Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: furuli AT online.no
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
  • Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 14:26:50 -0800

On 14/03/2004 13:19, furuli AT online.no wrote:

...
The Masoretes did not, as I see it, introduce any new concepts. They tried to translate what they heard in the synagogue as faithfully as the could, and they would not dream of introducing anything new semantically speaking. Therefore I do not think that the distinction they made between WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL is semantic any more than the gemination after the article and non-gemination after the interrogative particle H is semantic. But later grammarians took the mentioned verb distinction as Semantics, and the four conjugations were born.

Are you trying to argue here that because the Masoretes did not invent the semantic distinction (agreed by all, I think), it was therefore invented by later grammarians? That is of course a fallacious argument as it does not exclude a third possibility. The position of most scholars today is that the distinction dates from before the Masoretes, by many centuries, and your argument has nothing to say against that position.


And does it not follow that the disctinction between vayyiqtol and
veyiqtol predates the earliest MT copies we have?



If you give me examples of such a distinction from pre-Masoretic time I will use them in my thesis. I am not aware of any such.

Here is one: W)(&H (we 'a`ase) Exodus 32:10, Num 14:12, Deut 9:14, 1 Samuel 20:4 (and other cases which are cohortative) vs. W)(& (wa'a`as) Deut 10:3, Ezekiel 12:7, 20:9,22, 24:18. (And yes, the longer form does seem to have a past meaning in Ezk 20:14, Dan 8:27.)

...

... By studying different Bible translations, the scholar will see that the translators are heavily influenced by the traditional views of the Hebrew verbs, which in a way serves as a straitjacket. I will estimate that if the model of my thesis was used instead of the traditional one, that would necessitate a change in the English tenses of more than ten thousand verbs, and many, many other changes would be necessary as well. So our view of verbs does have consequences.

These consequences give us the possibility to test your hypothesis. At least, I presume that there would be similar distinctions between translations according to the two models in translations into other languages, including Greek (several times), Latin, Syriac and Aramaic. The Hebrew Bible was translated directly (although not always entirely independently) into at least these four languages long before the time of the Masoretes. If we can find examples in any of these translations, especially in the more literal ones, in which WAYYIQTOL and WEYIQTOL are rendered differently, that would indicate that there was a pre-Masoretic distinction.

Looking at my we'a`aseh and wa'a`as examples in the LXX, I find the following:

Verse Hebrew form Greek tense

Gen 27:9 weyiqtol POIHSW
Gen 35:3 weyiqtol aorist subjunctive
Exo 32:10 weyiqtol POIHSW
Num 14:12 weyiqtol POIHSW
Deu 9:14 weyiqtol POIHSW
Deu 10:3 short wayyiqtol aorist
Deu 12:30 weyiqtol POIHSW
1Sa 20:4 weyiqtol POIHSW
2Sa 9:1 weyiqtol POIHSW
2Sa 9:3 weyiqtol POIHSW
2Sa 24:12 weyiqtol POIHSW
1Ch 21:10 weyiqtol POIHSW
Neh 6:13 weyiqtol POIHSW (2 Esdras 16:13)
Ezk 12:7 short wayyiqtol aorist
Ezk 20:9 short wayyiqtol aorist
Ezk 20:14 long wayyiqtol aorist
Ezk 20:22 short wayyiqtol aorist
Ezk 24:18 short wayyqitol aorist
Dan 8:27 long wayyiqtol imperfect (A: EPRAGMATEUOMHN; B: EPOIOUN)

Note that the Greek form POIHSW is in fact fact ambiguous between future and aorist subjunctive, but the aorist subjunctive in such contexts has a clearly future modal sense. On the other hand, the aorist indicative is unambiguously past. Thus there is clear indication that WEYIQTOL was consistently translated as future or modal and WAYYIQTOL consistently as past indicative. Daniel 8:27 is interesting because two independent translations seem to have rendered this form, pointed by the Masoretes as an unusual long WAYYIQTOL, with a Greek imperfect.

But a better test might be with cases which are not distinct in the consonantal text.

Also you might argue that these cases would be translated as they have been from the context rather than from the verb semantics. So you might like to supply some of your ten thousand examples where you would argue for a translation different from the traditional one, in which presumably the context is ambiguous. We can then examine LXX and other ancient translations to see if they support the traditional understanding or your one. Do you think that would be a fair test, at least of how the unpointed Hebrew text was understood at the time when these ancient translations were made?

Or is this the Achilles' heel of your theory?

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page