Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,


You wrote:

> Mishnaic Hebrew veqatal is 'qatal'.
> It does not have a 'we-qatal' that functions complementary with yiqtol,
> that is, it does not have what might be seen in Exodus 25-31. Or like
with gen 29:2-3

I continue with my syllogisms:


1) WEQATALs with past meaning occur only in Mishnaic Hebrew.
     WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet.
     Qohelet is written in Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.

2) WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.
     WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet
      Qohelet is written in Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.

3) WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew.
     WEQATALs with past meaning occur in Qohelet
      Qohelet is written in Biblical Hebrew or Mishnaic/Proto-Mishnaic Hebrew.

Number 1) is logically valid but factually wrong; number 2) is 
factually correct but logically invalid; number 3) is factually 
correct and logically valid. This means that the whole argument that 
the WEQATALs in Qohelet suggest that the book is post-exilic is made 
invalid. Moreover, I argue in my dissertation that WAQATALs do not 
exist as independent *grammtical* forms, they are *syntactic* 
constructions. This means that WEQATALs are nothing but ordinary 
QATALs with  prefixed conjunctions WAW.  If this is correct, an 
argument regarding the frequency of "WEQATALs," is nothing but an 
argument about the emperor's new cloths (H. C. Andersen).

In my analysis of all the verbs of the Tanakh, I found 357 WEGATALs 
with past reference (I use "WEQATAL" in the usual sense, without 
accepting this sense).  In Several instances WEQATALs occur in 
clusters. One such place is Exodus 33:7-11 where we find 14 WEQATALs 
with past meaning? Can we then conclude that this chapter is 
post-exilic? Absolutely not!  In 1 Samuel 2:13-22 there are 10 
WEQATALs with past meaning.

Points that should be taken into account in discussions about the 
occurrences of forms that seem to be somewhat abnormal are 1) 
personal style, 2) target group, and 3) the purpose of writing. We 
can apply this to the relative particle $. Because it occurs in texts 
that are believed to be very old, we have evidence that the form was 
known and used. In the light of the three points, all the occurrences 
in Qohelet do not tell us anything about the time of writing of the 
book; the reason for these occurrences may be one or more of the 
three points.


Best regrds,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo