Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

Title: Re: weqatal-wayyiqtol-weqatal

At 14:08 -0600 2/20/01, David Stabnow wrote:

> In 1 Sam 2:15 the weqatal verb implies
> that the acolyte *would* customarily
> come and say, "Give raw meat!" In 2:16 the wayyiqtol implies
> that the
> sacrificer *said*, once, "Burn the fat first, then take
> whatever." In 2:17
> the weqatal resumes the customary force: the acolyte *would* say,
> "Give it
> up, now, or else!"
>
> Similarly, in 2:22 the weqatal suggests that Eli *would* customarily
> hear
> about his sons' wickedness. In 2:23 the wayyiqtol implies that he
> *said*,
> once, "What's all this then? Stop it!" In 2:25b the return
> to we-X-yiqtol
> (a negative clause) implies the return to customary action: they
> *wouldn't*
> hear him.
>
> Can anyone help me with the meaning of the wayyiqtol in these
> structures?
> Is it some kind of emphatic device: that they certainly rebuked them?
> Or
> does it imply that these were the *exact* words that were used in
> the
> rebukes, as opposed to the *kinds of words* that were customarily
> thrown
> around in the other speeches? Has anyone
> seen similar structures elsewhere?

Dear David Stabnow,

1Sam 2:15-16 are part of a passage that describes boy Samuel in comparison with the sons of Eli (2:11 ff.). Most verb forms in this passage are off-line WeQATAL and x-YIQTOL. Indeed, in historical narrative WeQATAL and x-YIQTOL are frequentative - they indicate custom, repetition, description, while main-line WAYYIQTOL and off-line QATAL are perfective - they indicate a single event/information in the past. As a matter of fact that passage describes a customary behaviour of Eli's sons.

I would translate 2:13-16 as follows:

> «(13) Now, as for the custom of
> the priests with the people, when any man offered sacrifice, the
> priest's servant would come (WeQATAL) as soon as the meat was
> boiled, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, (14) and he would hit
> (WeQATAL) in the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fork
> would bring up (x-YIQTOL), the priest would take (YIQTOL) it for
> himself. So they would do (x-YIQTOL) to all the Israelites who came
> there at Shiloh. (15) Precisely before people would burn (x-YIQTOL)
> the fat, the priest's servant would come (WeQATAL) and say (WeQATAL)
> to the man who was sacrificing,  "Give meat for the priest to
> roast; for he will not accept (Waw-negative YIQTOL = positive WeQATAL)
> boiled meat from you, but raw." (16) Once the man said (WAYYIQTOL)
> to him,  "Let them burn the fat first (jussive x-YIQTOL), and
> then take (IMPERATIVE) as much as you may wish (x-YIQTOL)." He would
> answer (as usual, WeQATAL),  "No, you must give (x-YQTOL) it
> now; and if not, I hereby take (QATAL) it by
> force."»

I take the QATAL in v. 16 as a *performative* form, similar to *ni$ba`tî* "hereby I swear", *qanîtî* "hereby I buy" etc.

There is a strong tension between main-line, perfective WAYYIQTOL and off-line, frequentative WeQATAL. The former narrates what happened one specific day, the latter what was customary. Similar tension is also found in 1Sam 1:4-7:

> «(4) And it happened (WAYYIQTOL)
> one day that Elkanah sacrificed (WAYYIQTOL). He would give (as usual,
> WeQATAL) portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and
> daughters, (5) while he would give (Waw-x-YIQTOL) Hannah one portion
> because he loved (kî + x-QATAL) Hannah but the Lord had closed
> (Waw-x-QATAL) her womb. (6) And her rival used to provoke her
> (WeQATAL) sorely, to irritate her, because the LORD had closed (kî +
> QATAL) her womb. (7) Thus he would do (Waw-x-YIQTOL) year by year as
> often as she went up to the house of the Lord; thus she used to
> provoke her (x-YIQTOL). Therefore (on that day) Hannah wept
> (WAYYIQTOL) while she was not eating (Waw-negative YIQTOL = positive
> WeQATAL)».

Similarly in 1:12-13 (text that was discussed last year in this forum):

> «(12) Now it was happening
> (WeQATAL) that because she increased (kî + QATAL) praying before the
> Lord, Eli was observing (Non-verbal sentence with participle) her
> mouth. (13) Now Hannah was speaking (Non-verbal sentence with
> participle) in her heart; only her lips were moving (Non-verbal
> sentence with participle) while her voice was not being heard
> (Waw-negative x-YIQTOL). Therefore Eli took her (WAYYIQTOL) to be a
> drunken woman.»

Everything is of course much more easy if one thinks that verb forms can have any function/meaning according to the choice of the interpreter. Everything becomes more complex if one thinks that we have to learn the functions/meanings of the verb forms from clear texts and try to interpret more difficult texts accordingly, in a coherent way. In my opinion, however, the latter is the way to approach dead languages and texts.

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://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email       mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il