Both units, Q and WaY are equally situational, and parallel/meristic (heart vs ...... ×£× ×¢×ש××...××צ×...××××. - ...ר×××× ×××. (v. 16-17a). Half a cycle (two uses of wood),.
XXII. THE POETIC WAYIQTOL1 1. INTRODUCTION. In discussing minority uses of wayiqtol, the dynamic grammaticalization perspective should be examined, as done for yiqtol in Ch XIX. Andrason 2011 contains a fine historical discussion on the various attempts to define a coherent verb-semantic value for WaY; more importantly, abandoning the synchronic view of coherent grammar, he reach a new sense of panchronic coherence. In terms of the verbal bind, and the synchronic viewpoint, Andrason’s final conclusion (if I understood it correctly) is close in spirit to Michel’s 1960: the basic ingredient in WaY is not the consecutive, nor the inverting, but the resultative; i.e. the dependent as expressing a thematic expectation relation with the head: factually, logically or modally. The difference lies in the temporal point of view: while the last two (consecutive and inversive) express past (in the case of WaY; viewed by Andrason as the final point in a migratory path, or cline), the resultative may occur in the past, present or future. viewed from a completely different perspective, i.e. the purely temporal, a major characteristic of the waw-prefixed form, is that it normally does not label the sentence; rather, it receives the (normally past) label from other verb units, normally the head. Again, this means that it is, in principle, not specific to the past. As Andrason observes, the synchronic picture is not simple and it seems that WaY attends a large number of different syntactic uses. A taxonomic treatment can be found in Waltke 1990 and Andrason 2011. Independently, some functions of WaY have been isolated in previous chapters. First we filter out the usual functions as past tense: (i) Episodic: consecutive/inversive. A thick consecutive stratum has to be filtered out, described as preterite in Ch XIII2.
1
See Michel 1960, Gross 1976, Finley zzz. Typical chapters are 2Sam 22/Ps 18 and Ps 78.
2
A non-sequential use has been isolated in Buth 1994.
(ii) Episodic: following the stative, NC and temporal anchor. This use was described in Ch X, inasmuch as a past tense was intended. Below we shall see non-past references. It is only natural that WaY is not very frequent in poetry and discourse, and when it does occur (in various episodic or gnomic situations), its semantic value is indeed modified, sometimes in obscure ways which require a careful analysis, but generally in the direction indicated by Michel and Andrason. Specifically, WaY may lose its past (inverted) and unitary qualities, but usually maintains its value as transformative/ consecutive (“and then”); at times, one suspects that the waw is merely copulativedisjunctive: ( צור ילדך תשי ותשכח אל מחללךDeut 32:18-19) - meristic ( ובמקבות יצרהו ויפעלהו בזרוע כחוIsa 44:12) -meristic וינקהו דבש מסלע, ויאכל תנובת שדי,במותי ארץ-( ירכבהו עלDeut 32:13) – augmentative or merely contrastive: אדם-דכא ותאמר שובו בני-( תשב אנוש עדPs 90:3( (always under topical ellipsis!), to the point of suspecting that the use is W+Q rather than WQ. It follows from Andrason’s analysis that WaY is rarely used for extreme temporal situations, such as the pluperfect or the distant past; this use is reserved to Q, representing in Andrason’s view an “older migration”3. In parallel, the waw as consecutive may also explain this fact (panchronically, as lacking phonological simplification). In some details, the synchronic study conducted here differs in its conclusions from Andrason’s general panchronic scheme, due to the difference in taxonomic classification. I cite the main differences: (iii) Gnomicity. One temporally unlabeled poetic use of WaY is the gnomic, which may be confused with a non-past connotation. Here, often the existing literature still insists on determining an absolute temporality: past, present or future, as e.g. done by Waltke 1990. The translators’ habit to render these units using the English present tense, while overall correct, misses much of the original subtlety hidden in the original4. Nevertheless, the examples provided by Waltke and Andrason serve their purpose, in showing semantic uses of WaY which are not consistent with the preterite.
3
But see Buth 1994.
Waltke 1990 considers the following gnomic verses as present time: פיך-לך לספר חקי ותשא בריתי על-( מהPs 50:16), פעלי און-ויציצו כל...( בפרח רשעיםPs 92:8), ( לקול תתו המון מים בשמים ויעלה נשאיםJer 10:13). Andrason 2011 classifies ( אכלו וישתחווPs 22:29) as future, whereas in my opinion it is atemporal; but he considers בא 4
(iv) Rhetorical past. Much of the commentary made on the “non-past Q” in Ch XX, as past and rhetorical, may extend to the “non-past WaY”. Indeed, some cases classified as textually present time (and normally translated as such) should be analyzed as past and situational (§XX.3.4). ( לכן שמח לבי ויגל כבודיPs 16:9) Both units, Q and WaY are equally situational, and parallel/meristic (heart vs liver), without altogether labeling the sentence as present. ואשלחה להגיד לאדני...לי שור וחמור-עתה ויהי-לבן גרתי ואחר עד-( עםGen 32:5) Similarly situational: a transformative event (“I have acquired”) in the past is used to describe a state (“I have”) in the present. ...כי נטשת עמך כי מלאו מקדם ועננים כפלשתים ובילדי נכרים ישפיקו ותמלא ארצו כסף וזהב (Isa 2:6-7). A mixed Qa/Qo/Y/WaY tensing is used rhetorically to describe the present situation. In spite of some lexical uncertainty, it is clear that different verb forms have different functions: ( ענניםQo) as non-dynamical present, ( ישפיקוY) as repeated, and the remaining units in Q/WaY, including ותמלא, as past situational. Finally, WaY represents causal and modal realtions which are truly atemporal, mainly those analyzed previously by Michel. We recall that the division of WY into two sub-forms (WaY and WeY) is, by and far, masoretic, hence should always be questioned; however, impact can usually be used to separate between them, normally confirming the masoretic choice. In particular important here is the parallel/sequential distinction. In addition, tthe poetic waw is fluid, in the sense that it is not necessarily used for syntactic reasons and may be added or omitted with ease. This may have created, in some cases, a re-approximation within each morphological pair: Q-WQ and Y/WeY-WaY, which is specific to poetry and is mostly absent in the narrative. It should also be recognized that poetry and discourse represent a plurality of styles and cannot be assumed to be one uniform stratum, nor even in terms of verb semantics.
2. THE POETIC PRETERITE. The difference between the BH poetry and prose is large indeed, in terms of both structure and style. On the other hand, the book of psalms5, and several shorter allusions in the prophets, contain poetic text of historical ( זדון ויבא קלוןProv 11:2) as gnomic (the QWaY tensing is also rhetoric, see §XX.3.1) ; similar is אהבת צדק ( ותשנא רשעPs 45:8, gnomic but also situational). This sub-stratum describes historical events from the moral-doctrinal point of view. Interesting is the case of Ps 104-107, describing four biblical episodes: the creation, the patriarchs, the classical period, and the post-exilic revival. Ps 104 is quite different than the other three: its couplets avoid the chiasm 5
character which imitates biblical prose, maintaining the versicle structure in a loose way. These texts mostly serve to recall the nation’s past events, in a style which may be called pseudo-narrative, or pseudo-episodic. The main difficulty in these passages occurs due to the tendency of poetry to use the waw in a very loose way, which often contradicts our fixed verb-semantic values. One may speak of the “fluid waw”, dropped or added for variation and style (XXII.2). This may create a renewed, or secondary, proximity between WaY and Y and between Q and WQ. It is my feeling that this proximity was considered primary by several authors, including Driver and D. Michel. We see two main processes: (i) Deletion: a WaY unit (unitary event) changing to Y; (ii) Augmentation: a Y unit (e.g. gnomic, or repeated event) changing to WaY. The question of labeling these sentences is delicate: the deleted Y may represent an impactive event which labels the sentence; the augmented WaY may fail to label, and thus may represent all tenses, past or future (this is discussed in Ch XXII, esp. §XXII.6). It is in this context that I see Michel’s waw implicative, though, clearly, we have to transcend from the temporal to the thematic. Thus, the waw-implicative loses its temporal qualities (inversive, consecutive), and remains inductive-logic and becomes imperfective. As is the rule in Psalms, it also has a modal value: a projection into the future, irrealis, generic or wishful. This style of Psalms, probably late classical BH, is quite different from the often called “early poetry” represented e.g. by Deut 32 and Jud 5. Indeed, beyond the “fluid waw” it shows other tendencies which in prose would be considered late BH: the erosion of the difference between unitary and repeated events, or between the sequential and parallel; though these tendencies might also represent poetic devices. In terms of fronting, however, the pseudo-episodic style follows and even extrapolates the classical BH standards, as in all of Psalms, but now on waw-prefixed units, e.g. שמים נתן למו- וימטר עליהם מן לאכל ודגן- ( ויצו שחקים ממעל ודלתי שמים פתחPs 78:23-24) where the preterite WaYQ easily adapts to the chiastic pattern. It is word order, plus the syntactic veto, which determines the tensing, i.e. decides between the wawless Q and the consecutive WaY.
and its tensing avoids WaY, similar to Ex 15. Thus it may be conjectured that Ps 104 and Ex 15 represent a pre-classical style which does not apply the pseudo-narrative. This would corroborate a relatively late, literary-BH-specific dating for the use of the consecutive forms, against the comparative school and the NW Semitic hypothesis dated around 1000 BC or even earlier. See also Greeenstein 1988 .
( פי פערתי ואשאפהPs 119:131), Both units are sc and past, hence WaY.
( פקדת הארץ ותשקקהPs 65:10)
( ותגעש ותרעש הארץ ומוסדי הרים ירגזו ויתגעשוPs 18:8) הירדן יסב לאחור,( הים ראה וינסPs 114:3) Deletion under the effect of a front (and ellipsis of the verb )ראה, causing reapproximation of WaY and Y. גבולם-עמי ויגדילו על-( אשר חרפו אתZeph 2:8). Normal preterite with a possibly augmentative waw (“and even”). וישתחו...וילך ויעבד...איזבל-נבט ויקח אשה את-( ויהי הנקל לכתו בחטאות ירבעם בן1Kgs 16:31) The waw is equally augmentative, following an irregular head (see §4).
3. NON-CONSECUTIVE USE. It should be noted that inversion is a tensual rather than temporal operation: when the head is Q (past or non-past), the dependent is WaY, when the head is Y (future or non-future) the dependent is WQ. In these cases, the correct temporal interpretation of the head extends to the dependent. In some cases, the dependent is inverted although it is not consecutive, or non-past. This may be considered “grammatically wrong”, but required by the syntactic veto, on an sc unit (§XII.3). In fact, the waw plays here a crucial thematic, non-temporal function. ותנצל נפשי...ראיתי אלהים-( כיGen 32:31) Contrastive: b occurred in spite of a. שכמו-לנו ותהי המשרה על-לנו בן נתן-ילד ילד-( כיIsa 9:5) ואמלא אתו רוח אלהים...( קראתי בשם בצלאלEx 31:2-3) The waw (augmentative?) provides cognitive functionality for a nomination. לא אבוש-כן שמתי פני כחלמיש ואדע כי-( עלIsa 50:7) Part b legitimizes part a. ...ותנהג... ( מה עשית ותגנבGen 31:26) The two waws are jointly augmentative: “What have you done, not only stealing… but also driving…”. They are impactive and elaborate the head. יאזין קולי-אאמין כי-קראתי ויענני לא-( אםJob 9:16), Versicle b is plausibly an apodosis. Temporality of versicle a is relative, taking as basis the moment of God’s response. Observe the implicit nature of this tensing device: absolute time (future) is only labeled in versicle b. ואהיה עמך בכל אשר הלכת ואכרתה...להיות נגיד...( אני לקחתיך2Sam 7:9) The waw is, primarily, augmentative. The use of QWeY is rare, and marks a past/future relation used mostly by Isaiah. The waw-implicative of D Michael may be invoked. It is, in theory, possible that BH did
recognize WaY and WeY as separate forms, and moreover used them differently in narrative and poetry. ...; אני קרתי ושתיתי מים ואחרב...ואבוא...ואכרת...( ברב רכבי אני עליתיIsa 37: 24-25) Masorah sensibly separates the “consummate Q” and the “aspirate WeY”6, viewing the second as encouraged by the first. עתה הבאתיה ותהי להשאות גלים נצים ערים בצרות...( אותה עשיתיIsa 37:26) Masorah plausibly interpreted differently three time values: past (creation), present (gearing into action) and future (action). The sense of present is historic/prophetic. ( אני יהוה קראתיך בצדק ואחזק בידך ואצרך ואתנך לברית עם לאור גויםIsa 42:6) הגוים נקבצו יחדו ויאספו לאמים-( כלIsa 43:9) In both cases Masorah understands the entire scene as future, using WeY; the initial unit in Q is understood as anticipative (§XX.3.3). ( כי לא שמעו לו ויהיו נדדים בגויםHos 9:17) Action in past Q, reaction in WeY. The masoretic call is justifies since the dependent is stative, hence peripheral.
4. IRREGULAR HEAD.
The same principles which guided the irregular episodic use, discussed in Ch X, remain valid in poetry. It should be observed that in many irregular sentences (a stative/NC/infinitive linked conjunctively to a finite VC) the initial NC is a is a VC in disguise, used as a poetic device. This is evident in the following example: ( כמרעיתם וישבעו; שבעו וירם לבםHos 13:6). The two clauses are put in parallel, the second extrapolating the first. Thus, the first clause (irregular) is a poetic rendering of רעו וישבעו. Clearly, the irregular variant has its added dynamic subtleties: it is not entirely equivalent to the regular variant. However, the dependent tensing ignores the head irregularity. The same applies, in particular, to the combination (H)-QoWQa, used adjectively, possibly united by topical ellipsis, describing two past or progressive present events. More than describing the action, this pattern characterizes its subject. As to the connection between the two units, WaY is consecutive; i.e. the second unit is seen as a logical or even immediate sequel to the first. These nuances may be rhetoric, e.g. expressing contrast, urgency, impatience, swift action etc via hyperbole. The context may be temporally labeled or even entirely gnomic. ( המנדים ליום רע ותגשון שבת חמסAmos 6:3) WaY indicates, gnomically, the proximity of the two events, i.e. a pattern of impatiece. 6
See also Niccacci 2006:262-3.
In psalms, the H-QoWaY tensing is reserved for upbeat confirmation of doctrinal statements concerning divine attributes, and especially deliverance. Once again we see that topical ellipsis justifies forces waw-prefixed tensing. יגע בהרים ויעשנו,( המביט לארץ ותרעדPs 104:32) Two clauses using the same two-action pattern. The first vertical pair (QoY) attests to a gnomic situation; the second pair (הרים- )ארץis meristic; the third pair is the gnomic WaY which enacts the immediate-subsequent. ...יושבי בה ועלתה כיאר כלה ושקעה-( נוגע בארץ ותמוג; ואבלו כלAmos 9:5) This scene, possibly evoking the exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah, is focal and describes the desctructive potential of God’s power. Whereas WaY on ותמוגdenotes swiftness, the subsequrnt WQ units may indicate the contrary: a subsequent slow process. פני הארץ-הים וישפכם על-( הקרא למיAmos 9:6) וייראו ישבי קצוות מאותתיך,( משביח שאון ימים שאון גליהם והמון לאמיםPs 65:8) The head may either refer to a particular event, or be gnomic; the dependent function is consecutive-implicative, passively assuming the head temporality. כי מי אלוה מבלעדי יהוה ומי צור זולתי אלהינו? האל המאזרני חיל ויתן תמים דרכי (Ps 18:23-33). Here Michel’s 1960 waw-implicative hypothesis is untenable7, since the causal relation is not internal to v.33: it is between the question and the answer. Thus, המאזרניand ויתןare parallel, not consecutive. ערי יהודה קולם- נצרים באים מארץ המרחק ויתנו על:ירושלם-(הנה השמיעו עלJer 4:16) The preamble labels as future the entire sentence (a plan in the making, §XIII.4), so that WaY can be used as non-past, or as prophetic past (§XX.3.3).
5. AFTER A NOUN CLAUSE. Syntactically, the situation is equally sc, and the waw is required; tensing is gnomic. Here, Michel’s waw-implicative is plausible; but it is also noted that a transformative/unitary lexicality may favor WaY, as opposed to the other candidates, WeY or WQ. The believer considers faith as a transformative element in his life, rather than as a repeated sequence of events. Masorah seems to have understood this distinction. ( אל יהוה ויאר לנוPs 118:27) An adequate, non-literal translation would be “God has shown us the light”, i.e. a unitary/transformative act. Michel’s waw-implicative is also possible. Michel’s implicative waw requires a causal clause structure (“God endows me with power, hence sets to me a righteous way”). However, v.33 is an answer to v. 32, hence the connective hence is out of place and topical ellipsis is indicated: “God which endows me with power, and (moreover) sets to me a righteous way”. 7
במותי ידרכני-( יהוה אדני חילי וישם רגלי כאילות ועלHab 3:19): Again, ( וישםtransformative/unitary) requires WaY and ( ידרכניrepeated) requires Y. לִּי לִּיׁשּועָה-( ָעזִּי ְוזִּמ ְָרת י ָּה ַויְהִ יPs 118:14) Salvation may be seen as a continuous process or as a single, transformative act. WaY may indicate the latter interpretation. Tensing is more complicated in the longer sentences. Here, a global element (the time label of the sentence) is confronted with local tendencies (the quality of each separate verbal bond), creating various tensing possibilities. In (Ps 37:39-40) we find ְבעֵת ָצ ָרה, ֵמי ְהוָה; מָעּוז ָם,ּותְ ׁשּועַת צַדִּ י ִּקים חָסּו בֹו-כִּי--ְיֹושיעֵ ם ִ ו,ׁשעִּים ָ יְ ַפלְטֵ ם מ ְֵר: ַו ְיפַלְ טֵ ם,ַויַעְ ז ְֵרם י ְהוָה with the unusual tensing sequence WaYWaYYWeY. How can this sequence be explained? From the discourse point of view, it may be defended that the coordinate clauses combined form a single parallel meristic statement (“God saves his believers from trouble”), repeated in varying syntactic formats (2 NCs in v.39, 5 VC in v.40). If one adopts this unifying perspective, the waw cannot be viewed as implicative, as claimed by Michel, or as sequential, but as merely copulative between 7 parallel units. With this in mind we may now analyze the tensing. The NC מעוזם בעת צרהmoves the time frame to the (gnomic) moment of deliverance (compare with Notarius 2011 on temporality); WaY on ויעזרםand ויפלטםis justified as sc and unitary (still within the same time frame); justified also as “event following state” (Ch X). Now a poetic pause is required for breathing, and the ensuing echoing יפלטם, considered as clause initial, is waw-less (also following the principle of poetic variation); finally, WeY on ויושיעםis parallel to Y (see Ch VII, §XIV.2), as well as in tensual opposition to Q on ( חסוactionreaction). ויהי לפננה ילדים...( ולו שתי נשים1Sam 1:2) אש וסוסי אש ויפרידו בין שניהם-( והנה רכב2Kgs 2:11) עז ויכינו בקיץ לחמם-( הנמלים עם לאPr 30:25) את ותראי מאנוש ימות-( מיIsa 51:12) The unit in WaY is sc. The waw is justified as disjunctive (“event after state”, Ch X), rather than consecutive. In addition, it is transformative in the second example, contrastive in the last two.
6. SEQUENTIAL YIQTOLWAYIQTOL. One of the most intriguing BH tensing combinations, with Y often representing a repeated event in a situation where the
dependent is not a mere case of waw-augmentation (§2; i.e. the waw is really a necessity). Here we should distinguish between two situations: (i) Unitary to unitary. Namely, the fluid waw was dropped for poetic reasons, and the sequence should have been WaYWaY. This has been discussed in details in §VI.4, §XIX.3-4). תגע עדיך ותבהל,( כי עתה תבוא אליך ותלאJob 4:5) The waw is conjunctive, consecutive and contrastive. As hinted by עתה, the reference is to the recent past, specifically, to Job’s position exposed earlier. In fact, עתהis the only temporal label for this sentence, which otherwise uses the gnomic Yi and consecutive WaY. The gnomic element (compare with 1Sam 21:15) generalizes the speaker’s comment to a criticism on Job’s hypocricy (not practicing what he preached). (ii) The dependent Y describes a truly repeated event. This is the case discussed in this section. Concerning Michel’s resultative waw model, WaY is used as designating atransformation following a clause in Y describing a state (mostly, the believer’s situation or God’s power). The resultative waw model is consistent with impact; however, we should be attentive to the syntactic veto (Ch XII) which may force the WaY form for different reasons. (ii.a) The repeated duplex. The pattern described is ABABAB…, as in “drink and drive”. עתה יזכר עונם...( זבחי הבהבי יזבחו בשר ויאכלוHos 8:13) The three viable options on this sc unit lead to three different situations: ( יזבחו ואכלוWQ): “will sacrifice and then eat” (unitary, future); ( יזבחו ויאכלוWeY): “sacrifice, and at the same time eat” (parallel); ( יזבחו ויאכלוWaY): “eat their sacrifices8” (augmentative-contrastive, gnomic). The third option, of modal-rhetoric value, was chosen here rather than the more indicative alternatives. ;ארצי חלקו-אשר פזרו בגוים ואת...עמי-ונשפטתי עמם שם על...הגוים-כל-וקבצתי את עמי ידו גורל ויתנו הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו-( ואלJoel 3:2-3) The masoretic tensing of v2 (WQWQQw-x-Q with parallel fronting) is natural. As to v.3, chiasm between ויתנוand מכרוconfirms the Masoretic WaY on ויתנו. Thus, clearly in v.3 the narrator describes past events. As the past label extends copulatively to ידו, Y on ידוmust be interpreted as (past) repeated event, justifying the masoretic Y (as opposed to the a priori plausible Q).
8
Considered a religeous abomination.
ויורד כנהרות מים, ויוצא נוזלים מסלע, וישק כתהמות רבה,( יבקע צרים במדברPs 78:15-16). The repeated event is amplified by dropping the definite article throughout. The missing waw on יבקעacts as disjunctive: advances the “narrative line” to a new scene. It is gnomic and foreground9. The Masoretic tensing YWaYWaYWaY does not reflect correctly the structure: two parallel couplets. Thus, only the second and fourth units have the consecutive value. This “poetic liberty” is typical of the pseudopreterite style. וצפרדע ותשחיתם,( ישלח בהם ערב ויאכלםPs 78:45) משלחת מלאכי רעים, עברה וזעם וצרה,בם חרון אפו-( ישלחPs 78:49) Contextually, ישלחin v. 45 is pseudo-episodic/ repeated (v.49 slides towards the modal/fully gnomic/alegoric, no more bounded by reality). The repeated effect is intensified by grouping two plagues under the same veb form by ellipsis. לפני לחמי אנחתי תבא ויתכו כמים שאגתי-( כיJob 3:24)10 The waw expresses parallelism (merism); מבצר ישחק ויצבר עפר וילכדה-( לכלHabakuk 1:10) The waw is simply consecutive. ויאסף כחול שבי, מגמת פניהם קדימה,( כלה לחמס יבואAbakuk 1:9) (ii.b) Repeated-to-unitary. A cycle consisting of a repeated event, leading to a single event, as in “He jogged for one hour, then took a shower”; or even a repetition of this type of cycle, such as “Every day he would jog for one hour and then take a shower”. In the second case we may say that the unitary event is also repeated, daily; however, in BH the repeated cycle is often represented, rhetorically and laconically, by a single cycle, given that the listener can extrapolate. This may explain the use of WaY when a repeated cycle is implicit. אונם וברעתם יצמיתם-נפש צדיק ודם נקי ירשיעו; ויהי יהוה לי למשגב; וישב עליהם את-יגודו על (Ps 94:21-23) Repeated transgressions terminate in an act of justice. However, the whole scene is gnomic, and not temporally labeled in any way. Structurally, we se two chiasms, each indicating parallelism and forcing Y on versicle b. ( דברי מרמות יחשבון וירחיבו עלי פיהםPs 35:20-21)
9
Niccacci 2006:256-8 considers the initial Y as volitive, or else “an elliptic (wawless) WaY” .
Interestingly, although לחםand מיםform a classical pair of vertical mates in BH, their use here is not structurally parallel. 10
The sequence is treated as thematically sequential/ecalative, as things move from theory to practice. Masoretic WaY corroborates both the unitary and escalative values. Often the units in Y do not describe a repeated action as much as describe the actor (background use), whereas WaY concentrates on true action (foreground). This division is clear in 2Sam 22 (Ps 18), where WaY occurs on action verses (7-8,1012,15,) whereas Q/Y is used descriptively (9,13-14). Now, when Y is used on an action unit, it may be a “waw-less WaY”. (ii.c) Unclear. Several verses may be interpreted both ways: as repeated-to-repeated or as repeated-to-unitary, or pose lexical and translation enigma which prevent a clear interpretation, left for the reader’s contemplation. In episodes of salvation, the unit in WaY often has a reversive effect, in which a human activity is countered: either a prayer responded, or an aggression thwarted.
...אלהי אקרא וישמע מהיכלו קולי-( בצר לי אקרא יהוה ואל2Sam 22:7) יהוה אקרא ויענני מהר קדשו-( קולי אלPs 3:5) In this and other cases, contrary to the author’s opinion, Michel classifies the situation as repeated-to-repeated, defining a recurring pattern of divine intervention. As mentioned earlier, it appears, rather to the contrary, that the text is rhetoric/laconic: i.e. provides only a single cycle. This type of reduction may be described as symbolic: describing the whole by its part.
The language of Hosea, often ambivalent or confusing, is considered by some as a dialect apart11. His use of WaYi is also enigmatic at times. ( ועתה יוספו לחטא ויעשו להם מסכהHos 13:2) Is Y on יוספוPast? present? repeated? unitary? ויחלו מעט ממשא מלך שרים,יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם-( גם כיHos 8:10) ( בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבתות אהבה ואהיה להם כמרימי על על לחיהם ואט אליו אוכילHos 11:4) These sentences are difficult to interpret, but clearly WaY is used in a non-past or repeated situation. Equally difficult, and perhaps closely related, is Ps 64, where WaY again plays a reversive role: thwarting the enemies’ plans. 11
See Notarius 2007.
;... דרכו חצם,( אשר שננו כחרב לשונםv.4) Q (preparation); פתאם ירהו ולא יראו,( לירות במסתרים תםv.5) Y (objectives, considered descriptive/semi-gnomic); )...12(תמנו...יחפשו...? מי יראה למו:אמרו...יספרו...( יחזקוv.5b-7) Y (tactic maneouvres); Q on ( אמרוthoughts, situational); ... היו מכתם; ויכשילהו,( וירם אלהים חץ פתאוםv.8-9) WaY (the divine reaction and its immediate effects), Q (permanent effects); ;...( יתנודדוv.9) Y (repeated event); אדם ויגידו פעל אלהים ומעשהו השכילו-( וייראו כלv.10). A second transformative element: the moral effect of the divine action on society as a whole. Observe that the unit in Q (as part of a parallel chiasm) vindicates the masoretic WaY on the other two units, as opposed to WeY. The whole episode should be considered gnomic, in spite of the seemingly past conclusion. This is verified in v.23, which consist of a request for the future. The temporal use is merely rhetoricsymbolic. In connection with אמרוin Ps 64:6 just discussed, consider also ...יה- לא יראה:ירצחו – ויאמרו...יהרגו...יענו...ידכאו...יתאמרו... יביעו ידברו,מתי רשעים יעלזו-עד (zzz). The waw is clearly not implicative, in the sense of Michel (the dependent is a logical consequence of the head); but it relates to such a consequence, which is the divine perception of their deeds. At the same time, in terms of verb semantics, I consider the waw as conjunctive and past tense as situational (XX.3.4): a past event (“saying”) as representing a present state (assuming). וידבר אליו...הקול-לדבר אתו וישמע את...( ובבא משהNum 7:89). Two interpretations are possible here: a unitary vision of Moses upon the occasion of the inauguration of the sacrifices; or a repeated vision Moses had each time he entered the tent of the covenant. Under the second interpretation, one would need to explain why WaY was used rather than the repeated indirect WQ. Ps 29 is known for its unique style, which includes asymmetric verses and repetitive redundancy. The description of God is gnomic and focalizing throughout, even when the surface form indicates an episodic event. The clauses are simple and short, tensing is highly non-standard, and includes several YWY sequences which Masorah considers as YWaY; in addition, the usual chiasm is replaced by the inverse chiasm (v. 5,8,10). All of this, in spite of the evident echo parallelism within each couplet: מים רבים- יהוה על, אל הכבוד הרעים,המים-( קול יהוה עלv.3) 12
An unclear word, perhaps a verb unit.
...ארזי הלבנון וירקידם-( קול יהוה שבר ארזים וישבר יהוה אתv. 5) יחיל יהוה מדבר קדש,( קול יהוה יחיל מדברv.8) ( קול יהוה יחולל אילות ויחשף יערותv. 9) יהוה מלך לעולם13( יהוה למבול ישב וישבv. 10). Masorah chooses WaY throughout, although it has no consecutive or contrastive value. The style of this psalm is recognized as unique, and is usually described as representing an individual style or pseudo-Canaanite14.
7. PARALLEL YIQTOLWEYIQTOL. Masorah uses WeY when it understands the situation as parallel or meristic, mostly involving a vertical pair: ארץ וישכנו לעד עליה-( צדיקים יירשוPs 37:29) – ישכנו- ירשו ( לפניו ילך דבר ויצא רשף לרגליוAba 3:5)15 - לפניו ילך – לרגליו יצא כן שמים ארגיז ותרעש הארץ ממקומה-( עלIsa13:3) - שמים ארגיז – ארץ תרעש Again, several of these cases were analyzed by Michel60. The simple question (WeY or WaY?) may have complex answers. Consider the following synoptic text. יכלו קום יפלו תחת רגלי-ארדוף אויבי ואשיגם ולא אשוב עד כלותם אמחצם ולא (Ps 18:38-39). The exclusively Y/WeY tensing provides a consistent reading of these verses which is both volitive and gnomic. כלותם ואכלם ואמחצם ולא יקומון ויפלו תחת רגלי-ארדפה איבי ואשמידם ולא אשוב עד (2Sam 22:38-39). Here the author adopts the poetic YWaY tensing throughout which is also pseudo-episodic and is similar to the anticipated Q. Which of the two is more faithful to the original? The use of long forms and the lack of the modal auxiliary verb יכלmay indicate that the 2Sam version is more archaic. This may favor the conclusion that the non-inversive conjunction YWeY and the poetic waw omission were not part of archaic BH. ( וגבר ימות ויחלש ויגוע אדם ואיוJob 14:10) YWeY zzz.
QWaY may be considered situational past (§XX.3.4). While versicle a clearly refers to the far past, a plausible alternative is to consider versicle b as WeY, referring to the long future, against Masorah. 13
One element is the root echoing repetition. D Sivan shows that Ugaritic often uses the tensual opposition with root echo under equal tensual-aspectual conditions: knp nšrm bˁl yṯbr bˁl ṯbr dˀiy hmt “may Baal break the wings of the eagles, Baal broke their pinions” (KTU 1.19 III, 8-9), see Bekins (Balshanut, Sept 22, 2008). 14
15
This verse resembles the Canaanite poetic style, and uses the inverse chiasm AVS-VSA.
8. TOWARDS A POETIC TEXT INTERPRETATION. The tensing analysis included in this chapter, as well as in zzz, has a local and technical character. Its objective is the elaborate study of the way verb forms connect to one another. Most poetry is gnomic in character, and verb forms are, to various degrees, stripped of their episodic temporal label. This, sometimes, may disagree with the general impression from the text as a whole. If we look, for example, in Ps 18:5-25 we see an entire plot unravelling in a globally temporal way, though without a well-defined initial point: the believer’s enemies plot to destroy him, he then prays for help, then in a magnificent scene God shows his ire, picks up the believer, shelters him and rewards his rightousness. An examination of the verb forms used in these verses shows 19xWaY (mostly transformative and sequential), 18xY (mostly repeated/descriptive), 12xQ (mostly background). The question whether Ps 18 (and similarly Ps 3,7,34,51,52,54,56,57,59,60,63,79 etc) is, in the final analysis, temporally labeled or not is not a grammatical question and will not be adressed here. Labeling is a tricky cognitive process, a connection made by certain clues. For example, in הספר בדיו-הדברים האלה ואני כתב על- מפיו יקרא אלי את כל:...ויאמר...הגד לנו איך כתבת (Jer 36:17-18) the reply is semi-gnomic (repeated Yauxiliary Qo) and, by its own nature, unlabeled; but it becomes labeled by the word כתבתin the previous interrogative. Other unlabeled paragraphs are Gen 2:10-14, Isa 61:10-11, 63:1-6 etc etc. zzzz In general, it is understood that a psalm may be written inspired by a particular personal experience, but its writing down entails a kathartic process of globalization which makes it comunicable to others and which tends to eliminate the particularities of the individual experience. 2Sam 22:5-25 (Ps 18:5-25) is loyal to the general scheme QYWaYYQ. Specifically, v.5-6: the dire situation (Q), v.7: calling for help (Y), v.8-16: God’s glory and action (WaY, then Y), v. 17-19a: The believer’s salvation and reward (Y+WaY), v.22-24: the believer’s (past?) righteousness (Q). This endows the test with a dynamic sense of temporality: a plot exists. However, there is lack of any real temporal label which would tie the story with the believer’s particular experience, other than the psalm’s initial phrase (2Sam 22:1, Ps 18:1). None of the units can definitely be called labeling. יראה ורעד יבא בי ותכסני פלצות,( לבי יחיל בקרבי ואימות מות נפלו עליPs 55:6) This sentence, and in fact the entire psalm, is not labeled at all, and is completely gnomic. See Ch zzz.
The pattern QYWaY may be seen as describing a complete cycle, or a complete episode. This relation is relative, and does not imply a temporal labeling of the entire cycle, which may in fact be repeated. Small variations around this basic pattern may be required in each case. Consider Isa 44:10-17, where in fact the initial Q is pseudoalegoric zzz, i.e. gnomic: יצרהו ויפעלהו...ופעל...( חרשv.12) יתארהו ויעשהו...יעשהו...( נטה קו יתארהוv. 13) Describing two complete cycles (metal and woodwork) ... והיה...יגדל...נטע...ויאמץ...ויקח...( לכרתv. 14-15a) The initial infinitive may be a Q-substitute. Two cycles (wild and cultivated lumbering) and their objective (fire). ויסגד...אל וישתחו; עשהו-יפעל-אף...ישיק ואפה-ויחם אף...( ויקחv. 15b) Two cycles, the second repeating part of the first. The following is an elaboration: ...יחם ויאמר-וישבע אף...יצלה...על חציו בשר יאכל...( חציו שרףv. 16-17a) Half a cycle (two uses of wood), לו וישתחו ויתפלל אליו ויאמר-יסגוד...( ושאריתו לאל עשהv. 16-17) The other half (a third use). The masoretic distinction between WeY and WaY is based on impact: for example, וישתחוis tensed WaY in v.15b (sequential) and WeY in v. 17 (parallel). All in all, the entire paragraph is fully gnomic and none of the units acts as absolute time label.
XXIII. POETRY: PARALLELISM and GNOMIC TENSING 1. INTRODUCTION1. It is normal to expect some linguistic differences between prose (and daily speech) and poetry, which are culture dependent and – nowadays – quite fluid; the question of whether poetry should be considered a dialect apart is very complex. Admittedly, in the OT the main two linguistic expressions, prose and poetry2, form two very distinct and relatively homogeneous blocks, considered by some scholars as diferent dialects3 (dialogue is a third minority group4). Other hold the opinion that all the three genres use essentially the same grammar and syntax 5; and the accentuated semantic-morphological differences between them6 reflect traditions which are internal to the same linguistic culture and grammatical-syntactic matrix (differences
This material is mostly based on Notarius 2007. See also Bloch, Michel 1960, Loprieno 1980, greenstein 1988, 1998, 2006, Pardee 1988, Merwe 1991, 1993, Buth 1992, Jero 2008, Tatu 2008, Holmstedt 2009b, Notarius 2009. For the diachronic point of view, archaic morphology and Y see Sáenz 1993:56-62, Fensham 1978:10-14, Isaksson:140-142, Squares 1991:77, 172-186. 1
2
A list of the OT poetic texts can be found in e.g. Notarius 2007.
Joosten 2002:52, Hatav 1997:24, Niccacci 1997:92-93, Rendsburg 1990, Young 1993. Some of these authors claim dialectal differences or total grammatical absence in poetry. Evidence for dialectal difference between prose and poetry was pointed out e.g. in Akkadian (Soden:1994 161), Ugaritic (Greenstein, Pardee 1988), medieval Chinese (Yachontov). Notarius 2007 sees differences between the narrative and poetic chiasm. Ellipsis favors the SVV format in narrative but not in poetry. See also Gibson 1994:163-164, O’connor 1980:122-129, Miller 2003. 3
In terms of verb structure, there is no reason to distinguish between dialogue and narrative in the OT. The opinion that poetry is closer to dialogue than it is to narrative, expressed in Merwe 1999:165, Niccacci 2006:247, Greenstein 2000 is rejected by many authors, see Notarius 2007. In fact, dialogue is almost entirely episodic, and poetry is almost entirely gnomic. The main characteristic unique to the narrative is the initial WaY form, or equivalently, the formation of lengthy sentences. 4
Hurwitz 1966, Blau 1970, 1977:23-27, Fensham 1978:15-16, Jakobson 1981:21, Niccacci 2006, Notarius 2007. 5
See Jero 2008. Izre’el zzz:58 considers poetry as allowing free word order but with pragmatic and poetic restrictions. According to Gibson 1993:147 the main difference is a natural inclination towards the parallel, and, I should add, the gnomic. Talstra 1999:104-5,125 speaks about common grammar but different preferences. Ljungberg 1995 emphasizes the poetic syntactic flexibility, including word order. 6
in content, format, style, poetic freedom, emphasis, mood7). The present work is, in some sense, motivated by proving the linguistic uniformity of the entire BH corpus, including poetry. In a nutshell, The main tensing difference between BH poetry and narrative is in terms of the frequency of the gnomic8 and parallel elements. Naturally, this frequency is very high in poetry, very low in the narrative. Meanwhile, in general terms it is clear that BH poetry has many other characteristics which separate it from the narrative; we mention below only those which are relevant for the analysis of tensing9. 1) The couplet (or triplet) consisting of 2-3 versicles as basic poetic units (roughly, “sentence” and “clauses”, resp; though often several couplets form a single sentence). 2) Parallelism between the two versicles: versicle b elaborates on versicle a using synonyms, merisms, complements, pairs of opposites10. 3) Universal esthetic criteria. These include simplicity of expression and, above all, variation in all the poetic level: lexical, imagery, meter etc. Exact repetitions are avoided, especially in the gnomic regime. Variation has several corollaries: 3.1) Tensual opposition11 (QY or YQ; this will be a major topic in this chapter): בצר הרחבת לי...( בקראי ענניPs 4:2( פדיתה אותי,( בידך אפקיד רוחיPs 31:6( ( הושיעני מפי אריה ומקרני ראמים עניתניPs 22:22) ( במות אדם רשע תאבד תקוה ותוחלת אונים אבדהPr11:7). 3.2) The order-asymmetric couplet, and especially the chiasm (VP-PV)12: Poetry tends to avoid the indicative and couplet-initial verbs have many shades: volitive, suplicative, optative, vocative, evocative, declarative etc, which are then reflected more passively in the second versicle of the couplet. 7
Tatu 2008:1 speaks of atemporality, but claims that its roots may be extremely difficult to evaluate. It appears that the Ugaritic and Canaanite epic texts had a similar gnomic element. The gnomic element helps explain what many authors (see above) describe as a grammatical, temporal and syntactic “collapse”. 8
9
Some of these elements are mentioned in Meek 1929:524 and Wendland 1994:3-5.
10
See also Niccacci 2006:266: grammatical merism.
See Waltke 1990. Notarius 2007 claims that opposition is absent from some BH poetic units, and mentions Cassuto, Held 1962, Gewirtz 1973 zzz, Buth 1986, Tatu 2008. Tensual opposition in Ugaritic (qatala-yaqtul) is observed in Greenstein 2006:17,100-101. 11
ומצותיך עשיתי,( שברתי לישועתך יהוהPs 119:166), ומידעי שכחוני,( חדלו קרוביJob 18:14) ( כי לחמו לחם רשע ויין חמסים ישתוPr 4:17). and to a lesser degree the inverted chiasm: ויבא רשע תחתיו,( צדיק מצרה נחלץProv 11:8). (It is remarked that both these elements exist also in the episodic regimes, though in somewhat modified forms. The asymmetric sentence was discussed in Ch XI in relation with fronting; and tensual opposition is at the basis of the standard pattern. In poetry, however, the “liquid waw” creates a proximity between, say, the Q+Y and Q+WaY oppositions, and to some degree also the different between the Y+Q and Y+WQ couples.) 3.3) Lexical and meter variations. This includes use of the pausal end (§III.2), archaisms, variations in number, person etc. Here are two examples, which elaborate on ideas about geometric symmetry introduced in Gibson 1994: צרה כהתכנס- ( קצר המצע מהשתרע והמסכהIsa 28:20) Expansion vs. contraction, horizontal vs. vertical13, below vs above, fronting. ויין חמסים ישתו, ( כי לחמו לחם רשעPr 4:17) Merism, fronting, tensual opposition. 4) Syntactic terseness, compactness, density14. 5) Poetic freedom, i.e. a relaxation of all the binding restrictions, e.g. in terms of word order, as well as verbal modes15. 6) Partial removal of particles, including the definite article and conjunctives16. This includes the formation asyndetic couplets17 and verb ellipsis18: For both tensual opposition and chiasm as corollaries of the variation principle see Kugel 1981:20, Joüon-Muraoka 2009:330,337, Greenberg 1965: 45,49. Following Cassuto, Held 1962 provides an analysis of both chiasm and the tensual opposition. See also Gewirtz 1973. Both elements occur also in prose, but Notarius considers the two situations as somewhat different. 12
13
I assume that מסכהrefers to a cover made of animal skin. See connection with שמיכה, מסכת,מסך.
Brockelmann 1957:143-4, Kugel, Empson, Waugh, Gibson 1994:163-164, Talstra 1999:113, Waltke 1990:122-129, Miller 2003, Notarius 2007. 14
Tatu 2008:8, Jero 2008:184. This point will be crucial later on. The failing of “normative tensing” is reported in Niccacci 1997:77-78 and Niccacci 2006:247-268, esp. 266. 15
In the grammaticalization literature, this is part of the general trend towards morphological reduction and phonetic erosion. Considering the poetic corpus as more advanced in the gnomization 16
שלוה בארמנותיך,שלום בחילך-( יהיPs 122:7). ( אשרי אדם לא יחשב יהוה לו עוןPs 32:2), זו תלך-( בדרךPs 32:8). 7) Imaging and figurative language, 8) modal-subjective-emotional language. The gnomization (or bleaching) of mode along with the bleaching of tense and aspect. This is most clearly seen in Psalms, where the modal most intense, but has essentially a single form of expression: Y. In a gnomic situation, the temporal choice of Q vs Y becomes increasingly more rhetorical and less chronological. Besides the minimum necessary for correct labeling, the tensing may become relative (showing the prior/posterior position of some verb units) or even logical/causal (showing action and reaction). Job’s last speech (Job 29-31) has a semi-gnomic backbone, as it revises Job’s previous life; however, it is rich in gnomic expression. It contains, amongst other material, two lists in which Job summarizes his innocence. The first is formalized in the positive (29:12-25), the second uses the conditional oath rhetoric (protasis: “If i did so-andso”; apodosis: “let so-and-so be my punishment”, 30:25-31:40, including additional themes). Although both lists refer to Job’s past, some of them are formalized in Q and some in Y. It will be impossible here to provide a full analysis (which the reader is recommended to do). Here are a few examples from the second list, focusing on the protatic-conditional verses: עגמה נפשי לאביון,יום-לא בכיתי לקשה-( אם30:25) Complete parallelism, QQ. מרמה רגלי-שוא ותחש על-הלכתי עם-( אם31:5) Waw augmentative, walking and then running, QWaY. תטה אשרי מני הדרך ואחר עיני הלך לבי ובכפי דבק מאום-( אם31:7) The moral slip as a sequence: first the eyes straying, then the heart, resulting in material gain. The sequential character indicates that the tensing model was supposed to be YWaYWaY, but the last two units ended up poetically displaced. In spite of the initial Y, the previous labeling as past remains in effect. In a sense, the sense of justice extrapolates the temporal restriction of Job’s material condition. The same situation (Y as past) is found in the next few verses: ...אמאס משפט עבדי-( אם31: 13) cline (including textually, as pertinent to more global issues), these phenomena are predicted by general theory . 17
Joüon-Muraoka 1991 §158 and Gesenius 1910§155, Talstra:113.
18
Gibson 1994:163-164, O’connor 1980:122-129, Miller 1990.
אמנע מחפץ דלים ועיני אלמנה אכלה-( אם31:16). In a sense, the apodotic Y invades the protasis. אכל יתום ממנה-( ואכל פתי לבדי ולא31:17) Downtensing expresses the causal order: Job did not eat until he shared his food with the orphan. ויפת בסתר לבבי ותשק ידי לפי,אראה אור כי יהל וירח יקר הלך-אם The temptation as imperfective (Y), the moral slip as telic (W-Q). Clearly, the tensual choices are partly artistic, and at a certain point cannot be reduced any more into a set of grammatical rules.
2. MORE ANCIENT POETRY. While some insignificant regional (north/south) differences in style and vocabulary have been detected in the OT19, the main issue in poetry is the possibility that some of the poems have preserved a more ancient stratum of BH. The identification of early texts in the OT is a difficult one, due to possible late modifications. However, clusters of archaic elements have been, more or less unanymously, detected in the following texts: Gen 4:23-24 (Lemech), Gen 49 (blessing of Jacob), Ex 15 (song of the sea), Num 21:17-18, Numbers 23-24 (Balaam), Deut 32 (poem of Moses), Deut 33 (Moshe’s blessing), Josh 10:12-13, Judges 5 (Deborah), 1 Samuel 2:1-10 (Hannah), 2 Samuel 22/Psalm 18, 2 Samuel 23(at least v.1-7), Psalms 1,29,68,78, Habakkuk 3:3-15, Isaiah, 2kgs19:21-2820. Some of the ingredients of ancient Hebrew are the following. (i) reduced use of WaY21; (ii) affinity with Ugaritic texts22; (iii) both Q and Y are seemingly used as past23; (iv) removal of syndetic clause אשרor use of זהinstead24, among other lexical and syntactical differences. Some researchers, based on the early biblical translations, do not accept the waw as biblical and remove it as a late addition when the case may indicate. This tendency was criticized by Bloch as dubious. In this work I consider the bare text (including the 19
Northern and southern, see e.g. Hosea.
See Freedman 1979, Bloch 3-10,34-89, Waltke 1990, Hornkohl 2003, Notarius 2007, WK Bechtold (internet). 20
21
Russell 2007:60.
22
Cross 1975:20.
Robertson zzz:27, Russell:60, Sáens 1993:58, Kutscher 1982:80. Bechtold brings as example: תהמת אבן- ירדו במצולת כמו,( יכסימוEx 15:5), although Y (imperfective) may be understood as representing repetition. 23
Kutscher:80, Cross:19; see also Joüon-Muraoka §158, Gesenius 1910 §155, in particular asyndetic clauses in Deut 32:15,17. 24
waw) as biblical and diacritics as masoretic, based on the current lack of corroborating data, and for the sake of simplicity. The question of identifying late texts in the OT is also much debated and will be discussed in zzz. The question of separating early and late biblical patterns and posexilic modifications makes the problem a very difficult one (Fensham).
3. PARALLELISM. Parallelism and gnomicity are the two main pillars of the BH poetry. Parallelism has been detected in Semitic and non-Semitic languages25, and is also used to some extent in the BH narrative (see Ch IX, §XI.3, §XXIII.3)26. In poetry, parallelism occurs naturally when versicle b repeats or elaborates on versicle a. As כפל מליםthis phenomenon was known to the medieval school (Kimhi, Ibn Ezra). Its inclusion in the European biblical literature is usually credited to C Schoettgen (1733)27. The modern tripartite division of structural parallelism (synonymous, antithetic and synthetic/ complementary) was introduced by Lowth in 1753, again in a biblical context, and subsequent authors introduced several ramifications28. Berlin 1985 divides parallelism into 5 strata: grammatical (morphological and syntactic), lexical, phonetic and semantic29. A normal semantically sequential sentence uses parallel structure, while semantic parallelism is compensated by loss of structural parallelism30. 3.1. STRUCTURAL PARALLELISM AND THE VERB FORM. Among the many elements of poetry discussed above, we now concentrate on three elements of parallelism and variation which are especially relevant to tensing: Parallel structure can be found in the poetry of other languages, such as Chinese, Russian, Mongolian and Finnish (Jakobson1966). And, clearly, in SW Semitic dialects (e.g. Ugaritic), Kosmala 1964:427, Yoder 1971:470-472, Geller 1979:1-2, Cross 1983:129, Korpel 1988:1, Tsumura 2009:167-168. 25
26
Berlin1985:16, Jakobson 1966:399. Other contributions are due to Collin and Van Dijk.
27
See Cloete 1989:64.
Jakobson 1966, citing former observations of Boodberg from 1954, emphasizes the Gestalt effect (complementation) formed by integrating the two parallel legs into a single statement. Kugel and Alter emphasize the differences between the two legs. Geller and O’Connor provide detailed divisions which take into account qualitative properties of the repetition of versicle b compared with versicle a, both semantically and grammatically (ellipsis, duplication, merism etc), e.g. Geller 1979:385. See also Hrushovski 1981:58 and Cooper 1984:406. 28
Watson 1984:118-119 adds also a geometric sense of reflection and permutation, where permutation roughly corres-ponds to fronting/chiasm. See Roberts 2001:54. E Greenstein restricts parallelism to the syntactic element of repetition (Berlin 1985:22). 29
Following a nomenclature consacrated in modern Physics, his may be dubbed, perhaps unduly, the “law of conservation of total parallelism”. The common element is that of compensation. 30
(i) Word order and fronting. These reflect various possible symmetries: the chiasm VS-SV, the inverse chiasm SV-VS, the parallel sentence (SV-SV or VS-VS), noun ellipsis (SVV) etc. (ii) Tense opposition: Q vs Y. The tendency of placing Q in versicle a and Y in versicle b (uptensing), or vice versa (doewtensing). For a modal foundation of this tendency (polarization) see Ch XVII; however, it is the claim here that tense opposition is, primarily, a pure structural element of ancient Canaanite origin which attained high prominence in BH. (iii) Temporal parallelism: Normally we can expect versicle b to be temporally parallel to versicle a, in the sense of §IX.1; or, at least, thematically parallel in the sense of §IX.331. This, in most cases, requires a non-impactive (waw-less) tensing in versicle b; as well as versicle a, considered “sentence initial”. Blau 93§63 considers tensing variations in poetry such as: משבריך וגליך עלי עברו- כל,ונהר יסובבני...( ותשליכני מצולהJon 2:4) where all the three elements are present. Observe the anticipative character of עברו. These three elements may be considered superficial within Berlin’s classification of parallelism (i.e. structural as opposite to cognitive); nevertheless, they are essential in shaping the poetic couplet. They will be studied in detail in these last chapters. Compare with Berlin’s examples, Ps. 106:35, 111:5, 105:17 etc. It should be emphasized that the above three elements are only partly correlated, as is revealed by vertical analysis (§5). Nevertheless, we shall see a strong correlation between chiasm (structural asymmetry) and simultaneity (temporal symmetry)32, as in ארצה יאנק חלל-פסיליה ובכל-( ופקדתי עלJer 51:52) ( ונתתי לכם לב חדש ורוח חדשה אתן בקרבכםEz 36:26) (These examples are, in fact, episodic (future indicative)). A similar correlation exists between sequentiality (temporal antisymmetry) and repeated clause structure (structural symmetry)33. 31
See discussion in IX.2.
32
Kugel 1981:19, confirming “the law of conservation of parallelism”.
