Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Qohelet

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] Qohelet
  • Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:40:00 +0200

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













Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page