or jussive in some cases at least; it contrasts x-yiqtol that is clearly nonvolitive/nonjussive but simply predictive in some cases at least. The clear cases encourage the interpreter to analyze the less clear cases in the same way unless this appears SERIOUSLY untenable. While x-yiqtol is clearly volitive or jussive in some specific cases, the above analysis of first-place yiqtol is not disproved by further cases. On this one may consult my _Syntax_ ##61-65 for reference.

It is true that yiqtol is used for past tense--actually for continuity, repetition or habit in the past, but this applies to x-yiqtol, not to first-place yiqtol.

In my 1991 analysis of Judg 2:1 in _Lettura sintattica..._ page 133, I pointed out the problem and also noted that the solution proposed, e.g., in BHS of reading wa'a`aleh is untenable because wayyiqtol is not found right at the beginning of a direct speech; it is found as a continuation form. I proposed to take 'a`aleh as a volitive/jussive form, as ususal, and to analyze it as an implicit self quotation, i.e. one without the introduction 'I said'. I proposed the following translation: "(The Angel/God) said: --< I said, > I shall let you come up from Egypt. Actually I brought you to the land that I had promised to your fathers...". The passage "quoted" is Exod 3:17: wa'omar 'a`aleh etc. "I said, I shall let you come up..." In a footnote I remarked that two explicit self quotations are present in the following context: wa'omar "I said" in v. 1b, and wegam 'amartî "I also said" in v. 3.

I think now that this solution was not a desperate one. In fact Rashi seems to envisage something similar when he writes: "'a`aleh 'etkem. Such was my intention from the beginning to let you come up from Egypt and thus I did in order to dispossess my enemies."
More clearly so Mezudat David: "wayyo'mer 'a`aleh. He said to them in the place of the Lord: Behold I promised you that I would let you come up from Egypt etc."

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



  • Re: yiqtol in Judges 2:1 (Lee R. Martin), Alviero Niccacci, 10/21/1999

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page