Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Cynthia Edenburg wrote,


>1. Rolf and Peter wrote:
>If we use statistics, we find that there is no significant
>difference in the occurrences of WAYYIQTOL, YIQTOL, QATAL and WEQATAL in
>the different books, so why should we expect a change in verbal meaning?
>
>PK: Because scholars more competent than I am have alleged this; and
>because languages change gradually and not by sudden steps. These
>other scholars' arguments need to be answered in detail, not simply
>dismissed. The matter is not a simple one of statistics
>Peter further wrote:
>I would view such examples of doublets in which a different verb form
>is used, especially between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles, not as free
>variation "without any difference in meaning", but as evidence that
>and how verbal semantics changed with time
>-----
>I would suggest that anyone interested in further pursuit of the verbal use
>in Chr/Sam-Kgs carefully read A.J.C. Verheij, Words and Numbers; A Study of
>the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal Tense Forms in the Books of Samuel,
>Kings, and Chronicles, Assen/Maastricht 1990.
>Verheij conducted a thorough statistical investation of the frequencies of
>the various verb forms in these books, including a comparison of usage in
>synoptic passages in Chr with non-synoptic passages. Any further discussion
>without reference to his findings is ignoring the primary data. What further
>need to be undertaken is an examination of the frequencies of verb forms in
>other second temple Biblical texts, such as Esther, Hebrew prose passages in
>Daniel, etc. to see how they corelate with the findings for Chr. If  the
>corelation is minimal, then one must form a hypothesis (probably not
>diachronic) which explains this.
>
>2. Peter wrote:
>If I assumed a linguistic argument for dating Chronicles to the same
>general period as Ezra and Nehemiah, then at least I am making the
>same assumption as many others.
>-----
>The date of Chronicles is not the problem with BH diachronics, but the
>assumed Iron I provenence for MT Sam-Kgs.
>


Dear Cynthia,


It is very fine that you refer to sources that should be consulted as you
also did in a previous post. To the benefit of those who do not have
Verheij, s book at hand, I make a few observations.

Verheij draws the following conclusion (p 120) "The increase of qatal forms
is in the narrative material. It is partly at the expense of the Wa-yiqtol
form and it can therefore probably be seen as heralding the replacement of
Wa-yiqtol by qatal in postbiblical and modern Hebrew."

We should stress the word "probably" because his material, in my mind, does
not warant this conclusion, not even when it is qualified by "probably".

His comparison of Samuel-Kings which he believs to be the Vorlage for
Chronicles gives the following numbers (pp 114-116).

In the synoptic material of Chronicles there are 658 WAYYIQTOLs that are
parellel with similar WAYYIQTOLs in the Vorlage.

In 33 instances the *Vorlage* has another form than WAYYIQTOL where
Chronicles has WAYYIQTOL (infinitive 4, participle 1, QATAL 17, WEQATAL 6,
YIQTOL 1, WEYIQTOL 3).

Is 30 instances the *Vorlage* has WAYYIQTOL where Chronicles has another
form (infinitive 7, participle 3, QATAL 17, WEQATAL 2, YIQTOL 1, WEYIQTOL 1
).

I cannot see that these numbers show any significant difference that can be
the basis for a suggestion that verbal meaning has changed. One factor that
Verheij has not taken into account, is the Aktionsart of the verbs. A
YIQTOL or a QATAL with a stative verb *need not* make any difference in
meaning because the durative nature of the ongoing state. And similarly
with fientive verbs: with many durative verbs both forms can be used
without any noticable difference in meaning (cf all the QATALs  and YIQTOLs
with present meaning). Thus a variation in use should be viewed against a
difference in Aktionsart, and it need not say anything about a change in
verbal meaning.

Verheij shows that infinitives and participles occur more frequently in
Chronicles than in Samuel-Kings, but that is another discussion.



Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo