Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Peter,
> Your first question is indeed a good one. Can the niphal of LXM mean 
> "enter battle"? Well, it is hard to be sure, but there are several 
> cases which can at least be plausibly interpreted in this way. For 
> example:
> 
> Exo 17:8 The battle was not over before verse 9!
> Num 21:1 Taking captives was during the battle not after it.
> Jos 10:5 The battle continues...
> Jos 10:29-38 5 times, this is the start of the battle

I don't doubt there are places.  My question has more to do with 
motivation for seeing that translation in this particular passage.  
I.e., are there good reasons other than a sequential or perfective 
view of the wayyiqtol to translate it as ingressive in the 2 Sam 
passage?

> etc etc. Of course these are dependent on my understanding of 
> wayyiqtol as normally sequential and perfective. But I think you need 
> to justify clearly an understanding of the wayyiqtols of Jos 10:29-30 
> as anything other than a sequence of events, which involves taking 
> "wayyillaxem" as "entered battle". So I don't think my translation can 
> really be called "ad hoc".

Depending on context, I don't have a problem with sequential 
events narrated with wayyiqtol.  What I do say is that the 
sequentiality is not inherently coded within the wayyiqtol form 
itself, but is a function of what is actually said in the narrative.  E.g 
"he was born and he grew up" is obviously sequential (either that or 
folks sent his father sympathy cards after his mother exploded), 
but the verb forms don't code that.  We know it's sequential 
because we know growing up happens after birth.

> As for my point 2, if Uriah was one of those who fell, he died after 
> he fell. I agree that usually in such contexts NPL implies death, but 
> in 2 Samuel 1:4, 2:23 NPL and MWT are used in sequence for death. 1:4 
> is actually quite parallel with 11:17 but with some differences. There 
> may be a change of subject in 11:17, but if so the new subject is a 
> subset of the old one and so my interpretation is not invalidated, I 
> think.

In this particular passage I think such an interpretation is overly 
complex.  I'm also wondering what part of the sentence "gam uriah" 
is if it's not the subject of MWT.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"No good deed goes unpunished."