Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Randall,

As for Hurwitz' methodology, it is circular and cannot be tested. 
Further, it collides head on with the Problem of Induction. To 
illustrate: I happen to see a few white swans in a lake, and I form 
the theory:

"All swans are white." How can I test this theory? By travelling 
around an looking at the colors of swans. Suppose now that I have 
inspected tens of thousands of swans in different countries and have 
found all to be white. What have I proved? Nothing, because thousands 
of pieces of positive evidence cannot prove anything-they only make a 
theory more likely. However, one or two black swans who has not been 
dyed or been through a fire would falsify the theory.

If we compare the post-exilic words Hurwitz have identified in the 
books that clearly are post-exilic with post-exilic swans, the 
problem is that most of the pre-exilic swans that it would have been 
so important to look at, have disappeared. Therefore, it is 
impossible to be certain whether black swans (=the particular words 
in Qohelet believed to be post-exilic) existed in pre-exilic times.

RB.

> An additional feature of Qohelet is the verb system.
> Rolf asked to compare Ex 33:7-11.
>
> (the following paste has the teamim included. Use a unicode font
> with teamim to see everything properly from the archives or direct
> listing. the digest edition will probably print question marks or
> boxes.)
>
> snip
>
> Rolf mentioned 'past reference'  but he ignored aspect
> (and by ignoring aspect the syllogisms about past were irrelevant).
> Most Hebraists read this whole passage as marked for an imperfective
> aspect that is being used for a habitual situation.
>
> Throughout the passage, wherever something precedes the verb in the clause
> one finds a yiqtol, yiqqaH, yetse, yqumu, yered, yedabber, yamish
> and in a complementary distribution, everywhere that the verb is first
> one finds a ve-qatal:
> ve-nata, ve-qara, ve-haya, vehaya, ve-nitsvu, ve-hibbitu, ve-haya, ve`amad,
> vedibber, vera'a, veqam, vehishtaHavu, vedibber, veshav,
> This is classical biblical Hebrew and is not the way that mishanaic Hebrew
> works. Mishanic Hebrew uses haya + benoni (participle) to mark habitual
> pasts. haya+benoni already existed in First Temple times to be sure,
> but in Second Temple times it remained, while the yiqtol/veqatal symbiosis
> diminished in literary while it disappeared in colloquial.
> What this means is that the vast majority of Hebraists, and the internal
> massoretic tradition, clearly distinguish Ex 33:7-11 from any hint of
> mishnaic Hebrew. Qohelet, on the other hand fits mishnaic Hebrew
> with a reminiscient hint of classical Hebrew.
> 'Rolfian Hebrew' (I name it such to distinguish it from masoretic biblical
> Hebrew) apparently cannot distinguish these, so he won't be able to use
> the same verb test in testing Second Temple Hebrew, especially between
> registers that are potentially more colloquial. However, if he were to refine
> his stylistic profiling he might be able to add this since the patterns can be
> quite extensive (which increases probabilistic reliability).

RF:
As for aspect, you and I disagree both regarding the definition of 
the Hebrew aspects, and in which forms represent the imperfective and 
the perfective aspects respectively. In my analysis, QATAL and 
WEQATAL represent the perfective aspect. So I have not overlooked the 
aspectual meaning in Exodus 33:7-11, but I view the aspects in 
another way than you do. In our analysis of clauses, we should always 
distinguish between semantics (=the intrinsic meaning of word form) 
and pragmatics (=meaning caused by the context). Please look at these 
examples.

1) He was knocking at the door.

2) He has already knocked at the door for two minutes.

3) He knocked at the door for two minutes.

4) He knocked at the door.

4) Last year I read the New York Times.

Examples 1), 2), and 3) are all iterative, but this interpretation is 
caused by different factors. The verb "knock" is semelfactive, and a 
combination of a semelfactive verb and the English imperfective 
aspect (knocking) can only have an interative or frequentative 
interpretation. In example 2) the aspect is perfective (has knocked), 
and the iterative interpretation is based on the adverbial (for two 
minutes). In example 3) there is no aspect, but the verb is a tense 
(simple past), and again the iterative interpretation is based on the 
adverbial. Example 4) is ambiguous; it may refer to one know or a 
series of knocks. I will give example 5) a frequentative 
interpretation. The verb is simple past, but my knowledge of the 
world (that the paper is published frequently) would suggest that I 
over a time used to read the paper last year.

What we can learn from the above points is that we cannot know which 
aspect a verb represents on the basis of a clause, even though the 
clause as a whole either has what we would define as imperfective or 
perfective characteristics. (There are restricted situation, though, 
where we on the basis of the context can know the nature of the 
aspect.) And conclusions based on the so-called complemetary 
distribution can be dangerous. One illustration here is  Psalm 2:1-2. 
I use the NIV text:

1. Why do the nations conspire (QATAL) and the peoples plot (YIQTOL) in vain?
2. The kings of the earth take their stand (YIQTOL) and the rulers 
gather (QATAL) against the LORD and against his anointed One.

Have the two QATALs and two YIQTOLs lost their aspectual meaning? Or 
are their aspects the same in this context? Are the actions habitual, 
or do they refer to single events? How can we know?

I agree that  Exodus 33:7-11 is normal Biblical Hebrew. Exceptional 
is it, though, that so many WEQATALs are used with past meaning. But 
the author chose these forms in this context-this was his style. 
True, the situations mentioned happened several times, but that does 
not nullify the past reference of the WEQATALs, because clauses with 
any verb form can express situations that happen several times. 
Examples of this are found in 1 Samuel 1:3-7 (NIV):

3. Year after year the man went up (WEQATAL) from his town to worship 
(infin. con.) and sacrifice (infin. con.) to the LORD Almighty ar 
Shiloh, where Hophni and Pinehas, the two sons of Eli, were (nominal) 
priests.
4. Whenever the day came (WAYYIQTOL) for Elkanah to sacrifice 
(WAYYIQTOL), he would give (WEQATAL) portions of the meat to his wife 
Penninah and to all her sons and daughters.
5. But to Hannah he gave (YIQTOL) a double portion because he loved 
(QATAL) her, and the LORD had closed (QATAL) her womb.
6. And because the LORD had closed (QATAL) her womb, her rival kept 
provoking (WEQATAL) her  in order to irritate (INF. CON,) her.
7. This went on (YIQTOL) year after year. Whenever Hannah went up 
(inf.con.) to the house of the LORD, her rival provoked her (YIQTOL) 
till she wept (WAYYIQTOL) and would not eat (YIQTOL).
8. And Elkanah her husband would say (WAYYIQTOL).

The actions in these verses (10 verbs) are all habitual or 
frequentative, but not so the states "love" (v.5) and "closed" 
(vv.5,6). These habitual actions are expressed by 3 WEQATALs, 3 
YIQTOLs, and 4 WAYYIQTOLs. In v. 7 there are 2 YIQTOLs and one 
WAYYIQTOL. Please note that the first YIQTOL is preceded by an adverb 
and the second by the negative particle amd WAW. If these were 
removed these two YIQTOLs would most likely have become WAYYIQTOLs.


The use of so many QATALs and WEQATALs with past reference in Qohelet 
is exceptional as well. But the most important question in connection 
with these occurrences has not been addressed.
The question is: How can we know whether the reason for this 
extensive use of QATALs and WEQATALs in Qohelet is the subject matter 
(which also is exceptional), the target group, and/or the personal 
style of a person living in the 10th century B.C.E.?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo