Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf" <rolf.furuli AT sf-nett.no>]

Dear John,



> >>
> >> Dear Rolf, Frank, et al,

RF: I have the following comments on a part of your post:

Is this the way you use to discuss matters with colleagues and fellow 
scholars?: "You force your preconceived notions onto the text." In my student 
days I was taught that we should treat our colleagues in a cordial and 
respectful way. But your language is rude and not worthy of a scholarly 
discussion.


> >>
> >>> My translation of 2:19 is as follows: "YHWH God continued to form 
> >>> (WAYYIQTOL, Qal) from the ground every animal and every flying creature 
> >>> of the heavens; and he continued to bring (WAYYIQTOL Hifil) them to the 
> >>> man to see (infinitive copnstruct) what he would call (YIQTOL, Qal) 
> >>> each one. And whatever the man called (YIQTOL, Qal) it, each living 
> >>> soul, that was its name."
> >>>
> >>> In the first WAYYIQTOL, reference time (RT) intersects event time (ET) 
> >>> in the middle; a part of ET whith continuing or iterative action is 
> >>> made visible. Exactly the same intersection is seen in the second 
> >>> WAYYIQTOL.  The first YIQTOL is modal, and therefore does not have any 
> >>> intersection. The second YIQTOL has a singular subject and object and 
> >>> the verb is semelfactive. So, RT intersects ET after its end, which 
> >>> means that it has a resultative force; a part of the resultant state is 
> >>> visible. The verse contains 4 imperfective verbs, three having past 
> >>> reference (but not past tense), and one i modal.
> >>
> >>
> >> You force your preconceived notions onto the text in a way no more 
> >> acceptable than the old rabbinic explanation for how this account can 
> >> appear next to that of Genesis 1: to wit, God "RE-FORMED" all the 
> >> creatures for Adam to name because the first set (Genesis 1) ran away! 
> >> Here we have a simple narrative sequence of wayyiqtols followed by two 
> >> modal yiqtols:

RF: The setting is as follows: I have analyzed the 80.000 finite and infinite 
verbs of Classical Hebrew using the parameters deictic center, event time, 
and reference time. One conclusion of this study, which lasted ten years, is 
that the   WAYYIQTOL is not an independent grammatical form. But it is a 
YIQTOL with a prefixed conjunction. You disagree with this conclusion, 
something that I respect. But you cannot rightly say that a conclusion 
reached after a long and careful study, represents "preconceived notions."  
When a scholar has reached a conclusion regarding the meaning of a verb form, 
it is normal that s/he applies this conclusion to the text and to the 
translation of sentences. To say that this is the same as "to force upon the 
text" preconceived notions is repulsive language.


> >>
> >> 'Yhwh God FORMED out of the ground every animal of the field and every 
> >> bird of the air and he BROUGHT them to the man to see what he MIGHT call 
> >> them; and whatever the man WOULD call them that was/is its name.'
> >>
> >> A few comments: (1) the initial two verbs are simply past narratives 
> >> (yes, past tense, grammaticalized temporal location as prior to the 
> >> speaker's deictic center and then, once the narrative sequence is begun 
> >> the verbs pragmatically express simple successive events (see Smith 
> >> 2003); (2) the first yiqtol makes perfectly good sense as an irrealis 
> >> mood 'might'—i.e., God gave the man the chance to call the creatures 
> >> whatever he wanted to; (3) the final yiqtol then expresses what the man 
> >> wanted to call them (i.e., would = past of will = volitive expression 
> >> not tense); (4) the final null copula clause seems ambiguous: for the 
> >> ancient reader these names are the ones that are still used in their own 
> >> reference time, so it might be better present than past reference here.

RF: Your translations and comments are based on your study of Hebrew verbs 
and the conclusion that WAYYIQTOL is past tense and perfective, and my 
translations and comments are based on my study of Hebrew verbs and the 
conclusion that YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL are equivalent and represent the 
imperfective aspect.


> >>
> >>> The imperfective force of the WAYYIQTOL FORM is clearly seen in 2:21 
> >>> where one WAYYIQTOL intersects another WAYYIQTOL: "Then YHWH God caused 
> >>> a deep sleep to fall (WAYYIQTOL) upon the man. And while he was 
> >>> sleeping (WAYYIQTOL), he took (WAYYIQTOL) one of his ribs, and closed 
> >>> up (WAYYIQTOL) the flesh over its place."
> >>>
> >>> The third WAYYIQTOL expresses a state "while he was sleeping" and this 
> >>> state is intersected by the next  WAYYIQTOL "he took one of the man's 
> >>> ribs."  A parallel clause is: While John was reading the paper, Kate 
> >>> entered the room." Such a sentence is used by Comrie and others to 
> >>> demonstrate that the English participle FORM is imperfective.
> >>
> >>
> >> No, it is not clearly seen; here you miss that the stative verbs may 
> >> easily fit within a narrative sequence by their ambiguous 
> >> stative-inchoative interpretation:
> >>
> >> 'Yhwh God MADE a deep sleep FALL upon the man and he FELL ASLEEP 
> >> (inchoative past narrative) and he took one of the ribs from the man and 
> >> he closed the flesh over it.'
> >>
> >> The intersection of time here comes from the fact that 'sleep' is not 
> >> fully bound by the past-tense, perfective-aspect wayyiqtol (se Smith 
> >> 1999; Cook 2004, 2012); but the narrative sequence continues to hold to 
> >> the irreversibility principle that defines narrative: the events cannot 
> >> be reported in the reverse order without a change in meaning (i.e., 
> >> sleep fell first, then man fell asleep, then God took a rib, then he 
> >> closed it up; it cannot happen with the same meaning in any other order).
> >>
> >> You need to do reading beyond Comrie and Olsen so as to discover the 
> >> gradual nuancing of these things in linguistics; unlike the field of 
> >> biblical studies, dates of publications really matter in linguistics!

I have 10 Bible translations on my computer. JPS says: "So the LORD God cast 
a deep sleep upon the man; and, while he slept, He took one of his ribs and 
closed up the flesh at the spot." The translations NAB, NIV, NJB, NLT-SE, 
RSV, SEGR (French), and TEV have similar readings. I suppose that the 
translators of these 9 versions were familiar with modern linguistics. Yet 
they translate 2:21 in a similar way as I do.  NRSV is neutral and Luther 
has: "Da liess Gott der HERR einen Tiefen Schlaf fallen auf den Menschen, und 
er schlief ein. Und er nahm eine seiner Rippen und Schloss dei Stelle mit 
Fleisch."

I fully respect that you have a different view of the Hebrew verbal system 
than I have, and that you argue in favor of that. But please argue in a 
civilized and cordial way.


Best regards,


Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway