Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] questions, reliable evidence, 'stand' and 'said'

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] questions, reliable evidence, 'stand' and 'said'
  • Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:37:19 +0200


I continue my previous post.

In order to show what I have claimed and what I have not claimed, I bring a quote from my previous post dealing with Genesis 41:1-7:

"The point I am trying to stress is that because BH is a dead language and there are no informants, in many cases, probably in most, we cannot on the basis of the context know whether a part of an event or state, or the whole event or state is made visible. We must therefore look at those situations that are transparent and where this can clearly be seen. The situations where the relationship between E and R cannot be seen must be interpreted in the light of the situations where that can be seen."

Of the situations where the relationship between E and R cannot be explicitly seen, there are situations where the context suggest a particular understanding.

The passages from Samuel and Kings that I previously discussed occur in narrative contexts, where the style often is rather terse. In Gen 41 a dream is described; Pharao is shown something that should impress him and teach him something, and for this purpose a narrative style is neither needed nor desirable.

When we consider the the force of the verbs, we can first look at two similar roots, HLM and (MD. In v. 1 both words are expressed as participles. There is no doubt that the dreaming and the standing were terminated in the past (related to the deictic center). But I suppose that no one would say that the participle has an intrinsic end and in effect is perfective- that the events were terminated can only be construed on the basis of the context. And what is made visible by the participles are simply the "standing" and "dreaming" events and no end.

The dream is now in progress: Seven cows were coming up from the Nile-and this is expressed by a participle. The event is terminated, but what is made visible by the participle is only the event itself and not its end. What did the cows do? They were grazing. Regardless of how we take the WAYYIQTOL of R(H, there is no doubt that the seven cows ate grass for some time. This conclusion is necessary, because we now see seven other cows coming after them - also expressed by a participle. The last seven cows stood (WAYYIQTOL of (MD) beside the other seven cows. Then the seven ugly cows ate (or, were eating the fat cows), and this is expressed by a WAYYIQTOL.

So, the question is why the WAYYIQTOLs are used parallel with the participles. For example, is the focus of the standing of Pharao in v. 1 expressed by a participle different from the focus of the standing of the cows expressed by a WAYYIQTOL? And similarly with the dreaming. Is the focus of Pharaoh's dreaming in v 1 expressed by a participle different from the focus in v. 5 expressed by a WAYYIQTOL?
Why should they be? The whole scene is vivid, Pharao sees different actions develop before his eyes, and the participles strike the keynote. They portray developing actions, just like a film, and then it is strange if we in the middle of the film see several snapshots {perfective verbs).

I would therefore give the following vivid translation:

(1) At the end of two full years, Pharao was dreaming, and he was standing by the Nile.
(2) And look! Seven cows, beautiful in appearance and fat, were ascending out of the Nile. And they were grazing in the reed grass.
3) And look! Seven other cows, ugly in appearance and thin, were ascending out of the Nile after them. And they were standing beside those on the riverbank.
4) Then the cows that were ugly in appearance and thin began to eat the seven cows that were beautiful in appearance and fat.

There is nothing in the context that explicitly shows the relationship between E and R in the verbs- my interpretation is based on genre, style, and parallels.

If anyone wants to argue in connection with the points above, please include comments on the YIQTOLs and WAYYIQTOLs of (MD in Ezekiel 1:21, 10:17-19 and the YIQTOLs and WEYIQTOLs in Nehemiah 3:14, 15. (See a previous post from me in this thread). Is there any aspectual difference between these forms?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo













Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page