It may be said that the poetic ideal is to have symmetry and antisymmetry (symmetry and variation; order and disorder) all at once. According to Berlin, the surface strata of parallelism are characterized by pairs of opposites of any kind. We can see this as a principle of expressional variation which counteracts the deeper principle of cognitive unity. 33
Actually, these observations are not specific to poetry, although parallelism is much less pronounced in prose. Let us restrict attention to the episodic regime and to nonsubordinate clauses, where tensing is simple34; in this case, most sequential dependent events are consecutive, i.e. considered impactive and do not use chiasm: (הים ראה וינסPs 114:3), ( הוא עשה ויכננךDeut 32:6) and most parallel dependent events are not impactive and use chiasm: ( ויקרא אלהים לאור יום ולחשך קרא לילהGen 1:5). 3.2. VERTICAL ANALYSIS. Perhaps the most detailed approach to BH poetry, which accounts for its amazing richness, is to write versicle a on top of versicle b and identify vertical pairs which are used “in the same role”. These will be called “parallel pairs”35. The parallelism is complete if the entire couplet divides vertically into parallel mates36. Besides incompletion we may also have order variations. Verticality is nowadays the standard tool in the analysis of syntactic parallelism, though its origin is unclear37. Normally, the two mates have similar syntactic and/or semantic function; the global sense of parallelism of the couplet emanates as the sum of individual contributions from the various pairs of mates. For example, in מעשיהם וילמדו עצביהם-את ויעבדו (Ps 106:35b-36a) we find two pairs, of the V and Od type. The vertical correspondence is phonetically excellent, but otherwise only complementary. Parallel mates were applied in Chapter XI in the analysis of fronting. See esp. §XI.3.1. The main structural feature of the poetic couple is the parallelism between its two versicles, with its various manifestations: synthetic, antithetic and complementary, synonymous and meristic, etc. Parallelism is manifested by vertical elements (III.6, XI.3.1), which include mainly word order changes and changes which occur within each pair of vertical mates. 34
In the sense of Reichenbach 1947, as opposed to relative.
35
Watson 1984.
Gray 1915 divided parallelism into complete and incomplete, in this sense. Even in a complete parallelism, the relation within each parallel pair may be synonymous, antithetic or synthetic. In addition, the word order between the two versicles may be changed. 36
See Tsumura 2009. Geller 1979:16 comments: “For each example one can restore, or “reconstruct”, the hypothetical unitary statement by arranging A and B lines in such a way that semantically parallel units appear in the same positions…”. Similar statements can be found also in Kosmala 1964, and perhaps even in Lowth 1753: 204-205. Further back, the medieval term ( כפל מליםIbn Ezra) may be already hinting at parallel mates, or merism in general. 37
מי מנחת ינהלני-( בנאות דשא ירביצני – עלPs 23:2) ( איש חמה יגרה מדון – וארך אפים ישקיט ריבPr 15:18) וערומים יכתרו דעת- ( נחלו פתאים אולתPr 14:18) ( ויבוא כגשם לנו – כמלקוש יורה ארץHos 6:3). 4. THE BASIC WAW-LESS TENSING OPTIONS. In the most common poetic situation, the couplet contains two clauses, each with a single verb unit, and the four possibilities are “imperfect” YY, “perfect” QQ, “uptensing” QY and “downtensing” YQ. Uptensing and downtensing exhibit the tensual opposition. Our main task is to understand the motives for choosing one option or another. This may require from the reader to develop sensibility to small nuances. For example, regime has so far been treated as having just three values: episodic, semignomic and gnomic. However, although poetry is, formally gnomic, the “amount of gnomicity” varies from couplet to couplet and helps determine the tensing. For the less gnomic clauses, the analysis developed in the previous chapters is often still valid; for the more extreme gnomic situations, tensual opposition (uptensing or downtensing) becomes dominant, and increasingly chaotic, in the sense that both uptensing and downtensing may be equally acceptable. In this and the next chapter we examine the main options, in the increasing chaotic order. 5. STATIC TENSING. Normally, equal tensing (YY, QQ) is used in less dynamical situations. This makes sense, taking into account that the grammatical features usually tend to immitate the cognitive features. Thus, static tensing is adopted in parallel situations which are generic or stative, lacking tension or modal intonation, and in reflective or epistemic verses: ארץ וישכנו לעד עליה-( צדיקים יירשוPs 37:29) ( אבות יאכלו בסר ושני הבנים תקהינהEz. 18:2) ) איש חמה יגרה מדון וארך אפים ישקיט ריבProv 15:18) This tensing may be seen as a simple extension of the repeated Y; however, it may extend to the volitive or to the allegoric Q: תטש תורת אמך-( נצר בני מצות אביך ואלPr 6:20) ( יבש חציר נבל ציץIsa 40:7). In all cases, what is described is a certain routine, a static situation. 6. THE GNOMIC YIQTOL. Current descriptions of the diversity of semantic functions of yiqtol in BH38 and other Canaanite dialects39 underplay a pronounced gnomic
38
e.g. Waltke 1990, Andrason 2006, Buth 2010.
element40; this appears to be the main hurdle towards a more complete understanding of BH poetry. הבל יהמיון- אך,איש-בצלם יתהלך-( אךPs 39:7) הרים-( יהמו יחמרו מימיו ירעשוPs 46:4) It is a mistake to attribute with these couplets any temporal or aspectual value. Rather than describe an “activity” (in the linguistic sense), they describe a static visual image, or a particular ingredient, thereof. Activity (in general) cannot be reduced to the static or the partial. The semi-gnomic use of Y was described in Ch XVIII, and here we examine its fully gnomic use. Here, the information concerning absolute or relative time, aspect and impact may become irrelevant, and the verb form (together with the other members of the verb clause) simply helps describe a permanent state, a situation, an atemporal fact, a sentiment. The gnomic Y complements well the unbounded stative in making epistemic statements (unbounded statives): ידרך ענוים במשפט וילמד ענוים דרכו,כן יורה חטאים בדרך-( טוב וישר יהוה; עלPs 25:8-9). The tensing difference simply reflects the difference between a state and a repeated event. The gnomic function is also hinted by the omission of the definite article and use of the plural or group noun: יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ-( כי לאDeut 15:11). (also Ps. 25 above) and emphatic adverbial fronting: ( הן לריב ומצה תצומוIsa 58:4), ( הוא מרומים ישכןIsa 33:16). Another indicator for gnomic tensing is the treatment of time labeling. When Y is used in a descriptive situation, the regime may be fully gnomic or semi-gnomic. Most semignomic units occur in the narrative background, and most gnomic units occur in discourse and poetry. However, the ultimate classification as fully gnomic depends on the lack of temporal label for the sentence. ( ישמע מהיכלו קולי ושועתי לפניו תבוא באזניוv. 7) ...( ישלח ממרום יקחני ימשני ממים רבים יצילניv. 17-21) Fenton (70?73?):41 mentions that yaqtul in ugarit has an omnitemporal feature (and finds parallels between Hebrew WQ/WaY and ugaritic qatal-yaqtul in the narrative). See discussion in Cook 2002. Similarly, Krahmalkov 1986 claims that Phoenician Q did not express time and made only minor use of the waw. 39
Cook 2005 considers 3 functions for the gnomic Y: generic, deictic-epistemic and modal; here the last two functions are classified as mostly semi-gnomic, but indeed Y is used in both regimes. 40
In these fully gnomic verses, we find no time labeling, use as main line in the poetic streamline, the modality is unclear (epistemic-volitive), fronting and topical ellipsis are used, removal of the definite article. In comparison, consider the following semignomic verses: ...העברים-( כי לא יוכלון המצרים לאכל אתGen 43:32) ( הלוא זה אשר ישתה אדני בו והוא נחש ינחש בוGen 44:5) Here external labeling binds the description to the given time frame; the sentence is exegetic/parenthetic, fronting is not used. As the fully-gnomic Y suffers erosion of its essentially temporal function, it becomes more intensely modal-aspectual (imperfective). Modally, it may convey a strong emotional intensity, which focuses on a particular element of the situation, to the point of ignoring time, aspect or impact. This may be described as a “modal zoom-in”: subjectively time stands still, when in reality the physical time frame might be very short41. In prayer, the emotional element is often certainty, faith and devotion: ( ישמח ישראל בעשיוPs 149:2), ממי אירא- ( יהוה אורי וישעיPs 27:1). In the prophets, it may be protest, using the cynical/desperate adverbial/indirect fronting: ( הן לריב ומצה תצומוIsa 58:4), אבן מקיר תזעק וכפיס מעץ יעננה-( כיAba 2:11). אלה תשכחנה ואנכי לא אשכחך- גם- בטנה-( התשכח אשה עולה מרחם בןIsa 49:15) The two first units are fully gnomic; the third is meant to be episodic. ...תהרו חשש...( עתה אקום יאמר יהוהIsa 33:10-12) יאמר אלהיכם,( נחמו נחמו עמיIsa41:24) יאמרis not quite gnomic: it seems that the prophet intended to use the indicative present time here, but in a modal way, conveying sentiment (vengeance, compassion etc; the quoted direct speech itself is episodic). תחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו,( למה תביט בוגדיםHab 1:13) This may be interpreted as present continuous42. 7. USE OF THE PARTICIPLE. Since the gnomic event is often used rhetorically to simulate a state, we see a convergence of Y and the stative Qo/(=Qo), and often even use of both in a parallel setting: סוף חבוש לראשי,תהום יסבבני...( אפפוני מיםJon 2:6)43. Some authors describe the gnomic situation in terms of a magnifying glass; some even jump to the hasty conclusion that Q,Y by their nature are not temporal (Barness 1965, Sperber 1966, Hughes 1970, see also Endo 1996). Their observations are valid only in the gnomic regime; i.e. mainly in BH poetry. 41
42
In relation to this verse, Niccacci 2006 attributes a gnomic quality to the interrogative.
43
Blau 1993§63.
The gnomic Qo is always used in a non-labeling way, again describing a state or a situation, often without any associated time frame. This does not automatically means an unbounded state: it just means a state without specified bounds, which could very well be temporary. Even in episodic situations, the participle may represent a more lasting, semi-gnomic state (progressive or permanent, see also Ch IV) : כן הם צעקים- על,( לא תגרעו ממנו כי נרפים הםEx 5:8), (קול דמי אחיך צעקיםGen 4:10), ( מפני שרי גברתי אנכי ברחתGen 16:8). opposition Observe the triplet meter. The stative sentence often requires external temporal labeling, as well as external grammatical labeling. Indeed, the participle affixes specify gender and number but not person, and so may require complementation by a finite form. בצל שדי יתלונן,( ישב בסתר עליוןPs 91:1) The QoY tensing is justified as truly imperfective, and for avoiding an arcane and ambiguous declension44 ()ילון. In addition, a finite verb form was needed to specify 3rd person. This artifact is obviated in ( הוי בנה עיר בדמים וכונן קריה בעולהAba 2:12) (masoretic plausible QoQo) since the vocative particle הויimplies 2nd person. In another formation, the prophetic definite participle, a focal noun clause in clauseinitial Qo which evolves into a full verb clause. It is used mainly to criticize a certain life pattern or a certain repeated action, naturally adopting the future indicative, YWQ. Deviations from this tensing accompany deviations in the verb semantics. פיהם וקדשו עליו מלחמה-יתן על-( הנשכים בשניהם וקראו שלום ואשר לאMi 3:5). The unit in WQ describes reaction to the other person’s action, i.e. sequeitial. חילם וברב עשרם יתהללו-( הבטחים עלPs 49:7) ( השתים במזרקי יין וראשית שמנים ימשחוAmos 6:6) Y is parallel and requires fronting, in this case, “modal/subjective” noun fronting which forms an irregular chiasm. המרגיז ארץ ממקומה ועמודיה יתפלצון,( המעתיק הרים ולא ידעו אשר הפכם באפוJob 9:5-6) In the first clause, the swift anticipated Q is used (§XX.3.5). יקומו עוד- ונפלו ולא- שבע-( הנשבעים באשמת שמרון ואמרו חי אלהיך דן וחי דרך בארAmos 8:14) WQ on ואמרוis, again, indirect and stands in opposition to הנשבעים. The last clause is episodic/indicative (future/volitive) describing a unitary event. Another issue is the choice of stem. The alternative ילוןwas discarded since its use is different (“stay overnight”, compare with Job 39:28); also, to avoid confusion with “complain”. 44
פני הארץ-הים וישפכם על- הקרא למי,ארץ יסדה- הבונה בשמים מעלותו ואגדתו על45 (Amos 9:6, see also 5:8). Tensing is a dense poetic infW-x-QinfWaY. The YWaY part (inverted chiasm) is based on tensual opposition; the first versicle is parallel, the second, sequential. ( ההפכים ללענה משפט וצדקה לארץ הניחוAmos 5:7) The image here is not of repeated events but of a symbolic single transformation from a state of justice to a state of injustice, using the situational Q (§XX.3.4). יהוה לא דרשו-ואת...ולא שעו...רכב כי רב-סוסים ישענו; ויבטחו על- על- הוי הירדים מצרים לעזרה (Isa 31:1). The first part is focal, and uses a focalizing front and descriptive Y. However, what the prophet is describing is a particular political conjuncture, and indeed the preterite is used on the second part. שיר-פי הנבל כדויד חשבו להם כלי-( הפרטים עלAmos 6:5), חשבוis non-impactive (stative), as well as snc due to justified fronting; the allegorical character (XX.3.1) and the modally negative, too, favor Q. See also Micha 2:1-2. A recommended chapter for analysis of gnomicity is Isa 59. 8. BIBLICAL GNOMIC NUANCES. The gnomic regime occurs, to a restricted degree, in the narrative-dialogal matrix, but assumes prominence in the poetic-monologal matrix. As mentioned before, biblical discourse is not a single stratum, and we can see differences in style (possibly also diachronic) between the different books. Psalms (and 2Sam synoptics) shows intensive use of the Q-Y opposition יתר-( ידרכון קשת כוננו חצם עלPs 11:2), מפיו תאכל-( עלה עשן באפו ואשPs 18:9), ישר יחזו פנימו, צדקות אהב,צדיק יהוה-( כיPs 11:7) and use of gnomic WaY: ( אל יהוה ויאר לנוPs 118:27). Division into paragraphs of equal tensing reflects changing moods. Also use of the pseudo-episodic in describing historical events. Actually, different psalms show diverging characteristics, and may have different authors. In fact, David`s last words in 2Sam 23:2-7 do not show the characteristics style of the Psalms. They avoid the couplet form, the poetic style, and the volitive prayer with its high emotions. Tensing is non-consecutive and avoids Q. Another gnomic characteristic of Psalms is the omission of the waw after a unit in WaY, creating sequences of type WaYY which is quite impossible in an episodic
45
Invoking the creation scene: separation of the sky, then exposure of the dry continent .
context46. The sequence QWaYY is typical, grosso modo representing a passage from one state (Q) to another state (Y) without altogether specifying a time frame. Namely, perfectiveimpactiveimperfective rather than the episodic perfectimpactiveimperfect; e.g. in cases of cause-effect. Masorah understood the atemporal element and did not treat these WY units as WeY. יכרסמנה חזיר מיער וזיז שדי ירענה,עברי דרך-( למה פרצת גדריה וארוה כלPs 80:13-14) Passing from God’s treatment of the nation to the enemies’ treatment, the latter seen as a result of the former. בסתר רעם אבחנך, אענך,( בצרה קראת ואחלצךPs 81:8) תרהבני בנפשי עז,( ביום קראתי ותענניPs 138:3) Supplication is responded. In Ps 18 (synaptic: 2Sam 22) many WaYY or WaYW-x-Y sequences describe the more active scenes: ( ותגעש ותרעש הארץ ומוסדי הרים ירגזו ויתגעשוPs 18:8) and waw ellipsis, יחלצני כי חפץ בי,יהוה למשען לי ויוציאני למרחב-יקדמוני ביום אידי ויהי כבר ידי ישיב לי... ( יגמלניPs 18:19-20 etc) (Although the temporal element is missing here, the transformative element of WaY is evident.) and even effect-to-cause ellipsis. Proverbs is more reluctant in removing the waw and includes many couplets of the antonymous type, where the contrast is enhanced by polar QY: ורשעים מלאו רע- און-יאנה לצדיק כל-( לאPr 12:21) ואיש תבונות יחריש- לב-לרעהו חסר-( בזPr 11:12) ?( היחתה איש אש בחיקו ובגדיו לא תשרפנהPr 6:26) אגרה בקציר מאכלה,( תכין בקיץ לחמהPr 6:7). Most of the book of Lamentations uses the modal/aspectual chaotic tensing. All poetic embellishments are avoided, except the dropping of the waw and the use of triplets, both seemingly characteristic of lamentation in general. In general, the Q-Y difference represents the unitary vs the repeated and maybe, to some degree, the plural vs the singular (!): תאכלנה נשים פרים-( למי עוללת כה אםLam 2:20), ( לאמתם יאמרו איה דגן וייןLam 2:12) , ( איכה יעיב באפוLam 2:1), ( איכה ישבה בדדLam 1:1), עיני נגרה ולא תדמה...מים תרד עיני-( פלגיLam 3:48-49). This approximation of the morphological equivalents, Y and WaY partially vindicates the older scholars, like Driver, Kustár, Michel and others, but only in poetry. 46
In v.48 Y is obviously repetitive. In v. 49 we have uptensing building towards the repetitive element on the last atom, in a visually sequential setting. ציון-( ישבו לארץ ידמו זקני בתLam 2:10). The second atom is Y, and the first is literally ambivalent. Masorah chose Y, considering the second atom as parallel. Indeed, the clause is descriptive (both attributrs characterize grief and stupefaction).
