From: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:32:56 +0200
Title: Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol
Dear Lee,
Thanks for your kind reply.
I think you are right concerning the relationship between x-qatal #16
in Judg. 1:9 and wayyiqtol #17 in 1:10. Indeed, *we'aHar
yaredû* marks the beginning of a new phase in the wars of Judah.
The same construction x-qatal marks new episodes in the account of
the conquest in the following verses: v. 16 (the Kenites), v. 21 (the
Benjaminites), v. 29 (the Ephraimites), v. 30 (Zebulun), v. 31 (the
Asherites), and v. 33 (Naphtali). On the contrary, the
wars of other tribes are not related separately--the House of Joseph
(v. 22) is connected with the Benjaminites (v. 21), as is Manasseh
(v. 27). Note that in the last case *welo' hôrîsh menashsheh* (v.
27) is a negative wayyiqtol, not x-qatal, because a negative x-qatal
would be different-- see *we'eprayim lô' hôrîsh* (v. 29), that
is the X element is preposed to the negative form lo'+verb; also see
vv. 30, 31, and 33.
I think you are also right that x-qatal #16 indicates Judah's
campaign in general and the following wayyiqtol forms give the
details. Now, the x-qatal #16 SYNTACTICALLY depends on the following
wayyiqtol #17, in the sense that it can not stand alone, however
GRAMMATICALLY it is not dependent, in the sense that it is not
preceded by a subordinating conjunction like *kî*. Therefore I
would not translate that x-qatal with a subordinate clause.
We have here an example of CHRONOLOGICALLY non-sequential wayyiqtol
(see my previous posting). A similar thing is found in the previous
verses 4-6. There the order of the exposition is peculiar--Judah
defeated the Canaanites and the Perizzites at Bezek (v. 4); they
found Adoni-bezek, fought against him and defeated the Canaanites and
the Perizzites (v. 5); Adoni-bezek fled, they pursued him etc. (v.
6). The order is as follows: A (Canaanite-Perizzites), B
(Adoni-bezek), A (Canaanites-Perizzites), B (Adoni-bezek). Therefore
the wayyiqtol *wayyimSe'û" in v. 5 has most probably an
explicating function as has *wayyakkû* later in the same verse. I
would translate as follows: "ACTUALLY they found Adoni-bezek at
Bezek and fought against him, AND THUS they defeated the Canaanites
and the Perizzites. THEN (Adoni-bezek fled..."
This phenomenon raises the problem of ORDER--how are we to evaluated
the order of a text? H. Weinrich (among others, I suppose) taught us
to distinguish between TENSE and TIME. This distinction is clear in
English as is in German--Tempus and Zeit. The two levels are
distinct; they may coincide but may also diverge. We may narrate the
future or predict the past. Therefore I think that we must keep the
two levels separate and not let the TIME--or the actual course of the
events as we understand them--interfere with the syntactic function
of the TENSES used to describe them. Actually, the writer may
wish to manipulate the order of the events and arrange them in a way
that fits his strategy of communication. HIS ORDER may be different
from the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. Now, he produces his order by chosing
appropriate verbforms and other constructions of a given language.
Our task is to try to understand and respect his order. That is why a
correct syntactical analysis is the basis of the interpretation. It
is only the first step, but a necessary one. Unfortunately this step
is normally neglected.
Fot those who read Italian--I hve examined complete chapters of BH
prose (Josh. 1-6; Judg. 1-8, except chap. 5; 2 Samuel 5-7 // 1
Chronicles 11-17; and *the use of wayehî* in Exod. 1-14) in
_Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica_ (Jerusalem 1991).
Sorry for the long posting.
Alviero Niccacci
On 02/20/99 (Re: X-Qatal - wayyiqtol) Lee R. Martin
wrote:
> Dear Friends,
> Many thanks for the fine responses from Prof. Niccacci and Bryan
Rocine.
> One more question. What is the relationship between ##
16&17? Bryan said
> that #16 indicates a new time frame, and he is correct. However,
is #17
> subsequent to #16, or is #16 a summary of #17ff ?
Consider the following
> translations of verse 10:
>
> NRS Judah went against the Canaanites ...
> NAB Judah also marched against the Canaanites ...
> NKJ Then Judah went against the Canaanites ...
> NJB Judah next marched on the Canaanites ...
>
> The NRS, along with KJV, REB, and many other translation, seems
to view v. 9
> as a summary that includes v. 10, that is, the "Canaanites
living in the
> hill country" (v.9) would include the
"Canaanites in Hebron" (v.10). The
> NAB, NKJ, NJB, as well as Reina-Valera, (which uses
"luego" to begin v.10)
> seem to suggest that v. 9 is previous to v. 10 and two marches
are in view.
> My understanding of x-qatal causes me to lean toward one
march, not two.
> Or, to put it another way, v.9 is a campaign, and v. 10 is one
march in the
> campaign. I would translate vv. 9-10 paraphrastically
"Aftward, when the
> Judahites went south to make war on the Canaanites living in the
highlands,
> the Negev, and the Shephelah, they marched against the
Canaanites in
> Hebron...."
>
> Is this reasonable?
>
>
> "Lee R. Martin" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 16 x-qatal - And afterward the children of Judah went down
to fight
>
>
against the Canaanites, that dwelt in the mountain,
>
> and in
the south, and in the valley.
> > 17 wayyiqtol - And Judah went against the Canaanites that
dwelt
>
> in Hebron: ... and they slew
Sheshai, and .....
> >
>
> --
>
> Lee R. Martin
> Pastor, Prospect Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee
> Instructor in Hebrew and Old Testament
> Church of God Theological Seminary
> http://www.earth.vol.com/~lmartin/
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972
- 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax
+972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFmain.html
Email
mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il