Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: weqatal-wayyiqtol-weqatal

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: weqatal-wayyiqtol-weqatal
  • Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:24:27 +0200

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


  • weqatal-wayyiqtol-weqatal, David Stabnow, 02/20/2001
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: weqatal-wayyiqtol-weqatal, Alviero Niccacci, 02/23/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page