Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear list-members,



Today I have been working with the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs of Joshua, and I
found three verses illustrating the conjunctive force of WAW. In my view
the WAWs have exactly the same function both when prefixed to the
WEYIQTOLs, the WAYYIQTOLs, and to the IMPERATIVEs.

The first WEYIQTOL (§LX) of v 4 illustrates the importance of WAW. This is
the first WEYIQTOL in a chain, and as a conjunction it is therefore
superfluous (there are some examples of WAWs where the conjunctive force
even is used first in a clause; the meaning in such cases is "so"). It may
be used to signal that the verb is not modal. I see only two different
"events" expressed by the five WEYIQTOLs,i.e. two different RTs (reference
time): (1) "send","rise","go", and "write" ("Map"), and (2) "enter". It is
impossible to say that first Joshua would send them, then they should rise,
then they should go (throughout the land),and then they should map it, and
then they should enter the place where Joshua was.

If you agree with the points above, PLEASE keep that in mind when you read
further, in order to prevent preconceived ideas to cloud your mind!

In vv 8,9 the time reference is different; it is past, but the seven
WAYYIQTOLs play the same role (I exclude modality from the discussion on
this level) as the WEYIQTOLs in v 4, as far as sequence is concerned. I
find only two "events" expressed by the six WAYYIQTOL with the same roots
as the WEYIQTOLs of v 4, and a third event expressed by CWH, (1)
"send","rise","go", and "write" ("map"), and (2) "charged",and (3) "enter".
So again,I see no way to draw the conclusion that the men (v 8) "rose up",
and then "went", and then Joshua charged them, (v 9) and then the men went,
and then went through the land, and then mapped it, and then they entered
the place where Joshua was.

The last half of v 8 from the WAYYIQTOL CWH is a part of the threefold
symmetry of the account. I v 4 Joshua asks the people to bring men that
will be sent out etc, in the last part of v 4 Joshua addresses the men and
tell them what to do, and in the first part of v 8 and v 9 it is reported
that the have completed the task, but the same roots are use in all three
instances. The imperatives also reveal two different events: (1) "go",
"walk throughout" the land", "write" ("map") it, and (2) "return".

But what are the WAWs doing? In all three instances the events are the
same, and it is very difficult, at least in my mind, to take them in all
instances as anything but conjunctions. The reason why the five WAWs of the
five    WEYIQTOLs do not represent five events but just two,the reason why
three IMPERATIVEs  connected with waw represent one event, and the reason
why seven WAYYIQTOLs represent three events and not seven, is the same,
namely lexicon. Because of the meaning of the verbs we can see that each
WAW  does not signal a new RT (reference time),i.e. something occurring
after another event in a chain. There is of course a difference between
"going throughout" and "mapping", but still the verbs signal one event (if
we by event mean something with a new RT).
One may call some of these "hendiadys", something I will not do, but
regardless of what they are called, they are expressed by WAYYIQTOLs and
WEYIQTOLs, and these forms can express actions and states that occur
simultaneously.

We also find in these verses an example of a common procedure in Hebrew
that seemingly few persons have noticed, namely that when we have one or
more WEYIQTOLs in a context, and we, because of the same time reference and
consecution would expect another WEYIQTOL, we find a YIQTOL. The reason is
that there is a word before the YIQTOL, and the WE  is attached to this
word. We find one example in the YIQTOL §LK in v 8. This is unproblematic,
as far as the number of verbal conjugations are concerned, because all
would say that WEYIQTOL  and YIQTOL  belong to the same conjugation.
However, this "common procedure" is also used in many cases, where we in a
context with WAYYIQTOLs, because of the same time reference and
consecution, would expect another WAYYIQTOL we find a YIQTOL. And exactly
the same is true when we expect a WEQATAL we find a QATAL. When I finish my
work, I will publish complete lists of the mentioned examples, and if we
did not have any other arguments, these lists alone would represent strong
arguments for the view that WAW is never anything but a conjunction, and
that there is no semantic difference between YIQTOL  and WAYYIQTOL  and
between WEQATAL and QATAL.



Josh. 18:4 (NRSV) Provide (IMPERATIVE) three men from each tribe, and I
will send (WEYIQTOL)+(WEYIQTOL) them out that they may begin to go
throughout (WEYIQTOL) the land, writing a description (WEYIQTOL) of it with
a view to their inheritances. Then come back (WEYIQTOL) to me.

Josh. 18:8 ¶ So the men started (WAYYIQTOL?WAYYIQTOL) on their way; and
Joshua charged (WAYYIQTOL) those who went to write the description of the
land, saying,  "Go (IMPERATIVE) throughout the land and write a description
(WE+IMPERATIVE)+(WE+IMPERATIVE) of it, and come back (WE+IMPERATIVE) to me;
and I will cast lots (WAW+ADVERBIAL+YIQTOL) for you here before the LORD in
Shiloh."

Josh. 18:9 So the men went (WAYYIQTOL) and traversed (WAYYIQTOL) the land
and set down (WAYYIQTOL) in a book a description of it by towns in seven
divisions; then they came back (WAYYIQTOL) to Joshua in the camp at Shiloh,


Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo