(Analecta) G. Geiger (Editor), M. Pazzini (Editor) - en Pase Grammatike Kai Sophia. Saggi Di Linguistica Ebraica in Onore Di Alviero Niccacci, OFM-Terra Santa (2011)

Frontespizio_Niccacci.
pdf 1 17/06/11 09:56
78
STUDIUM BIBLICUM FRANCISCANUM
CM
MY
CY
CMY
K
© 2011, Edizioni Terra Santa - Milano
Per informazioni sulle opere pubblicate

e in programma rivolgersi a:
Edizioni Terra Santa

Via G. Gherardini 5 - 20145 Milano (Italy)
tel.: +39 02 34592679 fax: +39 02 31801980
http://www.edizioniterrasanta.it
e-mail: editrice@edizioniterrasanta.it
oppure a
Franciscan Printing Press

P.O.B. 14064 - 91140 Jerusalem (Israel)
tel.: +972-2-6266592/3 fax +972-2-6272274
http://www.custodia.org/fpp
e-mail: fpp@bezeqint.net
An_78.indb 2 21/06/11 15:36

Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ
En pase grammatike kai sophia
Saggi di linguistica ebraica

in onore di
Alviero Niccacci, ofm
Gregor Geiger (ed.)
in collaborazione con
Massimo Pazzini
Franciscan Edizioni
Printing Press Terra Santa
An_78.indb 3 21/06/11 15:36

Nessuna parte di questo libro
può essere riprodotta o trasmessa in qualsiasi forma
o con qualsiasi mezzo elettronico, meccanico o altro
senza l’autorizzazione scritta dei proprietari dei diritti.
Proprietà letteraria riservata

Edizioni Terra Santa s.r.l. - Milano
Finito di stampare nel luglio 2011

da Corpo 16 s.n.c. - Bari
per conto di Edizioni Terra Santa s.r.l.
isbn 978-88-6240-129-6
An_78.indb 4 21/06/11 15:36

Indice generale
Prefazione ............................................................................................. 9
Abbreviazioni ....................................................................................... 11
Collaboratori ........................................................................................ 12
BOTTINI G. Claudio
Scheda bio-bibliografica di Alviero NICCACCI ....................................... 13
BARANOWSKI Krzysztof J.
The Article in the Book of Qoheleth .................................................... 31
BARTELMUS Rüdiger
!"! (!#!): Sein oder werden? Sein und werden!
Ein hebräisches (aramäisches) Allerweltswort
und das Phänomen des lebenslangen Lernens ..................................... 53
CHIESA Bruno
Divagazioni tiberiensi .......................................................................... 75
CRIMELLA Matteo
Il Signore vede il cuore!
Fra analisi sintattica e narratologia. Il caso di 1 Sam 16,1-13 .............. 85
ESKHULT Mats
Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses
Expressing Circumstance in Biblical Hebrew Narration ..................... 107
FASSBERG Steven E.
The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth ............................. 123
GEIGER Gregor
Erzählte Welt und wayyiqtol ................................................................ 129
An_78.indb 5 21/06/11 15:36

6 Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ
GROSS Walter
wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme:
Stilmittel und redaktionelles Verfahren ............................................... 153
ISAKSSON Bo
The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant:
Subordinate Structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12 ...................................... 173
JOOSTEN Jan
A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions:
On Non-Volitive yiqtol in Clause-Initial Position ............................... 213
MESSINA Paolo
Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico:
Un approccio linguistico-testuale ......................................................... 221
NOTARIUS Tania
Text, Discourse and Tenses
in the Victory Song in 2 Sam 22,33-46:
In Search of the Underlying Literary Convention ............................... 257
PAZZINI Massimo
The Peshi!ta of the Twelve Prophets
and the Texts of the Dead Sea .............................................................. 283
PIERRI Rosario
Perifrasi verbali con "#$%&'( ed )*+,-' nei LXX .............................. 295
TALSTRA Eep
Sinners and Syntax: Poetry and Discourse in Jeremiah 5 .................... 337
VOLGGER David
Die Bestattung Jakobs (Gen 50,1-14) – oder:
Die Tora Israels auf dem Weg von Ägypten nach Kanaan .................. 357
WATSON Wilfred G. E.
Alcuni brani dell’Antico Testamento
e testi dal Vicino Oriente antico ........................................................... 371
W.GRZYNIAK Wojciech
La problematica temporale dei verbi nei salmi 14 e 53 ....................... 381
An_78.indb 6 21/06/11 15:36

Indice generale 7
ZEVIT Ziony
Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew: Four Short Studies .............................. 393
ZEWI Tamar
On "(' !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# !%$ &$ in Biblical Hebrew .......................................... 405
Sintesi degli articoli ............................................................................. 415
Abstracts ............................................................................................... 423
Indici dei passi e degli autori citati ...................................................... 431
An_78.indb 7 21/06/11 15:36

Alviero Niccacci, ofm
An_78.indb 8 21/06/11 15:36

Prefazione
Il titolo di questa Festschrift, /$ 01*2 "3'&&'+(-4 -'5 *%6#7, dedicata al Prof.

Alviero NICCACCI, ofm, in occasione del suo 70esimo compleanno, vuol sottoli-
neare due campi di studi ai quali il festeggiato ha contribuito maggiormente,
sia nell’insegnamento sia nella ricerca e pubblicazione: la grammatica, ossia la
linguistica testuale ebraica, e la sapienza, ossia i libri sapienziali vetero-testa-
mentari.
I contributi qui raccolti si concentrano principalmente sul primo di questi
campi. Tuttavia trattando la linguistica ebraica, i contributi (ed i contributori)
si distinguono per una varietà notevole. È un grande piacere vederne qui uniti
venti e ringrazio di cuore tutti i contributori. Tra di loro si trovano allievi dello
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum di Gerusalemme, quindi allievi di P. Alviero,
ma anche molti altri. Ci sono coetanei di P. Alviero, oramai professori emeriti,
docenti di varie generazioni e anche dei giovani studiosi, che presentano qui
per la prima volta i frutti della loro ricerca. Sono qui riuniti rappresentanti di
vari paesi europei, dell’America e della Terra Santa. Hanno contribuito confra-
telli di P. Alviero, membri della famiglia Francescana, come pure fedeli di va-
rie confessioni cristiane ed Ebrei; è un bel segno che la parola di Dio unisca fe-
deli di varie religioni, bello specialmente qui a Gerusalemme, dove capita che
venga usata come arma contro l’altro. Alcuni contributi rispecchiano lo stesso
approccio linguistico-testuale di Alviero NICCACCI, mentre altri seguono metodi
diversi, non sempre compatibili con l’approccio e la terminologia che usano
NICCACCI ed i suoi discepoli; è segno di una feconda discussione trovare in que-
sta Festschrift anche articoli di studiosi che criticavano (e criticano), a volte
molto apertamente, il sistema di NICCACCI. Il fattore che unisce tutti i contribu-
tori è l’interesse, o meglio la passione, per la Bibbia ebraica e per la lingua
ebraica, ma è anche la stima per Alviero, che alcuni esprimono nei loro contri-
buti, mentre altri l’hanno dimostrata in modo più personale.
Ringrazio il Decano della Facoltà di Scienze Bibliche e Archeologia (Stu-
dium Biblicum Franciscanum), il Prof. G. Claudio BOTTINI, ofm, che ha dato
l’inziativa a questa Festschrift. Ringrazio molto cordialmente il Prof. Massimo
PAZZINI, ofm, che l’ha accompagnata fin dall’inizio e si è reso disponibile in
ogni momento a portarla avanti. Ringrazio due collaboratrici instancabili dello
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Osvalda COMINOTTO e Sinéad MARTIN.
An_78.indb 9 21/06/11 15:36

Mi sia permesso esprimere qui un ringraziamento personale ad Alviero.

Non è stato solamente il maestro che mi ha introdotto nel suo sistema di sintas-
si ebraica e che ha accompagnato e sorretto i miei primi passi in questo campo
(e che continua a farlo). Egli era anche il rettore dello Studium Biblicum Fran-
ciscanum quando arrivai per la prima volta a Gerusalemme come giovane
studente di teologia nel 1992, e lo devo alla sua iniziativa se alcuni anni dopo
potetti tornarvi per approfondire i miei studi e per inserirmi nel corpo docente
dello Studium Biblicum come suo collega.
Il titolo /$ 01*2 "3'&&'+(-4 -'5 *%6#7, preso dalla versione di Teodozione
di Dan 1,17, letto nel suo contesto non sembra perfettamente adatto per una
Festschrift in onore di un 70enne; infatti si parla lì del giovane Daniele e dei
suoi compagni. – !7$ <+ >$ +# &91 :;2 ' %4 !$ 0!1 2$ ,.- $/ “Dio concesse a questi
) <$ =+ 2() 8+ !- +# 56$ 7- 0"!3
di conoscere e comprendere ogni scrittura e ogni sapienza.” Tuttavia sono con-
vinto che queste caratteristiche ben si addicono anche al nostro festeggiato.
Che Iddio continui a concedere ad Alviero di conoscere e di comprendere ogni
scrittura e ogni sapienza.
Gerusalemme, 13 Giugno 2011

Gregor GEIGER, ofm
10
An_78.indb 10 21/06/11 15:36

Abbreviazioni
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ATS Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament
BDB BROWN - DRIVER - BRIGGS, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the OT
BH Biblical Hebrew, biblisches Hebräisch
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert
GK GESENIUS - KAUTZSCH, Hebräische Grammatik
GKC GESENIUS - KAUTZSCH, Hebrew Grammar (transl. COWLEY)
HALOT The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(KOEHLER-BAUMGARTNER)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNWSL Journal of North-West Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOT.S Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (DONNER - RÖLLIG)
KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit
LA Liber Annuus
MT Masoretic Text, masoretischer Text
SBF Studium Biblicum Franciscanum
STDJ Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah
ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament
TM Testo Masoretico
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTS Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebraistik
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
11
An_78.indb 11 21/06/11 15:36

Collaboratori
G. Claudio BOTTINI, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme

Krzysztof J. BARANOWSKI, ofm, University of Toronto
Rüdiger BARTELMUS, Uni Kiel
Bruno CHIESA, Università di Torino
Matteo CRIMELLA, Studio teologico del Pontif. Istituto Missioni Estere, Milano
Mats ESKHULT, Uppsala University
Steven E. FASSBERG, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Gregor GEIGER, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme
Walter GROSS, Universität Tübingen
Bo ISAKSSON, Uppsala University
Jan JOOSTEN, University of Strasbourg
Paolo MESSINA, ofmcap, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme
Tania NOTARIUS, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Massimo PAZZINI, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme
Rosario PIERRI, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme
Eep TALSTRA, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
David VOLGGER, ofm, Pontificia Universitas “Antonianum”, Roma
Wilfred G. E. WATSON, Northumberland (GB)
Wojciech W.GRZYNIAK, Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Paw8a II, Cracovia
Ziony ZEVIT, American Jewish University, Los Angeles
Tamar ZEWI, University of Haifa
An_78.indb 12 21/06/11 15:36

G. Claudio Bottini
Scheda bio-bibliografica di Alviero Niccacci
Non è facile per nessuno racchiudere in poche parole la vita di una persona. È
ugualmente arduo tentare di delineare gli eventi significativi della vita di uno
studioso come padre Alviero NICCACCI che il 30 novembre 2010 ha celebrato il
suo settantesimo compleanno. Il fatto che lo conosco da quarant’anni facilita
solo parzialmente il mio compito.
Alviero è nato il 30 novembre 1940 a S. Nicolò di Celle (Perugia). La persona-

lità di due zii francescani (Rufino NICCACCI † 1976 e Angelo NICCACCI † 2005)
appartenenti alla Provincia Serafica di S. Francesco d’Assisi lo ispirarono da
bambino, al punto che a dieci anni Alviero iniziò nelle case di quella Provincia
il percorso di formazione e studi che lo condusse dalla quinta elementare alla
licenza liceale (Collegi Serafici di Todi e Perugia, San Damiano ad Assisi) e al
quadriennio teologico (S. Maria degli Angeli). A 16 anni entrò nel Noviziato e
a 22 fece la sua Professione definitiva nell’Ordine dei Frati Minori. Il 14 mar-
zo 1965 fu ordinato presbitero.
Per qualche anno restò in Umbria preparandosi agli studi superiori e facen-
do le sue prime esperienze tra i giovani e nella pastorale. In quegli anni la Pro-
vincia Serafica disponeva di un eccellente gruppo di docenti – tra di essi piace
ricordare Angelo LANCELLOTTI † 1984, Lino CIGNELLI † 2010, Emanuele TESTA †
2011, futuri docenti dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum – e indirizzava di-
versi giovani agli studi universitari in differenti discipline.
Così il giovane Alviero fu inviato a studiare a Roma. Nel 1969 ottenne la
Licenza in Teologia presso la Pontificia Università Lateranense, nel 1970 la
Licenza in Lingue Orientali e nel 1972 la Licenza in Sacra Scrittura al Pontifi-
cio Istituto Biblico. Qui si iniziò allo studio della lingua e letteratura egiziana
con Adhémar MASSART SJ († 1985).
All’inizio del 1973 raggiunse lo Studium Biblicum Franciscanum dove si tro-

vavano già i confratelli sopra ricordati e qui frequentò alcuni corsi biblici. A
Gerusalemme, in vista della specializzazione in egittologia, fu a più riprese
An_78.indb 13 21/06/11 15:36

14 Scheda bio-bibliografica di Alviero Niccacci
allievo di Hans Jakob POLOTSKY (2?@ 1991) per l’egiziano (1973-1975) e per il
copto (1979-1980). La frequenza di questo grande maestro di linguistica gli
giovò non poco quando dovette dedicarsi all’insegnamento della sintassi ebrai-
ca. Studiando il sistema verbale ebraico NICCACCI si è lasciato “ispirare” dal
approccio strutturale di POLOTSKY integrandolo felicemente con quello linguisti-
co-testuale di Harald WEINRICH.
Rientrato in Italia nel 1975, si iscrive all’Università La Sapienza di Roma
Istituto del Vicino Oriente Antico e due anni dopo si laurea con una tesi in
egittologia.
Nella primavera del 1978 torna allo Studium Biblicum Franciscanum e inizia a
insegnare esegesi dell’Antico Testamento e lingue biblico orientali e a condi-
videre la conduzione della vita accademica. Diviene professore cooptato nel
1981, straordinario nel 1983 e ordinario nel 1988; nel triennio 1978-1981 rico-
pre la carica di Segretario, dal 1984 al 1990 quella di Vice Pro-Decano o Vice-
Direttore, dal 1990 al 1996 quella di Pro-Decano della Facoltà. Merita di esse-
re ricordato che le sue amichevoli relazioni con l’architetto della Custodia di
Terra Santa padre Alberto PRODOMO facilitarono non poco la realizzazione nel
1991 della nuova sede accademica dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum ini-
ziata sotto il suo predecessore Stanislao LOFFREDA. Come docente di introdu-
zione all’Antico Testamento ha insegnato anche nello Studium Theologicum
Jerosolymitanum.
Per l’anno accademico 1978-1979 ha svolto il compito di segretario di re-
dazione per le pubblicazioni e dal 2002 al 2005 quello di Direttore della Bi-
blioteca. L’inizio dell’anno 2011 è stato dichiarato professore emerito.
Ha anche iniziato le escursioni dello SBF in Egitto e ne ha guidate 6, nel
1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, 2002, 2005. Come sussidio nel 1992 ha preparato una
guida, Egitto e Bibbia. Sussidi per l’escursione in Egitto, che prossimamente
sarà disponibile nel sito dello SBF.
Nei lunghi anni di insegnamento è stato moderatore o correlatore di nume-
rose tesi di Dottorato e di Licenza; ha collaborato ininterrottamente a tutte le
attività accademiche e di formazione permanente della Facoltà; ha sempre col-
tivato un dialogo costruttivo con studiosi e studenti anche esterni e ha pre-
so parte con competenza e cordialità a seminari e colloqui scientifici in Israele
e fuori.
Il 2 giugno 2010 nella sede dell’Ambasciata Italiana a Tel Aviv NICCACCI ha
ricevuto dall'Ambasciatore Luigi MATTIOLO la decorazione di Cavaliere del-
l’Ordine della Stella della Solidarietà Italiana conferita dal Presidente della
Repubblica Giorgio NAPOLETANO il 1 settembre 2009.
14
An_78.indb 14 21/06/11 15:36

G. Claudio Bottini 15
NICCACCI è autore di numerosi libri e articoli e di moltissime recensioni di libri

scientifici. La sua produzione rivela una straordinaria versatilità che lo ha con-
dotto – spesso dietro sollecitazione di amici e confratelli alle quali egli non si
sottrae facilmente – a scrivere di diversi argomenti. Su tutti tuttavia dominano
tre soggetti: l’Antico Testamento con speciale riguardo ai libri sapienziali, i te-
sti egiziani antichi, la sintassi ebraica.
Curiosamente lo studio della sintassi ebraica biblica che si è rivelata la
“grazia” del professor NICCACCI non era tra i suoi interessi primari. Dovette oc-
cuparsene a partire dal 1984 a causa della prematura scomparsa di A. LANCEL-
LOTTI che ricopriva la cattedra di ebraico nello Studium Biblicum Francisca-
num. Due anni dopo il professor NICCACCI pubblica Sintassi del verbo ebraico
nella prosa biblica classica che lo impone subito all’attenzione degli speciali-
sti. L’opera viene tradotta in inglese nel 1990. Seguono vari articoli apparsi in
riviste specializzate e nel 1991 il volume Lettura sintattica della prosa ebrai-
co-biblica. Principi e applicazioni, anche questo accolto con molto interesse
dagli studiosi. Una rielaborazione delle due opere, curata dallo stesso NICCACCI,
viene tradotta in spagnolo nel 2002. Attualmente egli elabora una nuova edi-
zione di queste due opere considerate oramai di fondamentale importanza nel-
lo studio della sintassi ebraica biblica.
Padre NICCACCI è membro dell’Associazione Biblica Italiana, della Catholic

Biblical Association of America, dell’Ecumenical Theological Research Fra-
ternity in Israel.
Unendo intelligenza, cordiale disponibilità e francescana semplicità padre
Alviero NICCACCI si inserisce con onore nella nobile schiera degli studiosi fran-
cescani secondo la migliore tradizione dei professori dello Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum dalla Santa Sede elevato non senza il suo apporto nel 2001 a Fa-
coltà di Scienze Bibliche e Archeologia.
Ora che ha superato il traguardo biblico dei 70 anni ci felicitiamo con lui e gli
auguriamo energie e anni per continuare a studiare e condividere la sua prezio-
sa conoscenza della Parola di Dio che, come mostrano i suoi libri e il suo im-
pegno di vita, va ben oltre la sequenza di wayyiqtol e qatal.
La presente miscellanea di studi di filologia ebraica che la Facoltà gli offre,
grazie al contributo di amici studiosi, colleghi ed ex alunni, sia per lui un se-
gno di stima e gratitudine.
15
An_78.indb 15 21/06/11 15:36

1. Libri
(con O. BATTAGLIA), Il Vangelo oggi. Vol. V: Il Vangelo dello Spirito secondo

Giovanni, Assisi 1973.
(con O. BATTAGLIA), O Evangelho hoje. Vol V: O Evangelho da Verdade se-
cundo João, Petrópolis 1980.
Hyksos Scarabs (SBF. Museum 2), Jerusalem 1980.
Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (SBF. Analecta 23), Je-
rusalem 1986.
Un profeta tra oppressori e oppressi: Analisi esegetica del capitolo 2 di Mi-
chea nel piano generale del libro (SBF. Analecta 27), Jerusalem 1989.
Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica: Principi e applicazioni (SBF.
Analecta 31), Jerusalem 1991 (ristampa 2009).
The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOT.S 86), Sheffield
1990.
(con la Provincia OFM di Toscana e la Custodia di Terra Santa, ed.), Padre
Bellarmino Bagatti francescano, sacerdote, archeologo (SBF. Museum 9),
Firenze - Gerusalemme 1991.
(con l’Ufficio tecnico della Custodia di Terra Santa), Studium Biblicum Fran-
ciscanum, 17 novembre 1991, Jerusalem 1991.
(ed.), SBF Notiziario: Numero speciale per l’inaugurazione della nuova sede
dello SBF. A Special Issue for the inauguration of the new SBF, Jerusalem
1993.
La casa della Sapienza: Voci e volti della Sapienza biblica (Narrare la Bibbia
2), Cinisello Balsamo 1994.
(ed.), Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic Religions:
Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, March 24-25th, 1993
(SBF. Analecta 40), Jerusalem 1995.
(ed.), Grammatica dell’Ebraico biblico, autore A. LANCELLOTTI (SBF. Analecta
24), Jerusalem 1996.
(con M. ADINOLFI, ed.), L’Apocalisse (Centro di Spiritualità e Patrologia, Isken-
derun - Turchia. Corsi Accademici 1), Modena 1996.
A casa da Sabedoria: vozes e rostos da sabedoria bíblica, São Paulo 1997.
Siracide o Ecclesiastico. Scuola di vita per il popolo di Dio (La Bibbia nelle
nostre mani 27), Cinisello Balsamo 2000.
Comentário ao Evangelho de João, Petrópolis 2000.
(con M. PAZZINI), Il Rotolo di Rut/.B& .2- 'A7+ : Analisi del testo ebraico (SBF.
Analecta 51), Jerusalem 2001 (ristampa 2009).
(ed.), Jerusalem House of Prayer for All Peoples in the Three Monotheistic
Religions: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, February
17-18, 1997 (SBF. Analecta 52), Jerusalem 2001.
16
An_78.indb 16 21/06/11 15:36

Sintaxis del Hebreo Bíblico, Traducido por Guadalupe SEIJAS DE LOS RÍOS-ZAR-
ZOSA (Instrumentos para el estudio de la Biblia 8), Estella 2002.
(con M. PAZZINI - R. TADIELLO), Il libro di Giona: Analisi del testo ebraico e del
racconto (SBF. Analecta 65), Jerusalem 2004.
Il libro della Sapienza. Introduzione e commento (Dabar - Logos - Parola. Lec-
tio divina popolare) Padova 2007.
2. Articoli
“Testi dell’antico Egitto sulla ‘religione del povero’ e alcune concezioni bibli-
che”, in Rivista Biblica 21 (1973) 413-427.
“Nuovi Scarabei Hyksos”, in Studia Hierosolymitana in onore del P. Bellarmi-
no Bagatti: I. Studi Archeologici (SBF. Collectio Maior 22), Jerusalem
1976, 29-79, tavv. 1-12.
“L’unità letteraria di Gv 13,1-38”, Euntes Docete 29 (1976) 291-323.
“Il messaggio di Tefnakht (Stele di Piankhi, lin. 126-140)”, LA 27 (1977)
213-228, tavv. 41-42.
“Esame letterario di Gv 14”, Euntes Docete 31 (1978) 209-260.
“Sul detto 76 dei ‘Sarcofagi’ (CT II 1-17)”, LA 28 (1978) 5-23.
“La fede nel Gesù storico e la fede nel Cristo risorto (Gv 1,19-51 // 20,1-29)”,
Antonianum 53 (1978) 423-442.
“Proverbi 22,17-23,11”, LA 29 (1979) 42-72.
“Su una formula dei ‘Testi dei Sarcofagi’ ”, LA 30 (1980) 197-224, tavv. 5-6.
“Giobbe 28”, LA 31 (1981) 29-58.
(con B. BAGATTI), “Ostraca etmoylon dal Fayum (Egitto) nel Museo di Faenza”,
Faenza 67 (1981) 141-142, tav. 49.
“Esame letterario di Gv 15-16”, Antonianum 56 (1981) 43-71.
“ ‘I monti portino pace al popolo’ (Sal 72,3)”, Antonianum 56 (1981) 804-806.
“Sulla vita futura nei Proverbi”, Euntes Docete 34 (1981) 381-391.
“Siracide 6,19 e Giovanni 4,6-38”, Bibbia e Oriente 23 (1981) 149-153.
“La conclusione di Elihu (Giobbe 37,19-24)”, in G. C. BOTTINI (ed.), Studia
Hierosolymitana III nell’Ottavo Centenario Francescano (1182-1982), Je-
rusalem 1982, 75-82.
“Egitto e Bibbia sulla base della Stele di Piankhi”, LA 32 (1982) 7-58.
“Su una nuova edizione della Stele di Piankhi”, LA 32 (1982) 447-460, tavv.
107-110.
“L’ambiente del Nuovo Testamento e della Chiesa primitiva alla luce degli
scavi dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Gerusalemme)”, Antonianum
58 (1983) 6-47 (= La Terra Santa. Studi di Archeologia. Atti del simposio
“Trent’anni di Archeologia in Terra Santa”, Roma 27-30 aprile 1982, Ro-
mae 1983, 6-47).
17
An_78.indb 17 21/06/11 15:36

“La foi eschatologique d’Israël à la lumière de quelques conceptions égyp-

tiennes”, LA 33 (1983) 7-14.
“Nazaret nella storia”, in V. LEVI - R. CIUNI (ed.), La storia di Gesù, vol. I, Mi-
lano 1983, 73-78.
“Trente ans de fouilles du ‘Studium Biblicum Franciscanum’ et l’exégèse du
Nouveau Testament”, Bibbia e Oriente 26 (1984) 225-246.
“La teologia sapienziale nel quadro dell’Antico Testamento: A proposito di al-
cuni studi recenti”, LA 34 (1984) 7-24.
“Archéologie et Nouveau Testament: Capharnaüm et Tabgha”, Studia Orienta-
lia Christiana Collectanea 18 (1985) 231-255.
“Ancora sulla stele di Febronia a Deir Abu Hennis”, Studia Orientalia Chri-
stiana Collectanea 18 (1985) 165-174, tavv. 1-11.
“Esodo 3,14a: ‘Io sarò quello che ero’ e un parallelo egiziano”, LA 35 (1985)
7-26.
“Sullo sfondo egiziano di Esodo 1-15”, LA 36 (1986) 7-43.
“Yahveh e il Faraone: Teologia biblica ed egiziana a confronto”, Biblische No-
tizen 38/39 (1987) 85-102.
“A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence”,
LA 37 (1987) 7-19.
“Mosè e il Faraone: Sfida di Yahveh agli dèi di Egitto: Racconto biblico e pa-
ralleli egiziani”, Ateismo e Bibbia (Atti del XIII Convegno Biblico Italiano
Francescano, Verona, 23-28 settembre 1985, Collectio Assisiensis 15, As-
sisi 1988) 119-130.
“Archeologia e Nuovo Testamento: Cafarnao e Tabgha”, in Ateismo e Bibbia
(Atti del XIII Convegno Biblico Italiano Francescano, Verona, 23-28 set-
tembre 1985, Collectio Assisiensis 15, Assisi 1988), 329-353.
“Basic Principles of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Prose”, LA 38
(1988) 7-16.
“An Outline of the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Prose”, LA 39 (1989)
7-26.
“Sullo stato sintattico del verbo h!yâ”, LA 40 (1990) 9-23.
“The City of Yahweh: Jerusalem in Prophetic Tradition”, The Bible Today 29
(1991) 5-7.
“Cantico dei Cantici e canti d’amore egiziani”, LA 41 (1991) 61-85.
“Dall’aoristo all’imperfetto o dal primo piano allo sfondo. Un paragone tra
sintassi greca e sintassi ebraica”, LA 42 (1992) 85-108.
“Simple Nominal Clause (SNC) or Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew Prose”,
ZAH 6 (1993) 216-227.
“Marked Syntactical Structures in Biblical Greek in Comparison with Biblical
Hebrew”, LA 43 (1993) 9-69.
18
An_78.indb 18 21/06/11 15:36

(con E. BOSETTI), “L’indemoniato e il festaiolo: Lc 7,34-35 (Mt 11,18-19) sullo

sfondo della tradizione sapienziale biblico-giudaica”, in F. MANNS - E. AL-
LIATA (ed.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents
(SBF. Collectio maior 38), Jerusalem 1993, 381-394.
“Sfondo sapienziale dell’etica dei codici domestici neo-testamentari”, in L. PA-
DOVESE (ed.), Atti del Simposio di Tarso su S. Paolo Apostolo (Turchia: la
Chiesa e la sua storia 7), Roma 1994, 45-72.
“Diluvio, sintassi e metodo”, LA 44 (1994) 9-46.
“On the Hebrew Verbal System”, in R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and
Discourse Linguistics, Dallas 1994, 117-137.
“Analysis of Biblical Narrative”, in R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and
Discourse Linguistics, Dallas 1994, 175-198.
“Né maghi né magia per chi crede nel Signore”, in G. RAVASI (ed.), La Bibbia
della famiglia: Levitico - Numeri - Deuteronomio - Giosuè, Milano 1994,
166-169.
“Mefaat nella Bibbia”, in M. PICCIRILLO - E. ALLIATA (ed.), Umm al-Rasas –
Mayfa‘ah: I. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, Jerusalem 1994,
47-50.
“Uno scarabeo in una tomba bizantina”, in M. PICCIRILLO - E. ALLIATA (ed.),
Umm al-Rasas – Mayfa‘ah: I. Gli scavi del complesso di Santo Stefano, Je-
rusalem 1994, 275-276.
“The Stele of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativity”, Orienta-
lia 63 (1994) 226-248.
“Essential Hebrew Syntax”, in E. TALSTRA (ed.), Narrative and Comment: Con-
tributions Presented to Wolfgang Schneider, Amsterdam 1995, 111-125.
“La lode del Creatore. L’inno egiziano di Aton e la tradizione biblica”, in Z. I.
HERMAN (ed.), Diaconus Verbi: Marijan Jerko Fu"ak 1932-1992, Zagreb
1995, 137-159.
“Organizzazione canonica della Bibbia ebraica: Tra sintassi e retorica”, Rivista
Biblica 43 (1995) 9-29.
“Syntactic Analysis of Jonah”, LA 46 (1996) 9-32.
“La prova della sofferenza: Giobbe”, L’ancora nell’unità di salute 11 (1996)
128-138.
“Saggezza e stoltezza nella vita quotidiana”, in G. RAVASI, La Bibbia della fa-
miglia: Siracide, Milano 1996, 220-222.
“Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry”, JSOT 74 (1996) 77-93.
“La grande prostituta e la sposa dell’Agnello”, in L. PADOVESE (ed.), VI Simpo-
sio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo (Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 11),
Roma 1996, 137-154.
“Colui che è, che era e che viene”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI (ed.), L’Apoca-
lisse, Modena 1996, 10-12.
14
An_78.indb 19 21/06/11 15:36

“L'Agnello che è nel mezzo del trono li pascerà”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI

(ed.), L’Apocalisse, Modena 1996, 17-19.
“Lo Spirito e la Sposa dicono: Vieni!”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI (ed.),
L’Apocalisse, Modena 1996, 26-28.
“Vieni, ti mostrerò la fidanzata, la sposa dell’Agnello”, in M. ADINOLFI - A.
NICCACCI (ed.), L’Apocalisse, Modena 1996, 32-35.
“Ecco nuove faccio tutte le cose”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI (ed.), L’Apoca-
lisse, Modena 1996, 41-45.
“Lo schema dell’Apocalisse”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI (ed.), L’Apocalisse,
Modena 1996, 53-55.
“The Trajectory of Wisdom from the Old Testament to its Fulfillment”, in Stu-
dium Biblicum OFM Hong Kong 50th Anniversary. The Open Lectures,
5th-7th Nov. 1995, Hong Kong 1996, 63-79.
“Fr. Allegra, the Bible and Chinese Culture”, in Studium Biblicum OFM Hong
Kong 50th Anniversary. The Open Lectures, 5th-7th Nov. 1995, Hong
Kong 1996, 98-113.
“Finite Verb in the Second Position of the Sentence: Coherence of the Hebrew
Verbal System”, ZAW 108 (1996) 434-440.
“La Stèle d’Israël: Grammaire et stratégie de communication”, in M. SIGRIST
(ed.), Études égyptologiques et bibliques à la mémoire du Père B. Cou-
royer (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 36), Paris 1997, 43-107.
“Basic Facts and Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose”, in E.
VAN WOLDE (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the
Tilburg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29), Leiden - New
York - Köln 1997, 167-202.
“Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19-24”, in E. VAN WOLDE (ed.), Narra-
tive Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996
(Biblical Interpretation Series 29), Leiden - New York - Köln 1997,
203-228.
“La narrativa di Mc 1”, in M. ADINOLFI - P. KASWALDER (ed.), Entrarono a Ca-
farnao: Studi in onore di P. Virginio Ravanelli (SBF. Analecta 44), Jerusa-
lem 1997, 59-71.
“Sfondo antico-testamentario di Mc 1,1-8”, in M. ADINOLFI - P. KASWALDER
(ed.), Entrarono a Cafarnao: Studi in onore di P. Virginio Ravanelli (SBF.
Analecta 44), Jerusalem 1997, 91-103.
“Ma la sapienza, da dove giunge? (Gb 28)”, in A. BONORA - M. PRIOTTO (ed.),
Libri sapienziali e altri Scritti (Logos. Corso di studi biblici 4), Torino
1997, 281-287.
“La proposta etica della sapienza biblica”, Rivista di Teologia Morale 38
(1997) 331-342.
“Proverbi 23,12-25”, LA 47 (1997) 33-56.
“Ebraico biblico e linguistica”, Henoch 20 (1998) 189-207.
15
An_78.indb 20 21/06/11 15:36

“Isaiah xviii-xx from an Egyptological Perspective”, VT 48 (1998) 214-238.

“Proverbi 23,26-24,22”, LA 48 (1998) 49-104.
(con E. CORTESE), “Nebo in Biblical Tradition”, in M. PICCIRILLO - E. ALLIATA
(ed.), Mount Nebo: New Archaeological Excavations 1967-1997 (SBF.
Collectio Major 27), Jerusalem 1998, 53-64.
“Magnificat: Una ricerca sulle tonalità dominanti”, LA 49 (1999) 65-78.
(con E. CORTESE), “L’attesa dei poveri non sarà vana: Il Sal 9/10 attualizzato”,
in L. CAGNI† (ed.), Biblica et semitica: Studi in memoria di Francesco Vat-
tioni (Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici: Series Minor 59), Napoli 1999,
127-149.
“Wisdom as Woman, Wisdom and Man, Wisdom and God”, in N. CALDUCH-
BENAGES - J. VERMEYLEN (ed.), Treasures of Wisdom. Studies in Ben Sira and
the Book of Wisdom: Festschrift M. Gilbert (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 143) Leuven 1999, 369-385.
“Types and Functions of the Nominal Sentence”, in C. L. MILLER (ed.), The
Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (Linguistic
Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1), Winona Lake 1999, 215-248.
“Proverbi 22,17-23,11: Tra Egitto, Mesopotamia e Canaan”, in S. GRAZIANI
(ed.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni
(Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor 59), Napoli 2000, 1859-1891.
“Lo Spirito, forza divina del creato”, LA 50 (2000) 9-23.
“La Lode dei Padri: Ben Sira tra passato e futuro”, in R. FABRIS (ed.), Initium
sapientiae: Scritti in onore di Franco Festorazzi nel suo 70° compleanno
(Supplementi alla Rivista biblica 36), Bologna 2000, 199-225.
“La paternità di Dio: Linee di sviluppo dall’Antico al Nuovo Testamento”, in
E. FRANCO (ed.), Mysterium Regni, Mysterium Verbi: Scritti in onore di
mons. Vittorio Fusco, Bologna 2000, 247-271.
“Introduction”, in A. NICCACCI (ed.), Jerusalem House of Prayer for All Peo-
ples: Proceedings of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, February 17-18,
1997 (SBF. Analecta 52), Jerusalem 2001, 13-18.
“Jerusalem for the Three Monotheistic Religions: A Theological Synthesis”, in
A. NICCACCI (ed.), Jerusalem House of Prayer for All Peoples: Proceedings
of a Symposium Held in Jerusalem, February 17-18, 1997 (SBF. Analecta
52), Jerusalem 2001, 163-182.
“Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi”, LA 51 (2001) 55-107.
“Giustizia e giustificazione nell’Antico Testamento”, in Dizionario di spiritua-
lità biblico-patristica 28: Giustizia – Giustificazione nella Bibbia, Roma
2001, 19-106.
“Qohelet o la gioia come fatica e dono di Dio a chi lo teme”, LA 52 (2002)
29-102.
21
An_78.indb 21 21/06/11 15:36

“Der Skarabäus von Amwas”, in: K.-H. FLECKENSTEIN - M. LOUHIVUORI - R. RIES-

NER (ed.), Emmaus in Judäa: Geschichte – Exegese – Archäologie (Bibli-
sche Archäologie und Zeitgeschichte 11), Gießen 2003, 297-298.
“L’approccio alla Sapienza (Gb 28)”: Parola spirito e vita 48 (2003) 51-73.
“Riflessioni bibliche sul «Sacrum commercium sancti Francisci cum Domina
Paupertate»”, in C. VAIANI (ed.), Domini vestigia sequi: Miscellanea offerta
a P. GIOVANNI M. BOCCALI ofm per il suo 75mo di vita e 50mo di sacer-
dozio, Assisi 2003, 99-129.
“Qohelet: Analisi sintattica, traduzione, composizione”, LA 54 (2004) 53-94.
“Il Cristocentrismo nel Vangelo secondo Giovanni”, in G. LAURIOLA (ed.), Dal-
le cristologie al cristocentrismo (Centro Studi Personalistici “Giovanni
Duns Scoto”. Quaderno 20), Alberobello 2004, 67-75.
“La separazione di Israele nello spazio e nel tempo: Gli spostamenti geografici
con particolare riferimento ai motivi esodici”, in C. TERMINI (ed.), Atti del
XIII Congresso di Studi Veterotestamentari (Foligno, 8-10 Settembre
2003), Bologna 2005, 113-134.
“Quarto carme del Servo del Signore (Is 52,13-53,12): Composizione, dinami-
che e prospettive”, LA 55 (2005) 9-26.
“Logos e Sapienza nel Prologo di Giovanni”, in A. PASSONI DELL’ACQUA (ed.),
«Il vostro frutto rimanga» (Gv 16,16): Miscellanea per il LXX compleanno
di Giuseppe Ghiberti (Associazione Biblica Italiana. Supplementi alla Rivi-
sta Biblica 46), Bologna 2005, 71-83.
“Egypt and Israel: An Overview”: The Bible Today 43 (2005) 147-152.
“Maria nel Vangelo secondo Giovanni”, in G. LAURIOLA (ed.), Da Cristo a Ma-
ria (Centro Studi Personalistici “Giovanni Duns Scoto”. Quaderno 22), Al-
berobello 2005, 109-120.
“Osea 1-3: Composizione e senso”, LA 56 (2006) 71-104.
“The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry”, in S. E. FASSBERG - A. HURVITZ
(ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and
Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake 2006, 247-268.
“Chiesa Madre di Gerusalemme: Radici storiche e teologiche dell’attuale plu-
ralismo”, in G. LAURIOLA (ed.), Da Cristo alla Chiesa (Centro Studi Perso-
nalistici “Giovanni Duns Scoto”. Quaderno 23), Alberobello 2006, 95-114.
“Il titolo divino oJ w·n kai« oJ h™n kai« oJ e˙rco/menoß: Forma, origine e conseguen-
ze per il sistema verbale dell’Apocalisse”, in R. PIERRI (ed.), Grammatica
intellectio Scripturæ: Saggi filologici di Greco biblico in onore di Lino
Cignelli OFM (SBF. Analecta 68), Jerusalem 2006, 337-356.
“On the Heritage of H. J. Polotsky: Assessment of New Insights and an At-
tempt to Combine His Theory with a Text-Linguistic Approach to Classical
Egyptian Narrative”, Lingua Aegyptia 14 (2006) 409-432.
“Il libro del profeta Michea: Testo traduzione composizione senso”, LA 57
(2007) 83-161.
17
An_78.indb 22 21/06/11 15:36

“The Structure of the Book of Wisdom: Two Instructions (Chs. 1–5, 6–19) in
Line with Old Testament Wisdom Tradition”, LA 58 (2008) 31-72.
“Padre Allegra, la Parola di Dio, la Cina e la Terra Santa”, Quaderni Bibliote-
ca Balestrieri 7 (2008) 113-125.
“La memoria del passato e le doglie del parto, chiave interpretativa delle con-
trapposizioni del profeta Michea”, in J. M. DÍAZ - M. PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ - F.
RAMÓN CASAS (ed.), Aún me quedas tú: Homenaje al Profesor D. Vicente
Collado Bertomeu, Estella 2009, 165-189.
“La teologia della creazione nei Salmi e nei Sapienziali”, in M. V. FABBRI - M.
TÁBET (ed.), Creazione e salvezza nella Bibbia, Roma 2009, 77-117.
“Polotsky’s Contribution to the Egyptian Verb-System, with a Comparison to
Biblical Hebrew”, in G. GOLDENBERG - A. SHISHA-HALEVY (ed.), Egyptian,
Semitic and general grammar. Studies in memory of H. J. Polotsky, Jerusa-
lem 2009.
“Esodo 15: Esame letterario, composizione, interpretazione”, LA 59 (2009)
9-26.
“An Integrated Verb System for Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry”, in A. LE-
MAIRE, Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VTS 133), Leiden - Boston 2010,
99-127.
3. Recensioni di libri
T. BALLARINI et al. (ed.), Ultimi storici. Salmi. Sapienziali: Antonianum 55

(1980), 500-503.
G. E. BRYCE, A Legacy of Wisdom: LA 30 (1980) 424-428.
E. HORNUNG - O. KEEL (ed.), Studien zu altägyptischen Lebenslehren: LA 30
(1980) 428-430.
T. COLLINS, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry: LA 30 (1980) 450-453.
R. O. FAULKNER, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts: LA 30 (1980) 454-456.
T. SEIDL, Texte und Einheiten in Jeremia 27-29 – T. SEIDL, Formen und For-
meln in Jeremia 27-29: LA 30 (1980) 472.
H. WITZENRATH, Das Buch Jona – G. VANONI, Das Buch Jona: LA 30 (1980)
473.
B. L. GOFF, Symbols of Ancient Egypt in the Late Period: LA 31 (1981)
359-360.
O. KEEL (ed.), Monotheismus im Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt: LA 31 (1981)
361-363.
A. R. CERESKO, Job 29-31 in the Light of Northwest Semitic: LA 31 (1981)
363-366.
G. RENDSBURG et al. (ed.), The Bible World: LA 31 (1981) 395.
G. GERLEMAN, Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie: LA 31 (1981) 396.
23
An_78.indb 23 21/06/11 15:36

O. KEEL, Jahwehs Entgegnung an Ijob: LA 31 (1981) 397.

B. S. CHILDS, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture: LA 31 (1981)
399-400.
F. JUNGE, Syntax der Mittelägyptischen Literatursprache: LA 32 (1982)
529-537.
M. I. GRUBER, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East:
LA 32 (1982) 537-539.
H. W. WOLFF, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha: LA 32 (1982) 543-545.
H. STADELMANN, Ben Sira als Schriftgelehrter: LA 32 (1982) 545-550.
R. R. WILSON, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel: LA 32 (1982) 613-614.
H.-J. KLIMKEIT (ed.), Tod und Jenseits im Glauben der Völker: LA 32 (1982)
615.
A. MATTIOLI, Dio e l’uomo nella Bibbia d’Israele: LA 32 (1982) 616.
C. WESTERMAN, Genesis: 3. Teilband: LA 32 (1982) 617.
H. HEATER, A Septuagint Translation Technique in the Book of Job: LA 32
(1982) 617-618.
P. J. NEL, The Structure and Ethos of the Admonitions in Proverbs: LA 33
(1983) 425-430.
J. T. SANDERS, Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom: LA 33 (1983) 430-433.
C. L. FEINBERG, Jeremiah: A Commentary: LA 33 (1983) 468.
D. PARDEE, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Letters: LA 33 (1983) 476-477.
R. E. MURPHY, Wisdom Literature – G. W. COATS, Genesis – B. O. LONG,
1 Kings: LA 34 (1984) 463-471.
J. G. WILLIAMS, Those Who Ponder Proverbs: LA 34 (1984) 471-474.
J. L. CRENWHAW (ed.), Theodicy in the Old Testament: LA 34 (1984) 493-494.
H. IRSIGLER, Psalm 73: LA 34 (1984) 495-496.
O. KEEL, Deine Blicke sind Tauben: LA 34 (1984) 496-497.
J. P. LETTINGA, Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique: LA 34 (1984) 497.
J. OSING et al. (ed.), Denkmäler des Oase Dachla: LA 35 (1985) 451-452.
H. BEINLICH, Die “Osirisreliquien”: LA 35 (1985) 452-454.
E. BRUNNER-TRAUT - H. BRUNNER, Die Aegyptische Sammlung der Universität
Tübingen: LA 35 (1985) 454-455.
C. HERRMANN, Formen für ägyptische Fayencen: LA 35 (1985) 455-457.
F. ABITZ, König und Gott: LA 35 (1985) 457-458.
M. GÖRG (ed.), Fontes atque Pontes: LA 35 (1985) 458-462.
D. A. KNIGHT - G. M. TUCKER (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpret-
ers: LA 35 (1985) 462-465.
S. NIDITCH, Chaos to Cosmos: LA 35 (1985) 465-468.
B. W. ANDERSON (ed.), Creation in the Old Testament: LA 35 (1985) 468-470.
W. G. E. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry: LA 35 (1985) 470-473.
R. GIVEON - T. KERTESZ, Egyptian Scarabs and Seals from Acco: LA 36 (1986)
393.
19
An_78.indb 24 21/06/11 15:36

M. V. FOX, The Song of Songs and the Ancient Egyptian Love Songs – O. KEEL,
Das Hohelied: LA 36 (1986) 394-397.
B. ZUBER, Das Tempussystem des biblischen Hebräisch: LA 36 (1986)
397-405.
A. BERLIN, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism: LA 36 (1986) 406-409.
M. STERNBERG, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: LA 36 (1986) 409-411.
A. F. RAINEY (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: LA 37 (1987) 437-442.
B. CHIESA (ed.), Corso di ebraico biblico, vol. 1-2: LA 37 (1987) 442-447.
W. HELCK, Tempel und Kult: LA 37 (1987) 447-449.
J. RIGGS, Micah: LA 37 (1987) 449-450.
W. HELCK, Untersuchungen zur Thinitenzeit: LA 38 (1988) 471-474.
E. GRAEFE, Mittelägyptische Grammatik für Anfänger: LA 38 (1988) 474-477.
M. D. GOLOMB - S. T. HOLLIS (ed.), Working With No Data: LA 38 (1988)
478-480.
J. LEVI, Die Inkongruenz im biblischen Hebräisch: LA 38 (1988) 480-483.
D. RÖMHELD, Wege der Weisheit: LA 39 (1989) 303-310.
B. K. WALTKE - M. O’CONNOR, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax: LA
39 (1989) 310-327.
W. L. MICHEL, Job in the Light of Northwest Semitic – J. E. HARTLEY, The Book
of Job: LA 39 (1989) 327-336.
E. S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms, Part I. – S. J. DE VRIES, 1 and 2 Chronicles: LA 39
(1989) 336-339.
W. HELCK, Thinitische Topfmarken: LA 40 (1990) 488-489.
J.-C. HUGONOT, Le jardin dans l’Egypte ancienne: LA 40 (1990) 489-490.
C. LEITZ, Studien zur ägyptischen Astronomie: LA 40 (1990) 490-491.
M. GÖRG, Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte der Anfänge Israels: LA 40 (1990) 492.
F. I. ANDERSEN - A. D. FORBES, The Vocabulary of the Old Testament: LA 40
(1990) 492-495.
N. M. WALDMAN, The Recent Study of the Hebrew: LA 40 (1990) 495-497 (con
M. PAZZINI).
S. K. SHERWOOD, Had God Not Been on My Side: LA 40 (1990) 502-503.
J. G. GAMMIE - L. G. PERDUE (ed.), The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near
East: LA 40 (1990) 503-506.
J. KRISPENZ, Spruchkompositionen im Buch Proverbia: LA 40 (1990) 506-507.
“Rassegna bibliografia: Etica e Bibbia”: Rivista di Teologia Morale 17 (1991)
394-396 (con E. BOSETTI).
S. ZEDDA, Relativo e assoluto nella morale di San Paolo: Rivista di Teologia
Morale 17 (1991) 402-403.
E. P. SANDERS, Paolo, la legge e il popolo giudaico: Rivista di Teologia Morale
17 (1991) 404-405.
K. KERTELGE (ed.), Saggi esegetici sulla legge nel Nuovo Testamento: Rivista di
Teologia Morale 17 (1991) 407-409.
25
An_78.indb 25 21/06/11 15:36

W. H. PROPP - B. HALPERN - D. N. FREEDMAN (ed.), The Hebrew Bible and Its In-
terpreters: LA 41 (1991) 551-555 (con M. PAZZINI).
C. BARTH, God with Us: LA 41 (1991) 556-557.
G. F. HASEL, Old Testament Theology: LA 41 (1991) 561-563.
U. RÖSSLER-KÖHLER, Individuelle Haltungen zum ägyptischen Königtum der
Spätzeit: LA 41 (1991) 569-571.
R. GERMER, Die Textilfärberei und die Verwendung gefärber Textilien im Alten
Ägypten: LA 43 (1993) 522-523.
H. BEINLICH, Das Buch vom Fayum: LA 43 (1993) 523-526.
A. S. KAYE (ed.), Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau on the Occasion of
his Eighty-fifth Birthday November 14th 1991: LA 43 (1993) 526-528 (con
M. PAZZINI).
P. JOÜON, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Transl. and Rev. by T. MURAOKA,
Vol. II): LA 43 (1993) 528-533.
R. J. CLIFFORD - J. J. COLLINS (ed.), Creation in the Biblical Traditions: LA 43
(1993) 533-535 (con E. CORTESE).
J. H. SAILHAMMER, The Pentateuch as Narrative: LA 43 (1993) 536-541.
R. E. MURPHY, The Tree of Life: LA 43 (1993) 541-547.
V. D’ALARIO, Il libro del Qohelet: LA 43 (1993) 551-558.
F. V. RICHARDS, Scarab Seals from a Middle to Late Bronze Age Tomb at Pella
in Jordan: Orientalia 63 (1994) 129-132.
W. GROSS - H. IRSIGLER - T. SEIDL (ed.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: LA 44
(1994) 667-692.
D. A. DAWSON, Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew: LA 45 (1995) 543-580.
J. KAHL, Das System der ägyptischen Hieroglyphenschrift in der 0.-3. Dyna-
stie – J. KAHL - N. KLOTH - U. ZIMMERMANN, Die Inschriften der 3. Dynastie:
LA 46 (1996) 429-431.
I. MUNRO, Die Totenbuch-Handschriften der 18. Dynastie im Ägyptischen
Museum Cairo: LA 46 (1996) 431-432.
G. GOLDENBERG - S. RAZ (ed.), Semitic and Cushitic Studies: LA 46 (1996)
432-434.
Y. ENDO, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: LA 46
(1996) 434-441.
J. E. COURSE, Speech and Response: LA 46 (1996) 448-452.
“Rassegna bibliografia: Etica e Bibbia”: Rivista di Teologia Morale 29 (1997)
397-419 (con E. BOSETTI).
T. RITTER, Das Verbalsystem der königlichen und privaten Inschriften: LA 47
(1997) 537-566.
I. YOUNG, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew: LA 47 (1997) 577-586 (con un con-
tributo di P. DOZIO).
A. MINISSALE, La versione greca del Siracide: Cristianesimo nella Storia 19
(1998) 180-184.
21
An_78.indb 26 21/06/11 15:36

J. KAHL, Steh auf, gib Horus deine Hand: LA 48 (1998) 565-566.

I. MUNRO, Das Totenbuch des Jah-mes (pLouvre E. 11085) aus der frühen 18.
Dynastie – Der Totenbuch-Papyrus des Hohenpriesters Pa-nedjem II –
Das Totenbuch des Nacht-Amun aus der Ramessidenzeit (pBerlin P. 3002):
LA 48 (1998) 566-567.
S. HODEL-HOENES, Vita e morte nell’Antico Egitto: Le tombe private tebane del
Nuovo Regno: LA 48 (1998) 568.
R. E. MURPHY, The Tree of Life: An Exploration of Biblical Wisdom Litrature:
LA 48 (1998) 575-577.
M. L. BARRÉ (ed.), Wisdom, You Are My Sister: Studies in Honor of Roland E.
Murphy, O. Carm, on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday: LA 48
(1998) 577-586.
F. CROSS - D. N. FREEDMAN, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry – J. R. HUDD-
LESTUN, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation, Selected Writings of
D. N. Freedman, Vol. 1-2: LA 48 (1998) 586-589.
S. A. GÜLDEN - I. MUNRO, Bibliographie zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch: LA 49
(1999) 505.
J. ZEIDLER, Pfortenbuchstudien: Teil I-II: LA 49 (1999) 505-507.
Z. ZEVIT, The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew: LA 49 (1999)
507-525.
G. HATAV, The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: LA 49 (1999) 525-546.
U. VERHOEVEN, Das Totenbuch des Monthpriesters Nespasefy aus der Zeit
Psammetichs I.: LA 50 (2000) 510.
U. RÖSSLER-KÖHLER, Zur Tradierungsgeschichte des Totenbuches zwischen der
17. und 22. Dynastie (Tb 17): LA 50 (2000) 510-511.
M. V. FOX, A Time to Tear down and a Time to Build up: A Rereading of Ec-
clesiastes: LA 50 (2000) 512-526.
R. NAY, Jahwe im Dialog: Kommunikationsanalytische Untersuchung von Ez
14,1-11 unter Berücksichtigung des dialogischen Rahmens in Ez 8-11 und
Ez 20: LA 50 (2000) 526-541.
E. FOX, Give Us a King! Samuel, Saul, and David: A New Translation of Sam-
uel I and II with an Introduction and Notes: Review of Biblical Literature 4
(2002) 193-197.
I. MUNRO, Das Totenbuch des Bak-su (pKM 1970.37/pBrocklehurst) aus der
Zeit Amenophis# II. – B. LÜSCHER, Das Totenbuch pBerlin P. 10477 aus
Achmim – I. MUNRO, Das Totenbuch des Pa-en-nesti-taui aus der Regie-
rungszeit des Amenemope (pLondon BM 10064) – H. BEINLICH, Das Buch
vom Ba: LA 52 (2002) 521-523.
K. SHIMASAKI, Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Word Order and
Information Structure: LA 52 (2002) 523-534.
F. J. DEL BARCO DEL BARCO, Profecía y sintaxis: El uso de las formas verbales en
los Profetas Menores preexílicos: LA 52 (2002) 534-540.
27
An_78.indb 27 21/06/11 15:37

E. N. TESTA, Gesù vero uomo figlio di Maria: LA 52 (2002) 571-575.

L. BOADT - M. S. SMITH (ed.), Imagery and Imagination in Biblical Literature:
Essays in Honor of Aloysius Fitzgerald, F.S.C.: LA 53 (2003) 463-468.
D. S. WILLIAMS, The Structure of 1 Maccabees: LA 53 (2003) 469-476.
C. GEISEN, Die Totentexte des verschollenen Sarges der Königin Mentuhotep
aus der 13. Dynastie: LA 55 (2005) 525.
R. P. KNIERIM - G.W. COATS, Numbers: LA 55 (2005) 525-532.
D. KURTH, Edfou VII: LA 55 (2005) 532-534.
B. BACKES, Das altägyptische “Zweiwegebuch”: Studien zu den Sargtext-Sprü-
chen 1029-1130: LA 56 (2006) 631-632.
E. BERNHAUER, Hathorsäulen und Hathorpfeiler: Altägyptische Architekturele-
mente vom Neuen Reich bis zur Spätzeit: LA 56 (2006) 632-633.
A. O. BOLSHAKOV, Studies on Old Kingdom Reliefs and Sculpture in the Hermi-
tage: LA 56 (2006) 633-634.
E. WINDUS-STAGINSKY, Der ägyptische König im Alten Reich. Terminologie und
Phraseologie: LA 56 (2006) 635-636.
J. F. BORGHOUTS, Book of the Dead (39): From Shouting to Structure – B.
BACKES - I. MUNRO - S. STÖHR (ed.), Totenbuch-Forschungen: Gesammelte
Beiträge des 2. Internationalen Totenbuch-Symposiums Bonn, 25. bis 29.
September 2005: LA 57 (2007) 727-728.
M. VON FALCK, Das Totenbuch der Qeqa aus der Ptolemäerzeit (pBerlin P.
3003) – I. Munro, Das Totenbuch-Papyrus des Hor aus der frühen Ptole-
mäerzeit (pCologny Bodmer-Stiftung CV + pCincinnati Art Museum
1947.369 + pDenver Art Museum 1954.61): LA 56 (2006) 729-730.
M. HÖVELER-MÜLLER, Funde aus dem Grab 88 der Qubbet el-Hawa bei Assuan,
Die Bonner Bestände: LA 56 (2006) 731-732.
K. JANSEN-WINKELN, Inschriften der Spätzeit. Teil I: Die 21. Dynastie: LA 56
(2006) 732-733.
P. VOMBERG - O. WITTHUHN, Hieroglyphenschlüssel: Entziffern - Lesen - Verste-
hen. Mit einer Schreibfibel von Johanna Dittmar: LA 58 (2008) 551-553.
H. KOCKELMANN, Untersuchungen zu den späten Totenbuch-Handschriften auf
Mumienbinden: LA 58 (2008) 553-555.
D. BRÖCKELMANN - A. KLUG (ed.), In Pharaos Staat: Festschrift für Rolf Gund-
lach zum 75. Geburtstag: LA 58 (2008) 555-558.
K. SEYBOLD, Poetik der erzählenden Literatur im Alten Testament: Biblica 90
(2009) 580-584.
B. BACKES et. al. (ed.), Bibliographie zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch: LA 59
(2009) 575-576.
23
An_78.indb 28 21/06/11 15:37

B. BACKES - M. MÜLLER-ROTH - S. STÖHR (ed.), Ausgestattet mit den Schriften

des Thot: Festschrift für Irmtraut Munro zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag: LA 59
(2009) 576-579.
V. M. LEPPER, Untersuchungen zu pWestcar: Eine philologische und literatur-
wissenschaftliche (Neu-)Analyse: LA 59 (2009) 579-583.
F. JUNGE, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen: LA 59 (2009)
584-587.
Giovanni Claudio Bottini, ofm

Decano della Facoltà di Scienze Bibliche e Archeologia
(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), Jerusalem
29
An_78.indb 29 21/06/11 15:37

An_78.indb 30 21/06/11 15:37
Krzysztof J. Baranowski
The Article in the Book of Qoheleth
The Problem
The use of the definite article in the book of Qoheleth has been considered by
some scholars to be irregular, erratic or chaotic.1 The presupposed irregulari-
ties in the use of the article have been used as an argument in favor of a non-
Hebrew original of the book or its late date of composition. ZIMMERMANN
argued that all these anomalies can be explained only if the Hebrew is a trans-
lation from Aramaic.2 DAHOOD, on the other hand, regarded the erratic use of
the article as cogent proof of the Phoenician syntactic influence in the book.3
SCHOORS adopted a more balanced stance as he recognized that Qoheleth’s irre-
gular use of the article may be compared with some inconsistencies found in
the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles. Nevertheless, he considered the
use of the article as an indication of a later stage of the language, close to
Mishnaic Hebrew.4
It is my contention that scholarly opinions on the use of the article in the
book of Qoheleth are based on faulty assumptions about the regularity of the
use of the article in the Hebrew Bible and in Northwest Semitic languages.
Moreover, the methodology must take into consideration a larger, cross-lingu-
istic perspective of the study of definiteness and use the definitions elaborated
by modern linguistics. By doing so, I shall show that, in spite of the wide-
spread claims, there is much regularity in the use of the article in the book of
Qoheleth and that many apparent contradictions and exceptions are, in fact,
nothing of the sort.
1
For example, a recent commentary lists “der unregelmäßige Gebrauch des Artikels”
among the peculiarities of the language of the book, See SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Kohelet,
110. It should be remarked that it is impossible to polemicize against lists of inconsistencies of
the use of the article such as these in ISAKSSON, Studies, 145-147, or DELSMAN, Zur Sprache,
358-359, because they do not state the reason for which each case is considered abnormal.
2
ZIMMERMANN, Aramaic Provenance, 20-23.
3
DAHOOD, Canaanite-Phoenician Influence, 197-201.
4
SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. I, 169.
An_78.indb 31 21/06/11 15:37

32 The Article in the Book of Qoheleth
Notes on the article in the Hebrew Bible

and Northwest Semitic languages
A glance at modern grammars of Biblical Hebrew reveals a self-contradictory

treatment of the use of the article. On one hand, grammar books offer lengthy
and detailed discussions of the rules that concern the article. On the other hand
JOÜON and MURAOKA confess openly that “the use of the article in Hebrew is ra-
ther loose.”5 This diagnosis of our understanding emerges also from James
BARR’s comprehensive critique of the rules of the Hebrew article.6 He convin-
cingly shows that the present understanding of the function of the Hebrew arti-
cle and the rules that predict its occurrence are rife with contradictions and ad
hoc solutions.7 This is not to say that we do not have any understanding of the
sense of the article and of the usual situations in which it occurs. One should,
however, be cautious about pronouncing clear-cut opinions about the appro-
priateness of the occurrence of the article in a particular case or about the
grammatical error in the case of its lack. In short, the lack of research on the
article in the Hebrew Bible suggests that the characterization of the use of the
article in the book of Qoheleth as chaotic should be reinvestigated.8
A similar impression of an inconsistent use of the article emerges not only
from the scrutiny of the Hebrew Bible in general and the book of Qoheleth in
particular but also from a perusal of cognate Northwest Semitic languages. In-
deed, in our rather limited corpus of inscriptions there are quite a few instances
in which scholars find the occurrence or lack of the article puzzling.
Epigraphic Hebrew sources show few instances of the absence of the arti-
cle in phrases where it is expected.9 For example, in a few seals from Kuntillet
Ajrud that belong to the governor of the city the article in the word “city” is
lacking while it appears on two similar seals.10 A similar case of the omission
of the article occurs on two seals on which the word mlk is anarthrous.11 In the
5
JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 137 d.
6
BARR, Determination.
7
However, the main thesis of BARR should not be accepted. Indeed, by arguing on the basis
of the problematic cases that the article in Hebrew Bible is only loosely related to definiteness,
BARR merely transposes the fuzziness of our understanding to the blurriness of the grammatical
function itself. For a systematic critique of his argumentation see MÜLLER, Zu den Artikelfunk-
tionen.
8
An example of reinvestigation that corrects a long-lasting statement of the traditional
grammars is MILLER, Definiteness. She concludes that the definite article does not mark the vo-
cative in Biblical Hebrew. See MILLER, Definiteness.
9
This discussion of Epigraphic Hebrew is based on GOGEL, Grammar, 173-175, and SCHÜ-
LE, Syntax, 53-65. Interesting observations on the omission of the article can be found in SARFAT-
TI, Hebrew Inscriptions, 71-73.
10
GOGEL, Grammar, 413; DAVIES, Inscriptions, vol. II, 207. LEMAIRE thinks that omission of
the article in this case is a dialectal characteristic of Israelite Hebrew. See LEMAIRE, Hebrew and
Aramaic, 193.
11
DAVIES, Inscriptions, no. 101.176: lḥlṣyhw bn mlk and AVIGAD-SASS, Corpus, no. 1205:
An_78.indb 32 21/06/11 15:37

Krzysztof J. Baranowski 33
Samaria ostraca the article appears inconsistently before the ordinal numbers
in the formula bšt written in hieratic numerals.12 In Lachish letter no. 13 the ar-
ticle seems to be omitted after the nota accusativi.13 Also, the absence of the
article with the word ym in Arad letter no. 40 is considered by scholars to be
another problematic passage since it appears that the author refers to a definite
day. On the other hand, the article is prefixed to the word ymm without any ap-
parent reason in Arad letter no. 2:1-3: ntn lktym b\ 1 1 yyn lˀrbˁt hymm.14
The Phoenician epigraphic texts attest to a gradual development of the arti-
cle and this partially explains why its use is fluctuating. One finds many ex-
amples similar to the problematic cases of the use and non-use of the article in
the Hebrew Bible. For instance, the article may lack in the pronoun that fol-
lows an arthrous noun (hspr z, KAI 24:15) or a word that qualifies a personal
name.15 Puzzling also are the lack of the article in the words that follow the no-
ta accusativi (KAI 14:4: ˀl yptḥ ˀyt mškb z) and the apparent occurrence of the
article on the first word in the construct chain (KAI 10:4: hmzbḥ nḥšt zn […]
whptḥ ḥrṣ zn).16 The lack of the article on the noun followed by an arthrous ad-
jective in KAI 14:22: ˀlnm hqdšm17 is also baffling.
Similar difficulties may be detected in the corpus of the Transjordanian lan-
guages. YUN speaks about inconsistencies in the use of the article as he consi-
ders it lacking in the Moabite incense altar from Khirbet El-Mudeiyineh (AḤI-
TUV, Echoes, 424: mqṭr ˀš ˁš ˀlšmˁ) and in the Ammonite Tel Siran Bottle (KAI
308:4-5: hkrm wh{.}gnt whˀtḥr wˀšḥt).18 On an Ammonite seal one notes also
the lack of the expected article with the word mlk, a case similar to those on
the Hebrew seals discussed previously.19
lˁśy[w] bn ml[k]. AVISHUR and HELTZER consider the absence of the article a sign of the archaic
character of the seals. See AVISHUR-HELTZER, Studies, 73. One may argue also that the word mlk
in these seals is a personal name that is known from rare attestations in the Hebrew Bible and
epigraphic sources. See ZADOK, Pre-Hellenistic, 433. Indeed, this seems to be the opinion of AVI-
GAD and SASS who translate the legend of the seal: “Belonging to Aśay[aw] son of Mel[ek].”
12
It is possible that the omission of the article with the hieratic numerals was an orthogra-
phic convention. See GOGEL, Grammar, 175.
13
Lachish 13:3: [ ] ˀt . ˀšpt. Since the text is short and broken scholars resort to different
hypotheses in order to explain this puzzling omission. See GOGEL, Grammar, 174.
14
GOGEL, Grammar, 175. DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Hebrew Inscriptions, 13, speculates that the arti-
cle could refer to the number of days for some ceremony or a journey.
15
KAI 14:1: mlk ˀšmnˁzr; SEGERT, Grammar, no. 83.41: ˀnk ˁbdy bnˁbdˀlmn ˁrwdy.
16
For more examples see DAHOOD, Canaanite-Phoenician Influence, 198-199.
17
For an overview of the article in Phoenician see FIRMAGE, Definite Article, and especially
GZELLA, Entstehung, for the syntax of the article in Phoenician and the importance of these appa-
rent anomalies for tracing the origin of the West-Semitic article.
18
YUN, Transjordanian Languages, 759.
19
AVIGAD-SASS, Corpus, no. 861. SIVAN has no satisfactory explanation for this omission.
See SIVAN, On the Grammar, 228.
An_78.indb 33 21/06/11 15:37

From this short overview one concludes that the “inconsistencies” of the
use of the article were rather common in the Northwest Semitic languages.
Hence, one should not be surprised to find them in the Hebrew Bible in general
and in the book of Qoheleth in particular.
Observations on the linguistic study of the article
It seems that the scholars who studied the article in the Hebrew Bible did not
always consider the complexity of issues that involve definiteness, indefinite-
ness and the article. Indeed, as KOSESKA-TOSZEWA and GARGOV observe: “the
definiteness/indefiniteness category belongs to the class of extremely general
linguistic semantic categories, any approach to which has inevitably to deal
with the most fundamental issues of linguistics.”20 The traditional idea of the
article is, however, narrowly focused on the fact that the article should refer to
something known, particular or specific. This concept of the article and defi-
niteness explains only a small part of the attestations of the use and non-use of
the article in the Hebrew Bible and does not consider the variety of articles and
their uses found in the languages of the world. Modern linguistic research on
definiteness and the article points to a few fundamental facts that should not be
overlooked.21
The most important of these facts are the relevance of the context and the
need for the collaboration of the participants in a communication act in order
to understand the reason for the use of the article in a particular case. Indeed, it
is only in the context, when a particular world of references is established be-
tween the participants in the communication act, that the use or non-use of the
article is meaningful. For example, the definite article in the sentence “The dog
attacked me” is understandable if the preceding sentence is “I saw a dog this
morning.” Similarly, the nurse who enters the operating theater and, using the
definite article, asks “Who is the anesthetist today?” appeals to the context in
which the presence of an anesthetist is expected. In the latter case the referent
of the noun “anesthetist” is unknown to her and yet the use of the article is na-
tural. This example shows too how important is the collaboration of the hearer
who must accept the definite reference as such and interpret it. This being the
state of the matter, the immediate consequence for our research is that many
cases of the use and non-use of the article may be difficult to understand
because of our imperfect comprehension of the context and of the author’s
thought.
20
Semantic Category, 11.
21
An accessible synthesis of modern research can be found in LYONS, Definiteness.
An_78.indb 34 21/06/11 15:37

The problems with understanding definiteness call for a new definition. Ac-
cording to contemporary linguistic research it can be defined as a grammatical
category which is on par with tense, number or gender and that expresses such
concepts as identifiability, inclusiveness, uniqueness and familiarity. The pro-
totypical concept of this category is probably identifiability. Since it is a gram-
matical category, it does not exclude uses other than prototypical ones. The ar-
ticle can be seen, therefore, as a means of encoding this category.22
Having in mind the complexity of the study of definiteness, both in the
Northwest Semitic languages and in linguistics in general, we shall now turn to
the book of Qoheleth in order to examine anew the use and non-use of the
article.
General observations on the study of the article

in the book of Qoheleth
There are two fundamental difficulties with the study of the article in the He-
brew Bible in general. The first is the Masoretic vocalization; the second is the
lack of a general and diachronic study of the article in the Hebrew Bible.
It is widely recognized that many instances of the non-consonantal article,
that is, the one that appears as a vowel under the prepositions ‫ ְבּ‬, ‫ ְכּ‬and ‫ ְל‬, are
due to the Naqdanim and so do not belong to an earlier, original form of the
text.23 It follows that the article with these prepositions may or may not reflect
the uses of the author of the book. Hence, it would seem to be methodological-
ly appropriate to exclude the occurrences of the non-consonantal article from
the study. This radical approach, however, will not be adopted because the
non-consonantal article in the book of Qoheleth appears to be in general em-
ployed in a similar way to the consonantal article.24 Moreover, both the conso-
nantal text and the vocalization display well established use of the generic arti-
cle.25 Since this use of the article is frequent in the book of Qoheleth, the
exclusion of the non-consonantal article from the study would mean the exclu-
sion of many interesting study cases. The cases of a problematic non-conso-
nant article will be judged one by one, bearing in mind the possibility of their
spurious origin.26
22
For a detailed explanation of this definition see LYONS, Definiteness, 253-281.
23
BARR, Determination, 325-333.
24
Another reason for choosing the study of the actual Hebrew text as transmitted by the
Masoretes is the fact that if one chooses not to consider the vocalic article some problematic ca-
ses disappear, but others arise. Thus, one ends up studying the difficulties that do not exist and
leaves aside the real problems of the Masoretic text.
25
SCHORCH, Determination, 309-310.
26
The vocalic article is almost certainly a Masoretic addition in ‫יוֹד ַע‬ ֶ ‫( ַמ‬6,8) and
ֵ ‫ה־לּ ָענִ י‬
ִ ‫( ַבּ ְמּ‬10,6). Accepting this possibility, a question arises. Didn’t the Masoretes know such
‫רוֹמים ַר ִבּים‬
An_78.indb 35 21/06/11 15:37

The need to compare the use of the article in the book of Qoheleth and
other books of the Hebrew Bible brings another methodological question:
should the book of Qoheleth be compared with narrative or poetic sections of
the Bible? This question is particularly relevant to the study of the article be-
cause Hebrew poetry has its own peculiarities of use, most notably its frequent
omission. It seems that most appropriate would be to compare the book of Qo-
heleth with other wisdom books, particularly with Proverbs and the extant He-
brew portions of Ben-Sirach. Such a systematic comparison is, however, out of
the scope of the present study and will be considered only in part.
The article in generic statements
Generic statements are utterances which convey general observations and con-
clusions about reality. An example of a generic statement is Qoh 5,9:
‫ם־ז֖ה ָ ֽה ֶבל׃‬
ֶ ַ‫בוּאה גּ‬
֑ ָ ‫וּמי־א ֵ ֹ֥הב ֶבּ ָה ֖מוֹן ֣ל ֹא ְת‬
ֽ ִ ‫א ֵ ֹ֥הב ֙ ֶכּ ֶס ֙ף לֹא־יִ ְשׂ ַבּ֣ע ֶ֔כּ ֶסף‬
He that loves silver is never satisfied with silver; nor he that loves abundance
with his income; this also is vanity.27
Two preliminary remarks are in necessary. First, one should keep in mind that
the interpretation of a generic statement as such arises not only from the for-
mulation of the noun phrase but also from the meaning of a sentence as whole.
It follows that the generic statements can be formulated both with arthrous and
anarthrous subjects as well as with singular and plural subjects.28 Second, by
their nature generic statements contain the error of missing quantification, an
example of an incomplete formulation.29 In everyday use the generic state-
ments are usually interpreted with universal quantification (“all,” “every”). It
is, however, to be stressed, that generic statements should be interpreted in the
sense of what is normal or typical for members of a class. Consequently, gene-
ric statements may employ a non-specific reference to a member of the class
a simple “rule”—that the article must occur both on the noun and on adjective? If so, why did
they waive it?
27
All translations are the author’s own.
28
For example, in English: 1. A dog has four legs. 2. The dog has four legs. 3. Dogs have
four legs. For a brief survey of generics see LYONS, Definiteness, 179-198, and CHESTERMAN, On
Definiteness, 32-40.74-78.
29
AJDUKIEWICZ, Pragmatic Logic, 56: “The error of an incomplete formulation is committed
when an essential element of an expression is omitted. Thus, for instance, if we say that ‘Italians
are hot-tempered,’ without indicating whether we mean all Italians, or some of them only, or a
majority of them, then we commit an error of making an incomplete formulation, since we leave
out an essential element of a formulation which is intended to be a statement. Without that ele-
ment the formulation in question is neither true nor false, and hence is not a statement. It may
become true, but it also may become false, according to the way in which we complete it. The
error of incomplete formulation as described in the example given above is called missing
quantification.”
An_78.indb 36 21/06/11 15:37

with the article. These two remarks about the generic statement are useful to
explain many occurrences of the article in the book of Qoheleth.
From my perusal it appears that the use or non-use of the article does not
entail a generic or non-generic reading.30 Indeed, one finds singular and plural,
arthrous and anarthrous noun phrases in generic statements:
‫וּכ ִ֔סיל ֲא ֶ ֛שׁר לֹא־יָ ַ ֥דע ְל ִהזָּ ֵ ֖הר ֽעוֹד׃‬
ְ ‫קן‬
֙ ֵ ָ‫ ז‬N‫֛טוֹב ֶי ֶ֥לד ִמ ְס ֵ ֖כּן וְ ָח ָכ֑ם ִמ ֶ ֤מּ ֶל‬
Better is a poor but wise child than an old but foolish king who knows not to re-
ceive admonition any more. (Qoh 4,13)
‫לוֹא־ל ַ֑חשׁ וְ ֵ ֣אין יִ ְת ֔רוֹן ְל ַ ֖ב ַעל ַה ָלּ ֽשׁוֹן׃‬
ָ ‫ ַהנָּ ָ ֖חשׁ ְבּ‬Nֹ ‫ִאם־יִ ֥שּׁ‬
If the snake bites without incantation, the charmer is of no avail. (Qoh 10,11)
‫הים‬Z
֑ ִ ‫יהם ְבּ ַי֣ד ָה ֱא‬
֖ ֶ ‫ַה ַצּ ִדּי ִ ֧ קים וְ ַה ֲח ָכ ִ ֛מים וַ ֲע ָב ֵד‬
The righteous, and the wise, and their works, are in the hand of God. (Qoh 9,1)
‫שׁ־דּ ָב ִ ֥רים ַה ְר ֵ ֖בּה ַמ ְר ִ ֣בּים ָ ֑ה ֶבל ַמה־יּ ֵ ֹ֖תר ָל ָא ָ ֽדם׃‬
ְ ֵ‫ִ ֛כּי י‬
Since there are many words that increase vanity, what is a benefit for the man?
(Qoh 6,11)
The fact that the article may or may not be used in generic statements with
great freedom accounts in a significant part for the apparent chaos in the use of
the article in the book of Qoheleth. Indeed, in conformity with its genre, the
book abounds with generic statements. The occurrence or the lack of the arti-
cle in them must be interpreted case by case since the generic nature of the
statement is not the reason for a particular use of the article.
One of the frequent reasons for the use and non-use of the article is the
mental representation of the arthrous noun as specific, definite and seen in op-
position to others. In this case the lack of the article signals a more hypotheti-
cal and general level of the statement (achieved with the English indefinite ar-
ticle, bare plural or quantifier “some”) whereas the appearance of the article
focuses the attention on the distinctive characteristics of the referent of the
noun. Qoh 8,14 illustrates this point:
‫שׂה ָה ְר ָשׁ ִ֔עים וְ ֵי ֣שׁ‬
֣ ֵ ‫֤יע ֲא ֵל ֶה ֙ם ְכּ ַמ ֲע‬
ַ ‫יקים ֲא ֶ֨שׁר ַמ ִגּ‬ִ֗ ‫שׁר ֵי ֣שׁ ַצ ִדּ‬ ֣ ֶ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ֒ ֲא‬ָ ‫שׁר נַ ֲע ָ ֣שׂה ַע‬ ֣ ֶ ‫שׁ־ה ֶב ֮ל ֲא‬
ֶ ֶ‫י‬
‫ם־ז֖ה ָ ֽה ֶבל׃‬
ֶ ַ‫שׂה ַה ַצּ ִדּי ִ ֑ קים ָא ַ֕מ ְר ִתּי ֶשׁגּ‬ ֣ ֵ ‫֥יע ֲא ֵל ֶ ֖הם ְכּ ַמ ֲע‬
ַ ‫ְר ָשׁ ִ֔עים ֶשׁ ַמּ ִגּ‬
There is a vanity that occurs in the world: that there are righteous men, unto
whom it happens according to the work of the wicked; again, there are wicked
men, to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous—I said that this
also is vanity.
At the first sight it may seem puzzling why the author speaks in the same verse
once about ‫ ַצ ִדּ ִיקים‬and ‫ ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬and the other time about ‫ ַה ַצּ ִדּ ִיקים‬and ‫ ָה ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬. A
closer look reveals that the articles with these groups are used symmetrically.
Moreover, when the author does not prefix the article he refers to the casual
30
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the examples of the generic use of the non-predi-
cative participle collected in V. PEURSEN, Verbal System, 228-230.
An_78.indb 37 21/06/11 15:37

existence of a certain group of wicked/righteous men or to an indefinite num-

ber of cases of single wicked/righteous men. This blurred picture of some
wicked/righteous men is contrasted with the precise image of the wicked/righ-
teous men to whom the author refers with the article. By prefixing the article
he portrays them as a specific group that can be identified by their quality of
being wicked/righteous and by their particular conduct (‫) ַמ ֲע ֶשׂה‬. Since the ar-
throus nouns ‫ ַה ַצּ ִדּ ִיקים‬and ‫ ָה ְר ָשׁ ִעים‬occur in the construct chain, the bigger picture
built by the author is the following: it may happen that some righteous men are
requited as they are behaving in the way that is typical to the wicked and vice
versa. In short, the article in this verse creates an opposition between a group
seen as a few single members and a group seen as a collective. The author em-
ploys the article to build a perspective in which he sees the object of his
discourse.
This idea of different perspective toward objects and thoughts illuminates
the use and non-use of the article in generic statements in overall terms. I sug-
gest the following distinctions:
1. An anarthrous singular noun portrays the referent as one random member
of a class that exemplifies its members. This use is comparable to an English
noun with the indefinite article.
2. An arthrous singular noun singles the referent out of the class, depicts the
referent seen in its individuality and considers him as a study case valid for the
entire class.
3. An anarthrous plural noun produces a mental representation of a certain
numbers of members of a class seen as separate and individual referents. This
used is comparable with the English “some” followed by a plural noun.
4. An arthrous plural noun portrays the class as one collectivity without high-
lighting the distinctiveness of each member.31
Since the article is used to present the subjects of generic statements in dif-
ferent perspectives, each verse must be examined first separately and then in a
wider context. Only in this way may one discover how the author uses the arti-
cle to convey the nuances of his thought. This point is illustrated by Qoh
2,21-22. In these verses, although the article with the noun ‫ ָא ָדם‬in Qoh 2,22 is
non-consonantal and thus due to the Naqdanim, its use epitomizes the nuances
of the article in generic statements. In Qoh 2,21 the noun ‫ ָא ָדם‬appears without
the article:
31
A plural noun in generic statements does not refer per se to all members of a class since,
as explained above, the universal quantification is missing.
An_78.indb 38 21/06/11 15:37

‫ם־ז֥ה ֶ ֖ה ֶבל‬
ֶ ַ‫ל־בּוֹ יִ ְתּ ֶנ֣נּוּ ֶח ְל ֔קוֹ גּ‬
֙ ‫וּל ָא ָ ֞דם ֶשׁ ֤לּ ֹא ָ ֽע ַמ‬
ְ ‫וּב ִכ ְשׁ ֑רוֹן‬
ְ ‫וּב ַ ֖ד ַעת‬
ְ ‫י־י ֣שׁ ָא ָ ֗דם ֶשׁ ֲע ָמ ֛לוֹ ְבּ ָח ְכ ָ ֥מה‬
ֵ ‫ִכּ‬
‫וְ ָר ָ ֥עה ַר ָ ֽבּה׃‬
For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, and with knowledge, and with
skill; yet to a man that has not labored therein shall he leave it for his portion.
This also is vanity and a great evil.
In the next verse, however, the noun ‫ ָא ָדם‬occurs with the article:
‫וּב ַר ְעי֖ וֹן ִל ֑בּוֹ ֶשׁ ֥הוּא ָע ֵ ֖מל ַ ֥תּ ַחת ַה ָ ֽשּׁ ֶמשׁ׃‬
ְ ‫ל־ע ָמ ֔לוֹ‬
ֲ ‫֠ ִכּי ֶ ֽמה־הֶֹו֤ה ָ ֽל ָא ָד ֙ם ְבּ ָכ‬
For what does a man get for all his labor and the striving of his heart he labored
under the sun?
The occurrence of the article in Qoh 2,22 can hardly be explained by anapho-
ric reference to the previous verse. Indeed, the author’s thought develops with
two dependent but clearly separated statements. In Qoh 2,21 he considers a
study case of a certain, unidentified man. In this verse the anarthrous noun ‫ָא ָדם‬
is almost the equivalent of an indefinite pronoun. The picture that this verse
generates can be paraphrased: “Look, sometimes somebody who …”. Qoh
2,22 provides a motivation for the judgment delivered in the previous verse by
evoking a truth that is valid for all human beings. Thus Qoh 2,22 speaks not
about the case of a man discussed one verse earlier but about every man or all
men in general. It follows that the noun ‫ ָא ָדם‬refers to the class and not a parti-
cular individual. The reference to the members of the class is made with the ar-
throus noun in order to single out one member as an example of a typical fate
of the members of the class. The use of the article with the noun ‫ ָא ָדם‬in these
verses is sound and meaningful in spite of the first impression of being chaotic.
Moreover, it contributes to deepening the thought, which considers a particular
case (Qoh 2,21) in light of a general truth (Qoh 2,22).
Since the occurrence or the lack of the article does not encode the generic
or non-generic reading of an utterance but is used to establish the perspective
of the statement, it is not surprising to find the article also with abstract nouns
and concepts. The general tendency in the case of concepts and abstract nouns
is the lack of the article. Hence, when it appears it should be considered parti-
cularly meaningful and the reason for its occurrence should be diligently in-
vestigated. The use of the article with the noun “evil” can be taken as an exam-
ple of the typical behavior of abstract nouns. This noun occurs without the arti-
cle in its masculine form in Qoh 4,17; 6,2; 8,11.12; 9,3 and in its feminine
form in Qoh 2,21; 5,12.15; 6,1; 7,14; 10,5; 11,2.10.32 However, in 8,11 and
12,1 arthrous feminine forms are found and need to be explained as also in
these instances the nouns have the usual, abstract meaning. Qoh 8,11 is partic-
32
This list is not exhaustive. For a comprehensive list of the occurrences of the word “evil”
see SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. II, 145. Note that some of the attestations can be considered adjec-
tives and not nouns.
An_78.indb 39 21/06/11 15:37

ularly interesting as the noun “evil” occurs in it twice, one time with the article
and another time without it:
‫י־ה ָא ָ ֛דם ָבּ ֶ ֖הם ַל ֲע ֥שׂוֹת ָ ֽרע׃‬
ָ ֵ‫ל־כּן ָמ ֞ ֵלא ֵל֧ב ְ ֽבּנ‬
ֵ֡ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ ֙ר ֵאין־נַ ֲע ָ ֣שׂה ִפ ְת ֔ ָגם ַמ ֲע ֵ ֥שׂה ָה ָר ָ ֖עה ְמ ֵה ָ ֑רה ַע‬
Because a sentence against an evil deed is not executed swiftly, therefore the
heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
The noun “evil” in the infinitival phrase ‫ ַל ֲעשׂוֹת ָרע‬has a wide meaning “bad
things” that can be paraphrased with an adverb (“to behave wrongly”) and thus
the article is missing. Its occurrence in the construct chain ‫ ִפּ ְתגָ ם ַמ ֲע ֵשׁה ָה ָר ָעה‬is
due to the fact that the author builds a specific case and employs the article to
delimit the situation to which he refers. The apparent contradiction becomes
understandable when the context is accounted for. A similar interaction of the
context explains the occurrence of the article with the noun “evil” in 12,1:
‫ין־לי‬
֥ ִ ‫אמר ֵ ֽא‬
ַ ֔ ֹ ‫שׁר תּ‬
֣ ֶ ‫אוּ יְ ֵ ֣מי ָ ֽה ָר ָ֔עה וְ ִה ִגּ֣יעוּ ָשׁ ִ֔נים ֲא‬
֙ ֹ ‫א־יָב‬
֙ ֹ ‫ ַ ֣עד ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ל‬k‫ימי ְבּחוּר ֶ ֹ֑תי‬
֖ ֵ ‫ ִבּ‬k‫ת־בּ ְוֹר ֶ֔אי‬
֣ ‫וּזְ כ ֹ֙ר ֶא‬
‫ָב ֶ ֖הם ֵ ֽח ֶפץ׃‬
Remember then your vigor in the days of your youth, before the days of evil
come and the years arrive of which you will say: “I have no pleasure in them.”
This occurrence of the article may seem particularly problematic when one re-
calls that in 7,14 Qoheleth speaks simply about a day of fortune (‫טוֹבה‬ ָ ‫ ) ְבּיוֹם‬and
a day of evil (‫) ְוּביוֹם ָר ָעה‬. Again, a look on the entire verse 12,1 reveals the rea-
son for the occurrence of the article: the author wants to oppose the particular
time-reference to the time of youth, which is grammatically definite because of
the suffixed pronoun on the noun “youth”, with another specific time-refe-
rence, namely the reference to the period of misfortune. Thus, the use of the
article in this case has little to do with the definiteness of the abstract noun
itself.
Finally, it is interesting to confront the use of the article in generic state-
ments as found in the book of Qoheleth with its similar use in other books of
the Hebrew Bible. Chapter 12 of Proverbs is a good test sample for such a
comparison as it contains a series of generic statements. It is noteworthy that
in the entire chapter one finds only one occurrence of the article, which is non-
consonantal and thus can be non-original (Prov 12,21). Although a larger study
is needed, the non-use of the article in the generic statements in Prov 12 con-
trasted with the uses found in the book of Qoheleth shows the extent to which
the languages of these two books are different.
As it was stressed previously, the impression of chaos with regard to the ar-
ticle in the book of Qoheleth is caused mostly by the author’s choice to build
different perspectives on subjects in the statements that contain general obser-
vations. Because of this choice it is necessary to analyze each occurrence of
the article in its context. The same is true for the use of the article with certain
categories of words, although in these cases some patterns can be discovered.
10
An_78.indb 40 21/06/11 15:37

The elements of nature
Since the elements of nature are an identifiable and familiar reference, it is ex-
pected that the article will occur with them. Indeed, this is the major pattern in
the book of Qoheleth. The article is found regularly with rivers (1,7), sea (1,7),
heavens (1,13; 2,3; 3,1; 5,1; 10,20), clouds (11,3-4; 12,2), stars (12,2), moon
(12,2) and sun (1,3.5.9.14; 2,11.17.18.19.20.22; 3,16; 4.1.3.7.15; 5,12.17;
6,1.12; 7,11; 8,9.15.17; 9,3.6.9.13; 10,5; 11,7; 12,2). However, the fact that the
elements of nature are known and generally identifiable does not exclude the
possibility that the author may choose to portray them as non-specific and
therefore not employ the article. In some cases the use or non-use of the article
produces significant change in meaning and thus dictates the author’s choices.
Some examples illustrate this.
The word ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬is usually used with the article (1,4; 3,21; 5,1; 7,20; 8,14.16;
10,7; 11,2.3; 12,7) but in 5,8 and 10,16-17 it occurs without the article. One
should, however, note the difference in the meaning of the word ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬when
used with and without the article. Indeed, when the article is employed the
word ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬means consistently “the planet Earth” or part of it. This usage is con-
trasted with the anarthrous occurrences of the word ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬, which refer to a coun-
try or state, a political entity, not the planet. It is impossible to know if the use
of the article created this difference of meaning in the eyes of the author or if
the lack of the article in 5,8 and 10,16-17 is due to the generic nature of these
verses. In any case, this is one of the examples which show that the article is
used not erratically but meaningfully. Similarly, a nice difference in meaning
can be found with the word ‫גֶּ ֶשׁם‬. In 12,2 when it designates an element of the
world on par with other elements, it occurs with the article. On the other hand,
in 11,3, when it refers simply to water that fills clouds, it is anarthrous. This
difference could be also explained in terms of specificity or identifiability: rain
seen as an element of the world is a specific meteorological phenomenon while
rain in clouds is just an unidentifiable amount of water.
The use of the article with the word ‫רוּח‬ ַ is somewhat more complicated as it
shows the interaction of the semantics of the word and the role of the article.
Indeed, the word ‫רוּח‬ ַ has three basic semantic fields in the book of Qoheleth. It
refers to an atmospheric phenomenon or spirit as a psychological dimension
and a vital force. Moreover, it is used metaphorically, in parallel with ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬to
portray a fugacious reality.33 A choice of the unambiguous meaning is not al-
ways possible and maybe even not intended by the author who likes to play
with words and their associations.34 When ‫רוּח‬ ַ is used metaphorically it has no
33
The metaphorical use is, of course, based on the literal meaning “wind.”
34
SCHOORS distinguishes only two meanings, wind and spirit. See SCHOORS, Preacher, vol.
II, 161-165.
11
An_78.indb 41 21/06/11 15:37

article.35 The lack of the article in this case is explained by the fact that the par-
allel term ‫ ֶה ֶבל‬also has no article and by the fact that the use of the article
would make the image more specific and particular while the intended refe-
rence is a vague reality. When ‫רוּח‬ ַ refers to the natural element or a vital force
it has the article.36 In three instances this regular usage is, however, overridden
by other factors that influence the use of the article. In 7,8 and 11,4 the word
ַ is anarthrous because the author has chosen this particular perspective for
‫רוּח‬
his generic statement. Indeed, both verses have a quasi-proverbial flavor and it
is possible that by the non-use of the article the author wanted to imitate the
style of Proverbs. In 3,19 the article is not used with ‫רוּח‬ַ because it is followed
by ‫ ֶא ָחד‬, another word that expresses a specific reference.37
A problematic case of the lack of the article which involves an element of
nature is 6,5. In this verse the article is lacking with the word “sun” which in
all other occurrences in the book of Qoheleth (34 times) is arthrous. On the
one hand, the omission of the article in Qoh 6,5 may simply be a lapsus linguæ
which happens even to the best writers. On the other hand, one may think that
the lack of the article is intentional and intended to reinforce the negation. In-
deed, if the article is employed, the meaning of the phrase is that the subject
did not see the sun, the celestial body; but without the article the meaning is
stronger: the subject did not see not only the sun known to everybody but any
sun. The use of the article would delimit the scope of negation to one object
while its lack contributes to its widening.
(The) God and (the) man
Out of 40 occurrences of the word ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬, 32 are with the prefixed article. Al-
though the word ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬is attested in the Hebrew Bible widely with and without
the article, its preponderant occurrence with ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬in the book of Qoheleth re-
quires an interpretation. Some scholars hold that in this case the article is used
to depersonalize God and to speak about him in the sense of “divinity.”38 I can-
not agree with such an opinion because this would mean that the article has a
particular use with nouns which renders them abstract. This is obviously not
true as the article can appear with abstract nouns and concepts but generally
does not. Hence, it is impossible that the author would employ the article in or-
der to elevate the concept of God to a higher level of abstractness (“divinity”).
It is, however, true that the use of the article with ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬is in fact a part of the
35
1,14.17; 2,11.17.26; 4,4.6.16; 6,9. The regularity of this usage indicates that the article in
the prepositional phrase ‫רוּח‬
ַ ‫ ָל‬in 5,15 is a Masoretic addition and should be removed.
36
1,6; 8,8; 11,5; 12,7.
37
LYONS, Definiteness, 98.
38
SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. II, 110-111.
12
An_78.indb 42 21/06/11 15:37

author’s communication strategy and rhetoric. On the one hand, he never

speaks about the God of Israel or uses the proper name of the God of Israel in
order to make his book sound universalistic. On the other hand, since he is a
pious Jew, when he speaks about God, he has certainly the God of Israel in
mind. The use of the article with the word ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬reflects a compromise be-
tween the need for speaking about the unique God and for remaining universa-
listic. With the vast use of the article the author signals that he refers to one,
particular God while by omitting the article in certain instances he remains
sufficiently vague to admit a more universal idea of God.39 In any case, the ar-
ticle with the word ‫הים‬Z ִ ‫ ֱא‬is used because of the uniqueness of the reference
and not in order to create an abstract image of God.
The occurrences of the article with the word ‫ ָא ָדם‬are a good example of
regular and meaningful use of the article by the author of the book Qoheleth.
In fact, this word with the article has the general meaning of “humankind”;
when used without the article it refers to an individual, and in the latter usage
it acquires almost an indefinite meaning akin to the English indeterminate pro-
noun “some, any.”40 The meaning “humankind” is particularly evident in the
construct chain ‫ ְבּנֵ י ָה ָא ָדם‬employed 10 times in Qoheleth. The indefinite use is
nicely illustrated by Qoh 2,21, which was discussed above.
The article in expressions of time
Expressions of time offer another occasion to see how a particular perspective

on a subject is reflected in the use of the article. Indeed, time can be seen both
as a specific and identifiable moment and as an unspecified period. Correspon-
dingly, the article may or may not be used in expressions of time. The diffe-
rence between a non-specific and specific reference to time can be exemplified
by use of the article with the word ‫ ֵעת‬. This word is usually anarthrous since
the reference is to time in general, without indicating a particular moment. In
some verses the non-specificity of the reference seems to be difficult to com-
prehend at first sight but a closer look reveals its logic. For instance, in 3,1-8
Qoheleth speaks about time in reference to a number of activities. At first sight
it may seem that the article is erroneously lacking since the author wants to af-
firm that there is a specific moment in which a particular activity should be un-
dertaken and therefore the article should be used. The lack of the article indi-
cates, however, that his point is different. Indeed, he wants to affirm the mere
existence of occasions in which it is appropriate to do certain things and not to
39
The instances in which the article is used or not are arbitrary; therefore the impression
that the word ‫הים‬Z
ִ ‫“ ֱא‬stands with or without article seemingly indiscriminately” (ISAKSSON, Stu-
dies, 145).
40
SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. II, 46-49.
13
An_78.indb 43 21/06/11 15:37

indicate that there is only one, specific moment in which a particular activi-
ty can be performed. The latter kind of reference is found with the word .5)
in 10,17:
R".N ' [+ G- %I 2H +# !&BG
O $ +A=' B2<%
)M I " .L5) =$ UJ '"&J - 8$ +# 0"&E>;,
P ' =1 UO() 2+ F- X1 b&1 %M1 U"&L ) X+ %-
Happy are you, o land whose king is a free man and whose ministers eat at the
proper time, in strength, and not in drunkenness.
Here the time reference is to a specific moment during the day; hence the word
.5) is properly accompanied by the article.
There is a tendency to use the article with expressions of time because the
moment to which they refer is seen as specific or because the time of their re-
ference is naturally identifiable. The first explanation is valid for the article
with 0"%' =$ !- 0"7' $_!- in 2,16 or in the prepositional phrase 0E_=- in 12,3. The second
justification accounts for the frequent use of the article with words such as day
and night, morning and evening.
The article and the organization of information
Throughout our analysis it has become clear that the use and non-use of the ar-
ticle is motivated largely by the perspective that the author wants to convey.
The article is therefore a means of organizing information. It may mark the to-
pic of the sentence in opposition to a comment which contains a new piece of
information. It may also be used with an element that is in the focused position
of the sentence.41 Qoh 10,19 illustrates very well the use of the article as means
of focusing and organizing information:
R2I(N !;.
- %1 !H/1 5Y -" K:O1 (1 !- +# 0"P_' >- >FL - 8- +" , '"mO"- +# 0>1 21 M 0"8IL ' 5 WE>
J 8+ 2'
A banquet is made for laughter, and wine makes life merry: but money answers
every need.
The verse lists three positive objects with the emphasis on the last one since it
presents a radical and global solution to all needs. The focus on the last phrase
is increased with the article, which otherwise seems unexpected. A similar ex-
planation can be accepted for Qoh 6,7:
41
LYONS, Definiteness, 227-236. The use of the article in these instances may produce the
impression that the article functions also as an emphatic particle. See CROATTO, L’article. It must
be then stressed that “focus” or “emphasis” are not independent usages of the article but are the
effects obtained at the level of the text and that they are due to the basic grammatical meaning of
the article as a means of expressing definiteness. In this context one may wish to recollect that in
the language of medieval Spanish Hebrew poetry the letter ! with a &ewa could be added at
the beginning of a word for emphasis (for example "2!, “indeed to me”). See GOLDENBERG, He-
brew, 656.
44
An_78.indb 44 21/06/11 15:37

‫ם־ה ֶנּ ֶ֖פשׁ ֥ל ֹא ִת ָמּ ֵ ֽלא׃‬

ַ ַ‫ל־ע ַ ֥מל ָה ָא ָ ֖דם ְל ִ ֑פיהוּ וְ ג‬
ֲ ‫ָכּ‬
All the labor of man is for the sake of his mouth, and yet the appetite is not
filled.
Here the focus is on the appetite which is never satisfied in spite of all human
efforts. The opposition between two noun phrases is explicit and strong thanks
to ‫וְ גַ ם‬. Masterful use of opposition can be seen also in the formulation of a pro-
verb in 9,4:
‫ן־ה ַא ְר ֵי֖ה ַה ֵ ֽמּת׃‬
ָ ‫חי ֣הוּא ֔טוֹב ִמ‬
֙ ַ ‫ְל ֶכ ֶ֤לב‬
A living dog is better than a dead lion.
The use of the article (with its individualizing and demonstrative force) contri-
butes to build the following picture: any dog that is living is better than this
lion which is dead. The article on “lion” reinforces the opposition between one
and many which is implied by the lack of the article with “dog.”
Qoheleth’s discourse is frequently organized in what may be called “pic-
tures” and “case studies.” Each of these can be seen as a small and separate
world of references which serves to deliver a specific statement or a particular
piece of information. The use and non-use of the article is one of the means of
constructing these “pictures” and “case studies.” It follows that the use of the
article with any word may differ because the world of the references in that
“picture” is different. In other words, the fact that the article appears with a
certain word in chapter 3 does not necessarily mean that the same word will
have the article in chapter 7. Therefore one should expect logic and regularity
of the use of the article within the boundaries of a “picture” or “case study” ra-
ther than throughout the entire book. Indeed, this is the case, as can be seen in
the following examples.
In 2,4-9 Qoheleth speaks about his enterprise and his amassing riches. Al-
though the single components of Qoheleth’s wealth are specific from a seman-
tic point of view (as they belong to a particular person), they are presented in a
generic perspective without the article. It is noteworthy that, with two excep-
tions, the article is never used:
‫וּפ ְר ֵדּ ִ ֑סים וְ נָ ַ ֥ט ְע ִתּי ָב ֶ ֖הם ֵ ֥עץ‬
ַ ‫יתי ֔ ִלי גַּ נּ֖ וֹת‬ ִ ‫ ָע ִ ֣שׂ‬5 ‫֤יתי ִ ֙לי ָבּ ִ֔תּים נָ ַ ֥ט ְע ִתּי ִ ֖לי ְכּ ָר ִ ֽמים׃‬
ִ ‫ ִהגְ ַ ֖דּ ְל ִתּי ַמ ֲע ָ ֑שׂי ָבּ ִנ‬4
7
‫וּשׁ ָפ ֔חוֹת‬ ְ ‫יתי ֲע ָב ִ ֣דים‬ ֙ ִ ִ֙‫צוֹמ ַח ֵע ִ ֽצים׃ ָקנ‬ ֥ ֵ ‫יתי ִ ֖לי ְבּ ֵר ֣כוֹת ָ ֑מיִ ם ְל ַה ְשׁ ֣קוֹת ֵמ ֶ֔הם ַי ַ֖ער‬ ִ ‫ ָע ִ ֥שׂ‬6 ‫ל־פּ ִרי׃‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ָכּ‬
8
‫׃ ָכּ ַנ ְ֤ס ִתּי ִ ֙לי‬nֽ‫ירוּשׁ ָל‬ ָ ‫י־ביִ ת ָ ֣היָ ה ִ ֑לי ַגּ֣ם ִמ ְקנֶ ֩ה ָב ָ ֨קר וָ ֤צ ֹאן ַה ְר ֵבּ ֙ה ָ ֣היָ ה ֔ ִלי ִמ ֛כֹּל ֶ ֽשׁ ָהי֥ וּ ְל ָפ ַנ֖י ִבּ‬ ֖ ַ ֵ‫וּבנ‬ ְ
‫יתי ֜ ִלי ָשׁ ִ ֣רים וְ ָשׁ ֗רוֹת וְ ַת ֲענוּ ֹ֛גת ְבּ ֵנ֥י ָה ָא ָ ֖דם ִשׁ ָ ֥דּה‬ ִ ‫וּסגֻ ַ ֥לּת ְמ ָל ִ ֖כים וְ ַה ְמּ ִדינ֑ וֹת ָע ִ֨שׂ‬ ְ ‫ם־כּ ֶ֣סף וְ זָ ָ֔הב‬ ֶ ַ‫גּ‬
‫ ַ ֥אף ָח ְכ ָמ ִ ֖תי ָ ֥ע ְמ ָדה ִ ֽלּי׃‬n֑‫ירוּשׁ ָל‬
ָ ‫הוֹס ְפ ִתּי ִמ ֛כֹּל ֶשׁ ָה ָי֥ה ְל ָפ ַנ֖י ִבּ‬ ַ֔ ְ‫וְ גָ ַ ֣ד ְל ִתּי ו‬9 ‫וְ ִשׁ ֽדּוֹת׃‬
I multiplied my possessions. I built myself houses; I planted vineyards. I made
myself gardens and groves and I planted every kind of fruit tree in them. I made
myself pools of water, to irrigate with them a forest springing up with trees. I
bought male and female slaves and stewards; also I had cattle, a lot of herds and
flocks, above all that were before me in Jerusalem. I further amassed for myself
silver and gold and treasures of kings and of the provinces; and I got myself
male and female singers and the luxuries of the sons of men, coffers and coffers
15
An_78.indb 45 21/06/11 15:37

of them. Thus I became great and I gained more wealth than anyone before me
in Jerusalem. In addition, my wisdom stood by me.
Two occurrences of the article in this passage are by no means erratic. The ar-
ticle with ‫ ָא ָדם‬appears in conformity to its use when the word refers to man-
kind. The article with the word ‫ ְמ ִדינוֹת‬is used because the reference is not to
some provinces but the provinces par excellence, the provinces of the Persian
Empire. Besides these two instances in which the article is used in a meaning-
ful manner, the article is never used, giving the impression of coherency and
regularity of its non-use within the “picture” built by the author in Qoh 2,4-9.
Another case of a consistent and methodical use of the article is found in
the famous poem on the darkness of death in chapter 12:
‫נוֹת ִ ֣כּי ִמ ֵ֔עטוּ וְ ָח ְשׁ ֥כוּ ָהר ֹ֖אוֹת‬ ֙ ‫וּב ְט ֤לוּ ַה ֽטֹּ ֲח‬ ָ ‫שׁי ֶה ָ ֑חיִ ל‬ ֣ ֵ ְ‫עוּ שׁ ְֹמ ֵ ֣רי ַה ַ֔בּיִ ת וְ ִ ֽה ְת ַעוְּ ֖תוּ ַאנ‬ ֙ ‫ ַבּיּ֗ וֹם ֶשׁיָּ ֙ ֻז‬3
‫ל־בּנ֥ וֹת ַה ִ ֽשּׁיר׃‬ְ ‫קוּם ְל ֣קוֹל ַה ִצּ ֔פּוֹר וְ יִ ַ ֖שּׁחוּ ָכּ‬ ֙ ָ‫וְ ֻסגְּ ֤רוּ ְד ָל ַ֙תיִ ֙ם ַבּ ֔שּׁוּק ִבּ ְשׁ ַ ֖פל ֣קוֹל ַ ֽה ַטּ ֲח ָנ֑ה וְ י‬4 ‫ָבּ ֲא ֻר ֽבּוֹת׃‬
‫ ָה ָא ָד ֙ם‬N֤‫יּוֹנ֑ה ִ ֽכּי־ה ֵֹל‬
ָ ‫ וְ יָ נֵ ֤אץ ַה ָשּׁ ֵק ֙ד וְ יִ ְס ַתּ ֵבּ֣ל ֶ ֽה ָח ֔ ָגב וְ ָת ֵ ֖פר ָ ֽה ֲא ִב‬N‫אוּ וְ ַח ְת ַח ִ ֣תּים ַבּ ֶ ֔דּ ֶר‬ ֙ ‫ ַגּ֣ם ִמגָּ ֤בֹ ַהּ יִ ָ ֙ר‬5
6
‫עוֹל ֔מוֹ וְ ָס ְב ֥בוּ ָב ֖שּׁוּק ַהסּ ְֹפ ִ ֽדים׃ ַ ֣עד ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר ֽל ֹא־יֵ ָר ֵת ֙ק ֶ ֣ח ֶבל ַה ֶ֔כּ ֶסף וְ ָת ֻ ֖רץ גֻּ ַלּ֣ת ַהזָּ ָ ֑הב‬ ָ ‫ל־בּ֣ית‬ ֵ ‫ֶא‬
‫ל־ה ֽבּוֹר׃‬ ַ ‫וּע וְ נָ ֥ר ֹץ ַהגַּ ְל ַגּ֖ל ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֔בּ‬ַ ‫וְ ִת ָ ֤שּׁ ֶבר ַכּ ֙ד ַע‬
In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the men of valor
shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and the la-
dies that peer through the windows shall grow dim, and the doors shall be shut
in the street, when the sound of the mill is low and one shall start up at the voice
of the bird, and all the daughters of the song shall be brought low; also when
they shall be afraid of that which is high, and terrors shall be in the way; and the
almond-tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be burdened, and the caper
berry shall fail because the man sets out for his eternal abode; and the mourners
shall go about in the street; before the silver cord is snapped and the golden
bowl is shattered, and the jar is broken at the spring and the wheel is shattered
into the pit; then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will re-
turn to God who gave it.
The frequent occurrence of the article in this passage is noteworthy.42 Moreo-
ver, it is not immediately clear why the article should occur with some words,
for instance with “mill,” “bird” or “grasshopper.” Should one think that the au-
thor had in mind a specific mill that is known to the reader or that there is a
certain species of birds which sing on ominous days and they are referred to as
“the bird”? It seems that a separate explanation of each article would not be
convincing. Indeed, the context larger than the sentence must be taken into ac-
count. In Qoh 12,3-7 the author transfers the reader into an imaginary world
42
The article is not used only with four nouns, ‫ ְדּ ָל ַתיִ ם‬, ‫גָּ ב ַֹהּ‬, ‫ ַח ְת ַח ִתּים‬, and ‫ ַכּד‬. However, the
lack of the article with these words does not nullify the general effect of the occurrence of the
article. Moreover, the occurrence of the article with all the words would seem not natural to the
reader as in the normal language pattern arthrous and anarthrous words alternate. The author,
who was conscious of the natural language uses, chose to omit the article in a few instances.
16
An_78.indb 46 21/06/11 15:37

and builds a precise picture of it. The frequent occurrence of the article signals
to the reader that he should be familiar with the references in this world and
that he should be able to identify them.43 The use of the article helps to portray
this specific world and time as a unified and tangible reality.
In conclusion, the author of the book of Qoheleth is aware of the textual ef-
fects of the article. He uses it appropriately to organize his discourse into sin-
gle parts of information and to build and convey his own perspective.
Non-use of the article before the nota accusativi
In seven instances Qoheleth uses the nota accusativi ‫ ֵאת‬before an anarthrous

word. In four of them (4,4; 8,9; 9,1; 12,14) the article is not used with a word
that follows the syntagma ‫ת־כּל‬ָ ‫ ֶא‬. These occurrences are not as problematic as
they may seem since this syntactic option is well attested elsewhere in the He-
brew Bible (Gen 1,21.29.30; 8,21; 39,23; 41,48; Lev 4,35; 11,15; Num 3,42;
Deut 2,34; Josh 10,39; 2 Sam 6,1; 2 Kgs 25,9; Jer 25,23; 47,4; Ezek 27,5; Job
41,26; Est 2,3; 8,11; 9,29). Moreover, the word ‫ ָכּל‬implies determination when
the article does not occur because of its semantics. Indeed, the word ‫ ָכּל‬expres-
ses inclusiveness and in this function it overlaps with the article.44 This is why
the noun ‫ ָכּל‬implies a certain determination and is treated like a determinate
noun.45 In 7,14 the nota accusativi occurs before the demonstrative pronoun ‫זֶ ה‬.
This case also poses no great difficulty since demonstratives are inherently de-
finite and hence the “rule” (or rather our expectation) of the use of the nota ac-
cusativi before a determinate object is not violated.46 One should observe that
in three of the seven problematic cases (8,9; 9,1; 12,14) the nota accusativi is
employed before the syntagma ‫ ָכּל זֶ ה‬. Therefore, the two explanations provided
above concur in these cases to account for the use of the nota accusativi.
The use of ‫ ֵאת‬with an indeterminate noun in 3,15 and 7,7 does not pose an
insurmountable difficulty, as the nota accusativi may be used in the Hebrew
Bible to indicate clearly the object also with indeterminate nouns (Ex 21,28;
Lev 26,5; Num 21,9; Is 10,2; 41,7; 50,4; 64,4).47 One wonders, of course, why
in these two instances the author did not use the article. The reason is the gene-
ric nature of the statements in which these direct objects occur. In 3,15 ‫ֶאת־נִ ְר ָדּף‬
43
LYONS, Definiteness, 5-6: “The idea is that the use of the definite article directs the hearer
to the referent of the noun phrase by signaling that he is in a position to identify it.”
44
LYONS, Definiteness, 32.148.
45
JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 125 h.
46
LYONS, Definiteness, 107; JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 125 g.
47
JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 125 h. For a possible occurrence of ‫ ֵאת‬before an indeterminate noun
in Epigraphic Hebrew see DAVIES, Use, 19-20.
17
An_78.indb 47 21/06/11 15:37

refers to “whatever is pursued” in contrast to the arthrous ‫ת־הנִּ ְר ָדּף‬

ַ ‫“ ֵא‬the one
who is pursued.” Similarly, in 7,7 the article and the nota accusativi are used
in order to disambiguate the syntactic roles of the nouns in the generic state-
ment. In the first stych the article clearly marks the subject while in the second
stych the nota accusativi indicates the direct object. It is clear that in both ca-
ses the author wants to maintain the broad scope of his statement, and this ex-
plains apparent inconsistencies.
In conclusion, the non-use of the article with the words that follow the nota
accusativi poses no problems, if other similar examples in the Hebrew Bible
are considered. The use of ‫ ֵאת‬before an indeterminate noun is an example of
how Qoheleth explores all syntactic possibilities available in Biblical Hebrew
and cannot be considered erroneous.
Conclusions
It is true that the use and non-use of the article in the book of Qoheleth may be
perplexing at first sight. It was not my goal to treat exhaustively all possible
exceptions and discrepancies. My intent was rather to show that careful consi-
deration of these cases leads to discovery of possible explanations that are va-
lid for single instances. This method of investigating the article is necessary
because its use is highly contextual. Moreover, the article is a powerful tool in
advancing discourse and thought. Indeed, it serves as a means of organizing
information and it contributes to building a specific perspective in which the
author perceives reality. All these suggest that one should try to understand the
nuances of the meaning that the use or non-use of the article may produce and
judge problematic cases in the light of these nuances. In this way one finds that
the article in the book of Qoheleth is used not in a chaotic or erratic manner
but is employed meaningfully in order to convey the intricacies of the author’s
message. The use of the article is only a small detail of the peculiar style and
vocabulary characteristic of the author of this formidable book. Nevertheless,
these details confirm the characterization of Qoheleth as one of the first great
Jewish thinkers made by Robert GORDIS48 already a half century ago:
In any age Qoheleth would be an outstanding figure and his style would natural-
ly mirror this characteristic difference. Moreover, his task was further complica-
ted by the fact that he was a pioneer in the use of the Hebrew for quasi-philoso-
phic purposes, a use to which the language had not been previously applied. A
thousand years later, medieval translators like the Tibbonides, who rendered
Saadiah, Maimonides, Judah Halevi and other Jewish philosophers into Hebrew,
48
GORDIS, Qoheleth and Qumran, 407.
18
An_78.indb 48 21/06/11 15:37

still found that the language had not yet fully developed the flexibility, precision
and vocabulary necessary for the treatment of philosophic themes. As a linguis-
tic pioneer in this use of the language, Qoheleth found no models in Hebrew lit-
erature to imitate, no earlier texts that would lead him to classicize or archaize
his style. He wrote as he thought.
Krzysztof J. Baranowski, ofm

University of Toronto
Bibliography
A9ITUV Sh. (trans. A. F. RAINEY), Echoes From the Past: Hebrew and Cognate
Inscriptions From the Biblical Period, Jerusalem 2008.
AJDUKIEWICZ K., Pragmatic Logic (Synthese Library 62), Dordrecht - Boston -
Warsaw 1974.
AVIGAD N. - SASS B., Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, Jerusalem 1997.
AVISHUR Y. - HELTZER M., Studies on the Royal Administration in Ancient Israel
in the Light of Epigraphic Sources, Tel Aviv-Jaffa 2000.
BARR J., “ ‘Determination’ and the Definite Article in Biblical Hebrew”, JSS 34
(1989) 307-335.
CHESTERMAN A., On Definiteness: A Study with Special Reference to English
and Finnish (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics), Cambridge 1991.
CROATTO J. S., “L’article hébreu et les particules emphatiques dans le sémitique
de l’Ouest”, Archiv Orientální 39 (1971) 389-400.
DAHOOD M. J., “Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth”, Biblica 33
(1952) 30-52, 191-221.
DAVIES G. I., Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: Volume 2: Corpus and Concor-
dance, Cambridge 2004.
DAVIES G. I, “The Use and Non-use of the Particle ˀet in Hebrew Inscriptions”,
in JONGELING K. et al. (ed.), Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic Syntax Presen-
ted to Professor J. Hoftijzer on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday,
Leiden et al. 1991, 14-26.
DELSMAN W. C., “Zur Sprache des Buches Koheleth”, in W. C. DELSMAN et al.
(ed.), Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J. P. M. van
der Ploeg O. P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli
1979 (AOAT 211), Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, 341-365.
DOBBS-ALLSOPP F. W. et al., Hebrew Inscriptions: Texts from the Biblical Peri-
od of the Monarchy with Concordance, New Haven - London 2005.
FIRMAGE E., “The Definite Article in Phoenician”, Maarav 9 (2002) 33-53.
49
An_78.indb 49 21/06/11 15:37

GOGEL S. L., A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew (Society of Biblical Literature.

Resources for Biblical Study 23), Atlanta 1998.
GOLDENBERG E., “Hebrew Language, Medieval”, in M. BERENBAUM - F. SKOLNIK
(ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica 8, Detroit 2007, 650-671.
GORDIS R., “Qoheleth and Qumran - A Study of Style”, Biblica 41 (1960)
395-410.
GZELLA H., “Die Entstehung des Artikels im Semitischen: Eine ‘phönizische’
Perspektive”, JSS 51 (2006) 1-18.
ISAKSSON B., Studies in the Language of Qoheleth: With Special Emphasis on
the Verbal System (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsali-
ensia 10), Uppsala 1987.
JOÜON P. - MURAOKA T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27),
Roma 22006.
KOSESKA-TOSZEWA V. - GARGOV G., The Semantic Category of Definiteness/In-
definiteness in Bulgarian and Polish (Prace Slawistyczne), Warszawa
1991.
LEMAIRE, A. “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Millennium B.C.E. in the Light
of Epigraphic Evidence (Socio-Historical Aspects)”, in S. E. FASSBERG - A.
HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typologi-
cal and Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake, 2006.
LYONS C., Definiteness (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge
1999.
MILLER C. L., “Definiteness and the Vocative in Biblical Hebrew”, JNWSL 36
(2010) 43-64.
MÜLLER, A. R., “Zu den Artikelfunktionen im Hebräischen”, in W. GROSS - H.
IRSIGLER - T. SEIDL (ed.), Text, Methode und Grammatik: Wolfgang Richter
zum 65. Geburtstag, St. Ottilien 1991.
V. PEURSEN, W. Th., The Verbal System in the Hebrew Text of Ben Sira (Studies
in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 41), Leiden - Boston 2004.
SARFATTI G. B., “Hebrew Inscriptions of the First Temple Period - A Survey
and Some Linguistic Comments”, Maarav 3 (1982) 55-83.
SCHOORS A., The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Lan-
guage of Qoheleth (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 41), Leuven 1992
(quoted as SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. I).
SCHOORS A., The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words: A Study of the Lan-
guage of Qoheleth: Vocabulary (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 143),
Leuven - Paris - Dudley 2004 (quoted as SCHOORS, Preacher, vol. II).
SCHORCH S., “Determination and the Use of the Definite Article in the Samari-
tan and in the Masoretic Text of the Torah”, JSS 48 (2003) 287-320.
SCHÜLE A., Die Syntax der althebräischen Inschriften: Ein Beitrag zur histori-
schen Grammatik des Hebräischen (AOAT 270), Münster 2000.
20
An_78.indb 50 21/06/11 15:37

SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER L., Kohelet (Herders Theologischer Kommentar

zum Alten Testament), Freiburg - Basel - Wien 2004.
SEGERT S., A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic, München 1976.
SIVAN D., “On the Grammar and Orthography of the Ammonite Findings”, UF
14 (1982) 219-234.
YUN I.-S. A., “The Transjordanian Languages During the Iron Age II”, UF 37
(2005) 741-766.
ZADOK R., The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponymy and Prosopography
(Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 28), Leuven 1988.
ZIMMERMANN F., “The Aramaic Provenance of Qoheleth”, The Jewish Quarterly
Review, New Series 36 (1945) 17-45.
21
An_78.indb 51 21/06/11 15:37

An_78.indb 52 21/06/11 15:37
Rüdiger Bartelmus
!"! (!#!): Sein oder werden? Sein und werden!

Ein hebräisches (aramäisches) Allerweltswort
und das Phänomen des lebenslangen Lernens
Mancher Leser, vielleicht auch der Jubilar, dürfte sich schon bei der Lektüre
des Inhaltsverzeichnisses dieses Bandes verwundert die Augen gerieben ha-
ben. Wie ist es möglich, dass in der Liste der Beiträger zur Festschrift für Al-
viero NICCACCI der Name eines Autors erscheint, dessen Stellungnahmen zu äl-
teren Arbeiten des Jubilars mit dem Adjektiv „unfreundlich“ zu qualifizieren
eine Verharmlosung darstellen würde? Indes: „Tempora mutantur et nos mu-
tamur in illis“. Diese Binsenweisheit gilt nicht nur für Alviero NICCACCI, der in
einer seiner neueren Veröffentlichungen freimütig zugestanden hat, jahrelang
von einem Vorurteil betreffs der temporellen Funktion der hebräischen Verbal-
formen ausgegangen zu sein, das er nunmehr als einen Irrweg erkannt habe1.
Sie gilt ebenso für den Autor dieses Beitrags, den der Auftrag, für das ThWQ
den Artikel zu hyh (hwh) zu schreiben, dazu gebracht hat, ein von ihm ver-
meintlich bereits abschließend geklärtes wissenschaftliches Problem neu zu
durchdenken. Hatte er in seiner Studie zu hyh den Umstand, dass es auch eine
ganze Reihe von Belegen gibt, in denen hyh im nifal erscheint, noch recht un-
bedarft damit erklärt, dass in der Spätzeit unter dem Einfluss des Aramäischen
eben manches möglich wurde, was in der „klassischen“ Phase undenkbar ge-
wesen wäre, und zudem praktisch die Möglichkeit ausgeschlossen, dass ein
Hebräer das Partizip qal von hyh anders als in der Nebenfunktion zum Aus-
druck des „futurum instans“ gebraucht haben könne2, fielen ihm bei der Durch-
sicht der Qumran-Belege der Wurzel hyh plötzlich Schuppen von den Augen,
1
Vgl. NICCACCI, System, 247. Die nach der grundsätzlichen Distanzierung von früheren Po-
sitionen gebotene Tabelle zu den „functions of the verbal system“ (248) zeigt überdeutlich, wie
weit sich Kollege NICCACCI inzwischen von seinen früher vertretenen Extrempositionen distan-
ziert und der in den siebziger Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts im Münchener Kreis ent-
wickelten Sicht des hebräischen Verbalsystems angenähert hat. (Der Umstand, dass die Schüler
von A. DENZ und W. RICHTER nicht in allen Punkten identische Positionen vertreten, muss hier
nicht ausführlich diskutiert werden – es geht um den gemeinsamen methodischen Ansatz).
2
Vgl. BARTELMUS, HYH, 170, Anm. 177 bzw. S. 89.
53
An_78.indb 53 21/06/11 15:37

54 hyh ¿hwhÀ: Sein oder werden? Sein und werden!
deren Vorhandensein er vorher schlicht geleugnet hätte3: Die exorbitante pro-

zentuale Steigerung der Belege für eine Verwendung des nifal und des Parti-
zips qal von hyh, die in den Qumran-Texten (im Vergleich mit dem AT) wahr-
nehmbar ist, hat nichts mit aramäischem Spracheinfluss zu tun4 und stellt auch
keinen Systembruch dar. Dass das nifal von hyh (wie auch das Partizip qal) in
Qumran häufiger vorkommt als im AT erklärt sich vielmehr aus der Begeg-
nung mit dem griechischen bzw. hellenistischen philosophischen Denken5. An-
ders als die Mehrheit der Juden, die um die Zeitenwende entweder aramäisch
oder griechisch bzw. lateinisch sprach – z. T. auch schon mittelhebräisch –,
hielt man in extrem konservativ orientierten Gruppen innerhalb der Qumran-
Gemeinschaft am alten Hebräisch fest, freilich ohne sich deshalb der Möglich-
keit zu begeben, am aktuellen Diskurs teilzuhaben: Um bestimmte philosophi-
sche Denkfiguren, denen die Bevölkerung von Palästina bis dahin nicht oder
nur ganz am Rande begegnet war, in der eigenen Sprache ausdrücken zu kön-
nen, musste man keineswegs neue Worte (oder gar eine gänzlich neue Spra-
che) erfinden – man aktivierte vielmehr bis dahin ungenutzte, im eigenen
Sprachsystem aber von Haus aus angelegte Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten, um Ant-
worten auf zeitspezifische Fragestellungen zu formulieren bzw. um letztere ins
Gespräch mit den alten Glaubenswahrheiten bringen zu können.
Im folgenden soll die damit nur angedeutete neue, erweiterte Sicht auf hyh
anhand von Beispielen ausführlicher dargestellt werden6. Dass dabei wieder-
holt auch aramäische Texte angesprochen werden, in denen natürlich hwh an-
stelle von hyh erscheint, ist dem Umstand geschuldet, dass das Corpus der
Qumran-Bibliothek nun einmal mehr aramäische Texte enthält als das AT und
dass man davon ausgehen kann, dass die semantisch nahezu gleichwertigen
Wurzeln in unmittelbar vergleichbarer Weise gebraucht wurden7. Eine Aus-
nahme hinsichtlich der Vergleichbarkeit bildet naturgemäß die Verwendung
der Wurzel im nifal, da diese Form der Stammbildung im aramäischen System
fehlt. – Gerne widme ich diese Überlegungen dem Kollegen NICCACCI, mit dem
mich augenscheinlich nicht nur eine Leidenschaft für das alte Hebräisch und
die Überzeugung verbindet, dass Paulus recht hat, wenn er unser Wissen als
3
Unbeschadet seiner gut begründeten massiven Distanzierung von dem seinerzeit noch von
vielen für wegweisend gehaltenen Opus von BOMAN, Das hebräische Denken (1952), war der Vf.
damals offenbar zumindest latent immer noch von den Gedanken BOMANS beeinflusst.
4
Im Aramäischen fehlt diese Stammesmodifikation ja ohnehin!
5
Diese Möglichkeit hatte der Vf. seinerzeit zwar bereits „angedacht“, aber nicht weiter ver-
folgt; vgl. dazu BARTELMUS, HYH, 170, Anm. 177.
6
Dass sich dabei inhaltliche Überschneidungen mit dem erwähnten, bisher freilich noch
nicht erschienenen Lexikon-Artikel ergeben, ist naheliegend; ich hoffe, der Jubilar nimmt daran
keinen Anstoß.
7
Unmittelbare Angleichungen lassen sich v. a. im Bereich der Orthographie nachweisen.
23
An_78.indb 54 21/06/11 15:37

Rüdiger Bartelmus 55
„Stückwerk“ qualifiziert (1 Kor 13,9), sondern neuerdings auch die Anerken-

nung der Tatsache, dass „different verbal forms need play different func-
tions“8.
I.
Die oben angesprochene auffällige Häufung von Belegen für eine Verwendung
des nifal und des Partizips qal von hyh in den Qumran-Texten anhand einer
sauber gearbeiteten Statistik bis in Zehntel-Prozente hinein einigermaßen ex-
akt aufzuweisen, ist im Falle der Qumran-Texte – anders als im AT9 – schlicht
nicht möglich: Weit mehr als 10 % aller in den Konkordanzen aufgelisteten
Belege für die Wurzel stammen aus Ein- bzw. Zweiwort-Fragmenten, die z. T.
von den Editoren um Buchstaben ergänzt worden sind, die im Original fehlen,
also aus Text-(Re-)Konstruktionen, und können somit nicht als sichere Belege
gelten. Zieht man dann noch in Betracht, dass bei Verwendung einer reinen
Konsonantenschrift selbst in komplett überlieferten Texteinheiten, wo durch
den Kontext einige im Prinzip mögliche Lesungen polyvalenter Buchstaben-
kombinationen oft ausgeschlossen sind, nicht immer eindeutig geklärt werden
kann, welche Formen/Lexeme der Autor „gemeint“ hat, wird vollends deut-
lich, dass man nur von Näherungswerten aus argumentieren kann: Wer – außer
fundamentalistische Verfechter der Authentizität der masoretischen Vokalisa-
tion – wollte sich etwa im Falle von Jer 7,3 anmaßen, mit hundertprozentiger
Sicherheit sagen zu können, ob die Lesung der Masoreten oder die im Apparat
von BHS gebotene alternative Lesung der Intention des Autors der Tempelre-
de entspricht10? Wenn im folgenden unbeschadet dieser Relativierung mit Pro-
zentzahlen argumentiert wird, ist das dem Bedürfnis nach Veranschaulichung
geschuldet – „sichere“ Ergebnisse im Sinne naturwissenschaftliche Exaktheit
sind im philologischen Bereich nun einmal nicht zu erzielen11.
8
NICCACCI, System, 247.
9
Vgl. dazu BARTELMUS, HYH, 80-89. Anspruch auf Exaktheit im naturwissenschaftlichen
Sinn erheben die dort gebotenen statistischen Ausführungen freilich nicht.
10
Bezieht man den Kontext ein, in dem darauf verwiesen wird, dass Jahwe einst auch Silo
verlassen hat, spricht eigentlich mehr für die Lesung im Apparat, die u. a. von der Vulgata ge-
stützt wird. Mir scheint es freilich am wahrscheinlichsten, dass der Autor die Polyvalenz der
Buchstabenfolge Mkt) hnk#)w nicht nur „billigend in Kauf genommen“, sondern bewusst einge-
setzt hat: Wenn Jahwe eine Stadt verlässt, verlieren die Bewohner seinen Schutz und können
dort nicht weiter leben. Mit den durch das Schriftsystem ermöglichten Ambivalenzen zu „spie-
len“, ist für Autoren im semitischen Kulturkreis eine Selbstverständlichkeit – dies nicht nur im
Bereich der (erotischen) Poesie, sondern auch und gerade in theologischem Kontext. Gute Theo-
logen wissen: Eindeutige Aussagen über Gott zu machen, hieße die Freiheit Gottes nicht ernst
zu nehmen.
11
Leser, denen diese Ausführungen zu oberflächlich erscheinen, mögen den einschlägigen
Passus im ThWQ zu Rate ziehen (BARTELMUS, hājāh). Dort finden sich auch Ausführungen zu
24
An_78.indb 55 21/06/11 15:37

II.
Die Menge der Qumran-Belege deutet darauf hin, dass die Wurzeln hyh / hwh
auch in Qumran die Rolle eines „Allerweltswortes“ beibehalten haben, mit
dem Aussagen über Sachverhalte verzeitet werden, die beim Zeitbezug Gleich-
zeitigkeit/Gegenwart ohne verbales Element in Form von Nominalsätzen aus-
gedrückt werden12. Diese naheliegende erste Folgerung aus dem Blick in die
Konkordanzen wird durch die Verwendung der beiden Lexeme in den Texten
nicht nur bestätigt, es zeigt sich vielmehr, dass sich das hebräische hyh – aller
Wahrscheinlichkeit nach unter dem Einfluss des aramäischen syntaktischen
Systems13 – offenbar immer stärker in Richtung auf ein Hilfszeitwort hin ent-
wickelt hat, was das (biblisch-) aramäische hwh schon war (a). – Dass auf der
anderen Seite – dies offenbar unter dem Einfluss der hellenistischen Umwelt –
eine Art Gegenbewegung in Richtung auf eine Verwendung der Wurzel als
Vollverb stattgefunden hat, ist freilich ebenso festzustellen. Von da aus wurde
es möglich, theologisch-philosophische Gedanken über „Sein“ und „Werden“
bzw. über „das Seiende“ und das „Werdende“ (“sich Anbahnende“)/„Gewor-
dene“ zu artikulieren (b).
a) Am deutlichsten lässt sich die Tendenz, hyh als bloßes Funktionswort zu
verwenden, anhand der in Qumran breit belegten periphrastischen Fügung hyh
qotel belegen, also der Kombination einer finiten Form von hyh mit dem Parti-
zip aktiv eines beliebigen Verbs. Sie kommt zwar bereits im AT vor, spielt
dort aber in den älteren Texten allenfalls eine Nebenrolle, um dann in der
Spätzeit immer häufiger gebraucht zu werden: Gesamthaft gesehen repräsen-
tieren nur rund 4,7 % aller alttestamentlichen Belege von hyh dieses Phä-
nomen. Rund ein Drittel davon findet sich auffälligerweise in sicher nachexili-
schen Textkomplexen. Zieht man – ausgehend von dieser Wahrnehmung –
nicht nur die von der Tradition als nachexilisch ausgewiesenen biblischen Bü-
cher in Betracht, sondern berücksichtigt auch die unstrittigen Erkenntnisse der
redaktionsgeschichtlichen Forschung, steigt die Zahl der nachexilischen Bele-
ge für diese Fügung auf weit mehr als die Hälfte14.
Unterzieht man darüber hinaus die Vorkommen der Fügung hyh qotel im
hebräischen Teil des AT einer genaueren Analyse, kann jedenfalls für die äl-
den verschiedenen Lesemöglichkeiten der einschlägigen Buchstabenkombinationen. Eine Fest-

schrift ist nach Meinung des Vf.s nicht der angemessene Ort für aufwändige Ausführungen zu
Fragen der Statistik.
12
Vgl. dazu BARTELMUS, HYH, passim.
13
Diesen Hinweis auf aramäischen Spracheinfluss wird der Vf. – im Gegensatz zu dem
oben bei Anm. 4 erwähnten – voraussichtlich nicht zurücknehmen müssen. – Anders argumen-
tiert übrigens V. PEURSEN, Periphrastic Tenses, 158.162.
14
Bei hwh liegen die Dinge etwas anders, zumal die einschlägigen Texte unzweifelhaft spät
sind: Fast drei Viertel aller Belege von hwh im aramäischen Teil des AT repräsentieren die Fü-
gung hwh qatel.
25
An_78.indb 56 21/06/11 15:37

teren Texte die Feststellung getroffen werden, dass sie dort auf Fälle be-
schränkt ist, in denen dem Autor des jeweiligen Textes daran lag, die Dauer
der angesprochenen Handlung zu betonen15. Dementsprechend geht es bei
71,7 % der Belege um Handlungen, die in der Vergangenheit stattgefunden ha-
ben, also um Ereignisse, bei denen die Information darüber, ob ein Sachverhalt
schnell abgeschlossen war oder aber einige Zeit in Anspruch genommen hat,
für den Leser bzw. Schreiber relevant war (ist). Warum umgekehrt immerhin
bei knapp einem Drittel der Belege ein Zukunftsbezug gegeben ist, ist weniger
leicht nachzuvollziehen: Die Frage der Dauer einer Handlung in der Zukunft
kann ja sinnvoller Weise eigentlich nur in Gottesreden eine Rolle spielen – nur
in seltenen Fällen reflektieren Menschen darüber, wie lange eine zukünfti-
ge Handlung dauern bzw. ob sie einen längeren Zeitraum in Anspruch neh-
men wird.
Ganz anders stellen sich die Dinge in den Qumrantexten dar: Hier scheint
ab einer bestimmten Zeit die periphrastische Formulierung die einfache Dar-
stellung von Sachverhalten mit finiten Verbformen zwar nicht gänzlich ver-
drängt, aber doch in den Hintergrund gedrängt zu haben. In der Tempelrolle
etwa erscheint in knapp einem Drittel aller Belegstellen für hyh die Fügung
hyh qotel, und dies – entsprechend dem präskriptiven Charakter dieser Schrift
wenig überraschend – ausschließlich unter Verwendung von Formen aus dem
Spektrum Imperfekt/Jussiv bzw. w-Perfekt. Dass hier hyh praktisch überall als
bloßer „time indicator“ fungiert, (d. h. dass die Dauer des mit dem folgenden
Partizip angesprochenen Vorgangs keine Rolle spielt), lässt sich exemplarisch
anhand von 11QT 34,7 verdeutlichen. Dort ist betreffs der Priester die Anwei-
sung gegeben: Myxbw+ wyhy bzw. Mysnwk wyhyw – es geht um die Schlachtung von
Jungstieren und die dann folgende Blutapplikation. Dass der Schreiber auf die
Dauer beider Handlungen abheben wollte, ist von der Sache her ausgeschlos-
sen: Zumindest die Schächtung muss ja blitzschnell mit einem einzigen Schnitt
erfolgen. Nicht viel anders liegen die Dinge in 11QT 31,7, wo es um die Be-
schreibung des Ortes geht, an dem man gewöhnlich in das Obergeschoss
des Tempelhauses eintritt (My)b wyhy r#)16) – beim Weg ins Heiligtum trödelt
man nicht!
Auch in 1QM, der Kriegsrolle, lässt sich eine gehäufte Anwendung der Fü-
gung wahrnehmen (wieder v. a. in präskriptiven Sätzen); hier liegt die Menge
der Belege aber deutlich unter einem Drittel. Eher vereinzelt finden sich ent-
sprechende Fügungen auch in anderen Textkomplexen. Wie weitgehend sich
die periphrastische Formulierung in dieser Zeit im Alltag durchgesetzt hat,
kann aus den Murabbaˁat-Verträgen entnommen werden. Dort, wo es um die
15
Vgl. BARTELMUS, HYH, 206 mit Anm. 7.8, bzw. V. PEURSEN, Periphrastic Tenses, 158f.
16
Die PK von hyh ist hier in Nebenfunktion zum Ausdruck des generellen Sachverhalts
verwendet.
26
An_78.indb 57 21/06/11 15:37

Zahlungsmodalitäten geht, verwendet der Schreiber die Fügung hyh qotel17 –

dass auf die Dauer des Zahlungsvorgangs analog Ratenzahlungen im moder-
nen Sinne abgehoben sein sollte, ist auszuschließen. Umgekehrt ist festzustel-
len, dass dort, wo sich Schreiber darum bemüht haben, archaisierend im Stil
der biblischen Texte zu schreiben (so in CD, 1QS und 1QH), Belege für die
Fügung nur ganz vereinzelt zu finden sind.
Als Beispiel für die redundante Verwendung der periphrastischen For-
mulierung beim aramäischen Äquivalent hwh sei auf 1QGenAp verwiesen.
Mehr als die Hälfte aller Belege von hwh repräsentieren hier den Fügungstyp
hwh qatel. Wie selbstverständlich aramäisch sprechende bzw. schreibende An-
gehörige der Qumran-Gemeinschaft nicht mehr die „einfachen“ Verbformen
gebrauchten, sondern eine Formulierung des Typs hwh qatel bevorzugten, lässt
sich anhand des Vergleichs eines in 1QGenAp „nacherzählten“ Textes aus der
Genesis mit dem ursprünglichen Text erschließen. So ist aus dem knappen
Mkyw („er schlug sie“) in dem Bericht von Abrahams Sieg über die vereinten
Truppen der Ostkönige (Gen 14,15) in 1QGenAp 22,8 ein Nwhb l+q )wwhw ge-
worden. Die Annahme, in solchen Fällen sei mit dem Gebrauch der periphras-
tischen Fügung die Konnotation der Dauer verbunden, kann mit hoher Wahr-
scheinlichkeit ausgeschlossen werden. Andernfalls müsste man die Verwen-
dung der Fügung in Fällen wie 1QGenAp 21,7 bzw. 22,1.2.9 als hypertrophen
Sprachgebrauch einstufen: Dort sind nämlich Verben mit hwh verbunden, die
von Haus aus einen länger dauernden Vorgang bezeichnen, nämlich bty bzw.
Pdr („wohnen“/„bleiben“ bzw. „verfolgen“) : Die periphrastische Fügung
18
(w)hwh qatel ist in dieser Zeit offenbar Standard in der aramäischen Erzählkul-
tur – nicht viel anders als in (alt-)hebräischen Erzählungen bevorzugt wayyiq-
tol verwendet wird.
Immerhin: Dort, wo im Zusammenhang mit Traumerzählungen bzw. Visio-
nen die Fügung tywh )zx erscheint19, könnte man darüber spekulieren, ob
durch diesen Fügungstypus evtl. darauf angespielt sein könnte, dass es sich
nicht um eine bloße kurze Wahrnehmung gehandelt hat, sondern um eine län-
gere „Schau“. Zieht man zum Vergleich das Danielbuch heran, wird diese
Denk-Möglichkeit indes relativiert, denn dort wird – etwa in Dan 2,26ff20 – die
Fügung promiscue mit finiten Formen des Verbums )zx gebraucht, ohne dass
17
Mur24 B,15; C,13; E,11.
18
Eine relative Häufung des Fügungstyps taucht übrigens auch in den Fragmenten
4Q529-537 auf, die midraschartige Fortschreibungen von Gen 6 beinhalten (= 4QEnGiants); es
handelt sich um Bestandteile der Henoch-Literatur.
19
„Ich sah“; so etwa 4Q206 4,I,18; vgl. auch 1QGenAp 23,9.10.11 bzw. 4Q530 2,II,6.9.
Die Abfolge der beiden Lexeme variiert.
20
Anders als in den oben (Anm. 19) erwähnten Texten erscheint hwh hier nicht in der 1.,
sondern in der 2. Pers.
58
An_78.indb 58 21/06/11 15:37

unterschiedliche Bedeutungsnuancen zwischen den beiden Ausdrucksweisen

feststellbar wären.
b) Was den Bedeutungszuwachs der Wurzel in Richtung auf ein Vollverb
betrifft, ist dieser auf die hebräische Wurzel hyh21 beschränkt. Als „primum
movens“ kann man mit guten Gründen den Umstand vermuten, dass von hyh
schon in alttestamentlicher Zeit eine Reihe von nifal-Bildungen belegt ist – ei-
ne Form der Stammbildung, die auf der einen Seite bei einem Zustandsverb
auf den ersten Blick hin überrascht (jedenfalls wenn man gewohnt ist, das nifal
vereinfachend als Passivum bzw. Reflexivum zu sehen22), und die auf der an-
deren Seite beim aramäischen hwh schon allein deshalb nicht vorkommen
kann, weil das Aramäische diesen Stamm, dessen Funktion man mit dem von
E. JENNI vorgeschlagenen Stichwort „Manifestativ“ angemessen umschreiben
kann23, überhaupt nicht kennt. Dem Stamm nifal, der prinzipiell von jedem
Verb gebildet werden kann, eignet – wie E. JENNI überzeugend dargelegt hat –
die Funktion, „das Geschehen eines Vorgangs oder einer Handlung am Subjekt
selber ohne Rücksicht auf die Art oder den Grad der Mitwirkung dieses Sub-
jekts an diesem Geschehen“ zu beschreiben24. Wendet man diese Beschreibung
mutatis mutandis auf das nifal von hyh an, ist es gleichsam dazu prädestiniert,
in Opposition zum statisch konnotierten hyh qal das Phänomen des Eintretens,
(Manifest-)Werdens, Geschehens lexikalisch auszudrücken, das bei der Ver-
wendung von hyh qal gewissermaßen „unterschlagen“ wird: Ein Satz wie
br( yhyw (Gen 1,5) drückt nun einmal – streng genommen – nur aus, dass der
Zustand des Abend-Seins eingetreten ist: „dann war es Abend“. Wie es dazu
gekommen ist, dass der Abend da war, ob der Vorgang ein prozesshaftes Ge-
schehen war bzw. was gegebenenfalls alles abgelaufen ist, bis der mit dem
Satz markierte (End-)Zustand erreicht war, ist für den Schreiber ohne Interesse
und deshalb auch nicht ausgedrückt. Wenn alttestamentliche Autoren diese se-
mantische Nuance einmal hervorheben wollten, griffen sie zu periphrastischen
Fügungen wie etwa halok weqatol25. Ein Lexem-Paar, das – analog den griechi-
schen Verben εἶναι und γίγνεσθαι – die Opposition Sein vs. Werden zum Aus-
druck bringt, kennt das AT jedenfalls nicht; es wurde in älterer Zeit wohl auch
nicht vermisst. Als „Lücke“ im Sprachsystem wurde dieser Umstand in der jü-
dischen Sprachgemeinschaft offenbar erst empfunden, als man im hellenisti-
schen Zeitalter mit philosophischem Gedankengut konfrontiert wurde. Durch
eine bewusste Differenzierung zwischen hyh qal und nifal konnte die Lücke
indes unschwer geschlossen werden.
21
Sie erscheint freilich auch in der ans Aramäische angeglichenen Form hwh.
22
Vgl. dazu unten Anm. 59.
23
Vgl. JENNI, Funktion, und JENNI, Aktionsarten, bes. 70f.
24
JENNI, Funktion, 63; vgl. aber auch JENNI, Präposition Beth, 101.
25
Vgl. z. B. Gen 8,3.5.
28
An_78.indb 59 21/06/11 15:37

Worauf es bei diesem differenzierenden Gebrauch von hyh ankommt, lässt

sich gut erkennen, wenn man nachvollzieht, wie hyh nifal bereits im AT, in
Dan 12,1, in konsequenter Opposition zu hyh qal gebraucht ist: Nach der An-
kündigung, dass eine Zeit der Not sein wird (hyh qal – w-Perfekt), ist dort ein
erklärender Relativsatz eingeschoben. In ihm ist ausgeführt, dass eine solche
Not noch nie eingetreten ist (hyh nifal – Perfekt), seit es Menschen gibt (hyh
qal – Infinitiv). Auf der Basis der damit klar ausformulierten Opposition hat
sich in Qumran dann ein vermehrter (und stark philosophisch konnotierter)
Gebrauch von hyh nifal durchgesetzt: Machen im AT die Belege für hyh nifal
gerade einmal 0,6 % aller Belege der Wurzel aus26, haben sich die Relationen
in Qumran um den Faktor 15 verschoben: 9,3 % aller Belege von hyh stehen
hier für das nifal, und mehr als die Hälfte von ihnen sind Partizipien: Das Phä-
nomen des Werdens (Werdenden) bzw. Gewordenseins (Gewordenen) wird
nun offenbar bewusst reflektiert.
Analog dazu wurde in der Qumran-Gemeinschaft eine Möglichkeit ent-
wickelt, in Opposition dazu mit eigensprachlichen Mitteln das Phänomen des
Seienden zu reflektieren. Auch sie war im (alt-)hebräischen Sprachsystem
zwar im Prinzip schon immer vorhanden, aber sie war doch nie realisiert wor-
den: Im AT ist das Partizip qal von hyh zur Bezeichnung „des Seienden“ je-
denfalls nirgends belegt27. Das liegt zum einen darin begründet, dass die Wur-
zel in alttestamentlicher Zeit augenscheinlich als bloßer „Funktor“ ohne se-
mantischen Eigenwert verwendet wurde, um Sachverhalte mit einem „time in-
dicator“ zu versehen, die beim Zeitbezug Gleichzeitigkeit/Gegenwart ohne
jedes verbale Element in Form von Nominalsätzen ausgedrückt werden; auf
der anderen Seite manifestiert sich darin das Desinteresse des AT an philoso-
phisch-spekulativem Denken. Die Relation zwischen der Gesamtmenge aller
Qumran-Belege von hyh qal und denen für das Partizip ist hier zwar nicht so
auffällig wie im Falle des nifal (nur 2 % aller Belege sind Partizipien); berück-
sichtigt man freilich den Umstand, dass das Partizip von hyh – verwendet in
seiner Grundfunktion – im AT vollkommen fehlt, ist die Zunahme dennoch
exorbitant28.
Noch einmal etwas anders liegen die Dinge beim Infinitiv, also bei der
Form, mit der man „das Sein“ (im philosophischen Sinne) ausdrücken kann:
Sind im AT etwa 4,85 % aller Belege von hyh Infinitive, ist dieser Anteil in
26
Darunter findet sich mit Spr 13,19 nur ein – zudem unspezifisch gebrauchtes – Partizip!
27
Zum Spezialfall Ex 9,3 – einem Partizip in der Funktion des futurum instans – vgl. BAR-
TELMUS, HYH, 89.
28
Die beiden Belege für ein Partizip der Wurzel hwh in hebräischen Kontexten (Koh 2,22
und Neh 6,6) sind sicher nachexilisch und wohl aramäischem Spracheinfluss zu verdanken. Sie
können von daher hier vernachlässigt werden, dies umso mehr, als im Falle von Neh 6,6 das
Partizip ohnehin wohl in der Funktion des futurum instans gebraucht ist, der Beleg also als ein
Sonderfall wie Ex 9,3 einzustufen ist.
29
An_78.indb 60 21/06/11 15:37

Qumran nahezu um den Faktor 4 gesteigert: Hier sind ca. 16,4 % der Belege
Infinitive29. Auch wenn die Schreiber der Qumran-Texte bei ihrer Verwendung
der Form in den wenigsten Fällen an das „Sein“ im philosophischen Sinn ge-
dacht haben dürften, erlaubt diese statistisch relevante Verschiebung in der
Verteilungshäufigkeit der Formen den Schluss, dass man in Qumran hyh all-
mählich wie ein vollwertiges Verbum zu gebrauchen begann.
III.
Sieht man von der Zunahme der Belege für das nifal, den Infinitiv und das Par-
tizip bzw. für die periphrastische Fügung hyh qotel einmal ab, liegen keine sig-
nifikanten, jedenfalls keine theologisch relevanten Differenzen zwischen der
Verwendung der Wurzel hyh im AT und der in Qumran vor. Lediglich in der
Verteilungshäufigkeit der verschiedenen mit hyh „transformierten“ Nominal-
satztypen gibt es Unterschiede, was zweifellos damit zusammenhängt, dass in
Qumran andere Textgattungen dominieren als im AT. Und dementsprechend
unterscheiden sich die Korpora auch in der Verteilungshäufigkeit der Tempora
bzw. Modi, in denen die Wurzel hyh erscheint. Im AT halten sich die nachzei-
tig-futurisch konnotierten bzw. auslösenden Formen30 in etwa die Waage mit
den vorzeitig-darstellenden Formen31. In den hebräischen Texten aus Qumran
dominieren demgegenüber eindeutig die nachzeitig-futurisch konnotierten
bzw. auslösenden Formen (67,8 %)32. Am größten ist die Differenz im Falle
von wayyiqtol (AT: 28,7 % – Qumran: 6 %), was nicht nur dem Umstand ge-
schuldet ist, dass mehrere Texte bereits mittelhebräischen Sprachduktus auf-
weisen; es hängt vielmehr ganz offensichtlich damit zusammen, dass – abgese-
hen von Aufnahmen bzw. Fortschreibungen alttestamentlicher narrativer Tex-
te – keiner der in Qumran entdeckten hebräischen Texte dem Literatur-Typus
„Erzählung“ zugeordnet werden kann. Anders gewendet: Im hebräisch for-
mulierten Teil der Qumran-Literatur dominieren Texte mit präskriptiver Ten-
29
Im Blick auf den prozentualen Anteil der Belege, in denen der Infinitiv von hyh mit der
Präposition l gefügt ist, unterscheiden sich die Texte aus Qumran nur wenig von den alttes-
tamentlichen Texten. Da die Verwendung dieser finalen Konstruktion mit den hier diskutierten
Fragen indes kaum etwas zu tun hat, gehe ich auf dieses Spezialfall der Verwendung von hyh
hier nicht näher ein; einige Beispiele werden weiter unten diskutiert.
30
yiqtol, weqatal, qetol. Zählt man zu den auslösenden Formen den Infinitiv mit der Präposi-
tion l, ergibt sich ein kleines Plus im Blick auf diese Formen – zieht man allerdings die Fälle
ab, in denen yiqtol und weqatal in Nebenfunktion zum Ausdruck von generellen bzw. iterativen
Sachverhalten verwendet sind, liegt das Plus bei den vorzeitig-darstellenden Formen.
31
qatal, wayyiqtol.
32
Dieser auffällige Befund wird durch den Umstand, dass die Verwendung von yiqtol und
weqatal auch in Qumran noch gelegentlich in der oben (Anm. 30) erwähnten Nebenfunktion vor-
kommt, nur geringfügig relativiert.
30
An_78.indb 61 21/06/11 15:37

denz – diese seit langem bekannte Tatsache wird durch den Befund bei hyh
statistisch untermauert33.
Entsprechend dem geringen Anteil von Formen des Typs wayyiqtol fehlen
in den originären Qumran-Texten Belege für die Verwendung von yhyw als
Tempusmarker für die Vergangenheit34. Aber auch im Blick auf die Verwen-
dung von hyhw als Tempusmarker für die Zukunft resp. zur Einleitung von
Konditionalsätzen liegt die Menge der Belege prozentual weit unter der im
AT, ein deutliches Indiz für den Sprachwandel hin zum Mittelhebräischen.
Auch hier sind die wenigen eindeutigen Belege zumeist Zitate aus dem AT,
v. a. aus dem Dtn, so etwa 4Q175 6 und mehrere Stellen in 11QT 61; 62. Die
übrigen (z. B. 1QS 6,4 par. 4Q258 2,9; 4Q398 14-17,I,5) sind wohl als be-
wusste Angleichungen an die Sprache des Gesetzgebers Mose zu deuten, kön-
nen also nicht als repräsentativ für den Sprachgebrauch der Qumran-Gemeinde
gelten.
Was die verschiedenen Funktionen betrifft, die verblosen Nominalsätzen
im Hebräischen eignen und die in der Verzeitung durch hyh im AT mehr oder
minder breit belegt sind, d. h. die Funktionen Identifikation, Klassifikation,
Qualifikation und Existenzaussage, fällt auf, dass die erstgenannte in Qumran
so gut wie überhaupt nicht belegt ist – es sei denn man nimmt etwa im Falle
von 4Q251 14,2 den Artikel vor Mrx semantisch ernst und übersetzt: „And the
(nicht „a“) dedicated field shall be the holding of [the priest]“35. Allenfalls
könnte man noch CD 8,3 hier verorten, jedenfalls sofern man nicht mit J. MAI-
ER nach 4Q266 3,III,25 emendiert bzw. erweitert und stattdessen den ʾašær-
36
Satz in Anlehnung an E. LOHSE als Objektssatz auffasst: „Die Fürsten Judas

37
sind in den Zustand gekommen, dass du über sie den Zorn ausgießen wirst“.
Überraschend ist dieser Befund nicht, hält sich doch auch im AT die Zahl der
Belege für verzeitete Nominalsätze mit der Funktion „Identifikation“ in engen
Grenzen. Das hängt auf der einen Seite damit zusammen, dass Sätze dieses
Typs aufgrund ihrer semantischen Struktur eine Affinität zur Gegenwart auf-
weisen38; auf der anderen Seite hat dieser Befund damit zu tun, dass Textzu-
33
Anders liegen die Dinge im Bereich der aramäischen Texte, d. h. im Falle von hwh: Der
Bestand an Formen des Bildungstyps q(e)tal (mit und ohne w copulativum) ist hier etwas größer
als der bei den Formen mit auslösender bzw. nachzeitiger Funktion (q(e)tal/uqtal ca. 51 %;
yaqtul/q(e)tul ca. 48 %). Das dürfte daran liegen, dass die „Henoch-Literatur“ wie auch das Gene-
sis-Apokryphon – zusammen bilden diese beiden Komplexe einen gewichtigen Teil der aramä-
isch überlieferten Texte – narrativen Charakter aufweisen. Dass die darin integrierten direkten
Reden demgegenüber häufig auch Direktiven bzw. zukunftsbezogene Aussagen enthalten, steht
auf einem anderen Blatt, dürfte sich aber in jedem Fall auf die Menge der Formen mit auslösen-
der bzw. nachzeitiger Funktion ausgewirkt haben.
34
Der einzige diesbezügliche Beleg (4Q252 I,12) ist ein Zitat aus Gen 8,6.
35
Anders J. M. BAUMGARTEN in DJD XXXV z. St.
36
Vgl. MAIER, Qumran-Essener I, 19.
37
Vgl. LOHSE, Texte, 81.
38
Vgl. BARTELMUS, HYH, 117-120.
31
An_78.indb 62 21/06/11 15:37

sammenhänge wie Gen 9,18; 10,10; 36,11ff. etc., in denen es um die Identifi-
kation von Personen geht, in den hebräischen Texten von Qumran fehlen39.
Weit mehr Belege finden sich im Blick auf die übrigen o. g. Funktionen,
vor allem aber im Blick auf Sätze mit präpositionalen Fügungen. Als Beispiele
für die Funktion „Klassifikation“ seien vier Stellen mit unterschiedlichen Tem-
pus- bzw. Modus-Formen von hyh genannt. In 11QT 57,8 ist formuliert: „Alle
Ausgewählten, die er (sc. der König) auswählen wird, sollen zuverlässige
Männer (tm) y#n) wyhy) sein“. In 4Q398 14-17,II,1 – einem Fragment aus
Miqṣat maˁaśe ha-torah – heißt es demgegenüber mit präteritalem Bezug:
„Denke [an] David, der ein Gnadenmann war“40. In CD 6,16 erscheint eine mit
lihyot eingeleitete Fügung gleicher Funktion; es geht um Witwen, die (zur)
Beute (von Gottlosen) werden (könnten). Wenn schließlich in 1QSb 5,25f in
den Benediktionen für den Maskil formuliert ist: „Es wird sein Gerechtigkeit
der Gürtel [deiner Lenden]“, lässt sich daraus unschwer erschließen, dass der
Schreiber in der Sprache des AT quasi „zu Hause war“, wendet er doch ein Zi-
tat aus Jes 11,5 auf den Maskil an (wie er auch in der Folge mit Zitaten aus
dem AT spielt). Ein Unterschied gegenüber dem Sprachgebrauch im AT ist
auch bei anderen Sätzen mit der Funktion „Klassifikation“ nicht zu erkennen.
Analoges gilt auch für Sätze, in denen die Funktion „Qualifikation“ vor-
liegt, zumal im Hebräischen keine klare Grenze zwischen Substantiven und
Adjektiven gezogen werden kann41. Wenn in den Ermahnungen Miqṣat maˁaśe
ha-torah die Fügung M(y)rwh+ twyhl erscheint (so 4Q394 3-7,I,18 bzw. 4Q395
10), ist es letztlich nur eine Frage deutschen Stilempfindens, ob man übersetzt
„um rein zu sein“ oder aber „um Rei(n)e zu sein“42. Wenn demgegenüber in
11QT 47, wo über mehrere Zeilen hin das Thema „Reinheit“ diskutiert wird
(3-18), einmal das Substantiv hrh+ (10) in Verbindung mit hyh verwendet
wird, während sonst das Adjektiv rwh+ (4-7) Verwendung findet, geht es um
die Unterscheidung von abstrakt und konkret, nicht aber um die Unterschei-
dung von Substantiv und Adjektiv. Mutatis mutandis gilt das auch, wenn hier
#wdq neben #dqm erscheint: Unterschieden werden der heilige Ort und die
Qualität „heilig“, die durchaus Personen oder Sachen eignen kann; haben letz-
tere die Qualität „heilig“, sind sie „Heilige“/„Heiliges“.
Auch wenn sich die Menge der Belege für Existenzaussagen, die mit hyh
verzeitet sind, in Qumran und im AT prozentual nicht wesentlich unterschei-
39
Im aramäischen Genesis-Apokryphon dagegen gibt es dergleichen, so etwa wenn in
1QGenAp 12,10 von den Söhnen Sems die Rede ist oder wenn der Pharao feststellt, dass Sara,
die ihm als Schwester Abrahams vorgestellt worden war, in Wirklichkeit die Ehefrau Abrahams
ist (1QGenAp 20,27).
40
So MAIER, Qumran-Essener II, 375; ob die Wahl des Terminus „Gnadenmann“ für
Mydsx #y) allerdings im Kontext einer Belehrung über die Tora theologisch angemessen ist,
kann man mit guten Gründen bezweifeln – näher läge „ein [gesetzes-]treuer Mann“!
41
Vgl. BARTELMUS, HYH, 134.
42
So MAIER, Qumran-Essener II, 364 bzw. 367.
32
An_78.indb 63 21/06/11 15:37

det – hier gibt es dennoch einen gewissen Unterschied, und zwar im Blick auf
den Abstraktionsgrad. Das hat aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach mit dem erwähn-
ten und unten (IV.) ausführlicher diskutierten Phänomen zu tun, dass im Ge-
folge der Hellenisierung des Orients philosophisch-theologisches Nachdenken
über Sein und Werden, über das „Sein“ bzw. das „Seiende“, auch im Judentum
eine Rolle zu spielen begann und demzufolge auch in Qumran Einzug hielt.
Einen Satz wie CD 2,20: „sie wurden, als ob sie nie gewesen wären“43, findet
man im AT nur ganz am Rande in einer späten Schrift44. Und wenn (Pseudo-)
Ezechiel Jahwe die Frage stellt: hl) wyhy ytm „wann sollen diese Dinge ge-
schehen?“ (4Q385 6,9)45, gibt es dafür keine unmittelbare alttestamentliche
Parallele. Als weitere Beispiele erwähnt seien noch zwei, die ähnlich oder real
auch im AT belegt sind. So heißt es in 1QS 4,18: „Gott … hat einen Zeitraum
für den Bestand des Unrechts gegeben“46. Und in 11QT 61,3 findet sich die
konditionale Fügung: „Wird sich das Wort nicht verwirklichen“47. Dies ist
schlicht ein Zitat aus Dtn 18,22, das belegt, dass bereits im AT gelegentlich
die Existenzmöglichkeit von Sachverhalten (rbdh) diskutiert wurde.
Was die Fülle der Fügungen betrifft, in denen hyh in Kombination mit Prä-
positionalgruppen erscheint, erübrigt sich eine ausführliche Auflistung von
Beispielen. Praktisch alle im AT mehrfach belegten Fügungen erscheinen auch
in Qumran. Herausgehoben seien immerhin zwei besonders häufig vorkom-
mende Fügungen, zum einen solche mit l in der Funktion des Lamed revalua-
tionis bzw. ascriptionis48, zum anderen Fügungen, in denen der Infinitiv von
hyh in Kombination mit den Präpositionen b oder l (einmal auch mit assi-
miliertem Nm) erscheint – sind letztere doch sehr spezifische Elemente der he-
bräischen Syntax49.
Unter den vielen Belegen, in denen ein Lamed ascriptionis erscheint (in äl-
terer Literatur spricht man in diesem Zusammenhang von der „Haben-Rela-
tion“), seien nur zwei theologisch relevante hervorgehoben: 1QM 6,6 und
4Q491 11,II,17. In beiden Fällen wird Obd 21 frei zitiert: „Die Königsherr-
43
So übersetzt LOHSE, Texte, 71 die Fügung wyh )lk wyhyw.
44
So in Obd 16; vgl. Sir 44,9.
45
Die Übersetzung von MAIER, Qumran-Essener II, 349, stellt eine Anpassung an das deut-
sche Sprachempfinden dar – im Prinzip ist nur gesagt: „Wann wird das sein?“.
46
MAIER, Qumran-Essener I, 176; der deutende Begriff „Bestand“ steht für das hebräische
twyhl, das man genauso gut mit „Sein“ oder „Existenz“ wiedergeben könnte.
47
MAIER, Tempelrolle, 265 – einmal mehr unter Vermeidung des Worts „sein“ verdeutli-
chend übersetzt.
48
Vgl. JENNI, Präposition Lamed, 33-41.54-66.
49
Für letztere Fügungen gibt es im aramäischen Teil des AT überhaupt keine und im a-
ramäischen Teil der Qumran-Literatur nur drei Beispiele mit l (4Q213a 1,18; 4Q530 7,II,7;
11Q10 15,5), von denen lediglich das erstgenannte einigermaßen sicher zu interpretieren ist: Es
geht dort um die Nähe zu Gott, und der Sprecher möchte ihm gehören. 11Q10 15,5 ist demge-
genüber eine Übersetzung des schon an sich kaum verständlichen Verses Ijob 30,1 – also wohl
ein Hebraismus, und bei 4Q530 7,II,7 ist die Lesung unsicher und der Kontext unklar.
33
An_78.indb 64 21/06/11 15:37

schaft wird dem Gott Israels gehören“ bzw. „… wird Gott gehören und seinem
Volk“. Die Tradition der Malkut JHWH – in ihrer kriegerischen Variante – ist in
Qumran lebendig geblieben. Dazu fügt sich 1QHa 11,37 – ein erstes Beispiel
für die Verwendung des l in der Funktion des Lamed revaluationis: „Du bist
mir eine feste Mauer gewesen“. Alles andere als kriegerisch klingt demgegen-
über 1QHa 17,24 par. 4Q381 33+35,3: „Es wurde mir deine Zurechtweisung
zur Freude“. Ähnliches wird auch in 4Q381 1,1 artikuliert, nur ist dort wohl
eher auf Zukünftiges angespielt und statt von Zurechtweisung ist vom Geset-
zesanweiser die Rede. Aber auch ins Negative gewendet erscheint die Fügung,
so in 4Q166 II,12, einem Peschär zu Hosea: Gott schlug sein Volk, dass sie
„zu Schanden werden und zur Schmach vor den Völkern“. Numerisch häufi-
ger, v. a. aber theologisch gesehen weit wichtiger sind die Stellen, an denen
mit dieser Fügung die Zuwendung Gottes zu Einzelnen bzw. zu seinem Volk
ausgedrückt wird, so etwa in 4Q174 1-2,I,11, wo die Nathan-Verheißung zi-
tiert wird (2 Sam 7,14); fragmentarische Erinnerungen an diesen Satz bieten
wohl auch 4Q382 104,3 und 4Q418a 19,3. In 4Q381 76-77,15 wird schließlich
der Topos der Erwählung Israels aus allen Völkern erwähnt, damit Israel „für
ihn (JHWH) zum Volk wird“, und in 11QT 59,13 wird sogar die Bundesformel
(Lev 26,12 bzw. Jer 7,23) fast wörtlich zitiert, allerdings unter Verwendung
der 3. statt der 2. Pers. (wie in Ez 37,23), dazu in 11QT 29,7 ein weiteres Mal
in freier Variation: „damit … sie für mich zum Volk werden. Und ich werde
auf Weltzeit für sie (da) sein“50.
Was den Infinitiv von hyh in Kombination mit den Präpositionen b oder l
betrifft, dominieren im Falle von twyhb die Beispiele für die Funktion, punktu-
elle Zukunft auszudrücken51. Daneben finden sich zwei Beispiele, in denen
wohl ein Beth instrumenti vorliegt, so in 1QS 10,10 par. 4Q258 9,10; man
könnte in letzterem Fall im Prinzip auch von einer Kombination von Exis-
tenzaussage und Präposition sprechen, dann käme „das Sein“ in den Blick.
Dem gegenüber ist der einzige Beleg für twyhm (4Q502 1,6) zu fragmentarisch,
als dass von ihm aus theologisch relevante Rückschlüsse gezogen werden
könnten. Was die vielen Beispiele für twyhl betrifft, stehen sie zumeist für die
intentionale Verknüpfung, gelegentlich auch für die admissionale bzw. konse-
kutive Verknüpfung52: Etwas oder jemand zu sein bzw. eine Qualität zu haben,
hat einen Zweck bzw. Folgen. Andere Beispiele mit twyhl, in denen hyh ei-
ne eigenständige semantische Rolle spielt, wurden bereits weiter oben ange-
sprochen.
50
So MAIER, Tempelrolle, 131; gemeint ist natürlich „für immer“.
51
So JENNI, Präposition Beth, 325. Beispiele: 1QS 3,16; 8,4.12; 9,3 par. 4Q258 6,6; 7,4;
4Q265 7,7; 4Q396 1-2,III,7; 4Q402 4,4; 4Q463 1,2; 11QT 48,16.
52
Vgl. JENNI, Präposition Lamed, 154ff.
65
An_78.indb 65 21/06/11 15:37

IV.
Unbeschadet dessen, dass die häufige Verwendung des nifal von hyh eine Ei-
gentümlichkeit der Qumran-Texte darstellt, bedürfen Stellen wie 1QM 1,12;
18,10 oder 4Q418 126,II,5, wo hyh nifal im Perfekt verwendet ist, keiner
gründlicheren Erörterung, ist doch bereits in den (spät-)nachexilischen Schrif-
ten des AT eine Tendenz festzustellen, Eingetretenes, (neu) Gewordenes von
bloß gegebenem zu unterscheiden; für ersteres steht hyh nifal, für letzteres hyh
qal53. Eingehender zu betrachten sind demgegenüber Beispiele, in denen ein-
deutig eine Qumran-spezifische theologisch-philosophische Verwendung der
Wurzel hyh vorliegt, also die Stellen, in denen das Partizip (aktiv) verwendet
ist – sei es qal, sei es nifal. Um sie sinnvoll diskutieren zu können, muss vor-
her freilich noch einmal kurz in Erinnerung gerufen werden, welche Funktion
das Partizip (aktiv) im hebräischen Sprachsystem hat. Ein Vergleich der deut-
schen, englischen und französischen Übersetzungen der Qumran-Texte lässt
ein solches Verfahren jedenfalls unumgänglich erscheinen – zu krass sind de-
ren Unterschiede im Blick auf die temporelle Wiedergabe der einschlägigen
Formen: Letztere sind so groß, dass man gelegentlich auf den Gedanken kom-
men könnte, den Übersetzern hätten unterschiedliche Texte vorgelegen54.
Anders als das Partizip im Deutschen spielt das hebräische Partizip (aktiv)
eine wichtige Rolle im Tempussystem. Figurativ gesprochen: Es ist kein Stief-
kind der Syntax, sondern kommuniziert „auf Augenhöhe“ mit den finiten
Verbformen qatal und yiqtol bzw. wayyiqtol und weqatal55. Konkret formuliert:
qotel ist eine Verbalform mit den Basis-Konnotationen Gleichzeitigkeit,
Imperfektivität, Durativität und steht in totaler Opposition zu qatal mit den
Konnotationen Vorzeitigkeit, Perfektivität, Punktualität und in partieller Oppo-
sition zu yiqtol mit den Konnotationen Nachzeitigkeit, Imperfektivität, Punk-
tualität 56. In Nebenfunktion steht es – sofern der Relationspunkt der Gegen-
wartspunkt des Sprechenden ist – für den Ausdruck der unmittelbar bevorste-
henden Zukunft, das „futurum instans“. Noetisch gesehen reicht ja jeder in der
Gegenwart andauernde Sachverhalt ein Stück weit in die Zukunft hinein –
auch das deutsche Präsens kann man in dieser Nebenfunktion verwenden.
Wenn jemand sagt: „Ich gehe“, muss er nicht hic et nunc unterwegs sein, er
kann damit auch sagen, dass er in nächster Zukunft aufbrechen möchte: „Men-
tal“ ist der Vorgang bereits Realität, die Ausführung wird sogleich erfolgen.
53
Vgl. das oben zu Dan 12,1 Gesagte.
54
Näheres dazu s. u. und Anm. 66.
55
Diese Erkenntnis teilt NICCACCI, System, 248 mit dem Vf.
56
Vgl. dazu BARTELMUS, Einführung, 204-206, u. ö. Hier ist nicht der Ort, um ausführlicher
auf die „zusammengesetzten Tempora“ wayyiqtol und weqatal einzugehen oder die Unterschiede
zwischen der Verwendung der einschlägigen Formen in Rede und Erzählung bzw. außerhalb der
Artikulationsebene „Darstellung“ anzusprechen. Im Fokus steht hier allein das Partizip.
35
An_78.indb 66 21/06/11 15:37

Ins Hebräische übertragen: Angesichts einer Fügung wie ry+mm ykn) (Gen 7,4)
muss man den Kontext zu Rate ziehen, um herauszufinden, ob Jahwe schon
dabei ist, es regnen zu lassen, oder aber ankündigt, dies in unmittelbar bevor-
stehender Zukunft zu tun – hier ist dank der Zeitangabe „nach sieben Tagen“
jeder Zweifel ausgeschlossen. Ex 9,3 (und viele andere – zumeist mit hnh ein-
geleitete – Sätze wie Ex 23,20) zeigen indes, dass es nicht zwingend einer sol-
chen Zeitangabe bedarf, um ein „futurum instans“ diagnostizieren zu können57.
(Ganz anders stellen sich die Dinge natürlich dar, wenn ein Partizip durch den
Artikel determiniert ist, also als reines Nomen fungiert; dann ist der [relative]
Zeitbezug aus anderen Elementen im Satz zu entnehmen).
All das Gesagte gilt nun aber nicht nur für das Partizip aktiv qal, sondern
auch für das Partizip nifal.58 Die Beispiele dafür sind Legion, erwähnt seien
nur Ex 14,25 (Mxl Partizip nifal) bzw. Jes 19,18 ((b# Partizip nifal): In Ex
14,25 ist davon die Rede, dass die Ägypter erkennen, dass Jahwe hic et nunc
für Israel streitet. Und in Jes 19,18 – einer Weissagung über Ägypten – ist klar,
dass der Vorgang des Schwörens nicht in der Vergangenheit liegen kann. So
lange man freilich davon ausging, das nifal sei ein Passiv zum qal59, wurde
dem Partizip nifal oft latent eine Konnotation unterstellt, die im Falle des ech-
ten Passivs zum qal – repräsentiert in der Form qatul – Fakt ist, nämlich die
Konnotation der Perfektivität. Vereinfacht gesagt: Weil das hebräische Partizip
passiv qal weitgehend dem lateinischen Partizip Perfekt passiv entspricht,
muss – so wurde gefolgert – auch das als Passiv verstandene Partizip nifal et-
was mit dem Perfekt zu tun haben. – Selbst wenn (was der Vf. ausschließt)
diese Assoziationskette ein Körnchen Wahrheit enthielte, würde sie im Falle
von hyh in die Irre führen – ist hyh doch ein Intransitivum. Eine über das Pas-
siv laufende Assoziationskette verbietet sich angesichts dessen von selbst. Die
Übersetzung von hyhn (Partizip nifal) mit „geworden“/„Gewordenes“, die sich
v. a. in der deutschen Textausgabe von J. MAIER60 häufig findet, kann von daher
nur schlicht als falsch bezeichnet werden.
In den Übersetzungen der Reihe DJD erscheint für hyhn zumeist eine For-
mulierung mit futurischer Konnotation; daneben wird in einigen Fällen präsen-
tisch übersetzt. Eine Ausnahme bilden die wenigen Stellen, wo das Partizip
hyhn mit Artikel gefügt ist (vgl. dazu etwa 1QH 11,33) . Unbeschadet des
a 61
57
Vgl. dazu oben (Anm. 27) mit dem Verweis auf BARTELMUS, HYH z. St.
58
Natürlich auch für das Partizip piel, hitpael und hifil; diese Stammbildungen kommen bei
hyh indes nicht vor, können also außer Betracht bleiben.
59
Schon GK, § 51 h, hatte sich vehement gegen diese Sicht verwahrt; dennoch hielt sich
diese Sicht bis in die Gegenwart. Die meisten Schulgrammatiken beschreiben die Funktion des
nifal nach wie vor mit reflexiv und passiv zum qal (häufig sprechen sie auch noch von „Bedeu-
tung“ statt von „Funktion“!), so etwa SCHNEIDER, Grammatik, 101. Und selbst dort, wo die For-
schungsergebnisse von JENNI (s. o. Anm. 22) aufgenommen sind, wird als erste „Ersatzkonstruk-
tion“ zum Übersetzen das Passiv empfohlen (so bei KRAUSE, Hebräisch, 130f).
60
MAIER, Qumran-Essener I + II, passim – Beispiele werden weiter unten zitiert.
67
An_78.indb 67 21/06/11 15:37

Umstands, dass das Partizip als Grundfunktion den Ausdruck der Dauer bzw.
der Gleichzeitigkeit aufweist, ist die futurische Übersetzung zumindest im Fal-
le der geprägten Wendung hyhn zr in jedem Falle vorzuziehen (knapp die Hälf-
te aller Belege des Partizips nifal sind mit zr gefügt!), zumal das nifal im Falle
von hyh – noetisch gesehen – geradezu paradigmatisch erkennen lässt, warum
dem Partizip als Nebenfunktion der Ausdruck des futurum instans eignet: Das
„Werdende“/„im Werden befindliche“ ragt immer ein Stück weit über die Ge-
genwart hinaus in die Zukunft hinein. Demgegenüber verfehlt eine präteritale
Übersetzung des indeterminierten hyhn den Sinn der Form in jedem Fall.
Belege für eine Verwendung des Partizips finden sich überraschender Wei-
se nicht nur im Kontext spezifisch sapientialer Komplexe wie 4Q416-418
(415; 423) oder 1Q2662, wo man sie am ehesten erwarten würde: Mit Aus-
nahme der Tempelrolle enthalten vielmehr alle umfangreicheren hebräischen
Textkomplexe und viele Einzeltexte einschlägige Belege. Rigides Insistieren
auf gesetzestreuem Verhalten und Aufnahme von aktuellem Gedankengut aus
der Umwelt bildeten in der Qumran-Gemeinde ganz offensichtlich keinen
prinzipiellen Gegensatz: Wohl nicht ganz zufällig hat man in Qumran auch
Texte in griechischer Schrift gefunden. Zudem ist es sattsam bekannt, dass die
Qumran-Manuskripte alttestamentlicher Texte relativ häufig andere Textver-
sionen bieten als die Textvorlage des MT: In solchen Fällen besteht relativ
häufig eine Übereinstimmung mit dem Textverständnis der LXX bzw. mit der
als Vorlage der LXX zu vermutenden hebräischen Textfassung, was auf (wie
immer geartete) Verbindungen zwischen der hellenistischen Judenheit in Alex-
andrien und der Qumran-Gemeinde schließen lässt. Eine kritische Aufnahme
bzw. Adaption fremder Traditionen stand ohnehin in keinem Fall in Gegensatz
zum Selbstverständnis der frühen Judenheit (die Qumran-Gemeinde verstand
sich als das wahre Israel!) – war doch ein entsprechender Umgang mit Tradi-
tionen unterschiedlicher Herkunft bereits im AT vorgegeben und konnte somit
als Vorbild dienen.
Letzteres Verfahren lässt sich exemplarisch etwa anhand von 1QHa 20,4-11
aufzeigen63. Eingangs wird in diesem Abschnitt unmissverständlich auf Gen
1,14-19 rekurriert – einen Teil der priesterschriftlichen Schöpfungsgeschichte,
die ihrerseits zum größten Teil aus neu interpretierten Traditionen aus der alt-
orientalischen Umwelt konstruiert ist. Die durch den Mund Gottes geschaffene
Ordnung der Abfolge von Licht und Finsternis, Tag und Nacht, wird in der
Folge als hwwh tdw(t bezeichnet (1QHa 20,9)64. Diese innovative hebräische
theologische Formulierung ist – wie man aus dem danach folgenden sp) Ny)w
erschließen kann – wohl im Sinn von „verbürgtem“ (also absolut sicherem)
61
Dies fügt sich gut zu dem oben generell Gesagten.
62
Zu dieser Qualifikation der hier verhandelten Texte vgl. HARRINGTON, Raz nihyeh, 549f.
63
Ein fragmentarisches Duplikat davon bietet 4Q427 2,II.
64
MAIER, Qumran-Essener I, 103, übersetzt dies mit: „Bezeugung von Seiendem“.
68
An_78.indb 68 21/06/11 15:37

Seiendem zu verstehen. Die alte Überlieferung ist damit gewissermaßen „mo-

dernisiert“: Das einst von Gott Geschaffene ist nichts anderes als das Seiende
(τὸ ὄν), über das die Philosophen der hellenistischen Umwelt nachdenken. Da-
mit gibt sich der Autor indes nicht zufrieden, er vertieft die Aussage vielmehr,
indem er das den Griechen vertraute, aber auch schon im AT belegte Drei-Zei-
ten-Schema anwendet65: Die hier und jetzt existierende Ordnung wird auch
weiterhin sein, d. h. Bestand haben (hyht): Außer ihr ist nie eine andere Ord-
nung gewesen (hyh) und wird nie eine andere sein (dw( hyhy )wlw), denn „der
Gott der Erkenntnis(se) hat sie festgesetzt.
Ähnlich wie der Beter von 1QHa 20, wenn auch weniger differenziert und
ohne konkreten Bezug auf Gen 1, wohl aber auf die Genesis insgesamt (es er-
scheinen Begriffe wie twdlwt bzw. twrwd) argumentiert auch der Autor von
1QS 3,13ff., wenn er in einer Belehrung für den Maskil (Unterweiser) fest-
stellt: „Vom Gott der Erkenntnis(se) ist (stammt) alles Seiende (hwwh) und
Werdende (hyyhn)“ (3,15)66. Bemerkenswert an 1QS 3,13ff ist darüber hinaus,
dass der Autor die Aussage von Gott als dem Urgrund des Seienden und Wer-
denden konsequent zu Ende denkt und in Z. 15f so etwas wie eine Vorstufe der
Prädestinationslehre ausformuliert: „Bevor sie waren/sind, hat er ihr ganzes
Planen festgelegt, wenn sie da sind, erfüllen sie entsprechend dem verbürgten
Plan seiner Herrlichkeit ihr Werk, und es gibt keine Änderung“. Die damit
ausformulierte Überzeugung, Gott habe einen feststehenden Plan für diese
Welt, und dieser sei bestimmten Personen zugänglich, teilt die Qumran-
Gemeinde mit dem apokalyptischen Daniel-Buch.
In diesen Kontext gehört auch 1QS 11,11, ebenso vielleicht das etwas an-
ders ausformulierte Fragment 4Q402 4,12 par. Mas1k 1,2, wo freilich das Per-
fekt hyhn (wyhn) verwendet ist: „Durch sein Wissen ist alles geworden und alles
Seiende lenkt er nach seinem Plan, ohne ihn geschieht nichts“ bzw. „vom Er-
kenntnis-Gott her …“; schon kurz vorher ist in 1QS 11 vom „ewig Seienden“
(5) bzw. von Erwählung (7) die Rede und danach wird die Aussage noch ein-
mal mit determiniertem Partizip nifal und dem Stichwort „(Wohl-)Gefallen“
anstelle von „Wissen“ reformuliert (vgl. dazu auch 1QHa 9,20 – dort Perfekt).
Einen deutlich anderen Akzent setzt demgegenüber der Beter/Sänger von
4Q511 10,10f, wenn er Gott als denjenigen preist, der in Gerechtigkeit Recht
schafft für die ewig Seienden und die (vor/in?) Äonen gewordenen (Dinge/Le-
65
Vgl. dazu R. BARTELMUS, Strukturprinzip.
66
MAIER, Qumran-Essener I, 173, übersetzt hier wie auch an den meisten anderen Stellen
h(y)yhn präterital, womit er sich gegen einen breiten, gut begründeten Konsens in der Forschung
stellt. Dass er im Falle von 1QS 10,5 par. 4Q256 19,3 einmal nicht präterital übersetzt und
hyhn Cq richtig mit „eintretende(n) Zeit“ wiedergibt, ist angesichts dessen mehr als inkonse-
quent, noch mehr der Umstand, dass er hyhn zr einmal sogar mit „Geheimnis des Seins“ wieder-
gibt (1Q26 1,1; ebd. 237), während er sonst „Geheimnis“ bzw. „Mysterium des Gewordenen“
verwendet.
38
An_78.indb 69 21/06/11 15:37

bewesen)67. Hier erscheint die Welt überraschender Weise einmal nicht so in-
variabel determiniert wie an den übrigen in diesem Zusammenhang angespro-
chenen Stellen.
In einer an weisheitliche Mahnreden erinnernden Passage schließlich, in
der einmal mehr Gott als ein Gott der Erkenntnis erscheint (CD 2,2ff.), wird
wiederum die Ordnung der Zeit angesprochen und in diesem Kontext auf das
ewig Seiende und das Werdende abgehoben68. Die Erkenntnis Gottes wird hier
in der Damaskusschrift als so weit in die Vorzeit reichend dargestellt, dass Go-
tt die Werke der Frevler (My(#r) schon kennt, bevor letztere überhaupt ge-
schaffen bzw. „gegründet“ wurden, und sie reicht bis dahin, dass er weiß, was
am Ende dessen sein wird, das jetzt im Werden ist (CD 2,9f bzw. 4Q268
2,I,8). Änigmatisch verkürzt und auf den „Aufseher“ hin umformuliert er-
scheint Entsprechendes auch in CD 13,8; dass Werdendes bereits vor seiner
Erschaffung in seinem Tun und Ergehen festgelegt ist, ist zudem in 4Q180
1,1f angesprochen. In all diesen Fällen ist eine gewisse Korrelation zwischen
deterministischem bzw. prädestinatianischem Gedankengut und der Rede vom
Seienden bzw. Werdenden wahrzunehmen, wobei die theologisch brisantere
der beiden Varianten zweifellos darin liegt, dass auch das Werdende (d. h. das
nicht bereits von Urbeginn an Existierende bzw. am Anfang von Gott geschaf-
fene) durch Gottes Plan festgelegt ist.
Eine andere Form prädestinatianischen Denkens begegnet in 1QM 17,5: In
hypertroph chauvinistischer Akzentsetzung greift der Autor auf das Begriffs-
paar „Seiendes“ und „Werdendes“ zurück und behauptet, dass Israel Anspruch
auf alles Seiende und Werdende habe, und zwar in allem, was immer (in Äo-
nen) noch werden wird.
Ins Universalistische gewendet – sei es in Kombination mit lwk, sei es mit
(My)mlw(, sei es mit beiden Elementen zusammen – erscheinen Partizipien von
hyh schließlich auch noch in 4Q403 1,I,22; 4Q405 13,6 (qal) bzw. in 1QH
a
5,18; 19,14; 21,12 und 4Q418 69,II,7 (nifal). So einfach die Kombination des
Partizips qal von hyh mit (My)mlw( nachzuvollziehen ist, so wenig ist verständ-
lich erscheint auf den ersten Blick die Kombination des Partizips nifal mit die-
sem Lexem. Mit einer gewissen Wahrscheinlichkeit kann man davon ausge-
hen, dass letzteres hier nicht im eingeschränkten Bedeutungsspektrum des AT
gemeint ist: Mlw( meint in diesen Texten offenbar nicht „Ewigkeit“, sondern
67
Mit den ewig Seienden gemeint sind wohl die Engel; das lässt sich mit hoher Wahr-
scheinlichkeit aus der parallelen Formulierung im Folgesatz erschließen, wo von Göttern und
Menschen die Rede ist.
68
Die pluralischen hebräischen Formulierungen sind wohl als Abstraktplural zu interpre-
tieren. Weisheit und Einsicht, Klugheit und Erkenntnis sind hier übrigens (nicht anders als die
Weisheit im alttestamentlichen Buch der Sprüche) quasi als Hypostasen bzw. eigenständige We-
sen gesehen, jedenfalls heißt es von ersteren, dass Gott sie vor sich hingestellt hat und von letz-
teren, dass sie Gott dienen – eine Formulierung, die wohl als synonymer Parallelismus mem-
brorum einzustufen ist: Wer vor Gott steht, ist dessen Diener (vgl. 1 Kön 17,1b).
70
An_78.indb 70 21/06/11 15:37

bereits so etwas wie „Äon“, „Zeitalter“: Es ginge dann um das je und je im

Verlauf von Äonen (eines Äons) Werdende. Die Übernahme der seit Hesiod
im griechischen Bereich geläufigen Äonenspekulation durch die Judenheit –
dokumentiert etwa in Dan 2 – hätte gemäß dieser Annahme Folgen für die Se-
mantik von Mlw( gehabt; die Vermutung wird durch den mittelhebräischen
Sprachgebrauch in gewisser Weise gestützt. Ganz auszuschließen ist allerdings
auch nicht die Annahme, dass (My)mlw( in diesem Zusammenhang schlicht „für
immer“ meinen könnte; (My)mlw( müsste dann als explikative Asyndese mit
„und zwar für immer“ übersetzt werden. Unstrittig ist allein – das ist Konsens
in den Lexika –, dass zwischen dem Sing. und dem Pl. von Mlw( in Qumran
kein semantischer Unterschied zu erkennen ist.
Massiv von apokalyptischen Vorstellungen geprägtes Denken manifestiert
sich schließlich in der Fügung hyhn zr, auf die knapp die Hälfte aller Belege
des Partizips nifal entfällt – „in the vast majority of cases … prefaced by the
preposition b“69. Das aramäische (ursprünglich aus dem Persischen stammen-
de) Lexem zr („Geheimnis“, „Mysterium“) ist im Daniel-Buch schon für sich
allein Terminus technicus für bereits im Plan Gottes feststehende Sachverhal-
te, die sich in der Zukunft ereignen werden und die nur qua Offenbarung durch
Gott selbst (hlg) und Deutung durch einen angelus interpres oder einen von
Gott selbst informierten „Weisen“ zugänglich werden70. Erscheint der Termi-
nus in hebräischen Kontexten als Lehnwort in Kombination mit hyhn, kann
auch von daher kein Zweifel daran bestehen, dass das Partizip (gemäß den
oben vorgestellten noetischen Überlegungen) angemessen nur als „future“ –
genauer als futurum instans –, jedenfalls nicht als „past“ zu übersetzen ist71.
Die Fügung kann geradezu als Musterbeispiel für die noetische Struktur des
futurum instans gesehen werden: In der göttlichen Welt steht bereits fest, was
sich (demnächst) ereignen wird, für Menschen ist es aber noch ein Geheimnis,
das zu lüften allein dem Apokalyptiker vorbehalten ist.
Auch wenn angesichts des fragmentarischen Zustandes des „Livre des
mystères“ (1Q27) nicht eindeutig festgestellt werden kann, wer der Sprecher/
Schreiber ist, ist klar, dass nur Eingeweihte, d. h. vom „Lehrer der Gerechtig-
keit“ bzw. von dem „Maskil“ instruierte Angehörige der Qumran-Gemein-
schaft, um das hyhn zr wissen können. Nicht Eingeweihte kennen das Geheim-
nis des – demnächst – Eintretenden/im Werden Befindlichen nicht und können
sich (ihre „Seele“) daher nicht vor ihm retten (1Q27 1,I,3.4 par. 4Q300 3,4)72.
69
HARRINGTON, Raz nihyeh, 551.
70
Vgl. dazu WILLI-PLEIN, Geheimnis, 68-74.
71
So dezidiert J. T. MILIK in DJD I, 104.
72
Letztere Stelle ist neben 4Q416 2,III,21 der einzige Beleg für eine Kombination der Fü-
gung mit der Präp. Nm. Außer 1Q27 1,I,3 bieten nur noch 4Q416 2,III,14 und – vielleicht –
4Q418 77,2; 172,1 die Fügung ohne präfigierte Präp.; die letztgenannten Stellen sind aber so
fragmentarisch, dass auf ihrer Basis keine weitergehenden Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden kön-
71
An_78.indb 71 21/06/11 15:37

In allen übrigen Fällen erscheint die Fügung mit präfigiertem b. Die Funk-
tion dieser Präp. im jeweiligen Kontext wird in der Forschung alles andere als
einheitlich gedeutet – dies nicht nur aus dem Grund, dass die Wendung in den
Texten mit unterschiedlichen Verben gefügt erscheint. Die Einschränkung der
Deutungsmöglichkeiten auf den lokalen und instrumentalen Gebrauch, wie sie
D. J. HARRINGTON73 vornimmt, ist in jedem Fall zu wenig differenziert. Immer-
hin: Im Falle des einzigen Belegs für die Fügung, der nicht aus dem von der
Forschung aus vielen Fragmenten rekonstruierten „Sapiential Work“ (1Q26;
4Q415-418; 423) und auch nicht aus dem „Livre des mystères“ (1Q27)
stammt, aber sehr wohl sapiential konnotiert ist – d. h. im Falle von 1QS
11,3f – liegt eindeutig lokaler Gebrauch vor, genauer der Teilaspekt „geistiger
Kontakt“74. Der Sprecher (aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach der Maskil) erklärt, er
sei aus der Quelle der Erkenntnis Gottes gewissermaßen „erleuchtet“ worden
und fährt danach fort: „Auf seine Wunder schaute mein Auge und mein er-
leuchtetes Herz auf/in das Geheimnis des Werdenden/sich Anbahnenden und
des ewig Seienden“ (+bn hifil)75.
Eine andere Form des „geistigen Kontakts“ ist gegeben, wenn jemand dazu
aufgefordert wird, Tag und Nacht über „das Geheimnis des Werdenden/sich
Anbahnenden“ nachzusinnen (4Q418 43-45,I,4 par. 4Q417 1,I,6), es zu (be-)
greifen (4Q418 77,4), im Blick auf das Geheimnis des Werdenden etwas zu
prüfen (4Q415 6,4) oder etwas zu (unter-)suchen (4Q416 2,III,9)76. Dass diese
Fügung indes auch so verstanden werden kann, dass durch die Präp. b das di-
rekte Objekt bezeichnet ist77, ergibt sich aus der kurz darauf folgenden For-
mulierung in 4Q416 2,III,14. Dann wären beide Stellen als Aufforderung zu
verstehen, das Geheimnis des sich Anbahnenden zu (unter-)suchen, d. h. sich
mit ihm forschend auseinanderzusetzen.
Weniger einfach zu deuten ist die Verwendung der Präp. in den mit r#)(k)
eingeleiteten Sätzen, in denen davon die Rede ist, dass Gott das (die) Ohr(en)
einer Person hyhn zrb geöffnet hat – in 1Q26 1,4 par. 4Q416 2,III,17f; 4Q418
nen (zu 4Q416 2,III,14 s. u.).

73
HARRINGTON, Raz nihyeh, 551. Er hat offenbar JENNI, Präposition Beth, nicht konsultiert.
Deutschsprachige Literatur wird im anglo-amerikanischen Sprachraum bedauerlicherweise
kaum mehr zur Kenntnis genommen, selbst wenn sie (wie in diesem Fall) von einem der bedeu-
tendsten Hebraisten stammt, Grundlagenforschung darstellt und in einem renommierten Verlag
erschienen ist – ein Armutszeugnis für den internationalen Wissenschaftsbetrieb.
74
Vgl. dazu JENNI, Präposition Beth, 248.
75
Imperativisch gewendet erscheint eine ähnliche Fügung (freilich ohne Verweis auf das
ewig Seiende) in 4Q416 2,I,5 und 4Q417 1,I,18 (vielleicht auch 4Q417 2,I,11 und 4Q418
43-45,I,2; an beiden Stellen von den Herausgebern ergänzt – in ersterem Fall gestützt auf 4Q416
2,I,5).
76
Die Stelle ist dunkel, könnte aber mit den Herausgebern von DJD XXXIV evtl. als einzi-
ger Beleg für ein Beth instrumentale gewertet werden: „By the zr that is to come study the ori-
gins thereof“.
77
Vgl. dazu unten zu rxb.
72
An_78.indb 72 21/06/11 15:37

10a,1; 4Q418 184,2; 4Q418 190,2 ist ein „du“ angesprochen, in 4Q418
123,II,4 ist in der 3. Pers. von den „Verständigen“ die Rede. Instrumentaler
Gebrauch der Präp. kann nicht vorliegen – das Geheimnis des im Werden Be-
griffenen ist schwerlich das Mittel, sondern doch wohl der Inhalt der Offenba-
rung. Somit könnte auch hier „geistiger Kontakt“ angenommen werden, und
zwar in Analogie zur Verwendung der Präp. bei rxb78: Im Falle von rxb kann
das direkte Objekt bekanntlich ohne erkennbaren Unterschied sowohl als Ak-
kusativ erscheinen wie auch durch b markiert sein. Da hier nun die Position
des direkten Objekts bereits mit „Ohr“ besetzt ist, könnte somit (quasi im Sinn
eines doppelten Akkusativs) mit der Fügung das eigentliche Objekt der Offen-
barung mit b hervorgehoben sein: Er hat die Ohren geöffnet „in Bezug auf“
das Geheimnis (und so das Geheimnis gelüftet). Zu erwägen ist aber auch eine
Klassifikation als Spielform des Beth comitantiae79, oder als ein Beth commu-
nicationis80. Was – unabhängig von der genauen Klassifikation des b – freilich
alle zuletzt diskutierten Stellen verbindet, ist die feste Überzeugung der von
apokalyptischem Gedankengut geprägten Autoren (des Autors?), dass sich ge-
mäß dem Plan Gottes (umwälzende) Ereignisse anbahnen: Allein den Lehrern
der Qumran-Gemeinde wurde diese Tatsache durch den Einblick in die „Quel-
le der Erkenntnis Gottes“ zugänglich gemacht, und sie informieren die Ge-
meinde auf literarischem Weg über das „Geheimnis des Werdenden“.
Da der Vf. kein Angehöriger der Qumran-Gemeinde, kein vom Maskil Be-
lehrter ist, fehlt ihm der Zugang zum Geheimnis des im Werden Befindlichen.
Immerhin meint er hoffen zu können, den Schleier über dem Geheimnis des
„Seienden“ – der sprachlichen Gegebenheiten in Qumran – ein wenig gelüftet
zu haben. Wenn es gelungen sein sollte, dem Jubilar damit ein wenig Freude
zu bereiten, hat der Aufsatz in jedem Fall seinen Zweck erfüllt.
Rüdiger Bartelmus
Prof. em. Uni Kiel, Planegg
Bibliographie
BARTELMUS R., „Tempus als Strukturprinzip. Anmerkungen zur stilistischen

und theologischen Relevanz des Tempusgebrauchs im »Lied der Hanna«
(1 Sam 2,1-10)“, in Biblische Zeitschrift. Neue Folge 31 (1987) 15-35 (=
id., Auf der Suche nach dem archimedischen Punkt der Textinterpretation.
78
Vgl. JENNI, Präposition Beth, 256.
79
JENNI, Präposition Beth, 93-96; hlg ist freilich kein Verbum der Bewegung.
80
JENNI, Präposition Beth, 160-170; 169.
73
An_78.indb 73 21/06/11 15:37

Studien zu einer philologisch-linguistisch fundierten Exegese alttestament-

licher Texte, Zürich 2002, 133-157).
BARTELMUS R., HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen »Allerwelts-
wortes« – zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage des hebräischen Tempussystems
(ATS 17), St. Ottilien 1982.
BARTELMUS R., Einführung in das biblische Hebräisch, Zürich 22009.
BARTELMUS R., „‫ ָהיָ ה‬hājāh“, in H.-J. FABRY - U. DAHMEN (ed.), Theologisches
Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten I, Stuttgart 2011, 762-779.
BOMAN T., Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit dem Griechischen, Göttin-
gen 1952.
HARRINGTON D. J., „The Rāz nihyeh in a Qumran Wisdom Text (1Q26,
4Q415-418, 423)“, Revue de Qumran 17 (1996) 549-553.
JENNI E., „Zur Funktion der reflexiv-passiven Stammformen im Biblisch-Heb-
räischen“, Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies:Vol-
ume IV, Jerusalem 1973, 61-70 (= id., Studien zur Sprachwelt des Alten Te-
staments I, Stuttgart - Berlin - Köln 1997, 51-60).
JENNI E., Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 1: Die Präposition Beth, Stutt-
gart - Berlin - Köln 1992
JENNI E., Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed,
Stuttgart - Berlin - Köln 2000
JENNI E., „Aktionsarten und Stammformen im Althebräischen: Das Piˁel in ver-
besserter Sicht“, ZAH 13 (2000) 67-90 (= id., Studien zur Sprachwelt des
Alten Testaments II, Stuttgart -Berlin - Köln 2005, 77-96
KRAUSE M., Hebräisch. Biblisch-hebräische Unterrichtsgrammatik, herausge-
geben von M. PIETSCH und M. RÖSEL, Berlin - New York 2008.
LOHSE E., Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und deutsch. Mit masoretischer
Punktation, Übersetzung, Einführung und Anmerkungen, Darmstadt 1964
MAIER J., Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Band I: Die Texte
der Höhlen 1-3 und 5-11, UTB 1862, München - Basel 1995.
MAIER J., Die Qumran-Essener: Die Texte vom Toten Meer, Band II: Die Texte
der Höhle 4, UTB 1863, München - Basel 1995.
MAIER J., Die Tempelrolle vom Toten Meer und das »Neue Jerusalem«, UTB
829, München - Basel 31997.
NICCACCI A., „The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry“, in S. E. FASSBERG
- A. HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting. Typo-
logical and Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake 2006,
247-268.
V. PEURSEN W. Th., „Periphrastic Tenses in Ben Sira“, in T. MURAOKA - J. F. EL-
WOLDE (ed.), The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira (STDJ 26),
1997.
SCHNEIDER W., Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch, München 51982.
WILLI-PLEIN I., „Das Geheimnis der Apokalyptik“, VT 27 (1977) 62-81.
43
An_78.indb 74 21/06/11 15:37

Bruno Chiesa
Divagazioni tiberiensi
1.
Nel mare dell’India, non lontano dallo Yemen – scriveva il poligrafo al-Masˁū-
dī1 –, vi è un’isola chiamata ‘isola della ragione’, e in essa si trovano acque
chiamate ‘acque della ragione’; per questo, molti naviganti fanno rotta verso
l’isola: tali acque, infatti, hanno un’eccezionale efficacia sul rinvigorimento di
chi è dotato di ragione.
In realtà, al-Masˁūdī non diceva esattamente così,2 ma così gli fa dire il poeta
andaluso Mosè Ibn Ezra (morto dopo il 1135),3 per aggiungere subito dopo:
La stessa città di Tiberiade, per quanto si trovi nella provincia di Siria (waˀin kā-
nat šāmiyya) – la sua aria e il suo lago, da cui si beve, sono speciali per l’affina-
mento della lingua, la sua purezza e il parlar fiorito.4
In altre parole, un’area della «Giordania» (al-ˀUrdun), una delle cinque pro-
vince della Siria islamica (al-Šām),5 era equiparabile, secondo la teoria classica
dei «climi», alla penisola arabica, considerata – quest’ultima – il migliore dei
paesi, perché collocata nel migliore dei climi (il quarto sui sette canonici).
Questa teoria sarà sottoscritta anche da Yehudah ha-Lewi (m. 1141 circa),6
come bene appare dalla risposta data al re dei Càzari, che aveva dichiarato sen-
za mezzi termini di non avere mai sentito parlare di una qualche superiorità
degli abitanti della Siria sulle altre popolazioni.7 Ma, mentre Yehudah ha-Lewi
1
A Tiberiade nel 926 d. C. e morto probabilmente a Fusṭāṭ (Cairo Vecchia) nel 956 o 957;
cfr. HUART, Littérature, 182-183.
2
Cfr. Prairies d’or, 35. – Del tutto casuale sarà il riapparire del concetto nel “Land des rei-
nen Verstandes”, subito dopo qualificato come “Insel”, di I. KANT (cfr. Kritik der reinen
Vernunft, edizione Hamburg 1956, 287) o ne L’Île de la raison di Pierre Carlet DE MARI-
VAUX (1727).
3
Sull’autore, cfr. DÍEZ MACHO, Mose ibn Ezra; ulteriore bibliografia in COHEN, Aesthe-
tic, 282.
4
Kitāb al-muḥāḍara, ed. HALKIN, 30.68-72; ed. ABUMALHAM MAS, II, 34.
5
Cfr. MARMARDJI, Textes, 6.
6
Cfr. PIATTELLI, Khàzari.
7
Kūzarī II,19, ed. BANETH - BEN-SHAMMAI, 47s; cfr. ALTMANN, Torat ha-ˀaqlimim (ora ac-
cessibile anche in versione inglese, a cura di L. SCHRAMM: Theory of Climates).
44
An_78.indb 75 21/06/11 15:37

76 Divagazioni tiberiensi
sottolineava, comprensibilmente, la centralità della terra d’Israele, nel passo di

Mosè Ibn Ezra desta sorpresa la precisazione che il caso di Tiberiade è ecce-
zionale («per quanto si trovi nella provincia di Siria»).
Secondo N. ALLONY la ragione di questa ammissione a denti stretti sarebbe
da ricercare nella situazione storica del tempo dell’autore, con le scuole maso-
retiche tiberiensi in declino e la Palestina in mano ai crociati.8
Checchè ne sia, è interessante seguire il ragionamento di Mosè Ibn Ezra,
che così continua, senza un legame logico apparente:
(… parlar fiorito), al punto tale che quanti dalla nostra diaspora si sono recati nel
loro paese, intendo dire nel paese degli Arabi, e vi si sono stabiliti, hanno gua-
dagnato una pronuncia più fluida, raffinato la lingua e ingentilito la propria poe-
sia, perché si sono allontanati dall’aria umida della Siria per raggiungere l’aria
del Ḥijāz, secca a confronto di quella.9
A riprova, l’autore ricorda come tra i poeti pre-islamici vi fossero personaggi
dei quali (a lui) appariva indubbia l’appartenenza al giudaismo, come al-Sa-
mawˀal bin ˁĀdiyāˀ10 e altri. Ma dopo qualche divagazione su temi astrologici,
Mosè Ibn Ezra ritorna all’«isola della ragione»:
Gli Ismailiti, per il fatto di abitare su quell’isola già descritta e per lo stretto
contatto con i paesi della Persia, dell’Iraq e della Siria, hanno ingentilito il pro-
prio parlare, abbellito la poesia e raffinato l’eloquio, più ancora degli arabi puri,
i Qaḥṭāniti, abitanti del deserto, che dimorano in tende, figli che Abramo ebbe
da Qeṭurah, di cui è detto: Quanto ai figli delle concubine di Abramo (Gen.
25,6) – anche se noi non conosciamo se non quelle due, Hagar e Qeṭurah.11
In qualche modo Mosè Ibn Ezra è riuscito, quindi, a spostare quanto basta un
dato geografico su cui poggiava la ˁarabīya12 e, pur ammettendo l’eccezionalità
del caso, a recuperare tra i centri dell’elezione linguistica Tiberiade, la casa
madre dei masoreti a cui si deve la sua, e nostra, Bibbia ebraica.
L’impresa, del resto, non era così difficile. Già al-Yaˁqūbī (m. dopo l’872)
aveva ricordato le acque calde di Tiberiade,13 capitale della Giordania (al-ˀUr-
dun).14 Dal canto suo, al-Muqaddasī (n. Gerusalemme nel 945) aveva più in
generale sottolineato la temperatura media del clima della Siria e come essa si
collegasse naturalmente al Ḥijāz, per aggiungere che l’efficacia terapeutica
delle acque di Tiberiade era tale che, al tempo di Aristotele, il re della città era
8
ALLONY, Reaction, 3s, con ulteriore bibliografia, in buona parte ora accessibile in ALLONY,
Resurgimiento; su tutto il passo, cfr. anche CHIESA, Notizia, nonché ROTH, Jewish Reactions.
9
HALKIN 30.73-75; ABUMALHAM MAS, 34.
10
Cfr. MARGOLIOUTH, Relations, 71ss.
11
HALKIN 34, 7-11; ABUMALHAM MAS, 38. – Sui Qaḥṭāniti, cfr. KROPP, Geschichte.
12
Come dire la dottrina della superiorità della lingua araba; cfr. FÜCK, Arabiya.
13
Le qualità delle acque del lago erano ben note già a Giuseppe Flavio; cfr. Bellum 3, 506
(III, X, 7).
14
Kitāb al-buldān, ed. DE GOEJE, Leiden 1891, 327; traduzione francese in MARMARDJI,
Textes, 5.
45
An_78.indb 76 21/06/11 15:37

Bruno Chiesa 77
stato costretto a far abbattere gli impianti in cui si curavano le più diverse ma-
lattie al fine di evitare che i medici restassero senza lavoro e pazienti. Al-Mu-
qaddas" rilevava altresì che proprio a Tiberiade esisteva una scuola scribale di
tradizione veneranda e – così come in Egitto – appannaggio esclusivo dei cri-
stiani (sic!).15
Successivamente, e in termini più generali, al-Qazw"n" (m. 1283) ripren-
derà un dato della haggadah giudaica,16 ricordando come “il bene” fosse stato,
a suo tempo, diviso in dieci parti, nove delle quali riservate alla Siria e una so-
la al mondo intero; “il male”, egualmente ripartito in dieci parti, assegnato per
una sola parte alla Siria, il resto a tutta la terra, perché:
La Siria è la terra santa, che Dio ha eretto a dimora dei profeti e dei giusti, e in
luogo in cui discende la rivelazione. Il suo clima è eccellente, la sua acqua dol-
ce. Gli abitanti sono i migliori in quanto a fisico e a morale, per l’aspetto e per i
costumi.17
2.
L’intrecciarsi di questi spunti leggendari può avere forse una qualche ricaduta
sul problema dell’identificazione di un personaggio tradizionalmente collegato
a Tiberiade, quell’Ibr#h"m al--abar!n,, che nell’anno 820 avrebbe sostenuto
una disputa con ˁAbd al-Ra>m#n al-H#?im". Tutti i principali elementi autobio-
grafici ricordati da questo personaggio, che si dichiara «della stirpe di Adamo,
della famiglia di Qa>!#n, di Tiberiade di Siria, che abita in capanne (al-ˀak-
w!.), sorgente di scienza (ˁilm) e racconti (o: tradizioni, ˀa.b!r)», si ritrova-
no – come si vede – nell’esposizione, per quanto contorta, di Mosè Ibn Ezra,
sicché è difficile sfuggire al sospetto che si tratti, anche in questo caso, di una
ricostruzione di fantasia.
Per contro, diventa pienamente comprensibile anche l’aggiunta che si ritro-
va nella recensione lunga del Dialogo, ovvero l’elogio fatto dall’emiro delle
capacità oratorie del monaco, qualificato come fa%,$ wa-jayyid al-kal!m, «for-
bito e dal discorrere perfetto».18
15
A$san al-taq!s,m, 179.185s. (182 per gli scribi); MARMARDJI, Textes, 95.101; LE
STRANGE, Palestine, 336 e 21-22 (alle p. 334-341 in traduzione inglese le principali fonti arabe su
Tiberiade). Cfr. al-Muqaddasi, La migliore divisione. Apparentemente nessuna menzione di Ti-
beriade compare nei frammenti del Kit!b al-buld!n di al-J#>"@ (m. 869): cfr. PELLAT, Nouvel es-
sai, 134, nr. *55 (ringrazio Francesca BELLINO per avermi indicato quest’opera).
16
Cfr. bQidd. 49b, sulle nove misure di bellezza assegnate a Gerusalemme, la sola restante
al mondo.
17
/0!r al-bil!d, ed. WÜSTENFELD, 137; MARMARDJI, Textes, 106s.
18
Cfr. MARCUZZO, Le dialogue, § 20, p. 274-275 (e n. 16 per l’aggiunta, secondo il ms. di Pa-
rigi, ar. 215, f. 50v). MARCUZZO propende, invece, per la storicità del personaggio e identifica al-
ˀakw!. con un toponimo ricordato in Y#q!t, Muˁjam I, 241, che lo definisce «località della re-
gione di B#ni#s, poi di Damasco» (cfr. p. 108s). È difficile, comunque, che l’espressione «sor-
77
An_78.indb 77 21/06/11 15:37

3.
Tra le altre figure leggendarie legate in qualche modo a Tiberiade – questa vol-
ta per le eccezionali doti di scriba e «lettore» – si può ancora ricordare il miste-
rioso al-Ḫiḍr (o al-Ḫaḍir), a cui si allude già nel Corano (18:59-81).19
Abū Rifāˁa ˁUmāra b. Wathīma b. Mūsā b. al-Furāt al-Fārisī al-Fasawī,
morto in Egitto nel 902, raccolse nel suo Libro sull’origine della creazione e le
storie dei profeti tradizioni in parte già riunite dal padre, morto nell’851.20
Trattando del personaggio in questione, l’autore ricorda che egli fin dall’infan-
zia si distinse per una calligrafia senza pari e per l’espressività, ineguagliata,
della lettura, tanto che il suo maestro, che proveniva da Tiberiade, affermò di
non aver mai visto nulla di simile nel corso della propria vita. Quando poi il re
ˁAmāˀīl bandì una gara per designare il più provetto degli scribi e ognuna delle
mille città del suo regno selezionò il migliore dei propri scribi, la città di Tibe-
riade non trovò, tra tutti gli scribi che risiedevano in essa o nei dintorni, alcuno
più bravo di al-Ḫiḍr. Inutile dire che il nostro risultò primo anche nella selezio-
ne generale, scoprendosi per giunta anche figlio del re.
Il racconto ha, evidentemente, una coloritura tutta fiabesca, ma pare diffici-
le non riconoscere nell’insistenza sulla rinomata scuola scribale tiberiense
un’allusione alla scuola masoretica che rese famosa la città.21
4.
Una vexata quæstio legata alle vicende storiche di tale scuola è l’affiliazione
religiosa degli ultimi e più rappresentativi suoi adepti, la famiglia di masoreti
ben Asher.
Uno dei più strenui difensori della loro piena ortodossia, ovvero della loro
appartenenza alla corrente rabbanita, anziché caraita, è A. DOTAN, il quale ha
dedicato al tema una monografia non molto ampia, ma densa di argomenta-
zioni.22
Tra gli argomenti addotti per provare tale tesi vi è la dimostrazione che il
ben Asher contro il quale Saadia Gaon23 scrisse il poemetto ˀEśśa mešālī non è
gente di scienza e racconti» si riferisca ad al-ˀakwāḫ e non, piuttosto, a Tiberiade.

19
Su questo personaggio e le sue metamorfosi in ambito islamico e giudaico, cfr. DE HOND,
Beiträge, nonché TOTTOLI, Stories, spec. 105-106.
20
Cfr. LEVI DELLA VIDA, Manoscritti, 167; il testo è stato edito da KHOURY (Wiesbaden
1978); cfr. CHIESA, Fonti, 53s.
21
Il testo è nell’ed. cit., p. 6ss. La possibilità che il racconto contenga «una sorta di allusio-
ne alla scuola degli scribi (masoreti) di Tiberiade» era stata adombrata già da VAJDA, Rec. KHOU-
RY, 142.
22
DOTAN, Creed.
23
Cfr. MALTER, Saadia Gaon; ROSENBLATT, Book of Beliefs.
47
An_78.indb 78 21/06/11 15:37

Bruno Chiesa 79
uno dei masoreti di Tiberiade, ma un qualche polemista caraita contemporaneo

dell’autore stesso. In altri termini, non potendosi certo dimostrare che Saadia
non scrivesse contro un caraita, si individua, quale destinatario della polemica,
un caraita di nome ben Asher, che non fosse un masoreta. Ricerca non diffici-
le, perché si ha memoria di un certo Samuel ben Asher ben Manṣūr, «cono-
sciuto come Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Jabalī», caraita e non masoreta. La sola difficol-
tà è data dalla cronologia di tale personaggio: chi lo menziona, infatti, lo dice
contemporaneo di Abū ’l-Faraj Hārūn,24 e poiché quest’ultimo terminò il suo
Kitāb al-muštamil nel 1026 è difficile capire come Saadia (m. nel 942) possa
averlo fatto bersaglio di un attacco personale.
Per ovviare alla difficoltà, DOTAN propone di identificare il Samuel ben A-
sher ben Manṣūr, «conosciuto come Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Jabalī», con l’Abū al-
Ṭayyib, «soprannominato al-Jabalī», ricordato da Sahl b. Maṣliaḥ come uno
dei confutatori di Saadia. E poiché Sahl b. Maṣliaḥ fu attivo nella seconda
metà del sec. X,25 è da presumere che la sua informazione sia più attendibile di
quella fornita da Ibn al-Hītī, l’autore della Cronaca dei dottori caraiti,26 del
XV sec., da cui si desumeva l’altra cronologia. Il cerchio viene quindi a chiu-
dersi in modo perfetto:
Abbiamo così dimostrato chiaramente che Samuel ben Asher, conosciuto come
Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Jabalī, fu un attivo polemista caraita, contemporaneo (e forse
più vecchio) di Saadia Gaon. Da tutto ciò che sappiamo non c’è ragione per cui
non dobbiamo ammettere che egli fosse il ben Asher contro il quale Saadia
compose l’Essa meshali.27
Peccato che la cronologia di Ibn al-Hītī sia pienamente corretta: Abū al-Ṭayyib
Samuel ben Asher ben Manṣūr è, difatti, il destinatario di un responsum del ca-
raita Yūsuf al-Baṣīr, autore attivo nel primo terzo dell’XI sec.,28 come risulta
ora da un manoscritto dello stesso secolo (!), conservato nella National Library
of Russia di S. Pietroburgo tra i materiali delle collezioni Firkovich.29
Naturalmente si può anche scrivere che, alla fin fine, «il problema del-
l’identità della persona contro cui Saadia abbia scritto l’Essa meshali non ha
peso per il punto principale della discussione»: quel che conta è l’aver provato
che Aharon ben Asher e suo padre Mosè non erano caraiti.30 Basterebbe pro-
varlo, appunto, e con argomenti più solidi.31
24
Su questo autore caraita cfr. da ultimo: KHAN - ÁNGELES GALLEGO - OLSZOWY-SCHLANGER.
25
DOTAN, Creed, 84.
26
MARGOLIOUTH, Chronicle.
27
DOTAN, Creed, 64; le conclusioni di DOTAN sono state accolte da GIL, History, 182 (cfr.
anche p. 179).
28
Cfr. VAJDA, Muḥtawī, 4.
29
St. Petersburg, National Library of Russia, II Firkovich Coll., Arab.-Yevr. 33, f. 1r; cfr.
SKLARE, Judaeo-Arabic, 108.
30
DOTAN, Creed, 85.
31
Per un quadro sicuramente più attendibile, e avvincente, della questione del caraismo e i
48
An_78.indb 79 21/06/11 15:37

5.
Per avviare a conclusione questa serie di aneddoti, che intendono colmare in

qualche misura una raccolta più ampia di fonti sulla storia della scuola masore-
tica di Tiberiade,32 diamo notizia di un’ulteriore testimonianza circa la purezza
della locale tradizione di lettura del testo biblico.
A parlare (verso il 938 d. C.) è, questa volta, il caraita irakeno Ya‘qūb al-
Qirqisānī, nel suo commento a Gen 49,21: Neftali … cerva libera e veloce.
Con queste parole si alluderebbe alla preminenza dei figli di Neftali tra le altre
tribù «per l’impareggiabilità del parlar forbito e del discorrere squisito». Altri
vorrebbero, invece, vedervi un’allusione a Baraq figlio di Abinoam, che si
scagliò contro Sisera (Gdc 4,16), così come con l’espressione «parole bellis-
sime» (della fine del versetto) si alluderebbe al Canto di Debora (e Baraq) di
Gdc 5,1-31. Un altro autore, però – continua al-Qirqisānī –, propone di inten-
dere quest’ultima come un riferimento alla «lettura e recitazione (tilāwa) della
Scrittura propria della gente di Tiberiade, perché Tiberiade è parte del retaggio
di Neftali e la loro lettura della Scrittura è la più bella e la più corretta».33
Bruno Chiesa
Università di Torino
masoreti si veda DRORY, Models; DRORY, Le rôle.

32
Cfr. CHIESA, Emergence (uno dei pochi scritti che abbia retto alle critiche di BARTHÉLEMY:
cfr. Critique, xvi s). La documentazione letteraria ed epigrafica di età greca, romana e bizantina
sulla città è stata adeguatamente studiata da ADINOLFI, Il lago, e da CAMPAGNANO DI SEGNI, Tibe-
riade; per i riferimenti alla città nelle fonti rabbiniche, cfr. SPERBER, City, p. 196 dell’indice, s. v.
Tiberias; sempre fondamentale BALDI, Enchiridion.
33
S. Pietroburgo, National Libr. of Russia, II Firkovich Y.-A. I.4529, f. 101v (recensione
breve del Kibāb al-riyāḍ). – Di ḥusn qirāˀat shèveṭ Naftali, ovvero della «eccellenza della lettura
della tribù di Naftali», in specie della gente di Tiberiade, parla in riferimento allo stesso passo
l’anonimo compilatore di un commento alla Genesi (S. Pietroburgo, National Libr. of Russia, II
Firkovich Y.-A. I.1907, f. 2r), non senza rilevare la diversità di opinioni tra i commentatori e pa-
lesare la propria preferenza per un collegamento con Debora e Baraq. – Da ultimo, si può ricor-
dare quanto scritto nel Sefer Pitron Torah (URBACH, 343), databile tra la fine del IX e l’inizio del
X sec: «Tiberiade usa nella (lettura della) Torah un linguaggio chiaro più di chiunque al mondo,
dacché essi hanno una pronuncia gradevole»; cfr. anche BEIT-ARIÉ, ‫מבוא‬, 5-28.
49
An_78.indb 80 21/06/11 15:37

Bruno Chiesa 81
Bibliografia
a) Fonti
al-Fārisī, ˁUmāra ibn Wathīma, Kitāb badˀ al-khalq, ed. R. G. KHOURY, Les lé-
gendes prophétiques dans l’islam depuis le Ier jusqu’au IIIe siècle de l’hé-
gire, Wiesbaden 1978.
Flavius Iosephus, De Bello Iudaico (Flavii Josephi opera 6), ed. B. NIESE, Be-
rolini 1895 (rist. 1955).
Ibrāhīm al-Ṭabarānī - ˁAbd al-Raḥmān al-Hāšimī, Dialogo, ed. G. B. MARCUZ-
ZO, Le dialogue d’Abraham de Tibériade avec ˁAbd al-Raḥmān al-Hāšimī à
Jérusalem vers 820, Rome 1986.
al-Jāḥīẓ, Abī ˁUthmān ˁAmr ibn Baḥr, Kitāb al-buldān, Baghdad 1970.
al-Masˁūdī, Abū l-Ḥasan ˁAlī ibn al-Ḥusain, Les prairies d’or. Texte et traduc-
tion par C. Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille, III, Paris 1864.
Mosè Ibn Ezra, Kitāb al-muḥāḍara wal-muḏākara. Liber discussionis et com-
memorationis (Poetica Hebraica), ed. A. S. HALKIN, Jerusalem 1975.
Mosè Ibn Ezra. Kitāb al-muḥāḍara wal-muḏākara, ed. M. ABUMALHAM MAS (2
vol.), Madrid 1986.
al-Muqaddasī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, ˀAḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maˁrifat al-ˀaqā-
līm. Descriptio imperii moslemici, ed. M. J. DE GOEJE, Leiden 1906.
al-Muqaddasi, La migliore divisione per la conoscenza delle regioni, traduzio-
ne italiana in I cammini dell’Occidente: Il Mediterraneo tra i secoli IX e X,
a cura di A. VANOLI, presentazione di G. VERCELLIN, Padova 2001.
al-Qazwīnī, Zakarīyā ibn Muḥammad, ˀĀṯār al-bilād wa-ˀaḫbār al-ˁibād, ed.
G. WÜSTENFELD, el-Cazwini’s Kosmographie II: Die Denkmäler der Länder,
Göttingen 1848.
Sefer Pitron Torah: A Collection of Midrashim and Interpretations, ed. E. UR-
BACH, Jerusalem 1978.
Talmud babilonese, trattato Qiddushin: H. FREEDMANN (tr.), Kiddushin (“The
Soncino Babylonian Talmud”), London 1936.
Yāqūt al-Ḥamawī, Muˁjam al-buldān I, Beyrouth 1955.
al-Yaˁqūbī, Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaˁqūb, Kitāb al-buldān, ed. M. J. DE GOEJE, Lei-
den 1891.
Yehudah ha-Lewi. Kitāb al-radd wa-’l-dalīl fī ’l-dīn al-dhalīl, ed. D. H.
BANETH - H. BEN-SHAMMAI, Jerusalem 1977.
Yehudah ha-Lewi. Il re dei Khàzari, ed. E. PIATTELLI, Torino 1960 (rist. 1991).
50
An_78.indb 81 21/06/11 15:37

b) Studi
ADINOLFI M., “Il lago di Tiberiade e le sue città nella letteratura greco-romana”,
LA 44 (1994) 375-380.
ALLONY N., “The Reaction of Moses ibn Ezra (MiE) to ˁArabiyya (Arabism)”,
in G. VAJDA (ed.), Études hébraïques. Actes du XXIXe Congrès internatio-
nal des Orientalistes, Paris 1975, 3-4.
ALLONY N., El resurgimiento de la lengua hebrea en al-Andalus, a cura di C.
DEL VALLE, Madrid 1995.
ALTMANN A., “Torat ha-ˀaqlimim le-rabbi Yehudah ha-Lewi”, Melilah 1 (1944)
1-17 (versione inglese, a cura di L. SCHRAMM: “Judah Halevi’s Theory of
Climates”, Aleph 5 [2005] 215-246).
BARTHÉLEMY D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament III, Fribourg - Göttin-
gen 1992.
BALDI D., Enchiridion locorum sanctorum: Documenta S. Evangelii loca respi-
cientia, Jerusalem 21955.
‫ כתב־יד בית הספריה‬:‫ ספר פתרון תורה … מהדורה פקסימילה‬:‫ בתוך‬,‫ מבוא‬,‫בית־אריה מ׳‬
.‫ ירושלים תשנ״ה‬,Heb. 4o 5767 ‫הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים‬
CAMPAGNANO DI SEGNI L., “Tiberiade romano-bizantina attraverso le sue iscri-
zioni”, in F. ISRAEL et al. (ed.), Hebraica: Miscellanea di studi in onore di
Sergio J. Sierra, Torino 1998, 115-163.
CHIESA B., The Emergence of Hebrew Biblical Pointing: The Indirect Sources,
Frankfurt a. M. 1979.
CHIESA B., “Notizia ed estratti dalla Poetica ebraica di Mosheh ibn Ezra”, An-
nali di Ca’ Foscari 20/2 (1981) 127-136.
CHIESA B., “Alcune fonti per la conoscenza della storia del testo dell’Antico
Testamento ebraico nel secolo X d. C.”, in F. PARENTE (ed.), Atti del terzo
convegno [dell’AISG] tenuto a Idice, Bologna, nei giorni 9-11 novembre
1982, Roma 1985, 35-56.
COHEN M., “The Aesthetic Exegesis of Moses ibn Ezra”, in M. SÆBØ (ed.), He-
brew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, I/2: The
Middle Ages, Göttingen 2000, 282-301.
DÍEZ MACHO A., Mose ibn Ezra como poeta y preceptista, Barcelona 1953.
DOTAN A., Ben Asher’s Creed: A Study of the History of the Controversy, Mis-
soula 1977.
DRORY R., Models and Contacts: Arabic Literature and its Impact on Medieval
Jewish Culture, Leiden 2000.
DRORY R., “Le rôle de la littérature karaïte dans l’histoire de la littérature juive
au Xe siècle”, Revue des Études Juives 159 (2000) 99-111.
51
An_78.indb 82 21/06/11 15:37

Bruno Chiesa 83
FÜCK J., Arabiya. Untersuchungen zur arabischen Sprach- und Stilgeschichte

(Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
Philologisch-hististorische Klasse 45/1), Berlin 1950 (anche in traduzione
francese: Arabi3a. Recherches sur l’histoire de la langue et du style arabe,
trad. par Claude DENIZEAU. Avec une préface de l’auteur et une introd. par
Jean Cantineau, Paris 1955).
GIL M., A History of Palestine, 634-1099, Cambridge 1992.
DE HOND M., Beiträge zur Erklärung der El.i*r-Legende und von Qorân, Sure
18,59 ff, Leiden 1914.
HUART C., Littérature Arabe, Paris 1902.
KHAN G. - ÁNGELES GALLEGO M. - OLSZOWY-SCHLANGER J., The Karaite Tradition
of Hebrew grammatical thought in its classical form: A critical edition and
English translation of al-Kit!b al-k!f, …, Leiden 2003.
KROPP M., Die Geschichte der ‘reinen’ Araber vom Stamme Qa$'!n, Frankfurt
a. M. 1982.
LEVI DELLA VIDA G., “Manoscritti arabi di origine spagnola nella Biblioteca Va-
ticana”, in Collectanea Vaticana in honorem A. M. Card. Albareda II, Città
del Vaticano 1962, 133-189.
MALTER H., Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works, New York 1929.
MARGOLIOUTH D. S., The Relations between Arabs and Israelites prior to the
Rise of Islam, London 1924.
MARGOLIOUTH G., “Ibn Al-H"t"’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors”, The
Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1897) 429-443.
MARMARDJI A.-S., Textes géographiques arabes sur la Palestine, Paris 1951
(dell’opera esiste anche un’edizione interamente in arabo [Beirut 1948], ri-
stampata nel 1987).
PELLAT Ch., “Nouvel essai d’inventaire de l’œuvre j#>"@ienne”, Arabica 31
(1984) 117-164.
ROSENBLATT S., Saadia Gaon: The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, New Haven
1948.
ROTH N., “Jewish Reactions to the ˁArabiyya and the Renaissance of Hebrew
in Spain”, JSS 28 (1983) 63-84.
SKLARE D., Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collections: The
Works of Yusuf al-Basir. A Sample Catalogue, Jerusalem 1997.
SPERBER D., The City in Roman Palestine, New York - Oxford 1998.
LE STRANGE G., Palestine under the Muslims, London 1890.
TOTTOLI R., The Stories of the Prophets by Ibn Mu'arrif al -araf,, Berlin 2003.
VAJDA G., recensione di R. G. KHOURY, Les Légendes prophétiques dans l’Is-
lam … (Codices Arabici Antiqui 3), Wiesbaden 1978, in Revue des Études
Juives 139 (1980) 140-143.
VAJDA G., al-Kit!b al-mu$taw, de Y+suf al-Ba%,r, Leiden 1985.
83
An_78.indb 83 21/06/11 15:37

An_78.indb 84 21/06/11 15:37
Matteo Crimella
Il Signore vede il cuore!

Fra analisi sintattica e narratologia:
Il caso di 1 Sam 16,1-13
I. L’analisi sintattica
Fra i molti contributi del professor Alviero NICCACCI nei vari campi degli studi
biblici, indubbiamente spiccano i suoi saggi sulla sintassi ebraica1. Prendendo
le mosse dalla teorizzazione di WEINRICH, il nostro festeggiato ha studiato la
prosa dell’Antico Testamento, mettendone a punto il sistema sintattico. Tre
sono gli aspetti posti in luce dalle sue ricerche: anzitutto l’attitudine linguistica
(raccontare o commentare); poi la messa in rilievo (distinguendo il piano prin-
cipale della narrazione e lo sfondo); infine la prospettiva linguistica (ovverosia
l’informazione recuperata, il grado zero e l’informazione anticipata). Non è in-
utile offrire qui di seguito una breve sintesi del suo metodo.
Nella prima fase occorre determinare l’attitudine linguistica, se cioè la pro-
posizione appartenga al mondo narrato o al mondo commentato: il mondo nar-
rato è caratterizzato dalla presenza della terza persona, mentre il mondo com-
mentato (o discorso diretto) è dominato dalla prima e dalla seconda persona2.
Osserva NICCACCI: «In ebraico la forma verbale della narrazione è il WAYYIQ-
TOL, mentre lo YIQTOL è la forma principale del discorso. WAYYIQTOL e
YIQTOL sono perciò le forme fondamentali della prosa ebraica (non YIQTOL
e QATAL come suppongono le grammatiche tradizionali), in quanto esse ven-
gono identificate dall’opposizione mondo narrato (WAYYIQTOL) – mondo
commentato o discorso (YIQTOL)»3.
A questa prima fondamentale distinzione ne segue una seconda: occorre in-
dividuare se la proposizione sia di tipo verbale o nominale. Le proposizioni
1
Esprimo un vivissimo ringraziamento alla comunità dello Studium Biblicum Francisca-
num di Gerusalemme (e in particolare al decano padre G. C. BOTTINI, ofm) la cui ospitalità nei
mesi estivi del 2010 mi ha permesso di preparare il presente contributo.
2
Cf. WEINRICH, Tempus, 18-21.
3
NICCACCI, Sintassi, 18.
53
An_78.indb 85 21/06/11 15:37

86 Il Signore vede il cuore! Fra analisi sintattica e narratologia: Il caso di 1 Sam 16,1-13
verbali sono caratterizzate dal verbo in prima posizione (wayyiqtol, weqatal,

weyiqtol e forme volitive in prima posizione), mentre le proposizioni nominali
hanno un elemento non verbale in prima posizione (sostantivi, pronomi, con-
giunzioni, etc.). Queste ultime si dividono ulteriormente: abbiamo una propo-
sizione nominale semplice laddove vi sono unicamente forme nominali (fra cui
anche participi e infiniti); abbiamo invece una proposizione nominale comples-
sa dove c’è un verbo ma non in prima posizione (quest’ultima categoria vede i
costrutti x-yiqtol e x-qatal, dove x indica l’elemento non verbale in prima posi-
zione).
V’è un’ulteriore distinzione riguardante la messa in rilievo della proposi-
zione (primo piano o sfondo) e la sua prospettiva linguistica (informazione re-
cuperata o linea principale della comunicazione o informazione anticipata), in
relazione al progredire della comunicazione testuale4. Di norma la linea princi-
pale della narrazione vede una catena di wayyiqtol, mentre le altre proposizioni
verbali e nominali comunicano informazioni di secondo piano o di sfondo. Nel
discorso, invece, il primo piano è indicato con x-yiqtol indicativo, forme voliti-
ve, (x)-qatal e la proposizione nominale semplice, mentre lo sfondo è segnala-
to da una proposizione nominale semplice (laddove si vuole indicare una
circostanza contemporanea) e da waw-x-qatal (quando v’è una circostanza an-
teriore). Circa le forme di secondo piano (o di sfondo) NICCACCI afferma: «nella
narrazione l’informazione recuperata (retrospezione o antefatto) è espressa con
WAW-x-QATAL iniziale, il grado zero con WAYYIQTOL, […] l’informa-
zione anticipata con YIQTOL»5. Invece nel discorso «Si usa QATAL retro-
spettivo, solo oppure preceduto da kî, ˀăšer, ecc., per l’informazione recupera-
ta; YIQTOL (iussivo), imperativo, forme volitive, o proposizione nominale
semplice per il grado zero; YIQTOL (indicativo), weQATAL, proposizioni fi-
nali, ecc. per l’informazione anticipata»6.
La teorizzazione di NICCACCI oltre che essere un interessante strumento euri-
stico per l’analisi sintattica della prosa biblica, si presta pure ad essere un’otti-
ma base di partenza per lo studio del punto di vista, all’interno di un’indagine
tipicamente narrativa. Bisogna però introdurre, sia pur brevemente, i termini
della discussione a proposito della focalizzazione o punto di vista.
4
Afferma WEINRICH, Tempus, 56-57: «Über die Regulierung der Sprechhaltung durch die
Tempus-Gruppen der besprochenen und der erzählten Welt hinaus sind im Tempus-System Un-
terscheidungen angelegt, die eine Orientierung im Verhältnis zur Textzeit ermöglichen. Sie er-
lauben insbesondere eine relativ freie Verfügung über die Textzeit. Es kann nämlich auf diese
Weise Information entweder nachgeholt oder vorweggenommen werden».
5
6
54
An_78.indb 86 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 87
II. La focalizzazione o «punto di vista»
Lo studio del punto di vista7 deve molto alla teorizzazione di GENETTE, che ha
dominato per più di trent’anni8. Punto di partenza della riflessione del linguista
francese è la domanda: chi vede nella narrazione e come vede? Oppure: con lo
sguardo di chi il narratore sceglie di far vedere l’azione? E, di riflesso: chi per-
cepisce ciò che sta accadendo, cioè l’avvenimento nel racconto? A partire da
queste domande GENETTE distingue tre punti di vista (o focalizzazioni). Anzitut-
to la focalizzazione zero (o discorso non focalizzato): il narratore esce dai con-
fini spazio-temporali entro i quali si svolge l’azione e offre un’informazione
che non è percepibile rimanendo all’interno del racconto; il narratore ne sa più
del personaggio. V’è poi la focalizzazione interna: il narratore accede all’inte-
riorità del personaggio, rivelando che cosa pensa e/o desidera; il narratore ne
sa come il personaggio. Infine v’è la focalizzazione esterna: essa corrisponde a
ciò che ogni spettatore della scena è in grado di osservare; si tratta di una vi-
sione “dal di fuori” o “esterna” (esterna al personaggio, non alla scena) e infe-
riore rispetto a quello che può sapere un personaggio; il narratore ne sa meno
del personaggio.
Tale classificazione si è imposta, pur non mancando gli echi critici.
L’affondo più significativo è venuto da BAL che ha rimproverato a GENETTE di
non distinguere fra il soggetto della focalizzazione (focalizor) e l’oggetto della
focalizzazione (the focalized object)9. In altre parole, il linguista francese si li-
miterebbe ad individuare il punto di vista che scaturisce dal narratore, senza ri-
uscire a spiegare come e con quali modalità il narratore deleghi il suo punto di
vista ai personaggi del suo racconto oppure lo assuma come un’affermazione
propria. Nel pertugio aperto dalla BAL s’inserisce la più ampia riflessione di
RABATEL.
Il linguista di Lione ha elaborato una teoria del punto di vista che prende le
mosse proprio dalla distinzione fra focalizzatore e focalizzato. Egli, in partico-
lare, rifiuta la tesi GENETTEiana che vi sia un punto di vista esterno e un punto di
vista zero10. La sua definizione è totalmente inclusiva:
7
Cf. la rassegna panoramica di MARGUERAT, Le point de vue, 97-102.
8
Cf. GENETTE, Figures III, 206-211. La sua teoria è entrata anche nei manuali di analisi nar-
rativa della Bibbia: cf. SKA, Our Fathers, 65-81.
9
Cf. BAL, Narratology, 142-161.
10
Afferma: «La définition de la focalisation externe a toujours posé problème : les consi-
dérations nombreuses et, surtout, fluctuantes, autour de ce soi-disant type “neutre“, “objectif“,
“impartial“ témoignent des difficultés à définir son statut. Ce qui frappe le spécialiste, c’est
d’abord l’absence de critères contrastifs linguistiques discriminant les différents types de focali-
sation, cette absence se faisant particulièrement sentir pour la focalisation zéro» (RABATEL, L’in-
trouvable focalisation, 88; corsivi dell’autore). L’opera teoreticamente più impegnativa è: RABA-
TEL, La construction textuelle.
55
An_78.indb 87 21/06/11 15:37

On nommera point de vue tout ce qui, dans la référenciation des objets (du dis-
cours) révèle, d’un point de vue cognitif et axiologique, une source énonciative
particulière et indique, explicitement ou implicitement, ses représentations, et,
éventuellement, ses jugements sur les référents.11
Secondo RABATEL v’è sempre un punto di vista perché il discorso enuncia sem-
pre una percezione della realtà. In altre parole egli si congeda dall’idea di una
neutralità enunciativa mentre difende la tesi che pure laddove il racconto svi-
luppa il punto di vista di un personaggio, esso costituisce contemporaneamente
il punto di vista del narratore sul personaggio e sul punto di vista del personag-
gio, dando luogo ad una dissolvenza incrociata (fondu enchaîné).
La differenza dei punti di vista si evince dalla presenza di alcuni segnali
linguistici che denotano o connotano l’istanza enunciativa all’origine della re-
ferenziazione. Parole, pensieri, percezioni possono essere rapportati e/o rap-
presentati secondo schemi sintattici ed enunciativi identici. Proprio a questo li-
vello l’elaborazione di RABATEL s’intreccia con le prospettive di WEINRICH e
dunque di NICCACCI a proposito della prosa biblica. Il linguista francese offre la
seguente classificazione: v’è anzitutto un punto di vista raccontato che corri-
sponde allo svolgersi dei fatti a partire dalla prospettiva di uno degli attori
dell’enunciato (personaggio o narratore), senza pertanto ch’egli si esprima. Il
segnale linguistico è il racconto in primo piano: la narrazione appare essere
obiettiva e nasconde quasi interamente l’enunciatore. Si tratta cioè di un punto
di vista embrionale, minimale, quasi assente. V’è poi un punto di vista rappre-
sentato che permette al narratore di descrivere con parole sue (come locutore)
le percezioni e i pensieri dei personaggi che ne sono la fonte enunciativa ma
che rimangono quasi mascherati dietro il racconto. Si realizza dunque una dis-
giunzione fra il locutore e l’enunciatore. Il segno più evidente è il passaggio al
racconto in secondo piano. Infine il punto di vista asserito corrisponde al di-
scorso diretto i cui segnali linguistici sono più facilmente riconoscibili. Va ag-
giunta ancora un’osservazione: non è immediato distinguere fra il punto di vi-
sta del personaggio e quello del narratore, soprattutto perché la voce del narra-
tore è sempre presente. Spesso si crea una vera e propria polifonia, cioè una
dissolvenza incrociata di punti di vista: qualunque sia la forma del punto di vi-
sta (raccontato, rappresentato e asserito) e il soggetto del punto di vista, il nar-
ratore è dappertutto in sovrimpressione.
Sulla base di questo breve duplice schizzo teorico, lo studio della pericope
dell’unzione di Davide (1 Sam 16,1-13) mostrarà come l’analisi sintattica se-
condo il metodo linguistico-testuale sviluppato da NICCACCI si rivela essere un
ottimo supporto per la ricerca del punto di vista secondo il modello posto in lu-
ce da RABATEL12.
11
RABATEL, Points de vue, 23.
12
Istruttivi i contributi di WÉNIN che applicano ai racconti biblici le categorie di RABATEL:
56
An_78.indb 88 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 89
III. L’unzione di Davide (1 Sam 16,1-13)
Dopo la campagna contro Amalek e la disobbedienza a Dio (1 Sam 15,1-9), il

re Saul viene respinto dal Signore (v. 10-23); Saul implora invano il perdono
da Samuele (v. 24-31); la divergenza fra re e profeta è tale che il veggente arri-
va a uccidere di spada il re Agag (v. 32-33). A questo punto le strade di Saul e
di Samuele si dividono. E tuttavia il racconto non manca di osservare che non
v’è solo una rottura fra il re e il profeta; la decisione di Dio a proposito di Saul
rattrista il profeta, al punto che si delinea una sorta di spaccatura fra Samuele e
il Signore (v. 34-35).
1. Esposizione (v. 1)13

‫מוּאל‬
ֵ֗ ‫ל־שׁ‬
ְ ‫הוה ֶא‬
֜ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֨יּ‬ v. 1 a
E disse YHWH a Samuele:
‫ל־שׁ ֔אוּל‬
ָ ‫תי ַא ָתּ ֙ה ִמ ְת ַא ֵבּ֣ל ֶא‬
֙ ַ ‫ד־מ‬
ָ ‫ַע‬ b
«Fino a quando tu farai lutto su Saul
‫ ַעל־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל‬AC֖ ‫וַ ֲא ִנ֣י ְמ ַא ְס ִ֔תּיו ִמ ְמּ‬ c
mentre io l’ho rifiutato dal regnare su Israele?
‫ ֶ֗שׁ ֶמן‬H֜ ְ‫ַמ ֨ ֵלּא ַק ְרנ‬ d
Riempi il tuo corno di olio,
A֤‫וְ ֵל‬ e
e va’,
‫ית־ה ַלּ ְח ִ֔מי‬
ַ ‫ ֶאל־יִ ַ ֣שׁי ֵ ֽבּ‬H֙ ‫ֶ ֽא ְשׁ ָל ֲח‬ f
voglio mandarti da Iesse il Betlemmita,
‫׃‬A‫יתי ְבּ ָב ָנ֛יו ִ ֖לי ֶ ֽמ ֶל‬
ִ ‫י־ר ִ ֧א‬
ָ ‫ִ ֽכּ‬ g
perché tra i suoi figli ho visto un re per me».
Il locutore dell’esposizione del racconto è la voce narrativa che si mostra fin
dall’inizio onnisciente, rivelando di conoscere le parole del Signore a Samuele.
Il sintagma la, rma (nella tipica forma narrativa in wayyiqtol) introduce un di-
scorso riportato e indirizzato che corrisponde al punto di vista asserito del lo-
cutore. Chiari i segnali enunciativi: il pronome personale (hT'a;) rinvia al desti-
natario del discorso; l’avverbio temporale (yt;m'-d[;)14 e il participio (lBea;t.mi) man-
WÉNIN, Marques linguistiques; id., Le point de vue.

13
Il testo e la traduzione sono disposti graficamente in modo differenziato per evidenziare a
colpo d’occhio i vari livelli:
| Linea principale della narrazione
↑ Sfondo
| Linea secondaria (antefatto)
| Discorso diretto
La strutturazione del testo è secondo lo schema quinario (cf. MARGUERAT-BOURQUIN, Pour lire,
58-66), ponendo in luce la moltiplicazione di “complicazioni”.
14
Commenta HABEL, The Form, 312: «Moreover, the expression ytm d[ normally implies a
57
An_78.indb 89 21/06/11 15:37

tengono il discorso nel presente, riprendendo quanto il narratore aveva già det-
to a proposito del profeta (15,35): Samuele fa lutto per Saul. E tuttavia a
rivelare le azioni del profeta è lo stesso Signore mediante il rimprovero. In
contrapposizione al lutto15 del profeta, un waw-x-qatal segnala un ritorno in-
dietro nel tempo, ovverosia un’analessi che introduce un secondo piano, re-
cuperando un contenuto proposizionale già offerto precedentemente (cf.
15,26); così il locutore (il Signore) ribadisce la scelta già compiuta e sulla qua-
le non intende tornare. Né il narratore prima (15,35) né il Signore ora (16,1)
esplicitano il motivo del lutto del profeta. Una tale ritenzione d’informazione,
invece di essere colmata con varie ipotesi di ordine storico o psicologico16, ha
da essere compresa anzitutto come strategia narrativa17. Ciò infatti che risulta
è la divaricazione tra il profeta e Dio, facendo crescere l’attesa per quanto
avverrà.
I verbi all’imperativo (aLem; e %le) e in forma volitiva (^x]l'v.a,), poi, dirigono
l’attenzione ancora su Samuele che, nonostante lo scacco, è nuovamente chia-
mato in gioco dallo stesso Signore. Con una nuova proposizione x-qatal si ri-
torna su un’informazione di livello secondario del discorso diretto che esprime
la motivazione del nuovo incarico del veggente e rappresenta, narrativamente,
la soluzione del problema benché ancora indeterminata: il Signore ha visto18
un re. «Non sarà dunque il “che cosa” succederà a mantenere la tensione narra-
tiva a livello stilistico, ma il “come”»19. In altre parole non si tratterà di un in-
treccio di risoluzione (dove l’azione trasformatrice opera a livello pragmatico)
tone of indignation rather than of tenderness». L’espressione è tipica dei rimproveri profetici:
1 Sam 1,14 (Eli rimprovera Anna per la sua presunta ubriachezza); 1 Re 18,21; Ger 4,14.21; Zac
1,12 (cf. KESSLER, Narrative Technique, 547, n. 21).
15
Il verbo lba all’hitpael ha il senso di «fare lutto» (cf. HALOT, 7); precisa BAUMANN, lb;a',
in ThWAT I, 48-49: «Im Bereich des Gerichts bzw. der Gerichtsdrohung wird lba immer im
Hinblick auf eine mögliche Wendung der Dinge vollzogen. […] Auch 1 Sam 15, 35; 16, 1 wird
von hier aus zu verstehen sein».
16
Scrive POLZIN, Samuel, 154: «God had rejected someone whom Samuel had so suc-
cessfully molded to his own power-driven specifications».
17
Come osserva FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 115: «The reader’s imagination fills in the text
which itself leaves a blank here».
18
Compare qui per la prima volta il verbo har: il suo significato fondamentale è «vedere»,
anche se il verbo può indubbiamente anche assumere il senso di «scegliere, eleggere» (cf.
HALOT, 1159); tuttavia si preferisce il primo significato (senza escludere il secondo) perché
tutto l’episodio è giocato sulla differenza fra il vedere di Dio e il vedere di Samuele. Annota AL-
TER, The Art, 148-149: «The verb “chosen” (raˀho be) points neatly in two thematic directions.
It is an antonym of “reject” (maˀos be) and “to choose not” (loˀ baḥor be), which function as
Leitwörter referring both to the turning away of Saul and the choices not to be made among Jes-
se’s sons. At the same time, the literal meaning of the idiom is “to see in”, and the verb “to see”
will be the other dominant thematic key-word of the story».
19
VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 265-266. Conviene ricordare la definizione offerta da BARONI, La ten-
sion narrative, 18: «La tension est le phénomène qui survient lorsque l’interprète d’un récit est
encouragé à attendre un dénouement, cette attente étant caractérisée par une anticipation teintée
d’incertitude qui confère des traits passionnels à l’acte de réception».
58
An_78.indb 90 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 91
ma di un intreccio di rivelazione (in cui v’è un aumento di conoscenza)20. Ri-

correndo al linguaggio degli “universali narrativi” si può parlare di curiosità21:
un elemento del passato (la scelta del nuovo re) sfugge al lettore perché il nar-
ratore ha deciso di passarlo sotto silenzio, mettendo in moto una ricerca basata
sulle inferenze.
2. Prima complicazione (v. 2-4b)

֙‫מוּאל‬
ֵ ‫אמר ְשׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬ v. 2 a
E disse Samuele:
A‫ ֵא ֔ ֵל‬A‫ֵ ֣אי‬ b
«Come potrò andare?
‫וְ ָשׁ ַ ֥מע ָשׁ ֖אוּל‬ c
Certamente Saul sentirà
‫וַ ֲה ָר ָג֑נִ י‬ d
e mi ucciderà».
‫הוה‬
֗ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬ e
E disse YHWH:
H‫ֶעגְ ַל֤ת ָבּ ָק ֙ר ִתּ ַ ֣קּח ְבּיָ ֶ ֔ד‬ f
«Una giovenca dell’armento prenderai nella tua mano
‫וְ ָ ֣א ַמ ְר ָ֔תּ‬ g
e dirai:
‫אתי׃‬
ִ ‫יהו֖ה ָ ֽבּ‬
ָ ‫ִלזְ ֥בֹּ ַח ַ ֽל‬ h
“Per sacrificare a YHWH sono entrato”!
‫את ְליִ ַ ֖שׁי ַבּ ָזּ ַ֑בח‬
ָ ‫וְ ָק ָ ֥ר‬ v. 3 a
E chiamerai Iesse al sacrificio,
‫ר־תּ ֲע ֶ֔שׂה‬
ַ ‫ ֵ ֣את ֲא ֶ ֽשׁ‬H֙ ‫אוֹד ֲיע‬
ֽ ִ ‫וְ ָ ֽאנ ִֹ֗כי‬ b
mentre io ti farò conoscere quanto dovrai fare
‫׃‬H‫וּמ ַשׁ ְח ָ ֣תּ ֔ ִלי ֵ ֥את ֲא ֶשׁר־א ַ ֹ֖מר ֵא ֶ ֽלי‬
ָ c
e ungerai per me colui che ti dirò».
‫הוה‬
֔ ָ ְ‫שׁר ִדּ ֶבּ֣ר י‬
֣ ֶ ‫מוּאל ֵ ֚את ֲא‬
ֵ֗ ‫וַ ַיּ ַ֣עשׂ ְשׁ‬ v. 4 a
E fece Samuele quanto aveva detto YHWH
‫וַ ֖יָּב ֹא ֵבּ֣ית ָל ֶ֑חם‬ b
ed entrò in Betlemme.
20
Cf. MARGUERAT-BOURQUIN, Pour lire, 80-81.
21
Cf. la teorizzazione di STERNBERG, Expositional, 65: «Suspense derives from a lack of de-
sired information concerning the outcome of a conflict that is take place in the narrative future;
[…] curiosity is produced by a lack of information that relates to the narrative past». «For sur-
prise, however, the narrative first unobtrusively gaps or twists its chronology, then unexpectedly
discloses to us our misreading and enforces a corrective rereading in late re-cognition» (id.,
How Narrativity, 117).
59
An_78.indb 91 21/06/11 15:37

Il narratore riprende la linea principale del racconto, introducendo la risposta

di Samuele. La domanda diretta del veggente (v. 2b-d) ha la forma dell’obie-
zione e introduce un ulteriore elemento di tensione, legato al pericolo della sua
stessa vita22. Occorre osservare che il profeta si sente minacciato da Saul, non
dal re: l’utilizzo del nome proprio invece che del titolo regale, segnala che il
veggente, nonostante la sua interiore opposizione, ha accettato l’inappellabile
decisione di Dio.
La risposta divina all’obiezione di Samuele introduce un nuovo punto di vi-
sta asserito del Signore e dunque un nuovo cambio di locutore. Narrativamente
l’intervento di Dio ha una duplice funzione: da una parte rappresenta l’azione
trasformatrice che supera la prima complicazione, dall’altra fa avanzare il rac-
conto introducendo una novità: l’unzione di uno dei figli di Iesse (già annun-
ciata nel primo ordine [v. 1]) avverrà nel contesto di un sacrificio. La precisa-
zione tuttavia non chiarisce l’identità del futuro re che rimane ancora scono-
sciuta. La linea principale del discorso diretto del Signore è interrotta da una
proposizione di tipo waw-x-yiqtol (v. 3b) che esprime contemporaneità ma pu-
re un sottile contrasto con quanto è stato detto precedentemente: l’accento cade
sul pronome personale ykinOa' che rimanda solennemente al locutore23. A guidare
tutta l’azione è il Signore: Samuele dovrà semplicemente agire di conseguen-
za24. L’enfasi sul ruolo da protagonista del Signore è ribadito da un altro seg-
nale enunciativo, il complemento preposizionale yli (v. 3c) che richiama quanto
già detto al v. 125. Il comando del Signore pone non pochi problemi; se dal pun-
to di vista narrativo esso rappresenta l’azione trasformatrice, la sua interpreta-
zione è discussa. Non pochi commentatori moderni parlano di “sotterfugio”
per proteggere il profeta26; e tuttavia i commentatori ebrei medievali erano di
tutt’altro avviso. Kimchi, menzionando l’interpretazione del midrash, pone in
bocca al Signore questa espressione: «$twa grwh ym harnw ayshrpb $l»27. In altre
parole: a fronte del timore di Samuele Dio ordina al profeta di compiere un sa-
crificio pubblico, così che l’unzione del nuovo re sia “ufficiale”.
22
Notevoli sono i parallelismi fra l’obiezione di Samuele e quella di Mosè (Es 3): 1. ambe-
due sono inviati: ^x]l'v.a, %lew> (1 Sam 16,1) e ^x]l'v.a,w> hk'l. hT'[;w> (Es 3,10); 2. v’è l’obiezione del
chiamato: %leae %yae (1 Sam 16,2) e %leae yKi ykinOa' ymi (Es 3,11); 3. ricorre il motivo del sacrificio:
ytiaB' hw"hyl; x:Boz>li (1 Sam 16,2) e hw"hyl; hx'B.z>nIw> (Es 3,18). Cf. HABEL, The Form, 297-305.
23
Come nota COSTACURTA, Con la cetra, 35: «Il pronome “io” è sovrabbondante per la sin-
tassi ebraica, e perciò enfatico, sottolineando l’iniziativa di Dio e il fatto che tutto si deve risol-
vere tra Lui e il re».
24
Commenta FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 116: «This pair [v. 3bc] tresses the relationship of
Samuel with his God, assumes his obedience, and pacifies him concerning his task: God himself
assists him».
25
I due valori di dativus commodi e dativus possessoris sembrano essere entrambi pertinen-
ti (cf. GKC, § 119 r-s).
26
Così SMITH, A Critical, 144.
27
83 ,twlwdg twarqm ,!hk.
60
An_78.indb 92 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 93
Col passaggio (v. 4a) alla linea principale della narrazione (per mezzo di
una proposizione con wayyiqtol), la parola ritorna alla voce narrativa che an-
nuncia l’esecuzione dell’ordine da parte del profeta. Se la prima complicazione
ha trovato la sua soluzione per mezzo dell’azione trasformatrice (l’ordine del
Signore), l’esecuzione di Samuele si realizza solo a metà. Allorché egli entra a
Betlemme il narratore introduce una seconda complicazione. E tuttavia proprio
l’esecuzione dei comandi divini (sintetizzati dal verbo f[;Y:w:, con una notevole
accelerazione del racconto), pone finalmente il profeta in sintonia con la vo-
lontà di Dio28.
3. Seconda complicazione (v. 4c-5)

‫אתוֹ‬
֔ ‫יר ִל ְק ָר‬
֙ ‫וַ יֶּ ֶח ְר ֞דוּ זִ ְק ֵנ֤י ָה ִע‬ v. 4 c
Gli anziani della città vennero incontro a lui trepidanti
‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֖יּ‬ d
e si disse29:
‫׃‬H‫בּוֹא‬
ֽ ֶ ‫ם‬C֥ ‫ָשׁ‬ e
«Pace il tuo entrare»30?
‫אמר ׀‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֣יּ‬ v. 5 a
E disse:
‫ָשׁ ֗לוֹם‬ b
«Pace.
‫אתי‬
ִ ‫ִלזְ ֤בֹּ ַח ַ ֽליהוָ ֙ה ָ֔בּ‬ c
Per sacrificare a YHWH sono entrato.
‫ִ ֽה ְת ַק ְדּ ֔שׁוּ‬ d
Santificatevi,
‫אתם ִא ִ ֖תּי ַבּ ָזּ ַ֑בח‬
֥ ֶ ‫וּב‬
ָ e
così entrerete con me al sacrificio»!
‫ת־בּ ָ֔ניו‬
ָ ‫שׁי וְ ֶא‬
֙ ַ ִ‫וַ יְ ַק ֵ ֤דּשׁ ֶאת־י‬ f
E fece santificare Iesse e i suoi figli
‫וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֥רא ָל ֶ ֖הם ַל ָזּ ַֽבח׃‬ g
e li chiamò al sacrificio.
Continua la catena di wayyiqtol nella linea principale del racconto in bocca al
narratore. È introdotta una seconda complicazione, proveniente dagli anziani
di Betlemme, la quale corrisponde pure ad un rallentamento narrativo che fa
crescere la suspense. Ancora una volta non è detto il motivo della trepidazione
28
Cf. VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 268.
29
Alcuni manoscritti hanno il plurale che sembrerebbe più coerente. GKC, § 144 d, lo inter-
preta come un impersonale.
30
La Septuaginta aggiunge a questo punto o` ble,pwn, variante attestata anche a Qumran:
harh (4QSamb 4,4).
61
An_78.indb 93 21/06/11 15:37

timorosa degli anziani, come non si diceva da che cosa fosse causato il lutto di
Samuele31. È possibile un’inferenza a partire da una costante dei capitoli prece-
denti: allorché Samuele si sposta (cf. 13,10.13-14; 15,12.13.15-23) v’è sempre
un giudizio nei confronti della realtà (là la monarchia)32. Diventa così forse
comprensibile il timore degli anziani a fronte della visita del profeta33.
Se la risposta che Samuele offre agli anziani risolve subito la complicazio-
ne creatasi con il suo arrivo, l’ordine del profeta inizia a dare attuazione al
comando ricevuto da Dio (cf. v. 2h). In realtà dopo il dialogo fra gli anziani e il
veggente, il passaggio alla linea principale del racconto (v. 5fg) rappresenta un
restringimento del campo d’azione del profeta: degli anziani e degli abitanti di
Betlemme non si dirà più nulla; tutta l’attenzione si concentra su Iesse e i suoi
figli.
4. Terza complicazione (v. 6-10)

‫בוֹאם‬
ָ֔ ‫וַ יְ ִ ֣הי ְבּ‬ v. 6 a
E avvenne che, nel loro entrare,
‫יאב‬
֑ ָ ‫ת־א ִל‬
ֱ ‫וַ ַיּ ְ֖ רא ֶא‬ b
vide Eliab
‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֕יּ‬ c
e disse:
‫יחוֹ׃‬
ֽ ‫הו֖ה ְמ ִשׁ‬
ָ ְ‫ ֶנ֥ גֶ ד י‬A‫ַ ֛א‬ d
«Certamente è di fronte a YHWH il suo unto»!
‫מוּאל‬
ֵ֗ ‫ל־שׁ‬
ְ ‫הוה ֶא‬
֜ ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֨יּ‬ v. 7 a
Ma disse YHWH a Samuele:
‫קוֹמ ֖תוֹ‬
ָ ‫ל־מ ְר ֵ ֛אהוּ וְ ֶאל־גְּ ֥בֹ ַהּ‬
ַ ‫ל־תּ ֵבּ֧ט ֶא‬
ַ ‫ַא‬ b
«Non prestare attenzione al suo aspetto e all’altezza della sua statura
‫ִ ֣כּי ְמ ַא ְס ִ ֑תּיהוּ‬ c
perché l’ho rifiutato,
‫ִ ֣כּי ׀ ֗ל ֹא ֲא ֶ ֤שׁר יִ ְר ֶא ֙ה ָה ָא ָ ֔דם‬ d
perché non [è] ciò che vede l’uomo;
31
I commentari propongono diverse soluzioni: HERTZBERG, Die Samuelbücher, 105-106, af-
ferma: «Der Empfang durch die Ältesten, die weit mehr geängstigt als geehrt erscheinen, mag
darauf beruhen, daß sie von dem Zerwürfnis zwischen Samuel und Saul wissen und fürchten,
Unannehmlichkeiten zu bekommen, wie später die Bewohner der Priesterstadt Mob». Di diversa
opinione è KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 160: «Their trembling may reflect their general reverence for Samu-
el, […] but it also shows a good deal of apprehension».
32
Cf. VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 269.
33
Diversa, ma a nostro avviso meno fondata, l’interpretazione di CAQUOT-DE ROBERT, Les li-
vres, 188: «La crainte manifestée par les anciens de Bethléem veut évoquer probablement le ca-
ractère extraordinaire de la mission de Samuel (cf. 21. 2). Par ailleurs, le rôle de celui-ci dans la
célébration du sacrifice et l’insistance sur la sanctification rituelle le font apparaître sous des
traits sacerdotaux».
62
An_78.indb 94 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 95
‫ִ ֤כּי ָ ֽה ָא ָד ֙ם יִ ְר ֶ ֣אה ַל ֵע ַ֔יניִ ם‬ e

l’uomo infatti guarda negli occhi34
‫יהו֖ה יִ ְר ֶ ֥אה ַל ֵלּ ָ ֽבב׃‬
ָ ַ‫ו‬ f
ma YHWH vede il cuore»35.
‫ל־א ִ ֣בינָ ָ ֔דב‬
ֲ ‫שׁי ֶא‬
֙ ַ ִ‫וַ יִּ ְק ָ ֤רא י‬ v. 8 a
Iesse chiamò Abinadab
‫מוּאל‬
֑ ֵ ‫וַ יַּ ֲע ִב ֵ ֖רהוּ ִל ְפ ֵנ֣י ְשׁ‬ b
e lo fece passare davanti a Samuele,
‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֕יּ‬ c
e [questi] disse:
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫א־ב ַ ֥חר י‬
ָ ֹ ‫ם־בּ ֶז֖ה ֽל‬
ָ ַ‫גּ‬ d
«Nemmeno costui ha scelto YHWH»!
‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֵ ֥בר יִ ַ ֖שׁי ַשׁ ָ ֑מּה‬ v. 9 a
Iesse fece passare Sammà,
‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֕יּ‬ b
e [Samuele] disse:
‫הוה׃‬
ֽ ָ ְ‫א־ב ַ ֥חר י‬
ָ ֹ ‫ם־בּ ֶז֖ה ל‬
ָ ַ‫גּ‬ c
«Nemmeno costui ha scelto YHWH»!
‫מוּאל‬
֑ ֵ ‫וַ יַּ ֲע ֵ ֥בר יִ ַ ֛שׁי ִשׁ ְב ַ ֥עת ָבּ ָנ֖יו ִל ְפ ֵנ֣י ְשׁ‬ v. 10 a
E Iesse fece passare i suoi sette figli davanti a Samuele
‫מוּאל֙ ֶאל־יִ ַ֔שׁי‬
ֵ ‫אמר ְשׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֤יּ‬ b
e disse Samuele a Iesse:
‫הו֖ה ָבּ ֵ ֽא ֶלּה׃‬
ָ ְ‫א־ב ַ ֥חר י‬
ָ ֹ‫ל‬ c
«YHWH non ha scelto fra questi».
34
Si preferisce questa traduzione (sacrificando la ripetizione del verbo «vedere»), perché
idiomatica in italiano.
35
Il testo massoretico è difficile. La Septuaginta l’ha esplicitato in questo modo: o[ti ouvc
w`j evmble,yetai a;nqrwpoj( o;yetai o` qeo,j\ o[ti a;nqrwpoj o;yetai eivj pro,swpon( o` de. qeo.j
o;yetai eivj kardi,an (così nel codice Vaticanus; il testo antiocheno è lievemente differente: o[ti
ouvc w`j a'n i;dh| a;nqrwpoj( ou[twj o;yetai o` qeo,j …). Commenta MCCARTER, I Samuel, 274:
«The text of MT is defective (yr′h h′lhym having fallen out by homoioarkton), reading ky l′ ′šr
yr′h h′dm ky h′dm yr′h l′ynym wyhwh yr′h llbb, “For it is not what (the) man sees, for (the) man
looks into the eyes, but Yahweh looks into the heart.” Space considerations suggest that 4QSamb
shared the longer reading of LXX». Difende la lezione del testo massoretico BARTHÉLEMY, Cri-
tique textuelle, 189: «Mieux vaut admettre que le grec, ou plutôt sa Vorlage […] ont glosé un
texte sobre de type massorétique». Anche la Peshitta ha una lezione diversa (al v. 7d):
)$N) )zXd kY) D[Yg tYwh )L. Sostiene JOOSTEN, 1 Samuel, 229: «Though the MT is not cle-
ar, it gave the translator no cause to introduce a 1st person (pronoun or verb). I submit, therefore,
that here, as in v. 6, the Syriac must be explained as being based on a variant Hebrew text. The
following is a possible retroversion of the Syriac into Hebrew: kī lōˀ kaˀªšer yirˀeh hāˀādām ˀªnî
(ˀānōkī), “I am not similar to what man sees”». E conclude: «It would seem that the MT is in-
deed secondary to the text preserved by the Peshitta version» (p. 231). Pure la Vulgata rende con
la prima persona singolare: «nec iuxta intuitum hominis iudico». La differenza delle versioni te-
stimonia la difficoltà del testo massoretico che, proprio per questa ragione, deve essere
mantenuto.
63
An_78.indb 95 21/06/11 15:37

La terza complicazione è introdotta dal costrutto yhiy>w:, definito da NICCACCI un

«segno macrosintattico della narrazione»36, con la funzione di rendere verbale
la circostanza temporale che introduce. All’interno di uno schema sintattico a
due membri37 la voce narrativa introduce i personaggi, in prima battuta senza
svelarne l’identità (v. 6a), poi chiamandoli per nome (v. 6b.8a.9a). Quali sono
le strategie narrative poste in essere dal narratore?
In primo luogo la voce narrativa informa che Samuele (in realtà il soggetto
non è espresso ma lo si può facilmente dedurre dal contesto) «vide Eliab»
(v. 6b). Una tale informazione è della massima importanza perché proprio in-
torno al campo semantico del “vedere” è costruito tutto l’intreccio38. Il lettore
sa che il Signore ha visto (e/o scelto) un re tra i figli di Iesse (v. 1) e conosce
l’ordine divino dato al profeta (v. 3c). Il lettore attende dunque che il profeta
individui il futuro re. E tuttavia, a dispetto delle attese dell’udienza narrativa, il
narratore introduce una serie di elementi ritardanti che hanno l’effetto di far
crescere la suspense, la quale è tanto più intensa quanto più prolungata; inoltre
associa il lettore prima al punto di vista asserito di Samuele (v. 6d), poi a quel-
lo di Dio (v. 7b-f).
Il dialogo tra il profeta e Dio è interamente giocato sulla contrapposizione
di punti di vista. In realtà l’affermazione di Samuele a proposito di Eliab più
che rappresentare il suo punto di vista asserito, intende esprimere il punto di
vista di Dio. La presenza dei segnali enunciativi lo mostra: l’assenza della se-
conda persona, il riferimento a hwhy, l’uso del pronome di terza persona (Axyvim.)
e la forma asseverativa spingono a cogliere nelle parole del profeta una troppo
frettolosa (ed errata) anticipazione del giudizio di Dio39. In realtà la risposta di-
vina, espressa ancora una volta per mezzo di un punto di vista asserito, capo-
volge la prospettiva40. Eliab è infatti descritto come un alter Saul: se il suo a-
spetto e la sua statura richiamano la bellezza e l’altezza del primo re d’Israele
(cf. 9,2; 10,23), la reazione del Signore è ancora una volta il rifiuto (cf. 15,23;
16,1)41. Con un passaggio ad una proposizione nominale semplice (v. 7d)42,
36
Cf. NICCACCI, Sintassi, 21.
37
Lo schema sintattico a due membri è costituito da una protasi (preposizione + infinito co-
strutto [v. 6a]) e da un’apodosi (wayyiqtol [v. 6b]) (cf. ibid., 83-100).
38
Cf. l’analisi di FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 121-125, a proposito del verbo har.
39
Commenta STERNBERG, The Poetics, 97: «Ironically, the prophet commits his worst mis-
take in the first and easiest test. What would be more natural than to disqualify or at least distrust
(with the reader) the candidate who shares the rejected king’s most salient feature? But Samuel
again puts a favorable construction on physical stature and beauty (cf. 10:24), with ignominious
results».
40
La formula d’introduzione (laeWmv.-la, hw"hy> rm,aYOw: – v. 7a) ricalca esattamente quella inizia-
le (v. 1a), offrendo così al lettore un indizio di rimprovero (cf. KESSLER, Narrative Technique,
546-547).
41
Si può anche ipotizzare che il suffisso del verbo (WhyTis.a;m.) si riferisca alle caratteristiche
fisiche, sicché sarebbero proprio queste (aspetto e altezza) ad essere rigettate.
42
FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 122-123, individua nel v. 7d il centro del discorso di Dio, tro-
64
An_78.indb 96 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 97
sempre all’interno del discorso diretto del Signore, s’introduce l’opposizione

fra il vedere dell’uomo e quello di Dio. L’uomo vede secondo la misura di ciò
che percepisce con gli occhi43, ovverosia di ciò che appare44, il Signore invece
scruta il cuore, cioè la ragione e la volontà. Nella contrapposizione dei due
punti di vista emerge l’ironia drammatica, tutta a spese del profeta il quale,
nonostante il suo stato e il suo ruolo ben riconosciuto, si ritrova in dissonanza
con il Signore45.
La contrapposizione dei punti di vista fa crescere la competenza di Samue-
le e del lettore. Se, come già si è osservato, v’è un intreccio di rivelazione,
l’esplicitazione dei criteri divini offre una preziosa informazione a proposito
delle caratteristiche del futuro re. Tuttavia cresce pure l’opacità: il testo infatti
non esplicita (se non per negazione) quali siano i criteri corrispondenti al cuore
di Dio. Il lettore poi è informato a proposito del dialogo fra Dio e il suo profe-
ta, trovandosi così in una posizione di superiorità rispetto a Iesse il quale, inve-
ce, ignora la parola divina a Samuele. Per mezzo di questo scarto, allorché il
padre presenta al veggente Abinadab, Sammà e gli altri figli, il lettore, ascol-
tando le tre sentenze del profeta che riferiscono il punto di vista celeste
(v. 8-10), è pure in grado di inferire (almeno negativamente) il motivo della
scelta di Dio, rigorosamente taciuto a Iesse: i suoi figli (che sembrano esse-
re tutti i suoi figli) non corrispondono ai criteri richiesti da Dio per l’elezio-
ne del re.
La narrazione, iniziata con una giusta velocità (v. 6), rallenta a motivo di
una pausa descrittiva46 e riflessiva (v. 7), equivalente ad un’estrema lentezza
narrativa ma, per mezzo della presentazione degli altri due giovani (v. 8-9), ri-
vandosi in mezzo fra due yKi.

43
Per ben due volte si ripete il sintagma l. har; il lamed può indicare l’oggetto della visione
(quindi: «vedere l’apparenza» e «vedere il cuore») oppure essere considerato come lamed nor-
mæ (cf. FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 724; JOÜON, Grammaire, § 133 d;). Nella stessa linea si pone
JONGELING, La préposition, 97: «Il me semble que le deuxième L (LLBB) doit être compris dans
le même sens que le premier (LcYNYM), et qu’il faut traduire: “YHWH voit selon (la norme) le
(du) cœur”. Pour l’homme les yeux sont la norme selon laquelle il voit et juge, pour Dieu c’est
le cœur». JENNI, Präposition Lamed, 281 parla di «normative Relationen („gemäß”)» e a proposi-
to del nostro passo afferma: «bb'Lel; / ~yIn:y[el; „(sehen = beurteilen) nach den Augen/nach dem Her-
zen”» (p. 282). È forse possibile che l’espressione sia anfibologica: da una parte si dice che il Si-
gnore «vede il cuore», dall’altra che «vede secondo il cuore», coerentemente con quanto era
stato annunciato in 13,14. Interessante è la versione dell’intero v. 7 offerta da BUBER e ROSEN-
ZWEIG: «ER aber sprach zu Schmuel: Blicke nimmer auf sein Aussehn, auf seinen ragenden
Wuchs, denn ich habe ihn verworfen, denn nicht was der Mensch sieht ists, denn: der Mensch
sieht in die Augen, ER aber sieht in das Herz» (BUBER-ROSENZWEIG, Bücher der Geschichte, 197).
44
DHORME, Les livres, 141-142 commenta: «Le mot ~yIn:y[e signifie l’aspect extérieur (cf. le
v. 12 ; Lev. XIII, 5, 37, 55 ; Num. XI, 7). Le grec des Septante a traduit par pro,swpon».
45
Come già affermava Rashi (82 ,twlwdg twarqm ,!hk):
«hawr $nyaX $[ydwm yna !ak ,(jy,j a‫״‬X) ‫״‬hawrh ykna‫ ״‬lwaXl trmaX ,‫׳‬hawr‫ ׳‬$mc[l tarqX p‫[״‬a».
46
La “pausa descrittiva” è un «ralentissement extrême de la narration, où un segment du ré-
cit correspond à une durée nulle sur le plan de l’histoire racontée» (MARGUERAT-BOURQUIN, Pour
lire, 123).
65
An_78.indb 97 21/06/11 15:37

prende una velocità normale (dove il tempo del racconto equivale al tempo
della storia) per aumentare ancor più con il sommario finale (v. 10a). Un simile
stratagemma porta la tensione narrativa al suo acme. Infatti per mezzo dell’ul-
timo e autorevole giudizio di Dio (v. 10c) la complicazione sembra prendere il
sopravvento sul programma iniziale (v. 1.3) sancendone il fallimento. A tirare
una simile conclusione contribuisce pure l’utilizzo del numero «sette» che nor-
malmente indica completezza.
5. Azione trasformatrice (v. 11-12)

‫מוּאל ֶאל־יִ ַשׁ֮י‬
֣ ֵ ‫אמר ְשׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֨יּ‬ v. 11 a
E disse Samuele a Iesse:
‫ם‬
֒ ‫ֲה ַ ֣תמּוּ ַהנְּ ָע ִרי‬ b
«Sono proprio finiti i ragazzi»?
‫אמר‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֗יּ‬ c
E disse:
‫עוֹד ָשׁ ַ ֣אר ַה ָקּ ָ֔טן‬ d
«È rimasto ancora il più piccolo,
‫וְ ִה ֵנּ֥ה ר ֶ ֹ֖עה ַבּ ֑צּ ֹאן‬ e
ed ecco sta pascolando il gregge».
‫שׁי‬
֙ ַ ִ‫מוּאל ֶאל־י‬
֤ ֵ ‫אמר ְשׁ‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֨יּ‬ f
E disse Samuele a Iesse:
‫ִשׁ ְל ָ ֣חה‬ g
«Manda
‫וְ ָק ֶ֔חנּוּ‬ h
e prendilo
‫ִ ֥כּי לֹא־נָ ֖סֹב ַעד־בּ ֹ֥אוֹ ֽ ֹפה׃‬ i
perché non ci metteremo [a tavola] finché non sarà entrato qui»!
‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַל֤ח‬ v. 12 a
E mandò
‫הוּ‬
֙ ‫יא‬
ֵ֙ ‫וַ ִיְב‬ b
e lo fece entrare
↑ ‫֑ר ֹ ִאי‬ ‫מוֹני ִעם־יְ ֵ ֥פה ֵע ַינ֖ יִ ם וְ ֣טוֹב‬
ִ֔ ‫וְ ֣הוּא ַא ְד‬ c
ed egli era rossiccio, con bellezza di occhi e piacevole d’aspetto.
‫הו֛ה‬
ָ ְ‫אמר י‬
ֶ ֹ ‫וַ ֧יּ‬ d
E disse YHWH:
66
An_78.indb 98 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 99
‫֥קוּם‬ e
«Alzati,
‫ְמ ָשׁ ֵ ֖חהוּ‬ f
ungilo
‫י־ז֥ה ֽהוּא׃‬
ֶ ‫ִ ֽכּ‬ g
perché è lui»!
La domanda di Samuele a Iesse (v. 11b) introduce l’ultima azione trasformatri-
ce che conduce alla soluzione; la questione del profeta rilancia la narrazione47
ma insieme riporta il lettore alla verità della parola pronunciata da Dio: «Sa-
muele sospetta che ci siano ancora altri ragazzi, perché sa che la parola del Si-
gnore nel v. 1 deve essere vera»48. Ad essere sbugiardato è Iesse che non ha
presentato al profeta tutti i suoi figli. Che il dialogo fra i due introduca qualco-
sa di nuovo lo si comprende dalla duplice introduzione del narratore (v. 11a.f)
nel quale si esplicitano nuovamente sia il locutore come l’allocutore. Se la pre-
sentazione dei sette figli di Iesse e il relativo rifiuto divino avevano gettato
un’ombra di sospetto sulla promessa divina e sulla missione del profeta facen-
do crescere la suspense, la narrazione riprende vigore per mezzo di una sor-
presa che per modalità e contenuto contraddice gli indizi precedenti: Iesse ha
un ottavo figlio il cui nome non è ancora esplicitato.
Il ragazzo è presentato secondo il punto di vista asserito del padre come «il
più piccolo»49, ora occupato nella cura del gregge come pastore. Il profeta e il
lettore, a differenza di Iesse, conoscendo i criteri dati da Dio (v. 7), colgono
nella presentazione del «più piccolo» il contraltare di Eliab e di Saul (cf. 9,2;
10,23), caratterizzati per l’altezza della loro statura. La stessa valenza ironica
ha il riferimento al pastore del gregge: sulla bocca di Iesse denota una sempli-
ce circostanza, alle orecchie del lettore, invece, evoca una delle caratteristiche
del re, pastore del suo popolo50 più che uomo d’armi.
All’ordine di Samuele di convocare il giovanetto (v. 11g-i) corrisponde la
pronta esecuzione di Iesse (v. 12a-b). Nel momento in cui il «più piccolo» en-
tra51 la narrazione è al suo climax: l’intreccio di rivelazione è giunto alla sua
soluzione. Ma, a dispetto delle attese, il narratore frena il racconto introducen-
do una descrizione (la cui velocità narrativa corrisponde a zero) e frustrando le
47
Cf. CAQUOT–DE ROBERT, Les livres, 189.
48
VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 274.
49
Commenta KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 161: «Perhaps we should see in the word !jqh (v 11) the
connotation of “smallest”, as well as youngest».
50
Contro CAQUOT–DE ROBERT, Les livres, 189, che affermano: «La qualification de David
comme “berger” a été surexploitée par certains théoriciens de la “royauté sacrée” qui voient en
tout “pasteur” un titre royal».
51
FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 123, nota che le ricorrenze del verbo awb sono otto (v. 2h.4b.e.
5c.e.6a.11i.12b), così come (accettando la lezione della Septuaginta al v. 7d) quelle della radice
har (v. 1g.6b.7b.d [2x].e.f.12c); ciò corrisponde al numero dei figli di Iesse.
67
An_78.indb 99 21/06/11 15:37

aspettative: «Ed egli era rossiccio, con bellezza di occhi52 e piacevole d’aspet-
to» (v. 12c).
Prima di individuare la fonte enunciativa dell’apprezzamento del ragazzo
occorre porre in luce le relazioni intertestuali. Due sembrano essere le allusioni
reperibili nella descrizione del giovanetto. La prima allusione, legata alla bel-
lezza/bontà (bwOj), ricorda la figura del neonato Mosè che proprio in questo mo-
do (aWh bAj-yKi) era caratterizzato (Es 2,2). Se la bellezza di Mosè era la ragione
della sua salvezza e quindi della sua crescita, la bellezza di Davide prelude ad
uno splendido futuro. La seconda allusione è ad Esaù che alla nascita aveva
l’inconsueto colore rossiccio (ynImod>a;) della pelle e/o dei capelli (Gen 25,25).
«Due personaggi molto diversi tra di loro, ma con un importante punto in co-
mune: ambedue hanno a che fare con il capovolgimento delle usuali graduato-
rie d’importanza tra fratelli. […] Forse c’è, velatamente, un gioco di personag-
gi, una strana somiglianza nel destino cui sono destinati, a parti invertite, ques-
ti due “rossi” protagonisti della storia d’Israele»53.
Ma, al di là delle pur importanti allusioni, il lettore non tarda a cogliere la
problematicità di un simile apprezzamento. Esso infatti riprende quasi letteral-
mente le espressioni utilizzate per tratteggiare Eliab e per offrire un nuovo mo-
dello di discernimento (v. 7b.e); il fatto poi che la descrizione del ragazzo cul-
mini con l’espressione yairo bAj, echeggia l’importante motivo del “vedere”
(har), filo rosso dell’intera narrazione, ma sembra smentire palesemente i crite-
ri offerti da Dio per la scelta del re54. ESLINGER, prendendo le mosse da questa
osservazione, afferma: «Of his [di Davide] heart, supposedly so central to the
choice, the reader hears nothing at all. This selectivity of description, along
52
Sulla difficile espressione ~yIn:y[e hpey>-~[i v’è una discussione aperta. Scriveva DHORME, Les
livres, 142: «La construction de ~[i avec un adjectif est difficilement admissible. Graetz et Kren-
kel ont proposé, chacun de son côté, de lire ~l,[, “jeune homme” (cf. XVII, 56 ; XX, 22), et cette
conjecture est généralement admise. Inutile alors de recourir à une seconde correction de Kren-
kel qui voudrait remplacer ~[i par ~[in" “aimable” (II Sam. I, 23 ; Cant. I, 16)». Tuttavia nota
KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 161: «Proposals to emend the text (e.g. ruddy and attractive; McCarter), fail to
convince because of the nearly identical expression in 17:42».
53
COSTACURTA, Con la cetra, 43. Espressioni molto simili ritornano nel capitolo seguente in
bocca al narratore ma, per mezzo di un décrochage sintattico, esprimono il punto di vista rappre-
sentato di Golia: «Il filisteo guardò fisso e vide Davide e lo disprezzò perché era giovane, rosso
(ynImod>a;) e bello all’apparenza (ha,r>m; hpey>-~[i)» (1 Sam 17,42). Evidente la torsione ironica delle e-
spressioni, come ha finemente notato RABATEL, Points de vue, 22: «Le lecteur comprend en effet
[…] que le terme “gamin”, la mention de “la jolie figure”, à la grâce quasi féminine, tout comme
celle du teint clair, qui caractérise davantage les femmes que les hommes, tout cela connote le
mépris du mâle viril en son âge mûr pour un jeunot qui lui paraît appartenir sinon au monde des
femmes, du moins ne pas faire partie du monde des hommes virils, et n’est, à ces titres, pas un
adversaire digne de sa force».
54
La difficoltà dell’espressione è testimoniata anche dalla Septuaginta che glossa: avgaqo.j
o`ra,sei kuri,w| (secondo il codice Vaticanus; il testo antiocheno legge: avgaqo.j th/| o`ra,sei
kuri,ou). «Le “plus” de la LXX, “selon le regard du Seigneur”, est à mettre en relation avec l’ex-
position entre le regard de l’homme et celui de Dieu» (GRILLET-LESTIENNE, Premier livre des
Règnes, 287).
100
An_78.indb 100 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 101
with the profuse descriptors of physical appearance marks the narrator’s force-
ful efforts to highlight the incongruity between what God has said and what he
has done. God said, ‘don’t judge according to appearance’ (marˀēhû, v 7) and
then he picks David, who is good to look at (rōˀî)»55. La conclusione di ESLIN-
GER si basa sul fatto che l’apprezzamento del v. 12c rappresenti il punto di vista
del narratore. Annota infatti: «There is no indication, in v 12, that the descrip-
tion of David’s appearance belongs to any other than the narrator. There are no
distinctive linguistic qualities in the description that suggest or allow the rea-
der to think that this is Samuel’s view expressed through the voice of the nar-
rator»56. Occorre tuttavia chiedersi se davvero manchino segnali linguistici che
permettano di riconoscere un differente punto di vista. Unendo considerazioni
di tipo sintattico secondo il metodo di NICCACCI e la teoria dei punti di vista di
RABATEL del v. 12c può essere offerta una differente interpretazione.
Sintatticamente v’è una proposizione nominale semplice con ruolo di com-
mento, dunque di sfondo: all’interno di un racconto dove tutte le informazioni
appartenenti al mondo narrato sono collocate nella linea principale (cioè sono
caratterizzate dall’utilizzo del wayyiqtol), la proposizione del v. 12c è la sola
interruzione; è l’unico décrochage dell’intera narrazione: come interpretarlo?
Secondo il linguista di Lione il passaggio sintattico dal primo al secondo piano
può segnalare un punto di vista rappresentato, ovverosia un punto di vista nel
quale avviene una disgiunzione fra locutore ed enunciatore57. L’osservazione
ben si adatta a questo caso: la frase è detta dal narratore ma mette in scena un
enunciatore intratestuale, Samuele, fonte enunciativa di un punto di vista, sen-
za che questo punto di vista corrisponda a un discorso del profeta. La parafrasi
corrisponderebbe ad una sorta di monologo interiore di Samuele che il narrato-
re riporta per mezzo di parole sue; alla percezione è dato un carattere più og-
gettivante, con l’effetto di mascherare il personaggio che esprime i propri pen-
sieri58.
Su questo difficile aspetto analisi sintattica e studio del punto di vista mo-
strano la loro feconda reciprocità. In altre parole: non è qui espresso il punto di
vista del narratore (come vorrebbe ESLINGER), perché questo condurrebbe al vi-
colo cieco dell’incongruenza fra i criteri divini di elezione e la loro concreta
applicazione; v’è, invece, il punto di vista rappresentato di Samuele il quale si-
no alla fine, nonostante sia guidato dal Signore, non riesce a vedere se non con
gli occhi, cioè secondo quanto appare59. Fino all’ultimo il punto di vista
55
ESLINGER, A Change, 356.
56
ESLINGER, A Change, 356, n. 21.
57
Cf. RABATEL, Points de vue, 22-23.
58
Rifacendosi alle teoria di GENETTE, FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 130-131, riconosce un
caso di focalizzazione interna legata a Samuele (cf. anche VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 275-276).
59
Contro VIRONDA, Gli inizi, 276, che afferma: «[Samuele è un] personaggio che funge or-
mai decisamente da soggetto, senza più le valenze negative dell’inizio (oppositore)».
69
An_78.indb 101 21/06/11 15:37

dell’uomo (addirittura del profeta) differisce da quello di Dio. Lo scarto persi-

ste, senza possibilità di soluzione. Ne consegue che la narrazione nega al pro-
feta la capacità di vedere secondo il cuore (v. 7f), riservandola unicamente a
Dio che guida la vicenda dell’elezione del nuovo re60. La scelta del re è solo
opera di Dio, realizzata con criteri che superano la visione umana (e pure pro-
fetica) ma che non sono ancora del tutto espliciti.
L’ordine dato a Samuele da Dio (v. 12e-g) segna ancora un passaggio al
punto di vista asserito del Signore: v’è un’ulteriore indicazione della differen-
za fra il punto di vista del profeta e quello di Dio. Infatti l’ultima e definitiva
parola detta da Dio a Samuele (aWh hz<-yKi – v. 12g)61 addita esplicitamente il ra-
gazzo, superando la conoscenza che il profeta poteva avere. Con quest’ordine
l’azione trasformatrice giunge al suo culmine: la promessa divina (cf. v. 1.3) si
è compiuta.
6. Soluzione e situazione finale (v. 13)

‫ת־ק ֶרן ַה ֶ֗שּׁ ֶמן‬
֣ ֶ ‫מוּאל ֶא‬
ֵ֜ ‫וַ יִּ ַ ֨קּח ְשׁ‬ v. 13 a
E prese Samuele il corno dell’olio,
‫ֹתוֹ ְבּ ֶ ֣ ק ֶרב ֶא ָחי ֒ו‬
֮ ‫וַ יִּ ְמ ַ ֣שׁח א‬ b
e lo unse in mezzo ai suoi fratelli
‫ל־דּ ִ ֔וד ֵמ ַהיּ֥ וֹם ַה ֖הוּא וָ ָ ֑מ ְע ָלה‬
ָ ‫וּח־יְ הוָ ֙ה ֶא‬
ַ ‫וַ ִתּ ְצ ַל֤ח ֽר‬ c
e fece irruzione lo spirito di YHWH in Davide da quel giorno in poi.
‫מוּאל‬
ֵ֔ ‫וַ ָיּ֣ ָ קם ְשׁ‬ d
E si alzò Samuele
‫ ָה ָר ָ ֽמ ָתה׃‬A‫וַ ֵיּ ֶ֖ל‬ e
andò a Rama.
Le battute finali (una catena di wayyiqtol che mostrano la successione degli
eventi) sanciscono la soluzione. Ora che il nuovo re è stato identificato, il pro-
feta lo unge, consacrandolo62. Il riferimento allo spirito del Signore se da un
lato è un elemento tradizionale (cf. Gdc 14,6.19; 15,14; 1 Sam 10,6.10; 11,6)
che indica la forza divina di cui gli eroi sono investiti in vista delle loro impre-
se, dall’altro è un aggancio con l’episodio seguente: mentre lo spirito del Si-
gnore si posa su Davide (v. 13) si ritira da Saul (v. 14)63.
60
Scrive STERNBERG, The Poetics, 98: «The heart remains the monopoly of the All-seeing,
to which even official “seers” gain access at his discretion alone. Or to recast the epistemologi-
cal doctrine in terms of perspectival structure: even the prophet’s discourse functions as one of
the many voices, all but two potentially unreliable, with and trough which the Bible speaks».
61
La Septuaginta esplicita: avna,sta kai. cri,son ton Daui,d( o[ti ou-toj avgaqo,j evstin (tutta-
via il testo antiocheno legge avna,sthqi kai. cri/son auvto,n( o[ti ou-toj evstin).
62
Il «corno dell’olio» è nominato all’inizio (v. 1) e alla fine (v. 12), formando così un’inclu-
sione che indica i limiti della pericope (cf. KLEIN, 1 Samuel, 161-162).
63
Sull’unità dell’intero capitolo cf. WALTERS, The Light, 284-291.
70
An_78.indb 102 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 103
Solo a questo punto (v. 13c), al termine del racconto, il narratore fornisce il
nome dell’eletto: Davide. «La comparsa di un nome nel testo di un racconto
apre un blanc sémantique (Docherty), un certo spazio vuoto che attende di es-
sere riempito lungo la storia del pieno significato implicato in quel nome. Il ri-
empimento è evidentemente compito del lettore, che deve capire la storia»64.
Se Davide è stato scelto da Dio ciò significa che il Signore lo ha scrutato in
profondità, trovandolo secondo il suo cuore (cf. 13,14). «Thus David’s interi-
or, his real quality, corresponds to God’s interior»65. Ma la qualità dell’eletto
re dovrà essere percepita e compresa dal lettore nel prosieguo della vicenda.
Per questa ragione la comparsa del nome, al finire del racconto, ha la capacità
di aprire nuovi e futuri scenari.
IV. Conclusione
L’analisi della pericope secondo il metodo linguistico-testuale ha determinato,

anzitutto, l’attitudine linguistica delle proposizioni, evidenziando l’alternanza
fra mondo narrato e mondo commentato. Il racconto dell’unzione di Davide
inizia (v.1) con una forma di continuazione (rm,aYOw:): non v’è un’interruzione
sintattica al principio della pericope, mentre un antefatto al v. 14 segnala un
nuovo racconto. Si tratta quindi di un testo in continuità con la linea narrativa
principale precedente. In esso le forme di livello principale (wayyiqtol) si alter-
nano con i discorsi diretti. Non v’è nessuna informazione di preparazione (an-
tefatto o ambientazione del racconto), né la catena dei wayyiqtol narrativi è in-
terrotta. A proposito, invece, della messa in rilievo, lo studio ha rilevato che
l’intera linea principale della narrazione è in primo piano e l’unico costrutto di
livello secondario è al v. 12c: il passaggio dal primo piano allo sfondo è affida-
to ad una proposizione nominale semplice dipendente dal wayyiqtol precedente
(v. 12b).
Tali rilievi sono un ottimo strumento euristico per reperire i punti di vista
(o focalizzazioni) all’interno della narrazione. La prosa ebraica dimostra di
possedere sufficienti risorse per segnalare i cambiamenti di focalizzazione,
guidando il lettore nella comprensione delle strategie narrative poste in essere
dal testo. Nell’episodio analizzato la continua alternanza di punti di vista rac-
contati e asseriti fa avanzare il racconto ma fa crescere pure la tensione narrati-
va conducendola verso il turning point, oltre il quale si pone lo scioglimento.
La presenza di un solo punto di vista rappresentato (corrispondente all’unico
costrutto sintattico secondario di sfondo) proprio al cuore dell’azione trasfor-
64
VIGNOLO, Personaggi, 35-36.
65
FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art, 123.
71
An_78.indb 103 21/06/11 15:37

matrice (v. 12c) segnala una precisa scelta narrativa e teologica che presiede
tutto il racconto.
Dal dialogo iniziale sino all’unzione di Davide lo sguardo vigile di Dio
domina la scena mentre il profeta, nonostante sia il portavoce dell’Altissimo,
mostra di essere e di rimanere su un altro piano, puramente umano. Fra la vi-
sione divina e quella umana v’è un’incolmabile differenza e una netta separa-
zione. Il profeta, benché sia detto “veggente”, giunge a scorgere la realtà solo
coi propri occhi, senza la possibilità di andare al di là. Solo Dio entra nella
profondità dell’animo, guardando dentro il cuore.
Ne consegue che la scelta di Davide è un atto divino, profondamente teo-
centrico, il cui unico protagonista è Dio. La scelta dell’ottavo figlio di Iesse, il
pastore dalle fattezze delicate, caratterizzato come «il più piccolo», è l’opposto
di Saul, il guerriero dall’alta statura. In altre parole il Signore sceglie un perso-
naggio che non possa vantare alcun titolo per rivendicare la regalità, cosicché
sia chiaro che quella regalità proviene solo dall’alto e dalla forza dello spirito
di Dio.
Matteo Crimella
Studio teologico del Pontificio Istituto Missioni Estere, Milano
Bibliografia
ALTER R., The Art of Biblical Narrative, London - Sydney 1981.

BAL M., Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, Toronto - Buf-
falo - London 21999.
BARONI R., La tension narrative. Suspense, curiosité et surprise (Poétique), Pa-
ris 2007.
BARTHÉLEMY D., Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. 1. Josué, Juges,
Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Néhémie, Esther (Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 50), Fribourg - Göttingen 1982.
BUBER M. - ROSENZWEIG F. (ed.), Bücher der Geschichte (Die Schrift 2), Stutt-
gart 81992.
CAQUOT A. - DE ROBERT P., Les livres de Samuel (Commentaire de l’Ancien Te-
stament 6), Genève 1994.
.1993 !g-tmr ,lawmX rps .rtkh twlwdg twarqm ,(ed.) ‫׳‬m !hk
COSTACURTA B., Con la cetra e con la fionda. L’ascesa di Davide verso il trono
(Studi biblici 42), Bologna 2002.
DHORME P., Les livres de Samuel (Études Bibliques), Paris 1910.
72
An_78.indb 104 21/06/11 15:37

Matteo Crimella 105
ESLINGER E., “A Change of Heart: 1 Samuel 16”, in id. - J. G. Taylor (ed.), As-
cribe to the Lord. Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Grai-
gie (JSOT.S 67), Sheffield 1988, 341-361.
FOKKELMAN J.P., Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel. A Full Inter-
pretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Volume II: The Cros-
sing Fates (I Sam 13-31 & II Sam 1) (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 23), As-
sen/Maastricht - Dover 1986.
GENETTE G., Figures III (Poétique), Paris 1972.
GRILLET B. - LESTIENNE M. et al. (ed.), Premier livre des Règnes. Traduction du
texte grec de la Septante (La Bible d’Alexandrie 9.1), Paris 1997.
HABEL N.C., “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives”, ZAW 77
(1965) 297-323.
HERTZBERG H.W., Die Samuelbücher (Das Alte Testament Deutsch 10), Göttin-
gen 1956.
JENNI E., Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed,
Stuttgart - Berlin - Köln 2000.
JONGELING B., “La préposition L dans 1 Samuel 16:7”, in H. L. J. VANSTIPHOUT et
al. (ed.), Scripta Signa Vocis. Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes and
Languages in the Near East, presented to J. H. Hospers by his pupils, col-
leagues and friends, Groningen 1986, 95-99.
JOOSTEN J., “1 Samuel XVI 6,7 in the Peshiṭta Version”, VT 41 (1991) 226-233.
JOÜON P., Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, Rome 21947.
KESSLER M., “Narrative Technique in 1 Sm 16,1-13”, The Catholic Biblical
Quaterly 32 (1970) 543-554.
KLEIN R.W., 1 Samuel (World Biblical Commentary 10), Waco 1983.
MARGUERAT D., “Le point de vue dans le récit : Matthieu, Jean et les autres”, in
A. DETTWILLER - U. POPLUTZ (ed.), Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes / Étu-
des sur Matthieu et Jean. Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Ge-
burtstag / Mélanges offerts à Jean Zumstein pour son 65° anniversaire
(Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 97), Zürich
2009, 91-107.
MARGUERAT D. - BOURQUIN Y., Pour lire les récits bibliques. Initiation à l’ana-
lyse narrative, Paris - Genève 42009.
MCCARTER P. K., I Samuel. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and
Commentary (Anchor Bible), New York 1980.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (SBF. Ana-
lecta 23), Jerusalem 1986.
POLZIN R., Samuel and the Deuteronomist. A Literary Study of the Deuterono-
mic History. Part Two: 1 Samuel (Indiana Studies in Biblical Literature),
Bloomington 1993.
RABATEL A., La construction textuelle du point de vue (Sciences des discours),
Lausanne - Paris 1998.
73
An_78.indb 105 21/06/11 15:37

RABATEL A., “L’introuvable focalisation externe. De la subordination de la visi-

on externe au point de vue du personnage ou au point de vue du narrateur”,
Littérature 107 (1997) 88-113.
RABATEL A., “Points de vue et représentations du divin dans 1 Samuel 17,4-51.
Le récit de la Parole et de l’agir humain dans le combat de David contre
Goliath”, in RRENAB, Regards croisés sur la Bible. Études sur le point de
vue. Actes du IIIe colloque international du Réseau de recherche en narra-
tivité biblique. Paris 8-10 juin 2006 (Lectio Divina hors série), Paris 2007,
15-55.
SKA J.-L., “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of He-
brew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica 13), Roma 1990.
SMITH H.P., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel
(The International Critical Commentary of the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments), Edinburgh 1912.
STERNBERG M., Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction, Balti-
more - London 1978.
STERNBERG M., “How Narrativity Makes a Difference”, Narrative 9 (2001)
115-122.
STERNBERG M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Ideological Literature and
the Drama of Reading (Indiana Literary Biblical Series), Bloomington
1985.
VIGNOLO R., Personaggi del quarto Vangelo. Figure della fede in San Giovanni
(Biblica 2), Milano 22006.
VIRONDA M., “Gli inizi dell’ascesa di Davide (1 Sam 16,1-23). Analisi narrato-
logica”, Rivista Biblica 41 (1993) 257-291.
WALTERS S. D., “The Light and the Dark”, in L. ESLINGER - J. G. TAYLOR (ed.),
Ascribe to the Lord. Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C.
Graigie (JSOT.S 67), Sheffield 1988, 567-589.
WEINRICH H., Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt (Sprache und Literatur
16), Stuttgart 41985.
WÉNIN A., “Le »point de vue raconté«, une catégorie utile pour étudier les ré-
cits bibliques? L’exemple du meurtre d’Églôn par Éhud (Jdc 3,15-26a)”,
ZAW 120 (2008) 14-27.
WÉNIN A., “Marques linguistiques du point de vue dans le récit biblique. L’ex-
emple du mariage de David (1 S 18,17-29)”, Ephemerides theologicae Lo-
vanienses 83 (2007) 319-337.
74
An_78.indb 106 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult
Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses Expressing

Circumstance in Biblical Hebrew Narration
Introduction, scope, and aim
Biblical Hebrew style is compact: people are characterized by what they say
and do, not through the narrator describing their features, qualities, and proper-
ties. Actions are as a rule reckoned in view of their actual effect, not attendant
states and activities. Narratives proceed rapidly from one scene to another.
Still, narrators of these rapid and compact stories skillfully solved the problem
of how to describe activities that are parallel to, or out of sequence with, the
main course of events.1
The broad concept of circumstance—expressed by elements peripheral to
clauses, sentences, and episodes—implies something that is relative to the
main points of communication, and consequently has several potentially possi-
ble logical relationships, yet is not marked for any.
The present discussion deals with attendant elements in the economy of
biblical narrative. Omniscient as he is, the biblical narrator has an overview of
the whole picture that he piece by piece presents to his audience, passages of
direct speech are well-timed and subsidiary descriptions and remarks on the
main course of events are well-judged. Biblical narration follows an event line
distinguished by chains of independent wayyiqtol clauses, each presenting a
single sequential action, thus moving the reference time forward.2 These
strings are interspersed with dialogue and—the topic of this discussion—el-
ements that halt the stream of events with predications that bear upon the run-
1
Cf. ZEVIT, Anterior Construction, 1ff.
2
Cf. HATAV, Aspect and Modality, 6 and 56ff. Generally, in Greek narration conjunct aorist
participles are preparatory to the finite verb. Thus, the Septuagint renders Ruth 1,18 (abbr.): %&3 f) .#
!" ' (' by: “EF%G*', having seen (= since she saw) that she was deter-
$ 43 %) &D) L. 4+ 4;. F+ f3 .# %"!' /e3 N3 %. /+ <B"
mined, /-H0'*I$ +%G J'JK*'(, she stopped talking to her”. Commonly, however, the Septuagint
translator adapts to the Hebrew form, so that for instance Gen 16,4: sf$ &+ O' +T 4Y. f) .# !/$ &$ !$ "(' %&3 f) .#
!"$ 30"9) D+ is rendered by: -'5 ILFI$ M+( /$ "'*+35 NOI( -'5 P+(&1*Q, R -S3#' /$'$+#%$ 'T+KU. See J. H.
MOULTON, Greek Grammar 3, 155.
99
An_78.indb 107 21/06/11 15:37

108 Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses Expressing Circumstance
ning narration. In brief catchwords, there is a coincidence between speech time

and reference time, which means that attendant circumstances are not very
prominent. In narration, such additional information amidst the quick-paced
surrounding clauses is perceived as static and constitute an effective means to
furnish tangential, but still important information. In order to find clear in-
stances of attendant circumstances, the present discussion is limited to narra-
tive passages and omits dialogues.
Standard grammars differ in the discussion of the concept of circumstance
and take no uniform position toward it. Traditionally, grammars adhering to
the analysis current in Arabic take note of the different functions of nominal
and verbal clauses, viz., to predicate a state vs. to present an action,3 and re-
mark on the functional connection between the “accusative of state” and cir-
cumstantial clauses. Since various kinds of circumstance are treated in view of
their semantic properties, the discussion unavoidably deals with the logical re-
lationship to the governing clause in terms of time, cause, condition, conces-
sion, etc. However, little attention is given to various genres, and almost none
to the difference between narration and direct speech. In a number of works
Alviero NICCACCI has investigated the syntactic structure of narration in relation
to discourse/speech: what constitutes main line vis-à-vis off-line in these two
forms, and the transition between the central sequence and subsidiary material.
The similar functions of various subsidiary elements raises the question of
their form, properties, and usage. The aim of this article is accordingly to shed
light on structure and purport of descriptive, remarking, and contextualizing
elements in Standard Biblical Hebrew prose narrative.
The overriding sequential principle in biblical narration entails that a situa-
tion can be vividly described solely by sequential clauses, e. g., Judg 3,21-22.
When deemed necessary, however, the biblical narrator describes an actant at
the moment of the action, the conditions under which an action is performed,
as well as current conditions of importance for a proper understanding of an
episode. Thus, he contextualizes characters and events by interposing states
and activities that are peripheral to the main action and do not propel the event
line forward—and this mostly without resorting to subjunctions, but rather
with a simple connective waw and sometimes even without it.4
3
Cf. WRIGHT, Arabic Grammar 2, 251-252.
4
The phenomenon is reminiscent of English absolute clauses in which the predicate is
formed with a participle instead of a finite verb, e. g., “This done, we went home”; “It being very
cold, we made a fire”; “God willing, I will come”; and with ellipsis of the participle “Sword in
hand, he faced his foe”.
100
An_78.indb 108 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 109
Phrases that are not marked for description
The description of Biblical Hebrew narrative syntax needs a method that goes
beyond sentential syntax and puts text structure in focus, a method that goes
from form to function, and recognizes the marked stratification between the
central sequence of events and peripheral elements. The focus on subsidiary
phrases and clauses means that non-optional complements of verbs for begin-
ning, end, and continuation are left out of discussion, such as h6$el “begin”,
h5s,f “continue”, and kill! “end”, and occasionally q+m “rise” and s!7a7
“turn”, e. g., /C3 43 4$ 1Y$ $` .# or /C3 43 4$ OPt '` .# “he prepared to leave”.5 Left out are also
two-verb constructions, whether iterative, quantitative, or qualitative, e. g.,
Judg 19,7: 1Z$ ,43 $` .# OZ$ $` .# “and he lodged there again”; 1 Sam 2,3: J&D+ L. /+ JD&+ fB4 . %.
“Don’t go on talking”; and Gen 24,18: s;$ (. L&P3 f .# &!) <. f+ .# “quickly she lowered her
jar”. The same goes for asyndetic complement clauses, that although vivid,
such as in Job 32,22: ! 3*C. %[ "f' 9+ L. $" %P4 “I do not know how to give flattering ti-
tles”—are better known in Arabic and Syriac.6
The essential characteristic of circumstantial phrases remains elusive. At
times they are adverbial and at times—as will be shown—more or less overtly
descriptive of an actant at the time of the action and consequently also attribu-
tive. Admittedly, in a good many cases the circumstantial phrase is exclusively
adverbial, as in Gen 12,8: 1L3 x3 <' "9. !$ +# 1 $`<' 4%B/" ) D) !6!{ %$ V )` .# “he pitched his tent,
with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east”. Similarly, the infinitive construct
with le, that is liqtol, occasionally assumes an explanatory sense expressive of
manner, e. g., Gen 39,10: s4$ e+ %3 O(. Z+ 4' !"$ 43 %) 9<. ZB% $ P 4 “he would not listen to her, as
regards lying with her”; and 1 Sam 20,36: M&O' 9[ !. 4+ "e' F) !. !&$ $"B%J! +# “and he shot the
arrow letting it pass over him”.7 As is well known, with verba dicendi the pet-
rified infinitive l6(ˀ)m5r serves a similar function of qualifying the verbal ac-
tion, as in Ruth 2,15: &P<%4) #"&$ 9$ +0B/%3 H9P. D #e. +" .# “Boaz instructed his young men
(by) saying”. In these cases, Arabic uses the participle, q!ˀilan, as does
Greek, JV"W$, whereas Akkadian employs the “present” iparras, as in: p!&u
,pu&amma izakkaram ana PN “he opened his mouth speaking to PN”.8
On the fringe of presenting an attendant circumstance is the special (very
infrequent) use the weqatal met with in 2 Sam 13,18: 49. $0 +# cJF!. M/&+ Z$ <+ s/M% $ %eP) ` .#
$ &3 F[ %. /43 ;3 !. “and his servant put her out, and bolted the door after her”. The
!"
events are contemporaneous in so far as the locking of the door is not pre-
5
Cf. ESKHULT, Verb sbb, 21-26.
6
See DRIVER, Treatise, 206. The appendix on the circumstantial clause covers p. 195-218.
Cf. also GKC, § 120 c and d.
7
Cf. also 1 Sam 12,17. See further GKC, § 114 p, and JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 124 o. Most likely,
liqtol originates in an infinite parallel formation to yiqtol, NYBERG, Hebreisk grammatik, § 91 c,
Rem. 1.
8
Quoted from KIENAST, Semitische Sprachwissenschaft, § 405.2.
101
An_78.indb 109 21/06/11 15:37

sented as the next stage of a series of events. So also Judg 3,23: /M/4+ ;. &PTA+ '` .#
49$ $0 +# ML9[ D. ! $`4' 9. !$ “and he shut the doors of the upper-chamber on him and bolted
them”.9 Similarly, an infinitive absolute in lieu of a finite verb occasionally
$ D. J9Y+ /+ '` .# “they
takes on a circumstantial force, e. g., Judg 7,19: 1";' (. !. cM? $0 +# /M&?M]
blew the trumpets while smashing the jars”; cf. also Gen 41,43.10
Phrases and clauses descriptive of both actants and activities
Pivotal for the subsequent discussion is the idea that the concept of circum-
stance is not limited to something that solely appertains to the action denoted
by the principal verb, but also refers to the state of a clause constituent at the
time of the action. The Classical Greek conjunct participle offers a good com-
parison. Its logical relationship to the rest of the sentence may be marked by
some particle, but mostly is not. Referring to examples from the New Testa-
ment, the conjunct participle is equivalent to temporal clause in Matt 27,63:
IL0I$ N+( XY$, “he said while yet living”, and a concessive clause in Gal 6,3: IE
"Z3 F%-I[ +(U IL$'# +( &,F\$ ]$, 63I$'0'+^ _'S+H$ “for if any one reputes him-
self to be something, being nothing, he deceives himself”. Also, with an an-
arthrous noun, there is no formal distinction between the attributive and the
predicative function, e. g., Mark 11,13: EF`$ *S-K$ a0b &'-3HQI$ NO%S*'$
6cJJ' “he saw from afar a fig-tree having (or, which had) leaves”.
According to which level descriptions and comments bear upon—be it the
level of a clause, a complex sentence, or a whole episode—the following dis-
cussion will bring into focus (1) phrases that specify or describe an actant at
the time of the action, and (2) clauses that describe a situation by being added
to the event line, as well as (3) clauses that express some state of affairs and
thus furnish the background to the main course of events.11
Elements expressive of attendant circumstance on the clausal level
(a) A substantive in the function of a second predicate is found either with an

overt subject, as in Gen 37,2 (abbr.): &9. .0 %J! +# ,%P_D. #"F$ %B/ ) “Joseph
3 %3 !9P3 & ! $"!$ RAM"
tended the sheep with his brothers, as a helper”,12 or naked, as in, e. g., Josh 2,1
9
See RUNDGREN, Intensiv- und Aspektkorrelation, 108ff.
10
See further ISAKSSON, Circumstantial Qualifiers, 57.
11
Drawing on traditional knowledge, subordinate clauses are here divided into nounal, attri-
butive and adverbial. Nounal clauses are classified as dependent statements, questions, or excla-
mations (for dependent commands, an infinitival or a “should” construction is used, e. g., 1 Sam
9,27). Attributive clauses are are commonly called relative, while clauses corresponding to an
adverbial adjunct represent various logical relationships connected to the verbal action, such as
time, reason, and condition.
102
An_78.indb 110 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 111
(abbr.): 0"2' +Q&- 7+ 0"X' $/%;0 p +" >2- X+ '_ -# “Joshua sent two men (as) spies”; 1 Kgs
Y '" -/X+ 5- XE!
5,2: 0"DBD ' +A B%d+ $" 0&$ %Y -# “the Arameans went forth (by) companies”; see also Judg
9,34. In these cases the added word rather specifies than describes the actant.
In Arabic, karra Zaydun ˀasadan “Zeid charged (like) a lion”, has a counter-
part in Isa 21,8: ! )"&+ %- %&$ W+ '_ -# “he cried (as) a lion”. This construction must not be
confused with an adverbial of restriction, e. g., Gen 41,40: $|F1 7' 26- +A%1 %t) (' !- W&-
“only as regards the throne will I be greater than you”.13
Among adjectival phrases that describe the state of the subject and at the
same time qualify the verbal action, 1 Kgs 20,43 is instructive: “the king of Is-
rael went, U21 )_ -#, to his house sullen and vexed, K5) $@ +# &:- ”—a remark that foreshad-
ows the murder of Naboth. The clause K5) $@ +# &:- U21 )_ -# is constituted by a predicate
verb plus, not a mere adjunct, but rather a “co-predicate”. That is to say, the
clause can, and should, be analysed as a combination of two underlying ideas,
viz., “he went” and “(was) sullen and vexed”.14
Conditions descriptive of subject or object at the time of the action are
mostly expressed by indefinite adjectives and participles both presenting them-
selves as concomitant with the principal action.15 Phrases referring to the state
of the subject are commonly found in short (and partly recurrent) phrases, e. g.,
Gen 25,25: " '/E7D+ %- ,EX%&' !$ %d) )_ -# “the first came forth red”; Num 16,27: 0"G' ^$ '/ B%d+ $"
0!"1 2) !{ %$ >.- k1 “they came out taking stands at their tent-doors”.16 See also Judg
8,4: 0"9' DI+ & +# 0"9' )"5Y (they passed over) “faint yet pursuing”, and 2 Sam 15,30: %B! +#
K>) $" U2I) ! “while he walked barefoot”. The meaning of the adjective itself to-
gether with the context indicate whether the state of the subject is qualified, or
the manner of the action. Compare Esth 5,9: >- 7) 8$ %B!!- 0E_=- ,7$ !$ %d) )_ -# “Haman
went out that day happy”, as opposed to Esth 3,15: 0"9B> ' D+ B%d+ $" 0"d' &$ !$ “the couri-
ers went out quickly”. Formal adverbs, such as 0E&5$ and 0W"$ &) may be used
adjectively in a predicative function, as appears in Job 24,7: B/"2' $" 0E&5$ “naked
they pass the night”, and Ruth 1,21: ! $#! +" " '/G"- X' !4 0W"$ &) +# "f' <+ 2- !$ !%$ 2) 7+ " '/%Y “I went
away full, and empty the Lord brought me back”.17
The construction with a coordinated absolute infinitive of the A A’ B pat-
tern may be used, not only as an adverbial adjunct, but also to describe both
12
In Judg 8,20 the particle k, explicitly points out the circumstance: the boy did not draw
his sword, &5- $/ B*DE5
1 "(' %&) $" "(' “for he was afraid, [k,] he was still a boy”.
13
See WRIGHT, Arabic Grammar 2, 115, and JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 126 c.d.g, in due order.
14
PREMPER, Zustandssätze, 92-92 and 314-320, proposes the term ”koprädikativ” for a fa-
cultative qualification of the kind discussed here. Another German term is “prädicatives Attri-
but”; see KÖNIG, Lehrgebäude 3, § 332 h.
15
See in general GKC, § 118 n.o.p; JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 126 a.
16
In 2 Kgs 11,3: %=) >- .+ 7' ! $#! +" ."=) sf$ %' "!' +" -# it seems that hidden is a subject complement. From
direct speech, Gen 37,35 is often quoted: 2G) %$ " '/=;2 + %1 D&) %) “I shall go down to my son, mourning”.
In Aramaic, the particle k,2 / ka2 introduces an adjective or participle expressing circumstance:
the Targum reads: % $/2"G' %- D"<' "&' G+ . $#2+ .E>"%) , and the Peshitta reads:ˀe..o0 ˁal ber(y) ka2 ˀa7,l-n!.
17
A qualification of state is mostly added with a prepositional phrase, as in, e. g., Judg 8,32:
!GET $ =1 ,E5D+ 'Q .7$ $_ -# “Gideon son of Joash died at a ripe old age”.
$ !G"$ 8) =+ X%E";,
111
An_78.indb 111 21/06/11 15:37

the manner of an action and the condition of the subject, e. g., Judg 14,9: W43 )` .#
4PC%$ +# WM4!$ “he went on, eating as he went”; 2 Sam 3,16: !PCOJ $ WM4!$ sZ" $ %' sf$ %' W43 )` .#
“her husband went with her weeping”; 1 Sam 6,12 (abbr.): W6!$ JC4+ !$ /M&k$ !. ! $0&+ ]. '" .#
M9 $I +# “the cows went straight on, lowing as they went; cf. also Josh 6,9 and
2 Sam 15,30. Contrariwise, a case like 1 Sam 20,37: 9P. e?J$ !() !. Z"%' !$ J!() .` .# “the
man hit him, striking and wounding (him)”, focusses on the verbal activity as
do cases where an adjective occupies the last slot, e. g., Gen 26,13: 4L) $I +# WM4!$ W43 )` .#
“and grew more and more”, as well as the less frequent A B A’ pattern,
which—except for two cases—involves the infinitive absolute ha&k6m: &D) L. %[ $#
3 4) %[ “I spoke to you persistently”.
&D) L. +# 1() Z+ !. 1C"
(b) More frequently, an indefinite adjective or participle is used to describe
the state or activity of the object at the moment of the action. With verbs other
than those of perception, the construction is rare, e. g., Josh 8,23 "9. !$ W43 <B/ 3 %3 +#
"F$ J>?+ f$ “the king of Ai they took alive”, and from direct speech Job 12,17:
44MZ
$ 1"e' 9M" [ W"4M< ' “he leads counsellors away stripped”; but with verbs of percep-
tion, it is met with frequently, e. g., Gen 3,8: , $TD. WK) !. /+ <' 1"!6 ' %7 ! $#! +" 4MYB/%3 J9<+ Z+ '` .#
“they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden”; Num
. %3 %&+ .` .# “he saw the angel of the Lord standing on the
22,31: W&3 ;3 D. O_$ '0 ! $#! +" W%. 4+ <B/
road”. As is easily perceived, the qualifier describes the state of the object at
the moment of the action. Concerning Arabic, Wright states that verba sentien-
di may take two accusatives; the latter is not, then, a second object but a cir-
cumstantial accusative, defined as the state or condition of the object, while the
act is taking place.18 The fact that at least two actants are involved, indicates
that a sentence like the following from Num 11,10: !CP3 D 19$ !B/ $ %3 !ZP3 < 9<. Z+ '` .# “Mo-
ses heard the people weeping”, is a combination of two ideas: “Moses heard
the people” and “the people (were) weeping”, in which the object phrase 19$ !$
!CP3 D itself expresses a concomitant relationship between the subject and what is
predicated. Thus, in isolation the object phrase represents a nominal clause, the
basic idea of which is that it does not present an action but a predication made
of a subject.19
The basic rule says that an indefinite participle referring to a definite object
is predicative in function, e. g., Gen 21,9 (abbr.): YF) e. <+ & $I!B, $ DB/3 %3 !&$ >$ %&3 f) .# “Sa-
rah saw the son of Hagar making sport”. Most Bible translations in cases like
these nevertheless prefer a relative clause, e. g., Ex 5,20: ,P &![ %B/ . %3 +# !ZP3 <B/%3 J9 +T?+ '` .#
1/% $ &$ Y+ 4' 1"O' _$ '0 “they met Moses and Aaron, who were waiting for them”.20 In
contrast, a definite participle referring to a definite object makes the qualifica-
tion attributive, e. g., Gen 16,13: !"$ 43 %) &OP) ;!. ! $#! +"B1Z) %&$ Y+ f' .# “she gave a name to
the Lord who spoke to her”; Judg 1,17: /?. e+ OZM" . %3 J( .` .# “they defeated
) " '09[ .0(+ !B/
18
WRIGHT, Arabic Grammar 2, 50.112.
19
WRIGHT, Arabic Grammar 2, 251f, cf. MEYER, Hebräische Grammatik 3, § 90.1.
20
Cf. also 1 Kgs 11,8: ,!"3 !6% + /M&"V' Y+ <. /M`&' C+ $*!. #"Z$ $0B4C$ 4+ !>$ 9$ ,C) +# “and so he did for all
) 4) /MFD+ .H<J
his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods”.
104
An_78.indb 112 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 113
the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath”; and Judg 8,34: the Israelites J&C+ $H %P4
! $#! +"B/%3 “did not remember the Lord”, 1/M% $ 4"_' N. !. “who had rescued them”.
However, if both subject and object are indefinite, there is no contrast between
the predicative and the attributive function. Thus, Judg 1,24: Z"%' 1"&' <P+ ]!. J%&+ '` .#
&"9' !B, ) may be rendered: “the spies saw a man coming out of the city”, or:
$ <' %eM"
“the spies saw a man who came out”; likewise Ex 2,11: !(3 <. "&' e+ <' Z"%' %&+ .` .#
"&' O+ 9BZ"
' %' “he saw an Egyptian (who was) beating a Hebrew”, and 2 Sam 11,2:
/e3 FP3 & !]$ %' %&+ .` .# “he saw a woman (who was) bathing”. In this case the object
clause exhibits the same basic ambiguity as so-called equational sentences, in
which both subject and predicate are indefinite. Actually, in 1 Sam 28,13: 1"!6 ' %7
c&3 %$ !B, ' %' &$ “I saw gods ascending out of the earth”, both the Targum and
$ <' 1"4P' 9 "/"
the Peshitta render the Hebrew participle by an ambiguous de-clause, which
may be interpreted as a relative clause or as an object clause: "/"' )HF+ $" +"L. %C$ %4 + <.
%9& $ %. ,<' Y"4) A$ L+ , and: all!h8 $ z60 d -s!lq,n, respectively.
e e
) %3 19$ 4+ O' %}$ '` .# “Balaam looked

Moreover, in Num 24,2: ,CP) Z 4%) &$ >+ '"B/%3 %&+ .` .# #" $0"9B/
up and saw Israel encamping”, the verb %&+ .` .# takes an object clause; but in the
structurally similar Gen 24,63: 1"%' D$ 1"K' <. +I ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# #" $0"9) %}$ '` .# “he looked up and
[lo!] he saw camels coming”, %&+ .` .# is followed by a dependent exclamation.21
Accordingly, a wehinn6-clause after verbs of seeing presents a momentary state
of affairs, e. g., Gen 26,8: !Y$ O+ &' /%) YF) e. <+ YF$ e+ '" ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# “he saw Isaac fondling
Rebekah”; Gen 33,1: %D$ #>$ 9) ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# “he saw Esau coming”; Josh 5,13: %&+ .` .#
M; +I 304+ L<P) 9 Z"%B!' )*!' +# “he saw a man standing before him”; and Judg 9,43: ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .#
%eP) " 19$ !$ “he saw the people coming out”. The use of wehinn6 in these cases is
facultative. Rightly, KOGUT concludes: “when the verb of seeing is comple-
mented by a content clause, !0!# can then precede this clause”.22
(c) From the above, one might conclude that a wehinn6-clause after wayyarˀ
is tantamount to an object “that-clause”.23 However, in narration hinn6—usual-
ly in the form of wehinn6—also signals a shift in viewpoint, that is, the angle
from which something is related. By the use of wehinn6 the audience is, so to
speak, invited to share what the character sees.24 Examples of a shift in view-
21
The originally interjectory presentative particle hinn6 draws attention to the situation at
hand: be it the immediacy of the situation, as in: " '0 )*!' “here I am”, and in Gen 29,5: (morning
came) !%$ 4) %#!B! ' )*!' +# “and there was Leah!”, or a pointing out something as evident from percep-
tion, e. g., Gen 48,1: !4P3 F l"O' %$ ! )*!' “your father is ill”.
22
KOGUT, Meaning, 147. There are, however, examples where r!ˀ! ”see” is left out, e. g., Ex
14,10: 1!"3 &) F[ %. 9. AP) 0 1 '"&. e+ <' ! )*!' +# 1!"3 )0"9B/
) %3 4%) &$ >+ '"B" )0O+ J%>+ '` .# “the Israelites looked up, and there were the
Egyptians advancing on them”.
23
See NYBERG, Hebreisk grammatik, § 97 t.
24
This observation was first made by BERLIN, Poetics. A passage that illustrates the point is
2 Sam 18,24 and 26. In v. 24 the narrator takes his audience to the scene to view it through the
eyes of the sentinel: M;O. 4+ c&$ Z"%B! ) %3 %}$ '` .# “he looked up and saw [and lo!] a man was
' )*!' +# %&+ .` .# #" $0"9B/
running alone”; in v. 26 he catches sight of another man running: c&$ &F) %BZ" . %' !?P3 _!. %&+ .` .# “the senti-
nel saw another man running”, this time a shift in viewpoint is not needed. See further HATAV,
Aspect and Modality, 111f.
105
An_78.indb 113 21/06/11 15:37

point are: Gen 18,2: #"4$ 9$ 1"O' _$ '0 1"Z' $0%[ !Z6 $ Z+ ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# “he saw [and lo!] three men
standing near him”, and Judg 9,43: &"9' !B, $ <' %eP) " 19$ !$ ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# “he saw [and lo!]
the band coming out of the city”. However, the Peshitta seldom renders we-
hinn6 by the Syriac h! “look!”, very likely because wehinn6 is taken merely as
a syntactic means to stress the state or activity of the object. Thus, the wehinn6-
clause in Gen 26,8: !Y$ O+ &' /%) YF) e. <+ YF$ e+ '" ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# “he saw Isaac fondling Rebe-
kah”, is rendered by a circumstantial clause introduced by ka2, which yields:
wa-.z!y(hy) l-Is.aq ka2 me9a$e: ˁam Rafq!.
In addition, the choice between hinn6 and k,25 is stylistically conditioned.
Just as an utterance by a character can be reported with direct or indirect
speech, so too can something perceived by a character be reported directly or
indirectly; hinn6 presents a vision directly from an internal perspective, while
k, introduces a vision indirectly from an external perspective. Put differently:
hinn6 conveys the idea of showing and k, that of telling. Compare Ex 3,2: %&+ .` .#
Z%) D$ &9P) D ! 30t+ !. ! )*!' +# “he saw [wehinn6] the bush burning with fire”, as opposed to
2 Sam 12,19: 1"Z' F[ 4. /+ <' #"L$ O$ 9[ "(' L '#;$ %&+ .` .# “David saw [k,] his servants were whis-
pering together”.26 Also, hinn6 is not suitable to be used with reference to God,
since men can scarcely adopt a divine point of view; cf. Gen 29,31: ! $#! +" %&+ .` .#
!%$ 4) !%J0
$ >B"+ (' “the Lord saw that Leah was unloved”.27
Moreover, an adjective describing a preposed object is found in, e. g., Gen
7,1: Y";' e. "/"' %' &$ l/P+ % “thee have I seen righteous” (Authorized Version); but nor-
mally the object is introduced by k,, e. g., Gen 42,23: RAM" ) 9. <P) Z "(' J9L+ $" %P4 “they
did not know [k,] that Joseph understood”. Frequently, however, the k,-clause
is placed after the object, as in Ex 2,2: OMVB"(' M/P% %&3 f) .# “she saw him [k,] fine”.
This construction is explained differently. Several grammarians think that the
logical subject of the object clause is attracted to the main clause, so that: %&3 f) .#
OMVB"(' M/P% derives from: *watt6r8ˀ k, '57 h+ˀ. It seems, however, that GKC,
§ 117 h, presents the more plausible solution by proposing that the k,-clause in
these cases specifies the state of the object, which in the passage under discus-
sion suggests: “she saw him being fine”.28
25
The particle k, is of a deictic origin and at times assertive, as in Gen 18,15: f+ Y+ F$ e$ "(' %P4
“No, you did laugh”. Pointing backwards, k, gives the reason for a previous statement, and
pointing forwards, it inter alia introduces the object of verba sentiendi.
26
Cf. also 1 Sam 18,15: LP%<+ 4"(' >+ <. %J!B&Z3 %[ 4J%Z$ %&+ .` .# “Saul saw that he prospered well”.
27
Cf. the calculations in ANDERSEN, Taxonomy, 54.
28
In a similar way, KOGUT, Meaning, 148, thinks that Judg 18,9: LP%<+ !OMV $ ! )*!' +# c&3 %$ !B/
$ %3 J0"%' &$
is a transformation of *r!ˀ,n+ wehinn6 h!ˀ!ræ% '57! meˀ52. However, KUHR, Ausdrucksmittel,
17, proposes the more plausible solution: “Wir haben das Land gesehen, und sieh (wie war
es?) – sehr gut.”. Cf. also ISAKSSON, Circumstantial Qualifiers, 61.
106
An_78.indb 114 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 115
Elements expressive of attendant circumstance

on the complex sentence level
(a) Circumstantial clauses are descriptive of an event but not introduced by a

particle that reveals the type the relationship. Occasionally, the core of the de-
scriptive clause is a yiqtol, a form that in affirmative clauses has almost entire-
ly been ousted from this function by the active participle. Still yiqtol is met
with in 1 Sam 18,5 (abbr.): “David went out, 4"(' >+ .", prospering”, and 1 Sam
13,17: the raiders went out (%e) )` .#) in three detachments: W&3 ;B4 3 %3 ! 30?+ '" LF$ %3 Z%P&!$
!&$ ?+ 9$ “the first detachment turned towards Ophrah”. This use of yiqtol is other-
wise almost exclusively found in negated clauses, e. g., Judg 12,6: /4P3 DA' &<% 3 P ` .#
,() &D) L. 4+ ,"C' $" %P4 +# “he said, Sibboleth, taking no pains to pronounce correctly”;
Judg 20,16: %V' F[ ." %P4 +# !&$ 9[ }. !B4 . %3 ,O3 %3 D$ 9. 4P) Y ! 3HB4($ “all these could sling a stone at a
hair without missing”; Gen 2,25: JZZP$ D/+ '" %P4 +# MfZ+ %' +# 1L$ %$ !$ 1"NJ& 3 )0Z+ J"!+ '` .# “they
' 9[ 1!"
were both naked, man and wife, without being ashamed”; and 2 Sam 2,28:
$ ($ JL<+ 9. .` .# “all the host came to a halt; they stopped
4%) &$ >+ '" "&) F[ %. LM9 J?;+ &+ '"B%P4 +# 19$ !B4
pursuing Israel”.
As a rule, the clause that propels the action establishes the event, while the
adjoined clause expounds upon it by giving particulars concerning the situa-
tion of which the clause constituents are a part. In very few instances an asyn-
detic qatal in a quasi-participial function specifies a preceding event: Judg
6,19: &J&k$ D. 1>$ Y&. N$ !. +# 4t. D. 1>$ &>$ D$ !. … 1" '\9B" ' L' +T >9. .` .# “he prepared a kid of the
goats: putting the flesh in a basket, and putting the broth in a pot; Gen 21,14:
s<$ C+ ZB4
' 9. 1>$ & $I!B4 $ %3 ,f) '` .# “and gave it to Hagar, placing it on her shoulder”. The
qatal seemingly refers to an anterior action in Gen 44,12: ,PVx$ OJ. 4F) !) 4ML $TD. >k) F. +" .#
!K$ (' “and he searched, having begun (a3d1&I$%U) with the eldest, he ended
with the youngest”.29
In principle, the circumstantial clause does not refer to the principal verb
only, it rather describes both the subject and the verbal action. Ch. RABIN, dis-
cussing the pes+q hamm!%!7 “static clause”, in 2 Sam 18,14: 1M4Z$ O+ %. O4) D+ 19) Y$ /+ '` .#
"F. J*LM9 3 “he thrust them into the heart of Absalom, while he was still alive”,
states that ˁ52ænn+ $ay qualifies Absalom, not the verb or the clause as a
whole.30 The circumstantial clause is not easily defined. In some passages a
circumstantial clause even borders on an attributive clause, since the added in-
formation refers to the nounal parts of the main clause, e. g., Gen 24,22: Fx. '` .#
M4Y$ Z+ <' 9Y. D3 O!$ $H 1 3H 30 Z"%' !$ “the man took a gold ring weighing half a shekel”; Judg
3,16: “Ehud made a sword with two edges, s($ &+ %$ L<P3 T the length of which was a
cubit”; and perhaps Gen 28,12: !<$ +"<$ ]$ !. 9". 'T<. MZ%P& +# !e$ &+ %. O_$ <p 1K$ Ap ! )*!' +# 16F[ .` .# “he
29
See DRIVER, Treatise, §§ 162-163, and DAVIDSON, Syntax, § 41, Rem. 3.
30
RABIN, Ta>b"r, 95.
107
An_78.indb 115 21/06/11 15:37

dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, whose top reached to
heaven”.31
(b) Commonly, the adjoined circumstantial clause has a new subject, but
still the added particulars are descriptive of an actant’s part of the body or
equipment, e. g., Gen 9,4: /" '*&P. F%[ 1!"3 )0?J+ 1!"3 O' %[ / .#&+ 93 /%) JtC. +" .# “they covered the
nakedness of their father, their faces (being turned) backwards”. Josh 5,13: he
saw a man, ML $"D+ !?J4 $ Z+ MD&+ F. +#, “and his sword was drawn (= with a drawn sword)
in his hand”; and Gen 24,15: there was Rebekah, s<$ C+ ZB4 ' 9. s;$ C. +# “with her jar on
her shoulder”.32
If the circumstantial clause introduces a completely new actant, the func-
tion of the clause is likely to describe the situation as a whole,33 e. g., Ex 14,22:
the Israelites went into the sea !<P$ F 1!3 4$ 1 '"N. !. +# “the waters forming a wall for
them”. Besides, in narration, weˀ6n is met with in Judg 18,28-29: 1/M% $ J( .` .#
$ ?' 4+ “they put them to the sword, without there being any de-
4"_' <. ,"%) +# O&3 FB"
liverer”.
The circumstantial clause more often than not has a participle as predicate.
Its subject may be a proper noun, e. g., Judg 6,11: the angel of the Lord came
to Ophra 1"r' F' VOP) F M0D+ ,M9L+ 'I +# “as his (i. e., Joash’s) son Gideon was threshing out
wheat”, or an independent pronoun, e. g., Gen 18,1: %J! +# %&) <+ <. " )06%) D+ ! $#! +" #"4$ %) %&$ )` .#
$ /. k3 OZP) " “the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the
4!P3 %!BF
tent-door”;34 Num 22,22 (abbr.): M0P/%B4 [ 9. OCP) & %J! +# W&3 ;3 D. ! $#! +" W%. 4+ <. O_) ."/+ '` .# “the an-
gel of the Lord set himself in the way, as he came riding upon his donkey”;
Judg 4,21 (abbr.): 1;$ &+ '0B%J! +# M/x$ &. D+ L/) $`!B/ . %3 9Y. /+ f' .# “she drove the peg into his
temple, as he was fast asleep”; and Judg 13,9: %"!' +# !]$ %' !B4 $ %3 LM9 1"!6 ' %7 !$ W%. 4+ <. %PO$` .#
3 “the angel of God came again to the woman, as she sat in the field”.
!L3 }$ D. /O3 ZM"
In Gen 14,12: JC4) )` .# 1&$ O+ %. "F' %B, + %3 +# VM4B/%3 JFY+ '` .# “they took Lot and his pro-
[ D3 MZCp &B/
perty and went away”—1P LA+ D' OZP) " %J! +# “for he lived in Sodom”, the construction
comes close to a parenthetical remark.
The particles ˁ52 and hinn6 underline the simultaneity between circum-
stance and event, e. g., Gen 18,22: ! $#! +" " )0?+ 4' L<P) 9 J*LM9 3 1!$ &$ O+ %. +# !<P$ LA+ JC4+ )` .# “they (sc.
31
Cf. MEYER, Hebräische Grammatik 3, § 115.1. See also Gen 24,16: s9$ L$ +" %P4 Z"%' +# !4J/ $ D+ , “a
virgin, whom no man had known”, and NYBERG, Hebreisk grammatik, § 85 f, i and § 94 l, and Isa
42,16: J9L$ $" %P4 W&3 L3 D+ “by a road they do not know”, plus JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 159 a and d.
32
Cf. DAVIDSON, Syntax, § 138. In a broad sense, DRIVER, Tenses, § 161.1, considers the
phrase 1" '0kB4
$ %3 1" '0k$ as circumstantial, as for instance in Gen 32,30: 1" '0kB4
$ %3 1" '0k$ 1"!6 ' %' &$ “I have
' %7 "/"
seen God face to face”. According to GKC, § 156 c, it is properly to be understood as: “while
face was turned towards face”.
33
WRIGHT, Arabic Grammar 2, 330, defines the $!l clause as the “state or condition of the
subject or one of the complements of the first clause, or else a new subject” (here italicized). In
direct speech, the relationship is causal/explicative in Gen 24,56: "(' &+ ;. F". 4' e+ !' ! $#!" .# "/P' % J&F[ %. fB4+ %.
“do not delay me, since the Lord has has made my journey successful”, and concessive in Gen
26,27: "/P' % 1/%3 )0>+ 1f3 %. +# "4$ %) 1/% . <. “why have you come to me seeing that you hate me”.
3 D$ 9J;
34
Greek commonly employs a genitive absolute to mark the idea of concomitance of clau-
ses that have different subjects, hence the Septuagint renders OZP) " %J! +# by -'Q,&V$%S 'T+%G.
108
An_78.indb 116 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 117
the two men) went to Sodom, while Abraham still stood before the Lord”. In
Gen 29,9 the complex circumstantial sentence: !%$ D$ 4F) &$ +# 1N$ 9' &D) L. <+ J*LM9 3 “while
he was still speaking to them Rachel came”, connects to the directly preceding
dialogue, which has carried forward the action so far. It seems that wehinn6
with participle stresses the immediacy of the situation, especially after b5ˀ “to
come”, e. g., Gen 24,30: 1"K' <. +T!B4 $ %3 %PO$` .# “he came to the man,
. 9. L<P) 9 ! )*!' +# Z"%' !B4
just as he stood by the camels”—interestingly, the Septuagint renders L<P) 9 ! )*!' +#
by _*+,-H+%U 'T+%G “while he was standing” (see previous note); and Num
22,38: M/4P$ 9B49. O_$ '0 ! )*!' +# #"4$ %) OZ$ $` .# “he returned to him, just as he stood by his
burnt-offering”.35 Similarly, after wayya75ˀ a new actant may be introduced to
foreshadow what is next to be told, e. g., 1 Kgs 17,10: 1ZB! $ )*!' +# &"9' !$ F/. kB4
3 %3 %PO$` .#
! $0<$ 4+ %. !]$ %' “he came to the gate of the city, and there was a widow gathering
sticks”.
Apparently, wehinn6 may serve as a conditioned variant of a circumstantial
clause, especially in cases where no verb of perception is involved, e. g., 2 Kgs
1,9: &!$ !$ Z%P&B49. OZP) " ! )*!' +# #"4$ %) 49. .` .# “he went up to him, [and lo! = as] he sat on
the top of the hill”, is expressive of circumstance as much as 2 Chr 22,9: J!Lp (+ 4+ '` .#
,M&<P+ ZO+ %D) F. /+ <' %J! +# “they caught him, [and = as] he hid in Samaria”. In both pas-
sages a piece of tangential information is conveyed by means of a paratactic
construction that interrupts the running narration.
In dialogue, most naturally a fronted “object of thought” indicates a stipula-
tion, as in Judg 6,13: /%PHB4($ J0/+ %. e$ <+ !N$ 4$ +# J0N$ 9' ! $#! +" Z )" +# “if the Lord is with us,
why then has all this befallen us?” Mutatis mutandis, in narration—where no
stipulations are made—a wehinn6-clause may occur between sequential way-
yiqtol-clauses, in such a way that it is ambiguous whether the attendant cir-
cumstance actually refers to the following clause, e. g., Judg 3,25: ZMDBL9. J4"F' $` .#
. %3 JFY+ '` .# ! $`4' 9[ !$ /M/4+ ;. F. /P) ? J* 30"%) ! )*!' +# “they waited until they were embar-
F. f) ?+ N. !B/
rassed without anyone opening, so they took the key”, or: “… and as no one
opened, they took the key”. Also, Judg 7,13: 1M4F[ J!9) &) 4+ &k) A. <+ Z"%B! ' )*!' +# ,M9L+ 'I %PO$` .#
&<% 3 P ` .# “Gideon arrived as a man was telling a dream and said”, corresponds
fairly well to a passage in a!-Cabar", Taˀr,. ar-rusul wa-l-mul+k, namely:
0umma ˀinna ra;ulan q!la l-l!hu ˀakbaru faq!la <usayn “then, as someone
said: Allah akbar, Husayin said”.36 Actually, in 1 Kgs 1,22: /&3 D3 L. <+ ! $*LM9 3 ! )*!' +#
. 9' “when she was still speaking to the king, Nathan the pro-
%D$ %"O' $*!. ,/$ $0 +# W43 N3 !B1
phet entered”, the wehinn6-clause follows upon a dialogue passage, a factor de-
finitely indicating that the circumstance refers to the following clause.37
The idea of contemporaneousness becomes strong if two circumstantial
clauses together describe a subsidiary situation; one accounts for a state and
35
Cf. JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 154 c.
36
See ISAKSSON, Circumstantial Qualifiers, 101-102.
37
See ZEWI, Syntactical Roles, 71-86.
109
An_78.indb 117 21/06/11 15:37

the other features an action. Still, there is a focus on the principal figures as de-
scribed in relation to the main course of events, as appears from Judg 3,20,
which begins on the event line: it is stated about all Eglon’s attendants that
#"4$ 9$ <) J%e+ )` .# “they went away from him”, after this come two clauses that de-
scribe the situation: !&$ Y) N+ !. / .`4' 9[ D. OZP) "B%J! +# #"4$ %) %D$ LJ!%) +# “and Ehud came to him,
as he was sitting in the cool roof chamber”. The more static of the descriptive
clauses is found in prior position in, e. g., 1 Sam 9,10-11: &"9' !$ J49[ .` .# “they went
up to the town”, followed by: /M&9$ +0 J%e+ <$ !N$ !) +# &"9' !$ !4) 9[ <. D+ 1"4P' 9 !N$ !) “as they went
up the hill to the town, they met some girls”; Judg 18,2-3: 1Z$ J0"4' $` .# “they
lodged there”, followed by: &9. .*!. 4MYB/%3 J&"(' !' !N$ !) +# !C"$ <' /"DB1 ) 9' !N$ !) “when they
were by the house of Micah, they recognized the voice of the young man”. In
Gen 38,24-25 the principal action is carried forward by the preceding dialogue,
which ends up with Judah saying: R&) }$ /' +# !J%" $ eM! ' “Bring her out to be burned”,
immediately followed by: !"$ <' FB4 $ %3 !F$ 4+ Z$ %"!' +# /%eJ<) %#!' “being brought out, she
sent a message to her father-in-law (saying)”.
In contrast, a remark conveyed by two clauses of the (we)-subj-qatal pattern
in sequence indicates that the actions follow immediately upon one another;
none occurs while the other is still in progress, e. g., Judg 3,23-24: LJ!%) %e) )` .#
! $0M&;+ A+ N' !. “Ehud went out into the vestibule”, followed by J%D$ #"L$ O$ 9[ .# %e$ $" %J! +#
“and when he had just gone, the servants came”.38
(c) So far the discussion has mostly revolved around descriptions with a
participle in the circumstantial clause—a form that by being progressive, so to
speak, includes the time of the action. With a qatal in the adjoined clause, the
added information is actually not very descriptive: what are added are state-
ments, remarks, and contrasts,39 e. g., Gen 13,11-12: 1&$ O+ %. #"F' %$ 49. <) Z"%' JL&+ k$ '` .#
+ &3 %3 D+ OZ. $" “they separated the one from the other: Abram
&($ (' !. "&) 9$ D+ OZ. $" VM4 +# ,9. $0(Bc
dwelt in the land of Canaan and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain”; Judg 4,1:
the Israelites again did evil, /<) LJ!%) +# “now that Ehud was dead”; and Judg
6,21: W4. !$ ! $#! +" W%. 4+ <J. /M_N. !B/ . %3 +# &>$ D$ !B/
. %3 4C% . P f .# “it (sc. the fire) consumed the
flesh and the unleavened cakes; but the angel of the Lord was gone”.40 Com-
monly, this is the case in chiastic construction where the second clause is
thrown into relief against the first, e. g., Gen 42,8: J!&p (' !' %P4 1!) +# #"F$ %B/ 3 %3 RAM"
) &() .` .#
“Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him”. The qatal,
being no sequential narrative form, cannot take the action forward, instead it is
put as it were abreast with the wayyiqtol-clause.41
38
NYBERG, Hebreisk grammatik, § 85 k; cf. NICCACCI, Syntax, 71.190-191; ESKHULT, Studies,
32; and JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 166 c-i.
39
Cf. NICCACCI, Basic Facts, 173f.
40
Most likely, the value of qatal in this passage is resultative, cf. BYBEE, Evolution, 63.
41
Cf. GIBSON-DAVIDSON, § 140.
110
An_78.indb 118 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 119
Elements expressive of circumstance on the textual level
(a) On the textual level, circumstance does not occur as an attendant to singu-
lar actions. Rather, on this level a circumstance as object of a description spans
over a larger unit. The description of David’s escape from Jerusalem in 2 Sam
15,16-32 has a focus on the situation encountered in 15,30: !4) 9[ <. O+ !4P3 9 L '#L$ +#
RF) $" W4P) ! %J! +# "J?F$ M4 Z%P& +# !CMOJ
3 ' )\!. “and David walked up the slope of the
!4P3 9 1"/"
Mount of Olives, walking and weeping with his head covered, and he walked
barefoot.” To begin with, !4P3 9 L '#L$ +# says that this is no single and quick sequen-
tial event, !CMOJ 3 !4P3 9 describes David’s state and condition, "J?F$ M4 Z%P& +# tells
what he looked like, and RF) $" W4P) ! %J! +#, finally, describes his condition of being
barefoot when ascending the hill. Descriptive in character, the scene still ex-
hibits a movement, both in grammar and geography: from David’s crossing
Wadi Kidron until he reaches the top of the Mount of Olives. This means that
backgrounded clauses are static in relation to the surrounding quick-paced nar-
ration, but need not, of course, be static themselves.42
(b) Being sequential and rectilinear in essence, biblical narration develops
along an event line with a fixed vantage point assumed by the narrator, viz., the
reference time. This point on the time line is in turn linked to sequentiality,
i. e., the impelling force that moves the story forwards.43 From this it can easily
be gathered that the fact that an event is out of sequence with the reference
time—the zero—of the narrative is a circumstance to be reckoned with as con-
textualizing in function. In a narrative context, the (we)-subj-qatal construc-
tion, being static in character, serves such a counter-sequential function.44 The
technique of an inverted word order through the (we)-subj-qatal pattern is ap-
parently a token inherited from the oral form. The storyteller signals that the
sentence to come is out of sequence with the temporally successive action; the
context alone can say whether or not it lies before or is simultaneous with the
reference time. In a parenthesis like the one in 2 Sam 17,14: &?) !$ 4+ ! $Je' ! $#!" .#
!OMr [ %3 “for the Lord had ordained to defeat the good counsel of
$ !. 4?P3 /"F' %[ /e. 9B/
Ahithophel”, the implicit anteriority demands an English past perfect.
In the episode contained in 2 Kgs 9,1-29, Jehu, in order to seize power over
the kingdom, hurries from Ramoth to Jezreel where King Joram stays. At this
point, the narrator passes an important remark, v. 16: /M%&+ 4' L&. $" !LJ! $ +" W43 <3 ! $" +HF. %[ .#
1&M"B/
$ %3 “King Ahaziah of Judah had come down to see Joram”. Only so can he
42
As is pointed out by BUTH, Functional Grammar, 86-87, the concept of grounding is pro-
blematic since it based on a mixture of semantic and pragmatic criteria—here NICCACCI stands
out as consistently following the syntactic criterion. See also COOK, Semantics, 255, viz., fo-
reground vs. background and the principles of visual perception in the Gestalt-theory put for-
ward by T. REINHART.
43
See HATAV, Aspect and Modality, 177ff.
44
Cf. GIVÓN, Syntax 1, 295f.
111
An_78.indb 119 21/06/11 15:37

go on and relate how the two kings each in his chariot go out to meet Jehu.
Viewed separately, L&. $" ! $" +HF. %[ .# is a description of the present condition of the
King of Judah, which is put in relief to the main course of events. His obvious-
ly previous action of going down to Jezreel is, as it were, attributed to him as a
state in the situation at hand. The same is valid for the well-known example
Gen 31,19: 1"?' &$ f+ !B/ . %3 4F) &$ OP0 +If' .# M0%PeB/%3 HPH +I4' W4. !$ ,O$ 4$ +# “Laban was gone to shear
his sheep, so Rachel stole the teraphim”.45
When accounting for a dramatic situation, such as the battle scene in Judg
4,12ff, the narrator sometimes halts the narrative to focus attention on a partic-
ular event. Thus 4,15 tells that upon Barak’s assault the Lord caused panic
among Sisera’s chariots, so that: #"4$ +I&. D+ A $0 $` .# !O$ ($ &+ N3 !. 49. <) %&$ A"+ A' L&3 )` .# “Sisera got
down from his chariot and fled away on foot”; v. 16 continues: "&) F[ %. RL. &$ Y&$ OJ$
O&3 FB"
3 ?' 4+ %&$ A" . ($ 4Pk '` .# … OC3 &3 !$ . Sisera’s escape and Barak’s pursuit are ob-
+ A' ! )0F[ <B4
viously not presented as sequential; they may be taken as parallel with the lat-
ter to be rendered: “meanwhile Barak pursued the chariots and all the army of
Sisera fell by the sword”, or there is a shift of focus: “Barak, on his side, pur-
sued the chariots, etc”. In v. 17, however, the narrator resumes the account to
focus on Sisera’s particular fate: 49) $" 4!P3 %B4%3 #"4$ +I&. D+ A $0 %&$ A"+ A' +# “But Sisera had fled
away on foot to the tent of Jael etc”. Primarily, it is not the pragmatically con-
ditioned anterior sense that governs the choice of form, but rather the necessity
to mark a discontinuity in the course of events.46
(c) Biblical narratives generally open with an exposition conveying indis-
pensable information that precedes the beginning of the action itself and simul-
taneously constitutes the first moment of the action. For this the (we)-subj-qatal
clause is most well suited. Its function is to commence a new thread by fur-
nishing antecedent information. The technique is clearly pre-exilic and is em-
ployed in the account of four out of five separate military campaigns in the
Mesha inscription from about 830 BC. Thus, the war against Ataroth, lines
10-11, starts: wˀ& gd y&b bˀr% ˁ'rt mˁlm “The men of Gad dwelt in the land of
Ataroth from of old”, directly followed by: wybn lh mlk y(rˀl ˀt ˁ'rt “and the
king of Israel fortified Ataroth for himself”, wˀlt$m bqr wˀ$zh “but I fought
against the city and captured it”.47 The technique is met with ubiquitously in
the Old Testament, and at times (we)-subj-qatal clauses are encountered in the
transition from one episode to another, e. g., Gen 19,23-25, where: %e$ $" Z<3 ]3 !.
$ 9. “the sun had just risen on the earth when Lot came to
!&$ 9P[ e %D$ VM4 +# c&3 %$ !B4
Zoar”, closes Lot’s flight and is followed by a parenthesis—why the city was
called Zoar—and directly afterwards comes the account of Sodom’s destruc-
45
Cf. RUNDGREN, Verbum, 64f.
46
See JOÜON, Ruth, 79f.
47
See NICCACCI, Stele of Mesha, 233.243; ESKHULT, Studies, 46-49.
112
An_78.indb 120 21/06/11 15:37

Mats Eskhult 121
tion: /"&' ?+ $T !&P$ <9B4 + 9. &"V' <+ !' ! $#!" .# “the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomor-
[ 9. +# 1P LAB4
rah brimstone”, continued by: 4%) !$ 1"&' 9$ !B/ 3 %3 WP?![ .` .# “and overthrew these cities”.
The essential factor that the (we)-subj-qatal clause predicates a state of af-
fairs makes it suited for contextualizing statements that are out of sequence
with the running narration, irrespective of whether this statement serves for a
flashback, or the beginning or end of an episode.
Mats Eskhult
Uppsala University
Bibliography
ANDERSEN F. I., “Lo and Behold! Taxonomy and Translation of Biblical He-
brew ! )*!' ”, in M. F. J. BAASTEN - W. Th. VAN PEURSEN (ed.), Hamlet on a Hill:
Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occa-
sion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 118), Leu-
ven - Paris - Dudley 2003, 25-56.
BERLIN A., Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, Sheffield 1983.
BYBEE J. et al., The Evolution of Grammar, Chicago - London 1994.
BUTH R., “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Textlin-
guistic Approach to Syntax” in W. R. BODINE (ed.), Discourse Analysis of
Biblical Literature, Atlanta 1995.
COOK J. A., “The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics”, JSS 49 (2004) 247-273.
DAVIDSON A. B., Hebrew Syntax, Edinburgh 1896.
DRIVER S. R., A Treatise on the Use of Tenses in Hebrew, Oxford 1892.
ESKHULT M., “The Verb sbb as Marker of Inception in Biblical Hebrew, Orien-
talia Suecana 47 (1998) 21-26.
ESKHULT M., Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique, Uppsala 1990.
GIBSON J. C. L., Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, Edinburgh
4
1994.
GIVÓN T., Syntax, vol. 1, Amsterdam - Philadelphia, 2001.
HATAV G., The Semantics of Aspect and Modality. Evidence from English and
Biblical Hebrew, Amsterdam - Philadephia, 1997.
ISAKSSON B., “An Outline of Hebrew and Arabic Textlinguistics”, in B. ISAKS-
SON (ed.), Circumstantial Qualifiers in Semitic, Wiesbaden 2009, 36-150.
JOÜON P., Ruth: Commentaire philologique et exégétique, Rome 21986.
Rome 1993.
KIENAST B., Historische Semitische Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 2001.
113
An_78.indb 121 21/06/11 15:37

KOGUT S., “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ! )*!' in Biblical Hebrew”,
in S. JAPHET (ed.), Studies in Bible (Scripta Hierosolymitana 31), Jerusalem
1986, 133-154.
KÖNIG F. E., Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache, Bd.
3: Syntax, Leipzig 1897.
KUHR E., Die Ausdrucksmittel der konjunktionslosen Hypotaxe in der ältesten
hebräischen Prosa, Leipzig 1929.
MEYER R., Hebräische Grammatik, Berlin - New York 1972.
MOULTON J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III: Syntax by N.
TURNER, Edinburgh 1963.
NICCACCI A., The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, translated by
W. G. E. WATSON (JSOT.S 86), Sheffield 1990.
NICCACCI A., “Basic Facts and the Theory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System
in Prose”, in E. VAN WOLDE (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible,
Leiden 1997, 167-202.
NICCACCI A., “The Stele of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativi-
ty”, Orientalia 63 (1964) 226-248.
NYBERG, H. S., Hebreisk grammatik, Stockholm 1952.
PREMPER W., Die „Zustandssätze“ des Arabischen in typologischer Perspekti-
ve, Frankfurt a/M 2002.
.#G<w/ 1"4w#&" ,O#Y"04#Yw 4%#<w /#%e&! "?4 v&9 :%&Y<! ,#w4 &"OF/ ,uF ,"O&
RUNDGREN F., Intensiv- und Aspektkorrelation, Uppsala/Wiesbaden 1959.
RUNDGREN F., Das althebräische Verbum: Abriss der Aspektlehre, Stockholm -
Göteborg - Uppsala 1961.
WRIGHT W., A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Translated from the German
of Caspari …, vol. 2, Cambridge 31898.
ZEWI T., “On Similar Syntactical Roles of in+ma in El Amarna and !0!, !0!#
and ,! in Biblical Hebrew”, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 25
(1997), 71-86.
ZEVIT Z., The Anterior Construction in Biblical Hebrew, Atlanta 1998.
114
An_78.indb 122 21/06/11 15:37

Steven E. Fassberg
The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth
Much of Prof. NICCACCI’s scholarly career has been devoted to the Biblical He-
brew verbal system. His monograph on the syntax of the verb1 and related ar-
ticles2 have had a significant impact on the direction of research. During the
past decade Prof. NICCACCI has also turned his attention to the structure and lan-
guage of the book of Qoheleth in two lengthy articles that appeared in Liber
Annuus.3 In honor of the jubiliarian, I wish to touch on a phenomenon that
combines his interest in both the Biblical Hebrew verbal system and Qoheleth.
The following brief remarks will focus on one feature of the verbal system in
Qoheleth, namely, instances where the piel (D) stem appears to have replaced
the qal (G) stem.
In Biblical Hebrew some active verbs in qal also appear in piel. When there
is no apparent semantic difference in prose between the qal and piel forms
(e. g., &O. Y$ and &D) Y' ‘bury’), scholars have argued that the piel forms are more
intensive than their qal counterparts and that the intensity manifests itself in
quality (strength or duration of the action) or in quantity (plurality of subjects
or objects).4 When one finds the same verb in parallel lines in poetry in both
qal and piel, the fluctuation of forms has been viewed as serving rhetorical
purposes,5 e. g.,
,#0O4! "H&% /% u! &D) Z. +" .# // 1"H&% &OP) Z u! 4#Y
The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars // and the Lord broke the cedars of Le-
banon (Ps 29,5)
1
NICCACCI, Syntax of the Verb.
2
For example, NICCACCI, Neglected Point; NICCACCI, Verbal System in Poetry.
3
NICCACCI, La gioia; NICCACCI, Analisi.
4
BEN-9AYYIM, La tradition samaritaine, 117, and most recently BLAU, Phonology and Mor-
phology, 229. See also the extensive discussion by KOUWENBERG, Gemination, concerning the
functions of the parallel D stem in Akkadian (including remarks on D in general in Semitic) as
well as the investigation into Hebrew by JOOSTEN, Functions.
5
BERLIN, Biblical Parallelism, 36-40, stresses the rhetorical features of assonance and play
on words. RATNER, Morphological Variation, considers the variety in repetition to be a way of
enhancing the experience of the readers or listeners.
115
An_78.indb 123 21/06/11 15:37

124 The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth
In Second Temple period sources and later, however, there are examples of a
shift in both active and stative verbs from qal to piel that do not reflect an in-
crease in intensity, e. g., biblical L9. $" > Tannaitic L9) '" ‘designate’, or biblical
! $0k$ > Tannaitic ! $*k' ‘turn (intrans.)’. The movement away from qal has been
identified in Qumran Hebrew, the Hebrew of Ben Sira, Samaritan Hebrew,
Tannaitic Hebrew, and Amoraic Hebrew.6 According to Zeˀev BEN-9AYYIM, the
origin of the shift lies in the neutralization of the morphological difference be-
tween qal active verbs with thematic a/o-vowels (e. g., &<. Z$ /&P<Z+ '" ‘guard’) and
qal stative verbs with thematic i/a (e. g., c?) F$ /ck. F+ 3" ‘desire’). He attributes the
merger of the classes to two phonological processes: (1) *i > a (e. g., *f$ O+ !) %$ >
f$ O+ !. %$ ‘you loved/love’),7 which made stative verbs identical to active verbs
(e. g., f$ &+ <. Z$ ‘you guarded’); (2) *i/u > a before the gutturals 9GF! (e. g., *FPf?+ '" >
Ff. ?+ '" ‘he will open’), which led to the merger of III-guttural active verbs with
stative verbs (e. g., O9. &+ '" ‘he will starve’). BEN-9AYYIM has suggested that spea-
kers, in an attempt to maintain a morphological difference between the active
and stative voices, abandoned the opaque qal stem in which active and stative
verbs might take the same form, and shifted active qal verbs to the more trans-
parently active stem piel (as well as to hifil), and stative verbs to the more
transparently stative stem nifal (N).8 Jan JOOSTEN has also dealt with the subject
of verbs that occur in both qal and piel. After collecting the biblical verbs that
have an active and/or a middle (what BEN-9AYYIM calls stative) voice in qal,
and which occur also in piel, JOOSTEN demonstrates that the piel stem may re-
place the active or the middle use of the qal, e. g., R&) F$ <+ /R&P) F ‘reproach’; %K) <' /%4) <$
‘fill’, !!$ (' /!!$ ($ ‘grow faint’.9
I believe there are a few examples in Qoheleth that reflect a shift from qal
to piel, similar to that attested in Second Temple period sources:
(a) &x) F' ‘he investigated’
!O&! 1"4w< ,x) f' &x) F' +# , )\%' +#

He listened to (weighed?), investigated, and arranged many proverbs. (Qoh
12,9)
e&YF is attested in the Hebrew Bible twenty-two times in qal, as well as four
times in nifal, the reflexive/reciprocal/passive of qal. This is the only occur-
6
BEN-9AYYIM, La tradition samaritaine, 112-123. For bibliography on the subject since the
publication of BEN-9AYYIM’s article, see FASSBERG, Movement. The increase in pual (Dp) verbs
in paytanic Hebrew is part of the same phenomenon.
7
This is the so-called Philippi’s law: *i > a in a closed, unaccented syllable. Subsequent
analogy extended the phenomenon to other environments.
8
BEN-9AYYIM, Grammar, 106-107; BEN-9AYYIM, !Y"/9 ,#w4, 60-65.
9
JOOSTEN, Functions. He notes (p. 224, n. 80) that the replacement of qal by piel continues
into post-Biblical Hebrew.
116
An_78.indb 124 21/06/11 15:37

Steven E. Fassberg 125
rence of e&YF in piel.10 The contiguous piel verbs , )\%' and ,x) f' may have aided in
the shift to piel.11
(b) JV9) <' ‘they became few’
JV9) <' "C /#0FV! #4VO#

and the women grinding the meal cease work because they became few (Qoh
12,3)
Eight times the stative meaning is expressed by qal in the Hebrew Bible, and
thirteen times the factitive ‘make few’ by hifil. This is the only occurrence of
the piel.
(c) !!$ Y) ‘it became blunt’
4H&O! !!$ YB1%

)
if the axe became blunt (Qoh 10,10)
The three other occurrences of e"!Y as a verb ‘be blunt’ (Jer 31,29.30; Ezek
18,2) occur in qal.
The phenomenon of qal > piel is reflected also in the shift of their respec-
tive passive stems, i. e., the replacement of the qal internal passive (Gp) or of
nifal by pual (Dp).12 An example of this may be seen in
(d) J& +TAp ‘they were shut’
Y#wO 1"/4L J& +TAp +#

and the doors to the street were shut (Qoh 12,4)
&IA ‘shut’ is attested as a transitive verb forty-three times in qal and eight times
with passive meaning in nifal. It is found four times in piel as ‘deliver up’ and
thirty times in hifil with the same meaning.13 The three occurrences of pual
(Dp) “be shut” align semantically with the qal. Note that in the Hebrew Bible
10
Elsewhere in Hebrew the piel is attested in piyyutim from the Byzantine period. See Maa-
garim, the database of the Historical Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, at http://hebrew-
treasures.huji.ac.il.
11
GORDIS, Koheleth, 353, attributes &x) F' to assonance with the two other contiguous piel
verbs. The meaning of , )\%' , which occurs in piel only in this passage, is disputed (e,H% ‘hear’—
denominative from , 3HP% ‘ear’?; e,H# ‘weigh’—root attested in Biblical Hebrew only in 1 '" .0 +H%P<
‘scales’?). The verb ,x) f' is a clear borrowing from Aramaic.
12
FASSBERG, Movement.
13
In some additional verses the hifil also appears to have the meaning ‘isolate’ (< ‘shut in’).
See HALOT, 743b.
117
An_78.indb 125 21/06/11 15:37

126 The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth
qal, not piel, is regularly used for the closing of doors (Gen 19,6 and Jos 2,5),
and, similarly, nifal is employed for the closing of city gates (Isa 45,1 and
60,11; Ezek 46,2; Neh 13,19).
The piel verbs cited above occur where one expects qal and also where one
expects a qal internal passive or the qal-related nifal. Though some have as-
signed the language of Qoheleth to a relatively early date, it has generally been
viewed as post-exilic.14 These piel verbs in Qoheleth reflect the movement
from qal to piel attested in Second Temple period sources, and therefore con-
stitute additional evidence for the late date of the book.
Steven E. Fassberg
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Bibliography
BEN-9AYYIM Z., “La tradition samaritaine et sa parenté avec les autres tradi-
tions de la langue hébraïque”, Mélanges de Philosophie et de Littérature
Juives 3-5 (1958-1962) 89-128 (a revised version of .&#:7? ,u@ 0"">-,G
[>?"w.] G?< #//#w2 ,?2?@> ,#w22# >27! 0" .#2"A7 2w ,#w2! .&#:72 !.W"@# 0"/#&7#w!
245-223).
.90-1 (A?"w.) u!-uA :&T/#W ,uD &#@>7 052 #//#w2 ,?!wD> .#%"d7G !W".5 ,#w2? ,u@ 0"">-,G
BERLIN A., The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington 1985.
BLAU J., Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew (Linguistic Studies in
Ancient West Semitic 2), Winona Lake 2010.
FASSBERG S. E., “The Movement from Qal to Piʿʿel in Hebrew and the Disap-
pearance of the Qal Internal Passive”, Hebrew Studies 42 (2001) 243-255
GORDIS R., Koheleth. The Man and His World. A Study of Ecclesiastes, New
York 31968.
JOOSTEN J., “The Functions of the Semitic D Stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials
for a Comparative-Historical Approach”, Orientalia 67 (1998) 202-230.
KOUWENBERG N. J. C., Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (Studia Semitica Neer-
landica 32), Assen 1997.
KRÜGER T., Qoheleth: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2004.
NICCACCI A., “A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the
Sentence”, LA 37 (1987) 7-19.
14
On the dating of the language of the book, see SEOW, Ecclesiastes, 11-21; NICCACCI, La
gioia, 34, n. 18; SCHOORS, Preacher; KRÜGER, Qoheleth, 34-36.
126
An_78.indb 126 21/06/11 15:37

Steven E. Fassberg 127
NICCACCI A., “Qohelet o la gioia come fatica e dono di Dio a chi lo teme”, LA
52 (2002) 29-102.
NICCACCI A., “Qohelet: Analisi sintattica, traduzione, composizione”, LA 54
(2004) 53-94.
NICCACCI A., “The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry”, in S. E. FASSBERG
logical and Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake, 2006,
247-268.
RATNER R. J., “Morphological Variation in Biblical Hebrew Rhetoric”, Maarav
8 (1992) 143-159.
SCHOORS A., The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words, 2 vols. (Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 41.143), Leuven 1992.2004.
SEOW C.-L., Ecclesiastes (Anchor Bible 18C), New York 1997.
127
An_78.indb 127 21/06/11 15:37

An_78.indb 128 21/06/11 15:37
Gregor Geiger
Erzählte Welt und wayyiqtol
Als ich damit begann, an dieser Festschrift zu arbeiten, ahnte ich nicht, daß ich
schon bald den Hebräisch-Kurs von Alviero NICCACCI würde halten müssen, ei-
nes der Herzstücke des curriculums am Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Ich
benutze im Unterricht sein Vorlesungsskript1 und fühle mich dabei wie der
junge David, der, in Sauls Rüstung gesteckt, darin nicht gehen konnte (1 Sam
17,39). Im folgenden einige Kieselsteinchen, mit denen ich versuche, dem
Tempussystem des biblischen Hebräisch beizukommen. Mir kommt es so vor,
als habe es bisher noch alle verhöhnt, die sich an ihm versuchten.
Es geht in diesem Beitrag2 um das tempus wayyiqtol, und zwar im Rahmen
von NICCACCIS textlinguistischem Ansatz, der auf H. WEINRICH3 zurückgreift. Ich
gehe dabei von zwei Voraussetzungen aus: zum einen, daß tempora die Oppo-
sition von Erzählung und Besprechung ausdrücken können,4 zum anderen, daß
diese Funktion im biblischen Hebräisch realisiert ist.5 Die hebräische Verb-
form wayyiqtol ist im synchronen Ansatz NICCACCIS ziemlich unproblematisch.6
1
NICCACCI, Sintassi (in der aktualisierten Form von 2010); dieses Vorlesungsskript ist die
Fortführung des Manuskripts seiner 1986 als SBF. Analecta 23 erschienenen Sintassi del verbo
ebraico nella prosa biblica classica. Dieses Werk wurde, vor allem seit es 1990 in englischer
Übersetzung erschienen ist (JSOT.S 86), oft zitiert, oft diskutiert (und oft mißverstanden). In-
zwischen hat NICCACCI es ausgiebig überarbeitet; die Paragraphenzählung ist beibehalten. Es
bleibt zu hoffen, daß die neue Version bald veröffentlicht wird.
2
Ich danke Alviero NICCACCI für seine zahlreichen Kommentare zu einer früheren Version
dieses Artikels sowie A. NEUBERT für das Korrekturlesen.
3
WEINRICH, Tempus.
4
Ich bin allerdings nicht sicher, ob WEINRICH mit seiner Überzeugung recht hat, diese Op-
position sei allgemein, d. h. in allen Sprachen realisiert. Die Anwendung seiner Theorie auf das
Lateinische (Tempus, 293-300) überzeugt mich nicht, und auch das moderne Hebräisch scheint
diese Opposition nicht zu zeigen.
5
Die Anwendung der WEINRICHschen Textlinguistik auf das biblische Hebräisch ist v. a. im
deutschsprachigen Raum teils heftig kritisiert worden (siehe auch den Beitrag von ISAKSSON in
dieser Festschrift: Textlinguistics, 1.3). Ich bin mir der Problematik dieses Ansatzes bewußt
(welche Erklärung des hebräischen Verbsystems ist nicht problematisch?), trotzdem bin ich
nach längerer Beschäftigung mit den Thesen NICCACCIS überzeugt, daß diese Anwendung durch-
aus dazu beitragen kann, zu klären, was durch das hebräische tempus-System ausgedrückt wer-
den kann.
120
An_78.indb 129 21/06/11 15:37

130 Erzählte Welt und wayyiqtol
Allerdings zeigt sie einige unsymmetrische Eigenschaften: Zum einen taucht

sie in seinem Schema7 an mehreren Stellen auf, zum anderen können unter ge-
wissen Bedingungen andere Formen die gleiche Funktion haben. Diese Un-
ebenheiten betreffen sowohl die Abgrenzung zwischen Erzählung und Rede
als auch die zwischen Vordergrund und Hintergrund. Konkret geht es in die-
sem Zusammenhang um folgende Fragen:
• Wie ist die Stellung des discorso narrativo, der „erzählenden Rede“, im
Rahmen des textlinguistischen Tempussystems? Welches sind die Kriterien,
um die „erzählende Rede“ von der Erzählung einerseits und von der (direk-
ten) Rede andererseits abzugrenzen? (1.1)
• Verläßt der biblische Erzähler die Rolle des Erzählers und wird zum Kom-
mentator? Bespricht er das Erzählte? (1.2)
• Warum kann wayyiqtol nicht verneint werden? Oder, mit anderen Worten,
warum wird wayyiqtol mit %I2( +#)-qatal, also streng genommen mit (w-)x-qa-
tal, verneint? (2.1)
• Wie ist die Fortsetzung des Hintergrunds der Erzählung durch wayyiqtol zu
werten? (2.2)
Diese Unebenheiten (und ähnliche für die anderen tempora) sind m. E. einer
der Gründe, warum der Ansatz NICCACCIS so kompliziert erscheint und so oft
mißverstanden wird. Für die Form wayyiqtol schlage ich vor, direkt auf WEIN-
RICHS Ansatz zurückzugreifen. Dabei haben die kleinen Unterschiede zwischen
den beiden Ansätzen eine wichtige Bedeutung. Ich stelle die erwähnten The-
menbereiche an Texten aus der Prosa der hebräischen Bibel dar. Abschließend
streife ich die Frage nach einem Zusammenhang zwischen der Sprechhaltung
„Erzählen“ und dem Modalsystem; eine Frage, die für die diachrone Erklärung
der Form wayyiqtol von Bedeutung ist.
1. WEINRICHS Erzählung – NICCACCIS Narrazione
[Die] Tempora der erzählten Welt […] besagen, daß nicht die Umwelt gemeint
ist, in der sich Sprecher und Hörer befinden und unmittelbar betroffen sind. Sie
6
Unproblematische Eigenschaften dieser Form sind beispielsweise (GROSS, wayyiq!ol, 6):
Sie ist morphologisch eindeutig zu identifizieren (zumindest wenn man vom masoretischen vo-
kalisierten Text ausgeht), und sie steht immer am Satzanfang (zumindest wenn man den gele-
gentlich vorausgehenden casus pendens nicht als Teil des Satz analysiert, so NICCACCI, Sintassi,
§§ 96.104). Problematisch an dieser Form ist dagegen die diachrone Einordnung, und zwar so-
wohl die innerhebräische Entwicklung als auch der Vergleich mit anderen semitischen Spra-
chen. Beides ist hier nicht mein Thema; auf letzteres gehe ich im abschließenden Abschnitt 3.3
kurz ein.
7
Eine tabellarische Zusammenstellung der Funktionen der einzelnen hebräischen Verbfor-
men (genauer gesagt Satztypen) in NICCACCIS System findet sich bei NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 4.5. In
dieser Festschrift ist eine Wiedergabe davon als Appendice 2 von MESSINAS Artikel abgedruckt
(S. 253).
130
An_78.indb 130 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 131
besagen, daß die Redesituation, abgebildet im Kommunikationsmodell, nicht

auch zugleich Schauplatz des Geschehens ist und daß Sprecher und Hörer für
die Dauer der Erzähler [!] mehr Zuschauer als agierende Personen im theatrum
mundi sind – auch wenn sie sich selber zuschauen. Diese Rede läßt die Existenz
des Sprechers und Hörers aus dem Spiel.8
Anders ausgedrückt, das Erzählte hat für die reale Welt und damit für die Ge-
genwart, die Sprechzeit, keine unmittelbare Bedeutung. Diese erzählte Welt
steht in Opposition zur „besprochenen Welt“. In ihr
ist der Sprecher gespannt und seine Rede geschärft, weil es für ihn um Dinge
geht, die ihn unmittelbar betreffen und die daher auch der Hörer im Modus der
Betroffenheit aufnehmen soll.9
WEINRICH teilt die tempora des Verbs in zwei Gruppen ein, in erzählende und
besprechende, analog zu den beiden Sprechhaltungen.
Diese Sprechhaltung […] ist eine Einstellung des Sprechers, der den Hörer an-
weist, in welcher Rezeptionshaltung er die fragliche Textstelle aufnehmen soll.10
Somit kann er dann Texte in diese beiden Kategorien einteilen, je nach dem,
welche der beiden Verbformengruppen überwiegt. Allerdings:
Nicht annähernd alle Gesprächssituationen, mit denen wir es zu tun haben, las-
sen sich in der gleichen Deutlichkeit polarisieren. Man kann jedoch in realtypi-
scher Aufzählung für jede der beiden Gesprächssituationen eine Reihe von Si-
tuationstypen bezeichnen, wenn man dabei die Hilfestellung literarischer Gat-
tungen (im […] sehr weiten Sinne des Wortes) zuläßt.11
WEINRICH gibt für die Begriffe „Erzählung“ und „Besprechung“ keine exakten
Definitionen. Überspitzt formuliert, sein Ansatz basiert auf einem Zirkel-
schluß: Erzählende tempora sind erzählende tempora, weil sie hauptsächlich in
erzählenden Texten vorkommen, und erzählende Texte sind erzählende Texte,
weil in ihnen hauptsächlich erzählende tempora vorkommen. Wie auch immer,
ich kann und brauche hier dieses theoretische Problem nicht zu lösen. WEIN-
RICH untermauert seine These hinreichend mit empirischen Argumenten.
Auch NICCACCI gibt in seiner Anwendung der Theorie WEINRICHS auf die he-
bräischen Texte des Alten Testaments keine exakte Definition des Begriffs Er-
zählung („narrazione“ oder „narrazione storica“):
As for definitions, I suppose everybody agrees on what historical narrative and
direct speech are.12
8
WEINRICH, Tempus, 46f.
9
WEINRICH, Tempus, 36; DE REGT, Verb Forms, 82-87, bestimmt dagegen die Funktion des
wayyiqtol als „cognitive proximity“, was eigentlich das Gegenteil von WEINRICHS Sprechhaltung
der Erzählung ist. Ich bin nicht sicher, ob ich ihn richtig verstehe, aber ich habe den Eindruck,
seine Funktion der cognitive proximity ist ähnlich der in Abschnitt 2 (s. u.) genannten des Vor-
dergrunds.
10
WEINRICH, Tempus, 342.
11
12
NICCACCI, Hebrew, 133, n. 10.
131
An_78.indb 131 21/06/11 15:37

La narrazione riguarda persone o fatti non presenti o non attuali nella situazione
del rapporto scrittore-lettore e usa perciò la terza persona.13
Er grenzt die „Erzählung“ zum einen von der direkten Rede, zum anderen von
poetischen Texten ab. NICCACCI setzt direkte Rede weitgehend mit WEINRICHS
Besprechung (in der italienischen Fassung: „commento“) gleich:
Direi anzi che esso [il commento] consiste essenzialmente nel discorso diretto,
dato che il narratore biblico non interviene mai in prima persona a commentare
ciò che sta raccontando, come accade invece nella letteratura moderna che
Weinrich esamina.14
Für poetische Texte stellt er fest,
that the functions of the verbal forms in poetry are basically the same as in
prose, more precisely in direct speech.15
Also ist, vereinfacht gesagt, biblische Erzählung alles außer direkter Rede und
poetischen Texten. Aufgrund der Textgattungen, die in der hebräischen Bibel
vorkommen, dürfte diese Aussage weitgehend stimmen.16 Es bleibt ein Rest
von unsicheren Stellen: In einigen (wenigen) Fällen ist unklar, ob eine Äuße-
rung direkte Rede ist oder nicht, in einigen (häufigeren) Fällen ist unklar, ob
ein Text als poetisch oder als Prosa anzusehen ist. Schließlich bleiben zwei
Gruppen von Textsegmenten übrig, für welche sich WEINRICHS und NICCACCIS
Klassifikation unterscheiden, der discorso narrativo (erzählende Rede – 1.1)
und der commento (Kommentar – 1.2).
WEINRICH ordnet den beiden Sprechhaltungen die verschiedenen tempora in
den von ihm behandelten Sprachen zu. Die erzählenden tempora im Deutschen
sind beispielsweise „Präteritum, Plusquamperfekt, Konditional und Konditio-
nal II“,17 mit unterschiedlichen Funktionen innerhalb der Erzählung. Nach NIC-
CACCIS Anwendung dieser Textlinguistik ist wayyiqtol eines der hebräischen
Erzähl-tempora, und zwar mit der Funktion, den Vordergrund der Erzählung
sowohl zu beginnen als auch fortzusetzen.18 Allerdings findet sich wayyiqtol
auch in direkter Rede, und zwar im:
13
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 7.
14
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 2, n. 4.
15
NICCACCI, Poetry, 247.
16
Folgende Tatsache untermauert NICCACCIS Klassifizierung: Größere Abschnitte von Pro-
sa-Texten, die eigentlich zu besprechenden Gattungen gehören (wie Weisungen und Gesetzes-
texte) stehen in direkter Rede, siehe z. B. die Einleitungen dazu in Lev 1,1f oder Deut 1,1-6.
17
18
123
An_78.indb 132 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 133
1.1 Discorso narrativo (erzählende Rede)

Die biblischen Erzähler sind in der Regel keine Ich-Erzähler.19 Deshalb stehen
die Erzählungen in der Bibel normalerweise in der dritten Person.20 Im Unter-
schied dazu stehen erzählende Textteile innerhalb direkter Rede oft in der er-
sten Person. NICCACCI bezeichnet diese als „discorso narrativo“ oder „narrazio-
ne orale“.21 Ein Beispiel dafür ist Ri 12,2f:
2a 1!"
3S 4) %[ FQ f$ ?+ '" &<%
3 P `X .#
Jiftach sprach zu ihnen:22
b L% P E <+ ,MN= 9B"8 . 0) OJ
+ "N: ' 9. +# "50' %[ "/"5 ' '"!$ O"&d ' Z"%@ '
„Ein Mann sehr im Streit bin ich gewesen: ich und mein Volk, und die
Söhne Ammons,
c 1C3S /+ %3 Y9@ . +H%3 $#
ich schrie euch herbei,
d U1L8 $ $`<' "/M% = ' 1f: 3 9+ ZM!B%
. P 48 +#
aber ihr habt mich nicht aus der Hand jener befreit,
3a !%h3 &+ %3 #8 $
ich sah,
b 9"
. ZM< 'd @l +0"%B"
) (8 '
daß du kein Befreier bist,
c "kQ ' C. O+ "ZX ' ?+ .0 !<" $ >'- %$ $#
und setzte meine Seele in meine Faust,
d ,MNS 9. "@0) DB4 + %3 !Q &$ D+ 9+ %3 #8 $
vor schritt ich gegen die Söhne Ammons.
e "LE ' $"D+ !=#! $ +" 1:0) f+ '` .#
und ER gab sie in meine Hand –
f U"D8 ' 1F3 K: $ !' 4+ !=\3 !. 1M :`!. "54. %) 1/" : 3 4' 9[ !<$h 4$ +#
warum also seid ihr heutigen Tags wider mich herübergezogen, mich zu
bekriegen?“
Diese erzählende Rede folgt dem Schema der Erzählung. Nach dem x-qatal
(2b) beginnt die Kette der wayyiqtol. In 2d ist wayyiqtol in der Form %P4 +#-qatal
verneint (s. u., 2.1). Der Nominalsatz23 3b (Objektsatz) ist Hintergrund, das
waw-x-qatal 3f kann als Hintergrund interpretiert werden, um Kontrast oder
Emphase auszudrücken.24 Der einzige formale Unterschied zwischen dieser er-
Ausnahmen finden sich bei den Propheten, v. a. Ezechiel und Daniel.

19
NICCACCI, Lettura, 2.
20
21
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 74; der zweite der beiden Begriffe ist aus der italienischen Version
von WEINRICH, Tempus, übernommen.
22
Die deutsche Übersetzung der biblischen Texte folgt mit vereinzelten Anpassungen BU-
BER-ROSENZWEIG.
23
In der Terminologie NICCACCIS „proposizione nominale semplice“ („PNS“) – einfacher
Nominalsatz.
24
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 42.48.
124
An_78.indb 133 21/06/11 15:37

zählenden Rede und einer eigentlichen Erzählung ist die erste Person. Im fol-
genden Beispiel (Ri 11,15-22) fehlt auch dieser formale Unterschied:
15a M4S &<% 3 P `@ .#
Er sprach zu ihm:
b FfE $ ?+ '" &<@ . %$ !P(=
„So hat gesprochen Jiftach:
c U,MN8 9. ":0) D+ c&3 %B/ = 3 %3 +# O%M< S$ c&3 %B/@ 3 %3 Q4%) &$ >+ '" FY^X . 4B% $ P 48
Nicht hat Jifsrael das Land Moab noch das Land der Söhne Ammons ge-
nommen.
16a 1 '"&E $ e+ N' <' 1/M4@ $ 9[ D. "(= '
Sondern als sie aus Ägypten heraufzogen,
b RJAB1 S ."BL9. &Q D$ L+ N' D. 4%X ) &$ >+ '" W43 `)- .#
ging Jifsrael durch die Wüste bis zum Schilfmeer,
c U!Z$ L8 ) Y$ %P O$`= .#
es kam nach Kadesch.
…
22 U,;8 ) &+ .`!BL
. 9. +# &D= $ L+ N' !B,
. <J ' YPDS .`!BL
. 9. +# ,M0
Q &+ %. <8 ) "&PE ' <%7 !$ 4JO@ +TB4($ /%= ) JZS &"@+ `' .#
Sie ererbten alle Gemarkungen des Amoriters, vom Arnon bis zum Jabbok
und von der Wüste bis zum Jordan.
23a 4%E ) &$ >+ '" MN@ 9. "=0) k+ <' "&PS ' <%7 !B/
@ $ %3 Z" Q &M!
' 4%d) &$ >+ '" "!6 @ ) %7 z !@#!
$ +" !f$h 9. +#
Nun denn, ER, der Gott Jifsraels, hat den Amoriter vor seinem Volk Jifsrael
her enterbt,
b UJ*Z8 3 &"$ f' !f= $ %. +#
und du, du willst es beerben!“
NICCACCI analysiert diesen Text selbst:25 Die erzählende Rede werde von typi-
schen Formen direkter Rede eingerahmt (15b und 23ab). Die mündliche Er-
zählung selbst („racconto“) ist gebildet wie eine eigentliche Erzählung („narra-
zione“). Der einzige Unterschied zwischen mündlicher und eigentlicher Erzäh-
lung ist deren Beginn: In direkter Rede beginnt die Zeitachse der Vergangen-
heit im Vordergrund („resoconto“ – Bericht) mit qatal oder x-qatal, welches
durch wayyiqtol fortgesetzt werden kann. Die Erzählung dagegen beginnt mit
einem Antefakt (z. B. x-qatal). Das heißt also, x-qatal kann am Beginn mündli-
cher und eigentlicher Erzählung vorkommen, allerdings ist die Stellung dieser
Form in der Textstruktur unterschiedlich. X-qatal als Beginn des mündlichen
Berichts drückt den Vordergrund aus, während x-qatal als Antefakt als Hinter-
grund angesehen werden kann.26 Diese Unterscheidungs ist im Zusammenhang
von NICCACCIS tempus-System sinnvoll. Ich glaube aber nicht, daß sie im kon-
kreten Fall des Beginns einer Erzählung von Bedeutung ist. Ein weiteres Bei-
spiel (Ri 11,7):
25
26
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 26f.76.
125
An_78.indb 134 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 135
7a L9$S 4+ 'I "@0) Y+ 'H4+ FQ f$ ?+ '" &<%

3 P `X .#
Jiftach sprach zu den Ältesten von Gilad:
b "/M%
'S 1/%
@ 3 )0>+ 1Q f3 %. %P 4X ![
„Wart ihrs nicht, die mich haßten,
c "OE ' %$ /"@D) <' " '0JZ= &+ $If+ .#
mich aus dem Haus meines Vaters trieben?
d !f$ 9.S "4Q . %) 1/%
X 3 D$ 9J
. ;q <J
.
Weshalb seid ihr zu mir gekommen jetzt,
U1C8 3 4$ &e: . &Z= 3 %[ (.
dieweil euch bang ist?“
Ob man das x-qatal (7b) als Antefakt (Hintergrund) einer Erzählung oder
als Beginn eines Berichts interpretiert, bleibt eine Frage der Terminologie.
Das darauf folgende wayyiqtol führt die (mündliche) Erzählung im Vorder-
grund fort, das x-qatal (7d) kann als Hintergrund oder als Neueinsatz angese-
hen werden.
Hebräischer Bericht geht oft schnell in die mündliche Erzählung über.27 Ich
schlage dafür eine Erklärung in Rückgriff auf WEINRICH vor. Er beschreibt
mehrere Sprachen, die im Laufe ihrer Entwicklung das erzählende Haupt-tem-
pus verloren haben (modernes Französisch und süddeutsche Mundarten;28 man
kann hier beispielsweise norditalienische Umgangssprache oder modernes He-
bräisch ergänzen). Die Sprachentwicklung habe darauf reagiert, indem sie das
tempus-System umorganisierte oder indem sie (im Fall der deutschen Mundar-
ten) vermehrt Adverbien einsetzt. Im biblischen Hebräischen scheint es mir
umgekehrt zu sein. Hier hat das Erzähl-tempus wayyiqtol den Platz der fortlau-
fenden Hauptlinie (Vordergrund) des Berichts eingenommen.29 Anders ausge-
drückt: berichtet die biblische direkte Rede vergangene Ereignisse, fällt sie da-
bei oft in die Sprechhaltung der Erzählung. Es fällt auf, daß dabei, vergleich-
bar mit den deutschen Mundarten, immer wieder Adverbien (z. B. !f$ 9. , Ri
11,7d) oder Fragepronomen (z. B. !<$ 4$ , Ri 12,3e) vorkommen, welche zur be-
sprechenden Sphäre gehören.30 Eine weitere Beobachtung spricht für diese
Gleichsetzung: Die Konstruktionen für den Hintergrund der Erzählung und
den der Vergangenheitsachse der Besprechung sind identisch (x-qatal, Nomi-
nalsatz, x-yiqtol und weqatal).
27
Es finden sich auch vereinzelt Beispiele für längeren Bericht, z. B. Deut 5,2-5.
28
WEINRICH, Tempus, 252-287.
29
Ob es sich um eine diachrone Umstrukturierung im Rahmen der Sprachentwicklung han-
delt, kann ich hier nicht beantworten. Innerhalb biblischer Prosa ist keine solche Entwicklung zu
beobachten.
30
Zu Adverbien, die typisch für die direkte Rede sind, s. NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 66-73. Fra-
gepronomen sind an den Hörer oder Leser gerichtet und erwarten eine Antwort, eine Reaktion.
Die Existenz des Sprechers und Hörers bleibt also nicht, wie in der erzählenden Sprechhaltung,
aus dem Spiel.
126
An_78.indb 135 21/06/11 15:37

Ri 19,18 ist ein Beispiel dafür, daß das wayyiqtol nicht immer als Fortset-
zung eines Vergangenheits-tempus erklärt werden kann:31
18a #"2$ c %) &7% 1 I _L -#
Er sprach zu ihm:
b 0 a '"&- 9+ %;&
1 !- ".L ) (+ &+ -";D5- !` DB!$ +" 0>L1 2;."
1 =N ) 7' B/>+ /- q %Y 0"&e ' GI+ 5
„Wir ziehen von Betlehem in Jehuda nach dem Rückrand des Gebirges
Efrajim,
c "<' I /M %$ 0[L $ 7'
von dorther bin ich,
d !DB! P $ +" 0>O1 21 ."=;D H ) 5- U2) g %) $#
ich war nach Betlehem in Jehuda gegangen,
e U2I) M ! "L/' %Y !J $#! +" ."V=;.
) %1 +#
und nun gehe ich zu SEINEM Haus,
f R!.$ +"=N $ !- ".E% O ' KtH ) %- 7+ X"%M' ,"%L ) +#
aber niemand will mich in sein Haus einholen.“
Die direkte Rede beginnt mit zwei Nominalsätzen (18bc) und fährt fort mit ei-
nem wayyiqtol (18d) und zwei weiteren Nominalsätzen. Der zweite Nominal-
satz 18c berichtet einen gegenwärtigen Zustand, das Sein „von dorther“, wel-
cher freilich schon in der Vergangenheit seinen Anfang genommen hat. Daran
schließt sich die kurze Erzählung 18d an, um sofort wieder mit zwei Nominal-
sätzen gegenwärtige Zustände zu beschreiben.
Auch in 18c stellt sich, ähnlich wie schon oben in Ri 11,7b, die Frage, ob
der Nominalsatz als Antefakt zum erzählenden wayyiqtol aufzufassen ist oder
ob er auf der Hauptlinie der Gegenwarts-Zeitachse der Besprechung liegt. For-
mal ist wieder keine Unterscheidung möglich. Vielleicht sollte man die Frage
offen lassen. WEINRICH kennt ähnliche Fälle:
Man kann nun die syntaktische Grenze verschieden auffassen. Einerseits ist es
möglich zu sagen, der Satz […] gehöre als Grenzmarkierung nicht mehr zur Er-
zählung. Es ist aber andererseits auch möglich, den grenzmarkierenden Satz
noch mit zur Erzählung zu rechnen.32
Man kann die Funktion solcher Sätze als syntaktischen Übergang zwischen der
Sprechhaltung der Besprechung und der der Erzählung bezeichnen, welcher
selbst keiner der beiden Sprechhaltungen eindeutig zuzuordnen ist. Anders
verhält es sich, wenn der Sprecher wieder von der Erzählung zur Besprechung
wechselt, z. B. Jos 2,9-12:
31
Ausführlich zum wayyiqtol als Fortsetzung von Gegenwarts- oder Zukunfts-tempora s.
GROSS, wayyiq!ol.
32
136
An_78.indb 136 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 137
9a 1"Z'S $0%[ !B4

@ $ %3 &Q <%
3 P fQ .#
und sie sprach zu den Männern:
b "f' 9+ Lg . $"
„Ich weiß:
c c&3 %E $ !B/
$ %3 1=C3 4$ !5#!
$ +" ,/2 . $0B"(8 '
ja, euch hat ER das Land gegeben,
d J0"4) S 9$ 1Q C3 /+ <"
. %8 ) !X4$ ?+ $0B"C8 ' +#
ja, von euch her stürzt Entsetzen auf uns,
e U1C"
8 3 )0k+ <' c&3 %= $ !$ "O: ) ZP+ "B4($ JI<
P 5 $0 "C: ' +#
ja, alle Insassen des Landes wanken vor euch,
10 /%) i J09+ <.d Z$ "(@ '
wir habens ja gehört: das
1 '"&E $ e+ N' <' 1=C3 /% + e) D+ 1C" 3S )0k+ <' RJAB1
Q ." "<B/
X ) %3 !#!q $ +" Z"OM!B&
-' Z3 %[
wie ER die Wasser des Schilfmeers trocknete vor euch her bei eurer Fahrt
aus Ägypten,
"&Pq ' <%7 !$ "C)- 4+ <. n" )0Z+ 4' 1/" 3j >' 9[ &Z @ 3 %[ .#
und wie ihr den beiden Amoriterkönigen tatet,
IM9S 4J + ,PF@ "A' 4+ ,;Q ) &+ .`!. &O3 9X ) D+ &Z3- %[
denen jenseit des Jordans, dem Sfichon und dem Og,
U1/M% 8 $ 1f= 3 <+ &. F7 !3 &Z: 3 %[
wie ihr sie banntet,
11a 9Q <. Z+ '* .#
wir hörtens,
b J0OS) O$ 4+ AN@ . '` .#
unser Herz schmolz
c 1EC"3 )0k+ <' Z"%= ' D+ FJ . &5 LM9: !<$ YB% - $ P 4 +#
in niemand mehr hob ein Geist sich vor euch,
d U/F. f8 $ <' c&3 %= $ !B4 $ 9. +# 49. N.S <' 1 '"<@ . ]$ D. 1"Q !6 ' %7 %J!X 1C" 3S !) 68 %7 !@#!
$ +" "(y '
ja: ER, euer Gott, er ist Gott, im Himmel droben, auf Erden drunten!
12a !#!" S $ D8 . "4Q ' %:0BJ9
$ O+ ]8 $ !' !f$d 9. +#
Und nun schwöret mir doch bei IHM“
Die direkte Rede beginnt mit satzeinleitendem qatal. Diese Konstruktion ist
typisch für den Bericht in direkter Rede, ist dagegen in der Erzählung selten.33
Diesem Satz folgen mehrere x-qatal (9cde.10; Hintergrund) und nominalisierte
(&Z3 %[ -)Sätze, alle in der Zeitachse der Vergangenheit. Erst mit den beiden way-
yiqtol in 11ab und dem verneinten 11c geht die direkte Rede in eine Erzählung
über. Der Nominalsatz 11d bildet dazu den Hintergrund. In 12a zeigt sowohl
33
Nach NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 15.22, komme satzeinleitendes qatal in der Erzählung über-
haupt nicht vor (“il qatal nella narrazione non è mai iniziale, nel senso che non occupa mai il
prima posto della proposizione”). Es finden sich zwar vereinzelte Fälle (z. B. Jos 3,16; Ri 18,17),
aber NICCACCI schlägt für sie eine Erklärung als Teil der apodosis vor (id., Lettura, 82, zu
Jos 3,16).
128
An_78.indb 137 21/06/11 15:37

das Adverb !f$ 9. +#34 als auch die Verbform (Imperativ) an, daß die direkte Rede
wieder zur Sprechhaltung der Besprechung zurückgekehrt ist.
Manchmal endet die direkte Rede in der Sprechhaltung der Erzählung, so
im folgenden Beispiel (Ri 15,6):
6c J&d <%
+ P ` .#
Man sprach:
d "0'S <+ f' !. ,/@ . F[ ,MZ
Q <+ Z'
„Schimschon, der Schwiegersohn des Timniters,
e MfS Z+ %B/
' %3 FY^@ . 4$ "(y '
denn der hat sein Weib fortgenommen
f J!9E ) &) <) 4+ s=0$ f+ '`#8 .
und gabs seinem Gesellen.“
g 1"f'S Z+ 4' ?+ J4@ 9[ .` .#
Die Philister zogen herauf.
Sowohl der letzte Satz der direkten Rede (6f) als auch die Weiterführung der
Erzählung (6g; Fortführung von 6c) sind wayyiqtol. Das einzige formale Krite-
rium, das, neben der Semantik, den Wechsel zwischen der mündlichen und der
eigentlichen Erzählung anzeigt, ist der Subjekts- und numerus-Wechsel zwi-
schen den beiden wayyiqtol. Im folgenden Beispiel (Ex 2,19f) fällt auch dieses
formale Kriterium weg:
19a $ ,&+ <%
.g P f .#
Sie sprachen:
b 1"9PE ' &!$ L@`. <' J04"
= $ _' !' "&S ' e+ <' Z"%@ '
„Ein ägyptischer Mann hat uns aus der Hand der Hirten gerettet,
c J04$ S !Q 4$ L$ !6X ;B1
$ .I +#
er schöpfte auch, schöpfte für uns
d U,%P _8 !B/ . %3 Y+ Z=+ `. .#
und tränkte die Schafe.“
20a #"/P= $ 0DB4
+ %3 &<% 3 P `: .#
Er sprach zu seinen Töchtern:
Nach zwei x-qatal geht die direkte Rede in ein erzählendes wayyiqtol (19d)
über. Das folgende wayyiqtol (20a), ebenfalls in der dritten Person maskulin
singular, nimmt die eigentliche Erzählung (NICCACCIS „narrazione storica“)
wieder auf und setzt das wayyiqtol von 19a fort. Es gibt keinen formalen Un-
terschied zwischen dem wayyiqtol in 19d und dem in 20a. Nur die Semantik
(und die beiden Suffixe der ersten Person Plural, 19bc) lassen den Übergang
von der mündlichen zur eigentlichen Erzählung erkennen.
34
Nach NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 66.73, ein segno macro-sintattico della comunicazione, wel-
ches ausschließlich in direkter Rede vorkomme.
129
An_78.indb 138 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 139
Mündliche Erzählung, d. h. erzählende Rede, läßt sich also von der eigentli-
chen Erzählung unterscheiden, da sie im Textzusammenhang in direkte Rede
eingebettet ist. Dagegen unterscheiden sich beide Formen der Erzählung in der
Verwendung und der Funktion der tempora nicht voneinander. Beide bestehen
aus Ketten von wayyiqtol, die durch verschiedene Konstruktionen zum Aus-
druck des Hintergrunds unterbrochen werden können. Die direkte Rede kann
erzählend enden, sie kann aber auch wieder in besprechende tempora überge-
hen. Allenfalls am Anfang mündlicher Erzählung finden sich Konstruktionen,
die am Anfang eigentlicher Erzählung nicht verwendet werden. Diese Kon-
struktionen müssen aber nicht unbedingt zur Erzählung gezählt werden. Mög-
licherweise gehören sie noch zur Besprechung, oder sie sind Übergangsformen
zwischen den beiden Sprechhaltungen.
1.2 Commento (Kommentar)

Während erzählende Textteile in direkter Rede ziemlich verbreitet sind, ist das
umgekehrte Phänomen im biblischen Hebräisch selten. NICCACCI35 stellt fest,
der biblische Erzähler greife nie in erster Person ein, um das zu kommentieren,
was er erzählt,
ma lo fa sempre in forma indiretta in terza persona […]. In questo senso “com-
mento” corrisponde a quello che nel seguito chiamo “livello secondario” della
narrazione.
Er zählt den Kommentar des biblischen Erzählers also nicht zur Sprechhaltung
der Besprechung, sondern zum Hintergrund der Erzählung.36 Formal ist das
möglich. Die Vordergrundkonstruktionen der Besprechung finden sich auch
als Hintergrundkonstruktionen der Erzählung, mit Ausnahme der volitiven
Formen – sowenig wie der biblische Autor in erster Person das Wort ergreift,
sowenig wendet er sich in volitiven Formen an den Leser. Ein Beispiel für ei-
nen Kommentar (Jos 14,13-15):
13b U!48 $ F[ .04+ !=*3 ?p +"B,D3 O:4) C$ 4+ ,M&5 O+ FB/
3 %3 ,f2 ) '` .#
Er gab Hebron Kaleb Sohne Jefunnes zu Eigentum.
14 !E\3 !. 1M @`!. L9= . !4$ S F[ .048 + "Q '\ '0x+ !. !X*3 ?p +"B,D3 O4) - C$ 4+ ,M&O+ FB!
3 i /8 $ +"!$ ,@(B4
) 9.
Daher war Hebron Kaleb Sohne Jefunnes dem Knisiten zu eigen bis auf
diesen Tag,
35
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 2, n. 4 (s. o.).
36
Allerdings finden sich bei NICCACCI auch Aussagen, die diesen Kommentar in die Nähe
der direkten Rede rücken: “ ‘Direct speech’ […] also indicates indirect speech, as when an au-
thor comments in different ways upon the story he is narrating” (NICCACCI, Hebrew, 119), oder
differenzierter: “Comment is a ‘mixed category,’ an intrusion of direct speech into narrative.
When commenting on the event he is narrating, the writer uses the same verb forms as in direct
speech, although not all of them nor with the same temporal value. It is as if he were speaking to
his reader indirectly” (ibid., 133, n. 10).
130
An_78.indb 139 21/06/11 15:37

U4%8 ) &$ >+ '" "!6

: ) %7 !=#!
$ +" "&g ) F[ %. %K) S <' &Z
@ 3 %[ ,9y. ".
weil er völlig IHM, dem Gott Jifsraels, nachgefolgt war;
15a 9DS. &+ %. /@". &+ Y' 1"Q '0?$ 4+ ,M&X O+ F3 1Z)- +#
und der Name von Hebron war vordem Kirjat Arba.
Sowohl das x-qatal von V. 14 als auch der Nominalsatz (15a) können formal
als Hintergrund des wayyiqtol von 13b angesehen werden. Allerdings spricht
das deiktische ! 3\!. 1M`!. L9. gegen die Sprechhaltung der Erzählung. Der Erzähler
ergreift zwar nicht die Rede in erster Person, aber er verweist auf seine eigene
Zeit. Er verläßt die erzählte Zeit und kehrt zurück in „die Umwelt […], in der
sich Sprecher und Hörer befinden“,37 d. h. er erzählt nicht mehr, er bespricht.
Weniger deutlich ist dies im folgenden Beispiel (Gen 16,13f):
13a !"
$ 43 S %) &@OP) ;!. !Q $#! +"B1Z) %&X $ Y+ f' .#
Sie aber rief SEINEN Namen, des zu ihr Redenden:
b "%E ' &{ 4%@ ) !f= $ %.
„Du Gott der Sicht!“
c !&d $ <+ %8 $ "(@ '
Denn sie sprach:
d U"%P8 ' & "&: ) F[ %. "/" ' %= ' &$ 165 ![ 1:I. ![
„Sah auch wirklich ich hier dem Michsehenden nach?“
14a "%PE ' & "F= . 4. &%: ) D+ &%S) D+ 4. %&@ $ Y$ ,(B4
Q ) 9.
Darum rief man den Brunnen Brunn des Lebenden Michsehenden.
b UL&3 D8 $ ,"OJ : ) ZL= ) YB,"
$ O) !:*) !'
Da ist er, zwischen Kadesch und Bared.
Wie im vorhergehenden Beispiel finden sich ein x-qatal (14a) und ein Nomi-
nalsatz (14b), die als Hintergrund in der Erzählung oder als Vordergrund in der
Besprechung verstanden werden können. Es fehlt aber hier ein deiktisches Ele-
ment, das auf die Umwelt des Autors verweist, und damit ein formales Argu-
ment für eine Entscheidung. Mit einer gewissen Unsicherheit kann die Seman-
tik als Argument herangezogen werden: Ist der Nominalsatz 14b Hintergrund
der Erzählung, so drückt er Gleichzeitigkeit mit dem Vordergrund aus.38 Ist er
Vordergrund der Besprechung, drückt er Gegenwart39 (Gleichzeitigkeit mit
dem Sprechakt) aus. Im ersten Fall würde das bedeuten, daß der Brunnen zwi-
schen Kadesch und Bared lag, als Hagar die Erscheinung widerfuhr, im zwei-
ten Fall, daß der Brunnen heute (genauer gesagt, als der Autor den Text ver-
faßte) dort liegt. Inhaltliche Gründe sprechen für die zweite Lösung, auch
wenn die erste nicht völlig auszuschließen ist.
Auch Sätze in der Erzählung, die mit !0!(#) beginnen, kann man auf diese
Weise klassifizieren. NICCACCI tut das mit einem gewissen Zögern:
37
38
39
131
An_78.indb 140 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 141
! )*!' ( +#) comunica un fatto nuovo che acquista un risalto improvviso nello svol-
gimento altrimenti lineare dei fatti. La sua presenza è legata, esplicitamente […]
o implicitamente […], al verbo “vedere”. La narrazione si avvicina così all’im-
mediatezza del discorso.40
Die Aussage, die Erzählung nähere sich so der Unmittelbarkeit der Rede, kann
man auch so interpretieren, daß der Autor die Rolle des Erzählers verläßt. Er
lädt den Leser dazu ein, sich das, was in der Erzählung gesehen wird, selbst
vor Augen zu stellen.41 Damit ist er nicht mehr der Erzähler, der „die Existenz
des Sprechers und Hörers [und Lesers] aus dem Spiel“42 läßt. Er bespricht das
Gesehene. Mit anderen Worten:
In narration hinn6—usually in the form of wehinn6—signals a shift in viewpoint,
that is, the angle from which something is related. By the use of wehinn6 the au-
dience is, so to speak, invited to share what the character sees.43
Ein Beispiel (Ri 3,24f):
24a %J d$ $" %B!V +#
Als er nun hinausgetreten war,
b B%=M$ #"DL $ G$ 5Y -#
kamen seine Diener
c B%g &+ '_ -#
und sahn,
d .E2P 5p +/ !O_$ 2' 5Y !$ .E.H 2+ 6- !S*) !' +#
da, die Türen des Obergemachs waren verriegelt.
e B&M 7% + I _L -#
Sie sprachen:
f „…“
25a XE=;D M 5- B2">L ' $_ -#
Aber sie warteten sich zuschanden:
b !P_$ 2' 5Y !N $ .E.L 2+ 6- >- .IO ) 9 B*H/"1 %) !S*) !' +#
da, er schloß die Türen des Obergemachs nicht auf.
c >-J f)J 9+ F- !;.- %1 B>V W+ '_ -#
Sie nahmen einen Schlüssel her
d B>f$M 9+ '_ -#
und schlossen auf,
e R.7N ) !d$ &+ %O - 29IH ) / 0!" 1M )/I DL %Y !J )*!' +#
da: hingefallen ihr Herr zur Erde, tot!
Dreimal kommt in diesen beiden Versen das Wort ! )*!' +# vor. In 24d geht ihm
ein Verb des Sehens voraus (B%&+ '_ -#), ! )*!' +# beginnt die Beschreibung dessen, was
40
41
Vgl. die Bezeichnung dieser Partikel als „Präsentativ“ (BLAU, Adverbia, 130).
42
43
ESKHULT, Thoughts, 113.
141
An_78.indb 141 21/06/11 15:37

die Knechte sahen. In 25e geht dem ! )*!' +# kein Verb des Sehens voraus, aber es
folgt ihm die Beschreibung der Szene, die die Knechte sahen, nachdem sie die
Tür geöffnet hatten (JFf$ ?+ '` .#). Weniger deutlich ist 25b. Die Erklärung ist nicht
naheliegend, die Knechte hätten während des Wartens gesehen oder wahrge-
nommen, daß der König nicht aufschloß. Der mit ! )*!' +# eingeleitete Nominalsatz
könnte also durchaus als Hintergrund-Beschreibung gedeutet werden: Sie war-
teten, und (gleichzeitig) schloß er nicht auf. Ich halte diese Erklärung des-
wegen für unbefriedigend, weil dadurch das eigentlich Nebensächliche (das
Warten) als Vordergrund erzählt würde, während das für den Verlauf der Er-
zählung Wichtigere (der König schließt nicht auf) den Hintergrund bildet.
Die Einschätzung, was nebensächlich und was wichtiger ist, mag subjektiv
sein, und es ist auch nicht auszuschließen, daß der Autor aus rhetorischen
Gründen Wichtiges als Hintergrund formuliert. Trotzdem schlage ich vor, die-
sen ! )*!' +#-Satz und die beiden anderen hier erwähnten nicht als Hintergrund der
Erzählung zu interpretieren, sondern als Wechsel zur Sprechhaltung der Be-
sprechung.
2. Vordergrund und Hintergrund der Erzählung
[Es] ist […] nicht a priori zu sagen, was in einer Erzählung Vordergrund ist
[…]. Vordergrund ist, was der Erzähler als Vordergrund aufgefaßt wissen will.
Der Ermessensspielraum des Erzählers ist jedoch auch hier durch einige Grund-
bedingungen des Erzählens eingeschränkt. Vordergrund ist nach den Grundge-
setzen des Erzählens gewöhnlich das, um dessentwillen die Geschichte erzählt
wird […]; mit einem Wort Goethes: die unerhörte Begebenheit. Von hier aus
läßt sich umgekehrt bestimmen, was in einer Erzählung Hintergrund ist. Hinter-
grund ist im allgemeinsten Sinne das, was nicht unerhörte Begebenheit ist, was
für sich alleine niemand zum Zuhören bewegen würde, was dem Zuhörer jedoch
beim Zuhören hilft und ihm die Orientierung in der erzählten Welt erleichtert.44
NICCACCI übernimmt WEINRICHS Klassifizierung (Vordergrund: primo piano;
Hintergrund: sfondo).45 Auf die hebräische Erzählung angewandt bedeutet das,
wayyiqtol ist das Vordergrund-tempus, der Hintergrund kann durch mehrere
verschiedene Konstruktionen, die unterschiedliche semantische Funktionen ha-
ben, ausgedrückt sein.46 Zwei Konstruktionen stören die Symmetrie: vernein-
te Vordergrundformen (2.1) sowie wayyiqtol zur Fortsetzung des Hinter-
grunds (2.2).
44
45
Einen interessanten Aspekt fügt NICCACCI in einer neueren Veröffentlichung (Integrated,
123) hinzu: “foreground constructions indicate time, while background constructions indicate
aspect ”.
46
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 39-50; vorsichtiger formuliert COOK, Semantics, 263: wayyiqtol
drücke Vordergrund aus, dagegen seien andere Konstruktionen nicht automatisch Hintergrund.
133
An_78.indb 142 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 143
2.1 Verneinte Erzählung

Die Form wayyiqtol kann nicht verneint werden. Diese Beobachtung kann auf
zwei Arten erklärt werden: Entweder ist die Funktion der Form wayyiqtol nicht
mit der Funktion „Verneinung“ vereinbar, oder eine andere Form übernimmt
die Funktion des zu verneinenden wayyiqtol. NICCACCI neigt, wie die mei-
sten, zur zweiten Möglichkeit, d. h. soll wayyiqtol verneint werden, werde es
durch %P4 +#-qatal ersetzt, welches dieselbe Funktion – Vordergrund der Erzäh-
lung – habe.
Ho chiamato “proposizione verbale” quella che inizia con un verbo finito e
“proposizione nominale” quella che inizia con un elemento differente, escluse la
congiunzione waw e le negazioni l5ˀ e ˀal.47
%P4 ist also nach NICCACCI kein Element x, der Satz ist kein Nominalsatz. Ich
habe dafür bei ihm keine explizite Begründung gefunden. Es gibt Gründe, die
eine solche Analyse möglich machen: In verschiedenen Sprachen finden sich
Verbformen, die, wenn sie verneint werden sollen, durch andere ersetzt wer-
den, z. B. der lateinische oder der italienische Imperativ oder die arabische
Verbform faˁala – lam yaf ˁal (Apokopat). Man mag auch noch die äthiopische
Verneinung ˀi- anführen, die sich proklitisch mit der Verbform verbindet, die
also als eine Einheit mit ihr aufgefaßt werden kann. Außerdem ist es in vielen
Sprachen (z. B. Deutsch oder Italienisch) möglich, die Erzählzeit im Vorder-
grund zu verneinen, so im folgenden Beispiel (Gen 31,34), dem ich die Über-
setzung von NICCACCI hinzufüge.48
34d 4!3 % P = !B4
$ (B/ $ %3 ,O5 $ 4$ Z]: ) <. +" .#
Laban tastete all das Zelt ab
Per questo Labano frugò tutta la tenda
e %e8 $ <$ %P 4: +#
und fands nicht.
e non trovò (niente).
Damit ist freilich nur gesagt, daß die Analyse von %P4( +#)-qatal als Vordergrund
möglich ist, das Phänomen ist aber noch nicht erklärt.
Ein Argument gegen die Analyse von %P4( +#)-qatal als Verneinung von way-
yiqtol, d. h. als Allomorph, sind die (seltenen) Fälle, in denen eine direkte Rede
mit %P4-qatal beginnt, was mit wayyiqtol nicht möglich ist,49 z. B. Ri 19,30:
30a !%Pd3 &!B4$ C$ !@"$!$ +#
Es geschah, alljeder, ders sah,
b &Q <. %$ +#
sprach:
47
NICCACCI, Linguistica, 192.
48
49
134
An_78.indb 143 21/06/11 15:37

c !.V $ +"!+ '/;%I 2N

„Nicht ist geschehn,
d !PZ1 !- 0E L_!- D5O - 0 '"&M - d+ 7' b&1 %L 1 7) J2%) &$ 8+ '";"N/) =+ .E2V 5Y 0E h_7' 2+ .%I @M ($ !J .$ %Y &+ '/;%I 2N +#
nicht ward ersehn wie dieses von dem Tag an, da die Söhne Jifsraels her-
aufzogen vom Land Ägypten, bis zu diesem Tag.
Ich schlage vor, das %I2 in der Konstruktion %I2( +#)-qatal doch als x zu sehen, den
Satz also als Hintergrund.50 Diese Analyse geht davon aus, daß das, was nicht
geschehen ist, aus einer Kette aufeinanderfolgender Ereignisse herausfällt.
WEINRICHS Aussage, Vordergrund sei, was der Erzähler als Vordergrund aufge-
faßt wissen wolle, ist dann nicht nur „durch einige Grundbedingungen des Er-
zählens eingeschränkt“,51 sondern auch durch die einzelsprachliche Regel,
im biblischen Hebräisch gehöre in der Erzählung das Verneinte in den Hin-
tergrund.
2.2 Fortsetzung des Hintergrunds

Wayyiqtol taucht auch als Hintergrund auf, sowohl in der Erzählung als auch
in der Besprechung (in der Achse der Vergangenheit), und zwar meistens als
Fortsetzung von x-qatal, unter definierbaren Umständen.52 Mehrere Beispiele
dafür finden sich in Jos 10,1-3:
1a o2- c XB&
$ +" U21 7L 1 WD1 d;"
1q '/I DN %Y 5- 7
I e X+ <' n"!' +" -#
Es geschah, als Adonizedek König von Jerusalem hörte,
b "`5- !;.
$ %1 5- XE!
L p +" D<-e 2;"
$ (N '
daß Jehoschua Ai erobert,
c s
a 7" $ &' >Y -_ -#
es gebannt hatte
d s($M 2+ 7- 2B+ E>" J &"' 2N ' !8V $ 5$ &X1e %Y (-
– wie er Jericho und dessen König getan hatte,
e s(P $ 2+ 7- 2B+ "5O - 2$ !8H $ 5;,$ ()
so tat er Ai und dessen König –
f 2%M) &$ 8+ '";.%1 ,E5 J G+ 'A "GV ) XI+ " B7"2' q X+ !' "<'e +#
und daß die Insassen von Gibon sich mit Jifsrael befriedet hatten
g R0=N $ &+ W' =+ B O"!+ _N ' -#
und in ihrem Nahkreis blieben:
2a D%I M 7+ B%L &"+ _N ' -#
sie fürchteten sich sehr,
50
Auch BUTH, Functional, 88, zählt die Verneinung zu den Funktionen, die in der Kategorie
„background“ ausgedrückt werden.
51
52
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 146; diese Fortsetzungsfunktion findet sich nicht in der Tabelle auf
S. 253 dieser Festschrift.
144
An_78.indb 144 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 145
b !CE $ 4$ <+ N. !. "&@ ) 9$ /F= . %. (+ ,M9S O+ 'T !Q 4ML

$ +T &"9X ' "(@ '
eine große Stadt war Gibon ja, wie eine der Königstädte,
c "9.S !B,
$ <' !Q 4ML
$ +I %"!X ' "C'- +#
ja größer war es als Ai,
d U1"&P8 ' D 'T !"
$ Z= 3 $0%B4
[ C$ +#
und all seine Männer wehrhaft.
3 … ,M&O+ FBW
3 i 43 <8 3 1!M!B4
@$ %3 o4. d ZJ&
$ +" W43 <@ 3 YL3 eB"
3q '0P L%[ F4. - Z+ '` .#
Es sandte Adonizedek, König von Jerusalem, zu Hoham, König von Heb-
ron …
Das makrosyntaktische Zeichen "!' +" .# leitet einen Doppelsatz ein, verbindet die-
sen mit dem Vorhergehenden und bleibt dabei auf der Hauptlinie der Erzäh-
lung.53 Problematisch ist in diesem Fall die Abgrenzung zwischen protasis
(einleitendem Hintergrund) und apodosis. Nur die Semantik läßt erkennen, daß
die apodosis mit dem wayyiqtol von V. 3 beginnt. Die Sätze 1b-2d sind Fort-
setzungen und Hintergründe der protasis: x-qatal, 1b, semantisch ein Objekt-
satz, ist Hintergrund zu 1a; 1c setzt 1b fort; 1de sind zwei weitere Hinter-
grundsätze (zu 1c?); 1f ist – parallel zu 1b – Hintergrund zu 1a; 1g und 2a set-
zen 1f fort; 2bcd sind Hintergrund zu 2a. Streng genommen sind also 2bcd
Hintergrund des Hintergrundshintergrund. Das ist zwar nicht a priori auszu-
schließen, wird vielleicht der komplexen Konstruktion dieser beiden Verse so-
gar gerecht, aber einfacher faßbar wird die Syntax dieses Textes, geht man von
der Grundfunktion des wayyiqtol aus: Vordergrund der Erzählung. So wie die
hebräische direkte Rede bei der Besprechung vergangener Sachverhalte rasch
in die Sprechhaltung der Erzählung übergeht (und zwar in den Vordergrund),
so scheint sie auch bei längeren Hintergrundsbeschreibungen häufig rasch in
den Vordergrund zu wechseln. Es gibt also keinen funktionalen Unterschied
zwischen einem wayyiqtol, das hintergründiges x-qatal fortsetzt und einem
wayyiqtol im „eigentlichen“ Vordergrund. Diese Deutung spiegelt die formale
Situation wider: Auch formal gibt es zwischen beiden Arten des wayyiqtol kei-
nen Unterschied. Sie können nur aufgrund der Semantik unterschieden wer-
den, allenfalls noch durch eventuellen numerus- oder Subjekts-Wechsel, aber
auch der gehört zur Semantik.
3. wayyiqtol als Erzählzeit
Ich habe in den Abschnitten 1 und 2 versucht, die Funktion der Verbform way-
yiqtol zu definieren: Wayyiqtol drückt den Vordergrund in der Erzählung aus.
Das ist eigentlich eine Binsenweisheit. Daß wayyiqtol das Haupt-tempus der
53
Zur Konstruktion solcher mit "!' +" .# eingeleiteter Doppelsätze s. NICCACCI, Sintassi,
§§ 28-36.
136
An_78.indb 145 21/06/11 15:37

Erzählung ist, ist weitgehender consensus unter den Hebraisten. Und trotzdem
meine ich, diese Funktionsbestimmung hilft, einige problematische oder unre-
gelmäßig scheinende Funktionen in anderem Licht zu sehen. Wayyiqtol, das
nicht Vergangenheit ausdrückt (3.1), und aufeinanderfolgende wayyiqtol, wel-
che nicht-aufeinanderfolgende Ereignisse ausdrücken (3.2), werden so leich-
ter erklärbar. Und vielleicht ermöglicht die Definition als Erzählzeit eine Brük-
ke zu den morphologisch ähnlichen modalen yiqtol-Formen (3.3).
3.1 Erzählzeit vs. Vergangenheit

WEINRICH wehrt sich hartnäckig gegen eine Gleichsetzung von Erzählzeit und
Vergangenheitszeitbezug, z. B.:
Die erzählte Welt ist […] indifferent gegenüber unserer Zeit. Sie kann durch ein
Datum in der Vergangenheit festgelegt werden oder durch ein anderes Datum in
der Gegenwart oder Zukunft: das ändert nichts am Stil der Erzählung und an der
ihr eigenen Sprechsituation. So kann denn mancher Erzähler seine Gleichgültig-
keit gegenüber der Zeit geradezu provokatorisch zur Schau stellen.54
Damit bricht er mit einem jahrhundertelang fast allgemeinen consensus. Die
meisten Hebraisten folgen ihm darin nicht, auch NICCACCI nicht:
La narrazione storica utilizza l’asse del passato come linea principale.55
Beschränkt man sich auf die biblische „Groß-Gattung“ der Erzählung (d. h. al-
les außer direkter Rede und Poesie, s. o., 1.), braucht man das auch nicht. Bib-
lische Erzählungen spielen in der Vergangenheit. Spricht die Bibel über Ge-
genwärtiges oder Zukünftiges, tut sie dies in der Regel als Besprechung. Nun
kann sich aber das Erzähl-tempus wayyiqtol auch in Gegenwart oder Zukunft
finden, und zwar v. a. in der oben (1.1) behandelten erzählenden Rede (und in
Poesie). NICCACCI56 unterscheidet
due tipi di wayyiqtol identici dal punto di vista grammaticale ma differenti dal
punto di vista sintattico-testuale: wayyiqtol narrativo e wayyiqtol continuativo.
Il wayyiqtol è narrativo quando inizia la linea principale della comunicazione e
la continua mediante una catena di forme coordinate identiche […]. In questo
caso […] possiede un valore temporale fisso.
Il wayyiqtol è continuativo quando non costituisce l’inizio della linea principale
della narrazione ma prosegue una precedente forma di livello secondario nel
passato, cioè (waw-) x- qatal.
Erzählendes wayyiqtol drücke also Zeit (Vergangenheit) aus, fortsetzendes
wayyiqtol dagegen setze nur davor schon ausgedrückte Zeit (ebenfalls Vergan-
genheit) fort. Setze wayyiqtol dagegen in erzählender Rede einen Nominalsatz
54
55
56
137
An_78.indb 146 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 147
fort, behalte es immer („sempre“) seine Vergangenheitsfunktion, z. B. 2 Sam

19,2:57
2b !5CP3 D W43 N2 3 !. !*)- !'
Da weint der König
Ecco, il re sta piangendo
c U168 Z$ O+ %B4
. 9. 4D= ) %. /+ '` .#
und trauert um Abschalom!
e si è messo in lutto a motivo di Assalonne!
NICCACCI nimmt also für 4D) %. /+ '` .# inchoative Bedeutung an. Das ist zwar nicht
auszuschließen, es ist aber nicht nötig, wendet man WEINRICHS Definition des
Erzähl-tempus an. Die Trauer um Abschalom wird dann schlicht erzählt, ohne
einen Zeitbezug.
Freilich, die einfache Ablehnung eines Zeitbezugs ist unbefriedigend. Das
tut aber WEINRICH auch nicht. Was er ablehnt, ist der Bezug zur realen Zeit, zur
Sprechzeit: Die folgenden Diagramme sollen das verdeutlichen. Im klassi-
schen Zeiten-Modell liegen die Zeiten auf einer Linie, der Zeitachse:
Vergangenheit Gegenwart/Sprechzeit Zukunft
─────────────────┼───────────▷
Die Einordnung von wayyiqtol auf dieser Linie ist schwierig. Wenn WEINRICH
dagegen feststellt, die erzählte Welt sei indifferent gegenüber unserer Zeit, so
kann das folgendermaßen dargestellt werden:
Vergangenheit Gegenwart/Sprechzeit Zukunft
────── reale Zeit ───────┼───────────▷
────── Erzählzeit ───────────────────▷
In diesem Diagramm ist wayyiqtol auf der unteren Linie einzuordnen, und
zwar eigentlich auf ihrer ganzen Länge. Daß es im linken Bereich, der analog
zur realen Vergangenheit ist, häufiger vorkommt, liegt nicht an den Aus-
drucksmöglichkeiten von wayyiqtol, sondern an den Gattungen, in welchen
biblisches wayyiqtol vorkommt. Die Bibel enthält keine Science-fiction, und
Prophetie wird in der Regel nicht erzählt, sondern (poetisch) besprochen. Sie
enthält zwar Erzählungen, die eigentlich zur Gegenwart parallel sind, in der
Regel kurz und in direkter Rede eingebettet, aber auch dann drückt die Verb-
form wayyiqtol nicht den Gegenwartsbezug aus, sondern, wie oben (2.1) fest-
gestellt, nur die Sprechhaltung der Erzählung. Mit anderen Worten, wayyiqtol
drückt nicht Vergangenheit aus, korreliert aber häufig mit ihr.
Das Problem des realen Zeitbezugs stellt sich allerdings durchaus, wenn
man versucht, solche wayyiqtol in Sprachen zu übersetzen, die einen spär-
licheren Gebrauch der erzählenden Sprechhaltung haben. So übersetzen im
genannten Beispiel 2 Sam 19,2c sowohl NICCACCI als auch BUBER-ROSENZWEIG
57
138
An_78.indb 147 21/06/11 15:37

das wayyiqtol 2=) %- .+ '_ -# mit einem besprechenden tempus der Zielsprache, in zwei
verschiedenen Zeitstufen, NICCACCI mit italienischem passato prossimo (Ver-
gangenheit), BUBER-ROSENZWEIG mit deutschem Präsens.
Allerdings: Es wäre zu schön um wahr zu sein, wenn eine Theorie tatsäch-
lich alle Fälle aus einem Teilbereich der hebräischen Syntax erklären könnte.
Es gibt eine Reihe von Gegenbeispielen, z. B. Jos 15,63:
63a 0X" O $ +";"N/) G+ [B2H <+ $"] #2<#";%I 2N o2- M XB
P $ &E' !N 2+ !DB! $ &N +" "LG) XE"
+ ":BG+"
J ' !;.
- %1 +#
Den Jebufsiter aber, die Insassen von Jerusalem, die konnten die Söhne Je-
hudas nicht enterben,
b R!NZ1 !- 0E H_!- D5O - o2- M XB
$ &"L =' !J DB!
$ +" "V/) =;.
+ %1 ":BG+"
q' !- GX1 _)e -#
der Jebufsiter saß bei den Söhnen Jehudas in Jerusalem, bis auf diesen Tag.
In den vorausgehenden Versen stehen Listen von Städten; zu diesen kann das
x-qatal von 63a als Hintergrund analysiert werden, wobei die Verbform (relati-
ve) Vergangenheit ausdrückt. Diese wird vom wayyiqtol in 63b fortgeführt
(s. 2.2). Soweit ist die Analyse unproblematisch. Problematisch ist dagegen
die Verbindung mit dem adverbialen Ausdruck ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- . Dieser Ausdruck
verweist deiktisch auf die Gegenwart, d. h. auf die Sprech-(Schreib-)Zeit. Und
dies steht im Gegensatz zur oben definierten Funktion des wayyiqtol als indif-
ferent gegenüber der realen Zeit.
Dieser Fall ist kein Einzelfall. In den Büchern Josua und Richter habe ich
ein Dutzend Fälle58 von ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- im wayyiqtol-Satz gefunden sowie einige
andere, die zwar nicht mit einem deiktischen Element auf die Gegenwart ver-
weisen, bei denen ein solcher Gegenwartsbezug aber semantisch wahrschein-
lich ist.59 Dagegen kommen in diesen beiden Büchern nur wenige Stellen vor,
in denen ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- in Konstruktionen steht, die als besprechend interpretiert
werden können.60 Ich habe für diese erzählenden Sätze mit ausdrücklichem
Gegenwartsbezug keine Erklärung. Interessant ist in diesem Fall die masoreti-
sche Akzentuierung von Ri 6,24 (evtl. auch von Jos 9,27):
24bc R"&N ' +@51 !$ "GH ' %Y .&O $ 9+ 5$ =+ B*DE5
g 1 !Z1M !- 0E L_!- D5y - 0E2P X$ !O#!
$ +" E2;%
H &$ W+ '_ -#
und rief über ihr: ER Friede! Bis auf diesen Tag ist sie noch im Ofra des
Abiesriten.
Der atna$ beim Wort 0E2P X$ deutet darauf hin, daß die Masoreten ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5-
nicht zum vorausgehenden wayyiqtol-Satz rechneten, sondern zum folgenden
Nominalsatz (im Gegensatz z. B. zur Vulgata), obwohl die Semantik diese Zu-
ordnung nicht nahelegt. Daß jemand einen Ort „bis auf diesen Tag“ mit einem
Namen benennt, ist zwar auch keine exakte Ausdrucksweise, sie ist aber im
biblischen Hebräisch üblich, um auszudrücken, jemand habe einen Ort mit ei-
58
Jos 4,9; 5,9; 6,25; 7,26; 8,28.29; 9,27; 13,13; 15,63; 16,10; Ri 1,21; 6,24.
59
Ri 2,5; 11,39; 18,29.
60
In den Hintergrundkonstruktionen x-qatal (Jos 14,14; Ri 15,19; 18,12) und x-yiqtol
(Ri 10,4).
148
An_78.indb 148 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 149
nem Namen benannt, und dieser Ort heiße so „bis auf diesen Tag“ (heute),
z. B. Jos 5,9:
9c R!NZ1 !- 0E H_!- D5O - 2Q$ M 2+ 'Q %B!
J !- 0EWV F$ !- 0X
L ) %&h $ W+ '_ -#
Man rief den Namen jenes Ortes Gilgal, Wälzwall, bis auf diesen Tag.
Dagegen scheint mir das Nebeneinander von ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- und DE5 in Ri 6,24 tau-
tologisch, und es gibt dafür keine Parallele im biblischen Hebräisch (meines
Wissens auch in keiner anderen hebräischen Quelle). Die Beobachtung, die
Masoreten haben hier ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- vom wayyiqtol-Satz getrennt, läßt sich m. E.
als Hinweis darauf verstehen, auch im masoretischen Sprachempfinden habe
der deiktische Ausdruck ! 1Z!- 0E_!- D5- nicht so recht in einen erzählenden wayyiq-
tol-Satz gepaßt.
3.2 Erzählzeit vs. Aufeinanderfolge

Der Zusammenhang von Erzählzeit und zeitlicher Aufeinanderfolge („Sukzes-
sion“) ist vergleichbar dem von Erzählzeit und Vergangenheit. Für viele Auto-
ren ist Sukzession die Hauptfunktion von wayyiqtol.61 Die Beobachtung ist na-
türlich richtig, daß die erzählten Ereignisse in der Regel in der Aufeinanderfol-
ge erzählt werden, in der sie sich ereigneten. Aber es gibt eine Reihe von Ge-
genbeispielen, die, meist aufgrund der Semantik, nicht als aufeinanderfolgend
angesehen werden können. Es finden sich Fälle von Wiederaufnahme,62 von
Gleichzeitigkeit,63 von Plusquamperfekt,64 von Zusammenfassung,65 von logi-
scher, nicht chronologischer Sukzession66 u. ä.
Will der Erzähler (oder allgemein der Autor) ausdrücken, eine Handlung
sei zu einer anderen gleichzeitig, vorzeitig oder sonst nicht sukzessiv, so ste-
hen ihm dazu sprachliche Mittel zur Verfügung, insbesondere die verschiede-
nen Hintergrundkonstruktionen. Diese Tatsache erlaubt aber nicht den Um-
kehrschluß, Handlungen seien sukzessiv, wenn kein anderes Verhältnis expli-
zit ausgedrückt ist. NICCACCI bringt das deutlich zum Ausdruck:
Il narratore può modificare l’ordine cronologico degli eventi per un suo scopo di
comunicazione.
61
Eine Aufzählung einiger solcher Autoren steht bei COOK, Semantics, 247. Etwas differen-
zierter ist die Feststellung von JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 118 c: “Waw mainly adds the idea of succes-
sion” (Hervorhebung durch die Autoren).
62
Siehe dazu den Beitrag von W. GROSS in diesem Band.
63
Beispielsweise Ex 2,10 (V. D. MERWE, Discourse, 25).
64
BUTH, Collision, 144, interpretiert Ri 11,1 so; nach NICCACCI kann in solchen Fällen das
wayyiqtol als apodosis eines zweigliedrigen Satzes (schema sintattico a due membri, s. NICCACCI,
Sintassi, §§ 95-127) angesehen werden.
65
Beispielsweise Gen 2,1 (V. D. MERWE, Discourse, 25).
66
JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 118 h; s. auch NICCACCI, Lettura, 74 (über Jos 2,16).
149
An_78.indb 149 21/06/11 15:37

Un equivoco purtroppo non raro consiste nell’interpretare le forme verbali di un

testo in base al (preteso) ordine “cronologico” dei fatti “nella realtà”. Al contra-
rio, occorre cercare di comprendere l’ordine degli eventi “nel testo”, quello che
l’autore presenta per mezzo delle forme verbali e degli altri costrutti che usa e
che rivelano la sua strategia di comunicazione.67
NICCACCI macht diese Aussage zwar allgemein und nicht nur bezogen auf way-
yiqtol, aber sie läßt sich auf die wayyiqtol-Kette übertragen. Auch dort ist die
„(angenommene) chronologische Ordnung“ der Realität nicht mechanisch wie-
dergegeben, sondern der Erzähler hat und nutzt die Freiheit, die Ereignisse in
einer für ihn logischen Ordnung darzustellen, die oft, aber nicht immer und
nicht automatisch, parallel ist zum chronologischen Ablauf der erzählten Er-
eignisse.68 Oder, mit den Worten WEINRICHS:
Denn wer erzählt, setzt damit eine eigene Zeit, eben die erzählte Zeit, die ihre
eigenen Gesetze hat und von der besprochenen Zeit qualitativ verschieden ist.69
3.3 Erzählzeit und Modalität

Mit den abschließenden Gedanken zum Verhältnis von Erzählzeit und Moda-
lität verlasse ich das konsequent synchrone System NICCACCIS.70 Synchron
kennt das biblische Hebräisch mehrere Formen der Präfixkonjugation, die sich
diachron wohl auf mindestens zwei protosemitische Formen zurückführen las-
sen. In einem gewissen Stadium dieser Entwicklung dürfte eine dieser Formen,
die (endungslose) Kurzform, zwei verschiedene Funktionen gehabt haben, eine
modale und eine als Erzählzeit. Masoretisches Hebräisch unterschied dann (in
Prosa konsequenter als in Poesie) diese beiden Funktionen durch eine morpho-
logische Differenzierung: (we)yiqtol (wo erkennbar, meist in Kurzform) wurde
zur jussiven Form, wayyiqtol zum Erzähl-tempus.
Wie ist dieser vor-masoretische, vor-klassische Zustand zu erklären, wo-
nach eine Form zwei verschiedene Funktionen hat? Es mag Beispiele geben, in
welchen tatsächlich ein sprachliches Zeichen mehrere Funktionen hat,71 aber
die meisten solcher doppelten Funktionen fallen unter eine der folgenden Ka-
tegorien:
• Die verschiedenen Funktionen eines sprachlichen Zeichens werden durch
weitere sprachliche Zeichen differenziert (z. B. durch das Morphem ~ .# im Fall
der Präfixkonjugation als Erzählzeit im masoretischen Hebräisch).
67
68
Ähnlich: BUTH, Functional, 86f; ausführlich diskutiert Cook, Semantics, 257-261, die
These, wayyiqtol drücke Sukzession aus (ebenfalls ablehnend).
69
70
Siehe z. B. NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 130.
71
Siehe z. B. die pointierte Aussage von ISAKSSON, Textlinguistics, n. 2: “Thus one and the
same gram yaqtul (VprefS) has two distinct meanings in MORAN’s system, one is narrative per-
fective and one is modal.”
141
An_78.indb 150 21/06/11 15:37

Gregor Geiger 151
• Im Laufe der Entwicklung können ursprünglich unterschiedliche Formen zu-

sammengefallen sein.72
• Die verschiedenen Funktionen korrelieren mit einer Grundfunktion.73
Ich schlage hier letzteres, die gemeinsame Grundfunktion, als Erklärung vor,
und zwar die der Modalität.74 (W e)yiqtol (Kurzform) drückt die deontische/vo-
litive Modalität aus, wayyiqtol ist ein Teil der epistemischen Modalität, in dem
Sinn, daß der Bezug zur Realität (zur realen Gegenwart der Sprechzeit) uner-
heblich ist.75
Könnte dies auch eine Möglichkeit sein, WEINRICHS Zweiteilung der sprach-
lichen Welt mit der klassischen hebräischen (und allgemeinen) tempus-Lehre
zu versöhnen? Die Erzählzeit wayyiqtol als Teil des Modalsystems?
Gregor Geiger, ofm

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem
Bibliographie
BLAU J., „Adverbia als psychologische und grammatische Subjekte/Praedikate

im Bibelhebraeisch“, VT 9 (1959) 130-137.
BUBER M. - ROSENZWEIG F., Die Schrift (4 Bände), Stuttgart 6/8/101992.
BUTH R., „Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse
Analysis“, in R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguis-
tics, Winona Lake 1994, 138-154.
BUTH R., „Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Intergrated, Textlin-
guistic Approach to Syntax“, in W. R. BODINE (ed.), Discourse Analysis of
Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, Atlanta 1995, 77-102.
COOK J. A., „The Semantics of Verbal Pragmatics: Clarifying the Roles of way-
yiqtol and weqatal in Biblical Hebrew Prose“, JSS 49 (2004) 247-273.
ESKHULT M., „Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses Expressing Circumstance in
Biblical Hebrew Narration“ (in diesem Buch).
72
So argumentiert z. B. NOTARIUS, Victory, Kap. 4.
73
Wie z. B. die im vorhergehenden Abschnitt 3.2 behandelten Funktionen von Sukzession,
Wiederaufnahme etc., für die ich als Grundfunktion „Vordergrund der Erzählung“ vorgeschla-
gen habe.
74
Zu einem ähnlichen Ergebnis kommt HATAV, Past, aus einer ganz anderen Richtung (sie
betrachtet wayyiqtol als aus drei Morphemen zusammengesetzt: w + ay + yiqtol; letzteres diffe-
renziert sie morphologisch nicht weiter).
75
Mit anderen Worten drückt dies eine Formel aus, mit der Beduinen im Negev Erzählun-
gen einleiten: k!n y! m! k!n („es war, oder es war nicht“; wiedergegeben nach einer Konferenz
von R. HENKIN am 23. 2. 2010 im Van-Leer-Institut, Jerusalem).
142
An_78.indb 151 21/06/11 15:37

GROSS W., Verbform und Funktion: wayyiq'ol für die Gegenwart? (Arbeiten zu
Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 1), St. Ottilien 1976.
HATAV G., „Past and Future Interpretation of Wayyiqtol“, JSS 51 (2011)
85-109.
ISAKSSON B., „The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant: Subordinate Struc-
tures in Isaiah 52,13–53,12“ (in diesem Buch).
JOÜON P., MURAOKA T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 27),
Roma 22008.
V. D. MERWE C. H. J., „Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar”, in
R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, Winona
Lake 1994, 13-49.
NICCACCI A., Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica: Principi e applica-
zioni (SBF. Analecta 31), Jerusalem 1991.
NICCACCI A., „Ebraico Biblico e Linguistica“, Henoch 20 (1998) 189-207.
NICCACCI A., „On the Hebrew Verbal System“, in R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical
Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics, Winona Lake 1994, 117-137.
NICCACCI A., „The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry“, in S. E. FASSBERG
247-268.
NICCACCI A., „An Integrated Verb System for Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poet-
ry“, in A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Ljubljana 2007 (VTS 133); Lei-
den - Boston 2010, 99-127.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (Dispensa
ad uso interno degli studenti dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), Geru-
salemme 2010-2011 (überarbeitetes Manuskript des gleichnamigen, 1986
als SBF. Analecta 23 erschienenen Werkes).
NOTARIUS T., „Text, Discourse and Tenses in the Victory Song in 2 Sam
22,33-46: In Search of the Underlying Literary Convention“ (in diesem
Buch).
DE REGT L., „Hebrew Verb Forms in Prose and in Some Poetic and Prophetic
Passages: Aspect, Sequentiality, Mood and Cognitive Proximity“, JNWSL
34 (2008) 75-103.
WEINRICH H., Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt (Sprache und Literatur
16), Stuttgart - Berlin - Köln 51994.
152
An_78.indb 152 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß
wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme

Stilmittel und redaktionelles Verfahren
Häufig sind exegetische1 Analysen deswegen undurchsichtig und schwer nach-

vollziehbar, weil die Terminologie nicht unterscheidet zwischen Textbeobach-
tungen auf der Ebene des sprachlichen Ausdrucks, die grundsätzlich von allen
geteilt werden könnten, und den Bewertungen dieser Beobachtungen auf unter-
schiedlichen Analyseebenen wie Textkritik, Stilkritik, Literarkritik, Redakti-
onskritik etc., die Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Kontroversen sind und meist
bleiben.2 Eine entsprechende die exegetischen Diskussionen verwirrende Un-
durchsichtigkeit tritt auf, wenn ein Terminus Bewertungen unterschiedlicher
Art, die zu unterschiedlichen inhaltlichen Interpretationen führen, bezeichnet,
z. B. die Bewertung „Stilmittel“ und „Kriterium redaktioneller Textauffül-
lung“. Dies trifft u. a. auf den Terminus „Wiederaufnahme“ zu. Die stärkere
Berücksichtigung des sog. „Endtextes“ in der jüngeren Exegese konnte die Er-
wartung wecken, daß dieses terminologische Problem größere Beachtung fin-
den würde, da der Endtext sehr oft redaktionell zustande gekommen ist, die
Redaktoren aber selbstverständlich in der Regel geläufige stilistische Verfah-
ren anwandten, um ihre Tätigkeit möglichst unsichtbar zu machen. Leider fehlt
aber den Endtextanalysen sehr oft die philologische Präzision, so daß diese
Frage gar nicht in den Blick gerät. Unter diesem Aspekt soll im folgenden die
Wiederaufnahme diskutiert werden.
1
Für Bibelübersetzungen werden folgende Abkürzungen gebraucht: Buber: BUBER M. - RO-
SENZWEIG F., Die Schrift verdeutscht, Stuttgart 1997; Elb: Revidierte Elberfelder Bibel, Wupper-
tal 31986; EÜ: Einheitsübersetzung; Luther 1545: LUTHER M., Biblia Germanica, Wittemberg
1545, Nachdruck Stuttgart 21983; LuthRev: Revision der Übersetzung Martin LUTHERS von 1984;
ZürB: Zürcher Bibel, Zürich 1931 (versch. Auflagen) bzw. 2007 (22008).
2
Angeregt durch die Methodenlehre Wolfgang RICHTERS, hatte ich z. B. für die Ebene der
Literarkritik folgende terminologische Differenzierung vorgeschlagen: „Die Beobachtung lautet:
Im Text begegnen mehrmals dieselben oder sehr ähnliche Sätze bzw. Wortverbindungen: Wie-
derholungen. Läßt sich eine Wiederholung nicht bzw. kaum vom Aufbau oder Stil des Textes
erklären, so erhält sie die Bewertung, sie sei eine Doppelung, d. h. sie zwinge zur literarkri-
tischen Scheidung oder lege eine solche wenigstens nahe“ (GROSS, Bileam, 65; Auszeichnung
von mir).
96
An_78.indb 153 21/06/11 15:37

154 wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme: Stilmittel und redaktionelles Verfahren
„Wiederaufnahme“ ist ein in der Literarkritik und der Redaktionskritik

wohlbekanntes Phänomen: Ein Redaktor unterbricht an einer Stelle den ihm
vorgegebenen Text, fügt seine Ergänzung ein und lenkt zum vorgegebenen Zu-
sammenhang zurück, indem er dessen letzten Ausführungen vor seiner Ergän-
zung wiederholt.3 Nach Vorgang von Harold M. WIENER4, der „resumptive re-
petition“ als literarkritischen terminus technicus einführte, und von Curt
KUHL5, der dafür die gelegentlich bereits von älteren Exegeten gebrauchte Be-
zeichnung „Wiederaufnahme“ wählte, haben Isac Leo SEELIGMAN und Shemar-
yahu TALMON6 dieses Phänomen ausführlich beschrieben, es von bloßer stili-
stisch abgezweckter Wiederholung abgehoben und betont, daß es keineswegs
immer ein Indiz literarischer Uneinheitlichkeit, sondern oft literarisches Ver-
fahren eines und desselben Autors ist; SEELIGMAN:
Als Wiederaufnahme haben wir eine bestimmte Form bezeichnet, in der der
Verfasser eines Berichts nach einer Unterbrechung auf denselben zurücklenkt.
Die Unterbrechung kann doppelter Natur sein: eine Abschweifung vom Haupt-
thema durch den Verfasser selbst (sei es z. B. die Erörterung einer Situation, sei
es die Anführung der Worte einer der auftretenden Personen), oder auch die
Einlage fremden Stoffes aus einer anderen Quelle. Die Wiederaufnahme besteht
darin, daß der Verfasser in mündlicher und schriftlicher Rede den Satz oder Ge-
danken wiederholt, der der Unterbrechung unmittelbar vorausging.7
Zahlreiche jüngere Untersuchungen haben diese doppelte Verwendung der
Wiederaufnahme als Stilmittel und als Instrument redaktioneller Texterweite-
rung bestätigt.8
Bezüglich der syntaktischen Realisierung ist Wiederaufnahme ein vielge-
staltiges Phänomen, daher wurde es auch nicht genauer syntaktisch analysiert.
Im folgenden soll speziell die Verbformation wa=yiqtol untersucht werden,
soweit sie in wiederaufnehmender Funktion gebraucht wird. Daß sie über-
haupt – und sogar recht häufig – so verwendet werden kann, erstaunt zunächst,
denn ihr wird in der Regel als Hauptfunktion „Progreß“ zugewiesen, d. h. Fort-
führung einer zuvor genannten Handlung auf der gleichen Zeitstufe, ausdrück-
bar durch „und dann“.9 Es gibt allerdings gewisse Ausnahmen, in denen
wa=yiqtol regelhaft keinen Progreß bezeichnet – z. B. Teilhandlungen, die zu-
sammen eine Handlung ergeben: speisen, ausgedrückt als „essen und trinken“,
oder Anknüpfung eines Pendenssatzes an sein vorausgestelltes Pendens, am
häufigsten bei Zeitangaben, oder Eröffnung der Apodosis nach Protasis im
3
Vgl. z. B. RICHTER, Exegese, 70; BECKER, Exegese, 58f.
4
WIENER, Composition, 2.
5
KUHL, Wiederaufnahme.
6
TALMON, Presentation.
7
SEELIGMAN, Erzählung, 135.
8
Vgl. LONG, Repetitions; ANBAR, Reprise; SKA, Exemples, 313: „reprise qui signale la fin
d’une digression ou d’une interpolation“; BUTH, Collision.
9
GROSS, Verbform, 164.
97
An_78.indb 154 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 155
Konditionalgefüge. Erhard BLUM hat deren Ausnahmecharakter und, da er die

masoretische Vokalisierungsdifferenz zwischen wa=yiqtol und we=yiqtol für
ein „sekundäres Phänomen“ hält, generell die Progreßfunktion von wa=yiqtol
zugunsten einer sich durchhaltenden Funktion „koordinierende Verknüpfung“
geleugnet.10 Ich halte zwar die traditionelle These bei Differenzierung zwi-
schen Hauptfunktion und Nebenfunktionen einer Verbform,11 d. h. die An-
nahme, Hauptfunktion von wa=yiqtol sei der Progreß12 und andere semantisch-
pragmatische Leistungen dieser Verbformation seien als Nebenfunktionen
unter definierbaren Sonderbedingungen deutbar, nach wie vor für wahrschein-
licher, die Verwendung von wa=yiqtol für Wiederaufnahme könnte jedoch zu-
mindest auch, wenn nicht besonders einleuchtend, von Erhard BLUM für seine
Auffassung von der Funktion dieser Verbformation in Anschlag gebracht wer-
den. Dieses Problem wird im folgenden nicht weiter verfolgt.
Wiederaufnahme ist eine Verwendungsweise von wa=yiqtol, die in der he-
bräischen Syntax keine Aufmerksamkeit gefunden hat und deshalb von den
großen Grammatiken auch nicht verzeichnet wird. Sie wurde hingegen im
Rahmen hebräischer Stilistik gelegentlich wahrgenommen und unter dem
Aspekt der Pragmatik bzw. Textlinguistik von Alviero NICCACCI beschrieben.
Nur so kann die literarkritisch bedeutsame Verwendung von wa=yiqtol für
Wiederaufnahme als grammatisch korrekt erwiesen werden. Die „und-dann“-
Funktion ist in diesen Fällen ebenso ausgeschlossen wie einfache Koordinati-
on. Eine umfangreiche Liste mit Wiederaufnahmen durch wa=yiqtol hat Her-
mann-Josef STIPP zusammengestellt.13
Im folgenden werden drei Arten von Belegen diskutiert: (1) Sehr kurze
Wiederaufnahmen im Nahkontext, die dazu dienen, mehrere Aspekte einer
komplexen Handlung darzustellen, und die Einheitlichkeit des Textes nicht
tangieren. (2) Literarkritisch relevante Wiederaufnahmen und speziell umfang-
reichere Wiederaufnahme über einen größeren Textabschnitt hinweg. (3)
Schließlich wird ein komplizierter Text aus dem Richterbuch vorgestellt, der
zeigt, daß der hebräische Erzähler in literarkritisch einheitlichem Zusammen-
hang deswegen mehrfach auf das Mittel der Wiederaufnahme durch wa=yiqtol
zurückgreift, weil er ein Geschehen schildern will, an dem mehr als zwei je
unterschiedlich handelnde Akteure bzw. Akteur-Gruppen beteiligt sind. Es
zeigt sich, daß die Wiederaufnahme oft einer schlichten Anknüpfung dient,
nicht selten aber auch eine resümierende Nuance (vgl. den Terminus „resump-
tive repetition“) annehmen oder zusätzlich eine inhaltliche Korrektur ermögli-
chen kann.
10
BLUM, Verbalsystem, 121f.
11
Zur Unterscheidung Haupt- und Nebenfunktion vgl. KOSCHMIEDER, Bestimmung.
12
Vgl. WALTKE-O’CONNOR, § 33.2.1 a: „The form and not the words signifies succession.“
13
STIPP, Elischa, 206-209. Kritisch dazu BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 121-123.
98
An_78.indb 155 21/06/11 15:37

Durch diese zuletzt genannten Aspekte ergibt sich ein Gespräch mit Alvie-
ro NICCACCI, speziell mit seinen Untersuchungen von 1990 und 1991,14 wenn-
gleich sich wegen der stark divergierenden Terminologie und der ebenso un-
terschiedlichen methodischen Zugänge leicht Mißverständnisse einschleichen
können. Schon in seiner Sintassi hatte NICCACCI das wa=yiqtol von 1 Sam 30,3
als Wiederaufnahme gedeutet.15 In der englischen Version hat er die längere
Anmerkung 33 hinzugefügt,16 in der er auch mit einer Wiederaufnahme („li-
terary reprise“) „in expanded form“ rechnet (Beleg: 1 Sam 4,11 + 5,1). Dem
wiederaufnehmenden wa=yiqtol in 1 Sam 30,3 weist er die Funktion „conclu-
sion“ zu. Daher sind auch diejenigen Fälle heranzuziehen, denen er in Lettura
„valore conclusivo“ bzw. „conclusivo o riassuntivo“17 zuweist.18 Freilich be-
merkt er dazu: Einige Belege von wa=yiqtol „sono conclusive … Ma queste
precisazioni non sono date dalla sintassi, bensì dalla semantica (contesto, sen-
so)“.19 Da ich im folgenden formal und syntaktisch genauer beschreibbare Fäl-
le von Wiederaufnahme untersuche – mit der Konsequenz, daß nicht alle im
biblischen Hebräisch bezeugten, möglicherweise Wiederaufnahme bezeich-
nenden Formgruppen behandelt werden –, sind NICCACCIS und meine Beleg-
gruppen weder deckungsgleich noch direkt vergleichbar. Wir nähern uns ähn-
lichen textpragmatischen Phänomenen unter unterschiedlichen Fragestel-
lungen.
1. wa=yiqtol für Wiederaufnahme im Nahkontext

als stilistisches Verfahren
ohne literar- oder redaktionskritische Hintergründe
Wiederaufnahme stellt in Erzählungen eine Unterbrechung des Handlungsflus-

ses im einlinigen durch wa=yiqtol-Reihen ausgedrückten „und-dann“-Ablauf
dar. Sie unterscheidet sich vom Rückgriff, der ebenfalls den Handlungsverlauf
unterbricht. Im Rückgriff, der innerhalb einer wa=yiqtol-Reihe durch den
Wechsel zu w=x-qatal, meist durch w=Subjekt-qatal und in aller Regel durch
ein neues Verb bezeichnet wird, greift der Erzähler vom bereits erreichten
Punkt der Handlung, dessen Perspektive er jedoch beibehält, auf einen frü-
heren Zeitpunkt zurück und trägt nach, was damals zuvor geschehen war. Sol-
che Sätze werden daher im Deutschen durch Plusquamperfekt wiedergegeben.
Derartiges kann wa=yiqtol nicht bezeichnen. In der Wiederaufnahme dagegen
14
NICCACCI, Syntax; NICCACCI, Lettura.
15
16
NICCACCI, Syntax, 201f.
17
NICCACCI, Lettura, 126, zu Ri 1,19.
18
Jos 3,17; 6,25; Ri 1,19; 2,20; 3,6; 3,26; 4,21; 4,23; 6,6; 6,38; 8,28; 2 Sam 5,12; 12,41.
19
NICCACCI, Lettura, 9.
99
An_78.indb 156 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 157
verläßt der Erzähler den bereits erreichten Punkt der Handlung, begibt sich auf
einen früher erzählten und durch wa=yiqtol formulierten Zeitpunkt zurück und
setzt von diesem aus die Erzählung fort. Dieses Zurückversetzen seiner Erzähl-
perspektive signalisiert er, indem er dasselbe Verb in derselben Verbformation
wa=yiqtol wiederholt. Viele antike und moderne indoeuropäische Sprachen
kennen zwar auch das stilistische Verfahren der Wiederaufnahme, können es
jedoch im Gegensatz zum Hebräischen kaum durch Syndese ausdrücken. Da-
her müssen die Übersetzer, so sie das literarische Phänomen nicht mißverste-
hen, zu abweichenden sprachlichen Strategien greifen.
Solche Wiederaufnahmen sind nicht immer leicht von stilistisch gezielt
eingesetzten Wiederholungen zu unterscheiden. Wo die Wiederaufnahme in
engem Kontext begegnet, wird sie gewählt, weil das entsprechende Verb Kern
einer komplexen Handlung ist und der Verfasser diese in mehrere Aspekte un-
terteilt, die er durch zwei Sätze mit demselben Verb formuliert. Die semanti-
schen Gründe für dieses Verfahren sind vielfältig: Hinzufügung eines weiteren
Satzteils (z. B. Ziel einer Bewegung zusätzlich zu ihrem Ausgangspunkt), prä-
zisere Angaben zu einem bereits genannten Satzteil, feste Verknüpfung mit ei-
ner folgenden Handlung, weitere Umstände etc. Durch Wiederaufnahmen in
größerem Abstand signalisiert der Autor, daß er nach einer Digression zum ur-
sprünglichen Zusammenhang zurückkehrt. In solchen Fällen bleibt oft unge-
wiß, ob es sich um eine Digression des ursprünglichen Verfassers handelt oder
ob eine spätere Hand sie hinzugefügt hat.
1.1. Gen 18,2

‫וַ יִּ ָשּׂא ֵעינָ יו‬
‫וַ יַּ ְרא‬
‫שׁה ֲאנָ ִשׁים נִ ָצּ ִבים ָע ָליו‬1ָ ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ְשׁ‬
‫וַ יַּ ְרא‬
‫אתם ִמ ֶפּ ַתח ָהא ֶֹהל‬ ָ ‫וַ יָּ ָרץ ִל ְק ָר‬
Zur Diskussion steht das zweite ‫וירא‬. Die ersten beiden wa=yiqtol 2a+b sind
Progreßformen in erzählender Funktion: Abraham erhebt seine Augen und
sieht daraufhin, ‫ וירא‬2b; er sieht einen Vorgang. Dieser wird hier, wie häufig,
durch einen Objektsatz in Gestalt von ‫ והנה‬+ Partizipialsatz ausgedrückt 2c.
Das zweite ‫ וירא‬2d signalisiert keinen darauf folgenden weiteren Sehakt, es
gibt kein neues Objekt, sondern der Hörer wird wieder auf das erste ‫וירא‬
zurückgeführt. Um auszudrücken, daß Abraham, sobald er die drei Männer ge-
sehen hatte, auch schon ihnen entgegengelaufen ist, springt der Autor durch
das zweite ‫ וירא‬hinter die Schilderung dessen, was Abraham gesehen hat, zum
ersten ‫ וירא‬zurück und erzählt von dort aus durch eine wa=yiqtol-Reihe weiter.
100
An_78.indb 157 21/06/11 15:37

Selbst hartnäckige Literarkritiker haben hier nicht eingegriffen.20 Überset-

zer in indoeuropäische Sprachen greifen zu unterschiedlichen Strategien, um
diese Art von Wiederaufnahme zu formulieren. Eine (scheinbar) wörtliche
Wiedergabe der syntaktischen Fügung durch koordiniertes (allerdings asynde-
tisches) Verb ist sehr selten.21 Von LXX angefangen, wird diese Wiederauf-
nahme des %&"# in engstem Abstand in 2d überwiegend durch spezielle Kon-
struktionen oder Konjunktionalsatz signalisiert. LXX verwendet Partizip Ao-
rist als participium coniunctum: a$'gJhi'U F\ +%[U j6Q'J&%[U 'T+%G ILFI$,
-'5 EF%k +3I[U l$F3IU Im*+n-I(*'$ /0o$W 'T+%G· -'5 EF`$ 03%*hF3'&I$. Hie-
ronymus wählt in der Vulgata einen vorzeitigen Temporalsatz mit cum: quos
cum vidisset cucurrit in occursum eorum de ostio tabernaculi. Temporalsätze
wählen auch die meisten deutschen Gebrauchsübersetzungen und Übersetzun-
gen in Kommentaren. LuthRev und EÜ: „als er sie sah“: ZürB 1931 und Elb:
„sobald er sie sah“.22 H. GUNKEL: „Kaum aber, daß er sie sah“.23 B. JACOB er-
klärt die stilistische Absicht: „%&"# wiederholt, um das folgende b&"# als soforti-
ge Folge davon unmittelbar anzuschließen.“24 C. WESTERMANN steuert das
Stichwort bei: „Das doppelte ‚da sah er‘ ist Wiederaufnahme.“25
1.2. Jes 37,9

&I7%2) XB(;U21 7N 1 !W$ !$ &+ f;2
' 5- 57- X+ '_ -#
Uf$ %' 0>) C$ !' 2+ %d$ $"
57- X+ '_ -#
B! $_W' +@>;2
' %1 0"<' %$ 2+ 7- >2- X+ '_ -#
Hier liegt das gleiche sprachliche Verfahren vor wie in Gen 18,2, nur daß statt
von Sehen von Hören die Rede ist. Das Objekt des 57w"# 9a folgt als Botschaft
in wörtlicher Rede 9b. Um auszudrücken, daß Sanherib darauf unverzüglich
durch Botensendung an Hiskija reagierte, greift der Erzähler 57w"# in 9c auf
und führt es durch die Botensendung fort. Hieronymus wählt für das zweite
57w"# einen rückgreifenden Temporalsatz: quod cum audisset misit nuntios ad
Ezechiam. Ihm folgen viele Übersetzer, z. B. Luther 1545: „Da er nun solchs
höret“ und Elb: „Und als er es hörte, sandte er Boten zu Hiskia.“ Sie werten
20
EHRLICH, Randglossen I, 70, scheidet allerdings das zweite %&"# als Dittographie zu
b&"# aus.
21
Vgl. Buber: „Er hob seine Augen, sah: da, drei Männer, aufrecht vor ihm. Er sah, lief
vom Einlaß des Zeltes ihnen entgegen.“
22
ZürB 2007 hat dagegen die Wiederaufnahme verkannt und durch variierende Wiedergabe
des %&"# zwei Sehakte unterschieden: „Er blickte auf und schaute sich um … Und er sah sie.“
23
GUNKEL, Genesis.
24
JACOB, Genesis, 437. Diese Deutung hat im Blick auf weitere ähnliche Belege wohl mehr
für sich als STIPPS These, die Wiederaufnahme bezeichne „einfach die Fortdauer einer Hand-
lung“ (STIPP, Elischa, 208).
25
WESTERMANN, Genesis, 331.
158
An_78.indb 158 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 159
somit das zweite ‫ וישמע‬als Wiederaufnahme. Manche Kommentatoren ändern

allerdings entsprechend der // 2 Kön 19,9 ‫ וישמע‬in ‫וישב‬. Dafür ist aber jedenfalls
aus der Syntax kein Argument zu gewinnen. H. WILDBERGER argumentiert in
Unkenntnis des hier diskutierten stilistischen Verfahrens: „Das ‫ וישמע‬stößt sich
aber mit demjenigen zu Beginn des Verses.“26
1.3. Jer 34,10

‫ל־ה ָעם‬
ָ ‫ל־ה ָשּׂ ִרים וְ ָכ‬
ַ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְמעוּ ָכ‬ a
‫ד־בּם עוֹד‬
ָ ‫ת־שׁ ְפ ָחתוֹ ָח ְפ ִשׁים ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֲע ָב‬
ִ ‫ת־ע ְבדּוֹ וְ ִאישׁ ֶא‬
ַ ‫ר־בּאוּ ַב ְבּ ִרית ְל ַשׁ ַלּח ִאישׁ ֶא‬
ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬ aR
‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְמעוּ‬ b
‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ֵלּחוּ‬ c
Der Verfasser will ausdrücken, daß die Jerusalemer auf den Tadel JHWHS durch
Jeremia hin die Bundesverpflichtung sogleich ausführten: 10a ‫ וישמעו‬10c ‫וישלחו‬.
Zugleich will er in 10aR den Inhalt der Verpflichtung nach V. 9 noch einmal
benennen. Wegen dieser langen Zwischenschaltung wiederholt er vor dem ent-
scheidenden ‫וישלחו‬, das seinerseits die Wendung mit ‫ לשלח‬aus 10aR aufnimmt
und daher hier ohne Objekt bleiben kann, wiederanknüpfend in 10b ‫וישמעו‬.
Dieses gibt Hieronymus daher durch audierunt igitur wieder, und W. RUDOLPH
übersetzt frei, aber sachgemäß: „und hatten sie dementsprechend entlassen“.27
1.4. Gen 21,16

C‫וַ ֵתּ ֶל‬
‫וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב ָלהּ ִמנֶּ גֶ ד ַה ְר ֵחק ִכּ ְמ ַט ֲחוֵ י ֶק ֶשׁת‬
‫ִכּי ָ ֽא ְמ ָרה‬
‫ל־א ְר ֶאה ְבּמוֹת ַהיָּ ֶלד‬ ֶ ‫ַא‬
‫וַ ֵתּ ֶשׁב ִמנֶּ גֶ ד‬
‫וַ ִתּ ָשּׂא ֶאת־ק ָֹלהּ‬
ְ‫וַ ֵתּ ְבךּ‬
Im vierten Beispiel wird ein Verb der Form wa=yiqtol zusammen mit einem
Lokaladverb aufgenommen: ‫ותשב מנגד‬. Der aufnehmende und der aufgenom-
mene Satz sind durch eine Gedankenrede voneinander getrennt. Daraus und
aus der Tatsache, daß das Verb ‫ ישב‬sowohl die Handlung „sich setzen“ als
auch deren Resultat „sitzen“ bezeichnen kann, eröffnet sich für die Übersetzer
eine größere Variationsbreite.28 LuthRev („Setzte sich gegenüber von ferne …
26
WILDBERGER, Jesaja, 1416.
27
RUDOLPH, Jeremia.
28
Von Interesse sind nur Autoren, die den hebräischen Wortlaut nicht verändern. SEEBASS,
Genesis, nimmt z. B. mit LXX an, daß nicht die Mutter, sondern das Kind schreit. Das ermög-
licht ihm, dem zweiten ‫ ותשב‬eine abweichende Sinn-Nuance zu verleihen, so daß keine Auf-
102
An_78.indb 159 21/06/11 15:37

Und sie setzte sich gegenüber und erhob ihre Stimme“) folgt dem hebräischen
Text, ohne eine Verständnishilfe dafür zu geben, wie sich diese beiden Akte
des Sich-Hinsetzens zueinander verhalten. EÜ differenziert zwischen vergan-
gener Aktion und Perfekt der Vergangenheit: „Setzte sich in der Nähe hin …
Sie saß in der Nähe und weinte.“ So schon Hieronymus, der aus dem zweiten
‫ ותשב‬ein participium coniunctum macht (et abiit seditque … et sedens contra
levavit vocem suam); viele deutsche Übersetzungen zeigen die Wiederauf-
nahme durch „so“ an: z. B. Elb: „setzte sich gegenüber hin … So setzte sie sich
gegenüber hin.“ Buber: „saß für sich, gegenüber … So saß sie gegenüber.“
Entsprechend erklärt KÖNIG gegen HOLZINGER: „Begreifliche Reassumption,
nicht ‚irrige Wiederholung‘ (Holz. 1921).“29
1.5. Weitere Belege dieser Art

Hier werden auch solche Belege genannt, die mit geringerem Wahrscheinlich-
keitsgrad im folgenden unter Nr. 2 aufgeführt werden könnten, weil manches
für eine literarkritische Fuge spricht.
Gen 24,10 (2x ‫ ;)וילך‬30,38.39 (‫ ;)ויחמנה – ויחמו‬42,7.8 (2x ‫ ;)ויכר‬Ex 20,18.21
(2x ‫ ;)ויעמדו מרחק‬Num 13,3.17 (2x ‫ ;)וישלח אתם משה‬33,3.5 (2x ‫)ויסעו מרעמסס‬30;
Jos 2,21.22 (2x ‫)וילכו‬31; 8,21.22 (2x ‫)ויכו‬32; 22,11.12 (2x ‫ ;)וישמעו בני ישׂראל‬1 Sam
6,19 (2x ‫ ;)ויך‬14,1.6 (2x Redeeinleitungssatz und die ersten beiden Redesät-
ze)33; 1 Kön 21,8.9 (2x ‫ ;)ותכתב‬2 Kön 2,14 (2x ‫ ;)ויכה את מים‬4,32.33 (2x ‫;)ויבא‬
5,11.12 (2x ‫ ;)וילך‬7,5.8 (2x ‫המחנה‬/‫ ;)ויבאו עד קצה מחנה ארם‬7,7 (2x ‫ ;)וינוסו‬8,29;
9,15-16 (jeweils zwei Sätze, beginnend mit ‫)וישב‬34; 25,18-19.2035; Ez 16,2836;
20,5 (2x ‫)ואשׂא ידי ל‬.
nahme vorliegt: „Und so blieb sie gegenüber, als er seine Stimme erhob, und weinte.“
29
KÖNIG, Genesis, 543, Anm. 5. In seiner „Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik“ rechnet KÖNIG Gen
21,16 unter die „Fälle mit ausdrücklicher Wiederaufnahme des Fadens der Satzverknüpfung“
(KÖNIG, Stilistik, 129).
30
SCHMIDT, Numeri: Wiederaufnahme durch denselben Autor. Der Abschnitt wird literarkri-
tisch kontrovers beurteilt.
31
BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 122, plädiert auf „literarkritisch anstößige Dopplung“.
32
Wiederaufnahme nach Rückgriff. Dies verkennt FRITZ, Josua, 87, der V. 22 mit der Be-
gründung für sekundär erklärt: „da die Vernichtung der Feinde in 21 abgeschlossen ist“.
33
Diese Wiederaufnahme stand bereits im ursprünglichen Text, bevor er wohl in V. 3 er-
weitert wurde.
34
Literarkritisch heftig umstritten.
35
Die zweigeteilte Aufzählung ‫ ויקח רב־טבחים‬+ w=x-‫ לקח‬in 18-19 wird insgesamt aufge-
nommen in 20 durch ‫ויקח … רב־טבחים‬.
36
Falls der – textkritisch unsichere – Konstruktionswechsel von ‫ זנה אל‬zu ‫ זנה‬mit enkliti-
schem Personalpronomen nicht unterschiedliche Bedeutungsnuancen anzeigt.
103
An_78.indb 160 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 161
2. wa=yiqtol für Wiederaufnahme als literarkritisches Indiz,

daß eine Textpassage sekundär
in einen vorgegebenen literarischen Kontext eingefügt wurde
Die syntaktisch-pragmatische Möglichkeit der Wiederaufnahme durch Wie-

derholung des gleichen Verbs in der gleichen Verbformation wa=yiqtol gibt
Autoren, die in einen vorhandenen erzählenden Text eine Passage einsetzen
und/oder diesem durch Unterstellung abweichender Vokalisierung eine neue
Sinn-Nuance verleihen wollen, ein sprachliches Mittel an die Hand, das so zu
tun, daß der Leser des Endtextes die Textfuge überlesen wird.
2.1. Jer 41,10

Jer 41,10 mit ‫ וישב‬// ‫ וישבם‬belegt, wie Hermann-Josef STIPP gezeigt hat, die
Möglichkeit, eine Wiederaufnahme durch Umvokalisieren zugleich umzudeu-
ten:37 Die hebräische Vorlage der LXX las nur 10a ‫וישב‬, und LXX (48,10) deu-
tete es als ‫ שוב‬H „Und Ismael ließ das ganze Volk, das in Massepha übrig
geblieben war, abziehen“. Die Autoren des masoretischen Überhangs fügten
als Wiederaufnahme 10c hinzu ‫וישבם‬, und die Punktatoren gaben dem Vorgang
eine gewalttätigere Note, indem sie beide Verben von ‫ שבה‬ableiteten: „10a:
Jischmael führte den ganzen Rest des Volkes, der sich in Mizpa befand, gefan-
gen hinweg. 10c: Jischmael, der Sohn Netanjas, führte sie also gefangen
hinweg.“
‫ל־שׁ ֵא ִרית ָה ָעם‬
ְ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְבּ יִ ְשׁ ָמ ֵעאל ֶא‬
‫ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּ ִמּ ְצ ָפּה‬
‫ל־ה ָעם ַהנִּ ְשׁ ָא ִרים ַבּ ִמּ ְצ ָפּה‬
ָ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬C‫ת־בּנוֹת ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬ ְ ‫ֶא‬
‫ן־א ִח ָיקם‬
ֲ ‫ב־ט ָבּ ִחים ֶאת־גְּ ַד ְליָ הוּ ֶבּ‬
ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ִה ְפ ִקיד נְ ֽבוּזַ ְר ֲא ָדן ַר‬
‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ֵבּם יִ ְשׁ ָמ ֵעאל ֶבּן־נְ ַתנְ יָ ה‬
‫ל־בּנֵ י ַעמּוֹן‬ְ ‫ ַל ֲעבֹר ֶא‬C‫וַ יֵּ ֶל‬
2.2. Weitere Belege dieser Art

Ri 1,4.5 (2x ‫ ;)ויכו‬1 Sam 17,49.50 (2x ‫ ;)ויך את הפלשתי‬1 Kön 12,32.33 (2x ‫ויעל על‬
‫ ;)המזב‬22,35.37 (2x ‫)וימת‬.
Folgende Charakteristika sind den bisher beobachteten Beispielen gemein-
sam: Sie entstammen erzählenden Kontexten. Die Wiederaufnahme erzeugt
überwiegend kleinräumige Bezüge, die über zwei Verse bzw. sechs Sätze nicht
hinausgehen. Einem Verb in der Formation wa=yiqtol folgt im Abstand weni-
ger Sätze dasselbe Verb in derselben Formation mit demselben Subjekt. Die
37
STIPP, Jeremia, 185.
104
An_78.indb 161 21/06/11 15:37

identische Form ist das sprachliche Signal. Aus dem Zusammenhang geht her-
vor, daß diese beiden Verbformen nicht zwei aufeinander folgende, auch nicht
zwei koordinierte Handlungen, sondern ein und dieselbe Handlung bezeich-
nen, die nur jeweils unterschiedlich fortgeführt wird. Das ist eine erzähltechni-
sche Funktion von wa=yiqtol, die zu ganz verschiedenen literarischen Zwek-
ken gebraucht werden kann. Ein und derselbe Verfasser, der sich eine längere
Schilderung oder eine Abschweifung erlaubt hat, kann so im, literarkritisch ge-
urteilt, einheitlichen, primären Text auf genau den Punkt zurückführen, an dem
er den Haupthandlungsstrang verlassen hatte. Auf diese Weise kann der Ver-
fasser selbst oder ein jüngerer Bearbeiter auch unauffällig und elegant zu-
nächst dargestellte Abläufe korrigieren. Schließlich kann ein Bearbeiter diese
Funktion von wa=yiqtol bei identischem Verb als literarisches Verfahren ein-
setzen, um einen längeren sekundären Textteil einzufügen und dessen Einfü-
gung zugleich zu signalisieren. Dann liegt eine Variante des wohlbekannten
Phänomens der literarkritisch auswertbaren „Wiederaufnahme“ vor.
2.3. Exkurs: Gen 32,23-24: Wiederaufnahme oder Prolepse?

‫ת־א ַחד ָע ָשׂר יְ ָל ָדיו‬
ַ ‫ת־שׁ ֵתּי ִשׁ ְפח ָֹתיו וְ ֶא‬
ְ ‫ת־שׁ ֵתּי נָ ָשׁיו וְ ֶא‬
ְ ‫וַ יִּ ַקּח ֶא‬ 23b
‫ַ ֽו יַּ ֲעבֹר ֵאת ַמ ֲע ַבר יַ בֹּק‬ 23c
‫וַ יִּ ָקּ ֵחם‬ 24a
‫ת־הנָּ ַחל‬
ַ ‫וַ ַיּ ֲֽע ִב ֵרם ֶא‬ 24b
‫ת־א ֶשׁר־לוֹ‬ ֲ ‫ַ ֽו יַּ ֲע ֵבר ֶא‬ 24c
‫וַ יִּ וָּ ֵתר יַ ֲעקֹב ְל ַבדּוֹ‬ 25a
Dieser Beleg ist bezüglich seines Verständnisses und seiner literakritischen
Analyse bis in jüngste Zeit umstritten. Zugleich kann man an ihm den Unter-
schied zwischen Wiederaufnahme und Prolepse aufzeigen und nachvollziehen,
daß die Entscheidung für Wiederaufnahme oder Prolepse unterschiedliche in-
haltliche Deutungen hervorruft.
Problematisch erscheint die zweimalige Abfolge von ‫ לקח‬und ‫עבר‬, jeweils
wa=yiqtol in 23bc (‫ עבר‬G, Jakob überschreitet den Jabbok) und 24ab (‫ עבר‬H,
Jakob läßt [nur?] seine Familie den Fluß überqueren). Unberücksichtigt blei-
ben im folgenden die häufigen literarkritischen Eingriffe, denn sie erklären
nicht, wie man das textliche Endprodukt verstehen soll.38 Nach dem Vertrag
38
Vgl. z. B. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte, 31, Anm. 98: Ursprünglich sind nur 32,23ab.
24bff: Jakob nimmt seine Familie und läßt sie die Furt durchqueren, bleibt selbst aber allein
zurück. 23c (Jakob geht hinüber) ist ein „unsachgemäßer Zusatz“, der dann 24a als „Wiederauf-
nahme“ nötig machte. BLUM, Komplexität, 5: 23ab.24ab sind ein Zusatz, „welcher sicherstellen
will, daß Jakob zum Zeitpunkt des Überfalls allein war“; nach dem ursprünglichen Wortlaut
durchschreitet Jakob einschließlich seines Besitzes in der Nacht den Jabbok. HERMISSON, Jakobs
Kampf, 241, Anm. 8: 23c.24b sind ursprünglich: Jakob überschreitet mit seiner Habe den Jab-
bok. Durch die Sätze 23ab.24a, die die für diese Erzählung „unerhebliche Familie Jakobs“ ein-
105
An_78.indb 162 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 163
mit Laban und bevor er dem anrückenden Esau entgegenzieht, übernachtet Ja-
kob, wohl in Mahanaim39 (32,14), nachdem er Esau einen Tribut entgegenge-
schickt hat. In derselben Nacht noch ereignet sich 32,23-25: Wo blieb Jakob
allein zurück (32,25) und kämpfte mit dem „Mann“: jenseits des Jabbok, nach-
dem er ihn samt Familie überschritten hatte, oder noch diesseits des Jabbok,
nachdem er nur seine Familie hatte hinübergehen lassen?
Wie auch immer der Text zustande gekommen ist – ursprünglich einheit-
lich oder durch redaktionelle Bearbeitung –, dem Leser des Endtextes bieten
sich zwei Lesestrategien:
(1) E. KÖNIG vermutet in der Notiz von der Jabboküberschreitung Jakobs
23c eine „zusammenfassende Vorausnahme“.40 Schon H. L. STRACK hatte u. a.
zu 23c ausgeführt: „In der biblisch-hebräischen Geschichtsdarstellung werden
häufig Ereignisse, Handlungen durch ein an das Vorhererzählte anschließendes
Waw consecutivum im allgemeinen als eingetreten, als geschehen bezeichnet
und dann, ohne Unterbrechung der Aufeinanderfolge der konsekutiven Imper-
fekta, die Einzelheiten nachgebracht.“ Es handle sich um eine „kurze Voraus-
andeutung“.41
Das ergibt folgende Deutung: V. 23 faßt den äußeren Handlungsrahmen der
Erzählung 32,23-33 (in 32 auch: ‫ )עבר‬zusammen: Jakob nimmt seinen Haus-
halt und überschreitet mit ihm den Jabbok. Ab V. 24 wird geschildert, wie sich
dies genauerhin abgespielt hat. ‫ ויקחם‬24a nimmt ‫ ויקח‬23b auf; beim folgenden
Verb aber präzisiert der Wechsel vom Grundstamm 23c ‫ ויעבר‬zum H-Stamm
24bc ‫ויעברם‬, daß Jakob zunächst nur sie den Jabbok überschreiten läßt, seiner-
seits dies aber noch nicht tut und noch auf der anderen Seite allein zurück-
bleibt.42 Im jetzigen Erzählablauf fungiert V. 23 somit als Prolepse.43 Bevor der
Hörer mit Jakob dessen nächtlichen Kampf mit dem „Mann“ erlebt, erfährt er
bereits, daß Jakob schließlich den Jabbok überschreiten wird.
(2) Anders ist das Verständnis, wenn man Wiederaufnahme annimmt. Dann
beschreibt 32,23-25a eine komplexe Handlung: Jakob überschreitet mit seiner
Familie und seiner Habe den Jabbok und bleibt danach am erreichten Ufer al-
lein zurück. Zunächst wird vom Mitnehmen und Überschreiten, dann vom Al-
führen, wurde die Erzählung im jetzigen Kontext verankert.

39
Die Lage der in Gen 32 genannten ostjordanischen Orte ist so ungewiß, daß im folgenden
nicht mit der möglicherweise vorhandenen Ortskenntnis der Adressaten oder entsprechenden
Voraussetzungen von seiten des/der Verfasser argumentiert wird. Zu Hypothesen zur Lage von
Pnuël vgl. GASS, Ortsnamen, 445-449.
40
KÖNIG, Genesis, 628.
41
STRACK, Genesis, 81.
42
Hieronymus vereinfacht, indem er in V. 24 lediglich formuliert: transductisque omnibus
quae ad se pertinebant.
43
Zu Formen und Funktionen von Prolepse vgl. SKA, Sommaires; SKA, Exemples; KOENEN,
Prolepsen. Beide Autoren verwenden allerdings einen sehr weiten Begriff der Prolepse, der viele
unterschiedliche Phänomene umfaßt.
106
An_78.indb 163 21/06/11 15:37

leinbleiben gesprochen, beides wird durch die doppelte Wiederaufnahme mit-

tels ‫ לקח‬und ‫ עבר‬eng zusammengebunden.
Die These der Wiederaufnahme kann nicht hinreichend motivieren, warum
‫ עבר‬vom G-Stamm zum H-Stamm wechselt und warum die Notiz vom Allein-
bleiben Jakobs 25a durch Neusetzung des Eigennamens Jakob vom Vorherge-
henden abgesetzt wird. Diese neue Nennung Jakobs könnte deswegen gewählt
sein, weil anschließend Jakobs Familie keine Rolle mehr spielt und Jakob al-
lein handelt. Dennoch hat die Prolepsis-These mehr für sich, obgleich dann
auffällt, daß von dem in 23c vorweggenommenen Überschreiten des Jabbok
durch Jakob im folgenden überhaupt nicht die Rede ist, denn in 32 bezieht sich
‫ עבר‬nicht auf den Jabbok, sondern auch Penuël. Das wiederum könnte in dieser
sehr kargen Erzählung stilistische Absicht sein.44 Die formalen Beobachtungen
reichen nicht aus für eine eindeutige Entscheidung.
2.4. Umfangreichere Texteinschübe

Wenn eine umfangreichere Passage sekundär durch Wiederaufnahme in einem
vorgegebenen Text verankert wird und dadurch der Abstand zwischen dem
letzten Satz des ursprünglichen Textes und dem wiederaufnehmenden Satz
wächst, genügen nicht mehr dasselbe Verb allein und eventuell eine Präpositi-
on; dann muß ein ganzer Satz oder ein ganzer Abschnitt wiederholt werden.
Num 22,21.35:
‫ וַ יָּ ָקם ִבּ ְל ָעם ַבּבּ ֶֹקר‬21a
ֲ ‫ ַ ֽו יַּ ֲחבֹשׁ ֶא‬21b
‫ת־אתֹנוֹ‬
‫מוֹאב‬
ָ ‫ם־שׂ ֵרי‬ָ ‫ ִע‬C‫ וַ יֵּ ֶל‬21c
Eselin-Episode
ָ ‫ ִבּ ְל ָעם ִע‬C‫ וַ יֵּ ֶל‬35d
‫ם־שׂ ֵרי ָב ָלק‬
1 Kön 19,9.13:
‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה ְד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה ֵא ָליו‬ 9c
‫אמר לוֹ‬ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬ 9d
‫ה־לּ[ פֹה ֵא ִליָּ הוּ‬
ְ ‫ַמ‬ 9e
JHWH-Theophanie
‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה ֵא ָליו קוֹל‬13e
ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬13f
‫אמר‬
ְ ‫ ַמ‬13g
‫ה־לּ[ פֹה ֵא ִליָּ הוּ‬
44
Entgegengesetztes ‫ עבר‬in der Nacht vor dem Kampf, bei Sonnenaufgang nach dem
Kampf: BLUM, Komplexität, 15.
107
An_78.indb 164 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 165
2.5. Weitere Belege dieser Art:

Gen 21,27.32 (2x ‫ ;)ויכרתו ברית‬Dtn 9,18.25 (2x ‫)ואתנפל לפני יהוה‬45.
3. wa=yiqtol für mehrfache Wiederaufnahme

in der Schilderung eines komplexen Handlungsablaufes
mit mehr als zwei Akteuren:
Gideons Überfall auf das Lager der Midianiter Ri 7,16-22
Das AT bezeugt vielfach die Erzählkunst israelitischer Autoren. Konflikte

zweier Personen, parallele Handlungen werden plastisch dargestellt. Sobald
aber komplexe Ereignisse wie Schlachten, an denen mehr als zwei Personen
(-Gruppen) beteiligt sind, geschildert werden sollen, scheint die hebräische
Sprache an ihre Grenzen zu stoßen. Da Konjunktionen nur in begrenztem Um-
fang eingesetzt werden, bleibt die zeitliche und sachliche Zuordnung einzelner
Handlungszüge unklar und wird die Darstellung insgesamt undurchsichtig.
Dies ist in besonderem Maß der Fall in der Erzählung von Gideons Überfall
auf das Midianiterlager Ri 7,16-22. In der Auslegungsgeschichte wurden viel-
fältige literarkritische Texttrennungen versucht, die auch Textumstellungen
umfaßten. Sie führten jedoch nicht zu konsensfähigen Ergebnissen und blieben
hochhypothetisch.46 Es scheint, daß sich die hebräischen Erzähler in solchen
Fällen in einem literarisch einheitlichen Text mehrfach des literarischen Mit-
tels der Wiederaufnahme bedienten, auch wenn die Funktion der Wiederauf-
nahmen nur inhaltlich erschlossen werden kann.
16a Er teilte die dreihundert Mann in drei Abteilungen ein 16b und gab ihnen
allen Widderhörner in die Hand sowie leere Krüge mit Fackeln in den Krügen.
17a Er sagte zu ihnen: 17b „Von mir sollt ihr abschauen 17c und ebenso han-
deln! 17d Wenn ich an den Rand des Lagers komme, 17e dann soll geschehen:
17f Wie ich handeln werde, 17e sollt auch ihr handeln! 18a Ich werde das Wid-
derhorn blasen, ich und alle bei mir. 18b Dann sollt auch ihr die Widderhörner
blasen rings um das ganze Lager 18c und sagen: 18d ‚Für JHWH und für
Gideon!‘ “
19a Gideon und hundert Mann bei ihm kamen zu Beginn der mittleren Nacht-
wache an den Rand des Lagers. 19b Soeben hatte man die Wachen aufgestellt.
19c Da bliesen sie die Widderhörner 19d und zerbrachen dabei die Krüge in ih-
ren Händen. 20a Es bliesen also die drei Abteilungen die Widderhörner. 20b Sie
zerbrachen die Krüge, 20c ergriffen mit der linken Hand die Fackeln und mit
der rechten Hand die Widderhörner, um zu blasen, 20d und riefen: 20e
„Schwert für JHWH und Gideon!“ 21a Sie blieben stehen, jeder an seinem Platz,
rings um das Lager. 21b Da lief das ganze Lager durcheinander. 21c Sie schrie-
en 21d und ›flohen‹. 22a Sie bliesen also die dreihundert Widderhörner. 22b
JHWH richtete das Schwert eines jeden gegen den anderen und gegen das ganze
45
Literarkritisch hochproblematisch.
46
Zu den Details vgl. ausführlich GROSS, Richter.
108
An_78.indb 165 21/06/11 15:37

Lager. 22c Da floh das Lager bis nach Bet-ha=Schitta, in Richtung Zerera, bis
Sefat-Abel-Mehola oberhalb Tabbat.
Gideon erteilt zwar taktische Anweisungen, er verteilt auch an alle Soldaten
mehr Geräte, als sie gleichzeitig sinnvoll einsetzen können, aber es sind keine
Waffen darunter. Es kommt von seiten Gideons zu keinem Schwertstreich, Gi-
deon und die Seinen bleiben am Rand des feindlichen Lagers stehen und sehen
zu, wie die Midianiter sich auf JHWHS Veranlassung hin ohne Feindberührung
gegenseitig umbringen. Bei einer derartigen Erzählung darf man keine realisti-
sche Kampfszenerie erwarten. Die Abfolge der Handlungen Gideons und der
300 bleibt durch Überfüllung undurchsichtig. „Umständlicher Stil“47 ist das
Mindeste, was von diesen Versen zu sagen ist. Er mag in dem Bemühen des
Autors begründet sein, eine ältere Erzählung seinen theologischen Absichten
und seiner Konzeption eines umfassenderen Handlungsablaufs mit Hilfe von
Elementen des JHWH-Krieges dienstbar zu machen. Diese hypothetische ältere
Erzählung ist jedoch weder dem Wortlaut noch der Handlungsabfolge nach
mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit rekonstruierbar. Mehrfach ist im vorliegenden
Wortlaut die Identifikation der pronominalen Bezüge und der ungenannten
Verbsubjekte schwierig, so daß der Hörer auf eigene Verantwortung Vermu-
tungen anstellen muß.
Verwirrendstes Beispiel ist die siebenfache Erwähnung der Widderhörner,
wobei die Siebenzahl auf planvolle Gestaltung deuten könnte. Wenn man alle
wa=yiqtol-Formen als übliche Erzählprogresse deutet, ergeben sich folgende
Verständnisprobleme. Gideon bildet drei Abteilungen zu je hundert Mann. Je-
der der 300 erhält ein Widderhorn 16b. Wenn Gideon und seine Begleiter es
blasen 18a, sollen auch die „ihr“ blasen 18b. Wer sind diese? Gideon spricht
„zu ihnen“ 17a, das sind nach 16a die 3mal 100. Da die „bei Gideon“ 18a ent-
sprechend 19a eine der Abteilungen, also 100 sind, können die „ihr“ von 18b
im Gegensatz zu 17a jedoch nur die restlichen 200 sein. Gideon und seine 100
blasen 19c, wie angekündigt. Darauf blasen dann aber nicht die restlichen 200,
sondern alle 300 20a, und das auch noch, obgleich sie erst anschließend die
Widderhörner in die rechte Hand nehmen, um zu blasen 20c. Schließlich bla-
sen die 300 scheinbar noch einmal (ohne daß dies „noch einmal“ vermerkt wä-
re) in 22a. Literarkritische Eingriffe helfen nicht. So hat man häufig lieber
zu überlieferungsgeschichtlichen Hypothesen gegriffen, die allerdings von
mehrstufiger Entstehung48 bis zur räumlichen Verlagerung in die ostjordani-
sche Blutrache-Erzählung49 reichen. Die Annahme mehrfacher Wiederaufnah-
men ermöglicht das Verständnis dieser Verse als literarkritisch einheitlicher
Schlachtschilderung.
47
RICHTER, Untersuchungen, 171.
48
Beispielsweise RICHTER, Untersuchungen.
49
SCHERER, Überlieferungen.
109
An_78.indb 166 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 167
V. 16a wa=yiqtol: Gideon teilt nach oft angewendeter Taktik seine kleine
Schar in drei Abteilungen auf (vgl. Abimelech 9,43; Saul 1 Sam 11,11; Phili-
ster 1 Sam 13,17f.; Chaldäer Ijob 1,17). Wie 17b zeigt, will er durch die drei
Abteilungen das ganze Midianiterlager dergestalt umstellen lassen, daß seine
Krieger dennoch Blickkontakt halten können.50 16b wa=yiqtol: Daraufhin ver-
sorgt Gideon seine Leute je mit einem Widderhorn und mit je einem leeren
Krug samt brennender Fackel darin. Widderhörner sind zwar keine Waffen,
haben aber wenigstens Beziehung (nicht nur zur Liturgie, sondern auch) zu
Kriegshandlungen (vgl. Ri 3,27; Jos 6,4-20; 2 Sam 2,28), nicht einmal das
kann man von Krügen und Fackeln sagen. Die Hände der Krieger sind mit Ge-
genständen gefüllt, die sie eher vom Kämpfen abhalten. Daß jeder von ihnen
auch ein Schwert umgehängt hat, braucht man deswegen nicht zu bestreiten,
das ist für Soldaten selbstverständlich; aber gebrauchen können sie es mit vol-
len Händen nicht.
In V. 17+18 gibt Gideon einigermaßen umständlich die taktischen Anwei-
sungen. Der Erzähler vermischt in diesen beiden Versen die Erläuterung der
Taktik für alle 300, in der Gideon zwischen sich, dem Befehlshaber, und sei-
nen 300 Kämpfern unterscheidet, mit der Tatsache, daß die 300 anschließend
in Gideon samt 100 einerseits und die restlichen 200 andererseits aufgeteilt
werden. Daraus erklärt sich die Diskrepanz zwischen den „ihnen“ und den
„ihr“ (= 300) in V. 17 und den „ihr“ (= 200) in V. 18. Ort der geplanten Maß-
nahmen ist nicht das Lager der Midianiter, sondern lediglich dessen Rand. Ei-
genartigerweise erklärt Gideon nur den Einsatz der Widderhörner, die auch
bereits in 7,8a erwähnt worden waren. Die mögliche Funktion der Fackeln in
den Krügen 16b bleibt zunächst rätselhaft. Vermutlich wird suggeriert, daß die
Fackeln bereits brennen. Sollen die Krüge nur ihren Schein abdecken? Warum,
wie manche Ausleger einwenden, die Soldaten nicht erst das Widderhorn bla-
sen und dann einen Schlachtruf anstimmen können sollten 18b-d, ist allerdings
nicht einzusehen. Der Schlachtruf 18d formuliert die Kooperation JHWHS und
Gideons. Aus „für JHWH und Gideon“ 18d wird in 20e der Schlachtruf
„Schwert für JHWH und Gideon“. Diese Variante mag aus der älteren Erzählung
stammen, falls diese von einem Schwertkampf Gideons berichtet hatte. Eine
derartige Annahme ist jedoch unnötig, denn diese steigernde Variante hat ei-
nen guten Sinn. Die Soldaten, mit Widderhörnern und Fackeln beschäftigt, zie-
hen ja ihr Schwert gar nicht. Der Kampfruf 20e hat einen Sinn, der sich erst in
22b enthüllt: Das Schwert, das für JHWH und Gideon kämpft, ist gar nicht das
Schwert der 300, sondern das Schwert der Midianiter, die sich gegenseitig um-
bringen. Auch dies dient der Tendenz, die schon die in 7,2-8 vorausgehende
50
Die hypothetische ältere Erzählung hatte somit mit einem kleinen, überschaubaren Lager
gerechnet, das man mit 300 Mann umzingeln kann, nicht mit 135 000 Feinden, wie der jetzige
Kontext voraussetzt (falls derartige Folgerungen angesichts der unrealistischen Darstellung an-
gebracht sind).
110
An_78.indb 167 21/06/11 15:37

Leckprobe dominierte: JHWH allein entscheidet den Kampf, auch wenn er sich
Gideons und seiner 300 bedient.
Nach der Befehlsausgabe durch Gideon 17+18 richtet der Erzähler in V. 19
seine Aufmerksamkeit zunächst auf Gideon und seine 100, die in tiefer Nacht
das Lager der Midianiter erreichen. 19c-d, wa=yiqtol + infinitivus absolutus,
der das Zerbrechen der Krüge als gleichzeitigen Nebenumstand der Haupt-
handlung des Blasens der Widderhörner ausweist: 19c Da bliesen sie die Wid-
derhörner 19d und zerbrachen dabei die Krüge in ihren Händen. Wer nur 19d
läse, könnte auf die Idee kommen, das Zerbrechen der Krüge solle Lärm verur-
sachen. Aus 16b weiß man aber, und 20c bestätigt es sofort, daß dadurch die
brennenden Fackeln zum Vorschein kommen. Für den Lärm sind die Widder-
hörner zuständig, die Fackeln aus den Krügen dagegen für das plötzliche
Licht. Das wird zwar nicht explizit gesagt, aber nicht-brennende Fackeln wird
wohl niemand dem Erzähler unterstellen.
Nach 18ab erwartet man, daß die andern zwei Abteilungen das Beispiel Gi-
deons und seiner 100 sogleich nachahmen. Das wird aber nicht erzählt, son-
dern schlicht vorausgesetzt. Statt dessen greift 20a mit wiederaufnehmendem
wa=yiqtol auf das so erreichte Blasen und Krügezerbrechen aller 300 zurück.
20a ist daher zu übersetzen: 20a Es bliesen also die drei Abteilungen die Wid-
derhörner. Eben diese wiederaufnehmende Wendung kehrt wieder in 22a
wa=yiqtol und führt in zwei weiteren Progreß-wa=yiqtol JHWHS Eingreifen ein.
Auch hier ist somit zu übersetzen: 22a Sie bliesen also die dreihundert
Widderhörner.51
Das signalisiert wohl bezüglich des Vorgehens Gideons folgende Erzähl-
strategie: Die entscheidende Aktion ist für den Verfasser das Blasen der Wid-
derhörner (deswegen explizit vorbereitet durch 8a und zweimal wiederaufge-
nommen in 20a+22a). Er treibt die Schilderung voran bis zu dem Punkt, an
dem alle 300 samt Gideon blasen. Mit Blasen und Krügezerbrechen nennt er
zusammenfassend den Beitrag der Israeliten. Anschließend differenziert er. Er
greift das Blasen zweifach auf. Die erste Wiederaufnahme 20a führt das Ver-
halten der 300 und die Flucht der Midianiter, die zweite dagegen das Eingrei-
fen JHWHS und die wechselseitige Erdolchung der Midianiter ein. Der Erzähler
kompliziert allerdings die Darstellung erheblich, indem er beide Wiederauf-
51
NICCACCI, Lettura, 187f, übersetzt ebenfalls 22a: „Suonarono dunque le 300 trombe“ und
beschreibt (Hervorhebung von mir): „Il primo wayyiqtol ripropone una notizia del v. 20. L’auto-
re spiega meglio la confusione che si produsse nel campo nemico. Usa forme di primo piano,
come nel versetto precedente, non costrutti di antefatto … Il suono delle trombe viene nominato
nel v. 19b, accanto alla rottura delle brocche, in forma generale. La medesima notizia viene ri-
presa due volte per essere specificata: nel v. 20 … e nel v. 22. … E’ un procedimento letterario
che non fornisce le informazioni ‘in modo ordinato’ ma con svolgimento a ondate successive o a
circoli che parzialmente coincidono.“ Er beschreibt hier das Phänomen, das oben als „wieder-
aufnehmend-resümierende und korrigierende Funktion“, allerdings beschränkt auf wa=yiqtol
gleicher Verben, bezeichnet wird.
111
An_78.indb 168 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 169
nahmen benutzt, um Korrekturen des jeweils unmittelbar davor Gesagten

einzufügen. Das mag tatsächlich darauf schließen lassen, daß er eine vorgege-
bene Version des Geschehens ohne JHWH um seine Variante bereichert, die
JHWH-Kriegs-Motive einführt. Hier steht jedoch nur zur Debatte, welche
sprachliche Strategie er verfolgte und wie der Leser/Hörer seine Schilderung
verstehen sollte.
Nach 19c blasen Gideon und die 100 (implizit auch die restlichen 200) die
Widderhörner und zerbrechen dabei die Krüge. Die zweiphasige Wiederauf-
nahme präzisiert die zeitliche Abfolge dieser zweiteiligen Handlung. (1) Nach
der ersten Wiederaufnahme erfahren wir V. 20: Alle 300 haben zuerst die Krü-
ge zerbrochen, die brennenden Fackeln ergriffen und den Kriegsruf ausgesto-
ßen. Sie blasen noch nicht, sondern warten ohne Bewegung die Wirkung ihrer
Fackeln und ihres Kriegsrufes ab 21a wa=yiqtol: Sie blieben stehen, jeder an
seinem Platz, rings um das Lager.52 Das führt bereits zu Chaos und Flucht der
Midianiter. Hatten Gideon und die 300 bisher nur die Absicht gehabt zu blasen
20c, so blasen sie nun tatsächlich 22a wa=yiqtol; das ist die zweite Wiederauf-
nahme: Sie bliesen also die dreihundert Widderhörner. Dieses Blasen führt
zum entscheidenden Sieg, der so umfassend ausfällt, daß die Notiz von der
Flucht der Midianiter eingeschränkt werden muß: JHWH selbst veranlaßt, daß
die verwirrten Midianiter sich gegenseitig erdolchen, und nur wenige fliehen
können; in 8,10 erfahren wir, daß 120 000 Midianiter zu Tode gekommen sind
und nur 15 000 sich durch die Flucht über den Jordan zunächst in vermeintli-
che Sicherheit bringen konnten.
Durch die teilweise Parallelität von 21cd (Sie schrieen und ›flohen‹) zu 22c
(Da floh das Lager) sowie durch die Wiederholung von 20a (Es bliesen also
die drei Abteilungen die Widderhörner) in 22a (Sie bliesen also die dreihun-
dert Widderhörner) signalisiert der Verfasser zugleich, daß er den Sieg nach
dem Prinzip der „doppelten Kausalität“ aus zwei sich ergänzenden Perspekti-
ven, der menschlichen und der göttlichen, betrachtet.
Walter Groß
Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universität Tübingen
52
Nächste literarische Parallele für dieses Stehen und Abwarten in JHWH-Krieg-Kontext: Ex
14,13.14.
112
An_78.indb 169 21/06/11 15:37

Bibliographie
ANBAR M., „La ‘Reprise’ “, VT 38 (1988) 385-398.

BECKER U., Exegese des Alten Testaments. Ein Methoden- und Arbeitsbuch
(UTB 2664), Tübingen 22008.
BIEBERSTEIN K., Josua – Jordan – Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theo-
logie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1-6 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
143), Freiburg/Schweiz - Göttingen 1995.
BLUM E., „Das althebräische Verbalsystem – eine synchrone Analyse“, in O.
DYMA - A. MICHEL (ed.), Sprachliche Tiefe – Theologische Weite (Biblisch-
Theologische Studien 91), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008, 91-142.
BLUM E., „Die Komplexität der Überlieferung. Zur diachronen und synchronen
Auslegung von Gen 32,23-33“, Dielheimer Blätter zum Alten Testament 15
(1980) 2-55.
BUTH R., „Methodological Collision between Source Criticism and Discourse
Analysis. The Problem of ‚Unmarked Temporal Overlay‘ and the Pluper-
fect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol“, in R. D. BERGEN (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and
Discours Linguistics, Winona Lake 1994, 138-154.
EHRLICH A. B., Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 1. Genesis und Exodus, Hil-
desheim 1968 (= Leipzig 1908).
FRITZ V., Das Buch Josua (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/7), Tübingen
1994.
GASS E., Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuchs in historischer und redaktioneller
Perspektive (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 35), Wiesba-
den 2005.
GROSS W., Bileam. Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num
22-24 (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 38), München 1974.
GROSS W., Richter. Übersetzt und ausgelegt (Herders Theologischer Kommen-
tar zum Alten Testament), Freiburg - Basel - Wien 2009.
GROSS W., Verbform und Funktion. wayyiq'ol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag
zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer Texte (ATS 1), St. Ottilien 1976.
GUNKEL H., Genesis (Handkommentar zum Alten Testament I,1), Göttingen
3
1910 (Neudruck: 91977).
HERMISSON H.-J., „Jakobs Kampf am Jabbok (Gen 32,23-33)“, Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 71 (1974) 239-261.
JACOB B., Das Buch Genesis, Stuttgart 2000 (Nachdr. Ausg. 1934).
KOENEN K., „Prolepsen in alttestamentlichen Erzählungen. Eine Skizze“, VT 47
(1997) 456-477.
KÖNIG E., Die Genesis eingeleitet, übersetzt, und erklärt, Gütersloh, 2/31925.
KÖNIG E., Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik in Bezug auf die biblische Litteratur kom-
parativisch dargestellt, Leipzig 1900.
170
An_78.indb 170 21/06/11 15:37

Walter Groß 171
KOSCHMIEDER E., Zur Bestimmung der Funktionen grammatischer Kategorien

(Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philoso-
phisch-historische Abteilung. Neue Folge Heft 25), München 1945.
KUHL C., „Die Wiederaufnahme – ein literarkritisches Prinzip?“, ZAW 64
(1952) 1-11.
LONG B. O., „Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography“, JBL 106 (1987)
385-399.
NICCACCI A., Lettura Sintattica della Prosa Ebraico-Biblica. Principi e appli-
cazioni (SBF. Analecta 31), Jerusalem 1991.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del Verbo Ebraico nella Prosa Biblica Classica (SBF.
Analecta 23), Jerusalem 1986.
NOTH M., Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Darmstadt 1966 (Repro-
duktion der 1. Auflage von 1948).
RICHTER W., Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentli-
chen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie, Göttingen 1971.
RICHTER W., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bon-
ner Biblische Beiträge 18), Bonn 1963.
RUDOLPH W., Jeremia (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1,12), Tübingen,
3
1968.
SCHERER A., Überlieferungen von Religion und Krieg. Exegetische und religi-
onsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Richter 3-8 und verwandten Texten
(Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 105),
Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005.
SCHMIDT L., Das 4. Buch Mose: Numeri 10,11-36,13 (Das Alte Testament
Deutsch 7/2) Göttingen 2004.
SEEBASS H., Genesis II/1: Vätergeschichte I (11,27-22,24), Neukirchen-Vluyn
1997.
SEELIGMAN I. L., „Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung“,
in id., Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel (Forschungen zum Alten
Testament 41), Tübingen 2004, 119-136 (Erstveröffentlichung: Theologi-
sche Zeitschrift 18 [1962] 305-325).
SKA J. L., „Sommaires proleptiques en Gn 27 et dans l’histoire de Joseph“, Bib-
lica 73 (1992), 518-527.
SKA J. L., „Quelques exemples de sommaires proleptiques dans les récits bibli-
ques“, in J. A. EMERTON (ed.), Congress Volume Paris 1992 (VTS 41), Lei-
den - New York - Köln 1995, 315-326.
STIPP H.-J., Elischa – Propheten – Gottesmänner. Die Kompositionsgeschichte
des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von
Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2-7 (ATS 24), St. Ottilien
1987.
171
An_78.indb 171 21/06/11 15:37

STIPP H.-J., Jeremia im Parteienstreit. Studien zur Textentwicklung von Jer

26,36-43 und 45 als Beitrag zur Geschichte Jeremias, seines Buches und
judäischer Parteien im 6. Jahrhundert (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 82),
Frankfurt/Main 1992.
STRACK H. L., Die Bücher Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus und Numeri ausgelegt
(KK 1), München 1894.
TALMON S., „The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical
Narratives“, in J. HEINEMANN - Sh. WERSES (ed.), Studies in Hebrew Narrati-
ve Art throughout the Ages (Scripta Hierosolymitana 27), Jerusalem 1978,
9-26.
WALTKE B. K. - O’CONNOR, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Wi-
nona Lake, Indiana 1990.
WESTERMANN C., Genesis 12-36 (Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
I/2), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 21989.
WIENER H. M., The Composition of Judges II 11 to I Kings II 46, Leipzig 1929.
WILDBERGER H., Jesaja 28-39 (Biblischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament X/
3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982.
172
An_78.indb 172 21/06/11 15:37

Bo Isaksson
The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant:

Subordinate Structures in Isaiah 52,13-53,12
My first encounter with Hebrew textlinguistics was Alviero NICCACCI’s ideas in

Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (1986). It was a com-
pletely new perspective which raised the thinking of many scholars including
myself above the level of the clause to an entity called ‘text’. Since then He-
brew linguistics has never been the same.
1. Theoretical foundations
This study on the text of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah is based on a linguistic
research project that resulted in the book Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic:
The case of Arabic and Hebrew. The account of verbal ‘grams’ in classical
Hebrew builds on the article ‘Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem’
by Josef TROPPER.1 The gram concept with its theoretical framework and new
1
It is the merit of Josef TROPPER to have been the first scholar to argue for a three-part He-
brew aspectual system (VprefS/VprefL/Vsuff) in a full-scale comparative Semitic study (TROP-
PER, Aspektsystem; later also SANDE, Perspective). There is, in addition to the three basic grams,
a morpheme -! which could be added to the 1st person forms of the short prefix conjugation and
to the imperative in order to enhance their modal force (thus for 1st person forms resulting in
“cohortative” VprefS-A and IMP-A); there is also an “energicus” morpheme -(a)nnV which
could give emphasis to both short and long forms of the prefix conjugation as well as the impe-
rative (thus for all persons resulting in VprefS-N, VprefL-N and IMP-N, TROPPER, Kanaanäi-
sches, 136; KORCHIN, Markedness, 328). In TROPPER’s study the Hebrew verbal system is under-
stood in full accordance with the ancient Canaanite dialects of the 14th century and the somewhat
later Northwest Semitic epigraphic texts. This system is also the result of SCHÜLE’s investigation
(Syntax) of the ancient Hebrew inscriptions and KORCHIN’s (Markedness, 338) study of marked-
ness in the Canaanite and Hebrew verbs. The main tenets of TROPPER’s article (Aspektsystem)
are further elaborated in SANDE, Perspective. MORAN (Byblos; Hebrew) and RAINEY (Prefix con-
jugation; Canaanite) on the basis of the Canaanite in the Amarna tablets advocate a similar ver-
bal system, but their comparative scope is more limited than TROPPER’s. ISAKSSON, Qualifiers,
125ff, arrived at the same conclusions with a different methodological approach, in a study of
circumstantial clauses in Arabic and biblical Hebrew. Our conclusion was that there are no ‘con-
versive waws’ and no ‘converted tenses’ in BH. The aspectual system in the present article dif-
173
An_78.indb 173 21/06/11 15:37

174 The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant: Subordinate Structures in Is 52,13-53,12
approach to the TAM categories is taken from recent crosslinguistic typologi-

cal research, chiefly by Joan BYBEE and Östen DAHL (BYBEE, Creation; BYBEE,
Evolution; DAHL, Tense-aspect; also ANDRASON, Panchronic yiqtol; and AN-
DRASON, Akkadian iprus).
BYBEE and DAHL observe that “grammatical morphology is the major signal
of grammatical and discourse structure, as well as temporal and aspectual rela-
tions”. Grammatical morphology is more important than word order (BYBEE,
Creation, 51). It is no wonder that grammatical morphology is also a major
signal of clause relations; “independent clauses code foreground and pivotal
information, dependent clauses code background information”, where back-
ground information “is that which elaborates or develops foreground informa-
tion” (TOMLIN, Foreground, 85.89). This is especially salient in a syntax formed
in an oral society. “The relative absence of formal markers of cohesion, which
the addressee must reconstruct as part of the decoding process, is one of the
conspicuous features distinguishing oral from written discourse” (FLEISCHMAN,
Discourse, 864; a fuller treatment is found in FLEISCHMAN, Tense and narra-
tivity).
For both BYBEE and DAHL the central concept is the ‘gram’. It is an abbre-
viation for ‘grammatical morpheme’, and good examples are the progressive in
English, passé simple in French and, for the Westsemitic in the Amarna letters
described by RAINEY (Canaanite II) the qatal (suffix conjugation), the yaqtulu
(long prefix conjugation), and the yaqtul (short prefix conjugation). This is
especially significant for the Hebrew scholar, since “Amarna Canaanite is the
closest we can get a direct ancestor of biblical Hebrew” (ANDERSEN, Evolution,
18). In the early Canaanite dialects there were three finite verbal grams, the
Vsuff, the VprefS and the VprefL.2
fers somewhat from TROPPER’s in that it is adopted from the descriptive account of the World’s
TAM systems given in BYBEE, Evolution, while the system in TROPPER’s study is taken from
COMRIE, Aspect (1976, but TROPPER quotes the 6th printing 1989). Abbreviations used in the pre-
sent article:
CQ circumstantial qualifier Spron subject pronoun
IMP imperative TAM tense, aspect, mood
NCl noun clause (verbless) VN verbal noun (infinitive)
NP noun phrase Vpref prefix conjugation
Onoun object noun VprefL prefix conjugation long form
PA active participle VprefS prefix conjugation short form
PP passive participle Vsuff suffix conjugation
way the Hebrew morpheme way, “and”, with allomorphs (way, wat, wan, w!, wa),
which is in complementary distribution with the morpheme w= (allomorphs w=, +, w,, wå, wæ,
wa, w!).
2
MORAN, Byblos, and, following him, RAINEY, Canaanite II, advocate a system of six “pat-
terns” for Canaanite, but as TROPPER, Kanaanäisches, 136, points out, it cannot be shown that the
“energic” (a Vpref-N) and “volitive” (a Vpref-A) were ever full-blown grams of their own. MO-
RAN’s system looks quite attractive with a tidy balance between indicative and injunctive “pat-
terns”: INDICATIVE preterite yaqtul, -û, imperfect yaqtulu, -ûna, energic yaqtulun(n)a; IN-
174
An_78.indb 174 21/06/11 15:37

Bo Isaksson 175
The usual TAM categories are not grams. TAM categories instead describe
the semantic content of grams. It seems to be typical for the languages of the
world that grams combine elements from several semantic domains. For exam-
ple, the same gram may express both indicative and modal nuances depending
on context, as is the case with the short VprefS gram (MORAN’s and RAINEY’s
“preterite” and “jussive”).
A gram is always language-specific, while a semantic category like ‘perfec-
tive’ is a general linguistic concept. Language-specific items should be distin-
guished from general linguistic concepts (DAHL, Tense-aspect, 7). The Westse-
mitic so-called ‘perfect’ is a gram the semantics of which cannot be identified
with the perfect aspect, as RAINEY rightly points out. The traditional term ‘per-
fect’ used for the Vsuff in Westsemitic “is definitely a misnomer”, “there is
nothing, inherent or developed, in the basic construction of the suffix conjuga-
tion to associate it with ‘completed action’ ” (RAINEY, Canaanite II, 282). The
semantic category of ‘perfect’ (or ‘anterior’) is only one of several possible
meanings of the Westsemitic suffix conjugation.
Grams in an individual language represent aggregations of previous mean-
ings, which means that “[g]rammaticalization processes tend to give rise to si-
tuations that do not easily lend themselves to a description in terms of binary
oppositions. Thus, grams tend to expand from a point of origin in a wave-like
fashion, (metaphorically speaking) chasing each other along a path of develop-
ment” (DAHL, Tense-aspect, 13). “[I]f each gram follows a path of develop-
ment according to its original meaning, then it develops independently of other
grams” (BYBEE, Creation, 61). This means that a purely structuralistic approach
with systems of oppositions is less successful in explaining the multiple mean-
ings of a specific gram. “Indeed, due to the multidimensionality of the gram-
maticalization process, it may not be possible to establish a systematic seman-
tic difference between two such grams.” (DAHL, Tense-aspect, 14; also BYBEE,
Evolution, 1). This is a point where TROPPER’s otherwise innovative and
groundbreaking analysis of the Westsemitic verbal system fails (TROPPER,
wyqtl; TROPPER, Aspektsystem). In his efforts to explain all uses of the Vsuff
gram as “perfective”, the term ‘perfective’ becomes meaningless. It is simply
impossible to explain all meanings of the Vsuff gram encountered in the West-
semitic texts as “perfective” or else the term becomes void of meaning and
fails to explain anything. Today, explaining the Westsemitic verbal system in
JUNCTIVE jussive yaqtul, -û, volitive yaqtula, -û, energic yaqtulan(n)a. When we examine the
grams involved we can observe that the “preterite” and the “jussive” in fact represent the same
gram. The problem with MORAN’s six “patterns” is the blurring of semantic and morphological
definitions. The terminology (“patterns”) suggests that the distinctions are morphological, but
the “preterite” and the “jussive” patterns coincide which RAINEY, Canaanite II, 245, also admits.
Thus one and the same gram yaqtul (VprefS) has two distinct meanings in MORAN’s system, one
is narrative perfective and one is modal.
166
An_78.indb 175 21/06/11 15:37

terms of a binary opposition represents an out-of-date strategy. We have to re-

cognize grams in development, not primarily aspectual oppositions.
The grammaticalization approach is fully utilized in a methodologically
important recent article on the Hebrew VprefL gram by the linguist Alexander
ANDRASON, “The panchronic yiqtol” (cf. also ANDRASON, Akkadian iprus). He
states that “it should always be possible to embrace all synchronically incom-
patible or heterogeneous values of a construction and explain it as a homoge-
neous manifestation of a functional trajectory” (ibid., 2). He notes that “the
term ‘verbal gram’ approximates the notion of verbal grammatical construc-
tions and is frequently employed to refer to formations that reflect any phase of
the prototypical grammaticalization path, from lexical periphrastic inputs (pe-
ripheral grams) to central synthetic categories (core grams). During the gram-
maticalization process, grams ‘travel’ from the periphery to the centre of the
verbal system acquiring and combining meanings that correspond to various
typologically universal semantic domains like taxis, aspect, tense and mood.”
(ibid., 3).
This means further that we do not have to concern ourselves with defining
‘tense’ or ‘aspect’ or the more recalcitrant ‘mood’ as overarching categories,
nor with deciding whether perfect is a tense or an aspect, or whether future is a
tense or a mood. Rather the relevant entity for the study of grammatical mean-
ing is the individual gram, which must be viewed as having inherent semantic
substance reflecting the history of its development as much as the place it occu-
pies in a synchronic system (BYBEE, Creation, 97).
1.1 The classical Hebrew grams
1.1.1 Vsuff
The Hebrew suffix conjugation gram (Vsuff) reflects a straightforward and
crosslinguistically well attested path of grammaticalization from a stative
(non-dynamic verbs)/resultative (change-of-state verbs) in Proto-Semitic to an
anterior and finally a perfective in Westsemitic (BYBEE, Evolution, 67.105).3 In
Postbiblical Hebrew the Vsuff gram became a past tense.
The decisive innovation occurred already in early Westsemitic and is re-
flected in Amarna Canaanite.4 The original Semitic Vsuff gram was a stative
3
In ISAKSSON, Qualifiers, 130, we advocated an original ‘completive’ origin of the Vsuff
gram to account for its frequent use to establish facts and verify completed action, which is also
a possible grammaticalization path for a gram seen in a crosslinguistic perspective (BYBEE, Evo-
lution, 105), but the use of the Vsuff in Akkadian speaks in favour of a stative/resultative origin
of the anterior and perfective meanings in Westsemitic (ANDERSEN, Evolution, 8; SCHÜLE, Syn-
tax, 127-128).
4
TROPPER (Aspektsystem, 182; Suffixkonjugation, 513) maintains that the innovation first
developed in Central Semitic, then spread to other Westsemitic languages. When the Vsuff had
developed in such a way that it could also express a perfective, it thus rivalled the perfective
167
An_78.indb 176 21/06/11 15:37

Bo Isaksson 177
and a ‘resultative’ in the sense given to it by BYBEE, Evolution, § 3.6. Both are
meanings attested in Akkadian. Thus the prototypical meaning of the Vsuff is
“a state that was brought about by some action in the past” (BYBEE, Evolution,
63). For dynamic verbs “bezeichnet der St. den sich aus der Verbalhandlung
ergebenden Zustand wieder ohne Rücksicht auf die Zeitstufe” (SODEN, akkadi-
sche Grammatik, § 77 e), and a good example of such a resultative is Akk. pa-
ris ‘it is decided’. For stative verbs the prototypical meaning is a state, a mean-
ing which is preserved in many BH stativic semanthemes, Vsuff ˀ!habt, ‘I
love’, q!'ont, ‘I am not worthy’, k!bed ‘it is heavy’ (JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 112 a).
For dynamic verbs the Vsuff gram in the Westsemitic realm developed into
an anterior with a slight generalization of the meaning; from a resultative John
is gone expressing that a state is brought about by some action in the past (a
state persists at reference time), into an anterior (‘perfect’) John has gone
meaning that a past action has some undefined relevance in the present. The
difference lies in the state persisting at reference time: while the resultative
John is gone does not permit John to be back again, the anterior opens for the
possibility that John has come back (John has gone and come back several
times; BYBEE, Evolution, 63.69).
Another generalization of the Vsuff in Westsemitic concerns the expansion
to use with verbs of various semantic types. The resultative-to-anterior change
occurred primarily with change-of-state verbs, while with a stative verb the
sense of the Vsuff was ‘present state exists’. In later stages of development,
there was “a convergence among grams from different sources”. In this pro-
cess “the anterior gram changes the aspect of the stative predicate to inchoa-
tive, that is it makes the stative predicate signal a change of state” (BYBEE,
Evolution, 74-75). This is the reason why many originally stative verbs with
Vsuff have also an inchoative meaning, BH &!ken 1) ‘he resides’, 2) ‘he
has settled down’, m!lak 1) ‘he reigns’, 2) ‘he became king’ (SCHÜLE, Syn-
tax, 127).
The original stative/resultative meaning of the Vsuff is retained in expres-
sions of eternal truths, as in Arabic k!na ll!hu >af+ran ra$,man ‘God is merci-
ful’ (Sura 4:96, etc., FISCHER, Arabic, § 181 b, n. 2). The statement in Isaiah
52,7, m!lak ˀæl5h!yik ‘Your God reigns as king!’ (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 338) is
as eternal as the Arabic example and represents an aspect with a definitive nu-
ance.5 In such instances the Vsuff expresses an established fact. The intensive
function of VprefS, and in a parallel development in the separate Westsemitic languages the
Vsuff with varying diachronic pace superseded VprefS as a narrative gram. As for Aramaic this
development was completed already in Imperial Aramaic; traces of a perfective narrative
VprefS are found only in the earliest Aramaic inscriptions (Tel Dan 2.3; KAI 202, A11; cf.
TROPPER, wyqtl). In another Central Semitic language, Arabic, in the attested stages, the Vsuff
gram has taken over the perfective narrative functions only in affirmative clauses, whereas in the
more conservative negative clauses VprefS is still productive (lam yaqtul).
168
An_78.indb 177 21/06/11 15:37

prophetic utterance is another use of the Hebrew stative/resultative Vsuff, of-

ten inadequately called “perfectum propheticum” (criticized by GZELLA, Spra-
chen, 75), for which the pragmatic context usually triggers a future connota-
tion: Is 9,1 h!-ˁ!m ha-h5l=k,m ba-$o&æk r!ˀ+ ˀ5r g!d5l ‘Das Volk, das durchs
Dunkel zieht, sieht ein großes Licht’ (WILDBERGER, Jesaja I, 363),6 and Is 52,7
m! n!ˀw+ ˁal-hæ-h!r,m ragl6 m=ba((6r ‘How welcome on the mountains are
the footsteps of the herald’ (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 338).7 Since VprefL can also
express the future, this future meaning of the ‘prophetic perfect’ can be regar-
ded as an example of “the tendency for prophetic discourse to use archaic lan-
guage” (ANDERSEN, Evolution, 55).
Verbal grams may have, and often also have, multiple aspectual meanings
(cf. SANDE, Perspective, 373).8 If we detect multiple meanings of a specific
gram, then this indicates that the “uses are in a diachronic relation” (BYBEE,
Evolution, 194).9 A resultative meaning usually represents the first (prototypi-
cal) step in such a development.10 Resultative grams like the Westsemitic
Vsuff tend to develop into ‘anteriors’ or ‘perfects’ (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial
qualifiers, 132f; ANDERSEN, Evolution, 9). The anterior meaning of the Vsuff is
widely acknowledged in Hebrew grammar and will need no further com-
ment here.
The “next development for anteriors along their diachronic path is the
change from anterior to past or perfective”. A “perfective presents the situation
described by the clause as having temporal boundaries, as being a single, uni-
fied, discrete situation”. It is not at all limited to past events. A present event
may be viewed as bounded in a performative utterance with the Vsuff, an ex-
5
For the “ ‘gnomische’ Gebrauch von SK im Hebräischen”, see KOTTSIEPER, Verbalsy-
stem, 70.
6
‘The people that walks through darkness sees a great light!’
7
As ANDERSEN, Evolution, 55, points out, this meaning of Vsuff with future time reference
is archaic rather than secondary. TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 182f, calls a gnomic shade of this sta-
tive aspect, “SK für perfektiv-gnomische Sachverhalte” in accordance with his (uncalled for) ef-
forts to explain all meanings of Vsuff as ‘perfective’.
V. D. SANDE refers to ANDERSEN, Evolution, who in his turn refers to BYBEE, Evolution.
8
9
This achievement of the last decades of empirical linguistic research on the languages of
the world is amply described and elaborated by ANDRASON, who calls the method “the panchro-
nic model” (Panchronic yiqtol, 20). Any gram develops according to strictly determined general
linguistic rules codified in functional paths: it acquires new values that correspond to subsequent
stages. The “meanings that are synchronically provided by a gram reflect such well ordered uni-
directional and successive diachronic stages” (ibid., 19).
10
This means that the structuralistic approach must be modified somewhat. Grams may
possess meanings of their own, even meanings that overlap the meaning of other grams. At the
same time a gram is certainly exposed to the influence from the meanings of the other grams in a
verbal system. Classical Hebrew possessed, for example, two grams able to express the perfec-
tive aspect, the old perfective VprefS (especially in the syntagm “wayyiqtol ”), and the relatively
new perfective Vsuff. This lead to a gradual development towards a system with only one per-
fective in postbiblical Hebrew, Vsuff, while VprefS retained only one of its previous meanings,
the so-called “jussive”.
169
An_78.indb 178 21/06/11 15:37

Bo Isaksson 179
ample of which is the prophetic quotative frame k5 ˀ!mar YHWH ‘thus says
YHWH’ (DOBBS-ALLSOPP, Performatives, 44). Even future events can be viewed
as bounded, for example expressing an ‘immediate future’ (BYBEE, Evolution,
133.83.81; ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 134, example 137). This deve-
lopment must have occurred early in Westsemitic since it is attested already in
Ugaritic and in Amarna Canaanite as well as in standard biblical Hebrew. The
‘perfective’ meaning of the Vsuff gram in classical Hebrew is not as frequent
as is often suggested, since it meets overwhelming competition by another per-
fective gram in Hebrew, the Proto-Semitic and even Afroasiatic VprefS (‘short
yiqtol’, ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 125f).11
Thus the Vsuff gram in classical Hebrew exhibits three basic meanings:
stative/resultative, anterior, perfective. Which meaning to read in a specific
passage must be inferred from the immediate pragmatic and linguistic context.
1.1.2 VprefS
Hebrew inherited its short prefix conjugation gram (VprefS) from Proto-Semi-
tic. This grammatical morpheme may be used with three basic meanings: as a
general present, as a modal expression (‘jussive’), and as a narrative perfec-
tive. It is hard to explain the diachronic relations between the three meanings
without supposing that the prototypical (original) meaning somewhere back in
Afroasiatic times must have been a general present (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial
qualifiers, 125 f).12 A general present may develop narrative functions and be-
come a perfective, which is a meaning widely attested in Afroasiatic, including
Akkadian and Northwest Semitic. A general present may also take modal
nuances.13
Biblical Hebrew has retained all the three basic meanings of the VprefS
gram. It is one of the merits of Josef TROPPER’s article (Aspektsystem) on the
ancient Hebrew verbal system to have made plausible that the short Vpref is
more widely used in classical Hebrew as an indicative gram than is usually un-
derstood, and “can be used in different temporal frames of reference” (BLOCH,
11
The dominance of the VprefS in the storyline of my corpus text (Judges) made me disre-
gard in my previous study the less conspicuous perfective uses of Vsuff in classical Hebrew
(ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 134).
12
The VprefS is certainly not a past tense as is often maintained (“preterite”); see for uses
as a present tense, GROSS, Verbform. The temporal reference was determined by the context and
not the presence or absence of the morpheme way (BLOCH, Perfective, 36, quoting CROSS and
FREEDMAN). The less conspicuous and often neglected general present meaning of VprefS in
Central Semitic is presumably a case of semantic bleaching of the prototype meaning, or of the
prototypical meaning becoming more peripheral. As a result the prototype meaning becomes
less salient. DAHL calls such grams “doughnut grams” (DAHL, Tense-aspect, 10).
13
The general present is often overlooked, but attested also in Akkadian with performative
functions and gnomic meanings. Exactly the same meanings are found also in biblical Hebrew
(TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 158.172-174).
170
An_78.indb 179 21/06/11 15:37

Perfective, 38). This was true also of Ugaritic, Old Canaanite (Amarna) and
Old Aramaic (TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 162.172ff.177; for Aramaic also TROP-
PER, wyqtl; MURAOKA, Tel Dan, 20; KOTTSIEPER, Verbalsystem, 61).
14
The normal syndetic form of the narrative VprefS gram is the way-VprefS
(‘wayyiqtol’) syntagm. During the Masoretic reading tradition the syndetic
mark of narrative VprefS became differentiated from the syndetic mark of
other uses of Vpref.15 Way-VprefS became the form of syndetic VprefS in nar-
rative, while in other functions the syndetic VprefS was read with the current
form of the conjunction (w=- < wa-), with the consequence that the two mor-
phemes (w= and way) came to be used in complementary distribution and thus
should be regarded as allomorphs rather than distinct morphemes.16 In early
Hebrew poetry there is a fairly ‘free’ use of asyndetic Ø-VprefS and syndetic
way-VprefS (GIANTO, Guessing, 182; BLOCH, Perfective, 34.67), but in narrative
prose the asyndetic forms were no more productive. This stylistic tendency to
use fronted syndetic VprefS forms in the storyline of narrative prose is attested
also in other ancient Northwest Semitic languages. The w-yqtl construction in
ancient inscriptions has even been adduced as a “proof” of a “conversive” waw
also in Aramaic. In reality it is an indication of an oral narrative style which
uses syndetic clauses with a fronted verb form, a tendency which ancient He-
brew shared with the other languages in its Northwest Semitic setting (TROP-
14
As KOTTSIEPER notes for Old Aramaic: “Besonders auffällig ist, daß die erzählenden
PKK-Formen auch ohne einleitendes w gebraucht werden können”. He also observes that “das w
fehlt gerade an den Stellen, wo die berichteten Ereignisse in einem besonders engen Folgever-
hältnis stehen” (Verbalsystem, 61). As we have observed in ISAKSSON, Qualifiers, 117-118, syn-
desis with w is essentially a neutral marking of a clause juncture. The absence of this mark (=
‘asyndesis’) usually indicates a closer and more immediate semantic connection to the preced-
ing clause.
15
The “retracted stress in wayyiqt5l forms was a late secondary development” (ANDERSEN,
Evolution, 21, referring to REVELL, Stress, 443).
16
The gemination after wa- needs no further explanation, since it represents a widespread
phonetic phenomenon in biblical Hebrew, cf. the gemination after ma in may-yihy+ $al5m5t!w
‘What comes of his dreams’ Gen 37,20. The distinction between the way- and w=- readings of
the syndesis marker is probably a Masoretic innovation. This hypothesis is supported by the Se-
cunda column in Origen’s Hexapla and by the Samaritan reading tradition (SANDE, Perspective,
221-232.370; TROPPER, wyqtl, 636). This means that the way/w= difference originated in the MH
period (thus SCHÜLE, Syntax, 129.106, note 1). In ancient Hebrew there was no distinction be-
tween a way-VprefS and a we-VprefS (SCHÜLE, Syntax, 101). The specific way-pronunciation of
the syndesis mark came to distinguish the narrative function of VprefS in a time when the lingu-
istic instinct had ceased to grasp the ancient verbal syntax, in particular the distinction between
VprefS and VprefL. It goes without saying that such an innovation introduced an element of
grammatical analysis in the Masoretic pronunciation, which must have led to mistakes in less
conspicuous passages, since in their native linguistic competence they knew of only one yiqtol
and since the verb for them expressed tense, not aspect (SANDE, Perspective, 231). TROPPER,
Aspektsystem, 164ff, points out many instances where the Masoretic distinction between long
and short Vpref is inconsistent. Linguistic investigation remains to be done in order to establish
the cases when the Masoretic linguistic instinct failed on this point.
171
An_78.indb 180 21/06/11 15:37

Bo Isaksson 181
PER, Aspektsystem, 168; DEGEN, Altaramäische Grammatik, 114, note 21;

PIETSCH, Tempus, 165).
The way morpheme—so often called ‘consecutive waw’—did not in itself
express sequentiality, progression in the narrative was instead a property in-
ferred from the narrative pragmatic and textual context, which is shown to
have been the case already in the earliest Westsemitic inscriptions (SCHÜLE,
Syntax, 105). Ancient Hebrew was a mainstream language among other adja-
cent Central Semitic languages.17
In poetry both short and long Vpref may occur in initial as well as non-
initial position of a clause as can be seen in Ps 18 in comparison with its paral-
lel in 2 Sam 22.18 In such contexts—and they include prophecy—VprefS is
syntactically free (TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 187). In prose there are certainly
more instances of perfective Ø-VprefS than has previously been acknowl-
edged,19 but it is nevertheless easy to observe that in narrative a fronted synde-
tic way-VprefS became the stylistic norm.20 The Masoretic reading tradition
developed a secondary distinction between way and w= to help distinguish a
narrative way-yiqtol (VprefS) from an imperfective w=-yiqtol (VprefL; ANDER-
SEN, Evolution, 20). In a prophetic pragmatic context the reference of a way-
VprefS may be future, as in Is 9,5 where two introductory prophetic resultative
Vsuff with future reference (yullad ‘is born’ and nittan ‘is given’) are elabora-
ted by a short narrative with two VprefS (wat-t=h, and way-yiqr!ˀ, here en-
closed within {…}): k, yælæd yullad-l!n+ b6n nittan-l!n+ {wat-t=h, ham-
mi(r! ˁal-&ikm-5 way-yiqr!ˀ &=m-5 pæl8ˀ y5ˁ6%} ‘For to us a child is born, to us
a son is given {and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be
called Wonderful Counsellor}’ (NIV). This function of the VprefS to ‘elabo-
rate’ or ‘expand’ a preceding clause by adding a short non-past narrative is
quite common in poetry, as in Job 3,23, where the narrative elaborates a nifal
participle and functions as an attribute in clausal form, l=-gæbær ˀa&ær dark-5
nist!r! {way-y!sæk ˀæl5ah baˁad-5} ‘(Why is light given) to a man whose way
is hid {and God hedges him in}?’21 Such way-VprefS forms are usually narra-
17
For a discussion of Central Semitic, which included also Arabic, see HUEHNERGARD, Cen-
tral Semitic.
18
The comparison is valuable since it proves that some asyndetic “indicative” Vpref in Ps
18 are in reality short forms, since they in 2 Sam 22 are syndetic with the reading way-VprefS.
19
t=subb8n! in Gen 37,7 w=-hinn6 t=subb8n! ˀalumm5t6-kæm wat-ti&ta$aw8n! la-ˀalum-
m!t-, ‘and your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it’ is almost certainly such a
case. It is not convincing to analyse t=subb8n! as a VprefL, since the two clauses are clearly
coordinated (VprefS + way-VprefS).
20
Sentence-initial position was the norm for past perfective VprefS also in Phoenician,
which however did not require the grams to be syndetic (KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic, 292).
21
As an Arabic fa-Vsuff can (“Häufiger noch als u̯a steht fa vor Sätzen, die einen vorherge-
henden erläutern”, BROCKELMANN, Grundriss II, § 302 e, cf. WALTISBERG, Satzkomplex, 29).
172
An_78.indb 181 21/06/11 15:38

tive in some sense, but they do not necessarily express past time, and they do
not always code a main storyline.
1.1.3 VprefL
The long prefix conjugation is the imperfective gram in biblical Hebrew (ISAKS-
SON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 136ff; TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 178ff). Phono-
22
logical changes have partly obscured the morphological difference between the
short and long Vpref, but at the time when the classical Hebrew texts were
created the native linguistic competence could still differentiate between the
two (GIANTO, Guessing, 182). It is only to be expected that during the time of
the Masoretic textual tradition the linguistic instinct for the distinction was lost
in some passages and we therefore now and then encounter a long form when
we expected a short and vice versa. For the same reason we sometimes en-
counter a w=- conjunction in cases when we would expect a ‘narrative’ style
way-Vpref. It will be a task of Hebrew scholarship to investigate the use
of distinctly short Vpref (‘VprefS!’) and the use of distinctly long forms
(‘VprefL!’) and then, taking these cases as points of departure, distinguish be-
tween the grams also in cases when the forms coincide morphologically (the
cases of ‘VprefS*’ and ‘VprefL*’). This is not something entirely new. Bibli-
cal scholars in all times have been able to distinguish between a ‘jussive’
Vpref and an ‘indicative’ Vpref when the two have an identical form, or
discern a ‘jussive’ Vpref, even when the ‘jussive’, against the rule, exhibits a
distinctly long form (JOÜON-MURAOKA, p. 347, n. 3).
22
As it was also in Ugaritic (TROPPER, Sachverhalte, 157). TROPPER, Aspektsystem, 157ff,
shows that there were two categories of the prefix conjugation in practically all ancient Semitic
languages. The central Semitic long form was yaqtul-u as can bee seen in Ugaritic and classical
Arabic, while Akkadian, Ethiopic and modern South Arabian have the formation iparras. Func-
tionally yaqtul-u and iparras seems to have been identical, both expressing the imperfective
aspect (ibid., 159). The “apocopation” of the VprefS in the verb class III.inf. seems to be a later
phenomenon, necessitated by the phonetically triggered fall of short final vowels, which threa-
tened to wipe out the distinction between short and long Vpref. The tendency to apocopate
VprefS forms of verba III.inf. remained a strong tendency and was never complete, which means
that many “long” Vpref of verba III.inf. should be analysed as short (ibid., 167; JOÜON-MURAO-
KA, § 79 m). The nature and origin of the imperfective VprefL is analysed in a methodologically
ground-breaking article by the linguist ANDRASON, who points out that “the semantic potential of
a gram at a given point in time is typically an amalgam of the meanings up to that particular
moment in time” (Panchronic yiqtol, 23).
173
An_78.indb 182 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 183
1.2 Subordination in biblical Hebrew
Hebrew is poor in specific subordinating conjunctions. Subordination of clauses

is most often expressed by other syntactical means than a conjunction (NYBERG,
Grammatik, § 30 c).23
Hypotaxis is defined by HALLIDAY as “the binding of elements of unequal sta-
tus” (Introduction, 198). It was one of the results of ISAKSSON, Qualifiers, that
subordination is often marked in Hebrew and Arabic by a shift in the basic
clause structure, “CQ-marking: a pattern of ‘tense-switching’ ” (ibid., 121). It
is true that subordination is sometimes marked by a subordinating conjunction,
but such conjunctions play a role only in a minor part of the massive interplay
between main and subordinate clauses in classical Hebrew.24 As in early Ro-
mance literature with its roots in an oral tradition, “narrative subordination
seems to be handled in large part through manipulation of categories of the
verb within a predominantly paratactic main-clause structure” (FLEISCHMAN,
Discourse, 869).
Subordination being defined as a shift to a clause with unequal status (in
comparison with a head clause) is in Hebrew usually signalled by a ‘switch’ of
clause type (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 121f). Thus, what determines
hypotaxis is a contrast between two clauses, rather than any specific inherent
‘subordinate characteristics’ within the subordinate clause itself. Hypotaxis si-
gnifies a relation. Any full-fledged (not ‘desententialized’) subordinate clause
can be used as a main clause in another context, provided it lacks a subordinat-
ing conjunction.25 There is no specific group or class of subordinate clauses in
biblical Hebrew (ibid., 4, 13-14).
23
“Hebr. är fattig på underordnande konjunktioner i egentlig mening. Satsers underordning
uttryckes oftast med andra syntaktiska medel än en konjunktion.” The same observation was re-
cently done by BLOCH, who points out that “clauses logically dependent on a main clause are of-
ten connected to that clause asyndetically or with the conjuction w-, rather than with a formally
subordinating conjunction” (Perfective, 40, note 26).
24
It seems that in early stages of central Semitic an enhancing subordinate clause could
sometimes facultatively be fronted by a subordinating conjunction in order to avoid ambiguity.
In some instances the subordinating particle can be regarded as an additional way of signaling
the subordination. In such cases hypotaxis became doubly marked: by the structural status-shift
(e. g., by a ‘gram-switch’) in relation to the head clause and by the conjunction. Most subordi-
nating particles in addition signify a specific semantic relation to the head clause. It is possible
that in later diachronic stages, a) use of a conjunction became increasingly obligatory for the
reader to perceive the subordination, b) the conjunction could be the only signal of the subordi-
nation (without a shift in the basic syntactic structure in relation to the head clause).
25
It should be emphasized that the kind of hypotaxis in focus here is the subordination
MATTHIESSEN and THOMPSON call ‘enhancing hypotaxis’ (Discourse, 283; ISAKSSON, Circumstan-
tial qualifiers, 3-4). In spite of MATTHIESSEN and THOMPSON’s reluctance to the term ‘subordina-
tion’ (ibid., 286), we have decided to use this term to include also this extremely common type
of hypotaxis.
174
An_78.indb 183 21/06/11 15:38

Decisive for the clausal status in Hebrew is the verbal gram in the clause
(VprefS, VprefL, Vsuff, IMP, PA, VN), or the absence of such a gram (NCl).
Desententialized clauses with participles and infinitives are often involved in
hypotactic clause combining, in which case they usually—but not always—
function as subordinate clauses, and then in the dependent case (ISAKSSON, Cir-
cumstantial qualifiers, 15-18). Desententialized clauses always represent a
shift of clause type in relation to a finite clause.
The subordinate clause may precede or succeed the head. The most fre-
quent case is a fronted head clause with the ‘satellite’ following.
Thus, classical Hebrew exhibits a limited number of basic clausal opposi-
tions signaling subordination: Vsuff/VprefS, Vsuff/VprefL, Vsuff/NCl,
VprefS/Vsuff, VprefS/VprefL, VprefS/NCl, VprefL/Vsuff, VprefL/VprefS,
VprefL/NCl, VprefS/PA, VprefS/VN, IMP/Vsuff, etc. In spite of the limited
number of basic clause types, the number of combinations is considerable,
each with its own unique semantic contribution to the textual web.26
Other properties of a clause, like word order and the presence of adverbs,
are important for expressing topicalization and making the temporal reference
explicit. But they do not affect the status of the clause in HALLIDAY’s sense. A
fronted clause constituent, like an initial subject, does not cause a shift of clau-
sal status.
Subordination in biblical Hebrew is often coded as a gram-switch from one
clause to the other.27 Detecting subordination is not a question of identifying a
26
Examples of wp-Vsuff clauses being subordinate to a way-VprefS clause are discussed in
PIETSCH, Tempus, for 2 Ki 23,4-15. Such wp-Vsuff clauses are “koordinierende Perfekta” that
“jeweils den Handlungsprogress unterbrechen und eine Begleithandlung oder Umstandsangabe
zur Haupthandlung einführen” (177.175). This type of subordinate clause relations are found
also in the most ancient Hebrew inscriptions. SCHÜLE, Syntax, distinguishes three main subordi-
nate functions of wa-Vsuff clauses in the inscriptions, 1) Vsuff may express circumstances that
occur before the main clause: wˀnk mlkty ˀ$r ˀby wˀˁ( hbmt zˀt ‘[Und ich wurde König nach mei-
nem Vater.] Da errichtete ich diese Kulthöhe’ (KAI 181, 2-3); 2) Vsuff may express the conse-
quence or result of the main clause: wˀrˀ bh wbbth wy(rˀl ˀbd ˀbd ˁlm ‘Da triumphierte ich über
ihn und über sein Haus. [Und (so) ging Israel auf immer zugrunde]’ (KAI 181, 7); 3) Vsuff may
code a state that is concomitant with the main clause wyq%r ˁbdk wykl wˀsm ‘Da erntete dein
Knecht und maß ab, [während/wobei er den Speicher füllte]’ (MHas(7):1, 4-5; RENZ-RÖLLIG I,
324-325; translations by SCHÜLE). SCHÜLE’s conclusion for the Hebrew inscriptions is that it is
not possible in such cases to take a ‘basic meaning’ of Vsuff and then try to describe how this
meaning is applied to the clause- and text-levels. On the contrary, the meaning of the Vsuff
clause must primarily be deduced from the context of the clauses to which it belongs. The mean-
ing of the Vsuff in the syntagm we-Vsuff should not be explained in connection with the pre-
fixed w=. The main difference is instead found between the use of the Vsuff in independent clau-
ses, and its use in subordinate clauses where it serves “zur Angabe von Voraussetzungen, Ne-
benumständen und Folgen”. Hebrew has only one Vsuff conjugation, not two. There is no “per-
fect consecutive”. “Mit ihrer stativischen Funktion ist dabei ein Syntagma erhalten geblieben,
das noch zum ältesten Bestand des Semitischen gehört und damit ein archaisches Element ge-
genüber anderen westsemitischen Sprachen wie dem Phönizischen, Aramäischen oder Arabi-
schen darstellt” (SCHÜLE, Syntax, 129-130.132.182).
175
An_78.indb 184 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 185
specific type of subordinate clause structure. Apart from a possible initial sub-
ordinating conjunction and nominalized constructions, there are no specific
‘subordinate’ clause types. A noun clause can be a main clause or a subordi-
nate clause. A Vsuff clause may be subordinate or not, and the same holds for
a VprefS clause and a VprefL clause. The heart of the matter is the relation be-
tween a head (matrix) clause and a clause with unequal status, marked by a
gram-switch or with a switch to a noun clause or a nominalized clause.
Since a subordinate clause frequently lacks an initial subordinating con-
junction, the specific semantic relation to the head clause often remains unex-
pressed and must be inferred by the listener (and reader) from the immediate
context (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 7.10.14.19.23).
When a subordinate clause has an initial subordinating particle, the linking
between head and subordinate clause in many cases retains the shift of clause
structure,28 which means that a conjunction like k, often functions as an addi-
tional (redundant) mark of the hypotaxis, supplied for the sake of clearness.
A conjunction may also be added in order to make explicit the semantic
subordinate relation to the head (final, concessive, causal, temporal, compara-
tive, etc.).
It is a fundamental weakness of the current scholarly discussion on the Hebrew

TAM system that the concept of subordination, so important in general lingu-
istic theory, has been practically neglected, as if it played no significant role at
all in the unceasing shifts of grams in biblical Hebrew clause syntax.
27
This observation is made also by TROPPER, wyqtl, 643, who puts forward Ugaritic exam-
ples of the type qm y0ˁr / wy&l$mnh ‘he rised in order to prepare (food) and give him to eat’
(KTU 1.3.I:4f) and says, “In diesen Syntagmen wird jeweils eine präteritale SK-Form von zwei
PK-Formen gefolgt. Letztere sind – wegen des Wechsels von SK zu PK – sehr wahrscheinlich
hypotaktisch an die jeweils vorangehende SK-Form angeschlossen”. Note in this example that
the subordination is marked by the shift Vsuff/VprefL, and that the first subordinate clause is
asyndetically joined to the head clause. There is no subordinating particle that signals the se-
mantic relation (‘in order to’) which is inferred from the context. The two VprefL clauses are
both subordinate to the initial Vsuff clause, but mutually coordinated (the two are paratactically
joined). Note also that the two subordinate clauses in another context could have been normal
main clauses. The only signal of the subordination is the relation between the clause and the
subordinate clauses, marked by the gram-switch Vsuff/VprefL. TROPPER, wyqtl, 643, also gives
an example from Akkadian epic of an iparras that is subordinate to a preceding iprus (VprefS +
[VprefL]). For pre-classical Arabic NEBES observes that a switch from Vsuff to VprefL marks
“Umstandssätze der Gleichzeitigkeit”, and that in this clausal relation “aus der syntaktischen
Tempusmarkierung die syntaktische Unterordnung resultiert” (NEBES, Satzschema, 80f, syndesis
with wa and fa).
28
There are certainly cases when the conjunction alone marks the subordination (without a
shift clause type).
185
An_78.indb 185 21/06/11 15:38

1.3 The question of text types
Biblical Hebrew text types like narrative prose, poetry, prophecy, direct
speech, etc. are often treated in the scholarly debate as if each type would ex-
hibit its own grammar. It is one of the merits of Tania NOTARIUS’ article “Poetic
discourse and the problem of verbal tenses in the oracles of Balaam” (2008) to
have questioned this unlinguistic approach. Her bold attempt to analyse a poe-
tic (and prophetic!) text, the Balaam oracles, with the same methods as for nar-
rative prose is commendable. She maintains that “the verbal forms in the poe-
tic text should be analyzed according to the same universal semantic and prag-
matic parameters as in any type of text” (ibid., 56). This is also the point of de-
parture of the present author (cf. ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 38).
In a crosslinguistic perspective we expect a prophetic text to require the
same linguistic competence and exhibit the same grammar as found in narra-
tive prose. The verb system “is grounded upon a uniform grammatical sub-
stratum, both for prose and for poetry” (KORCHIN, Markedness, 338). Poets
wanted to get through with their message, and used the same language and the
same grammar as in prose, though possibly within a higher register. Otherwise
they would not have been understood by their contemporaries. “Poetry shows
preferences in its selection of grammatical forms from general grammar. It dif-
fers from prose texts in its selections, but not in its grammatical system” (TAL-
STRA, Reading, 125, quoted from NOTARIUS, Poetic discourse, 55).
NOTARIUS also questions the common notion of parallelism, the gram-
switchings of which often have been “explained” as a “poetic device” (which
is not an explanation anyway). She maintains that parallelism “has no decisive
influence on the semantic value of the verbal categories” (ibid., 55.59). The
gram-switchings so commonly encountered in poetry have another function.
They express something. They are not only a poetic device as will be demon-
strated in the present article.
The advantage of the textlinguistic approach outlined above is that it works in

all text types. There is no need to work out a separate grammar for poetry, nor
for prophetic texts.
2. Subordinate structures in Isaiah 52,13–53,12
The prophetic utterances about the suffering servant of YHWH leave the modern
reader in doubt about the historical and temporal reference of the text. In many
other cases of prophetic speech the pragmatic context indicates to the listener
that a future reference is to be inferred, regardless of the use of a “prophetic”
Vsuff, a “prophetic” VprefS, or a “prophetic” VprefL. But in the case of the
177
An_78.indb 186 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 187
suffering servant we simply do not know whether he is a historic personality

among the contemporaries of the prophet or belongs to a prophetic future.
Does the prophecy refer to a future ideal personality? Most translations and
commentaries tend to emphasize a past historical setting within the lifetime of
the prophet.29 They prefer a past reference for most of the prophecies on him,
instead of the also possible present or future. This will be the approach also in
the present article. A decision for the one and the other possibility will not af-
fect the conclusions in the article. In some instances of Isaiah 52,13-53,12,
however, a future reference is plausible, as in 52,13, where what can be de-
scribed as the “prophetic main line” is coded by distinctly long forms of the
prefix conjugation (VprefL!):30
(1) Pattern: VprefL! + VprefL! + [Vsuff + Vsuff]

LP%<+ sO. $I +# %}$ '0 +# 1J& $" ";' O+ 9. 4"(' >+ ." ! )*!'
hinn6 ya(k,l ˁabd-,; y!r+m [w=-ni((!ˀ w=-g!bah m=ˀ5d] (Is 52,13)
See, my servant will act wisely, he will rise [so that he receives a high position
and is highly exalted]
As most commentators observe, the passage about the servant of YHWH—inser-
ted between two exhortations to Zion (52,7-12; 54,1-17)—“begins and con-
cludes with an asseveration of Yahveh that the servant, once humiliated and
abused, will be exalted” (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 349). In v. 13 this future refe-
rence is expressed by the two imperfective VprefL forms. A prophetic future
reference may also in Hebrew be achieved by an intensive Vsuff as in $!(ap
YHWH ˀæt z=r5aˁ qåd&-5 l=-ˁ6n6 kål-hag-g5y,m ‘YHWH lays bare his holy arm in
the sight of all the nations!’ (Is 52,10). The time reference in the imperfective
aspect of ya(k,l and y!r+m is a more plain future expression. The two remain-
ing verbs in the verse show a sudden gram-switch from VprefL to Vsuff. Why
is such a gram-switch at all employed by the prophet? If it be a “poetic device”
(it is however encountered also in prose) what does this poetic device express?
If we analyse the four verb forms in the verse we find that the first one, ya(k,l,
is semantically different from the other three. Ya(k,l talks about the servant
acting as a ma(k,l, and the clause containing this verb constitutes the whole
first hemistich of the verse. The other three clauses concern various shades of
the servant’s exaltation. This one-to-three semantic partition of the verse is
further emphasized by the Masoretic reading tradition, which places the ˀatn!$
before the second verb. The first half of the verse thus contains one verb, the
29
By ‘the prophet’ we refer to the one who uttered the words on the suffering servant.
30
Following the practice of TROPPER (but not his symbols) we specifically mark those grams
that are morphologically distinct short forms (‘VprefS!’) and long forms (‘VprefL!’). Non-dis-
tinct forms which from the context are analysed as short or long will at times be marked by an
asterisk: VprefS*, VprefL*. We also follow a common linguistic practice by enclosing subordi-
nate clauses within brackets (cf. LEHMANN, Typology).
178
An_78.indb 187 21/06/11 15:38

second half three verbs. This is not what we expect from a “parallelism”. An
attempt to explain the shift of grams as a “poetic device” resulting from “paral-
lelism” would not be helpful. It is instead helpful to regard the two Vsuff clau-
ses as in some way related to the y!r+m clause, the first clause in the second
hemistich. Except for the gram-switch itself (VprefL/Vsuff) there is no mark
in the text as to the nature of this relationship. The exact semantic nuance of
the relationship must instead be inferred by the listener or the reader.
The two first verbal grams of the verse, the two VprefL! forms, are coordi-
nated, although there is no initial conjunction w= in front of any of them. It
would probably be inappropriate to talk of a storyline here in a prophetic con-
text, but in some sense these two VprefL forms represent unmistakably a main
line of the prophetic utterance. The meaning is, the servant of YHWH will act as
a ma(k,l and rise to high positions.
While the two VprefL clauses in (1) are coordinated without any conjunc-
tion, the two Vsuff clauses are mutually coordinated and both are preceded by
w=-. Thus a syndetic clause may be coordinate or subordinate, as may also an
asyndetic clause. The question of syndesis has nothing to do with coordination
(ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 117-118).31 What matters is a shift of
clause status, in this verse represented by a shift of verbal grammatical mor-
pheme. The two Vsuff grams ni((!ˀ and g!bah expands and enhances the
y!r+m form, which means that the initial w= in w=-ni((!ˀ introduces a complex
structure that is subordinate to and related to y!r+m. By inference, the seman-
tic relation of this complex to the head clause y!r+m is one of consequence,
‘he will rise [so that he receives a high position and is highly exalted]’, or pos-
sibly one of comparison, ‘he will rise [in such a way that he receives a high
position and is highly exalted]’.
Isaiah 52,14 exhibits a comparative clause combining of the type ‘as …, so

also …’. This clause linkage is coded by the comparative particles ka-ˀa&ær
… k6n.
(2) Pattern: COMP Vsuff + COMP NCl + NCl
1L$ %$ " )0D+ <' M&%P[ / +# J!%) &+ <. Z"%' <) /F. Z+ <B,
' () 1"D' &. l"43 9$ J<<+ Z$ &Z3 %[ (.
kaˀa&ær &!m=m+ ˁ!l8-k! rabb,m k6n mi&$at m6-ˀ,& marˀ6-h+ w=-t5ˀar-5 mib-
b=n6 ˀ!d!m (Is 52,14)
Just as many were appalled by you (my people), so his appearance was disfi-
gured beyond that of any man, and his form marred beyond human likeness
V. 14 begins with a reference to the great exile trauma of the people of YHWH.
There can be no other reasonable reference for the suffix in ˁ!l8k! than Israel
itself, which were the receivers of the prophecy, the intended listeners. It is the
31
The same observation is made by RENZ and RÖLLIG (I, 209) concerning the ancient He-
brew inscriptions: “Die Konj. w kann durchaus auch Hypotaxe vertreten, so daß relativisch od.
kausal zu übersetzen wäre”.
179
An_78.indb 188 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 189
exile as the judgement of God that is in focus. Their collective memory of how
they were led into captivity must have been fresh and alive at the time of this
prophecy. The verse begins with a comparative clause combining of the type
14
ka-ˀa&ær Vsuff + k6n NCl NCl + 15k6n VprefL VprefL. The verb in the ka-
ˀ &ær clause is a Vsuff with perfective meaning and past time reference.
a
&!m=m+ “reflects not so much surprise or amazement in the sense of the unex-
pected but rather horror at the fact of God’s judgement” on faithless Israel
(WATTS, Meaning, 328). Many people were appalled, DRIVER (Servant, 103)
even translates ‘were aghast’, when YHWH’s people were taken captive, and
this is compared to (k6n) people’s horror when the personality spoken of as
‘my servant’ in 52,13 (the servant of YHWH) was despised and rejected by men.
The two mutually coordinated noun clauses describes the state of the servant,
and their time reference is taken from the pragmatic context: at some time be-
fore the present moment of the prophetic utterance YHWH’s servant was disfi-
gured and marred beyond human likeness, and this is compared in the verse
with the humiliated state of Israel in the past when it was forced into exile by
its Neo-Babylonian oppressors.
(3) Pattern: VprefL! + VprefL + [Vsuff] + [Vsuff]

J9<+ ZB%
$ P 4 &Z3 %[ .# J%&$ 1!3 4$ &k. AB%
p P 4 &Z3 %[ "(' 1!"
3 k' 1"C' 4$ <+ Jek+ Y+ '" #"4$ 9$ 1"D' &. 1 '"MT ! 3\ ." ,()
J0 $0MD/+ !'
k6n yazz8 g5y,m rabb,m ˁ!l!w yiqp=%+ m=l!k,m p,-hæm [k, ˀa&ær l5ˀ suppar l!-
hæm r!ˀ+] [wa-ˀa&ær l5ˀ &!m=ˁ+ hitb5n!n+] (Is 52,15)
so he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of
him [for what has never been told them they now see] [and what they have not
heard they understand]
In v. 15 the comparative construction is enlarged by a renewed k6n-clause, now
with two VprefL gram clauses (containing yazz8 and yiqp=%+). While the first
k6n-clause referred with noun clauses to an already passed state (the humilia-
ted state of YHWH’s servant), the second k6n-clause refers to an unfulfilled glo-
rious future, marked by two VprefL grams. This future is further qualified in
the following two Vsuff clauses with a fronted k,: kings see what they have
never been told, understand what they have never heard. In this future time
YHWH’s servant will fulfil a priestly office by sprinkling many people, and
exert an earthly authority as well, in that kings will shut their mouths because
of him, “signifying the subjugation of the arrogant kings to the servant as
Yahweh implements his mi&p!'” (WATTS, Meaning, 335). As the prophecy pro-
ceeds in the following verses it appears that a “he” with future reference must
refer to a body of his followers.32
32
We are aware of the intensive discussion on the verb yazz8, a verb with a puzzling mean-
ing in this context. BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 346, who mistakenly states that the Masoretic text reads
“y6zzeh” (it reads yazz8) translates ‘so he will astonish many nations’, supposing that there ex-
180
An_78.indb 189 21/06/11 15:38

Is 52,15 is similar to 52,13 in that it involves two long Vpref grams (the
first, yazz8, is distinctly long), followed in the second hemistich by two Vsuff.
In the latter hemistich (fronted by k,) there are two syndetic relative clauses,
each with its own Vsuff gram (suppar and &!m=ˁ+). Each relative clause is em-
bedded as an object in another Vsuff clause. As in (1) above, the two VprefL
clauses code the prophetic main line, and the time reference is future. In the
second hemistich the two Vsuff clauses (with r!ˀ+ and hitb5n!n+ respectively)
signal a subordinate structure by the gram-switch VprefL/Vsuff. This subordi-
nation is additionally marked by the general subordinating particle k, (NYBERG,
Grammatik, § 30 d). The coding does not explicitly express the semantic rela-
tion of the subordinate clauses to the head clause, but BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 345,
infers from the context a causal or explanatory nuance, which is very reasona-
ble: “for what was never told them they now see”, etc. The structure of the
subordinate hemistich could be simplified as k, + ObjectREL + Vsuff + Object
REL + Vsuff. The particle k,, when used as a conjunction, marks a clause as
subordinate. It may take practically all subordinating nuances that a subordi-
nate clause can have in relation to a head clause (‘that’, ‘for’, ‘because’,
‘since’, ‘when’, etc.). This means that k, is a neutral subordination marker
(ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 29). A clause with a fronted conjunctional
k, is distinctly marked as subordinate, but the semantic relationship to the head
is not specified, and must be inferred from the context, which all Bible transla-
tors do when they render a k,-clause. Frequently the particle k, is just an addi-
tional subordinating mark, in that the structure of the succeeding clause exhi-
bits also a shift of status in relation to the head clause, as is shown by the
gram-switch in 52,15.33
isted in Hebrew an otherwise unattested verb n!z! II, ‘jump’, hifil ‘cause to jump’ > ‘startle, as-
tonish’, a reflex of the Arabic naz! ‘jump’. BLENKINSOPP translates as a hifil ‘so will he astonish
many nations’ and this resolves at least one problem, since many translations take g5y,m rabb,m
as subject of the verb (thus also NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 47, and DRIVER, Servant, 92). The na-
tural subject of the clause is the servant of YHWH, which is emphasized by the singular form of
the verb (3ms). In view of all the plural forms of the verbs in this and adjacent verses (&!m=m+,
yiqp=%+, r!ˀ+, &!m=ˁ+, hitb5n!n+), even when the subject is mentioned after the verb, it is cer-
tainly not a natural interpretation to regard the plural g5y,m rabb,m the subject of the verb. As
for the meaning of yazz8, also DRIVER, Servant, 92, advocates the Arabic cognate hypothesis (al-
though he prefers to read an intransitive yizz8, translating ‘So now mighty nations shall be start-
led’); but in the end, it cannot be made plausible that the people that were the receivers of this
prophecy would not have associated yazz8 with the most common meaning ‘sprinkle’, an activi-
ty associated with the priestly office in the Pentateuch. BLENKINSOPP argues that a yazz8 with this
meaning must be constructed with the preposition ˁal (sprinkle ‘over’, or ‘on’), but as Lev 4,6.17
shows, this is not necessary. All-in-all, the solution that suggests itself is that a) the servant is
the subject of yazz8 and that b) the verb speaks of ‘sprinkling’, not ‘astonishing’, many nations.
It is not our intention, though, to enter into a full discussion of the crux, since it is not decisive
for the main tenets of this article.
33
A redundant use of k, as a subordination marker is amply illustrated in Psalm 18 in com-
parison with its parallel in 2 Sam 22. The version in 2 Sam seems to represent a slightly later dia-
181
An_78.indb 190 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 191
The subordinate clauses that follow k, express something about the state of
the nations and of the worldly kings when this happens: in the now of this fu-
ture reference point they see something and they understand something. The
two Vsuff forms (r!ˀ+ and hitb5n!n+) express stative aspect concomitant with
the future event which is coded by the two previous VprefL forms.
Traditional Hebrew grammars maintain that it is the Vsuff gram preceded
by a “conversive waw” that expresses the future (the so-called “weqatal” con-
jugation, especially as a “consecutive tense” after a future reference Vpref).
But the two Vsuff verbs (r!ˀ+ and hitb5n!n+) lack any trace of a “conversive”
waw and express a future reference in these subordinate clauses (which follow
two VprefL grams with future reference): the kings see at that future moment,
they understand in that future event.34 What triggers the future reference of a
Vsuff gram is not a “conversive” waw, but a gram-switch from a future refe-
rence verb (in this case VprefL) in a head clause to a Vsuff in a subordinate
clause. A subordinate clause often—but not always—takes over the temporal
reference of the head.35
Within the confines of the two syndetic relative clauses in (3), we can ob-
serve another of the main aspectual meanings of the Vsuff: the anterior (‘what
has never been told them’, ‘what they have not heard’).
As its Arabic reflex, the Hebrew Vsuff may express a modal nuance (ISAKSSON,
Circumstantial qualifiers, 131). This is shown in the first verse of chapter 53,
which is followed in the next verse by a VprefS clause:
(4) Pattern: Vsuff + [NCl + {way-VprefS}]
! $è' c&3 %3 <) Z&P3 ]C. +# #" $0?$ 4+ Y )0M`(. 49. .` .# U!/$ 4$ +I '0 "<B4
' 9. ! $#! +" 9M&
. +HJ J0/) 9$ <p Z+ 4' ,"<' %7 !3 "<'
?m, hæˀæm,n li-&m+ˁ!t-6n+ [+-z=r5aˁ YHWH ˁal-m, nigl!t! @{way-yaˁal kay-y5n6q
l=-p!n-!w w=-ka&-&oræ& m6-ˀæræ% %iyy!}] (Is 53,1-2)
Who would believe our message [over whom the power of YHWH has been re-
vealed? {He grew up like a sapling before him, like a root in the parched
ground}]
The introductory m, with Vsuff (hæˀæm,n) expresses a question, which most
commentators take as an agent-oriented modal expression (BYBEE, Evolution,
187), ‘Who would believe’ (ability). Such nuances of the Vsuff are often inap-
propriately called ‘optative’ in Hebrew (and Arabic) grammars (JOÜON-MURAO-
KA, § 112 k; ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 131). It can certainly also be
interpreted closer to its prototypical stative meaning as an intensive question:
chronic stage, in which the need for an additional k, to mark subordination was felt more acute
than in Ps 18. In both versions of the psalm subordinate structures are marked by status shifts of
the kind discussed in the present article.
34
As most commentators do, this is naturally translated by a general present; DUHM, Jesaia,
365: ‘sehen sie … nehmen sie wahr’; BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 345: ‘they now see … they now
understand’.
35
Such a future nuance of a Vsuff is frequent in subordinate clauses after an imperative.
182
An_78.indb 191 21/06/11 15:38

‘Who believes our message?’, but the English present tense would exclude a
past time reference, which sometimes does not accord with the context of Is
49,1-6; 50,4-9 (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 349). Here, in Is 53,1, time reference must
be taken from the occasion when the prophet himself (and his prophetic group,
the “we” in the text) received the astonishing message about the real identity
of YHWH’s servant.
The context favours something hard to believe, and the content of this in-
credible &=m+ˁ! (‘message’ or ‘what has been heard’) is displayed already in
the second hemistich: People cannot believe over whom the arm of YHWH was
revealed (or had been revealed). As NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 48-49, has poin-
ted out, v. 1b (beginning with +-z=r5aˁ YHWH) is subordinate to the clause in 1a
and makes explicit the content of the message (&=m+ˁ!t-6n+). That the content
of verbs of perception and intellectual activity is coded by a circumstantial
clause is a well-known phenomenon in both Arabic and Hebrew (FISCHER, Ara-
bic, § 434; ISAKSSON, Qualifiers, 94; NYBERG, Grammatik, § 86 bb). The fronted
syndetic mark in 1b (+) clarifies to the listener that a new clause begins here
and thus that the initial noun phrase z=r5aˁ YHWH cannot be a direct object of a
verb in 1a. V. 1b (the second hemistich) consists of a noun clause (NCl) with a
fronted subject and a predication in the form of a prepositional phrase. The
predicative is an interrogative clause which is formally direct (‘over whom is it
revealed?’) but intentionally indirect, so that m, has the function of a relative
pronoun (‘over the one that it is revealed’, NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 49). This
NCl expresses the content of the incredible message: the holy arm of YHWH, al-
ready mentioned in 52,10, is revealed over a suffering and despised and afflic-
ted person. Who could believe this? There is an implicit ‘before’ and ‘after’ in
this context: before a specific moment the prophet himself did not understand
who this afflicted person was, but afterwards he came to understand his identi-
ty in relation to YHWH.
Is 53,1b, the NCl, is further elaborated in v. 53,2 (5) with a short narrative,
coded by only one VprefS (way-yaˁal). The Masoretic reading of the conjunc-
tion (way) further underlines the narrative function of the clause, although in
poetry also Ø-VprefS forms may be used in the same function. It is instructive
to observe that this short narrative can be considered to fulfil the function of an
attribute—certainly an active one—to the preceding NCl clause. The way-
yaˁal clause is clearly connected to the preceding clause. The fact that the
power of YHWH is (or ‘has been’ or both) revealed over a specific person is
elaborated by the story in v. 2. A VprefS narrative may be used to amplify ano-
ther clause or expression, as in Job 3,21 ha-m$akk,m lam-m!wæt [w=-ˀ6n-
ænn+] {way-ya$p=r+-h+ mim-ma'm5n,m} ‘Who long for death, [but it comes
not]; {they dig for it more than for hidden treasures}’, where an active partici-
ple clause is elaborated by a clearly narrative VprefS clause. The temporal re-
ference must be taken from the context: in Job 3,21 VprefS expresses a general
183
An_78.indb 192 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 193
(timeless) present, in Is 53,2 the action referred to is presumably something

that occurred before the present reference point of the prophet-speaker (BLEN-
KINSOPP, Isaiah, 355).
The storyline coded by the way-VprefS in 53,2 is further enhanced by a num-

ber of succeeding subordinate clauses, constituting noun clauses and VprefL
clauses:
(5) Pattern: VprefS + [NCl + NCl + [VprefL*] + NCl + [VprefL*]]
J!L) <+ F+ 30 +# !%3 &+ <B%
. P 4 +# J!%) &+ '0 +# &L$ !$ %P4 +# M4 &%P. /B%P4 ! $è' c&3 %3 <) Z&P3 ]C. +# #" $0?$ 4+ Y )0M`(. 49. .` .#
way-yaˁal kay-y5n6q l=-p!n-!w w=-ka&-&oræ& m6-ˀæræ% %iyy! [l5ˀ toˀar l5 w=-
l5ˀ h!d!r [w=-nirˀ6-h+] w=-l5ˀ marˀ8 [w=-næ$m=d-6h+]] (Is 53,2)
He grew up like a sapling before him, like a root in the parched ground [having
no beauty or majesty [when we looked at him], having no appearance [that we
would be attracted by him]]
The five clauses making up the remainder of v. 2 after the way-VprefS clause
can be divided into two classes: they are either noun clauses or clauses with a
(presumably) long form of the prefix conjugation. The first NCl (l5ˀ toˀar l5) is
familiar to every Arabist; the l5ˀ is used in the sense called l! li-nafyi l-;insi
which expresses a general denial of existence (FISCHER, Arabic, § 318 c): ‘there
is (or was) no beauty for him’, that is, ‘he has/had no beauty’. The reference is
directly to the subject in the preceding narrative clause (way-yaˁal …).
The next NCl (w=-l5ˀ h!d!r) is coordinated with the first NCl (same sta-
tus), only lacking the presupposed preposition with personal suffix (l5) which
the listener is supposed to supply: ‘there was no majesty (for him)’, that is, ‘he
had no majesty’.
The third NCl (w=-l5ˀ marˀ8) has the same structure as the second one:
‘there was no appearance (for him)’, that is, ‘he had no appearance’. The three
noun clauses are paratactically related, each adding a new property to the sub-
ject of the storyline: he had no beauty, he had no majesty, he had no ap-
pearance.
The contrast between the storyline VprefS and the three NCl creates an en-
hancing relationship, which puts the NCl clauses in a subordinate state. This
subordination should be expressed in some way also in a translation. Since the
reference of all three NCl clauses is to the subject in the main clause and also
concomitant with its action, their enhancing function is easily expressed by
English ing-forms (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 19-21): ‘he grew up …
[having no beauty, having no majesty … and having no appearance]’.
But it remains to account for the function of the two VprefL clauses in
53,2. As can be seen, we cannot by morphology alone identify the two Vpref
grams as long. In this respect we are in this verse in a less favourable position
than in 52,13 where ya(k,l and y!r+m only by the outer form could be identi-
fied as VprefL. In 53,2 morphology is not enough. We must try to achieve
184
An_78.indb 193 21/06/11 15:38

something of the linguistic instinct of the original receivers of the text, and
learn from actual usage how the distinctly long forms and the distinctly short
forms work (as scholars already do when they identify morphologically non-
distinct “jussives”).
Among the languages of the world, “[i]mperfective forms are typically
used in discourse for setting up background situations” (BYBEE, Evolution, 126;
ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 137), and this is confirmed by the frequent
usage of the VprefL with this function in poetry.36 Our supposition is that the
two Vpref forms in Is 53,2 (nirˀ6-h+ and næ$m=d-6h+) were perceived as long
and functioned as clauses enhancing their respective preceding noun clauses.
Their semantic relations to the heads are not, however, explicitly coded in the
text. A subordinate clause that lacks a subordinating conjunction is unmarked
as to the way it enhances the head clause. We cannot from the form alone de-
tect the function of the clause, only that it enhances the head clause in some
way. This can only be determined by a closer examination of the clauses in-
volved in the context.
w=-nirˀ6-h+ as a main clause means ‘and we see/saw him’ (imperfective
aspect). The semantics is related to what can be seen, and this fits nicely to
both l5ˀ toˀar l5 and w=-l5ˀ h!d!r. Possibly w=-nirˀ6-h+ is intended to enhance
both noun clauses: ‘he had no beauty or majesty [when we looked at him]’. A
temporal nuance in relation to the head clause fits very well, although other
nuances are possible (for example consequential, ‘that we would look at him’).
As for w=-næ$m=d-6h+ ‘and we are/were attracted by him’ a consequential
semantic relation to the head clause (w=-l5ˀ marˀ8) is most probable: ‘He had
no appearance [to attract us]’.
We can observe in this example that the presence (or absence) of the con-
junction w=, has nothing to do with a clause being a main line clause or a sub-
ordinate clause. The particle w= concerns syndesis, but it does not concern the
status of a clause. It just marks the boundary between two clauses.37 If there is
36
One of the less frequent examples in prose is way-y5ˀmær sibbolæt [w=-l5ˀ y!k,n l=-dab-
ber k6n] ‘and he said “sibbolæt” [for he was not prepared to pronounce it correctly]’ (Judg
12,6), with a distinctly long VprefL gram in the subordinate clause. VprefL in subordinate clau-
ses is infrequent in biblical Hebrew prose in contrast to its frequency with this function in Ara-
bic narratives. The reason is probably that ancient Hebrew never lost the old narrative function
of VprefS, and could retain more archaic habits of marking subordination in relation to the sto-
ryline. Arabic, which in attested stages has already lost the VprefS as storyline marker (in affir-
mative clauses), introduced the VprefL clause for setting up background situations (nicely con-
trasting to the new storyline Vsuff), in addition to the still available nominalized clauses (PA
and VN in the dependent case and of course the NCl). If an Arabic Vsuff for some reason had to
be used for backgrounding in Arabic, it was nearly always marked as such by an additional ini-
tial particle qad or with an auxiliary k!na. A contrast fa-Vsuff/wa-Vsuff was simply not enough.
The latter contrast represents an innovation and has no direct counterpart in biblical Hebrew.
37
The Hebrew style is carved out in a basically oral culture which used other signals for
clause boundary than graphic punctuation marks, ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 36-37.
185
An_78.indb 194 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 195
a need to mark this boundary in a neutral way, to make clear to the listener that
a new clause begins without marking anything else, then the clause is made
syndetic by wa. Syndesis and asyndesis is a matter of style. Asyndesis creates
a quick, efficient, or compressed style. Asyndesis is a common feature in poe-
try, but pays the price of being less clear, sometimes demanding of the listener
a measure of reflection (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 117). It is natural
that syndesis came to dominate in narrative prose, since there was a greater
need to mark clause junction for the audience, while in poetry the performer or
prophet could rely more on the rhythm of the poem or the prophecy.
Let us sum up the discussion of Is 53,2. The verse begins with a narrative
VprefS which is further enhanced by five subordinate clauses on two levels.
The first subordinate level is made up of 3 x NCl clauses. The second subordi-
nate level consists of two VprefL clauses. Thus subordinate clauses may com-
bine hierarchically (they are ‘nested’), one being the head clause of a new sub-
ordinate clause (ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 17-18). In all cases, subor-
dination is marked by a shift of ‘status’ pertaining to the most fundamental
property of the clause: the presence or absence of a finite verb, or the verbal
grammatical morpheme used in the clause. In an oral setting, these were pro-
perties of a clause that were immediately detected by even a casual listener.
If v. 2 contained three subordinate clauses referring to the subject of way-

yaˁal—plus two lower level enhancing clauses—Isaiah 53,3 is a chain of no
less than six subordinate clauses all of which refer to the same subject, plus
one enhancing clause on a lower level (referring to a level-one subordinate
clause).
(6) Pattern: [PA] + [NP] + [NP] + [PP] + [PA] + [PA + [Vsuff]]
J! p0O+ Z. F[ %P4 +# ! 3HO+ '0 J*N3 <' 1" '0k$ &f) A+ <. CJ
+ "4P' F 9JL"
. '# /MOP%C+ <. Z"%' 1"Z"
' %' 4L. F[ .# ! 3HO+ '0
[nibz8] [wa-$adal ˀ,&,m] [ˀ,& makˀ5b5t] [w-,d+aˁ $5l,] [+-k=-mast6r p!n,m
mimm-ænn+] [nibz8 [w=-l5ˀ $a&abn+-h+]] (Is 53,3)
[being despised] [being rejected by men] [being a man of sorrows] [being fa-
miliar with suffering] [being like one from whom men hide their faces] [being
despised [since we esteemed him not]]
Isaiah 53,3 is a chain of participles and participle-like noun phrases forming an
addition to the subordinate noun clauses that enhanced the subject in v. 2. The
noun phrases (including the participles) constitute a common kind of desenten-
tialized (non-finite) subordinate clauses (discussed in ISAKSSON, Circumstantial
qualifiers, 14-19; for the term see LEHMANN, Typology). In Arabic such partici-
ples in subordinate function would have been put in the dependent case (‘accu-
sative’). We can see from Ugaritic that dependent case marking must have
been the rule in early Central Semitic, but in the Hebrew available to us such
case markings are lost (SEGERT, Ugaritic, § 62.4). Of the seven clauses in (6) all
except the last one (the Vsuff clause) have the same status in HALLIDAY’s sense.
186
An_78.indb 195 21/06/11 15:38

Some of them are syndetic (showing a fronted wa, w, +, or w=) with the clause
linkage explicitly marked, but this fact has no bearing on the status of the
clause. With the main line of the prophetic utterance being identified in
53,1-2a, the active participle nibz8 refers back to the subject of way-yaˁal in
2a. The equal-status (coordinate) wa-$adal ˀ,&,m and ˀ,& makˀ5b5t are noun
phrases in the dependent case referring back to the same subject, ‘(being) re-
jected by men’ and ‘(being) a man of sorrows’, constituting a “case of a sub-
stantive being used as a participle”, which is not so rare as BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah,
347, presumes. The two following clauses (w-,d+aˁ $5l, and +-k=-mast6r p!-
n,m mimm-ænn+) are both equal-status dependent-case participles: ‘(being) fa-
miliar with suffering’, ‘(being) like one from whom men hide their faces’.38
The six subordinate participle-like clauses in Is 53,3 are mutually coordi-
nate but all subordinate to the way-yaˁal clause in 53,2. The series ends with a
repeated participle nibz8, which is enhanced with a qualifying clause: w=-l5ˀ
$a&abn+-h+. By the switch of status (from PA to Vsuff) it expresses an expla-
nation or interpretation of the state of nibz8, and the prophet surprisingly in-
cludes himself among the subjects: ‘rejected, [since we esteemed him not]’.
The (causal or explanatory) semantic relationship of the subordinate clause
(w=-l5ˀ $a&abn+-h+) to the head clause (nibz8) is not explicitly stated in the
text. It must be inferred from the context. The time reference and aspectual
meaning of this subordinate Vsuff clause is also inferred from the historical
pragmatic context of the prophecy (past time, perfective).39
(7) Pattern: Vsuff + Vsuff + Vsuff + [PP] + [PP] + [PP]

! 3*9p <J
+ 1"!6
' %7 !() <p 9JI
. $0 J! p0O+ Z. F[ J0F+ .0%[ .# 14$ O$ A+ J0"OP) %C+ <J
. %>$ $0 %J! J0 )"4$ F{ ,C) %$
ˀ!k6n $ål!y-6n+ h+ˀ n!(!ˀ +-makˀ5b6-n+ s=b!l-!m wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+
[n!g+aˁ] [mukk6 ˀæl5h,m] [+-m=ˁunn8] (Is 53,4)
But he bore our infirmities, and carried our pains, yet we ourselves considered
him [(being) stricken (by God)] [smitten by God] [afflicted]
The main line of the prophecy is resumed in Is 53,4 with three Vsuff clauses.
Most commentators prefer to assume that the Vsuff grams in v. 4 refer to a his-
torical figure known by the prophet. In such a case the aspect is, by inference
from the pragmatic context, perfective, and the purpose of the text, its prophe-
tic dimension, lies in a spiritual reinterpretation of the significance of the life
(and probably also death) of this historical person. The coding itself is, how-
38
mast6r is analysed by H. S. NYBERG as having the original meaning of the ma-noun, that
is, a nominalized (substantivized) relative clause: ‘the one for whom one hides’, with an anapho-
ric pronoun as is also required in Arabic (NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 51; NYBERG, Grammatik,
§ 75 i). It is also possible to read hifil PA mast,r.
39
We presume, as BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 353, does, that the text within its original setting re-
ferred to a man that was dead already when the prophetic utterance of Is 52,13-53,12 was for-
mulated. This assumption is decisive for the translation of the verbal grams, which otherwise
would permit a general present or even future translation of the main line prophetic passages.
187
An_78.indb 196 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 197
ever, temporally ambiguous. The Vsuff grams can as well be interpreted as

prophetic statives, with a possible future nuance: ‘But he bears our infirmities,
and carries our pains’. This temporal ambiguity is one of the enigmatic fea-
tures of this prophecy on the suffering servant of YHWH.
In the three Vsuff clauses in 53,4 objects and subjects are positioned before
the verb in fronted position. This signals a topicalization: 1. Onoun + Spron +
Vsuff; 2. Onoun + Vsuff-PRON3mp; 3. Spron + Vsuff-PRON3ms. The second
clause (+-makˀ5b6-n+ s=b!l-!m) even exhibits a ‘leftdislocation’40 with a re-
sumptive (anaphoric) pronoun (the -!m). The subjects and objects are arranged
emphatically to achieve a strange duality: ‘our infirmities—he bore them, our
pains—he carried them, we on our side considered him …’. Facing this em-
phatic word order it is important to observe that the type of clause remains the
same. The three Vsuff clauses are coordinated. Word order does not determine
subordination. Fronting of an element is a matter of emphasis. The constitutive
element of a clause is the verb (or its lack of a verb).
There is a semantic opposition between the first two Vsuff clauses (the first
hemistich) and the third (wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+), which could be perceived as
a circumstantial relation (‘yet’, ‘while’). This opposition is not expressed by
subordination, but by contrasting the topicalized (explicitly stated and fronted)
subjects: h+ˀ against ˀana$n+.
The third Vsuff clause (wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+) in this prophetic main line
of Vsuff clauses in 53,4 is qualified by three subordinate clauses expressing
the content of the $!&abn+, as is common practice with verbs of intellectual
activity. The content of the activity is coded by passive participles referring
back to the object suffix in $a&abn+-h+ (the suffering servant). These passive
participles in dependent case position function as desententialized subordinate
clauses qualifying the same head clause (wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+), telling how
a ‘we’ (falsely) considered him: ‘stricken, smitten by God, afflicted’.
(8) Pattern: 4b(Vsuff + 3 x [PP] +) 5[NCl] + [NCl] + [NCl + *[Vsuff]]

&AJ<
. J0"/P) 0M9[ <) %($ Lp <+ J09) Z$ k+ <' 44P$ F<+ %J! +# U! 3*9p <J
+ 1"!6
' %7 !() <p 9JI . $0 J! p0O+ Z. F[ J0F+ .0%[ .#
J04B%
$ k$ &+ '0 M/&$ Op F[ OJ
. #"4$ 9$ J0<M4
) Z+
4b
(wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+ [n!g+aˁ] [mukk6 ˀæl5h,m] [+-m=ˁunn8]) 5[w=-h+ˀ
m=$5l!l mip-p=&!ˁ-6n+] [m=dukk!ˀ m6-ˁaw5n5t6-n+] [m+sar &=l5m-6n+ ˁ!l!w
[+-ba-$ab+r!t-5 nirp!ˀ l!-n+]] (Is 53,4b-5)
4b
(yet we ourselves considered him [stricken (by God)] [smitten by God] [afflic-
ted]) 5[while in reality he was pierced for our transgressions] [(he was) crushed
for our iniquities] [the punishment bringing us peace was upon him [so that by
his wounds we would be healed]]
While the last clauses of 53,4 were coded by three passive participles in the
dependent case which described how the subject (‘we’) of $a&abn+-h+ looked
40
Which should properly be called ‘rightdislocation’ in a right-to-left written text.
188
An_78.indb 197 21/06/11 15:38

on the suffering servant, the clauses in 53,5 qualify the same head clause (wa-
ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+) by stating the real function and mission of the object suf-
fix referent. This is coded by three noun clauses, the status of which is sig-
nalled by the first explicit pronoun in fronted position (h+ˀ), ‘in reality he was’
(or is) (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 345: ‘yet he was wounded because of our trans-
gressions’).
The first noun clause (w=-h+ˀ m=$5l!l mip-p=&!ˁ-6n+) consists of a subject
pronoun (Spron) and predication in the form of a PP and a prepositional
phrase. It is a circumstantial clause related to $a&abn+-h+: ‘we considered him
stricken (by God) … [while in reality he was pierced for our transgression]’.
In the second noun clause (m=dukk!ˀ m6-ˁaw5n5t6-n+) the subject pronoun
is understood from the preceding NCl. The predicate is the passive participle
m=dukk!ˀ and the head clause is still wa-ˀana$n+ $a&abn+-h+: ‘(while he was)
crushed for our iniquities’.
The third clause (m+sar &=l5m-6n+ ˁ!l!w) is a noun clause in which the
subject is m+sar &=l5m-6n+ (‘the punishment bringing us peace’) and the predi-
cation consists of a prepositional phrase (ˁ!l!w), the suffix of which refers
back to the head clause. This third clause enhances the same head clause as the
preceding two noun clauses: ‘(in that) the punishment bringing as peace was
upon him’.
We perceive that the three PP clauses in v. 4 and the three NCl clauses in
verse 5, although qualifying the same head clause, have divergent semantic
functions. The passive participles in the dependent case are directly connected
with the suffix of the verb $a&abn+-h+. They code the content of the convic-
tion: ‘(we considered him) stricken—smitten—afflicted’. The three NCl clau-
ses have a more general circumstantial function. They inform the listener of
the real state of things which could not be seen by human eyes: ‘in reality it
was for our transgressions, for our iniquities, for our peace’.
The fourth (and last) clause of 53,5 contains a Vsuff (nirp!ˀ) which has a
neutral subject (‘it is/was healed (for us)’). Formally it could also be a nifal
participle but a Vsuff seems more probable (thus HALOT in this location).41 If
nirp!ˀ is not a substantivized participle (‘that which is healed’ > ‘a healing’, in
which case the clause would be a noun clause, ‘a healing belongs to us by his
wounds’), which seems unlikely, the most natural interpretation is to take it as
a finite verb. We then interpret the clause (+-ba-$ab+r!t-5 nirp!ˀ l!-n+) as con-
sequential in relation to its head (m+sar &=l5m-6n+ ˁ!l!w) with a contrastive
pattern NCl + [Vsuff]: ‘so that we found healing by his wounds’, or final, ‘that
we would find healing by his wounds’. In subordinate position a Vsuff clause,
41
A native contemporary listener would have perceived the correct interpretation in a mo-
ment, of course. We later readers have to exercise caution, trying to get aquainted as best as we
can with the clause combining habits of prophetic utterances.
198
An_78.indb 198 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 199
because of the prototypical stative/resultative meaning of the gram, can easily

enhance a noun clause and receive a futural or modal nuance.
In Isaiah 53,6 we return to the prophetic main line with three Vsuff clauses.
(9) Pattern: Vsuff + Vsuff + Vsuff
J0K$ (p ,M9[ /%) MD 9"
. 'T?+ !' ! $#!" .# J0" '0k$ M(&+ L. 4+ Z"%' J0"9' f$ ,%P_(. J0K$ (p
kull-!n+ ka%-%5ˀn t!ˁ,n+, ˀ,& l=-dark-5 p!n,n+, wa-YWHW hipg,aˁ b5 ˀ6t ˁaw5n
kull-!n+ (Is 53,6)
we all, like sheep, went astray, each of us turned to his own way, but YHWH
caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him
The historical interpretation of the text on the suffering servant here triggers a
perfective interpretation of the Vsuff clauses with past time reference,42 al-
though many prophetic utterances with Vsuff in the main line express an inten-
sive general present (stative aspect) with an implied future nuance (see 1.1.1
Vsuff above), as in Is 9,5 k, yælæd yullad l!n+ b6n nittan l!n+ ‘For to us a
child is born, to us a son is given’ (NIV). In fact, a plethora of time references
are attested for Vsuff in the prophetic main line of Is 52-53: modal, Is 53,1 m,
hæˀæm,n li-&m+ˁ!t-6n+ ‘Who would believe what we have heard?’; past time
(and perfective aspect), Is 53,4 ˀ!k6n $ål!y6n+ h+ˀ n!(!ˀ ‘Yet it was he who
bore our affliction’; intensive present (stative aspect), Is 52,7 m!lak ˀæl5h!yik
‘Your God reigns as king!’ (all translations from BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah).
There is strong emphasis on the fronted subjects of the first and third clau-
ses: ‘We all … YHWH on the other hand …’. This topicalization creates an op-
position between the weak “we” and the strong YHWH.
(10) Pattern: Vsuff + [NCl + [VprefL]] + [NCl + [VprefL]] + [NCl +

[Vsuff]] + [VprefL]
#"k' Ff. ?+ '" %P4 +# !<$ 4$ %7 30 !"
$ 3H +HPI " )0?+ 4' 4F) &$ CJ
+ 4OJ"
$ FO. r3 4. !}3 (. #"kBF
' f. ?+ '" %P4 +# ! 309[ .0 %J! +# > .T '0
nigga( [w=-h+ˀ naˁan8 [w=-l5ˀ yipta$-p,w]] [ka(-(8 [la'-'æba$ y+b!l]] [+-k=-
r!$6l [lipn6 g5z=z8-h! næˀæl!m!]] [w=-l5ˀ yipta$ p,w] (Is 53,7)
he was oppressed [yet being submissive [in that he opened not his mouth]],
[being like a lamb [when it is led to the slaughter]], [like a ewe [being silent be-
fore her shearers]] [without opening his mouth]
In Isaiah 53,7 the prophetic main line continues in Is 53,7 with only one word,
the Vsuff clause nigga(. The rest of the verse is a series of clauses that in diffe-
rent ways enhance this nigga(. Three of them are mutually coordinate and re-
present the first level of subordination in relation to nigga(, coded by the con-
trast Vsuff/NCl: ‘he was oppressed [being …] [being …] [being …]’. Below
we discuss these three noun clauses and their satellites.
42
It is certainly also possible, as BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, does, to translate with an anterior
aspect, ‘We had all gone astray like sheep’. The real semantic difference is very slight in this
case.
190
An_78.indb 199 21/06/11 15:38

NCl 1. w=-h+ˀ naˁan8 is a noun clause with a subject pronoun and nifal par-
ticiple as predicate. The participle is formally a PA but the nifal conjugation
makes it semantically equivalent to a passive participle and an adjective.
While the head clause nigga( tells about the objective course of events (‘he
was oppressed’), w=-h+ˀ naˁan8 describes the inner attitude of the servant
when he was oppressed (or abused): ‘being submissive’. This noun clause is
itself further enhanced, which is coded by a switch NCl/VprefL*, in which the
clause [w=-l5ˀ yipta$ p,w] adds a significant detail of the submissive attitude,
an aspect of the naˁan8: ‘not opening his mouth’. The imperfective VprefL
gives the clause a nuance of durativity or endurance: while being submissive
the servant never opened his mouth.
NCl 2. ka(-(8 is a noun clause in which only the predication is coded,
while the subject h+ˀ—explicit in the preceding circumstantial clause w=-h+ˀ
naˁan8—is dropped as understood, ‘(he is) like a lamb’, the ‘he’ of course re-
ferring to the subject of the main line nigga(. This first level subordinate
clause (ka(-(8) is qualified by a VprefL clause [la'-'æba$ y+b!l], which could
be taken as an asyndetic relative clause: ‘which is led to the slaughter’. The
analogical structure of the preceding two clauses, in which the w=-l5ˀ yipta$
p,w cannot, because of the w=, be analysed as a relative clause, speaks in fa-
vour of taking also la'-'æba$ y+b!l as a circumstantial: ‘when it is lead to the
slaughter’. The imperfective VprefL here expresses the process of being lead
(unfinished action).
NCl 3. +-k=-r!$6l is a noun clause of the same type as ka(-(8, with an un-
derstood subject pronoun, ‘(he is) like a ewe’. In relation to the head clause
(nigga() it takes a subordinate meaning, ‘(being) like a ewe’, the subordation
being coded by the contrast Vsuff/NCl. The noun clause is further qualified
by a Vsuff clause (lipn6 g5z=z8-h! næˀæl!m!), in which the nifal 3fs Vsuff
(næˀæl!m!) is close to a stative: ‘she is silent’. The contrast NCl/Vsuff creates
a subordination that expresses the attitude of the ewe while being sheared,
‘being silent before her shearers’.
The last clause in Is 53,7 is a repetition (w=-l5ˀ yipta$ p,w) and seems
unnecessary. It is doubted by BHS and many commentators, probably with
justice (DRIVER, Servant, 94). If original, as BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 347, maintains
on the basis of LXX, Vulgate and the Qumran Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa, it cannot
refer to the r!$6l (feminine), nor possibly to the subject of nigga( (which is al-
ready qualified by such a clause), and a reference to (8 would be even more
far-fetched. The only solution, if original, is that it is a repetition that summari-
zes the preceding subordinate clauses as ‘in a nutshell’, being directly related
to nigga( with the contrast Vsuff/VprefL.
191
An_78.indb 200 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 201
In Isaiah 53,8 the prophetic main line is resumed by a Vsuff luqq!$ (with pau-
sal reading).
(11) Pattern: Vsuff + [VprefL + [k, + Vsuff]]
M<4$ 9 .I 30 "N' 9. 9Z. k3 <' 1" '`F. c&3 %3 <) & .H +I '0 "(' F. FM>
) +" "<' M&M;B/%3 +# Fx$ 4p Vk$ Z+ N' <J
' &eP3 9<)
m6-ˁo%ær +-mim-mi&p!' luqq!$ [w=-ˀæt d5r-5 m, y=(5$6a$ [k, nigzar m6-ˀæræ%
$ayy,m mip-pæ&aˁ ˁamm-, nægaˁ l!m5]] (Is 53,8)
by oppression and judgment he was led away [—who gave a thought to his fate
[when he was cut off from the land of the living, from those for which the trans-
gression of my people was a disaster (leprosy)]?]
After the main line, the first clause (w=-ˀæt d5r-5 m, y=(5$6a$) is a rhetorical
question, the real meaning of which is that nobody cared when the servant was
taken away. The function of w=-ˀæt d5r-5 m, y=(5$6a$ and of the whole verse
is to emphasize the loneliness of the servant when he was unjustly taken away,
and that he was cut off also from his own people, from those who cared about
the transgression of ‘my people’ (Israel): He was unjustly led away [nobody
caring about his fate].43 The subordination is marked by a shift from main line
Vsuff to the imperfective y=(5$6a$ (VprefL): ‘(no one) giving a thought (to
his fate)’.
The VprefL clause is further qualified by a k,-clause with Vsuff and perfec-
tive aspect. Thus, the subordination is doubly marked, by the particle k,, and
by a gram-switch VprefL/Vsuff. The most difficult phrase in the k, clause is
the apposition which repeats the min-phrase: ‘(… cut off from the land of the
living), from …’. After the second min there is an asyndetic relative clause
parallel to ‘the land of the living’: ‘from (those such as) my people’s transgres-
sion was a disaster for them’. This archaic type of compressed clause without
relative pronoun has been discussed by NYBERG (Deuteronomion, 330ff; Smär-
tornas man, 55) who refers to the parallel example in Deut 33,2, mi(-(6ˁ,r l!m5
‘from those to which Seir belongs’.
Isaiah 53,9: When the prophetic main line in Is 53,8 (the Vsuff luqq!$) is to be
elaborated by a narrative storyline, although very short, this is done by a
VprefS (as in Is 53,2), and the perfective meaning is explicitly emphasized by
the Masoretes with the reading way (< wa) instead of w= in front of the verbal
gram (way-yitten). Unfortunately it is impossible in English to render the
distinction between the perfective luqq!$ in the prophetic main line and
the elaborating narrative perfective storyline way-yitten. Both grams must be
translated with a simple past tense.44
43
d5r = ‘fate’ is certainly a crux and unattested elsewhere in biblical Hebrew, although NY-
BERG compares Ps 24,6. We follow here a common opinion, comparing for this unexpected
meaning Akkadian dûru ‘lasting state’, and Arabic dawr ‘role (in life)’ (DRIVER, Problems, 403;
DRIVER, Servant, 94; NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 53; BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah).
44
The distinction is discussed by GIVÓN in his Syntax, vol. I, 298f. This alternation between
192
An_78.indb 201 21/06/11 15:38

(12) Pattern: { VprefS + [NCl] + [CONJ + Vsuff + [NCl]] }

#"?' D+ !<$ &+ <' %P4 +# !>$ 9$ A<$ FB%
$ P 4 49. #"/P$ <D+ &"Z' 9B/
$ %3 +# M&O+ Y' 1"9' Z$ &B/
+ %3 ,f) '` .#
{way-yitten ˀæt r=&!ˁ,m qibr-5 [w=-ˀæt ˁ!&,r b=-m5t-!w] [ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(!
[w=-l5ˀ mirm! b=-p,-w]] } (Is 53,9)
{they assigned (him) a grave with the wicked [—yet in his death (it) was with a
rich man—] [though he had done no violence [without any deceit in his
mouth]] }
The neutral subject of yitten, ‘one, the one that is concerned’, can be singular
in Semitic, but must be translated ‘they’ in English. The later Qumran version
1QIsaa has the easier reading wytnw, but emendation is not necessary (NYBERG,
Smärtornas man, 56; DRIVER, Servant, 95; RUBINSTEIN, Variant Readings, 92).
The following clause (w=-ˀæt ˁ!&,r b=-m5t-!w), as it stands, is a noun
clause the subject of which is understood from the preceding clause. This sub-
ject is qibr-5 ‘his grave’, while the predication is ‘with a rich in his death’. The
clause tells that the grave of the servant was with a rich person ‘in his death’.
The meaning of ˀæt is that of the preceding clause, ‘with’ wicked men, here
‘with’ a rich. The expression b=-m5t-!w should be analysed as semantically
equal to b=-m5t-5 ‘in his death’ as LXX translates it and BHS proposes. The
plural of b=-m5t-!w can be taken as analogical with the plural b=-$ayy-!w ‘in
his life’ (NYBERG, Smärtornas man, 57f). The clause w=-ˀæt ˁ!&,r b=-m5t-!w is
a noun clause in which the subject is understood. The clause qualifies the pre-
ceding proposition, and this is coded by the contrast VprefS/NCl. This clause
has been argued to be “unintelligible” (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 348), but the truth
is that we know nothing about the historical person referred to in Is 53, except
what the text itself states. The text says that the servant was assigned a grave
with wicked men, while in his death the grave was with a wealthy man. It cer-
tainly sounds strange, but we are not in a position to assign a truth value to this
proposition.
The next clause (ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(!) begins with the rarely used conjunc-
tion ˁal ‘though’, which makes explicit the semantic relation to the head (way-
yitten …): ‘they assigned him a grave … though he had done no violence’.
Thus the subordinate status of ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(! is marked both by an explicit
subordinating conjunction and a contrast VprefS/Vsuff. The listener infers
from the context that the Vsuff has the anterior aspect, with a reference point
in the past. It is thus to be translated by pluperfect, ‘though he had done no
violence’.
The last clause [w=-l5ˀ mirm! b=-p,-w] is a noun clause in which the sub-
ject is negated (the existence of mirm! is denied) and the predicate is a prepo-
sitional phrase (b=-p,-w): ‘there is/was no deceit in his mouth’. With the con-
two grams, VprefS and Vsuff, that both could express perfective, is an original Westsemitic fea-
ture which is retained in biblical Hebrew but lost in Aramaic (except for the earliest inscriptions
of Tel Dan and Zakkur) and Arabic.
193
An_78.indb 202 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 203
trast Vsuff/NCl this noun clause qualifies or enhances the preceding Vsuff
clause (ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(!) by stating ‘having no deceit in his mouth’ or ‘with-
out any deceit being in his mouth’.
The clauses in Is 53,9 are nested on three levels: the primary level is coded
by the way-yitten clause. The secondary level is coded by w=-ˀæt ˁ!&,r b=-m5t-
!w and ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(!, both of which relate to the way-yitten clause. The
tertiary level is coded by w=-l5ˀ mirm! b=-p,-w which qualifies a clause on the
secondary level (ˁal l5ˀ $!m!s ˁ!(!). Lastly, it should be remembered that the
primary level VprefS clause—and with it the whole v. 9—elaborates the Vsuff
luqq!$ in 53,8.
Isaiah 53,10 is “the despair of the exegete” (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 354) and as
usual in such instances emendations abound in the exegetical literature. We
will examine below if the text is successful in communication and whether it
accords with available linguistic data.
(13) Pattern: Vsuff + Vsuff + [VprefL! + VprefL! + VprefL! + VprefL*]
F4$ e+ '" ML $"D+ ! $#! +" c?3 F) +# 1"<$"
' W"&' %[ ." 9&. 3H !%3 &+ '" MZ?+ .0 1Z$ %$ 1">' fB1
$ %' "4' F7 !3 M%(+ ;. c?) F$ ! $#!" .#
wa-YHWH $!pe% dakk=ˀ-5 hæ$æl, [ˀim t!(,m ˀ!&!m nap&-5] [yirˀ8 zæraˁ] [yaˀar,k
y!m,m] [w=-$epæ% YHWH b=-y!d-5 yi%l!$] (Is 53,10)
YHWH delighted in crushing him, he brought sickness upon him [for when his
soul presents a guilt offering] [he will see an offspring] [and prolong his days]
[and the YHWH’s purpose will prevail through him]
The prophetic main line continues in Is 53,10 with two coordinate Vsuff clau-
ses.45 The first (wa-YHWH $!pe% dakk=ˀ-5) is rather simple and states that YHWH
wanted, or took delight in, crushing the servant. The second Vsuff clause
(hæ$æl,) is a hifil, either an archaic form showing a primitive 3rd radical
(JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 79 c), or an analogical formation after verb class III.ˀ (BAU-
ER-LEANDER, 1922, 424; JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 79 l; HALOT). In either case the
46
plain meaning is ‘make sick’, ‘bring sickness’. The object of the hæ$æl, Vsuff
clause, ‘(upon) him’, must be understood from the first clause (the object suf-
fix in dakk=ˀ-5).
The third clause (ˀim t!(,m ˀ!&!m nap&-5), taken as it is coded in the Maso-
retic text with the particle ˀim, is most naturally interpreted as a protasis in a
conditional clause combining. Let us leave out of focus the question of apodo-
sis for the moment and concentrate on this protasis. The clause is regarded as
one of the greatest problems in Old Testament exegesis. It is certainly worth
45
This is also the opinion of DRIVER, Problems, 403, who, however, wants to add a pro-
nominal suffix after hæ$æl, reading hæ$æl,-!m5 which he translates ‘and made him to suffer’,
the verb then being of the root $lˀ.
46
1QIsaa shows instead #!44F"#, which must be read as a piel way-VprefS of the root A$ll,
‘he pierced him’, with an explicit object suffix. The Qumran variant suggests that a shift from
Vsuff to narrative way-VprefS was perceived to be more in accordance with the usual biblical
syntax.
194
An_78.indb 203 21/06/11 15:38

the effort of a closer look. The second word is a distinctly long form of the
prefix conjugation (VprefL!). Thus we should expect an imperfective aspect
here, though in a subordinate clause status. One problem is its subject. Formal-
ly, it can be either 2 person masculine (‘you’) or 3 person feminine (‘she’). In
the immediate context there is no ‘you’ to refer to, but there is a 3 person femi-
nine entity in the clause: nap&-5 ‘his life/soul’. The least complicated analysis
is thus to take nap&-5 as the subject of t!(,m. The clause would then say (with-
in a protasis) that ‘his soul will lay down a guilt offering’, understanding that
the guilt offering is the life of the suffering servant. This is a plausible inter-
pretation, having in mind that he is the one that YHWH wanted to crush and
made to suffer in the preceding main line clause. His life shall present a guilt
offering. This is the most straightforward interpretation of the clause.
A clause with an initial ˀim is the most common way in biblical Hebrew to
code a real condition, which means that the condition is considered realistic
and expected (JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 167 c). Such a condition is expected to be ful-
filled, or at least it belongs to the real world of what may happen in the future.
A real condition may well be translated beginning with ‘when …’ instead of
‘if …’ (the latter, in English, is more open as to the expected fulfilment of the
condition). Taken as a real case protasis the clause may be translated ‘when his
soul presents a guilt offering’.
If ˀim marks the protasis, we most naturally expect to encounter an apodo-
sis in what follows after the protasis. This is also the case. The rest of 53,10 is
a series of mutually coordinate VprefL clauses, all except the last one with dis-
tinctly long forms (VprefL!). There is no reason to analyse yi%l!$ otherwise, so
all three are of equal status and represent the apodosis, the consequence, what
happens when the condition (presenting a guilt offering) is fulfilled.
The first apodosis (yirˀ8 zæraˁ) speaks about a ‘he’, who will see posterity.
The ‘he’ must have the same referent as the suffix in nap&-5 in the protasis,
that is, the referent is the suffering servant: when his life/soul lays down a guilt
offering he will see posterity.
The second apodosis (yaˀar,k y!m,m) says that he will prolong his day.
This is puzzling only when taken to mean that he will live a long physical life,
since he is already dead when the prophecy is uttered. However, if it means
that his life and mission will continue through his followers and disciples it is
not hard to understand (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 355). The two apodosis clauses
analysed so far then say that when his soul lays down itself as guilt offering he
will see a posterity of disciples and live long through them.
The third apodosis (w=-$epæ% YHWH b=-y!d-5 yi%l!$) has a fronted explicit
subject (which means it is topicalized): the will or pleasure or purpose of
YHWH. It says that the will of YHWH will prevail through the suffering servant.
The will of YHWH will prevail through his followers as a consequence of the
guilt offering.
195
An_78.indb 204 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 205
All-in-all there are six clauses in Is 53,10, of which two (the Vsuff clauses
in the beginning) belong to the prophetic main line, while the remaining four
belong to a block of subordinate clauses in a conditional clause linkage. This
subordinate block has a purpose of enhancing the main line by explaining the
harsh content of the Vsuff clauses. It is therefore in full accordance with the
syntax to insert a ‘for’ or ‘because’ before the protasis in the English transla-
tion in order to account for the clause-linkage refinement exhibited in the He-
brew text: ‘for when his soul lays down a guilt offering …’.
The remaining verses of our text (11-12) follow up the consequences of the de-
cisive protasis in Is 53,10. From a syntactic perspective they can be analysed
as coordinate with the three apodosis VprefL clauses in 53,10.
(14) Pattern: [VprefL! + VprefL* + VprefL! + [ADJ] + VprefL*]
4PDA+ '" %J! 1/P$ 0M9[ .# 1"D' &. 4$ ";' O+ 9. Y";' e. Y";' e+ ." Mf9+ L. D+ 9D$ >+ '" !%3 &+ '" MZ?+ .0 4<. 9[ <)
[m6-ˁamal nap&-5 yirˀ8] [yi(b!ˁ b=-daˁt-5] [ya%d,q [%add,q] ˁabd-, l!-rabb,m]
[wa-ˁaw5n5t-!m h+ˀ yisb5l] (Is 53,11)
[After the suffering of his soul he will see light] [and be satisfied by knowledge
of him] [[Being righteous] my servant will justify many people] [and he alone
will bear their iniquities]
Isaiah 53,11 contains four VprefL clauses, all expressing the consequences, or
results, or achievements, of the guilt offering of the suffering servant described
in v. 10.
The first clause (m6-ˁamal nap&-5 yirˀ8) is a puzzle.47 The subject that pre-
sents itself immediately is the one told of in the preceding verse, the suffering
servant. But in such a case, when interpreting the yaˀar,k y!m,m clause in
53,10 we had to infer an identity between the servant himself and his disciples.
The prophet who uttered these verses knew that the servant was dead (this is
our assumption), so also in v. 53,11 the identity must be transferred to his dis-
ciples. For clarity’s sake we late readers would have preferred that the prophet
used plural forms here, but he has presumably preferred to retain the formal
unity between the servant and the body of his followers. By them he is still
working and justifying many. The verb (yirˀ8) can be used with an absolute
meaning without object, ‘be able to see’. When translating this into English it
is nearly impossible to render the absolute meaning without doing as both the
Qumran versions have done, add the word ‘light’ (1QIsaab ˀ5r; BLYTHIN, Consi-
deration, 28): ‘… he will see light’.
Defining the finis boundary of the second clause (yi(b!ˁ b=-daˁt-5) is not
easy and the one presented here violates the Masoretic reading tradition (which
puts a light distinctive accent (z!q6p q!'5n) on yi(b!ˁ which is also read in
47
For our discussion of clause combining the meaning of the preposition min is not essen-
tial. It can be partitive, ‘out of, from’ or temporal, ‘after’. The latter seems to be the preferred
meaning by most commentators (cf. BLYTHIN, Consideration, 28).
196
An_78.indb 205 21/06/11 15:38

pause with lengthened !). A w= would have been of great help as mark of the
following clause junction, but the next clause is asyndetic. We have to rely on
the inner analysis of the clauses themselves. There are several reasons for a
reinterpretation of the clause borders. First, if we hold to the Masoretic accent,
as BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 346, and some other commentators do, the second
clause will be conspicuously short, only one word (yi(b!ˁ), while the other
clauses in the verse contain at least three words. Secondly, the succeeding
clause already contains an adverbial qualification (%add,q), to which we will
return below; it does not seem to need the prepositional phrase b=-daˁt-5.
Thirdly, the verb (!baˁ is attested with the preposition b= elsewhere in MT
with the meaning ‘have enough of’, in Ps 65,5; 88,4, Lam 3,30 (thus also MÜL-
LER, Vorschlag, 379). Fourthly, the Masoretic reading tradition, although of
great value, did not exist at the time of the prophecy about the suffering ser-
vant. From a linguistic point of view we want to get as close as possible to the
original wording of the prophet, and at that time there were no accent signs,
nor a division into verses. The most natural reading is to interpret b=-daˁt-5 as
connected with yi(b!ˁ: ‘be satisfied by knowledge of him’, that is, though the
servant is dead, they—his body of followers—will be satisfied by his life ex-
ample and his teaching.48
The third clause in Is 53,11, ya%d,q [%add,q] ˁabd-, l!-rabb,m, has con-
founded a horde of commentators, and a majority wants to omit %add,q since it
“overburdens the verse” (BLENKINSOPP, Isaiah, 348) and is felt unnecessary
since b=-daˁt-5 is already there and qualifies the verb. Without b=-daˁt-5,
which belongs to the second clause (see above), the adjective %add,q in the
third clause is no longer redundant and functions as an adverbial qualifier in
the dependent case (JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 126 a): ‘(being) righteous’. This is a
well-known construction in Arabic where a nominal qualifier typically lacks
the article and is put in the accusative case (FISCHER, Arabic, § 380). The adjec-
tive should be taken as giving the reason why the servant can justify the many:
‘[Since he was righteous] my servant will justify (or vindicate) many people’.
The last clause of Is 53,11 (wa-ˁaw5n5t-!m h+ˀ yisb5l) is coordinate with
the preceding one and adds to its prediction. ‘He was righteous, and will alone
bear the iniquities of the many.’ The subject pronoun h+ˀ is topicalized, but
48
This is also the conclusion by WILLIAMSON, Daˁat, 120; BLYTHIN, Consideration, 28; and
MÜLLER, Vorschlag, 379, who advocate a reading of yi(b!ˁ together with b=-daˁt-5 as the most
natural interpretation. WILLIAMSON prefers to translate ‘he will be satisfied with his rest’. But it is
extremely difficult to believe that this otherwise unattested meaning of daˁat belonged to the lin-
guistic competence of the contemporaries of the prophet, side-by-side with the very common
‘knowledge’, cf. daˁat ˀæl5h,m ‘knowledge of God’, Hos 4,1; 6,6, Pr 2,5. The same argument
holds against the meaning ‘humiliation’ proposed by BLYTHIN, Consideration, 30, although
CLINES-ELWOLDE, 459, adduces this meaning for Dan 12,4 (but not for Is 53,11). BLYTHIN disre-
gards that what we expect in this context after yi(b!ˁ is something positive, a glorious conse-
quence of the travail of the servant of YHWH.
197
An_78.indb 206 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 207
even more is the object which is put in primary position: ‘their iniquities, he
alone will bear (them)’.
Isaiah 53,12 opens with two VprefL clauses coordinate with those in 53,11.
The verse therefore belongs to the cluster of clauses that follow the two Vsuff
clauses (wa-YHWH $!pe% dakk=ˀ-5 hæ$æl,) in 53,10, the main design of which is
a VprefL gram.49 Strictly speaking they continue the apodosis clauses after the
protasis ˀim t!(,m ˀ!&!m nap&-5 in 53,10. Is 53,12 thus continues to qualify—
and explain the consequences of—the will of YHWH to crush and bring sickness
upon his servant. An explicative nuance is given the first clause by the initial
adverb l!k6n ‘therefore’.
(15) Pattern: [VprefL + VprefL + [CONJ + Vsuff + Vsuff + Vsuff +
[VprefL!]] ]
1"9' ZP+ kB/%3 +# MZ?+ .0 / 3#N$ 4. !&$ 97 !3 &Z3 %[ /F. f. 44$ Z$ YK) F. +" 1"<Je ' 9B/ [ %3 +# 1"D' &. O$ M4BYK3 F. %[ ,C) 4$
9"
. 'T?+ ." 1"9' ZP+ k4. +# %>$ $0 1"D' &B%
. V+ F) %J! +# ! $0<+ '0
l!k6n ˀa$allæq l5 b!-rabb,m w=-ˀæt ˁa%+m,m y=$alleq &!l!l [ta$at ˀa&ær hæˁær!
lam-m!wæt nap&-5] [w=-ˀæt p5&=ˁ,m nimn!] [w=-h+ˀ $6tˀ rabb,m n!(!ˀ [w=-
lap-p5&=ˁ,m yapg,aˁ]] (Is 53,12)
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, he will divide the booty
with the strong [in return for that he poured out his soul unto death] [was num-
bered with the transgressors] [and himself bore the sin of many [while he made
intercession for the transgressors]]
The two VprefL clauses continue from v. 11 describing the exaltation of the
servant. The voice of YHWH in the mouth of the prophet with a l!k6n ‘there-
fore’ and a continued VprefL ˀa$allæq announces the future result or reward of
the preceding protasis (‘when his soul lays down a guilt offering’). The servant
will in the future be greatly honoured; YHWH himself declares that he will give
him a portion among the great.
But the third clause (ta$at ˀa&ær hæˁær! lam-m!wæt nap&-5) is not one
more in the apodosis series of coordinate VprefL clauses. It is subordinate to
the preceding two coordinate VprefL clauses, and this is shown, not only by a
gram-switch (VprefL/Vsuff) but also by a complex subordinating conjunction
(ta$at ˀa&ær) which makes the semantic relation to the preceding clauses expli-
cit, ‘in return for, because’ (the relation being a type of causality). The con-
junction makes clear to us—if context were not enough—that the three coordi-
nate Vsuff clauses to follow the conjunction do not code a resumed prophetic
main line, but must be taken as qualifying the preceding VprefL clauses with
the nuance ‘in return for’.
The three subordinate Vsuff clauses after ta$at ˀa&ær emphasize what is al-
ready expressed as a condition in 53,10. The servant has fulfilled the condition
49
To avoid too many confusing brackets we have refrained from enclosing also the whole
verse with brackets ([…]) in the transcription and translation.
198
An_78.indb 207 21/06/11 15:38

(to present himself as a guilt offering) and in return for his pouring out his soul
unto death (lam-m!wæt) he will be greatly honoured. Since he is dead, this
glory must be interpreted as pertaining to his body of disciples.
Isaiah 53,12 thus prophesizes about a future reward, a future glory, which
will be allotted to YHWH’s servant in the shape of his body of followers, in re-
turn for what he has done in his life and death. The shift to Vsuff clauses in
this verse also marks a shift from future time to past time. The imperfective
VprefL by inference denotes the future, while Vsuff by inference in this con-
text denotes past time with an anterior or perfective aspect.50
The third Vsuff clause (w=-h+ˀ $6tˀ rabb,m n!(!ˀ) has a topicalized subject
pronoun (h+ˀ). It is topicalized in two ways: 1) by being explicitly stated (the
information about the subject is redundant), 2) by being fronted. Its position
indicates a strong emphasis that YHWH’s servant himself alone bore the sin of
many. This Vsuff clause is further qualified by a VprefL! clause (w=-lap-
p5&=ˁ,m yapg,aˁ). From the context we infer that its semantic relation to the
Vsuff clause is most probably circumstantial and concomitant with the head
clause, ‘while interceding for the transgressors’. No other enhancing relation
to the preceding Vsuff clause seems to fit the context.
The analysis of the text about the suffering servant presented above shows that
the old Hebrew syntax was well fitted to express clause junction and clause re-
lations without help from the written Masoretic accents, mostly also without
specific subordinating particles. It possessed a clause combining strategy that
was entirely orally concipiated. The Masoretic verse division and the other ac-
cents represent an additional and redundant system of punctuation marks. The
original text, even when written down, had nothing of that kind, graphical
signs were not even needed. The old Hebrew texts were organized to a level
comparable to a modern printed novel, only with other means, with road signs
and traffic lights that guided the listener from storyline and prophetic main line
to attendant circumstances, through relative clauses and final, temporal, conse-
cutive, comparative and causal qualifying clauses. This hierarchy is most often
coded without specific subordinating conjunctions. It is an oral economy of the
text where clauses are hypotactically or paratactically ordered with textual sig-
nals that were immediately perceivable to the attentive contemporary receivers
(ISAKSSON, Circumstantial qualifiers, 36).
Bo Isaksson
Dept. of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala University
50
Anterior aspect means that something has happened in the past the results of which are
valid in the relative present reference point. This would fit the context well. However, since the
servant is already dead, perfective aspect perhaps better fits the pragmatic situation.
199
An_78.indb 208 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 209
Bibliography
ANDERSEN T. D., “The evolution of the Hebrew verbal system”, ZAH 13 (2000)
1-66.
ANDRASON A., “The panchronic yiqtol: Functionally consistent and cognitively
plausible?”, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 10 (2010) 1-63.
ANDRASON A., “The Akkadian iprus from the unidirectional perspective”, JSS
55 (2010) 325-245.
BAUER H. - LEANDER P., Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des
Alten Testaments, Halle 1922 (Reprint: Hildesheim, 1965).
BLENKINSOPP J., Isaiah 40-55: A new translation with introduction and com-
mentary (Anchor Bible 19A), New Haven - London 2002 (Reprint: 2006).
BLOCH Y., “The prefixed perfective and the dating of early Hebrew poetry—A
re-evaluation”. VT 58 (2009) 34-70.
BLYTHIN I., “A consideration of difficulties in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:11”.
The Bible Translator 17 (1966) 27-31.
BROCKELMANN C., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprachen (2 vols.), Berlin et al. 1908/1913 (Reprint: Hildesheim 1982).
BYBEE J. L. - DAHL Ö., “The creation of tense and aspect systems in the lan-
guages of the world”, Studies in Language 13/1 (1989) 51-103.
BYBEE J. L. - PERKINS R. D. - PAGLIUCA W., Evolution of grammar: Tense, as-
pect, and modality in the languages of the world, Chicago 1994.
CLINES D. J. A. - ELWOLDE J. F. (ed.), The dictionary of classical Hebrew: Vol. 2,
#;G, Sheffield 1995.
COMRIE B., Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related
problems (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge 1976.
CROSS F. M. - FREEDMAN D. N., Studies in ancient Yahwistic poetry (The Bibli-
cal resource series), Grand Rapids 21997.
DAHL Ö., “The tense-aspect systems of European languages in a typological
perspective”, in id. (ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe
(Empirical approaches to language typology (EUROTYP) 20:6), Berlin -
New York 2000, 3-25.
DEGEN R., Altaramäische Grammatik der Inschriften des 10.-8. Jh. v. Chr. (Ab-
handlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 38,3), Wiesbaden 1969.
DOBBS-ALLSOPP F. W., “(More) on performatives in Semitic”, ZAH 17-20
(2004-2007) 36-81.
DRIVER G. R., “Linguistic and textual problems: Isaiah xl–lxvi”. Journal of
Theological Studies 36 (1935) 396-406.
DRIVER G. R., “Isaiah 52:13-53:12: The Servant of the Lord”. in M. BLACK, G.
FOHRER (ed.), In Memoriam Paul Kahle, (ZAW. Beihefte 103), Berlin 1968,
90-105.
209
An_78.indb 209 21/06/11 15:38

DUHM B., Das Buch Jesaia übersetzt und erklärt (Göttinger Handkommentar
zum Alten Testament 3,1), Göttingen 31914.
FISCHER W., A grammar of Classical Arabic (transl. J. RODGERS), New Haven -
London 32002.
FLEISCHMAN S., “Discourse functions of tense-aspect oppositions in narrative:
Toward a theory of grounding”, Linguistics 23/6 (1985) 851-882.
FLEISCHMAN S., Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern
fiction (Croom Helm romance linguistics series), London 1990 (Reprint:
2002).
GIANTO A., “Guessing, doubting, and Northwest Semitic yaqtul-u”, in F. M.
FALES - G. F. GRASSI (ed.), CAMSEMUD 2007: Proceedings of the 13th Ital-
ian meeting of Afro-Asiatic linguistics. Held in Udine, May 21st-24th, 2007
(History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs 10), Padova 2010, 181-188.
GIVÓN T., Syntax: An introduction (2 vols.), Amsterdam - Philadelphia 22001.
GROSS W., Verbform und Funktion: wayyiq'ol für die Gegenwart? Ein Beitrag
zur Syntax poetischer althebräischer Texte (ATS 1), St. Ottilien 1976.
GZELLA H., “Morgenländische Sprachen und die europäische Grammatiktraditi-
on”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 95 (2005)
63-85.
HALLIDAY M. A. K., An introduction to functional grammar, London 1985.
HUEHNERGARD J., “Features of Central Semitic”, in A. Gianto (ed.), Biblical and
Oriental essays in memory of William L. Moran (Biblica et orientalia 48),
Roma 2005, 155-203.
ISAKSSON B. - KAMMENSJÖ H. - PERSSON M., Circumstantial qualifiers in Semitic:
The case of Arabic and Hebrew (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgen-
landes 70), Wiesbaden 2009.
Roma 22006 (Reprint with corrections: 2009).
KORCHIN P. D., Markedness in Canaanite and Hebrew Verbs (Harvard Semitic
Studies 58), Winona Lake 2008.
KOTTSIEPER I., “ ,… und mein Vater zog hinauf …‘. Aspekte des älteren aramäi-
schen Verbalsystems und seiner Entwicklung”, in N. NEBES (ed.), Tempus
und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur semiti-
schen Sprachwissenschaft (Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 1), Wies-
baden 1999, 55-76.
KRAHMALKOV C. R., A Phoenician-Punic grammar (Handbuch der Orientalistik.
Abt. 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 54), Leiden 2001.
LEHMANN C., “Towards a typology of clause linkage”, in J. HAIMAN - S. A.
THOMPSON (ed.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse, Amsterdam -
Philadelphia 1988, 181-225.
201
An_78.indb 210 21/06/11 15:38

Bo Isaksson 211
MATTHIESSEN C. - Thompson S. A., “The structure of discourse and ‘subordina-

tion’ ”, in J. HAIMAN - S. A. THOMPSON (ed.), Clause combining in grammar
and discourse, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 1988, 275-329.
MORAN W. L., A Syntactical Study of the Dialect of Byblos as Reflected in the
Amarna Tablets, Baltimore 1950.
MORAN W. L., “The Hebrew language in its Northwest Semitic background”, in
G. E. WRIGHT (ed.), The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor
of William Foxwell Albright, London 1961, 54-72.
MURAOKA T., “Linguistic notes on the Aramaic inscription from Tel Dan”, Is-
rael Exploration Journal 45/1 (1995) 19-21.
MÜLLER H.-P., “Ein Vorschlag zu Jes 53 10f.”, ZAW 81 (1969) 377-380.
NEBES N. “Das Satzschema fa-huwa yafˁalu/f!ˁilun/Prädikativ für Vergangen-
heit in frühklassischer arabischer Erzählliteratur”, in id. (ed.), Tempus und
Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen: Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen
Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 1999, 77-100.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del Verbo Ebraico nella Prosa Biblica Classica (SBF.
Analecta 23), Jerusalem 1986.
NOTARIUS T., “Poetic discourse and the problem of verbal tenses in the oracles
of Balaam”, Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 55-86.
NYBERG H. S., “Deuteronomion 33,2-3”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlän-
dischen Gesellschaft 92 (1938) 320-344.
NYBERG H. S., “Smärtornas man. En studie till Jes 52:13 – 53:12”, Svensk Ex-
egetisk Årsbok 7 (1942) 5-82.
NYBERG H. S., Hebreisk grammatik, Stockholm 21972.
PIETSCH M., “Tempus und Syntax: Einige Überlegungen zur syntaktischen
Funktion der weq!'al-Formen in 2 Kön 23,4-15”, ZAH 17-20 (2004-2007)
159-177.
RAINEY A. F., “The ancient Hebrew prefix conjugation in the light of Amarnah
Canaanite”, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986) 4-19.
RAINEY A. F., Canaanite in the Amarna tablets: A linguistic analysis of the
mixed dialect used by scribes from Canaan (4 vols.), (Handbuch der Orien-
talistik. Abt. 1, Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 25), Leiden 1996.
RENZ J. - RÖLLIG W. (ed.), Handbuch der Althebräischen Epigraphik (4 vols.),
Darmstadt 1995-2003.
REVELL E. J., “Stress and the waw ‘consecutive’ in biblical Hebrew”, Journal of
the American Oriental Society 104 (1984) 437-444.
RUBINSTEIN A., “Notes on the Use of the Tenses in the Variant Readings of the
Isaiah Scroll”, VT 3 (1953) 92-95.
V. D. SANDE A., Nouvelle perspective sur le système verbal de l’hébreu ancien:
Les formes *qatala, *yaqtul et *yaqtulu (Publications de l’Institut orienta-
liste de Louvain 57), Louvain - Paris - Louvain-la-Neuve 2008.
211
An_78.indb 211 21/06/11 15:38

SCHÜLE A., Die Syntax der althebräischen Inschriften: Ein Beitrag zur histori-
schen Grammatik des Hebräischen (AOAT 270), Münster 2000.
SEGERT S., A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, Berkeley 1984.
VON SODEN W., Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik samt Ergänzungsheft
zum Grundriß der akkadischen Grammatik (Analecta Orientalia 33/47),
Roma 1969.
TALSTRA E., “Reading Biblical Hebrew poetry - Linguistic structure or rhetori-
cal device?”, JNWSL 25 (1999) 101-126.
TOMLIN R. S., “Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordi-
nation”. Text 5 (1985) 85-122.
TROPPER J., “Die semitische ‘Suffixkonjugation’ im Wandel: Von der Prädika-
tivform zum Perfekt”, in M. DIETRICH - O. LORETZ (ed.), Vom alten Orient
zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85.
Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993 (AOAT 240), Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn
1995, 491-515.
TROPPER J., “Aramäisches wyqtl und hebräisches wayyiqtol ”, UF 28 (1996)
633-645.
TROPPER J., “Kanaanäisches in den Amarnabriefen”, Archiv für Orientfor-
schung 44-45 (1997-1998) 134-145.
TROPPER J., “Althebräisches und semitisches Aspektsystem”, ZAH 11 (1998)
153-190.
TROPPER J., “Imperfektive Darstellung vergangener Sachverhalte im Ugariti-
schen”, in N. NEBES (ed.), Tempus und Aspekt in den semitischen Sprachen.
Jenaer Kolloquium zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden 1999,
147-158.
WALTISBERG M., Satzkomplex und Funktion: Syndese und Asyndese im Althoch-
arabischen (Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission 52), Wies-
baden 2009.
WATTS R. E., “The meaning of ˁ!l!w yiqp=%û m=l!kîm pîhem in Isaiah lii 15”,
VT 40 (1990) 327-335.
WILDBERGER H., Jesaja: Vol. I, Jesaja 1-12 (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Te-
stament X/1), Neukirchen 1972.
WILLIAMSON H. G. M., “Daˁaq in Isaiah liii 11”, VT 28 (1978) 118-122.
203
An_78.indb 212 21/06/11 15:38

Jan Joosten
A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions:

On Non-Volitive yiqtol in Clause-Initial Position
In Classical Biblical prose, the yiqtol tense form (etymologically the long form
of the prefix conjugation, *yaqtulu) occurs almost exclusively in non-first posi-
tion in the clause. This syntactic rule was discovered gradually. It was first in-
timated by Otto RÖSSLER and then, from a different angle, by Haim ROSÉN.1 The
first one to formulate it clearly, however, was Alviero NICCACCI in his article
“A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence”
(1987).2
The rule has a powerful impact on the grammatical description of the He-
brew verbal system. To begin with, it clarifies the relation between yiqtol and
weqatal. The temporal, aspectual and modal functions of yiqtol and weqatal are
very similar, thus raising the question what the difference is between these
forms, and why the language uses both. The placement rule of yiqtol provides
an answer: yiqtol and weqatal are positional variants. While yiqtol occurs al-
most exclusively in clause-internal position, weqatal is necessarily clause-ini-
tial. The forms express the same temporal-aspectual-modal function and are
distinct only in text-grammatical respect, weqatal expressing foreground and
yiqtol different nuances of background.3
Another crucial effect of the rule is that of permitting to distinguish yiqtol
from the jussive. If yiqtol is limited to clause-internal position, a prefixed ver-
bal form in clause-initial position is in principle to be considered as a jussive.
Since yiqtol and the jussive are morphologically indistinguishable, except in
the hifil and with some types of irregular verbs, the placement rules are a big
help in correctly identifying these two forms: 1"&' O+ 9' !$ J9<+ Z+ '" (1 Sam 13,3) means:
1
RÖSSLER, Präfixkonjugation, 136, first drew attention to the fact that the long form of the
prefix conjugation tends to occur in a non-first position while the jussive could occupy either the
first or a non-first position. This insight was systematized by Wolfgang RICHTER and his students,
see GROSS, Verbform, 20-24. ROSÉN, Assignment, 215, also took his cue from RÖSSLER.
2
The rule was independently rediscovered by REVELL, System, 14.
3
This is, of course, a simplified view. For a more detailed analysis, see NICCACCI, Syntax.
204
An_78.indb 213 21/06/11 15:38

214 A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions: On Non-Volitive yiqtol in Clause-Initial Position
“Let the Hebrews hear!” but J9<+ Z+ '" 19$ !B4

$ C$ +# (Deut 17,13) means: “All the people
will hear.” The function of yiqtol is close to that of the jussive, and there is
4
some overlap, but it is generally worthwhile to distinguish them nevertheless.

The restriction of yiqtol to clause-internal positions is a key ingredient per-
mitting to make sense of the verbal system as a whole. The distinction of yiq-
tol and jussive will have been just as important to early readers (and speakers)
as it is to modern-day grammarians. Where the morphology did not permit to
distinguish the two, syntax came to the aid in decoding the nuances of ver-
bal usage.
Yiqtol in first position at the beginning of discourse
Verbal usage is not entirely rigid, however. Yiqtol does occur in first position
when other possibilities are unavailable, notably in one-word clauses at the
very beginning of direct discourse:
1 Kgs 22,22
,CB!
) >) 9[ .# %e) 4CJfB1
$ .I +# !"#$%&# &<%
3 P ` .#
The LORD said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.’ 5
Although it occupies the first position in the clause, the form !f3 ?. f+ is not to be
regarded as a jussive. Morphologically, the form is long: third-he verbs do
have a marked short form. Moreover, the semantics of the clause show that a
yiqtol form is meant: the form expresses a predictive-permissive function unty-
pical of the jussive. Last but not least, the jussive is not normally employed in
the second person, for which the imperative is used instead.6
It is easy to understand why the placement rules for yiqtol were not obser-
ved in this case. At the beginning of the speech, weqatal could hardly be used.7
Moreover, the form !f3 ?. f+ is not only the first word of the discourse, it also
makes up the entire clause. There was no way to use an x-yiqtol structure, ex-
cept by the addition of an extraneous element. Several other examples of this
type of clause occur under these conditions.8
Even more rarely, yiqtol occurs at the beginning of a discourse within a
longer clause:
4
A few cases of formal yiqtol in first position have a volitive function: Gen 41,34; 2 Sam
15,26; Ruth 1,8. Syntax is here a better indicator than morphology as to the function of the
forms.
5
Similarly in the parallel 2 Chr 18,21.
6
Except with the negation 4%. , where the second person jussive must be used.
7
Weqatal does occur at the beginning of discourse (e. g., Josh 22,28; Ezek 30,6), but this
rare usage corresponds to a very specific rhetorical function.
8
See Gen 24,58; Ex 3,14; 1 Sam 14,43; 23,11; 2 Kgs 3,7; Hag 2,13. One might add 1 Sam
30,8, but the text may have to be corrected on the basis of the LXX, see DRIVER, Notes, 222.
205
An_78.indb 214 21/06/11 15:38

Jan Joosten 215
Gen 41,15
ׁ # &P<%4) l"43 9$ "f' 9+ <. Z$ " '0%[ .#
P 4 01#&%(- +,-./ )$*&'(
231
I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it.
Here, although weqatal would not have been appropriate, x-yiqtol was theoreti-
cally possible: the direct object could have been placed before the verbal form.
The latter possibility was eschewed, however, and the yiqtol form occupies the
first position in the clause.
The handful of cases of clause-initial yiqtol occurring at the beginning of
discourse are real exceptions. Nevertheless, they can clearly be identified as
a group and the factors leading to the exceptional usage are sufficiently un-
derstood.
Ostensible cases of yiqtol in first position due to ellipsis
A few additional exceptions to the placement rules of yiqtol cannot be ex-

plained on the lines developed above:
Gen 15,15
!OMV
$ !O"$ >) D+ 05678(# 1M4Z$ D+ l"/P3 O%B4
[ %3 %MOf$ !f$ %. +#
As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a
good old age.
The verb &O) x$ f' is certainly yiqtol, as is shown by its predictive function and the
use of the prefixed form—if a volitive were needed, the imperative would have
been used. The form occupies the first position in the clause, but it doesn’t
occur at the very beginning of a discourse. A different principle appears to be
at work.
Ex 23,8
1"Y"
' ;' e. "&) O+ ;' 95:$;<(2 1"F' Y+ k' & )J9. +" LFP. ]!. "('
For a bribe blinds the officials, and subverts the cause of those who are in the
right.9
Here we find we + prefix conjugation, but again there can be no doubt that the
verb is yiqtol: the expression of proverbial truths is not usually expressed by
the jussive. The form occupies the first position. One might wonder why weqa-
tal was not used instead.
Ex 19,3
4%) &$ >+ '" " )0O+ 4' =<5>$3&2 OPY9[ ." /"O) 4+ &<%
. P / !P(
Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the Israelites.
9
See also the parallel in Deut 16,19.
206
An_78.indb 215 21/06/11 15:38

Although in this case, the form was vocalized as a jussive, the consonantal or-
thography and the function make it probable that yiqtol was originally inten-
ded.10 Again, one wonders why we + yiqtol was used instead of weqatal.
What strikes one as one ponders these exceptional clauses,11 is that all three
follow another clause with yiqtol in which a nominal, pronominal or adverbial
element has been preposed. Moreover, the preposed element governs both
clauses: “you will die and be buried,” “a bribe blinds and subverts,” “thus you
will say and tell.” This feature makes it possible to explain the exceptions in
light of a rule of Hebrew Poetry, observed by Alviero NICCACCI and others.12
The first scholar who discovered this rule was Walter GROSS. In his mono-
graph on wayyiqtol forms purportedly referring to the present, he drew atten-
tion to an interesting variation in the refrain of Ps 42-43:13
Ps 42,12 (= 43,5)
"4$ 9$ <(*?!"#–!$*@ "Z' ?+ .0 "F' FMf [ Z+ fB!
' <.
Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you disquieted within me?
Ps 42,6
"4$ 9$ <(*?!"#$2 "Z' ?+ .0 "F' FMf
[ Z+ fB!
' <.
Why are you cast down, O my soul, and (why) are you disquieted within me?
On the basis of the manifest equivalence of these two sentences, GROSS pro-
posed to change the pointing in Ps 42,6 and to read the wayyiqtol form as we +
yiqtol. To this he added the intriguing comment that, if the change should be
accepted, the latter syntagm might be analyzed syntactically as an instance of
the sequence we-x-yiqtol (i.e., with yiqtol in a non-first position). Indeed, the
interrogative pronoun in the first half of the verse governs the second verbal
form as well, and is therefore to be regarded, in absentia, as an element separa-
ting the conjunction from the verbal form.
At first sight, GROSS’ explanation may seem far-fetched. He provided no
other examples of the phenomenon postulated. It is possible, however, to give
more substance to his seminal idea. Thirty years after GROSS, NICCACCI indepen-
dently established the rule once again, this time without recourse to textual cri-
ticism and with a nice set of convincing examples.14 Indeed, it is an undeniable
fact that poetic lines of the type x-yiqtol // x-yiqtol alternate with lines of the
type x-yiqtol // ø-yiqtol, where the x does “double duty”:
10
The vocalization can be explained as an adaptation to Late Biblical Hebrew, see QIMRON,
Imperfect.
11
Perhaps Ex 23,12 should also be mentioned.
12
See NICCACCI, Poetry, 258-261.
13
GROSS, Verbform, 148.
14
See above, note 12. BLUM, Verbalsystem, 111, also refers to this mechanism, improving
upon GROSS’ treatment.
207
An_78.indb 216 21/06/11 15:38

Jan Joosten 217
Ps 13,2
" '*N3 <' l" 30kB/
$ %3 &"f' A+ f. !7A74–=$) Fe. 30 " '0F) ($ Z+ f' ! $#! +" !7A74–=$)
How long, O LORD,15 will You ignore me forever? How long will You hide Your
face from me? (JPS)
Ps 79,5
l/3 %$ +0Y' Z%BM<
) (+ &9. O+ f' Fe. 304$ R .0%7 f3 ! $#! +" !7*–=$)
How long, O LORD, will You be angry forever, (—) will Your indignation blaze
like a fire? (JPS)16
In the second example, the interrogative expression is not repeated, but the
meaning of the line is similar to that of the first example. In other words, al-
though the interrogative is absent in Ps 79,5b, it is “virtually present.” Some
scholars prefer to describe this absence in terms of elements doing “double
duty,” while others speak of deletion or ellipsis. Whatever the terminology, all
authorities agree that the phenomenon is characteristic of biblical poetry.17
What is striking in the present case is that the “absent” element brings about
the use of yiqtol.18 In Ps 79,5b, yiqtol stands virtually in second position.
The examples in Gen 15,15; Ex 23,8 and Ex 19,3 clearly conform to the
same pattern. The yiqtol form in the second clause occupies the first position
only apparently: it is “virtually” preceded by the preposed element of the pre-
ceding clause. Although they are embedded in prose texts, and are not fully
poetic, the examples do reflect elevated style: Gen 15,15 and Ex 19,3 occur in
divine discourse, pronounced at crucial moments of salvation history; Ex 23,8
is a proverbial sentence. It is not surprising to find poetic syntax in such
verses.
Further cases of clause-initial yiqtol are rare in prose, and some of them are
philologically uncertain.19 This is particularly true of yiqtol following the con-
junction waw. In a forthcoming paper, the present author has argued that most
cases of we + yiqtol in the classical corpus (Genesis – 2 Kings) are text-critical-
15
The vocative is not to be regarded as a constituent and may be disregarded in the analysis
of word order (MILLER, Vocative).
16
Compare also Ps 94,16 and Ps 106,2.
17
See generally MILLER, Ellipsis, and other studies by MILLER.
18
The preposed element may of course be a noun or pronoun: Ps 52,7; 66,4; 69,36; 85,14;
97,3; 139,10; Pr 1,16.
19
In Deut 19,3 one should consider reading the infinitive absolute, piel or qal, of the verb
,C/ “to measure” instead of the second person yiqtol of ,#C hifil (see the LXX). Compare the use
of the infinitive absolute in Deut 15,2; 16,1; 24,9; 27,1.
208
An_78.indb 217 21/06/11 15:38

ly problematical.20 As a rule, instances of we + prefix conjugation are to be

considered as cases of we + jussive.
Concluding reflections
The history of research on the verbal system of Biblical Hebrew from its in-
ception in the early nineteenth century has been dominated by the idea of a
“hidden principle,” the discovery of which would reveal the logic of the seem-
ingly impenetrable usage observed in the texts. Earlier proposals were that the
Hebrew tenses express “kind of time” or “aspect.” In our own days, the noti-
ons of “text-grammar” and “discourse analysis” have been proposed as simi-
larly comprehensive solutions. Alviero NICCACCI has been one of the leading
pioneers in introducing the latter approaches. With more than twenty years of
hindsight, however, it is clear that discourse-oriented approach, although
helpful and illuminating, cannot solve all problems of the Hebrew verb. The
new methods add a new dimension to the analysis of verbal syntax, but they do
not dispense with the longstanding need to determine temporal, aspectual and
modal nuances.
Alongside the hunt for “big ideas,” however, the study of the Hebrew verb
is characterized by a long sequence of observations concerning the organisa-
tion of the system as a whole. Patient study shows that the Hebrew verbal sy-
stem is not an arbitrary hodge-podge of forms and syntagms, all of which can
be used indifferently to express whatever function was needed in the context.
Nor can it be reduced to a simple dichotomy between qatal and yiqtol. On the
contrary, it is a highly complex edifice of distinct usages in which morpholo-
gy, syntax and pragmatics meaningfully interact. Over more than two centuries
of intensive investigation, the subtle and intricate organization of this system
has slowly emerged. NICCACCI’s observation on “Yiqtol and Position in the
Sentence” is one of the key insights on this less spectacular side of the history
of research.
The present article merely seeks to point out some exceptions to the rule
established by NICCACCI. Some of these are real, others only apparent. None of
them, however, throw the usefulness of his observation into doubt.
Jan Joosten
Faculty of Protestant Theology, University of Strasbourg
20
JOOSTEN, Developments. Cases are Jos 3,13 (see LXX); 19,29ktiv (see the qre); 1 Sam
28,19 (see DRIVER, Notes, 218); 1 Kgs 11,39 (the entire verse is omitted in the Septuagint, sug-
gesting that it may have been added to the text by a later hand), and a few instances of first-yod
verbs where weqatal and we + yiqtol could easily be confused. Late Biblical Hebrew presents a
change in this regard: in the LBH corpus, many cases of we + yiqtol can be found that imply no
volitive or subjunctive nuance, see, e. g., Eccl 12,3-7 or Dan 11,17-19.
209
An_78.indb 218 21/06/11 15:38

Jan Joosten 219
Bibliography
BLUM E., “Das althebräische Verbalsystem – Eine synchrone Analyse”, in O.

DYMA, A. MICHEL (ed.), Sprachliche Tiefe – Theologische Weite (Biblisch-
theologische Studien 91), Neukirchen 2008, 91-142.
DRIVER S. R., Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of
Samuel, Oxford 21912.
GROSS W., Verbform und Funktion: wayyiq'ol für die Gegenwart? (Arbeiten zu
Text und Sprache im Alten Testament 1), St. Ottilien 1976.
JOOSTEN J., “Textual developments and historical linguistics”, forthcoming in a
volume to be published in the BEThL series by H. AUSLOOS and J. C. TRE-
BOLLE BARRERA.
MILLER C. L., “A Linguistic Approach to Ellipsis in Biblical Poetry”, Bulletin
for Biblical Research 13.2 (2003) 251-270.
MILLER C. L., “Vocative Syntax in Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry: A Pre-
liminary Analysis”, JSS 55 (2010) 347-364.
NICCACCI A., “A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the
Sentence”, LA 37 (1987) 7-19.
NICCACCI A., The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (JSOT.S 86),
Sheffield 1990.
- A. HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typo-
247-268.
QIMRON E. “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imper-
fect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew”, Jewish Quaterly Revue 77 (1987)
151-153.
REVELL E. J., “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose” Hebrew Un-
ion College Annual 60 (1989) 1-37.
ROSÉN H. B., “The Comparative Assignment of Certain Hebrew Tense Forms”
in Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies Held in
Jerusalem, 19-23 July 1965, Jerusalem 1969, 212-234.
RÖSSLER O., “Die Präfixkonjugation Qal der Verba Iae NÛN im Althebräischen
und das Problem der sogenannten Tempora”, ZAW 74 (1962) 125-141.
210
An_78.indb 219 21/06/11 15:38

An_78.indb 220 21/06/11 15:38
Paolo Messina
Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico:

Un approccio linguistico-testuale
Durante i miei studi presso lo Studium Biblicum Franciscanum a Gerusalem-

me ho avuto occasione di seguire le lezioni di ebraico di Alviero NICCACCI.
Sono rimasto affascinato dalla novità del suo metodo di analisi per la sintassi
dell’ebraico biblico. Ho deciso quindi per il mio lavoro di licenza, di cui que-
sto articolo1 rappresenta una sintesi, di verificare la possibile applicazione della
linguistica tesuale2 all’Aramaico Biblico3 (Dan 2,4b-7,28; Esd 4,8-6,18;
7,12-26; Ger 10,11). Ritengo un grande onore poter presentare i risultati del
mio studio in questa raccolta pubblicata in occasione del 70° compleanno di P.
NICCACCI, e ringrazio Gregor GEIGER, che ha seguito in maniera attenta la mia
ricerca, per i suggerimenti pertinenti e accurati.
Saranno presentate dapprima le forme verbali e i costrutti sintattici indivi-
duati per l’AB e poi sarà analizzato il modo di procedere della narrazione e del
discorso diretto.
1
Abbreviazioni:
AB Aramaico Biblico PV Proposizione Verbale
DD Discorso Diretto Sf Sfondo
Nar Narrazione SgM Segno Macrosintatico
PNC Proposizione Nominale Complessa (cfr. n. 12) yDI-P Proposizioni con yDI iniziale
PNS Proposizione Nominale Semplice (cfr. n. 37) *c forma continuativa di Sf
PP Primo Piano
In Appendice è riportato lo schema riassuntivo per la Nar e il DD nell’AB, risultato del mio la-
voro, e quello per l’ebraico biblico, proposto da NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 4.5. Il testo aramaico è
preso dalla BHS (nella versione elettronica di Bible Works), mentre la traduzione in italia-
no è mia.
2
Cfr. NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 2-6, per una esauriente introduzione a tale metodologia.
3
Lo studio del sistema verbale dell’aramaico biblico è stato affrontato da vari autori con
differenti prospettive. BAUER-LEANDER; ROSÉN, Tenses; SEGERT, Grammatik; e GZELLA, Tempus,
hanno un approccio classico alla sintassi del verbo, analizzano infatti le caratteristiche dei tempi
verbali e i vari tipi di proposizione, anche se non giungono sempre alle medesime conclusioni.
BUTH, Word, focalizza la sua attenzione all’ordine delle parole nelle proposizioni. SHEPHERD
(Verbal; Distribution) applica l’analisi distribuzionale all’aramaico biblico per cercare di com-
prendere l’uso del qetal e dello yiqtul. Infine in un recente lavoro LI, Verbal, analizza il sistema
verbale aramaico nel contesto della grammaticalizzazione.
187
An_78.indb 221 21/06/11 15:38

222 Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico: Un approccio linguistico-testuale
1. Costrutti Sintattici
1.1 qetal
Con qetal è indicata una PV in cui il verbo è in prima posizione nella frase.
Tale costrutto compare sia nella Nar che nel DD ma solo nell’asse temporale
del passato. In entrambi gli atteggiamenti linguistici tale forma appartiene al
primo piano4 e fa avanzare il racconto. In Dan 6,18abc, p. es., i tre waw-qetal e-
sprimono tre azioni differenti e successive5.
Dan 6,18 a hd"x] !b,a, tyIt'yhew>
Fu portata una pietra
b aB'GU ~Pu-l[; tm;fuw>
e fu messa sopra l’apertura (letteralmente: la bocca) della fossa
c yhiAnb'r>b.r: tq'z>[ib.W Hteq.z>[iB. aK'l.m; Hm;t.x;w>
e la sigillò il re con il suo anello e con gli anelli dei suoi dignitari
Nel DD il qetal è usato per riportare fatti accaduti in un tempo precedente a
quello in cui avviene il discorso6. Nella lettera7 che gli anziani di Gerusalemme
scrivono a Tattenai, essi ricordano alcuni avvenimenti passati che riguardano
il Tempio (Esd 5,14a-15b). Tali versetti presentano una successione di qe-
tal di PP.
Sia nella Nar che nel DD ci sono anche alcune attestazioni di un qetal nella
Linea Secondaria, che sono indicate come qetal continuativi (qetal*c)8.
4
Il PP riporta i fatti salienti della vicenda narrata, mentre nello Sf si trovano descrizioni o
avvenimenti che riguardano personaggi secondari, circostanze di tempo e luogo, riflessioni
dell’autore. Nel corso dell’esposizione si utilizzerà in maniera equivalente PP o linea principale
o “foreground ” e Sf o linea secondaria o “background ”. Riguardo alla loro definizione trovo
chiara l’enunciazione di BUTH: «The events which are successive, sequential, complete and past
are foreground … while the stative, simultaneous, back-references (= plusquamperfectum), in-
complete, irrealis (non-indicative) or negated events are usually background» (Word, 51; cfr. an-
che Functional, 87-88). Per le proposizioni che contengono una negazione, preferisco mantener-
mi sulla stessa linea di NICCACCI che, per l’ebraico biblico, considera di PP il wayyiqtol e il aOlw>-
qatal, come anche il weqatal e il aOlw>-yiqtol (NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 4.5.6,2).
5
In Esd 6,14c-18a è presente una serie di qetal di PP e, quando al v. 19 riprende la narrazio-
ne in ebraico, il racconto prosegue con una serie di wayyiqtol di PP. Per il rapporto qetal – waw-
qetal cfr. sotto (1.2).
6
COHEN, Phrase, 402, è dell’opinione che «dans le discours elle [la conjugaison suffixale] se
présente pour l’expression du passé qu’on peut rendre selon le case comme un parfait ou un
plus-que-parfait».
7
WEINRICH, Tempus, 255, definisce la lettera «un dialogo a metà» e afferma che in essa si
incontrano fondamentalmente gli stessi tempi verbali di un dialogo.
8
Anche in ebraico esiste un wayyiqtol continuativo di Sf. Credo che ciò dimostri che
nell’AB il qetal, come il wayyiqtol ebraico, sia una forma continuativa (NICCACCI, Sintassi,
§§ 27.89).
188
An_78.indb 222 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 223
1.2 qetal e waw-qetal

Per l’ebraico biblico NICCACCI intende il waw delle forme verbali wayyiqtol e
weqatal non come inversivo ma come «parte integrante della forma stessa»9. Il
medesimo fenomeno non avviene, a mio parere, per l’AB. Entrambe le forme
qetal e waw-qetal ricoprono infatti la stessa funzione di PP sia nella Nar che
nell’asse temporale del passato all’interno del DD, senza alcuna differenza tra
loro. Il waw svolge solo una funzione di coordinazione e la sua assenza o pre-
senza non modifica in alcun modo il valore di tali forme quanto alla messa in
rilievo (distinzione tra PP e Sf in un testo). Dan 5,3b-4b, p. es., presenta una
sequenza di tre forme qetal di PP nella Nar:
Dan 5,3 b Hten"xel.W Htel'g>ve yhiAnb'r>b.r:w> aK'l.m; !AhB. wyTiv.aiw>
e bevvero in essi il re, i suoi dignitari, le sue mogli e le sue con-
cubine
4a ar"m.x; wyTiv.ai
Bevvero vino
b an"b.a;w> a['a' al'z>r>p; av'x'n> aP's.k;w> ab'h]D: yhel'ale WxB;v;w>
e lodarono gli dei d’oro e d’argento, di bronzo, di ferro, di legno e
di pietra
La prima forma verbale di questa sequenza (3b) è un waw-qetal in stretta rela-
zione con il precedente costrutto di PP (3a). L’autore in 4a riprende la stessa
notizia appena data e aggiunge che il re e i suoi ospiti lodano i falsi dei. La ri-
petizione del verbo pone l’accento sull’ubriachezza del re10, ma la mancanza
del waw in 4a serve a creare una specie di interruzione da quanto precede e
una più forte coordinazione con il waw-qetal successivo. Nella traduzione si
può dare inizio in 4a ad un nuovo periodo11.
1.3 x-qetal
Questo tipo di PNC12 si ritrova sia nella Nar che nel DD. L’elemento x, che
precede la forma verbale, può essere costituito da uno o più sintagmi. Quando,
relativamente alla messa in rilievo, l’x-qetal si trova sul background, esso può
esprimere diverse sfumature: dare enfasi alla componente x13; riferire una
circostanza coincidente all’azione espressa nel PP14; indicare contrapposizio-
ne15; esprimere un’azione antecedente o riportare alla mente un avvenimento
9
10
L’ebbrezza del re sembra essere un fatto importante, infatti nei primi quattro versetti di
Dan 5 viene ripetuta cinque volte: Dan 5,1b.2ab.3b.4a.
11
Alcuni esempi di un tale fenomeno nel DD sono Dan 4,8ab; 5,26bc.27ab.28ab.
12
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 6: «Quando a un nome segue una forma verbale finita, si ha una
“proposizione nominale complessa”».
13
BUTH, Word, 197; NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 48. Cfr. Dan 4,4b; 6,15b.
14
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 41.86. Cfr. Dan 3,19b.23a.
15
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 42. Cfr. Dan 4,4c; Esd 5,12d.
189
An_78.indb 223 21/06/11 15:38

passato (qetal retrospettivo16). Non ho trovato nessuna regola che permetta di

distinguere tra queste sfumature, ma occorre di volta in volta analizzare il con-
testo17.
Nella Nar l’x-qetal è sempre un costrutto della linea secondaria, si ritrova
infatti solo nell’Antefatto (Dan 3,1a.2a; 5,1a.2a) e nello sfondo (Dan 3,19b;
6,1a). Ad esempio, quando i tre giovani, Sadrach, Mesach e Abdenego, vengo-
no portati fuori dalla fornace (Dan 3,26f), l’autore interrompe l’esposizione
degli avvenimenti per descrivere le condizioni in cui essi si trovano ed utilizza
tre x-qetal di Sf:
Dan 3,27 d %r:x't.hi al' !Ahv.arE r[;f.W
e la capigliatura della loro testa non era stata bruciata
e Anv. al' !AhyleB'r>s'w>
e i loro mantelli non erano mutati
f !AhB. td"[] al' rWn x:yrEw>
e l’odore del fuoco non era passato su di loro
All’interno del DD l’x-qetal si trova quasi esclusivamente18 nell’asse temporale
del passato. Tale costrutto all’inizio della catena temporale è di PP e con esso
comincia un racconto orale. In tutti gli altri casi l’x-qetal è sempre Sf.
Dan 6,23 a Hkea]l.m; xl;v. yhil'a/
Il mio Dio ha mandato il suo angelo
b at'w"y"r>a; ~Pu rg:s]W
e ha chiuso la bocca dei leoni
c ynIWlB.x; al'w>
e non mi hanno sbranato
16
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 8.40. Cfr. Dan 2,41d.43a.45a-c. COOK, Word, 7, afferma che per il
«qetal there is a marked correlation of Verb-Object (VO) constructions with the narrative or
consecutive use, while Object-Verb (OV) constructions are more frequently found with a per-
fect/pluperfect and remotive (remote past, time indifferent) signification».
17
È quello che NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 50, chiama criterio semantico.
18
Un caso particolare è rappresentato da Dan 7,27, in cui l’x-qetal è posto sullo Sf dell’asse
temporale del futuro indicativo. Credo che tale costrutto esprima un’azione futura antecedente
ad un’altra e che vada tradotto con il futuro anteriore. ROGLAND, Remarks, 424-426, lo tratta
come un caso di perfetto profetico nell’AB. Egli ritiene che «many languages occasionally use
past tense form as a rethorical device to refer to future events “as if” they had already taken
place»; tuttavia conclude che è possible che l’autore si riferisca anche ad una passata decisione
di Dio. GZELLA, Tempus, 232-233, non considera Dan 7,27 come un perfetto profetico, in quanto
sarebbe l’unica attestazione di tale uso del perfetto nell’AB. Egli esclude anche l’idea di consi-
derarlo come un futurum exactum, che si trova solo nella protasi di un periodo ipotetico. Infine
afferma: «vielmehr könnte es sich um ein „Perfekt“ mit Vergangenheitsbezug handeln, das die
Vision zitiert» (cioè questo versetto farebbe riferimento a Dan 7,14). LI, Verbal, 32, parla di un
«futur anterior/resultative function».
190
An_78.indb 224 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 225
Daniele, appena uscito dalla fossa dei leoni, racconta al re quello che è accadu-
to. La prima proposizione è costituita da un x-qetal (a), mentre le due successi-
ve informazioni sono date attraverso due waw-qetal (b.c), di cui il secondo è
negato. Tutti e tre i costrutti sono di PP.
1.4 yiqtul
Nella Nar ci sono solo due attestazioni di una PV con lo yiqtul iniziale. En-
trambe si trovano nel libro di Daniele e appartengono all’antefatto (Dan 4,2b;
5,2b)19. Il waw-yiqtul indica un avvenimento contemporaneo a quello espresso
dal precedente x-qetal, descrivendo l’azione nel suo svolgimento.
Nel DD lo yiqtul è attestato sul PP dell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo
e del futuro volitivo. Nel primo caso indica semplicemente un’azione futura.
Dan 7,17 b a['r>a;-!mi !WmWqy> !ykil.m; h['B.r>a;
quattro re sorgeranno dalla terra
18a !ynIAyl.[, yveyDIq; at'Wkl.m; !WlB.q;ywI
e riceveranno il regno i santi dell’Altissimo
b aY"m;l.[' ~l;[' d[;w> am'l.['-d[; at'Wkl.m; !Wns.x.y:w>
e possederanno il regno per l’eternità e per l’eternità dell’eternità
Daniele sta chiedendo il senso della visione che ha di fronte. Uno dei presenti
(Dan 7,16b) gli parla e descrive ciò che avverrà. I due yiqtul (18ab) di PP se-
guono un x-yiqtul che, quando compare all’inizio della linea temporale del fu-
turo, occupa la linea principale. Si può fare un parallelo tra il (waw-)qetal come
forma continuativa dell’asse del passato nel DD e il (waw-)yiqtul come forma
continuativa nella linea del futuro indicativo20; entrambe le forme infatti sono
di PP ma non iniziano mai un’unità discorsiva.
Lo yiqtul assume un senso iussivo ed appartiene, quindi, all’asse temporale
del futuro volitivo quando è all’inizio di una catena temporale21, oppure nella
forma breve, oppure si trova insieme alla negazione la;22. Per gli altri casi in
cui si presenta una forma neutra dello yiqtul l’assegnazione all’asse del futuro
volitivo o all’asse del futuro indicativo deve essere valutata a seconda del
contesto.
19
In generale, per l’uso di questo tempo nel campo del passato, si veda BLAU, Minutiae, 8.
SHEPHERD, Verbal, 112, riferendosi allo yiqtul in Dan 4,2, afferma che esso non fa avanzare la
narrazione. GZELLA, Tempus, 290, invece considera Dan 5,2b una proposizione finale introdotta
da waw. Per il rapporto yiqtul – waw-yiqtul cfr. sotto (1.5).
20
Cfr. quanto NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 57, afferma per il weqatal.
21
Cfr. NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 64,1, per lo yiqtol in ebraico.
22
MURAOKA, Notes, 162; LI, Verbal, 125. La negazione la; è attestata solo quattro volte
nell’aramaico biblico: tre con uno yiqtul di forma breve (Dan 4,16e; 5,10ef); una con uno yiqtul
di forma neutra (Dan 2,24d), il cui senso volitivo appare dal contesto.
191
An_78.indb 225 21/06/11 15:38

Non è del tutto chiaro se il waw-yiqtul che segue un costrutto volitivo

(imperativo23, x-imperativo24) assuma un senso finale, sulla scia della succes-
sione “forma volitiva – weyiqtol” in ebraico25, oppure semplicemente una sfu-
matura di conclusione come la sequenza “forma volitiva – weqatal”26. Non
avendo argomenti a favore dell’una o dell’altra interpretazione, preferisco non
trarre conclusioni che rischiano di essere non corrette27.
Lo yiqtul si trova talvolta nello Sf dell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo
come yiqtul*c e segue un precedente x-yiqtul di Sf o un yDI-(x-)yiqtul28.
1.5 yiqtul e waw-yiqtul

NICCACCI distingue il weqatal come forma continuativa di un x-yiqtol nell’asse
del futuro indicativo, in cui il waw iniziale è parte della forma stessa, dal we-
yiqtol, che invece è una forma volitiva29. Nell’AB tale distinzione non è possi-
bile. Nel DD30 ci sono tre casi di uno yiqtul in prima posizione con valore voli-
tivo, sempre senza la congiunzione waw: Dan 2,20c e 4,11g (forma neutra);
Dan 5,10e (forma breve).
Tuttavia questa indicazione può essere assunta come una condizione neces-
saria ma di per sé non sufficiente per l’individuazione di tale forma. Infatti esi-
23
Cfr. Dan 4,11fg.
24
Cfr. Dan 5,10de. Non ci sono casi in cui è attestato un (waw-)yiqtul dopo un x-yiqtul vo-
litivo.
25
26
27
In Dan 2,9f un waw-yiqtul segue un x-imperativo. In questo caso sono possibili due let-
ture: “Perciò ditemi il sogno, affinché io sappia” oppure “Perciò ditemi il sogno cosicché io sa-
prò”. Quanto detto vale anche per l’x-yiqtul. Per maggiore chiarezza riporto la seguente tabella:
(waw-)yiqtul (waw-)x-yiqtul
imperativo Dan 4,11fg Dan 2,4cd.24ef;
Esd 4,21ab; 5,15de; 6,7ab
x-imperativo Dan 2,9ef; 5,10de Dan 4,24bc; 5,17de;
Esd 4,22ab; 7,19a-20a.25ab
In essa sono raccolti i casi di una sequenza costituita da una forma volitiva del tipo imperativo o
x-imperativo, a cui segue un costrutto (waw-)yiqtul oppure (waw-)x-yiqtul. Le attestazioni di
questo tipo non sono molte e solo in due casi questa successione coinvolge uno yiqtul con senso
volitivo (cfr. forme sottolineate). In corsivo sono riportati i casi di yiqtul in forma lunga; gli altri
sono in forma neutra.
28
Dan 2,40e; 4,32c; Esd 4,15bc solo per citare alcuni casi.
29
30
Come detto in precedenza nella Nar ci sono solo due casi di waw-yiqtul di antefatto e non
è mai presente uno yiqtul senza waw. Questa assenza potrebbe far pensare ad una differenza tra
l’uso dello yiqtul e del waw-yiqtul in tale atteggiamento linguistico, ma non ci sono altre basi per
una solida argomentazione.
192
An_78.indb 226 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 227
ste anche uno yiqtul senza waw appartenente all’asse del futuro indicativo. Un
esempio di questo tipo si ha in Dan 2,44c:
Dan 2,44 c qDIT;
farà in pezzi
d at'w"k.l.m; !yLeai-lK' @yset'w>
e finirà tutti quei regni
Il primo di questi due costrutti (c) è uno yiqtul di PP, a cui segue in 44d un
waw-yiqtul. La congiunzione waw non modifica né la messa in rilievo, né
l’asse temporale, e le due forme yiqtul e waw-yiqtul sono identiche. Conclu-
dendo si può affermare che lo yiqtul con senso volitivo si trova sempre senza
waw, mentre lo yiqtul nell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo con waw oppu-
re senza. Comunque la congiunzione waw ha solo una funzione stilistica di co-
ordinazione.
1.6 x-yiqtul
L’x-yiqtul nella Nar occupa sempre la linea secondaria31. Una funzione di que-
sta PNC è quella di descrivere un’azione nel suo svolgimento32. In Dan 4,16b
al costrutto di PP segue un x-yiqtul con il quale l’autore espone la reazione di
Daniele alle parole del re. Daniele è al contempo spaventato e turbato. L’x-yiq-
tul può indicare anche un’azione abituale o ripetuta33. In Dan 4,30cd appare
chiaro che il re Nabucodonosor non si nutre di erba e non è bagnato dalla ru-
giada del cielo solo una volta, ma per tutto il periodo in cui egli si trova in que-
sto stato di esilio in mezzo alle bestie della campagna.
Nel DD invece l’x-yiqtul è attestato nell’asse temporale del passato come
costrutto di Sf, con le stesse caratteristiche individuate per la Nar. In Dan
5,21de si ritrova lo stesso avvenimento narrato in Dan 4,30, riportato con le
stesse forme ma in un differente atteggiamento linguistico. Daniele infatti rac-
conta a Baldassar l’espulsione del padre dal consesso umano. Egli vuole solo
richiamare alla memoria dell’attuale re gli avvenimenti passati, per mettere in
evidenza da un lato la capacità di Nabucodonosor di ravvedersi e dall’altro
l’orgoglio smisurato di Baldassar. Il racconto è posto sullo Sf. In Dan 4,30cd e
31
Antefatto: Dan 4,2d; Sf: Dan 6,3b, per citare solo un esempio.
32
BAUER-LEANDER, § 78 q.
33
In questo senso si può comprendere anche il caso di Dan 6,20: LI, Verbal, 106, considera
lo yiqtul presente in questo versetto come una circumstantial clause. Altri autori, tra cui ROG-
LAND e GZELLA, lo interpretano in maniera differente. Il primo (ROGLAND, Remarks, 429) lo pone
in parallelo alla costruzione ebraica za' + yiqtol e dunque lo traduce con un passato remoto, sulla
scia di BAUER-LEANDER (§ 78 q, n. 3). Il secondo (GZELLA, Tempus, 146) invece riguardo a ~Wq af-
ferma: «als „Perfekt“ wird in einer solchen Verbindung gegenüber dem nachfolgenden „Perfekt”
zum Hilfsverb degradiert»; allora per evitare questo fraintendimento e sottolineare che il verbo
ha il senso di “alzarsi” l’autore utilizzerebbe la forma ~Wqy>.
193
An_78.indb 227 21/06/11 15:38

Dan 5,21de pur non essendoci una perfetta corrispondenza di termini, il tempo
verbale tuttavia è identico nei due casi.
Dan 4,3034 Dan 5,21
b dyrIj. av'n"a]-!miW a dyrIj. av'n"a] ynEB.-!miW
e (lontano) dagli uomini fu e (lontano) dai figli dell’uomo
cacciato fu cacciato
c lkuayE !yrIAtk. aB'f.[iw> d HNEWm[]j;y> !yrIAtk. aB'f.[iw>
e come i buoi mangiava erba come ai buoi gli davano in pa-
sto erba
d [B;j;c.yI Hmev.GI aY"m;v. lJ;miW e [B;j;c.yI Hmev.GI aY"m;v. lJ;miW
e dalla rugiada del cielo il suo e dalla rugiada del cielo il suo
corpo era bagnato corpo era bagnato
Nell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo l’x-yiqtul è di PP quando si trova
all’inizio della linea temporale. La forma continuativa di questo costrutto è
(waw-)yiqtul. La presenza di un successivo x-yiqtul determina il passaggio del-
la comunicazione dal primo piano allo Sf35.
Dan 2,44 a Wkl.m; aY"m;v. Hl'a/ ~yqiy> !WNai aY"k;l.m; yDI !AhymeAyb.W
Ai giorni di quei re farà sorgere il Dio dei cieli un regno,
lB;x;t.ti al' !ymil.['l. yDI
che per sempre non sarà distrutto,
b qbiT.v.ti al' !r"x\a' ~[;l. ht'Wkl.m;W
e il regno non sarà concesso ad un altro popolo
c qDIT;
farà in pezzi
d at'w"k.l.m; !yLeai-lK' @yset'w>
e finirà tutti quei regni
e aY"m;l.['l. ~WqT. ayhiw>
ma esso rimarrà in eterno
L’x-yiqtul in 44a apre una nuova serie di proposizioni che si trovano nell’asse
temporale del futuro indicativo e predice, per la prima volta all’interno della
storia, l’avvento di un regno. Lo yiqtul (c) e il waw-yiqtul (d) seguenti costitu-
iscono la linea principale della comunicazione. I due x-yiqtul (b.e) interrompo-
no invece il flusso delle informazioni e forniscono alcune specificazioni.
Lo yiqtul in questa classe di PNC può essere di forma breve. In questo caso
l’x-yiqtul appartiene all’asse temporale del futuro volitivo ed assume una sfu-
matura di comando.
Dan 4,16 e %l'h]b;y>-la; arEv.piW am'l.x, rC;av;j.l.Be
Baltazzar il sogno e la sua interpretazione non ti turbino
34
SHEPHERD, Verbal, 129, n. 40, parla di anomalous uses in questo caso come anche negli al-
tri in cui si trova uno yiqtul in un contesto dove prevale invece la forma qetal.
35
194
An_78.indb 228 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 229
Dan 4,16e è un x-yiqtul di PP perché è iniziale, ed è volitivo perché lo yiqtul è

di forma breve ed è preceduto dalla negazione la;. Se l’x-yiqtul volitivo segue
una forma imperativale o uno yiqtul volitivo, è invece di Sf (Dan 5,10f)36.
1.7 Participio e x-participio

NICCACCI considera le proposizioni che contengono un participio come proposi-
zioni nominali semplici37, in quanto non presentano una forma finita del verbo.
Durante l’analisi dei testi ho notato che nell'AB il participio può occupare la
prima posizione della proposizione (“participio”), sia dopo un elemento x (“x-
participio”) con un uso particolare nella Nar e nel DD38. Ho preferito quindi di-
stinguere le proposizioni che contengono un participio, per il quale si può
presupporre un uso verbale, e le PNS, tra cui sono classificate le proposizioni
senza verbo finito, quelle che contengono un participio con funzione nominale
(attributivo o sostantivato) e quelle con la particella yt;yai39.
Il comportamento del participio di prima posizione nella Nar sembra essere
del tutto simile al (waw-)qetal40. In Dan 3,26f-27b, p. es., si susseguono tre par-
ticipi di PP:
Dan 3,26 f ar"Wn aAG-!mi Agn> dbe[]w: %v;yme %r:d>v; !yqip.n" !yId:aBe
Allora vennero fuori di mezzo al fuoco Sadrach, Mesach e Ab-
denego
27a aK'l.m; yrEb.D"h;w> at'w"x]p;W aY"n:g>si aY"n:P.r>D:v.x;a] !yviN>K;t.miW
e si radunarono i satrapi, i governatori, i prefetti e i consiglieri
del re
36
NICCACCI per l’ebraico biblico afferma che «normalmente il costrutto (waw-) x-yiqtol è
iussivo quando è preceduto da una forma volitiva diretta, ad esempio nella sequenza imperativo
(waw-) x-yiqtol […]. È ugualmente iussivo quando è seguito da un weyiqtol, cioè nella se-
quenza x-yiqtol weyiqtol. […] Il costrutto (waw-) x-yiqtol è invece indicativo quando è prece-
duto da un weqatal» (Sintassi, § 64). Nell’AB non sempre è possibile distinguere tra x-yiqtul in-
dicativo o volitivo soprattutto quando si trova sullo Sf. In alcuni casi tale distinzione risulta
chiara da alcuni indicatori (Esd 4,21b; 6,7b), in altri invece no (Esd 5,15e; 7,20a). Occorre quin-
di ricorrere di volta in volta al criterio semantico.
37
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 4,1 (b); NICCACCI, Types, 243. La PNS è una proposizione «in cui
non compare alcuna forma finita del verbo» (NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 6).
38
In un primo momento del mio studio non ho preso in considerazione le attestazioni dei
participi dei verbi hn"[] e rm;a], che secondo parecchi autori rappresentano solo una formula carat-
teristica dell’aramaico per introdurre il discorso diretto (cfr. BAUER-LEANDER, § 81 u; SEGERT,
Grammatik, § 6.6.3.4.7 c; COHEN, Phrase, 414-415; GZELLA, Tempus, 134-135; LI, Verbal,
43-45). Secondo me occorreva prima studiare l’uso del participio come costrutto, cercare di
comprendere quando esso si trova nel PP o nello Sf, e solo successivamente inquadrare nello
schema verbale così rinvenuto anche la formula rm;a'w> hnE[.'
39
I casi in cui il participio si trova unito al verbo aw"h] in costruzione perifrastica saranno dis-
cussi più avanti (1.12).
40
BROCKELMANN, Grundriss, § 84 b; GZELLA, Tempus, 122-123.
195
An_78.indb 229 21/06/11 15:38

b %Leai aY"r:b.gUl. !yIz:x'

videro quegli uomini
Il re Nabucodonosor richiama dalla fornace di fuoco Sadrach, Mesach e Abde-
nego. Dopo un DD la Nar riprende con un costrutto !yId:a/ + participio41 e pro-
segue con due participi iniziali42 (a.b), che esprimono due azioni susseguenti: i
satrapi e gli altri ufficiali si radunano e osservano cosa sia successo ai tre gio-
vani43.
La differenza tra il participio in prima posizione e l’x-participio si può
comprendere considerando Dan 6,11b-f:
Dan 6,11 b Htey>b;l. l[;
Andò a casa sua
c ~l,v.Wry> dg<n< HteyLi[iB. Hle !x'ytiP. !yWIk;w>
le finestre nella sua camera alta erano aperte in direzione di Geru-
salemme
d yhiAkr>Bi-l[; %rEB' aWh am'Ayb. ht'l'T. !ynIm.zIw>
e tre volte al giorno lui si inginocchiava sulle sue ginocchia
e aLec;m.W
e pregò
f Hhel'a/ ~d"q\ adEAmW
e lodò il suo Dio
Il qetal iniziale in 11b appartiene al PP della Nar. Di seguito si trovano due co-
strutti x-participio. Questi non fanno procedere il racconto ma forniscono delle
informazioni circa la posizione delle finestre della camera di Daniele (c) e
l’abitudine dello stesso di pregare tre volte al giorno (d). I due successivi parti-
cipi (e.f) fanno procedere il racconto e riportano, in modo puntuale, le azioni
che Daniele compie in quel momento della vicenda. Questi sono costrutti di
PP, mentre gli x-participi appartengono allo Sf44.
L’x-participio nella Nar è sempre un costrutto di Sf. A volte come l’x-qetal
descrive un’azione unica45 simultanea o successiva a quella espressa nella linea
principale, altre volte è più simile ad un x-yiqtul, in quanto indica un’azione
abituale o la mostra nel suo svolgimento46.
Il participio e l’x-participio sono attestati anche nel DD, sia nell’asse
temporale del passato che in quello del presente; in quello del futuro indicativo
41
Il valore di hn"D> lbeq\-lK' o !yId:a/ come segno macrosintattico, che riporta sul piano principale
della narrazione i costrutti in cui tali sintagmi sono posti all’inizio, sarà discusso più avan-
ti (1.11).
42
Per l’esattezza si tratta di un waw-participio e di un participio, ma anche per questo tipo
di costrutto il waw iniziale non modifica il senso o il valore dello stesso.
43
GZELLA, Tempus, 128.
44
Cfr. Dan 5,6cd in cui due x-participio di Sf seguono un x-yiqtul di Sf.
45
Cfr. Dan 3,4a; 4,4bc; Esd 5,3b.
46
BOMBECK, Verwendung, 5; cfr. Esd 5,2c.
196
An_78.indb 230 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 231
ci sono solo tre casi di x-participio di Sf, ma nessuna attestazione del participio
in prima posizione47. In Dan 5,15b il participio iniziale nel passato segue un
costrutto di PP del tipo ![;K.-qetal e continua sullo stesso livello principale48:
Dan 5,15 b hy"w"x]h;l. at'L.mi-rv;P. !ylih]k'-al'w>
e non sono stati capaci di indicare il significato della cosa
Sono attestati casi di participio iniziale nello Sf dell’asse temporale del passa-
to. Essi vanno considerati come costrutti continuativi di una forma che è già
nella linea secondaria49. Il participio*c si comporta allo stesso modo dell’x-par-
ticipio di Sf del passato nel DD. Entrambi i costrutti possono indicare o delle
azioni puntuali (Dan 4,11b; 5,23c; 7,20d.21b; Esd 4,19e)50 o un’azione con-
tinua o abituale (Esd 4,20c).
Nell’asse temporale del presente il participio non si trova mai all’inizio del-
la linea temporale ma solo dopo un costrutto del tipo x-participio o PNS51 di
PP e continua sullo stesso livello quanto alla messa in rilievo. L’x-participio è
di PP, se all’inizio dell’asse del presente (Dan 3,25c; Esd 5,16c), negli altri ca-
si è sempre sullo Sf ed esprime contemporaneità con l’azione della linea prin-
cipale oppure assume una funzione descrittiva. Infine un caso di costrutti x-
participio di Sf nell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo si trova in Dan
4,22ad, i quali, collegati agli x-yiqtul (b.c.e) presenti nello stesso versetto, de-
scrivono la futura punizione che toccherà in sorte a Nabucodonosor52.
Da quanto esposto si possono trarre alcune conclusioni:
• Nella Nar è stato osservato un particolare uso del participio in prima posizio-
ne come forma di PP53, come il qetal. Tale impiego distingue questo costrutto
dalle normali PNS che non si trovano mai sulla linea principale della Nar54.
Si può allora comprendere l’uso della formula rm;a'w> hnE[', non come un’ecce-
47
Cfr. n. 108 per Dan 6,27b e Esd 6,10a.
48
In Esd 4,16a il participio iniziale si ricollega al precedente waw-qetal in 14b ed è di PP
sull’asse temporale del passato.
49
Tali participi*c si trovano: 1) dopo un x-participio (Dan 7,10b.21c); 2) dopo una PNS
(Dan 2,31e; 7,7de); all’interno di una proposizione relativa (Dan 7,19a). È da notare che in tutti
questi casi il soggetto del participio in prima posizione non è espresso nella proposizione.
50
GZELLA, Tempus, 251, parla di un uso del participio per indicare la «Vorvergangenheit»
quando si trova in proposizioni subordinate.
51
Cfr. Dan 4,34a-c ed Esd 5,11bc.
52
BAUER-LEANDER, § 81 g; SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.6.3.4.6. GZELLA, Tempus, 220, analizzan-
do questo versetto, considera il participio come espressione di un «futurum imminens», ma con-
clude che dai pochi esempi presenti nell’AB si può osservare solo una «freie Variation».
53
COOK, Word, 14.
54
GZELLA, Erscheinungsformen, 401.406, afferma che il participio verbalizzato può assu-
mere il ruolo di «Erzählform» ma esso, a differenza del qetal, non apre mai una sezione narrativa
ed è una «sekundäre Vergangenheitform». Lo stesso autore considera l’uso del participio come
forma narrativa in aramaico in relazione allo sviluppo di un presente storico in questa lingua ad
opera proprio del participio.
197
An_78.indb 231 21/06/11 15:38

zione oppure un’espressione precostituita dell’AB ma come un uso normale

di due participi di PP nella narrazione.
• Nel DD participio e x-participio, con alcune differenze, ricoprono tutti e tre
gli assi temporali. Nell’asse temporale del passato è attestato un participio di
PP, a differenza delle PNS, che in tale asse sono sempre sulla linea secon-
daria55.
• Non viene meno il principio per il quale il participio sia una forma verbale
atemporale56, ma la linguistica testuale ha evidenziato i diversi usi nella Nar
e nel DD e ha aiutato a comprendere come deve essere inteso nei vari casi57.
• Rimane aperta la questione se le proposizioni che contengono un participio
siano da considerarsi verbali o nominali. Il problema è connesso al modo di
intendere tale forma: se da un lato, infatti, il participio in prima posizione e
l’x-participio sembrano assumere un comportamento simile alle PV (qetal,
yiqtul) e alle PNC (x-qetal, x-yiqtul), piuttosto che a quello delle PNS, in altri
casi, ad esempio quando è unito alla particella yt;yai o ad una forma del verbo
aw"h] in costruzione perifrastica esso ha una chiara funzione nominale58.
1.8 PNS
Con PNS, come detto, intendo le proposizioni che non contengono un verbo fi-
nito o un participio con funzione verbale. Sono inserite invece tra le PNS quel-
le proposizioni in cui è presente un participio con funzione nominale (attributi-
va o sostantivata) o la particella yt;yai, sia da sola sia insieme ad un participio59.
Nella Nar la PNS appartiene sempre alla linea secondaria ed esprime essen-
zialmente contemporaneità con l’azione della linea principale, o svolge una
funzione descrittiva60. In Dan 3,1bc, p. es., l’autore fornisce con due PNS le
misure della statua fatta erigere da Nabucodonosor.
Nel DD tale costrutto si trova in tutti e tre gli assi temporali. Nel passato
assume un valore simile a quello visto per la Nar61. Nel campo del presente la
55
A meno che non sia preceduta dalla particella presentativa Wla] (cfr. paragrafo sui SgM
1.11).
56
MURAOKA, Notes, 157, afferma che «the indication of time as such is not the proper func-
tion of the participle, but this arise from the general context».
57
Non si può accettare una soluzione troppo semplificata come quella di COHEN, Phrase,
411: «le participe est narratif en contexte narratif, c’est un présent en contexte de discours
direct».
58
Per una trattazione più analitica ed esauriente della questione del participio come forma
nominale o verbale rimando a GEIGER, Partizip, §§ 477-480.
59
SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.5.5; GZELLA, Tempus, 219. Io ho scelto di dare più importanza ad
eventuali tense marker (LI, Verbal, 89), sia in questo caso come anche nelle costruzioni peri-
frastiche.
60
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 33.43; GZELLA, Tempus, 195.
61
Cfr. Dan 2,32a-d; 4,9abc; 5,21c; 7,6cd.7ch; Esd 4,20b.
198
An_78.indb 232 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 233
PNS può appartenere sia al foreground che al background 62. Infine nell’asse
del futuro è sempre sullo Sf, ed esprime contemporaneità in questo asse tem-
porale63.
1.9 Imperativo e x-imperativo

L’imperativo è un modo verbale con il quale viene espresso un comando o un
desiderio64 e si trova solo all’interno del DD65, occupando l’asse del futuro vo-
litivo66. Si distingue tra “imperativo”, se il verbo si trova in prima posizione, e
“x-imperativo”, nel caso in cui sia preceduto da uno o più sintagmi. Nell’AB
l’imperativo può trovarsi all’inizio della catena temporale come costrutto di
PP, ma può anche essere una forma di continuazione, rimanendo inalterata la
messa in rilievo67 (Dan 4,11c-f; Dan 7,5ef68), coordinato sia con waw (Dan
3,26de) che senza (Esd 5,15bcd).
L’x-imperativo, quando si trova all’inizio dell’asse temporale del futuro
volitivo, è sempre di PP69; quando, invece, segue un’altra forma volitiva appar-
62
Per questo motivo nel caso di una successione nel testo di due PNS non è semplice distin-
guere se la messa in rilievo cambi oppure no (Dan 4,16hi), a meno che non ci siano chiari segna-
li testuali come la presenza di una congiunzione subordinante (Dan 3,17a) o della particella rela-
tiva yDI (Dan 2,10d).
63
Dan 4,12bd.20fh.23b.29b; Esd 6,3de.4b. A questi casi se ne devono aggiungere due la cui
assegnazione al campo del futuro non è così chiara. Dan 7,27b riporta un’affermazione che può
essere intesa legata sia all’asse del futuro che a quello del presente. Tale PNS può essere com-
presa anche come un commento da parte della voce narrante, la quale inserisce, all’interno di
questo quadro rivolto al futuro, l’affermazione che il regno di Dio “è un regno eterno”. Conside-
rato, però, il contesto immediato, la lettura al futuro a mio parere è da preferire. In Esd 4,16d è
presente la particella yt;yai il cui uso è attestato per lo più nell’asse temporale del presente. Per
tale motivo alcuni studiosi non esitano a tradurre il testo in questione proprio con questo tempo
verbale. Tuttavia il fatto che tale PNS sia preceduta da costrutti appartenenti all’asse temporale
del futuro indicativo, insieme al significato proprio della frase, indicano che Esd 4,16d sta
nell’asse del futuro. SEGERT, Grammatik, § 5.5.5.2, cita questo caso e propone la traduzione «es
gibt»; BDB (ad vocem yt;yai) riporta questo versetto di Esd solo per notare che la particella yt;yai è
posta prima del soggetto; HALOT (ad vocem yt;yai) riporta «there is»; VOGT (ad vocem yt;yai [2]b)
invece traduce al futuro: «si Jerusalem munitur, in Transpotamia pars (i. e. dominatus et reditus)
… tibi non erit».
64
BAUER-LEANDER, § 84; SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.6.6.4.
65
«L’imperativo è una forma verbale che presenta affinità strutturali con le forme verbali
commentative» (WEINRICH, Tempus, 265).
66
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 4,1 (d).
67
Per l’ebraico biblico NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 65, ritiene possibile una sequenza di imperativi
non coordinati da waw. Inoltre egli considera l’ûqetol una forma volitiva di continuazione, in cui
il waw ha solo una funzione coordinante e il cui valore sintattico è uguale a quello dell’imperati-
vo iniziale (ibid., § 61). Ciò vale anche per l’AB.
68
SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.6.6.4.4, afferma che l’azione espressa dal secondo verbo è lo-
gisch subordiniert alla prima, e traduce il versetto: «steh auf, iß», che secondo lui equivale:
«steh auf, um zu essen». Io invece ritengo che le due azioni si possano considerare successive
l’una all’altra.
69
Dan 2,4b; 5,10d; 6,7c.22b. Per il senso da dare a queste formule cfr. BAUER-LEANDER,
199
An_78.indb 233 21/06/11 15:38

tiene allo Sf (Dan 4,12a.20e). All’interno del DD l’x-imperativo segna il pas-

saggio da altri assi temporali a quello del futuro volitivo ed in questi casi si po-
ne sul PP70.
1.10 Proposizioni con yDI iniziale

La particella yDI è usata con diverse funzioni in AB. In modo generale, la fun-
zione di tale particella71 è di nominalizzare l’elemento seguente, sia quando
esso è solo un sostantivo72, sia quando è costituito da una intera proposizione
verbale o nominale, che in tal caso si pone sullo Sf73. In questo secondo caso la
particella yDI può essere legata ad un qualche elemento della proposizione pre-
cedente74 (Dan 3,7b) o assumere il valore di una congiunzione subordinante75,
da sola o unita ad una preposizione76 (Dan 2,34a):
Dan 3,7 b ab'h]D: ~l,c,l. !ydIg>s'
adorarono la statua d’oro
aK'l.m; rC;n<d>k;Wbn> ~yqEh] yDI
che il re Nabucodonosor aveva eretto
§ 84, e la risposta di MURAOKA, Notes, 161, alla loro interpretazione. In Esd 4,22a secondo SE-
GERT, Grammatik, § 6.6.3.6.4, è attestato l’uso dell’imperativo di aw"h] in costruzione perifrastica,
con il valore di un semplice imperativo. SEGERT cita altri casi di imperativo perifrastico al di fuo-
ri dell’AB. In realtà il problema è connesso alla forma !yrIyhiz> e al modo in cui essa è analizzata.
SEGERT, appunto, la considera un participio peil della radice rhz [BDB ad vocem rh;z>], ma sia
VOGT che HALOT la trattano come un semplice aggettivo [VOGT ad vocem ryhiz>; HALOT ad vo-
cem ryhiz>]. GREENFIELD, Imperative, 207, ha studiato l’imperativo perifrastico in vari documenti
in lingua aramaica ed arriva alla conclusione che «this form is not known from Biblical
Aramaic».
70
Una tale funzione non si riscontra mai con l’imperativo iniziale. Questa, se non è all’ini-
zio del discorso diretto, segue sempre un x-imperativo (Dan 2,4c; 3,26e; Esd 5,15c; 6,7a) e in un
caso viene dopo un x-yiqtul volitivo di PP (Dan 2,24e).
71
Per l’ebraico rv,a] cfr. NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 6.
72
In questo caso yDI esprime il genitivo in concorrenza con lo stato costrutto (MURAOKA, No-
tes, 152-153). Per le varie funzioni di yDI inquadrate nello sviluppo storico delle lingue semitiche,
con un’attenzione particolare all’ebraico rv,a], cfr. ROSÉN, Vorgeschichte, 318-321.
73
Un’eccezione a questa regola l’ho fatta nei casi in cui yDI introduce un discorso diretto.
Tutto il DD seguente si può intendere come un complemento oggetto del verbum dicendi da cui
dipende (BAUER-LEANDER, §§ 109 d.110 c; SEGERT, Grammatik, §§ 7.4.6.6; 7.5.6.1). Questo parti-
colare uso si può paragonare al greco o[ti o all’ebraico yKi (HALOT ad vocem yDI [3b]; cfr. Dan
2,25c; 4,31f; 5,7d; 6,6b.14c). Interessante a tal proposito è ciò che afferma MILLER, Representa-
tion, 116, per il yKi e la posizione di PAT-EL, Syntax, 69-70, per yDI.
74
Si può pensare che la proposizione relativa abbia una funzione attributiva rispetto all’ele-
mento a cui la particella yDI si riferisce. Ho lasciato queste proposizioni all’interno dello stesso
riquadro.
75
COHEN, Phrase, 404; per l’ebraico cfr. NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 99.146.150.155. Ho eviden-
ziato la dipendenza dalla proposizione precedente con il simbolo “÷”, posto alla fine di questa e
all’inizio della yDI-P.
76
BAUER-LEANDER, § 110; SEGERT, Grammatik, § 7.5.6. Si può pensare che le yDI-P siano
complementi (di tempo, di causa, di fine, ecc.) retti dal verbo della proposizione principale (LI,
Verbal, 121).
200
An_78.indb 234 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 235
Dan 2,34 a ÷ t'y>w:h] hzEx'

PP Stavi guardando
b !b,a, tr,z<G>t.hi yDI d[; ÷
Sf finche si staccò una pietra
Si possono distinguere: 1) yDI-P in cui la forma verbale segue immediatamente
la particella yDI: yDI-qetal (Dan 3,18d; 6,25b); yDI-yiqtul (Dan 3,6a; 5,29d); yDI-par-
ticipio (Dan 5,5c); 2) yDI-P in cui tra la particella yDI e la forma verbale si inter-
pone un elemento x: yDI-x-qetal (Dan 2,23c; 5,22b); yDI-x-yiqtul (Dan 4,3b); yDI-x-
participio (Dan 2,11a; Esd 4,19d); 3) proposizioni in cui alla particella yDI segue
una proposizione senza verbo: yDI-PNS77 (Dan 4,5a; 5,23e).
Tutte queste proposizioni hanno un duplice carattere. Da un lato sono stret-
tamente legate ad un’altra proposizione sovraordinata, dall’altro presentano un
proprio comportamento che deriva dal tipo particolare di costrutto che la parti-
cella yDI introduce: yDI-(x-)qetal; yDI-(x-)yiqtul; yDI-(x-)participio, yDI-PNS. Inoltre l’
analisi comparata di tali costrutti ha mostrato che la presenza o l’assenza del-
l’elemento x, tra la particella relativa e la forma verbale, non cambia il senso
delle singole forme, per questo, nel precedente elenco è posto tra parentesi.
1.11 Segni macrosintattici

NICCACCI suggerisce che compito dei segni macrosintattici è quello di collegare
le diverse parti di un testo in modo da non interrompere l’unità narrativa78.
WEINRICH afferma che tale funzione nella lingua è svolta dagli avverbi79.
Nell’AB ho individuato tre categorie di SgM: !yId:a/80, presente per lo più nella
Nar; ![;K., attestato solo nel DD; Wla]/Wra], esclusivo del DD. La presenza di un
SgM lungo il racconto indica che quanto alla messa in rilievo la proposizione
seguente si trova sul PP, anche se è costituita da un costrutto che normalmente
si trova sullo Sf.
!yId:a/ e ![;K. possono anche introdurre nella linea principale – senza inter-
romperla – una proposizione duplice costituita da una protasi81, che indica una
circostanza temporale, causale o condizionale, e da un’apodosi.
I SgM più ricorrenti nella Nar sono !yId:a/ e !yId:aBe, a cui molti autori riconos-
cono un ruolo particolare82. Questa classe di SgM si unisce prevalentemente al
77
Per PNS qui intendo lo stesso tipo di proposizioni analizzate in precedenza in 1.8. Non
sono inseriti in questa categoria i casi in cui yDI esprime la funzione di genitivo, ma si considera-
no yDI-PNS quelle proposizioni in cui l’antecedente funge da soggetto, il quale non viene ripreso
nella proposizione relativa, ad esempio %d"ybi-yDI in Esd 7,25a (cfr. BAUER-LEANDER, § 98 f.v).
78
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 12. Per l’ebraico egli individua tre tipi di SgM: yhiy>w:, hNEh(i w>), hT'[(; w>).
79
WEINRICH, Tempus, 244; li chiama «Segnali macrosintattici di articolazione» (ibid., 254s).
80
In questa categoria ho raggruppato anche altri avverbi e sintagmi: !yId:aBe, hn"D> lbeq\-lK',
an"m.zI-HBe, ht'[]v;-HB;, hn"D> rt;aB', !yrEx\a' d[;w>.
81
Cfr. NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 19.31.96, per i termini “protasi” e “apodosi”.
82
BUTH, ˀĕḏáyin/tote, 35.37. Lo stesso autore, nel medesimo articolo, tenta una distinzione
201
An_78.indb 235 21/06/11 15:38

qetal o a x-qetal, ma è attestato un loro uso con il participio e l’x-participio e,

solo in un caso, rispettivamente con una PNS, con lo yiqtul e l’x-yiqtul 83. Nella
Nar questo segna l’inizio del PP, dopo i costrutti di antefatto84. Nel DD !yId:a/ si
trova legato all’asse temporale del passato all’interno di un racconto orale85
(Dan 5,24a).
In Dan 3,7a un SgM mantiene sul PP una proposizione duplice costituita da
un yDI-participio (righe 2 e 3), la protasi, e da un participio iniziale (4), l’apodo-
si. Il primo membro fornisce le indicazioni temporali, il secondo riporta l’azio-
ne principale ed è seguito da un altro participio (Dan 3,7b), che si trova sul PP
della Nar. La presenza del segno macrosintattico permette al racconto di pro-
cedere senza interruzioni e nello stesso tempo di inserire delle circostanze se-
condarie86.
Dan 3,7a 1) an"m.zI-HBe hn"D> lbeq\-lK'
SgM Allora, in quel tempo
2) at'yqiArv.m; an"r>q; lq" aY"m;m.[;-lK' !y[im.v' ydIK.
Protasi quando sentirono tutti i popoli il suono del corno, del flauto,
3) ar"m'z> ynEz> lkow> !yrIjen>s;P. ak'B.f; [sArt.q;] (srtyq)
della cetra, della sambuca, del salterio, e di ogni genere di
strumenti musicali
4) aY"n:V'liw> aY"m;au aY"m;m.[;-lK' !ylip.n"
Apodosi si prostrarono tutti i popoli, le nazioni e le lingue
tra il significato da attribuire ai due avverbi. In un precedente lavoro (Word, 127.132.134) BUTH
aveva affermato che !yId:a/, !yId:aBe, come anche hn"D> lbeq\-lK', sono «clausal relators [that] were not
counted as occupying the first constituent position of the clauses». an"m.zI-HBe, ht'[]v;-HB; e hn"D> rt;aB'
degradano, a suo dire, la proposizione allo Sf, se ricoprono la prima posizione di una proposizio-
ne. POLAK asserisce che l’uso di !yId:a/ crea una «highly schematic sequence, quite suitable for oral
narrative» (POLAK, Daniel, 256, in particolare la n. 24). SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.6.3.1.7, afferma
che queste particelle servono per specificare l’appartenenza ad un determinato asse temporale
delle diverse forme verbali. LI, Verbal, 106, considera !yId:aBe, non un «temporal marker», ma «a
discourse marker introducing clause clusters». ROSÉN rappresenta, in questo quadro, una voce
discordante. Egli afferma che questi avverbi hanno una funzione di «hypotactic syndesis»
(ROSÉN, Tenses, § 3,41).
83
hn"D> lbeq\-lK' una volta con x-yiqtul e an"m.zI-HBe una volta con yiqtul. Un caso particolare è
rappresentato da Esd 5,5d dove c’è la forma !yId:a/w< insieme ad uno yiqtul di Sf nella Nar. In que-
sto caso, come in Esd 5,16c dove si trova lo stesso avverbio unito alla preposizione !mi, !yId:a/ non
assume la funzione di SgM bensì quella di avverbio con valore temporale.
84
Dan3,3a; 4,4a; 5,3a; 7,1c; Esd 4,9a.
85
86
Per questo SgM vale ciò che NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 36, afferma per il yhiy>w: ebraico, esso in-
fatti assume «la funzione di rafforzare la “testualità” (cioè la coerenza e la consistenza) del te-
sto». Cfr. anche Dan 6,15a; Esd 4,23a; 6,13a.
202
An_78.indb 236 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 237
In Dan 4,33a si può osservare l’esistenza in AB di un waw di apodosi87:

Dan 4,33a1) an"m.zI-HBe
SgM In quel momento
2) yl;[] bWty> y[iD>n>m;
Protasi mentre il mio senno mi tornava
3) yl;[] bWty> ywIzIw> yrId>h; ytiWkl.m; rq;yliw>
Apodosi e per la gloria del mio regno il mio onore e il mio splendore
mi tornavano
4) !A[b;y> yn:b'r>b.r:w> yr:b.D"h; yliw>
e mi cercavano i miei consiglieri e i miei nobili
5) tn:q.t.h' ytiWkl.m;-l[;w>
sul mio regno fui riposto
(letteralmente: la cosa fu posta in ordine)
Al SgM (1) seguono tre x-yiqtul (2;3;4) che descrivono azioni contemporanee
a quella della proposizione di apodosi (5), un x-qetal preceduto appunto da un
waw, che nella traduzione può essere tralasciato riporta l’informazione princi-
pale che l’autore vuol fornire.
![;K.88 può essere paragonato all’ebraico hT'[;. Il suo valore è cioè temporale-
argomentativo89, nel senso che con esso viene indicata la conseguenza di un’a-
zione o si specifica la conclusione a cui si giunge in seguito a ciò che viene
detto precedentemente. Anche questo avverbio riporta sul PP un costrutto che,
dato il contesto, potrebbe essere assunto come di Sf. ![;K. si trova con forme del
passato (Dan 5,15a), del presente (Dan 4,34a) e del futuro (Dan 3,15a; Esd
4,13). In Esd 4,14a ![;K. regge sul PP un’intera proposizione duplice90:
87
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 96.122. GRELOT, Waw, 39, ha individuato un waw di apodosi nel-
l’aramaico d’Egitto, ma non in quello di Daniele, per il quale egli ritiene che «l’apodose qui suit
les propositions conditionnelles est généralement introduite sans aucun avertissement». Occorre
sottolineare tuttavia che l’uso dei termini protasi e apodosi è ristretto da questo studioso solo ai
casi di periodi ipotetici introdotti dalla congiunzione subordinante !he. WESSELIUS, Literary,
275-283, ammette l’esistenza di un waw di apodosi in aramaico biblico, anche se lo pone in rela-
zione con yDI lbeq\-lK'.
88
In Esd 5,16c tale avverbio temporale è preceduto dalla preposizione d[; e non sembra ri-
coprire alcuna funzione macrosintattica. Essa è l’unica attestazione in cui non compare all’inizio
di una proposizione [cfr. HALOT ad vocem ![;K.].
89
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 73; GZELLA, Tempus, 212; VOGT, Lexicon, ad vocem ![;K..
90
Il versetto in questione permette anche un’altra interpretazione che non toglie alcun valo-
re alla funzione macrosintattica dell’avverbio temporale ![;K.. Infatti è possibile considerare come
protasi solo il yDI-x-qetal (riga 2) e come apodosi la waw-PNS (riga 3), la quale però, essendo un
costrutto di PP, si dovrebbe porre sull’asse temporale del presente. Seguendo questa ipotesi la
congiunzione coordinante w> sarebbe un waw di apodosi e il successivo x-qetal inizierebbe l’asse
temporale del passato. La traduzione, che ne deriva, è la seguente: “Ora, poiché noi abbiamo
mangiato il sale del palazzo, l’ignominia del re non è appropriato a noi vedere; abbiamo manda-
to su questo (una lettera)”.
203
An_78.indb 237 21/06/11 15:38

Esd 4,14a 1) ![;K.

SgM Adesso
2) an"x.l;m. al'k.yhe xl;m.-yDI lbeq\-lK'
Protasi poiché noi abbiamo mangiato il sale del palazzo
3) azEx/m,l. an"l; %yrIa]) al' aK'l.m; tw:r>[;w>
Protasi e l’ignominia del re a noi non era appropriato vedere
4) an"x.l;v. hn"D>-l[;
Apodosi su questo abbiamo mandato (una lettera)
Wla] ed Wra] sono due SgM che rendono presente e vivo all’ascoltatore un fatto o
un elemento su cui l’autore vuole richiamare particolarmente l’attenzione. Tali
segni si possono porre in relazione con la particella presentativa hNEh91 i , che
svolge un ruolo simile nella sintassi ebraica92. A differenza di hNEhi, però, Wla] ed
Wra] sono presenti solo nel DD93, e nel caso dell’AB tutte le attestazioni sono le-
gate all’asse del passato e ricorrono in racconti di sogni o di visioni. Wla] ed Wra]
mantengono sul PP il costrutto seguente, che, senza la presenza di tali particel-
le, sarebbe di Sf.
1.12 Costruzione perifrastica

Nella costruzione perifrastica ho dato preminenza al tense marker94 ed ho clas-
sificato le proposizioni in cui il participio è unito al qetal o allo yiqtul di aw"h]95
come (x-)qetal o (x-)yiqtul 96. In ogni attestazione ho messo in evidenza se il
participio segue (aw"h] + participio) o precede (participio + aw"h]) la forma del ver-
bo essere. Ho puntato il mio interesse sulle eventuali differenze nella costru-
zione perifrastica a seconda dell’ordine participio/aw"h97] , indipendentemente dal
tempo di quest’ultimo98. Ho messo, quindi, a confronto l’uso dell’una e dell’al-
91
Secondo COHEN, Phrase, 425, Wla]/Wra] non sono interiezioni, quanto piuttosto degli ele-
menti che introducono un predicato, sia nominale che verbale.
92
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 70-72. COHEN, Phrase, 426, pensa che «cette construction avec Wla]/
Wra] pour introduire une phrase explicitant le contenu d’un rêve ou d’une vision est très exact-
ement parallèle à celle qu’on trouve en hébreu dans les textes prophétiques».
93
Wla]/Wra] si trovano con l’x-qetal (Dan 7,8b), l’x-participio (Dan 7,2e) o con una PNS
(Dan 7,8d).
94
LI, Verbal, 89. MURAOKA, Notes, 158, parla di «time marker» e considera il participio
«neutral».
95
Cfr. n.69 per il caso di costruzione perifrastica participio + imperativo di aw"h].
96
Solo in tre casi il verbo essere si trova all’inizio della proposizione: Dan 2,20c.43c;
Esd 4,24b.
97
Per BAUER-LEANDER, § 81 p, la terza persona del verbo aw"h] si trova prima del participio,
mentre nelle altre persone lo segue. GREENFIELD, Imperative, 206, considera delle eccezioni i casi
in cui il participio precede il verbo essere. Secondo lui alcuni di questi casi si possono spiegare
come scelta stilistica dell’autore, in quanto la forma che ci si dovrebbe attendere normalmente è
aw"h] + participio.
98
Ritengo valido ciò che affermano gli studi consultati cioè che la costruzione perifrastica
con il qetal del verbo aw"h] indica la durata di un evento nel passato o un’azione abituale (MURAO-
204
An_78.indb 238 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 239
tra costruzione perifrastica in contesti simili e ho verificato inoltre l’influenza

di un elemento x anteposto alla costruzione perifrastica, indipendentemente
dall’ordine dei costituenti della costruzione perifrastica99.
La costruzione perifrastica aw"h] + participio è attestata nella Nar sia con qetal
che con yiqtul ed è presente sia nel PP (Dan 6,4a)100 sia nello Sf (Dan 6,11g)101.
La costruzione participio + aw"h] nella Nar si trova solo una volta come x-
qetal di Sf (Dan 4,26a)102. Dal raffronto si evince che non vi sono differenze tra
aw"h] + participio e participio + aw"h] in tale atteggiamento linguistico. Inoltre nella
Nar la presenza di un eventuale elemento x prima della costruzione perifrastica
è determinante quanto alla messa in rilievo. Infatti i costrutti del tipo x-aw"h] +
participio oppure x-participio + aw"h] sono relegati al background. Solo la pre-
senza di un SgM permette che tali costrutti si trovino sul PP (Dan 6,4a; 6,5a).
Quando invece il verbo aw"h] si trova in prima posizione (Esd 4,24b), la proposi-
zione occupa la linea principale.
Nell’asse temporale del passato del DD è presente sempre il qetal di aw"h].
Mentre i costrutti che contengono la perifrastica aw"h]-participio si trovano sem-
pre sullo Sf e sono tutti del tipo x-aw"h] + participio (Dan 5,19a-e), quelli con-
tenenti la successione participio + aw"h103 ] sono presenti solo sul PP, sia con sia
senza un elemento x davanti al participio. La formula participio del verbo hz"x] +
qetal del verbo aw"h] ricorre nel contesto o di sogni (Dan 2,31a.34a; 4,7a.10a) o
di visioni (Dan 7,2d.4c.6a.7a.9a.11ab.13a.21a) e sembra dare un ritmo al rac-
KA, Notes, 158; GZELLA, Tempus, 249-250; LI, Verbal, 80-81); la combinazione del participio
con lo yiqtul del verbo essere esprime invece un futuro continuo (LI, Verbal, 82) o durativo
(GZELLA, Tempus, 265).
99
Occorre infatti sottolineare che quasi mai un sintagma si interpone tra il participio e aw"h],
indipendentemente dall’ordine della loro successione. Solo in due casi su 44, Dan 6,3a (yDI-yiqtul
nella Nar) e Dan 2,20c (yiqtul di PP nell’asse del futuro volitivo nel DD), aw"h] e participio non
sono posti l’uno accanto all’altro. Per Esd 6,10a cfr. n.108.
100
A riprova di quanto sia complesso assegnare un determinato aspetto modale alla costru-
zione perifrastica basti considerare che gli autori non sempre giungono alla stessa conclusione
per un medesimo esempio. Nel caso del versetto citato sopra GZELLA, Tempus, 246, suggerisce
che, nel contesto in cui si trova, esso assume il senso di «andauernde oder wiederholte Sachver-
halte» e traduce: «Darauf pflegte sich dieser Daniel vor den hohen Beamten und den Provinz-
statthaltern auszuzeichnen». LI, Verbal, 81, cita lo stesso caso per fare un esempio di passato
«progressive» oppure di aspetto incoativo della perifrastica e traduce: «then this Daniel was dis-
tinguishing himself [or began to distinguish himself] over the supervisors and satraps». Dan 6,5a
è citato da STEVENSON, Grammar, § 22,4, come un caso di iteratività: «they sought repeatedly to
find an excuse»; MURAOKA, Notes, 159, indica lo stesso versetto come un’istanza di «incoative»:
«began to seek», mentre LI, Verbal, 81, come un esempio di «inceptive»: «began trying [or, kept
trying] to find».
101
Sull’aspetto iterativo che la costruzione perifrastica esprimerebbe in questo contesto
convengono sia GZELLA, Tempus, 246, che LI, Verbal, 81.
102
LI, Verbal, 87 riconosce in questo caso alla costruzione perifrastica un aspetto pro-
gressivo.
103
In questo tipo di costruzione perifrastica non è mai presente un sintagma tra il participio
e aw"h], indipendentemente dall’ordine participio/verbo essere.
205
An_78.indb 239 21/06/11 15:38

conto, riportando la messa in rilievo sulla linea principale (Dan 7,8a). Tale for-
mula indica che l’autore sta per descrivere un’altra scena, utilizzando poi dei
costrutti di Sf104 per tratteggiarla nei suoi particolari.
Nell’asse temporale del futuro105 è presente sia il costrutto aw"h] + participio
sia participio + aw"h]. Un confronto tra Dan 2,20c e Esd 4,12a106 mette in eviden-
za che non ci sono differenze di senso o di uso di queste due forme:
Dan 2,20c Esd 4,12a
%r:b'm. ah'l'a/-yDI Hmev. awEh/l, aK'l.m;l. awEh/l, [:ydIy>
Sia il nome di Dio benedetto Noto sia al re
Entrambe le occorrenze presentano la stessa persona del verbo aw"h], sono di PP
nell’asse del futuro ed assumono una funzione performativa.
In Dan 2,43bc107 è possibile osservare tutti e due i tipi di costrutti insieme:
Dan 2,43 b av'n"a] [r:z>Bi !wOh/l, !ybir>['t.mi
(le parti) saranno mischiate con seme umano
c hn"D>-~[i hn"D> !yqib.D" !wOh/l,-al'w>
e non saranno legate tra di loro
La prima parte (b) è un x-yiqtul di PP nell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo;
questa è seguita da un waw-yiqtul negato che continua la linea principale. In
questo come in tutti i casi esaminati non si notano differenze rispetto ai co-
strutti x-yiqtul o waw-yiqtul in cui è assente la costruzione perifrastica, né di-
versità dovute alla sequenza verbo/participio. Nella linea secondaria del futuro
non ci sono esempi di costruzione perifrastica del tipo participio + aw"h] ma si
trova solo la sequenza aw"h] + participio (Dan 2,42c), talvolta legata alla particel-
la relativa yDI.
Dan 6,27 b laYEnId"-yDI Hhel'a/ ~d"q\-!mi !ylix]d"w> [!y[iy>z"] (!y[az) !wOh/l, ytiWkl.m; !j'l.v'-lk'B. yDI
che in tutto il dominio del mio regno si tremerà e si avrà timore
davanti al Dio di Daniele
104
In questo senso dissento da GZELLA, Tempus, 248, che invece considera queste costruzio-
ni appartenenti all’Hintergrund.
105
COXON, Syntax, 109, afferma che l’uso del participio con lo yiqtul del verbo essere es-
prime un’azione che è continua o ripetuta.
106
Altre attestazioni di questa formula sono Dan 3,18b e Esd 5,8a.
107
LI, Verbal, 87 analizza separatamente le costruzioni perifrastiche in cui il participio è
passivo e arriva alla conclusione che «the occurrences of aw"h] with the passive participle consist
of the verb “to be” with an adjectival predicate».
206
An_78.indb 240 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 241
In Dan 6,27b il verbo aw"h] è posto prima di due participi108 ed è legato ad en-
trambi. L’x-yiqtul specifica il contenuto del decreto del re, analogamente a
quei casi in cui è utilizzato un costrutto simile senza costruzione perifrastica.
Anche nel DD la presenza di un elemento x prima della costruzione perifra-
stica pone tali costrutti sullo Sf, indipendentemente dal tempo del verbo aw"h]
(Dan 2,42c). Nei due casi in cui lo yiqtul è in prima posizione (Dan 2,20c;
2,43c) o nei casi in cui non vi è nessun elemento prima della costruzione pe-
rifrastica, il costrutto invece occupa sempre il PP109.
Da quanto detto posso trarre le seguenti conclusioni:
1) Sia nella Nar che nel DD non si osservano differenze tra le costruzioni aw"h]
] .
+ participio e participio + aw"h110
2) Nella costruzione perifrastica è il verbo aw"h] che determina il tempo del co-
strutto e nel DD l’asse temporale in cui esso deve porsi.
3) Il tipo di costrutto all’interno del quale si trova una costruzione perifrasti-
ca è determinato dalla posizione del verbo aw"h] e non del participio; tutti i casi
sono classificabili in una delle seguenti categorie: (waw-)qetal; (waw-)x-qetal;
(waw-)yiqtul; (waw-)x-yiqtul.
4) La presenza di uno o più sintagmi prima della costruzione perifrastica, a
prescindere dall’ordine degli elementi (participio, aw"h]), è rilevante per la deter-
minazione della messa in rilievo di tale costrutto, sia nella Nar che nel DD.
108
Cfr. Dan 5,19a ed Esd 6,10a. Il secondo participio si può anche considerare come una
proposizione a sé stante. Nel caso di Dan 5,19a sarebbe un participio*c nell’asse del passato, si-
mile ad altri casi attestati in tale piano linguistico. In Dan 6,27b e Esd 6,10a i due waw-participi
dovrebbero essere posti nello Sf dell’asse temporale del futuro indicativo. Essi costituirebbero
però le uniche attestazioni di un participio iniziale in questo asse temporale. Preferisco dunque
seguire l’opinione di LI, Verbal, 79, n. 1, il quale afferma che il secondo participio è «a con-
tinuation of the complex verb phrase hwh + participle» e non costituisce un «indipendent parti-
ciple».
109
Ci sono alcuni esempi di participio + aw"h] che sembrano, però, contraddire quanto detto,
in quanto tale costruzione occupa la linea principale nonostante un elemento x compaia prima
del participio. In realtà, considerando più da vicino i singoli casi, si nota che tale elemento x o è
un casus pendens (Dan 2,31a) oppure è parte di un x-qetal (Dan 4,7a) o di un x-yiqtul (Dan
2,41b), i quali si trovano all’inizio dei rispettivi assi temporali del passato e del futuro. In Dan
7,6a.7a.11b.13b il costrutto x-participio + aw"h] è tenuto sul PP grazie alla presenza di un SgM.
110
ROWLEY, Aramaic, 98, giunge ad una conclusione simile. Egli afferma infatti che «in
Biblical Aramaic the participle may stand either before or after the auxiliary». LI, Verbal, 96, ri-
tiene che nella costruzione perifrastica l’ordine dei costituenti muti perché «has not yet become
fixed».
241
An_78.indb 241 21/06/11 15:38

2. Narrazione
2.1 Antefatto
La narrazione111 inizia sempre con dei costrutti di livello secondario che con
NICCACCI chiamo antefatto112. Essi forniscono una specie di introduzione al suc-
cessivo racconto, presentano il personaggio narrante o riassumono brevemente
l’oggetto principale della vicenda. L’antefatto in AB si apre sempre con un x-
qetal 113. Gli antefatti presenti nel testi presi in considerazione nel mio studio
sono114:
• Dan 3,1a-2a: costituito da un x-qetal (1a), seguito da due PNS (1bc) e da un
qetal continuativo (1d), chiuso infine da un secondo x-qetal (2a);
• Dan 4,1a-3b: i due x-qetal (1a;2a) che aprono questo capitolo sono seguiti da
un waw-yiqtul (2b), da una PNS (2c) e da un x-yiqtul (2d); l’antefatto proce-
de con un x-participio (3a) e si chiude con un yDI-x-yiqtul (3b);
• Dan 5,1a-2b: inizia con un x-qetal (1a) seguito da un x-participio (1b); quindi
si conclude con un secondo x-qetal (2a) e un waw-yiqtul (2b);
• Dan 7,1ab: il breve antefatto in questo caso serve per indicare il tempo del
sogno (x-qetal, 1a) e per fornire una breve specificazione (PNS, 1b);
• Esd 4,8a: l’x-qetal riprende il versetto ebraico precedente e inquadra il rac-
conto successivo.
I capitoli 5 e 6 di Daniele, così come Esd 4,28-6,18 possono considerarsi come
un unico lungo episodio. Le diverse parti, infatti, sono connesse insieme alla
fine di un capitolo e all’inizio dell’altro o da forme di sfondo o da forme
di PP115.
La fine dell’antefatto e l’inizio del PP della Nar è segnato dalla presenza
dell’avverbio !yId:aBe, legato a differenti costrutti116.
111
Cfr. Appendice 1. Nello schema non ho riportato le yDI-P sia per non renderlo eccessi-
vamente complesso, sia perché quanto alla messa in rilievo esse si comportano sostanzialmente
come le corrispondenti proposizioni che presentano un elemento x davanti al verbo o, nel caso
delle yDI-PNS, come le PNS senza particella relativa.
112
113
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 15, distingue un (waw-)x-qatal iniziale come costrutto di antefatto
per distinguerlo da un (waw-)x-qatal non iniziale che si trova sullo Sf. Anche per l’AB i costrutti
di antefatto e di Sf sono identici. La loro distinzione può essere fatta in base alla loro posizione
prima o dopo il SgM che apre la narrazione (ibid., §§ 19.27.36).
114
Un antefatto è presente anche in Dan 2, ma esso non è stato analizzato perché non fa par-
te del corpo aramaico del testo masoretico. Seguendo le regole della sintassi ebraica proposta da
NICCACCI, esso è costituito da un x-qatal (2,1a), seguito da un wayyiqtol continuativo (2,1b) ed
ancora da un secondo x-qatal (2,1c). Con il rm,aYOw: che apre il v. 2 inizia la linea principale della
narrazione.
115
Il capitolo 5 di Esdra si chiude con la conlusione della lettera di Tattenai e Setar Boznai
e il successivo capitolo 6 si apre con forme di PP nella Nar (Esd 6,1a-2a).
116
Participio in Dan 3,3a; 4,4a; qetal in Dan 5,3a; x-qetal in Dan 7,1c; PNS in Esd 4,9a. In
questa ultima occorrenza si trova !yId:a/.
208
An_78.indb 242 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 243
2.2 Sfondo
Le proposizioni che nella narrazione occupano lo Sf sono del tipo x-qetal (azio-
ne unica), x-yiqtul (azione abituale, ripetuta o descritta nella sua durata), x-par-
ticipio117; essi sono tutti costrutti in cui la forma verbale non si trova in prima
posizione nella proposizione. Anche la PNS nella Nar non occupa mai il PP.
Dan 2,48a-49c si apre con un !yId:a/-x-qetal di PP. Esso fornisce l’informazio-
ne principale, che di per sé è sufficiente a conoscere ciò che è accaduto dopo
l’interpretazione del sogno del re da parte di Daniele. I successivi costrutti di
sfondo specificano questo avvenimento e ne offrono alcuni dettagli. I primi tre
(48bcd) sono rispettivamente un x-qetal, un qetal*c e una PNS. Essi non indica-
no azioni posteriori a quella dell’elevazione di Daniele a un rango superiore da
parte del re, ma ci informano su ciò che la decisione reale ha comportato:
Daniele ricevette dei doni, fu posto a capo della provincia di Babilonia e dei
saggi di quella regione. Il waw-x-qetal in 49a pone un elemento di contrapposi-
zione: alla generosità manifestata dal re Daniele, “da parte sua”, espone un’ul-
teriore richiesta e il waw-qetal*c (49b) dà la notizia dell’immediata promozione
anche dei tre amici di Daniele118. La PNS finale (49c) indica un fatto contem-
poraneo al precedente costrutto. Questi costrutti finali forniscono il setting per
il successivo episodio119. Il lettore viene a sapere che le vicende dei quattro
protagonisti in qualche modo si separano: i tre amici, Sadrach, Mesach e Ab-
denego120 subiranno la denuncia da parte dei Caldei per non avere adorato la
statua fatta erigere nella valle di Dura (Dan 3), in un luogo lontano dalla reg-
gia; il personaggio di Daniele ricompare invece nel capitolo 4, in un racconto
ambientato nel palazzo del re (Dan 4,1a).
117
Secondo BLAU, Minutiae, 8-9, le forme verbali yiqtul e participio possono indicare si-
multaneità all’azione espressa dal «preceding perfect or temporal adverb»; l’alternanza di questi
costrutti mostrerebbe la fusione di due diversi sistemi utilizzati in questa lingua per indicare, ap-
punto, un’azione contemporanea, di cui «the earlier one with the imperfect and the later one
with the participle». ESKHULT, Studies, 113, riguardo al Late Biblical Hebrew, parla di un uso del
participio in concorrenza con lo yiqtol. Occorre sottolineare però che nell’AB l’x-participio può
anche descrivere un’azione unica nel passato (Dan 3,4a; 4,4bc; Esd 5,3b). Dunque mentre l’uso
dello yiqtul nella narrazione sembra fissato, lo stesso non avviene per il participio, che appare
una forma verbale ancora in evoluzione in questo tipo di costrutto di Sf (ROSENTHAL, Grammar,
§ 178; GZELLA, Tempus, 143-144).
118
Questo secondo waw-qetal potrebbe essere interpretato anche come un costrutto di PP.
Le due informazioni poste sulla linea principale sarebbero, in questo modo, da un lato la promo-
zione di Daniele, dall’altro il nuovo incarico che i tre amici hanno ricevuto dal re. L’interpreta-
zione che ho esposto sopra mi sembra, però, più coerente con il contesto immediato.
119
COLLINS, Daniel, 173.
120
MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic, 124.
209
An_78.indb 243 21/06/11 15:38

2.3 Primo piano

Il PP della narrazione è occupato da due forme: (waw-)qetal, (waw-)participio.
Il qetal può essere coordinato ad una precedente forma di PP sia attraverso
waw sia per asindeto121, senza alcuna modifica della messa in rilievo. In questo
secondo caso è possibile pensare ad una piccola interruzione nella sequenza di
tali costrutti122.
Un caso particolare si ha quando si presenta un segno macrosintattico che
nella Nar è solo della classe !yId:a/. Esso mantiene sul PP il costrutto seguente,
anche se non del tipo elencato prima, oppure una intera proposizione duplice.
Una sequenza relativamente lunga di forme di PP nella Nar si trova in Dan
3,7a-9b. hn"D> lbeq\-lK' apre la catena e mantiene sul PP una proposizione duplice
costituita da un yDI-participio, a cui si può assegnare un valore temporale, e dal
participio !ylip.n", l’apodosi, che descrive il fatto principale. Un participio coordi-
nato per asindeto (7b) indica la successiva azione. Nuovamente un SgM123
mantiene sulla linea principale un x-qetal (8a), il quale è seguito poi da un
waw-qetal (8b). Infine il qetal del verbo hn"[] (9a) e il participio !yrIm.a'w> (9b) intro-
ducono un DD.
Una più ampia sezione narrativa si trova in Dan 6,17-21. Essa presenta in
prevalenza una serie di qetal, mentre il participio si trova solo nelle formule in-
troduttive del DD (17de; 21bc). La sequenza si apre con un !yId:a/-x-qetal (17a); i
waw-qetal seguenti (17bc) si riferiscono ad azioni successive all’ordine del re.
Dopo il breve DD la Nar continua con tre waw-qetal (18a-c) di PP, a cui segue
un yDI-yiqtul (18d) di Sf:
Dan 6,18 a hd"x] !b,a, tyIt'yhew>
PP Fu portata una pietra
b aB'GU ~Pu-l[; tm;fuw>
PP e fu messa sopra la bocca della fossa
c yhiAnb'r>b.r: tq'z>[ib.W Hteq.z>[iB. aK'l.m; Hm;t.x;w>
PP e il re la sigillò con il suo anello e con l’anello dei suoi dignitari
d laYEnId"B. Wbc. anEv.ti-al' yDI
Sf perché non cambiasse niente riguardo a Daniele
La descrizione delle singole azioni in successione costituisce un rallentamento
della dinamica narrativa del racconto e crea un effetto di attesa nel lettore. La
Nar ritorna sul PP con la forma !yId:a/-qetal di 19a124. Questa procede con un suc-
121
Tale fenomeno si riscontra anche nel caso del participio (cfr. Dan 3,27b; 5,7a).
122
Questo comportamento differisce dall’ebraico biblico, in cui la forma continuativa di un
wayyiqtol di PP è solo un altro wayyiqtol, e nella narrazione non è possibile incontrare un qatal
nella prima posizione della proposizione (NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 9.15).
123
Solo in Dan 3,7a.8a, si combinano insieme due SgM: hn"D> lbeq\-lK' e an"m.zI-HBe.
124
Paragonando questo costrutto con il precedente waw-qetal in 18a non si notano differen-
ze tra i due: entrambi riportano il racconto sul foreground dopo una interruzione della catena
narrativa. È difficile dire se l’autore, utilizzando in questo caso un costrutto diverso abbia voluto
210
An_78.indb 244 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 245
cessivo waw-qetal (19b), ancora sulla linea principale, e con due x-qetal (19cd)
sullo Sf, i quali descrivono i dettagli della notte insonne del re.
Dan 6,20 a aK'l.m; !yId:aBe
SgM Allora il re
ah'g>n"B. ~Wqy> ar"P'r>P;v.Bi
Protasi all’alba si alzava sul far della luce
lz:a] at'w"y"r>a;-ydI aB'gUl. hl'h'B.t.hib.W
Apodosi e in fretta andò alla fossa dei leoni
21a q[iz> byci[] lq"B. laYEnId"l. aB'gUl. Hber>q.mik.W
Sf e, quando arrivò alla fossa, con voce angosciata gridò a Da-
niele
L’avverbio !yId:aBe in 20a segnala che la Nar è di nuovo sul PP. Esso regge una
proposizione duplice, in cui la protasi è costituita da un x-yiqtul125, e l’apodosi
da un x-qetal. Un’ulteriore interruzione del racconto è data dall’x-qetal in 21a,
che sposta la scena dal palazzo del re alla fossa dei leoni. Infine i due participi
rm;a'w> hnE[' (21bc) introducono un nuovo DD126.
3. Discorso diretto
Per il DD occorre distinguere oltre alla messa in rilievo anche i diversi assi
temporali: passato, presente, futuro indicativo, futuro volitivo127.
segnare l’inizio di un nuovo passo nell’episodio, sottolineando il cambiamento di scena dalla

fossa dei leoni al palazzo del re, oppure se la sua scelta sia stata determinata da una semplice va-
riazione stilistica. Altri simili esempi si trovano in Dan 6,13a; Esd 4,24a; 5,2a. Il mio interesse,
comunque, è di dimostrare che entrambi i costrutti contenenti (waw)-qetal e !yId:a/-(x)-qetal hanno
il medesimo comportamento quanto alla messa in rilievo.
125
Cfr. n. 33. Nella traduzione ho preferito mantenere il senso originale del verbo, traducen-
dolo con un imperfetto. Inquadrato nel più ampio contesto di questa sequenza, penso che un sen-
so che si può attribuire a questa forma verbale sia quello di descrivere l’azione nel suo svol-
gimento, in modo da rallentare il tempo del racconto e creare una maggiore attesa nel lettore
(BAR-EFRAT, Narrative, 146). MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic, 91, riguardo ai versetti in esame, afferma:
«the suspense over what is happening is achieved by keeping each scene distinct. The suspense
is not relieved until the reader with Darius discovers the events of the night. This method of
“shaping space” is a characteristic of biblical narrative».
126
Riassumendo l’analisi fatta, in questa parte narrativa ci sono in totale 13 forme di PP
(tre !yId:a/-qetal; sei waw-qetal; quattro (waw-)participi) e quattro forme di Sf (tre waw-x-qetal; un
yDI-yiqtul, a cui si deve aggiungere l’x-yiqtul che costituisce la protasi della proposizione duplice
del v. 20a).
127
Cfr. Appendice 1. Anche in questo caso non ho riportato la posizione né delle yDI-P, né
dei SgM per non rendere più complesso lo schema.
211
An_78.indb 245 21/06/11 15:38

3.1 Passato
L’asse temporale del passato si apre sempre con x-qetal. Sia tale forma che il
semplice qetal possono essere preceduti da un SgM128. La catena sintattica pro-
cede sull’asse principale con forme del tipo qetal o participio (Dan 5,15ab; Esd
5,11de.16ab) Quando si presenta una delle forme che si trovano sullo Sf si ha
un’interruzione della sequenza narrativa.
In Dan 2,35a l’!yId:a/.-qetal iniziale indica che il costrutto è di PP. Questo è se-
guito da due waw-qetal (35bc) che rimangono sulla linea principale della co-
municazione, mentre l’x-qetal di Sf (35d) pone maggiore enfasi sulla forza del
vento, che ha spazzato via i pezzi della statua. Un altro x-qetal (35e) crea un
contrasto con quanto detto prima: nonostante la forza del vento la pietra non
viene rimossa, ma diviene una montagna. Il waw-qetal*c (35f) chiude la scena,
in relazione con la proposizione precedente, dà un’informazione che ne è la di-
retta conseguenza.
3.2 Presente
Nell’asse temporale del presente all’inizio si trova un x-participio o una PNS.
Esso prosegue poi sul PP con una successiva PNS o con un participio inizia-
le129. In tale asse temporale la comunicazione si sposta dalla linea principale a
quella secondaria o con costrutti del tipo x-participio (Dan 3,12d; 4,32ab), o
con una PNS di Sf (Dan 6,27de)130.
Dan 4,34 a xB;v;m. rC;n<d>k;Wbn> hn"a] ![;K.
PP Adesso, io Nabucodonosor, lodo
b ~meArm.W
PP ed esalto
c aY"m;v. %l,m,l. rD:h;m.W
PP e glorifico il re del cielo
In Dan 4,34a-c, p. es., i tre costrutti si trovano sul PP131. Il primo (a) è un x-par-
ticipio, introdotto dal SgM ![;K., seguito da due waw-participi (b.c). In Dan
2,23ab, l’asse del presente inizia con un x-participio (a) e continua con un
waw-participio (b). Un esempio, invece, di due PNS di PP nel presente è dato
da Dan 4,16hi.
In Dan 3,25cde si trova ancora una successione di costrutti appartenenti tut-
ti all’asse del presente. Nabucodonosor si accorge che qualcosa di strano sta
avvenendo nella fornace ardente e proclama apertamente la sua incredulità. Il
128
Nel DD può essere del tipo !yId:a/ o ![;K. oppure Wla]/Wra].
129
Non sono stati rilevati costrutti con qetal o yiqtul in questo asse temporale.
130
Sono attestati participi*c in questo asse temporale. Essi si trovano solo in continuazione
di un precedente x-participio o di una PNS di Sf.
131
Anche SHEPHERD, Verbal, 114, pensa che questo versetto sia da analizzare come discorso
diretto e non come narrazione.
212
An_78.indb 246 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 247
primo (c) di questi costrutti è un x-participio. Esso inizia la linea temporale del
presente, segue poi PNS (d), anch’essa di PP. La presenza di un successivo x-
participio (e) fa variare la messa in rilievo. Sull’elemento x, HwErE, è posta l’enfa-
si della proposizione132.
3.3 Futuro Indicativo

L’asse del futuro indicativo inizia con x-yiqtul e prosegue nella linea principale
attraverso una successione di (waw-)yiqtul. Quando lungo la catena si incontra
un altro x-yiqtul, la messa in rilievo cambia e dal foreground si passa al back-
ground.
Dan 7,23b-27d presenta una lunga sequenza di proposizioni appartenenti
tutte all’asse temporale del futuro indicativo. Un personaggio misterioso
(7,16a), presente nella visione di Daniele, spiega a costui il senso di ciò che sta
osservando:
Dan 7,23b 1) at'y>["ybir> at'w>yxe
Casus pendens Riguardo alla quarta bestia
2) a['r>a;b. awEh/T, [ha'['ybir]> (ay[ybr) Wkl.m;
PP un quarto regno sarà sulla terra
3) at'w"k.l.m;-lK'-!mi anEv.ti yDI
che sarà diverso da tutti i regni
c a['r>a;-lK' lkuatew>
PP e divorerà tutta la terra
d HN:viWdt.W
PP e la calpesterà
e HN:qiD>t;w>
PP e la stritolerà
L’interpretazione del sogno si apre con un casus pendens (23b1) che annuncia
l’argomento seguente. L’x-yiqtul (23b2) apre l’asse del futuro indicativo; ad
esso è unito un yDI-yiqtul (23b3), che dà una specificazione riguardante il futuro
regno. Seguono altri tre waw-yiqtul (23cde) che comunicano le azioni che il re-
gno compirà.
132
Solo in un caso si osserva una sequenza del tipo PNS di PP/PNS di Sf: Dan 3,16c.17a.
La seconda PNS, però, è la protasi di un periodo ipotetico, l’apodosi del quale è costituita dal
successivo x-yiqtul. Quindi i due costrutti, seppur vicini, sono in realtà semanticamente separati
tra di loro. Le PNS di Sf in questo asse si trovano per lo più dopo la congiunzione subordinan-
te !he (Dan 3,15a.17a; Esd 5,17a) o all’interno di una yDI-P, in particolar modo dopo una yDI-PNS
(Dan 5,23e; 6,27de).
213
An_78.indb 247 21/06/11 15:38

Dan 7,24a 1) rf;[] aY"n:r>q;w>

Casus pendens E riguardo ai dieci corni
2) !Wmquy> !ykil.m; hr"f.[; ht'Wkl.m; HN:mi
PP da quel regno sorgeranno dieci regni
b !AhyrEx]a; ~Wqy> !r"x\a'w>
Sf ma un altro sorgerà dopo di essi
c ayEm'd>q;-!mi anEv.yI aWhw>
Sf ed esso sarà diverso dai precedenti
d lPiv.h;y> !ykil.m; ht'l't.W
Sf e tre re abbatterà
25a lLim;y> [ha'L'[i] (ayl[) dc;l. !yLimiW
Sf e proferirà parole contro l’Altissimo
b aLeb;y> !ynIAyl.[, yveyDIq;l.W
Sf e i santi dell’Altissimo logorerà
c td"w> !ynIm.zI hy"n"v.h;l. rB;s.yIw>
PP esso avrà intenzione di mutare i tempi e il giudizio
d !D"[i gl;p.W !ynID"[iw> !D"[i-d[; HdEyBi !Wbh]y:t.yIw>
PP ed essi saranno dati nella sua mano per un tempo,
tempi e metà di un tempo
I v. 24-25 permettono di osservare l’alternanza dei costrutti di PP e di Sf. Il ca-
sus pendens e l’x-yitul (24a) indicano l’inizio di una nuova catena con un cam-
bio di argomento. Non si parla più del quarto regno ma dei successivi dieci che
sorgeranno da quello. Il racconto, poi, passa sullo Sf per la presenza di un se-
condo x-yiqtul (24b) che crea un contrasto con quanto detto in precedenza.
Esso annuncia l’avvento di un successivo regno diverso dai dieci. Attraverso
una serie di x-yiqtul di Sf ne vengono descritte le caratteristiche (24c) e il com-
portamento nei confronti di altri tre re non meglio specificati, dell’Altissimo e
dei suoi santi (24d.25ab). Quando, però, l’autore elenca le azioni di questo re-
gno in relazione ai dieci regni, che costituiscono il tema dei v. 24-25, egli usa
dei costrutti di PP del tipo waw-yiqtul (25cd), posti in relazione diretta con x-
yiqtul iniziale di PP (24a).
I v. 26-27133 presentano, invece, dei costrutti di Sf diversi tra loro: tre x-yiq-
tul (26ab.27c), un waw-yiqtul continuativo di Sf134 (27d), una PNS (27b) e un
x-qetal (27a)135. Essi annunciano la fine di questo ultimo regno, in contrasto
133
Per i problemi relativi alla traduzione di questi versetti cfr. MEADOWCROFT, Aramaic,
217-221.
134
Il waw-yiqtul*c si trova solo in continuazione di un precedente x-yiqtul di Sf sull’asse del
futuro indicativo.
135
Cfr. n. 18. SHEPHERD, Verbal, 122, spiega la presenza in questo contesto di tale tempo
verbale tipico, a suo dire, solo della narrazione, come una costruzione che ricorda la successione
wayyiqtol/x-qatal nell’ebraico biblico, in cui i verbi all’imperfetto inverso e al perfetto apparten-
gono alla stessa radice. Egli richiama il caso di Gen 1,5 dove si contrappongono le forme ar"q.YIw: e
ar"q". Nel testo in esame lo stesso fenomeno si verificherebbe tra Dan 7,25d e Dan 7,27a. «Here
214
An_78.indb 248 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 249
con la potenza che esso sembrava avere nel precedente passaggio, e la venuta
del regno del popolo dei santi dell’Altissimo.
3.4 Futuro Volitivo

L’asse del futuro volitivo può iniziare con un imperativo (Dan 4,11c), con un
x-imperativo (Esd 5,15b), con un x-yiqtul (Dan 2,24d) o con uno yiqtul (Dan
2,20c). Esso prosegue solitamente con un imperativo in prima posizione nella
proposizione, con o senza waw. Nel successivo schema propongo queste co-
struzioni in sinossi:
(waw-)imperativo ← ← ← ← Costrutti iniziali
Dan 4,11cd yhiApn>[; WcCiq;w> an"l'yai WDGO
e spezzate i suoi rami Tagliate l’albero
Esd 5,15bc lz<ae afe aY"n:am' [lae] (hla)136
va Prendi questi utensili,
Dan 2,24de aK'l.m; ~d"q\ ynIl.[eh; dbeAhT.-la; lb,b' ymeyKix;l.
conducimi davanti al re I saggi di Babilonia non ucci-
dere,
Talvolta dopo un x-imperativo può trovarsi anche uno yiqtul di PP nel futuro
volitivo. In Dan 5,10def ci sono tre costrutti volitivi. Il primo, un x-imperativo
(d), apre la linea del futuro volitivo. Il secondo, uno yiqtul di forma breve ne-
gato (e), continua la medesima linea senza determinare alcuna variazione
quanto alla messa in rilievo. Il terzo (f), infine, è un x-yiqtul di forma breve,
anch’esso negato dalla particella la;. Esso, in questo caso, si trova dopo altri
costrutti volitivi, ciò determina il passaggio dalla linea principale a quella se-
condaria. Sull’elemento x che precede il verbo infatti è posta una certa enfasi,
oppure, come nel caso di alcune forme x-imperativo di Sf (Dan 4,12a.20a) ser-
ve a sottolineare il contrasto con quanto detto in precedenza. Inoltre l’x-impe-
the wyqtl is followed by an “x+qtl” clause in which the verbal root is the same. The action of the
qtl is layered upon the action expressed in the wyqtl; thus, the qtl does not stand alone». SHE-
PHERD quindi traduce: «And the kingdom was given to a people». Da un lato l’affermazione di
questo autore conferma la collocazione dell’x-qetal nella linea secondaria; anche l’x-qatal, a cui
egli si rapporta, è infatti un costrutto di Sf (NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 5). D’altra parte la spiegazione
di SHEPHERD non mi sembra esauriente, anche perché giunge alla conclusione che occorre tradur-
re questo verbo con il passato, il che non rende pienamente il senso della frase, che a mio parere
invece è il seguente: al popolo dei santi sarà dato un regno eterno e tutti gli altri si sottomet-
teranno ad esso, ma ciò avverrà solo dopo che sarà posto il giudizio contro l’ultimo regno, che è
sorto dopo la caduta dei precedenti dieci. L’azione è cioè legata ad un futuro, che deve ancora
venire, e non ad un passato già realizzato.
136
Secondo BAUER-LEANDER, § 21 c.d, lae compare in aramaico biblico solo come aggettivo.
Essi traducono Esd 5,15: «diese Gefäße» (cfr. anche ROSENTHAL, Grammar, § 34). VOGT traduce:
«haec vasa» (ad voces lae ed hla). SEGERT, Grammatik, § 6.2.3.1.4, ammette che l’aggettivo di-
mostrativo può trovarsi raramente prima del nome.
215
An_78.indb 249 21/06/11 15:38

rativo è il solo costrutto che inizia la linea del futuro volitivo quando si verifica
un cambiamento relativo all’asse temporale all’interno del DD137.
Conclusioni
Attraverso l’analisi delle varie forme verbali e la distinzione tra Nar e DD, tra
PP e Sf è stato possibile delineare un quadro che mostra i diversi costrutti
dell’aramaico biblico. Presento sinteticamente i risultati a cui sono giunto.
a) Il qetal, similmente al wayyitol ebraico138, è il tempo della Nar. In tale at-
teggiamento linguistico infatti indica il PP139. Come la corrispondente forma
ebraica, il qetal non è una forma iniziale in senso assoluto, infatti al principio
della narrazione si trova sempre un costrutto retto da un SgM. Nel DD il qetal è
presente solo nell’asse temporale del passato, in quello che NICCACCI definisce
“discorso narrativo”140, con funzioni simili a quelle della Nar.
b) L’x-qetal nella Nar è un costrutto di Sf. Nel DD esso occupa la linea prin-
cipale solo all’inizio dell’asse temporale del passato141, in quanto, come detto,
il qetal è una forma continuativa. Negli altri casi l’x-qetal è un costrutto di Sf.
c) Lo yiqtul nella Nar si trova solo in due attestazioni come forma di antefat-
to sempre con la congiunzione waw. Nel DD invece occupa il PP nell’asse del
futuro indicativo (con e senza waw) o del futuro volitivo (senza waw). In que-
sto secondo caso può essere una forma iniziale. Quando invece è parte
dell’asse del futuro indicativo il (waw-)yiqtul segue un precedente x-yiqtul, con
un comportamento simile al weqatal ebraico142 in un analogo contesto.
d) L’x-yiqtul è un costrutto di Sf nella Nar e nell’asse temporale del passato
all’interno del DD. In questi casi esprime l’iterazione o lo svolgimento di
un’azione. Nell’asse del futuro indicativo l’x-yiqtul è di PP, se compare
all’inizio di tale linea temporale, altrimenti è di Sf, indicando in tal caso enfasi
sull’elemento x che precede il verbo o contrapposizione. A volte alcuni criteri
137
In Esd 4,21-22 sembra esserci, però, un esempio che smentisce quanto detto. In 21a si
trova l’unica attestazione di un SgM posto immediatamente prima di un imperativo. È proprio
tale segnale a indicare che il nuovo costrutto di PP interrompe la precedente sequenza di Sf (Esd
4,19d-20c). La comunicazione passa dal livello secondario del passato alla linea principale
nell’asse del futuro volitivo. Il successivo x-yiqtul (21b) si può considerare come una forma di
PP nell’asse del futuro indicativo, mentre il secondo x-yiqtul (21c) è sulla linea secondaria (cfr.
SHEPHERD, Verbal, 131, n. 79) e fornisce una specificazione temporale della precedente proposi-
zione. Con l’x-imperativo in 22a la comunicazione ritorna nuovamente sul PP, spostando nuo-
vamente l’asse temporale dal futuro indicativo al futuro volitivo.
138
139
Contrariamente a quanto afferma COOK, Word, 10: «the VO order in temporal sequence
clauses is not an infrangible rule, but simply a noteworthy tendency».
140
141
142
216
An_78.indb 250 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 251
morfologici (forma breve; presenza della negazione la;), a volte solamente il

criterio semantico permettono di individuare l’x-yiqtul con funzione volitiva.
e) Il participio in prima posizione nella Nar è di PP in concorrenza con il
qetal. Nel DD, invece, esso può occupare il PP dell’asse temporale del passato
e del presente e si trova come forma continuativa di Sf nei medesimi assi
temporali, indicando contemporaneità.
f) L’x-participio si trova nello Sf della Nar e dell’asse temporale del passato,
del presente e del futuro all’interno del DD. Può descrivere un’azione unica o
indicarne il suo svolgimento. Nel DD tale costrutto si trova sulla linea princi-
pale solo nel presente, in tal caso riporta un fatto contemporaneo al momento
in cui avviene la comunicazione.
g) La PNS nella Nar esprime contemporaneità o fornisce la descrizione di un
fatto. Essa si pone sempre nello Sf. All’interno del DD la PNS è sulla linea
principale solo nell’asse del presente, mentre è utilizzata come costrutto di Sf
in tutti e tre gli assi temporali.
h) Le forme volitive imperativo e x-imperativo sono proprie del DD. Solo
l’x-imperativo segna la transizione temporale da altri assi temporali a quello
del futuro volitivo.
i) yDI può introdurre una PV, una PNC, o una PNS. Quanto alla messa in ri-
lievo tutte queste proposizioni sono sulla linea secondaria sia nella Nar che
nel DD.
j) Ho dimostrato che nella costruzione perifrastica non è importante per la
messa in rilievo tanto la successione participio-aw"h] o aw"h]-participio, quanto
la presenza di un elemento x posto prima di entrambi gli elementi partici-
pio/verbo.
k) Ho segnalato la presenza e il comportamento dei SgM sia nella Nar che
nel DD mostrandone l’attitudine a mantenere sul PP anche costrutti che nor-
malmente si trovano sullo Sf o intere proposizioni duplici.
Il lavoro svolto rappresenta un primo passo verso ulteriori tentativi di uti-
lizzare la linguistica testuale nello studio della lingua aramaica. Credo comun-
que che il mio studio abbia mostrato la validità di tale approccio nello studio
delle lingue semitiche, come affermato da NICCACCI per l’ebraico143.
Paolo Messina, ofmcap

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme – Ragusa
143
217
An_78.indb 251 21/06/11 15:38

Appendice 1: Schema dei costrutti sintattici per l’AB
Narrazione
ANTEFATTO PRIMO PIANO SFONDO
Forma iniziale Forme iniziali
x-qetal SgM/(x-)qetal/(x-)participio x-qetal → qetal*c
Forme continuative Forme continuative x-yiqtul
x-qetal → qetal*c x-participio
x-yiqtul qetal PNS
waw-yiqtul
participio
x-participio
PNS
Discorso Diretto
ASSE TEMPORALE PRIMO PIANO SFONDO
PASSATO Forme iniziali
x-qetal x-qetal → qetal*c
Forme continuative x-yiqtul
qetal x-participio → participio*c
participio PNS → participio*c
PRESENTE Forme iniziali
x-participio
PNS x-participio → participio*c
Forme continuative PNS → participio*c
participio
PNS
FUTURO Forme iniziali x-yiqtul → yiqtul*c
INDICATIVO x-yiqtul x-qetal
Forme continuative x-participio
yiqtul PNS
FUTURO VOLITIVO Forme iniziali

(x-)imperativo
(x-)yiqtul (forma breve) x-imperativo
Forme continuative x-yiqtul (forma breve)
yiqtul (forma breve)
imperativo
221
An_78.indb 252 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 253
Appendice 2: Schema proposto da NICCACCI per l’ebraico biblico144
Narrazione
ANTEFATTO PRIMO PIANO SFONDO
(waw-)x-qatal /
x-qatal (waw-)x-aOl + qatal
PNS wayyiqtol / aOlw> + qatal PNS
x-yiqtol
weqatal (waw-)x-yiqtol/
(waw-)x-aOl + yiqtol
weqatal / aOlw> + yiqtol
Discorso Diretto
ASSE TEMPORALE PRIMO PIANO SFONDO
PASSATO Forme iniziali x-qatal
(x-)qatal PNS
Forme continuative x-yiqtol
wayyiqtol weqatal
PRESENTE Forme iniziali

PNS
PNS
Forme continuative
PNS
FUTURO Forme iniziali

INDICATIVO PNS
x-yiqtol x-yiqtol
Forme continuative
weqatal / aOlw> + yiqtol
FUTURO VOLITIVO Forme iniziali
imperativo
(x-)yiqtol
(coortativo, iussivo) x-imperativo
Forme continuative x-yiqtol
weyiqtol / la;w> + yiqtol
144
222
An_78.indb 253 21/06/11 15:38

Bibliografia
BAR-EFRAT S., Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOT.S 70), Sheffield 1989.
BAUER H. - LEANDER P., Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen, Halle an der
Saale 1927 (ristampa: Hildesheim - Zürich - New York 41995).
Bible WorksTM 8, Software for Biblical Exegesis and Research, Bible Works,
Norfolk 2008.
BLAU J., “Minutiae Aramaicae”, in E. W. CONRAD - E. G. NEWING (ed.), Perspec-
tives on Language and Text: Essay and Poems in Honor of Francis I. An-
dersen’s Sixtieth Birthday July 28, 1985, Winona Lake 1987, 3-10.
BOMBECK S., “Die Verwendung der Präformativkonjugation im Aramäischen
des Buches Daniel”, Biblische Notizen 83 (1996), 5-8.
BROCKELMANN C., Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen
Sprachen (vol. 2: Syntax), Berlin 1913.
BUTH R., “ˀĕḏáyin/tote Anatomy of a Semitism in Jewish Greek”, Maarav 5-6
(1990) 33-48.
BUTH R., “Functional Grammar, Hebrew and Aramaic: An Integrated, Textlin-
guistic Approach to Syntax”, in W. R. BODINE (ed.), Discourse Analysis of
Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, Atlanta 1995, 77-102.
BUTH R., Word Order in Aramaic from the Perspectives of Functional Gram-
mar and Discourse Analysis, Ph.D. diss., Los Angeles 1987.
COHEN D., La Phrase Nominale et l’évolution du Système Verbal en sémiti-
ques: Études de syntaxe historique (Collection Linguistique publiée par la
Société de Linguistique de Paris 73), Paris 1984.
COLLINS J. J., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermenia: A Cri-
tical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), Minneapolis 1993.
COOK E. M., “Word Order in the Aramaic of Daniel”, Afroasiatic Liguistics 9
(1986) 111-126.
COXON P. W., “The Syntax of the Aramaic of Daniel: A Dialectal Study”, He-
brew Union College Annual 48 (1977) 107-122.
ESKHULT M., Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical He-
brew Prose (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensa
12), Uppsala 1990.
GEIGER G., Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste
(Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah), Leiden 2011 (in prepara-
zione).
GREENFIELD J. C., “The ‘Periphrastic Imperative’ in Aramaic and Hebrew”, Is-
rael Exploration Journal 19 (1969) 199-210.
GRELOT P., “Le waw d’apodose en araméen d’Égypte”, Semitica 20 (1970)
33-39.
GZELLA H., “Erscheinungsformen des historischen Präesens im Aramäischen”,
Orientalia 74 (2005), 399-408.
218
An_78.indb 254 21/06/11 15:38

Paolo Messina 255
GZELLA H., Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen (Akademie

der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainz. Veröffentlichungen der Ori-
entalischen Kommission 48), Wiesbaden 2004.
LI T., The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel: An Explanation in the Con-
text of Grammaticalization (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scrip-
ture 8), Leiden - Boston 2009.
MEADOWCROFT T. J., Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison
(JSOT.S 198), Sheffield 1995.
MILLER C. L., The Representation of Speech in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: A
Linguistic Analysis (Harvard Semitic Museum Monographs 55), Atlanta
1996.
MURAOKA T., “Notes on the Syntax of Biblical Aramaic”, JSS 11 (1966)
151-167.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (Dispensa
ad uso interno degli studenti dello Studium Biblicum Franciscanum), Geru-
salemme 2008-2009 (versione aggiornata dell’opera pubblicata in SBF.
Analecta 23).
NICCACCI A., “Types and Functions of the Nominal Sentence”, in C. L. MILLER
(ed.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, Wi-
nona Lake 1999, 215-248.
PAT-EL N., “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination”, in H.
GZELLA - M. L. FOLMER (ed.), Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Set-
ting (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz: Veröffentli-
chungen der Orientalischen Kommission 50), Wiesbaden 2008, 55-76.
POLAK F., “The Daniel Tales in their Aramaic Literary Milieu”, in A. S. VAN DER
WOUDE (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 106), Leuven 1993, 249-265.
ROGLAND M., “Remarks on the Aramaic Verbal System”, in M. F. J. BAASTEN -
W. Th. VAN PEURSEN (ed.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Pre-
sented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 118), Leuven - Paris - Dudley 2003,
421-432.
ROSÉN H. B., “On the use of the tenses in the Aramaic of Daniel”, JSS 6 (1961)
183-203.
ROSÉN H. B., “Zur Vorgeschichte des Relativsatzes im Nordwestsemitischen”,
East and West: Selected Writings in Linguistics by Haiim B. Rosén edited
for the occasion of his sixtieth birthday by a group of friends and disciples
(Part 2: Hebrew and Semitics Linguistics), München 1984, 309-321.
ROSENTHAL F., A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Porta Linguarum Orientalium
5), Wiesbaden 1961.
ROWLEY H. H., The Aramaic of the Old Testament: A grammatical and lexical
study of its relations with other early Aramaic dialects, London 1929.
219
An_78.indb 255 21/06/11 15:38

SEGERT S., Altaramäische Grammatik mit Bibliographie, Chrestomathie und

Glossar, Leipzig 31986.
SHEPHERD M. B, “The Distribution of Verbal Forms in Biblical Aramaic”, JSS
52 (2007) 227-244.
SHEPHERD M. B., The Verbal System of Biblical Aramaic: A Distributional
Approach (Studies in Biblical Literature 116), New York et al. 2008.
STEVENSON W. B., Grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic: With an Appendix
on Numerals by J. A. Emerton, Oxford 21962 (ristampa: Oxford 1981).
VOGT E., Lexicon Linguae Aramaicae Veteris Testamenti, Roma 1971.
WEINRICH H., Tempus: Le funzioni dei tempi nel testo (Collezione di Testi e
Studi: Filologia e critica letteraria), Bologna 62004.
WESSELIUS J. W., “The Literary Nature of the Book of Daniel and the Linguistic
Character of its Aramaic”, Aramaic Studies 3 (2005) 241-283.
220
An_78.indb 256 21/06/11 15:38

Tania Notarius
Text, Discourse and Tenses in the Victory Song in

2 Sam 22,33-46:
In Search of the Underlying Literary Convention
1. Introduction1
The victory song in 2 Sam 22,33-46 is, as a rule, investigated as part of the
Song of David (2 Sam 22), although many scholars claimed for it a special lit-
erary status as an originally independent song, belatedly incorporated into the
whole composition.2 CROSS and FREEDMAN in their seminal study of the Song
maintained that the author of the whole composition “drew on a number of
older sources.”3 MCCARTER admits that “a number of key terms in these verses
[33-46] have gone unrecognized or unexplained” and suggests a “more extra-
vagant” view that the passage describes Yahweh’s creating of the psalmists.4
CHISHOLM agrees with many other scholars about the bipartite structure of
2 Sam 22, but argues for the final literary unity of the composition.5
The passage hardly ever received the separate attention of scholars. How-
ever, it entails a number of very specific textual and linguistic problems that
distinguish it from the rest of the composition. Moreover, the passage resists
unambiguous discourse analysis and, as will be shown below, exposes diverse
verbal forms hardly expected in a poetic passage of this kind: the past-tense in-
terpretative framework competes with the present/future-tense interpretative
1
Many aspects of this paper were discussed with Prof. E. GREENSTEIN; I thank him for his
comments. It is a special honor to contribute this article to the Festschrift of Prof. Alviero NIC-
CACCI, whose works marked the watershed in the study of verbal tenses in BH.
2
Cf. MICHEL, Tempora, 49; MCCARTER, II Samuel, 474.
3
See CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 85, but they add that “it remains a question as to whe-
ther the psalm is an amalgamation of two or more independent odes, or a single poem sharply
divided into separate parts.”
4
See MCCARTER, II Samuel, 469-470; he also maintains an independent provenance of the
song (v. 33-46) in the early monarchic period (p. 475).
5
See CHISHOLM, Study, 19-24; CHISHOLM, Study, 54, calls v. 31-46 a “report of victory”.
247
An_78.indb 257 21/06/11 15:38

258 Text, Discourse and Tenses in the Victory Song in 2 Sam 22,33-46
framework, and the semantic distribution between the forms is not a self-evi-
dent issue.
In what follows, the textual and linguistic diversity of the passage will be
investigated (part 2). Special attention will be laid on the problem of discourse
and tenses in the passage (part 3). The paper will compare the different inter-
pretative frameworks and suggest a comprehensive analysis of the discourse
mode and the verbal tenses embodied in the text. It will be claimed that the
discourse mode of the passage is a retrospective report, the passage represents
a relatively archaic type of the system of verbal tenses, but altogether the text
demonstrates some dialectal or specific conventional literary features. The
conclusion suggests historical and typological generalizations about the recon-
structed system of verbal tenses (part 4).
2. 2 Sam 22,33-46: Some textual and linguistic problems
The complex textual situation of 2 Sam 22,33-46 is disclosed not just due to a
divergent tradition in Ps 18, but also through the parallel passage in 4QSama.6
Naturally, the textual divergences arise around rare or unexpected linguistic
phenomena. LXX has some important data as well, especially concerning ver-
bal forms and their interpretation. The present review concentrates on textual
and linguistic difficulties that have implications for the discourse structure and
the verbal tenses analysis in the passage.
V. 33-34 demonstrate some deviations between the ketiv and qere traditions
regarding the third and first person pronominal suffixes: "(' &+ ;. <#C&L>, "4. +I&.
<#"4I&>; Ps 18 agrees with the qere. Besides, "/M< . D$ can be read #(")/#<O ‘his
heights’, as BHS reports referring to earlier editions; LXX and Targum Jona-
than have here plural forms without any pronoun.7 The attempt to read "/M< . D$ as
its partial homonym ‘my backs/haunches’ does not have sufficient textual sup-
port (the dual form is expected) and is idiomatically difficult.8 The choice be-
tween the first (in reference to the speaker, presumably the king) and the third
6
On the parallel 4QSama fragment see DJD XVII, p. 180-190, Plate XX. See the reviews in
MCCARTER, II Samuel, 459-462, or ANDERSON, 2 Samuel, 260-261; a more thorough investiga-
tion of versions one may find in PARRY, 4QSam(a), and in YOUNG, Two Versions.
7
In this interpretation ‘the heights, sacral places’ belong to god, being dedicated to him,
and not to the king. CHISHOLM, Study, 251, notices that the term is “an allusion for the Judean
heights or fortifications which provided David with security as king;” note 2: “refers to the
mountainous regions which are the habitat of the deer”, cf. Mic 1,3-4; Hab 3,19.
8
Cf. MCCARTER, II Samuel, 459; his claim for "/<[O in 4QSama is nowadays not supported
by DJD XVII, 181, Plate XX. One can compare to "/P. <D$ in Ps 18 in defective spelling; the tradi-
tion of reading, however, points to ‘high places’; cf. KOGAN and TISCHENKO, who postulated a
complete distinction between these two lexemes, *b&met “back, body” and *b#m#h “open coun-
try, hill; cultic structure”. They read the following passage as *b&met “back, body; here legs”,
because of the parallelism to "4. +I&. ; see KOGAN-TISCHENKO, Notes, 334.
248
An_78.indb 258 21/06/11 15:38

Tania Notarius 259
(in reference to god) persons is hardly a simple interchange of two similar let-
ters and suggests alternative interpretations, relevant to discourse analysis. If
the first person is read in all the three cases, verses 33-34 represent the begin-
ning of the report on the king’s military preparations,9 further developed in the
following verses. With the third person, the passage contains the introductory
material concentrated on three main topics: (a) god’s revelation (4 '"F$ " '\J9<$ 4%) !$
#C&L 1"<' f$ &f) .` .#); (b) god’s description (/M4 $`%. ($ #"4I& ! 3JZ. <+ );10 (c) his establishing
the hero and bringing him near (" '0L) <' 9[ ." #"/#<O 49. +#). In this paper the third person
and the latter interpretation are generally preferred.
In v. 33 " '\J9<$ corresponds to the non-predicative participial phrase " '0&) +\%. <+ !. in
Ps 18; LXX largely agrees with Ps 18. 4QSama has "0&H%<, a predicative partici-
ple, presumably a more innovative verbal use, therefore hardly preferable.11
V. 33-35 contain two clear cases of non-predicative participles, ! 3JZ. <+ , v. 34, and
LN) 4. <+ , v. 35, both in circumstantial phrases.12
&f) .` .# in v. 33 is rendered by the verb ,f) '` .# in Ps 18, most likely a simplifica-
tion.13 &f) .` .# in 2 Sam 22,33 is to be understood in view of the Ugaritic idiom tr
(ar%), found in KTU 1.3:V:5, 1.4:V:21, 1.17:VI:46; perhaps also in KTU 1.10:
II:11 and other places.14 According to TROPPER, the root is Atwr ‘go around, tra-
vel’ (the form is infinitive absolute in narrative function); he rejects the
connection to the root Ayrw/y ‘shoot’.15 However, in the dictionary of DEL OLME
LETE and SANMARTÍN these cases are not registered under t-w-r nor y-r-y,16 but
are to be found under n-t-r ‘jump, leap, escape” (the form is infinitive con-
struct).17 These differences in scholarly interpretation remarkably echo the dis-
cussion around &f) .` .# in 2 Sam 22,33.18 In my view, we are dealing with the same
9
Cf. to MCCARTER’s reading that the Lord “fashions a sturdy warrior” (MCCARTER, II Samu-
el, 470-471).
10
Thus, the verb ! 3JZ. <+ describes the divine appearance; however, the qere variant "4. +I&. gives
hint to the object of the following verb " '0L) <' 9[ ." and thus contributes to the parallelism.
11
Ugaritic, Old Canaanite of El-Amarna, and the archaic type of BH avoid the active parti-
ciple in predicative use; cf. NOTARIUS, Active Participle, 246.
12
On the circumstantial function of the participles phrases in this passage, see SCHMUTTER-
MAYR, Studien, 126-127. On the non-predicative participial phrase in other pieces of archaic po-
etry see NOTARIUS, Active Participle: in the archaic poetry this use exclusively characterizes the
hymnal poetic speech; cf. also to the discussion in CHISHOLM, Study, 56-57. In Ugaritic poetry
the participial phrases are attested in the narrative mode, cf. TROPPER, Ugaritische Grammatik,
477 (cf. also BRUCK, &"OF/, 102, about the participle in Ugaritic prose).
13
Cf. SCHMUTTERMAYR, Studien, 134-135, MCCARTER, II Samuel, 459.
14
Perhaps the fullest list of the relevant cases is in TROPPER, Ugaritische Grammatik, 484.
15
See TROPPER, Ugaritische Grammatik, 484, thus already CAQUOT, Textes, 283; cf. the
translation of D. PARDEE in HALLO, Context, 254.260.348. On the contrary, SIVAN, Grammar,
148.164, derives the word from the root yry, as in GINSBERG, Mythes, 142. Cf. the discussion in
PARKER, Narrative Poetry, 169, note 86. The third commonly discussed possibility is the root trr
‘shake’, as it is translated in SMITH-PITARD, Baal Cycle, 538, “the earth shook”; see their discus-
sion on p. 335-337.
16
See OLME LETE-SANMARTÍN, Dictionary, 876.983.
17
See OLME LETE-SANMARTÍN, Dictionary, 652.
249
An_78.indb 259 21/06/11 15:38

inter-dialectal idiom, the precise meaning of which is still somewhat obscure.

Several similar features of the Ugaritic and BH idioms are to be noticed: (1)
the idiom describes a god’s behavior; (2) the verb describes motion, namely a
god’s motion in the universe.19 I give preference to the root Atwr, &?#. cor-
respondingly; the technical translation of 2 Sam 22,33b will be ‘he, the upright
one, went through in his direction.”20
In v. 35 .>- '/ +# shifts into the feminine !.$ >Y '/ +# in Ps 18; the text is broken in
4QSama, but .>/# is reconstructed. This verbal idiom (.>/ piel “press down the
bow”, i. e., set it or bend it) is attested also in Ugaritic.21 In any case, both read-
ings have a weqatal construction; its grammatical function is to be cleared up.22
The second accusative on the piel verb D?72 is introduced by the 2 of accusa-
tive (!7$ >$ 2+ F' 2- , v. 35).23
l.I+ /5Y -# of v. 36 is v.&@5# in 4QSama. Ps 18 has l.+ -# +/5- +# and enlarges this verse
by another clause " '/D) 5$ :+ .' l +/"7"' '#; LXX suggests a longer version as well.24
A rare grammatical form of the preposition with nun " '/f) >+ f- is found in
v. 37.25 Ps 18 omits nun and 4QSama omits the whole prepositional phrase. The
colon "C$ :p &+ W- BD5Y 7$ %I2 +# seems to be supralinearly added in 4QSama.26 The clause-
initial full yiqtol form G">' &+ f- looks like G[">]&. in 4QSama, partly broken, but
the full spelling is reconstructed.27
In v. 38 the lengthened form !9$ 6+ &+ %1 is not transmitted in Ps 18: … KE6&+ %1
0 )A"}' %- . 0D") 7' X+ %- $# is lacking in Ps 18. The use of the waw-less lengthened ˀäqtol
form in the presumably narrative/story-telling function is quite rare.28
Two verb forms 0d) >$ 7+ %1 $# 0C) <- %Y $# in v. 39 are rendered by one verb 0d]>7% in
4QSama without the waw consecutive. Yiqtol forms with or without waw seem
to be in free distribution in different versions.29
18
See HALOT, 736.1709.
19
D. PARDEE (in HALLO, Context, 348, note 50) lists this idiom among “formulae, attested in
variants forms, for divine travel and arrival at ˀIlu’s abode”.
20
Cf. Deut 32,4 for similar vocabulary.
21
On the parallel phrase ‘to bend or stretch the bow’ in the Ugaritic context see CROSS, Ca-
naanite Myth, 23, especially note 57 and p. 176, note 127.
22
See the discussion in paragraph 3.4.3 below.
23
See KEIL-DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary, 480.
24
See the discussion in CHISHOLM, Study, 90-91.
25
See GKC, § 103. The prepositions can have nun in Ugaritic and Phoenician; see DAHOOD,
Psalms, 116, who pointed to the nun-suffixed prepositions in Ugaritic and Phoenician and
claimed that the forms with nun are archaic and original.
26
See the wider discussion in MCCARTER, II Samuel, 460.
27
Thus according to DJD XVII, 181.
28
According to GKC, § 108 e, this might be a conditional sentence “if I determined to pur-
sue, then ….” WALTKE-O’CONNOR, 576, interpret the form as a pseudo-cohortative without waw
for past narrative; cf. the discussion in paragraph 3.4.2 below.
29
Cf. CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 83: “An examination of the material shows that the use
of the conjunction follows no determinable set of rules. Rather, it seems to be distributed at ran-
dom, haphazardly inserted in one text, omitted in the other.”
260
An_78.indb 260 21/06/11 15:38

Tania Notarius 261
In v. 40 " '0&) +Hf. .#, with a syncope of intervocalic aleph, corresponds to "0&H%/[#]
in 4QSama.30 9". &' C+ f. is rendered by 9&C/# in 4QSama—a hifil verb with defective
spelling and with waw. The defective spelling does not necessarily indicate the
short form of the prefix conjugation.31 This case, together with O"F' &+ f. in v. 37, is
an example of a full form of the prefix conjugation in clause-initial position,
apparently for the past tense use.32 The epistemic modal ,J<JY +" is paraphrased
1JY J4C+ p" %P4 +# in Ps 18.
In v. 41 a rare grammatical form !f$ f. with an apparent aphaeresis of the
initial nun is broken in 4QSama and is spelled regularly with nun in Ps 18. Ac-
cording to CROSS and FREEDMAN, the initial yod is dropped due to haplography,
and !//" is to be read, namely as ,G/" root.33 1/") <' e+ %. $# is in 4QSama 1]/"e<%, an-
other example of a waw-less clause-initial yiqtol. "%. +0>. <+ is in piel and not in qal,
cf. 2 Sam 22,18.
J9Z+ '" ‘look’ in v. 42 corresponds to J9 +JZ. +" ‘cry for help’ in Ps 18, also attested
in LXX and usually preferred by scholars.34 One can suggest here a haplogra-
phy #9(#)w" or a parallel #G9w root ‘cry for help’.
In v. 43 c&3 %$ is substituted in 4QSama by F&% "0? [49], while 1x) L' %[ is missing.
V. 43-44 display an unexpected and confusing tradition of the waw vocaliza-
tion: while 1Y) F$ Z+ %3 +# in v. 43 is vocalized by conjunctive waw, " '0V) K+ ?. f+ .# in v. 44 is
vocalized by a consecutive (conversive) waw. Ps 18 does not contain this com-
plexity, since " '0V) K+ ?. f+ is missing waw. 4QSama has waw. The waw vocalization,
which generally indicates the tenses interpretation, might be connected to the
problems surrounding "N' 9. "O") &' <) in v. 44. Ps 18 has 19$ "O") &' <) , preferred by MC
CARTER and translated as “the conflicts of the army”.35 For 4QSama 1"<9 "O"&< is
reconstructed, largely supported by LXX.36 The version of 2 Sam 22,44 is ex-
plained as ‘actualization’ toward the events of David’s life;37 this could explain
the waw-consecutive vocalization of " '0V) K+ ?. f+ .#. Basically, the Masoretic tradition
of the waw vocalization, in both 2 Sam 22 and Ps 18, demonstrates a not so
clear distribution of the clause-initial yiqtol forms with a simple or consecutive
waw, apparently for the past tense, unless the shift between two different
temporal locations is to be postulated.38
30
According to CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 104, note 90: “a popular, spoken” form; see
also KEIL-DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary, 481.
31
On many deviations of full and defective spellings between three main Hebrew versions
see YOUNG, Two Versions.
32
On full imperfect forms in v. 37 and v. 40 see CHISHOLM, Study, 234, note 2, and
CHISHOLM, Study, 205, note 2: “unreduced preterite forms”. Cf. also paragraph 3.4.2 below.
33
See CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 104, note 91. The root ,G/" is attested in Phoenician
and in Ugaritic; notice that in Aramaic the root ,G/0 is not used in perfect, but only in imperfect.
34
Cf. ANDERSON, 2 Samuel, 261, and MCCARTER, II Samuel, 461.
35
See MCCARTER, II Samuel, 461.
36
See the discussion in MCCARTER, II Samuel, 461.
37
Cf. SCHMUTTERMAYR, Studien, 169-170.
38
Cf. CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 84; see in paragraphs 3.2.4 and 3.4.2 below.
251
An_78.indb 261 21/06/11 15:38

The end of the passage, v. 44-46, reveals a very complex transmission pic-
ture and not all its details are relevant here.39 Another example of the simple
conjunctive waw is found in J& +TF+ ." +#, v. 46, parallel to JI&+ F+ ." +# in Ps 18, but appear-
ing in the negative form #&IF" %4 in 4QSama.40 , 3HP% 9M< . Z+ 4' in v. 45, reconstructed
also in 4QSama 9#]<w4, turns into a verbal noun 9<. Z) 4+ in Ps 18; the infinitive
construct is used tautologically instead of the infinitive absolute; the technical
translation will be “they totally obeyed me”.41
Summing up, one may claim that the passage 2 Sam 22,33-46 contains se-
veral specific uncommon language phenomena:
(1) Participial phrases are used as circumstantial phrases in a presumably sto-
ry-telling context.
(2) The 4 of accusative is used.
(3) The preposition with pronouns is suffixed by nun.
(4) The clause-initial waw-less full yiqtol forms are used as a main story-tell-
ing tense.
(5) The clause-initial waw-less lengthened ˀäqtol form is used as a main story-
telling tense.
(6) % is sporadically syncopated in an intervocalic position.
(7) The root ,G/" ‘give’ is apparently attested or, alternatively, the initial nun is
syncopated in the qatal form.
(8) The clause-initial yiqtol forms with a simple or consecutive waw lie in a
vague distribution, apparently for the past tense.
(9) The infinitive construct is used tautologically instead of the infinitive ab-
solute.
All these features distinguish the passage not just from the standard lan-
guage of classical prose, but also from most examples of poetic narrative or re-
port that one finds in the corpus of archaic poetry.42 Some of them point to a
specific situation of the verbal tenses in the passage.
39
See the review in MCCARTER, II Samuel, 461-462.
40
See MCCARTER, II Samuel, 462.472 for a wider discussion; cf. ANDERSON, 2 Samuel, 261,
and SCHMUTTERMAYR, Studien, 180. Generally the interpretation, based on IG&F in Ps 18 ‘tremble’
(cf. BDB, 353, and HALOT, 350), is adopted; thus also here. J& +TF+ ." +# in 2 Sam 22 is not necessari-
ly another root, but can be due to metathesis.
41
For infinitive absolute qal used as a tautological (paronomastic) infinitive with the finite
verbal forms in derived stems, especially in nifal, see WALTKE-O’CONNOR, 582 d; the internal ob-
ject , 3HP% has an intensifying function as well; cf. WALTKE-O’CONNOR, 166-167.
42
The elements of poetic narrative and report one finds in Deut 32, Judg 5, Ex 15, 2 Sam
22,4-20, Hab 3 etc. The full comparison to other poetic pieces is out of the scope of the present
article, but see in the conclusion, part 4.
252
An_78.indb 262 21/06/11 15:38

Tania Notarius 263
3. The discourse mode and tenses in 2 Sam 22,33-46:

diverse interpretations
3.1 The delimitation of the passage and its general literary structure
The passage of 2 Sam 22,33-46 is clearly distinguished from the surrounding
context by several discourse markers. On the one hand, the preceding v. 32 re-
presents a rhetorical question/exclamation ("L) 9[ 4+ D. <' &Je "<J' u! "L) 9[ 4+ D. <' 4%) "<' "('
) %7 ), namely, an insertion of the conversational framework that aims at re-
J0"!6
newing the audience’s attention. On the other hand, v. 47 overtly turns into
hortative discourse that aims at praise-giving ("&Je ' WJ&OJ$ u! "F. ). In this sense,
v. 33-46 sound like an answer to the preceding question and an introduction to
the following praise-giving.
The general literary structure of the poem allows for distinguishing three
main parts:43 The introduction (v. 33-35) gives a presentation about a god’s ap-
pearance and the beginning of the military training; the main formal markers
of this introductory part are nominal sentences and participial phrases, namely,
static entities (" '\J9<$ 4%) !$ , ! 3JZ. <+ , LN) 4. <+ ).44 The second part (v. 36-41) contains the
main report about the series of divine interventions and the psalmist’s victo-
ries. The third part (v. 42-46) concentrates on the miserable situation of the na-
tions and the psalmist’s final supremacy over them. The division between the
second and the third parts is mainly thematic and is not overtly indicated by
discourse markers, special verbal forms, or similar means. Nevertheless, the
Masoretic tradition distinguishes between these two parts by means of the waw
vocalization on the yiqtol forms: most waw-consecutive yiqtols are in the se-
cond part, while waw-conjunctive yiqtols are in the third part:
Cf. to KEIL-DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary, 479-480, who translate v. 33-37 in simple

43
present and emphasize that v. 34 and 35 “are simply a particularizing description of the pow-
er and might with which the Lord had endowed David”. CHISHOLM, Study, 234, distin-
guishes between pre-battle preparation (v. 33/34-37), victory (v. 38-43), and post-battle exalta-
tion (v. 44-46).
44
Cf. CHISHOLM, Study, 56-57: “The use of participial expressions resembles hymnic style
…. However, Crüsemann points out some important differences between the hymns proper and
the expressions found here. The former speak in general terms of Yahweh’s creative and provi-
dential acts. Psalm18/IISam 22:33-35 focus on God’s special acts for an individual, as the first
person references indicate …. Also, the divine name 4%) used in verse 33, does not appear in the
context of the hymnic sections.” See CRÜSEMANN, Studien, 123-124.
253
An_78.indb 263 21/06/11 15:38

Expl. 1: 2 Sam 22,33-46: literary structure45

I. Introduction:
:<"(' &+ 6- > #<&D 0"7' f$ 05#$B$2 2 '">$ " 'ZB57$ 2%) !$ (33)
47
:" '/D) 7' 5Y -" 46".E7
- =$ 25- +# .E2 $_%- ($ <"2- +A&- > #"2A& !"#$%&'( (34)
:".I$ 5I& +@ !XB>
$ +/ .X1 W1 3$/(A&2 !7$ >$ 2+ F' 2- "D- $" )*+$,'( (35)
II. Interventions/Victories Report:
:" '/=) &+ f- l.I+ /5Y -# l51 X+ '" , )A7$ "2' C"#(#$2 (36)
:"C$ :p &+ W- @=.)7* %I2 +# " '/f) >+ f- "D' 5Y d- G">' &+ f- (37)
:0.EC $ (- D5- GBX%$ %I2 +# +D<(*&'1$472 "G+"I- % !9$ 6+ &+ %1 (38)
:"2$ +A&- .>- f- @-&G(B$2 ,B7BW +" %I2 +# +5F7/&*"472 +5:$E.472 (39)
:" '/f) >+ f- "7- W$ 5" - &' <+ f- !7$ >$ 2+ F' 2- 2 '">- <(AH&I$#$2 (40)
:+53<(*&F$472 "%- +/8- 7+ K&I1 5 "C' !f$ f- "G+"I- % +# (41)
III. The Enemies’ Miserable Situation:
:+7A7) %I2 +# u! 2%1 $-./%&( ,"%) +# B5X+ '" (42)
:05) W$ &+ %1 0x) D' %Y .EdB> T"T' (+ b&1 %$ &9- 5Y (- 0W) >$ X+ %1 +# (43)
:" '/Dp G+ 5- -" <(#&)K7< %I2 05- 0 '"EQ X%I&2+ " '/&) 7+ X+ f' "F' 5- "G") &' 7) <(A5J&:$%&#$2 (44)
:"2' B57+ [$ '" , 1@I% 5E7
- X+ 2' "2' BX>Y (- .+ '" &<$ )/ " )/=+ (45)
:0.E& $ +Q:+ F' 7' B& +Q>+ -" +# B2I= '" &<$ )/ " )/=+ (46)
45
The verbal forms are marked as follows: circumstantial participial phrases are in cursive,
qatal forms are put in bold, and yiqtol forms are written with larger letters, while wayyiqtol
forms are in bold and with larger letters.
The translation of the passage follows NRSV, unless another interpretation is suggested:
33. Lo God, the strong fortress, the upright one, he went through in his direction.
34. Making his feet like the feet of deer, he set me secure on the heights.
35. Training my hands for war, he pressed down a bow of bronze in my arms.
36. You gave me the shield of your salvation, and your response you increased for me.
37. You made me stride freely, and my feet did not slip.
38. I pursued my enemies and destroyed them, and they could not turn back until they were
consumed.
39. I consumed them; I struck them down, so that they could not rise; they fell under
my feet.
40. You girded me with strength for the battle; you made my assailants sink under me.
41. You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my foes.
42. They cried for help, but there was no one to save them; to the LORD, but he did not an-
swer them.
43. I beat them fine like the dust of the earth, I crushed them and stamped them down like
the mire of the streets.
44. You delivered me from strife with the peoples; you kept me as the head of the nations;
people whom I had not known served me.
45. The foreigners came cringing to me; they obeyed me completely.
46. Foreigners lost heart, and trembled in their strongholds.
46
Or *#".#7G; see above paragraph 2.
47
On the forms of pronominal suffixed and ketiv and qere here cf. above.
264
An_78.indb 264 21/06/11 15:38

Tania Notarius 265
3.2 Discourse structure

The discourse structure of the text is analyzed according to five main criteria:48
(1) the communicative situation represented in the text,
(2) the illocutionary intentions within the speech,
(3) the type of the aspectual entities that shape the text,
(4) the temporal locations in the text, and
(5) the principles of text-progression.
All these criteria, when mapped together, help define a concrete discourse
mode,49 which in its turn lays a foundation for an adequate semantic interpreta-
tion of verbal forms in the text.
3.2.1 Communicative situation

The participants in the communicative situation are explicitly marked at differ-
ent stages of the composition. The speaker denotes his standpoint through first-
person elements, such as " '\J9<$ , v. 33,50 " '0L) <' 9[ .", v. 34 etc. Subsequently, second-
person elements emerge in v. 36: " '0D) &+ f. l/P+ 09[ .# l93 Z+ '" , )I<$ "4' ,f3 f' .# etc. Some scholars
interpret 4%) !$ in v. 33 as a vocative.51 In view of the textually remote position of
other second-person elements and lack of pragmatic elements that are usually
associated with vocatives, such as praise, petition, or thanksgiving, this inter-
pretation seems unnecessary; ! in 4%) !$ is a demonstrative particle.52 The com-
48
The approach, rooted in KAMP-REYLE, From Discourse to Logic, is based on SMITH,
Modes; SMITH, Domain; SMITH, Aspectual Entities; SMITH, Tense; and SMITH, Time, adopted in
NOTARIUS, 1"0<H! /C&9<, and NOTARIUS, Poetic Discourse; for alternative approaches to the Bibli-
cal Hebrew discourse analysis see NICCACCI, Syntax; LONGACRE, Discourse; and LONGACRE, Jo-
seph, partly elaborated here. In the present approach, the discourse analysis lays a foundation for
the formal semantic and morphosyntactic analysis of verbal forms, but does not substitute it; cf.
SMITH, Tense, 420, who claims that the temporal information is encoded on three levels: by the
inflectional “tense, other temporal expressions in the syntactic context, and the mode of dis-
course in the passage”. The temporal interpretation is done in neo-reichenbachian terms: The
time in language involves a linkage between three times—Event Time, Reference Time and
Speech Time—and is controlled by three possible relations (anteriority, coincidence, posteriori-
ty) within two temporal nodes: (1) Speech Time and Reference Time, (2) Reference Time and
Event Time; cf. REICHENBACH, Elements; SMITH, Tense, 421-422; SMITH, Domain, 598; or HATAV,
Semantics, in application to Biblical Hebrew. On the two-components aspect theory, entailing
lexical and viewpoint aspects, see SMITH, Parameter. According to SMITH, there are three types of
aspectual entities: eventualities, general statives, and abstract entities; see SMITH, Aspectual Enti-
ties, 227-231. The viewpoint aspect is defined as perfective (Reference Time embraces Event
Time) and imperfective (Event Time embraces Reference Time); see SMITH, Tense, 422; cf. also
DEMIRDACHE-URIBE-ETXEBARRIA, Aspect and Temporal Modification.
49
Discourse mode is a type of textual unit, that is defined through its temporal characteris-
tics, such as the aspectual entities that it introduces, the predominant patterns of temporal inter-
pretation, and the principles of text advancement; see SMITH, Aspectual Entities, 224-225; SMITH,
Tense, 224-225.
50
However, the final î can be interpreted as $ireq compaginis.
51
Thus SCHMUTTERMAYR, Studien, 125, and MICHEL, Tempora, 49; see the discussion in
CHISHOLM, Study, 58.
255
An_78.indb 265 21/06/11 15:38

pretation seems unnecessary; ! in 2%) !$ is a demonstrative particle.52 The com-

municative situation in the passage, namely the broad use of personal forms,
does not exactly fit narrative53 and suggests the discourse mode of report.54
3.2.2 Illocutionary intentions within the speech

The main difficulty connected to the discourse analysis of this passage is that
the text does not contain exact indications of the speaker’s pragmatic inten-
tions: there are no performative verbs or other speech formulas; indirect indi-
cations of speech activity intentions are also very meager. I assume that the
aspectual and temporal arrangement of the passage lends a constative story-
telling overtone to the passage.55
Not everyone would agree that the exclusive illocutionary intention of the
speech is an account of divine help in the speaker’s military and political en-
deavors. One may claim that the introductory part implies praise-giving, due to
the alleged vocative (2%) !$ , v. 33, but cf. above), divine titles (0"7' f$ ,2 '">$ " 'ZB57$
v. 33), and participial phases (! 1BX- 7+ , v. 34, and DF) 2- 7+ , v. 35).56 Within some inter-
pretations, the final part reminds us of a plea, perhaps due to weyiqtol forms as
0W) >$ X+ %1 +#, v. 43, and B& +Q>+ -" +#, v. 46.57 However, the text does not disclose any expli-
cit or implicit indications of such changes of illocutionary force.
3.2.3 Aspectual entities and the viewpoint aspect

Most aspectual entities that shape this passage are dynamic bounded events
(&f) -_ -#, v. 33; " '/D) 7' 5Y -", v. 34; ,f1 f' -#, v. 36; etc.). The dynamic bounded events tend to
be interpreted as perfective non-present, or rather past.58 One cannot exclude
progressive on-going activity as an aspectual interpretation for at least some of
52
Cf. to the translation in ANDERSON, 2 Samuel, 259.
53
Narrative is usually characterized by the spatial-temporal dislocation from the speaker
and listener (see TOOLAN, Narrative, 5), or the detachment from Speech Time (see SMITH, Do-
main, 605).
54
Report, on the contrary to the narrative, is characterized by wider involvement of the
communication participants and the constant reference to Speech Time; cf. SMITH, Domain, 606.
55
On the illocutionary force of the narrative see TOOLAN, Narrative, 4-6. For details on the
aspectual and temporal arrangement of the passage see paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 below.
56
Cf. KEIL-DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary, 479-480.
57
For the critics of the morphosyntactic value of the waw and its vocalization in interpret-
ing biblical poetry see CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 84: “It can no longer be doubted, however,
that the imperfect form of the verb was the common, generally used verb form in old Israelite
poetry, as in old Canaanite poetry, and that its time aspect was determined by the context, not
the presence or absence of the conjunction.”
58
On the basis of the Bounded Event Constraint, the default temporal interpretation will be
past tense, see SMITH, Time in Navajo, 45-46. For this interpretation see MCCARTER, II Samuel,
454-455.470-472. CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 84, theoretically support this approach to ten-
ses, but do not always apply it to their translation (see CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 92-93).
266
An_78.indb 266 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 267
especially due to the demonstrative particle !$ in the opening (4%) !$ , v. 33). This
aspectual interpretation will mean that Event Time embraces Reference Time,
but the temporal interpretation can differ: if Reference Time overlaps with
Speech Time, the tense is present progressive; if Reference Time is located in
the past (anterior to Speech Time), the tense will be past progressive; if Speech
Time is metaphorically relocated into past narrative, the tense is historical
present.59
Theoretically, dynamic verbs can be used in habitual or even generic say-
ings.60 However, such an interpretation seems unlikely for most verbal sayings
in the passage, especially in the second part: habitual sayings suggest generali-
zations about the situation pattern and generic sayings suggest the agent’s
characterization.61 Both possibilities contradict the eventive non-generic char-
acter of the military activity described in the passage. Some utterances, espe-
cially in the third part, can imply an iterative, or rather a distributive meaning,
especially due to the plurality of the agent or patient (J9Z+ '", v. 42; " '0Lp O+ 9. .", v. 44;
JZF[ (. /+ '", v. 45; etc.). These sentences can even be interpreted as present habitual,
taken as the pattern-characterization of the miserable situation of the ene-
mies.62 However, the text lacks clear formal indications of such a shift from
dynamic eventualities to general statives.
3.2.4 Temporal arrangement

The temporal interpretation of the passage is a highly hazardous issue, since
the text does not provide sufficient information about the exact temporal loca-
tions. The egocentric elements (" '0L) <' 9[ ." etc.) can require the deictic temporal pat-
tern, laying Speech Time as a default solution of temporal interpretation,63 but
the correlation of Speech Time with the events remains obscure. Moreover,
59
Historical present is defined here as metaphorical relocation of Speech Time into narra-
tive past; on historical present in narrative and report see SAKITA, Reporting.
60
The habitual/generic interpretation of the whole passage one can find in KEIL-DELITZSCH,
Biblical Commentary, 480-481: “David refers not only to the victories he has already won, but
in general to the defeat of all his foes in the past, the present, and the future.” The introductory
part, v. 33-35, may fit this interpretative framework mostly.
61
See KRIFKA, Genericity; cf. SMITH, Aspectual Entities, 225-228.
62
CHISHOLM, Study, 115, translates v. 44c-46 as present habitual; cf. CHISHOLM, Study, 235:
“the verbal forms here are imperfects with a habitual nuance.”
63
On three patterns of temporal interpretation in discourse—deictic, anaphoric, and sequen-
tial—see SMITH, Aspectual Entities, 235: the deictic time establishes reference to Speech Time;
the anaphoric time refers to another, than Speech Time, contextually established Reference
Time; and the sequential time builds an autonomous temporal succession of events/situations,
usually in chronological order; cf. also SMITH, Tense, 424: “Situations may be related to each
other; to a prior time; or to Speech Time”. Cf. PARTEE, Analogies, on deixis and anaphora in
temporal interpretation and KAMP-ROHRER, Tense in Texts, on sequential temporal pattern. For
the speaker as a key figure in providing deictic temporal pattern see SMITH, Parameter, 99: “The
speaker’s centrality enables the identification of time and place.”
257
An_78.indb 267 21/06/11 15:39

this military song does not contain any temporal phrase or a temporal clause in
the opening that would create an anaphoric reference to the upcoming events.
The only temporal pattern that is explicit in this passage is the sequential pat-
tern: the dynamic events in the foreground seem to create a temporal sequence
in the sense that the Event Time of the preceding eventuality in the sequence
provides a Reference Time for the following eventuality and so on (&f) .` .# →
" '0L) <' 9[ ." → LN) 4. <+ → ,f3 f' .# → O"F' &+ f. → !?$ ;+ &+ %3 → 1L") <' Z+ %. $# etc.). This type of temporal
pattern is a characteristic feature of the narrative mode.64 The combination of
the dynamic bounded events and the sequential temporal pattern suggests the
narrative past as the most economic temporal interpretation of the passage, as
most scholars have claimed.65 Basically, this temporal interpretation is adopted
in the present paper. One should not, however, forget that the sequential
temporal pattern in the foreground does not exclude backgrounding of some
circumstantial (,J<JY +" %P4 +#, v. 39), negated ("K$ Ap &+ Y. JL9[ <$ %P4 +#, v. 37), or iterative
(J9Z+ '", v. 42) events.66
Nevertheless, in the situation of inexplicit Speech Time and Reference
Time, the passage resists the unambiguous formal and semantic interpretation
of verbal forms even within the presumably sequential temporal pattern. The
Masoretic vocalization of waw seems to point to two different temporal loca-
tions in the text: Event Time of the second parts is probably anterior to the
Speech Time, namely, located in the past (v. 33-41), while the third part relo-
cates Event Time as posterior to Speech Time, namely, into the future
(v. 42-46).67 In this respect, one should notice that except for the (suspect)
Masoretic vocalization such a shift in the temporal locations is by no means
marked in the discourse: the thematic shift in between the two main parts, ma-
nifested above,68 is not a sufficient indication. Moreover, one should ask what
64
See SMITH, Tense, 425-426.
65
For the interpretation of the passage in past narrative see CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song,
84; CHISHOLM, Study, 231-235, suggests a general review on tenses and emphasizes, p. 233: “It is
possible to translate with the present tense and take the entire section as a confident statement of
Yahweh’s continual aid. However, the author prefers to understand verses 33 (or 34)-44b as a
description of past victories, with verses 44c-46 referring to present conditions resulting from
these past acts.” On parallels with ancient Near Eastern royal victory reports cf. CHISHOLM, Stu-
dy, 41-44. MCCARTER, II Samuel, 454-455.469-472, interprets the whole song as a narrative on
the Lord’s creating the psalmist and providing his victories. ANDERSON, 2 Samuel, 259, is aware
of the introduction, shaped by the generic entities (v. 33-35), but renders the rest of the composi-
tion as a narrative or rather retrospective report (notice that he widely uses the English present
perfect in the translation).
66
Cf. to details of the semantic analysis in paragraph 3.4.2 below.
67
For such temporal interpretation cf. Targum of Jonathan: the Targum clearly divides into
three parts as for the tenses uses: the introduction is rendered in participles (as present habitual);
the second part is wholly rendered in the past; the third part combines participle in v. 42 and the
past in v. 43, but then turns into the future; in LXX the use of the future tense is even wider and
includes v. 38-40.42-46.
68
See paragraph 3.1 above.
258
An_78.indb 268 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 269
such a shift in the temporal location can imply for the discourse. In the situa-
tion of the Human Speaker → Divine Addressee communication, as it was de-
fined above,69 this temporal relocation could mean a prophetic prospective re-
port about the coming victories, or the speaker’s plea.
Both possibilities seem implausible to me. The language of prophecy pre-
supposes an opposite communicative situation (Divine → Human);70 moreover
the passage lacks typical prophetic formulas. The language of a petition would
demand volitive modal forms, indispensable in such a discourse situation, but
they are lacking in the passage.71 For these reasons, the attempt of some schol-
ars to interpret part of the passage or even the whole passage as a future-ori-
ented plea seems out of place.72
Another alternative to the narrative past interpretation of the whole passage
is connected to some aspectual and modal overtones of the sayings pointed out
above:73
(1) The dynamic eventualities in the foreground and their temporal se-
quence will not exclude the present progressive interpretation, if one suggests
that the opening 4%) !$ creates an explicit deictic reference and the rest of the
eventualities are to be interpreted as on-going at the moment of speech (“This/
Here is the god, (my) military strength; the perfect one, he is moving through
in his direction, etc.”). The discourse mode of the passage then will be not nar-
rative, nor report, but rather description, since it will aim at rendering an on-
going state of affairs.74 The pragmatic effect of that long present progressive
description is, however, uncertain: a description developed into such an exten-
ded sequential chain might infer that the whole account is taken as completed
and bounded, therefore, as a narrative. In such a discourse situation the tempo-
ral interpretation of the present progressive forms will be the historical present.
(2) Some sayings, especially in the third part, which concentrates on the
miserable condition of the enemies and the absolute character of the psalmist’s
authority, can suggest iterative or even habitual interpretation (9". ZP' < ,"%) +# J9Z+ '",
v. 42; 1Y) F$ Z+ %3 +#, v. 43; " '0Lp O+ 9. .", v. 44).75 The temporal interpretation of these sayings
will be the present habitual tense: the event is multiplied, modified by the ge-
neric operator, and its Reference Time (Habit Scope) embraces Speech Time.76
69
See paragraph 3.2.1 above.
70
On the basic communicative situation in the prophetic poetic speech see NOTARIUS, /C&9<
1"0<H!, 44-48; cf. also in NOTARIUS, Balaam, 62-63.
71
The only form that might suggest volitive mophosyntactic status is !?$ ;+ &+ %3 , v. 38; cf.
KEIL-DELITZSCH, Biblical Commentary, 480-481, who render v. 38 and 39 in the future; thus also
in LXX.
72
On the general critics of this view cf. CROSS-FREEDMAN, Royal Song, 84.
73
See paragraph 3.2.3 above.
74
On description as discourse mode see SMITH, Aspectual Entities, 235.
75
Cf. in paragraph 3.1 above.
76
On the typology of the iterative sayings see XRAKOVSKIJ, Typology; on the generic sta-
259
An_78.indb 269 21/06/11 15:39

Finally, one cannot absolutely reject the possibility that different temporal
locations, aspectual viewpoints, and modal connotations are dynamically com-
bined within this composition by virtue of syntactic flexibility, typical of the
poetic language, even if the text demonstrates no clear discourse markers of
such semantic shifts.77 The passage could start within the present progressive
and then shift into the past narrative sequential, being sporadically interrupted
by habitual sayings. The possibility of such dynamic changes will be more
deeply examined within the morphosyntactic analysis of concrete verbal cate-
gories in the passage.
3.2.5 Text progression

Text progression is the discourse characteristic which controls the text’s move-
ment through its foregrounded elements.78 In spite of a certain cyclical nature
of the text progression, noticed by scholars,79 the passage’s foreground is
shaped by the dynamic bounded events that denote different stages of war pre-
parations, battles and victories (&f) .` .# → " '0L) <' 9[ ." → LN) 4. <+ → ,f3 f' .# → O"F' &+ f. → !?$ ;+ &+ %3
→ 1L") <' Z+ %. $# etc.) and, therefore, it progresses temporally through the temporal
locations of events.
3.2.6 Discourse mode in 2 Sam 22,33-46: conclusion

The discourse features mapped above, in spite of their partly insufficient and
vague character, give indications of the discourse mode of the passage. The se-
quential temporal pattern and temporal text-progression indicate that the pas-
sage is narrative.80 However, the use of the first and second person forms are
not typical of narrative, since it forms a deictic temporal pattern. The egocen-
tric elements and the deictic pattern associate the passage with the retrospec-
tive report.81 The report discourse mode, because of its typical correlation with
tives, especially generalizing sentences (= habitual sayings) see KRIFKA, Genericity, or BONEH-
DORON, Habituality. On the difficulty of distinguishing between iterative, habitual, and generic
sayings and the overlap between these semantic categories see DAHL, Aspect.
77
On the syntactic flexibility see NOTARIUS, F"w4 ,#w4 ,"O, 136-137; NICCACCI, Biblical He-
brew, 248. The alternative semantic interpretations of some verbal statements, as progressive
past or present or iterative-habitual past or present, are rendered by the default simple past in
English translation above.
78
The principles of text-progression were fully formulated in SMITH, Modes, and SMITH, Do-
main: she distinguishes between temporal (through the locations in time), spatial (through the
locations in space), and metaphorical (through the metaphorical locations in the informational
space of the text) text-progressions.
79
See CHISHOLM, Study, 55: “the report is both cyclical and progressive”.
80
Narrative is a discourse mode that introduces dynamic eventualities within the sequential
temporal pattern and is characterized by a temporal text-progression; see SMITH, Aspectual Enti-
ties, 233.
260
An_78.indb 270 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 271
Speech Time, can better elucidate apparent dynamic shifts of the prevailing
aspectual entities (from events to general statives), aspectual viewpoints (from
progressive to perfective), or temporal locations (from past to present habitu-
al). As has been shown above, the text does not contain enough discourse
markers of these shifts, but the report allows such shifts in a quite operative
way.82 From now on, the passage will be notified as retrospective report, but
those of its features that relate it to narrative should not be ignored.
3.4 Tenses in 2 Sam 22,33-46

The discourse conditions mapped out above lay a foundation for the appropri-
ate formal morphosyntactic and semantic analysis of verbal forms in this pas-
sage. The main challenge that the student of verbal tenses in biblical poetry
confronts is the question of the morphological status of the prefix conjugation.
The ancient North-West Semitic context indicates that there were two indica-
tive prefix conjugations suitable to shape a poetic retrospective report: perfec-
tive *yaqtul and imperfective *yaqtulu.83 The problem of the prefix conjuga-
tion in the passage cannot be treated by itself, but has to be correlated with the
semantic analysis of other verbal forms and the system of tenses in general,
and be put in the appropriate historical linguistic context.
81
Report introduces dynamic eventualities and general statives within the deictic temporal
pattern and is characterized by a temporal text-progression. See SMITH, Aspectual Entities, 234.
Retrospective report basically locates events in the past, in contrast to prospective report, typical
of some types of prophetic speech, which locates events in the future.
82
The combination of narrative style and the use of the second person remind of the com-
municative situation in Ex 15; cf. CHISHOLM, Study, 60-62, who suggests a wide comparison of
both songs; on the problem of rendering verbal tenses in Ex 15 see PROPP, Exodus, 506-507.
83
On the problem of perfective *yaqtul and imperfective *yaqtulu in Old Canaanite of El-
Amarna see MORAN, Amarna Studies, 49, and RAINEY, Ancient Hebrew; RAINEY, Further Re-
marks; RAINEY, Prefix Conjugation; and RAINEY, Canaanite, 222-226. On Ugaritic see SIVAN,
Grammar, 99-100; TROPPER, Ugaritische Grammatik, 695-701; GREENSTEIN, Prefixed Preterite;
GREENSTEIN, New Grammar; and GREENSTEIN, Forms and Functions; PIQUER OTERO, Estudios,
does not confront the problem of the morphological status of yqtl conjugation in his text-linguis-
tic (adopted from NICCACCI, Syntax) approach of the verbal tenses in Ugaritic poetic narrative,
but expresses a hope that his findings can contribute to the discussion, see PIQUER OTERO, Estudi-
os, 719-721. On Old Aramaic, with some continuation in Official Aramaic, see EMERTON, New
Evidence; MURAOKA, Tel Dan; MURAOKA, Again; MURAOKA, Aramäisches; ROGLAND, Remarks.
On the problem of historical *yaqtul in Moabite, Epigraphic Hebrew, and some Transjordan
‘bridge’ dialects, as Deir-Alla see GARR, Dialect Geography, 185-186. The problem of the forms
with the energic ending -na is not treated here, since the passage does not contain any relevant
data, but see ZEWI, Syntactical Study. On nun paragogicum ,J<JY +" %P4 +# in v. 39 cf. paragraph
3.4.2 below.
261
An_78.indb 271 21/06/11 15:39

3.4.1 Participial phrases

One of the specific features of the verbal morphosyntax in the passage is the
use of participles as circumstantial phrases that denote a dynamic event:
Expl. 2: 2 Sam 22,33-35
=5L$-&* :" '0L) <' 9[ ." 84"/M<
. D$ 49. +# /M4 $`%. ($ <"4. +I&. > #"4I& !"@$'1&* :<"(' &+ ;. > #C&L 1"<' f$ &f) .` .# 4 '"F$ " '\J9<$ 4%) !$
:"/P$ 9P& +H !ZJF
$ +0 /Z3 Y3 /F. '0 +# !<$ F$ 4+ N' 4. "L. $"
V. 33-35 represent an introduction to the retrospective report; the main verbal
forms (&f) .` .#, v. 33; " '0L) <' 9[ .", v. 34; /F. '0 +#, v. 35) denote different stages of the battle
preparation.85 Moreover, the participles because of their dynamic and eventive
character (especially LN) 4. <+ in v. 35) and in spite of their subordinate syntactic
position, are semantically included in the chain of the preparation stages. For
this reason, the borderline between predicative and attributive functions of the
participle is not so striking, and this might have led to textual changes of " '\J9<$ ,
v. 33, in Ps 18 (" '0&) +\%. <+ !. ) and in 4QSama ("0&H%<), discussed above: notice that
4QSama suggests a predicative participle.
A dynamic active participle as a circumstantial phrase is virtually absent
from other pieces of poetic report or narrative in the corpus of archaic biblical
poetry,86 but, interestingly, it is attested in Ugaritic narrative poetry: e. g., KTU
1.2:I:31 qmm ˀa[mr] ˀamr “standing, they spoke a speech”;87 and lately in ret-
rospective reports in classical prophetic poetry.88
3.4.2 The forms of the prefix conjugation

and the structure of the retrospective report
The forms of the prefix conjugation (yiqtol) in the passage reveal some specific
morphosyntactic features:
(1) full yiqtol forms are attested in clause-initial position as the main form of
the report sequence (O"F' &+ f. , v. 37; 9". &' C+ f. , v. 40);
(2) the Masoretic vocalization contains both waw consecutive and simple waw
vocalization with yiqtol forms on the main line of the report (&f) .` .#, v. 33; ,f3 f' .#,
v. 34; etc. vs. 1Y) F$ Z+ %3 +#, v. 43);
(3) yiqtol can be clause-initial or non-initial in the clause (,f3 f' .# vs. " '0D) &+ f. , v. 36);
the word order is syntactically and pragmatically significant;
84
On *#"/#<O and the qere forms see above paragraph 2.
85
These forms themselves have different functions in the report: &f) .` .# starts the main line of
the report, " '0L) <' 9[ ." introduces a circumstance, and /F. '0 +# has past sequential meaning; cf. paragraph
3.4.3 below.
86
Participial phrases are used in hymnal and proverbial poetic speech and correspond to
states or general statives; cf. Ex 15,16, Gen 49,11; cf. in NOTARIUS, Active Participle, 246-248.
87
qmm is participle according to TROPPER; see more examples in TROPPER, Ugaritische
Grammatik, 477, or BRUCK, &"OF/, 102.
88
Cf. WALTKE-O’CONNOR, 621-624.
262
An_78.indb 272 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 273
(4) the clause-initial waw-less lengthened ˀäqtol form is used on the main line
of the report (!?$ ;+ &+ %3 , v. 38).
In what follows, all the verses with yiqtol forms are assembled; yiqtol
forms are put in bold, the clause-initial ones are enlarged:
Expl. 3: (33) <"(' &+ ;. > #C&L 1"<' f$ 05#$B$2 4 '"F$ " '\J9<$ 4%) !$ .a
(34) <(AD(*.)$< 89"/M<. D$ 49. +# /M4 $`%. ($ <"4. +I&. > #"4I& ! 3JZ. <+ .b
(36) <(A5MN$# l/P+ 09[ .# l93 Z+ '" , )I<$ "4' C"#(#$2 .c
(37) "K$ Ap &+ Y. JL9[ <$ %P4 +# " '0f) F+ f. "L' 9[ e. 6<(/N$# .d
(38) 1/MK $ (. L9. 6@'174 %P4 +# +D<(*&'1$472 "O+"P. % !7%&ON"4 .e
(39) "4$ +I&. /F. f. @-&G(B$2 C@*@P&< %P4 +# +5F7/&*"472 +5:$E.472 .f
(40) " '0f) F+ f. "<. Y$ $)<Q&E$# !<$ F$ 4+ N' 4. 4 '"F. <(AH&I$#$2 .g
(41) +53<(*&F$472 "%. +0>. <+ R&P3 9 "K' !f$ f. "O+"P. % +# .h
(42) 1 $09$ %P4 +# u! 4%3 9". ZP' < ,"%) +# @)&'1(< .i
(43) +5)TN"4 +58S.4 /MeJF V"V' (+ c&3 %$ &?. 9[ (. +R7/&'1"4&2 .j
(44) <(AU&6$)$< "f' 9+ L. $" %P4 19. 1 '"MT Z%P&4+ <(AH&*&'1(# "N' 9. "O") &' <) <(A5J&:$%&#$2 .k
(45) "4' @)&*7W1(< , 3HP% 9M<
. Z+ 4' "4' @'1./$V&3(< &C$ )0 " )0D+ .l
(46) 1/M&$ +TA+ N' <' @0&>&/$<&2 @-1M(< &C$ )0 " )0D+ .m
The initial (w)yiqtol is the main form in the report progress; it starts the narra-
tive units (e. g., &f) .` .#, v. 33; ,f3 f' .#, v. 36; O"F' &+ f. , v. 37; J9Z+ '", v. 42) or denotes their
continuation (e. g., 1L") <' Z+ %. $#, v. 38; 9". &' C+ f. , v. 40; 1/") <' e+ %. $#, v. 41; J& +TF+ ." +#, v. 46). The
non-initial x-yiqtol is circumstantial (" '0L) <' 9[ .", v. 34; " '0Lp O+ 9. .", v. 44), stays in prag-
matically marked constructions with parallel nominal phrases in juxtaposition
involving chiasm (19) Y$ &+ %3 1x) L' %[ , v. 43; JZF[ (. /+ '", v. 45; J4PD '", v. 46) and contrastive
topic (" '0D) &+ f. , v. 36; J9<+ ]$ '", v. 45), or introduces the modality of (im)possibility
after the negative %P4 +# (OJZ%$ %P4 +#, v. 38; ,J<JY +" %P4 +#, v. 39);90 in such sentences no
temporal text-progression is provided.
In my view, all the cases (or at least most of them) of both (w)yiqtol and x-
yiqtol verbal constellations represent the occurrences of imperfective *yaq-
tulu.91 This will mean that the clause-initial (w)yiqtol constellations should be
interpreted as cases of the historical present—the metaphorical use of the pre-
sent tense/imperfective aspect forms for a more vivid and personally engaged
story-telling, based on the metaphorical relocation of Speech Time into the
narrative past.
In this respect, the lengthened form !?$ ;+ &+ %3 , v. 38 (expl. 3e, above) is of spe-
cial interest: no other archaic poetic text contains a lengthened ˀäqtol form as a
89
Or *#"/#<O see above paragraph 2.
90
Notice nun paragogicum in the epistemic modal of (im)possibility; cf. GARR, Paragogic
nun, 72.
91
Most scholars that maintain the past-tense framework of the passage tend to interpret the
yiqtol forms as the remnants of *yaqtul; see CHISHOLM, Study, 233. For fuller discussion see the
conclusion.
263
An_78.indb 273 21/06/11 15:39

story-telling/past narrative tense,92 neither would a classical prosaic narrative

demonstrate the waw-less lengthened ˀäqtol form in such a function. Although
the parallel in Ps 18 has a regular form, the lengthened variant is to be pre-
ferred by the principle of lectio difficilior.93 The volitive reading of the pas-
sage, suggested by some scholars, is rejected in the present analysis.94 If the
form is not the first person cohorative with -!h paragogicum, nor the first per-
son preterit, lengthened by -!h paragogicum on the analogy of the volitive sys-
tem, one has to find another explanation for the final vowel in this form. With
some hesitation I suggest an assumption, that the tradition of writing in 2 Sam
22,38, which attests the clause-initial ˀäqtol form with a final vowel, actually
gives evidence of the remnant of the original imperfective *yaqtulu conjuga-
tion, and the original vowel was not -a, but -u. The clause-initial ˀäqtol form
with a final vowel was reinterpreted in the process of transmission as ˀäqtol
with -!h paragogicum, since this morphological interpretation found support
in both the volitive (ˀäqtela and narrative (wa-ˀäqtela) systems, as they function
in classical BH.
In discussing the yiqtol conjugation and its role in the report, one should
not forget that at least some of these forms can be interpreted as the present
habitual, as was claimed in the discourse analysis above (e. g., J9Z+ '", v. 42, see
expl. 3i). For some of them the present progressive interpretation could be sug-
gested (e. g., O"F' &+ f. , v. 37, see expl. 3d). The possibility of such a dynamic rein-
terpretation is, in my view, another argument for *yaqtulu as the morphologi-
cal identity of most, and perhaps all, the yiqtol forms in the passage.95
3.4.3 Perfect qatal and its role in the retrospective report

No comprehensive interpretation of tenses in the report, nor well formulated
morphological identity of yiqtol forms is possible without correlation with
another verbal form in the passage – perfect qatal. Most qatal forms are non-
initial in the clause; there is one case of the clause-initial weqatal use:
Expl. 4: (35) "/P$ 9P& +H !ZJF
$ +0 /Z3 Y3 3$/(A&2 !<$ F$ 4+ N' 4. "L. $" LN) 4. <+ .a
(37) "K$ Ap &+ Y. @=.)7* %P4 +# " '0f) F+ f. "L' 9[ e. O"F' &+ f. .b
(41) 1/") <' e+ %. $# "%. +0>. <+ R&P3 9 "K' !7#$# "O+"P. % +# .c
(42) +7A7) %P4 +# u! 4%3 9". ZP' < ,"%) +# J9Z+ '" .d
(44) " '0Lp O+ 9. ." <(#&)K7< %P4 19. 1 '"MT Z%P&4+ " '0&) <+ Z+ f' "N' 9. "O") &' <) " '0V) K+ ?. f+ .# .e
92
According to most comparative data, the lengthened forms of ˀäqtol in the narrative func-
tion, which arose on analogy to the volitive system (see BERGSTRÄSSER, Hebräische Grammatik,
45) will not be an archaic phenomenon; cf. TALSHIR, /#F/?/!.
93
See the discussion in paragraph 2 above.
94
Cf. paragraph 3.2.2 above.
95
See the full discussion in the conclusion.
264
An_78.indb 274 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 275
The perfect qatal in this retrospective report partly overlaps with yiqtol func-
tions, but also reveals some specific uses. To start with, the non-initial qatal
sporadically stays in a pragmatically marked construction based on chiasm and
topicalization (!f$ f. , v. 41, expl. 4c), exactly like the non-initial yiqtol (cf. l/P+ 09[ .#
" '0D) &+ f. , v. 36, expl. 3c, above). The clause-initial weqatal construction (/F. '0 +#,
v. 35, expl. 4a) suggests a somewhat specific problem: in my view there is no
formal and semantic reason to interpret it as the conditional or purposive tense,
similar to the classical BH weqataltí. The first three verses of the passage shape
the introductory part of the report and have a parallel syntactic structure, with
a different verbal tense in the apodosis:
v. 33: nominal clause – wayyiqtol
v. 34: participle phrase – x-yiqtol
v. 35: participle phrase – weqatal
The finite verbal forms in the apodosis stand for different syntactic structures:
the initial wayyiqtol begins the story-telling line; the non-initial yiqtol intro-
duces a circumstance, and the initial weqatal moves the retrospective report
further, therefore is used as a sequential form that denotes the progress in the
war-preparation, comparable to 1L") <' Z+ %. $#, v. 38, expl. 3e, above. These two spo-
radic and non-consistent uses—the sequential weqatal and the backgrounded x-
qatal—partly overlap with some of the basic yiqtol uses.
However, in a clear contrast to the welo yiqtol construction, which intro-
duces the epistemic modal of impossibility (see examples 3e and 3f above), the
welo qatal construction functions as an indicative negative counterpart of the
initial yiqtol on the mainline of the report: JL9[ <$ %P4 +# … O"F' &+ f. , v. 37, expl. 4b;
1 $09$ %P4 +# …, J9Z+ '" v. 42, expl. 4d. Finally, qatal is attested in an asyndetic relative
clause with the verb of cognitive state ("f' 9+ L. $" %P4 19. , v. 44).
4. The system of tenses

in the retrospective report of 2 Sam 22,33-46:
conclusion and typological discussion
The retrospective report in 2 Sam 22,33-46 does not suggest discourse condi-
tions, which would allow identifying volitive forms in the passage. In my
view, the passage is basically shaped by the indicative forms; some of them do
not reject a modal epistemic or generic interpretation.
The active participle is attested in circumstantial phrases; it introduces dy-
namic events and plays an important role in the introductory part of the report.
The report is mainly shaped by yiqtol forms; they are in an absolute majori-
ty in the text. The clause-initial (w)yiqtol constructions start narrative units and
mark the text’s temporal progression. x-yiqtol constructions introduce a cir-
265
An_78.indb 275 21/06/11 15:39

cumstantial clause and are used in pragmatically marked constructions, involv-

ing chiasm and a contrastive topic. Welo yiqtol has a modal epistemic use.
Another tense that plays a visible role in the report is the perfect qatal: the
non-initial qatal sporadically introduces chiasm and topicalization; the clause
initial weqatal has apparently a past sequential meaning. Interestingly, welo qa-
tal is a negative counterpart of the main story-telling yiqtol form.
All these syntactic, semantic, and discursive data allow us to pose anew the
question of the morphological status of the clause-initial yiqtol forms that
serve as the main tense that moves the retrospective report forward. In my
view, the most plausible solution will be to see most of the yiqtol forms as the
remnants of the imperfective aspect *yaqtulu. One cannot absolutely reject the
possibility that at least some of these clause-initial past-tensed yiqtol forms are
remnants of the perfective aspect *yaqtul, especially, in view of the solid tradi-
tion in biblical scholarship of interpreting the clause-initial yiqtol forms with
waw consecutive as the remnant of *yaqtul, fixed in the function of the past
narrative sequential tense. However, the *yaqtulu identity for most of these
forms seems much more plausible out of the following reasons:
(1) The text contains ‘regular full imperfect’ forms of yiqtol in the clause-in-
itial position in narrative sequence, attested both in the tradition of writing and
vocalization.
(2) The perfect qatal is used quite widely in the report in spite of a relatively
small amount of cases. It is not just attested as the negative counterpart of the
foregrounded clause-initial (w)yiqtol, but also partly competes with yiqtol in its
main functions: in the chiastic construction involving topicalization and as past
sequential. The logic of the typological development of the verbal system
entails that the rise of the new perfective qatal can be followed by a somewhat
reduced role of the old perfective preterit *yaqtul.
(3) The clause-initial lengthened ˀäqtela form without waw might be an addi-
tional evidence for yiqtol with a final vowel, namely *yaqtulu.
(4) Many of the yiqtol forms in the report do not contradict the progressive or
habitual interpretations. Such an acceptability of other ‘imperfective’ uses, ty-
pical of *yaqtulu, without any explicit markers in the discourse, is better un-
derstandable when most forms in the passage are *yaqtulu.
The use of *yaqtulu as a main tense of story-telling in the retrospective re-
port is the co-called historical present: it is based on the use of the forms of the
imperfective aspect within the narrative or retrospective report, while Speech
Time is metaphorically relocated into the time of the events. But, perhaps, this
use contains something more than another example of historical present. The
passage gives evidence to the literary convention, in which the same forms of
the imperfective aspect could be equally used for the present progressive, his-
torical present of story telling, and present habitual. This discourse situation
creates a strong cognitive effect when the same event could be perceived as
266
An_78.indb 276 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 277
creates a strong cognitive effect when the same event could be perceived as
on-going at the moment of speech, already happened in the historical past or
typical pattern-characteristics of the divine activity for the human.96
The text is composed in a dialect/literary conventional norm typologically
different from the rest of the composition in 2 Sam 22 and from most other sto-
ry-telling pieces in the ‘archaic’ corpus.97 The closest parallel to the literary
convention attested in this passage is the Ugaritic narrative, as it is described
in the up-to-date scholarship.98 The complete comparison to the Ugaritic narra-
tive is out of the scope of the present paper, but one can point to the following
common features of both pieces of corpora:
(1) the forms with the morphological marking of the imperfective aspect (full
imperfect forms in 2 Sam 22,33-46 and the final -u spelling in Ugaritic)99 are
used in the clause-initial position as main forms in the narrative foreground;
(2) the perfect qatal forms are used in different backgrounded functions, but
sporadically also as the main-line sequential tense;100
(3) the clause position of the yiqtol forms is pragmatically marked—the clause
initial forms are on the main-line of the story-telling, while the non-initial
forms shape the background;
(4) the participial phrases are used as circumstantial or temporal phrases and
contribute to the background, especially in introductory parts;
(5) one cannot absolutely reject the possibility that the remnants of the perfec-
tive *yaqtul were sporadically used on the main-line of the temporal sequence.
96
Cf. to GREENSTEIN’s view on the literary convention at work in the Ugaritic narrative;
GREENSTEIN, New Grammar, 412-413: “Ugaritic verse narration is in this sense a dramatic mode
of presentation. Accordingly, the primary verb of narration is yaqtulu, representing a kind of his-
torical present.”
97
The system of tenses in 2 Sam 33-46 is definitely not similar to what one finds in poetic
reports in Judg 5 and Ex 15: in both these songs qatal is the main tense of story-telling. The nar-
ratives in Deut 32,8-20 and 2 Sam 22,4-20 provide strong evidence that the main narrative form
is preterit *yaqtul and the functions of qatal forms are quite different from what one finds in
2 Sam 22,33-46. In none of these texts is there evidence of participles as circumstantial phrases,
in clear contrast to the passage that was in the centre of the present research. A wider compa-
rison between these texts is out of the scope of this paper.
98
The functions of the main verbal constructions and the distribution between the yiqtol and
qatal categories, strongly corresponds to the results of the text-linguistic analysis of tenses in
Ugaritic narrative, suggested in PIQUER OTERO, Estudios, and reviewed in SMITH-PITARD, Baal
Cycle, 22-28, although both PIQUER OTERO and SMITH and PITARD do not discuss the position of
the participial phrase. The present results generally stay in terms with GREENSTEIN’s theory on
*yaqtulu identity of yqtl narrative forms in Ugaritic, favored in BORDREUIL-PARDEE, Manuel. The
data in the present analysis fit the claim in SMITH-PITARD, Baal Cycle, 28, that (w)qtl can be spo-
radically used as the past sequential tense.
99
On the final vowel marking in III.ˀ verbs see TROPPER, Ugaritische Grammatik, 619-621.
100
Cf. the remark in SMITH-PITARD, Baal Cycle, 28 and the bibliographic references there.
277
An_78.indb 277 21/06/11 15:39

chaic type of the system of tenses, but shares the literary conventional features
with the Ugaritic epic narrative, in contrast to most other story-telling passages
in the biblical ‘archaic’ poetic corpus.
Tania Notarius
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Bibliography
ANDERSON A. A., 2 Samuel (Word Bible Commentary 11), Dallas 1989.

BERGSTRÄSSER G., Hebräische Grammatik, Leipzig 1918-1929.
BONEH N. - DORON E., “Habituality and the Habitual Aspect”, in S. ROTHSTEIN
(ed.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of As-
pect, Amsterdam 2008, 321-347.
BORDREUIL P. - PARDEE D., Manuel d’ougaritique, Paris 2004.
.FGAw/ ,I /<& ,&#VY#L &%#/ /4OY 1w4 &#O"F :/"/"&I#%! !H#&?! &"OF/ ,u% Y#&O
CAQUOT A. - SZNYCER M. - HERDNER A., Textes ougaritiques, I (mythes et lé-
gends), Paris 1974.
CHISHOLM R. B., An Exegetical and Theological Study of Psalm 18, 2 Samuel
22, Ann Arbor 1985.
CROSS F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel, Cambridge 1973.
CROSS F. M. - FREEDMAN D. N., “A Royal Song of Thanksgiving: II Samuel 22 =
Psalm 18”, in F. M. CROSS - D. N. FREEDMAN, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic
Poetry, Grand Rapids 1975, 82-106 (= JBL 72 [1953] 15-34).
CROSS F. M. et al., 1-2 Samuel (DJD XVII), Oxford 2005.
CRÜSEMANN F., Studien zur Formgeschichte von Hymnus und Danklied in Is-
rael, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969.
DAHL Ö., “Aspect”, in J. L. MEY (ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics,
Amsterdam 1998, 64-70.
DAHOOD M., Psalms: Introduction, Translation and Notes: Volume 1 (Anchor
Bible 16), Garden City 1966.
DEMIRDACHE H. - URIBE-ETXEBARRIA M., “Aspect and Temporal Modification”,
in P. KEMPCHINSKY - R. SLABAKOVA (ed.), Aspectual Inquiries, Dordrecht
2005, 191-222.
EMERTON J. A., “New Evidence for the Use of Waw Consecutive in Aramaic”,
VT 44 (1994) 255-258.
268
An_78.indb 278 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 279
GARR W. R., “The Paragogic nun in Rhetorical Perspective”, in S. E. FASSBERG -

A. HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typolo-
gical and Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake 2006, 65-74.
GARR W. R., Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B. C. E., Winona
Lake 2004 (= 1985).
GINSBERG H. L., “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends”, in J. B. PRITCHARD (ed.),
Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton 1969.
GREENSTEIN E. L., “On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew”, Hebrew Stu-
dies 29 (1988) 7-17.
GREENSTEIN E. L., “On a New Grammar of Ugaritic”, Israel Oriental Studies 28
(1998) 397-420.
GREENSTEIN E. L., “Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narra-
tive Verse”, in S. E. FASSBERG - A. HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its
Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives, Jeru-
salem - Winona Lake 2006, 75-102.
HATAV G., The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and
Biblical Hebrew, Amsterdam 1997.
HALLO W. W. (ed.), The Context of Scripture. Volume I: Canonical Composi-
tions from the Biblical World, Leiden 1997.
KAMP H. - REYLE U., From Discourse to Logic: An Introduction to the Model-
theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Re-
presentation Theory, Dordrecht 1990.
KAMP H. - ROHRER Ch., “Tense in Texts”, in R. BÄUERLE - C. SCHWARZE - A. V.
STECHOW (ed.), Meaning, Use and Interpretation of Language, Berlin 1983,
250-269.
KEIL C. F. - DELITZSCH F., Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel: Trans-
lated from the German by J. Martin, Edinburgh 1872.
KOGAN L. - TISHCHENKO S., “Lexicographic Notes on Hebrew ‘bamah’ ”, Ugarit-
Forschungen 34 (2002) 319-352.
KRIFKA M. - PELLETIER F. J. - CARLSON G. N. et al., “Genericity: An Introduc-
tion”, in G. N. CARLSON - F. J. PELLETIER (ed.), The Generic Book, Chicago -
London 1995, 1-124.
LONGACRE R., The Grammar of Discourse, New York 1983.
LONGACRE R., Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, Winona Lake 1989.
MCCARTER P. K., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and
Commentary (Anchor Bible 9), Garden City 1984.
MICHEL D., Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen, Bonn 1960.
MORAN W. L., Amarna Studies: Collected Writings (Harvard Semitic Studies
54, ed. J. HUEHNERGARD - Sh. IZRE′EL), Winona Lake 2003.
MURAOKA T., “The Tel Dan Inscription and Aramaic/Hebrew Tenses”, Abr-
Nahrain 33 (1995) 113-115.
269
An_78.indb 279 21/06/11 15:39

MURAOKA T., “Again on the Tel Dan Inscription and the Northwest Semitic
Verb Tenses”, ZAH 11 (1998) 74-80.
- A. HURVITZ (ed.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Ty-
pological and Historical Perspectives, Jerusalem - Winona Lake 2006,
247-268.
!&"w! ,#w4O 1"0<H! /C&9< &#%"/O /#"A"AO /#"I#4#L#/< /#"9O :F"w4 ,#w4 ,"OG ,u/ A#"&V#0
.138-125 (#GAw/) u" ,#w4O 1"&YF< ,G/"%&Y<!
&%#/ /4OY 1w4 &#O"F :/"A%4Y!# /"%C&%! /"%&Y<! !&"wO 1"0<H! /C&9< ,u/ A#"&V#0
.FG0w/ 1"4w#&" ,&#VY#L
NOTARIUS T., “Poetic Discourse and the Problem of Verbal Tenses in the Ora-
cles of Balaam”, Hebrew Studies 49 (2008) 55-86.
,G!Y"/9! /"090CO# /"%C&%! /"%&Y<! !&"wO /"4"F/ /#49O /#"4%L#< /#&#eG ,u/ A#"&V#0
.419-393 (AGw/) OG9 #00#w4
NOTARIUS T., “The Active Predicative Participle in Archaic and Classical Bibli-
cal Poetry: A Typological and Historical Investigation”, Ancient Near East-
ern Studies 47 (2010) 240-268.
DEL OLMO LETE G. - SANMARTÍN J., A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the
Alphabetic Tradition: Translated by W. G. E. Watson, Leiden 2003.
PARKER S. B. (ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, Atlanta 1997.
PARRY D. W., “4QSama and the Royal Song of Thanksgiving (2 Sam 22//Ps
18)”, in D. K. FALK - F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ - E. M. SCHULLER (ed.), Sapiential,
Liturgical and Poetical Texts from Qumran (Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah 35), Leiden - Boston - Köln 2000, 146-159.
PARTEE B., “Some Structural Analogies Between Tenses and Pronouns in Eng-
lish”, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973) 213-241.
PIQUER OTERO A., Estudios de sintaxis verbal en textos ugaríticos: el Ciclo de
Baal y la “poesía bíblica arcaica”, Estella 2007.
PROPP W. H. C., Exodus 1-18: A New Translation with Introduction and Com-
mentary, New York - London 1999.
RAINEY A. F., “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarna
Canaanite”, Hebrew Studies 27 (1986) 4-19.
RAINEY A. F., “Further Remarks on the Hebrew Verbal System”, Hebrew Stu-
dies 29 (1988) 35-42.
RAINEY A. F., “The Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic”, in
T. ABUSCH - J. HUEHNERGARD - P. STEINKELLER (ed.), Lingering Over Words:
Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran,
Atlanta 1990, 407-420.
270
An_78.indb 280 21/06/11 15:39

Tania Notarius 281
RAINEY A. F., Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the

Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Volume II: Morphosyn-
tactic Analysis of the Verbal System, Leiden 1996.
REICHENBACH H., Elements of Symbolic Logic, New York 1947.
ROGLAND M., “Remarks on the Aramaic Verbal System”, in M. F. J. BAASTEN -
W. Th. VAN PEURSEN (ed.), Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Pre-
sented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday
(Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 118), Leuven - Paris - Dudley 2003,
421-432.
SAKITA T. I., Reporting Discourse, Tense, and Cognition, Oxford 2002.
SCHMUTTERMAYR G., Psalm 18 und 2 Samuel 22: Studien zu einem Doppeltext,
München 1971.
SIVAN D., A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, Leiden 2001.
SMITH C., The Parameter of Aspect, Dordrecht - Boston - London 1997
(= 1991).
SMITH C., Modes of Discourse: The Local Structure of Texts, Cambridge 2003.
SMITH C., “The Domain of Tense”, in J. GUERON - J. LECARME (ed.), The Syntax
of Time, Cambridge 2004, 597-620.
SMITH C., “Aspectual Entities and Tense in Discourse”, in P. KEMPCHINSKY - R.
SLABAKOVA (ed.), Aspectual Inquiries, Dortrecht 2005, 223-239
SMITH C., “Tense and Temporal Interpretation”, Lingua 117 (2007) 419-436.
SMITH C., “Time with and without Tense”, in J. GUÉRON - J. LECARME (ed.), Time
and Modality, Dordrecht 2008, 227-250.
SMITH C. - PERKINS E. - FERNALD T., “Time in Navajo: Direct and Indirect Inter-
pretation”, International Journal of American Linguistics 73 (2007) 40-71.
SMITH M. S. - PITARD W. T., The Ugarit Baal Cycle: Volume 2, Leiden 2009.
#G0 c"O&/ ,G/"4%L#<! /C&9<! 4% !Y"HO v?#!<! L"/9! /C&9< /#F/?/!G ,uL &"w4V
.591-585 (HG<w/)
TOOLAN M., Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction, New York 2001.
TROPPER J., “Aramäisches Wyqtl und Hebräisches Wayyiqtol”, Ugarit-For-
schungen 28 (1997) 633-645.
TROPPER J., Ugaritische Grammatik (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 273),
Münster 2000.
WALTKE B. K. - O’CONNOR M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Wi-
nona Lake 1990.
XRAKOVSKIJ V. S. (ed.), Typology of Iterative Constructions, München 1997.
YOUNG T., “Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22: Two versions of the Same Song”,
in R. L. TROXEL - K. G. FRIEBEL - D. R. MAGARY (ed.), Seeking Out the Wis-
dom of the Ancients, Winona Lake 2005, 53-69.
ZEWI T., A Syntactical Study of Verbal Forms Affixed by -n(n) Endings in Clas-
sical Arabic, Biblical Hebrew, El-Amarna and Ugaritic, Münster 1999.
271
An_78.indb 281 21/06/11 15:39

An_78.indb 282 21/06/11 15:39
Massimo Pazzini
The Peshi!ta of the Twelve Prophets

and the Texts of the Dead Sea
The importance of the manuscripts for the preparation of the critical edition of
a text is well known. This principle is even more valid when dealing with an-
cient texts. If we find ourselves working with biblical languages the problem is
further complicated, since the sacred texts have been transmitted for hundreds
of years only in manuscript form and have assumed “theological” features.
With regard to the Hebrew Old Testament, there is the problem of a proto-
MT1 (claimed by exegetes) which would have evolved until blending into the
present MT.2 In this sense the ancient versions of the Bible, prior to the MT,
might turn out to be precious witnesses of this evolution. One must therefore
take into consideration the “internal” evolution of the MT, then the Greek Sep-
tuagint version, the Syriac, and finally the Latin version of Jerome. To these
aspects one must add the influence of the Aramaic targum tradition which,
sometimes, may have influenced the other versions, in particular the Syri-
ac one.3
There is a certain consensus regarding the possible reconstruction of a di-
verse Hebrew Vorlage when more traditions at the same time (the LXX, Tar-
gum, Peshi!ta and the Vulgate), perhaps supported by testimonies coming from
Qumran, agree against the MT; but it is about cases which are not too frequent
and always debatable.
1
We are intentionally not entering the delicate problem of the Proto-Masoretic text (or of
Proto-Masoretic texts) and its reconstruction. Ample space has been dedicated in specialized
works to this subject. One sees, for instance, TOV, Textual Criticism, 22-79.
2
It is nevertheless practically impossible to identify and reconstruct this archetype: “It is
difficult to know whether there ever existed a single archetype of the Masoretic Text, and, even
if such a text had existed, it cannot be identified or reconstructed”. Cf. TOV, Textual Criti-
cism, 25.
3
One may reasonably suppose that the use of a very similar language favored the crossing
of traditions from one version to the other.
283
An_78.indb 283 21/06/11 15:39

284 The Peshiṭta of the Twelve Prophets and the Texts of the Dead Sea
The Hebrew text of the Bible and the Peshi!ta
The Syriac translation called Peshi!ta (or Peshi!to) has sometimes been studied
in order to demonstrate its faithful rendering of the MT, at other times again to
point out the faithfulness to the text of the LXX. It is impossible to give a com-
prehensive judgment of the entire OT; today studies are limited to dealing with
separate Biblical books (or parts of them) and single questions.
In a recent study on the textual problematics of the Book of Psalms in Sy-
riac,4 I. CARBAJOSA reaches the conclusion that, in certain cases, one may notice
a direct influence of the LXX on the Peshi!ta, nevertheless: 1) This influence
does not lead back to the moment of the translation to Syriac, but rather to the
process of the textual transmission (there are manuscripts which clearly reflect
this fact). 2) The instances of direct influences are few; therefore the position
according to which the Peshi!ta would be conditioned by the influence of the
LXX is negated.
The conclusions concerning the relationship between Targum and Peshi!ta
of the book of Psalms are similar:5 also the hypothesis of a direct influence be-
tween Targum and Peshi!ta must be reconsidered, in so far as facts for maintai-
ning it are lacking. The few common interpretations are attributed to the use of
a very similar language rather than to a literary dependence.
There are several exhaustive studies regarding the Syriac version of the
OT: M. D. KOSTER6 studied in detail the book of Exodus in the Syriac version,
while D. J. LANE7 has dealt with the study of Leviticus.
KOSTER, in his study of Exodus, arrives at the conclusion that the manu-
scripts of the various periods show three diverse stages of the Peshi!ta, in par-
ticular that the oldest manuscripts “did not result from a conscious revision ac-
cording to MT, but represent a genuinely older stage of the Peshi!ta”.8 He
concludes:
We need no longer regard the history of the Peshi!ta, at least for Exodus, as one
of continually changing versions of in essence the same (later) text with a pre-
lude of some important older mss … but as a continuous development of which
at present three consecutive stages can clearly be distinguished.9
4
CARBAJOSA, Características (2006).
5
The conclusions of the comparison between the Peshi!ta Psalms and the Targum are given
on pages 314-315.
6
KOSTER, Exodus (1977).
7
LANE, Leviticus (1994).
8
KOSTER, Exodus, 528.
9
KOSTER, Exodus, 528.
273
An_78.indb 284 21/06/11 15:39

Massimo Pazzini 285
LANE is prudent about the value of the Peshi!ta for textual criticism:
The importance of the Peshi!ta lies less with textual criticism and more with
church history and the use of text as scripture: popular religion, liturgy and ho-
miletics influenced both translators and scribes in such a way as to shape the
version’s character and also its transmission.10
As for the doctrinal differences between the Mss LANE states:
… it is simply that the manuscripts show differences which come as much by
reason of the differences of geography and culture between their places of writ-
ing, usually monastic as by deliberate theological intent.11
The Syriac version of the Twelve minor prophets has been studied by A.
GELSTON12 who also prepared the Syriac text of the Twelve for the Leiden edi-
tion.13 In the chapter dedicated to the study of the “distinctive readings of the
oldest manuscripts” GELSTON reaches similar conclusions to those of KOSTER
and LANE:
It is reasonable to conclude that in general terms the oldest Mss preserve a text
closer to the original Peshi!ta than the standard text, and that the text of the ol-
dest Mss is closer to the Hebrew than the standard text.14
When it is established that we have diverse stages of the Syriac text and di-
verse stages of the Hebrew text we understand that the sole sort of work that
could offer valid results is that which is carried out on determined manuscripts
(comparison of Mss); this due to the fact that, concretely, no Hebrew Bible or
Syriac Bible exists, but manuscripts of the one or of the other which represent
a determined level of the tradition of transmission of the text.
The Peshi!ta of the Twelve and the texts of the Dead Sea:
Significant variants
Let us see, with several significant examples, what contribution the Peshi!ta
can supply in view of the reconstruction of the original Hebrew text (Vorlage).
For this purpose we shall confront the Peshi!ta with the MT and with texts of
the Twelve coming from the region of the Dead Sea. We shall also show the
connections with the readings present in the main ancient versions (LXX—
Targum—Vulgate).
The texts taken into consideration are treated in separate paragraphs ac-
cording to the place of origin:15 Wadi Murabbaˁât, Qumran and Na>al 9ever.
10
LANE, Leviticus, xii.
11
LANE, Leviticus, xiii.
12
GELSTON, Twelve Prophets (1987).
13
GELSTON, Dodekapropheton (1980).
14
GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 87.
15
The arrangement of the material follows the suggestion of GELSTON, Twelve Prophets,
285
An_78.indb 285 21/06/11 15:39

Included in this section is also the Damascus Document (CD). We shall exa-
mine only the readings designated by GELSTON as “significant readings” other-
wise “distinctive readings”.
a. Murabbaˁât 88
The sole Hebrew manuscript of the Twelve containing ample sections of text
(it contains sections of ten prophets) is that of Murabbaˁât 88.16 Following the
study of GELSTON we shall examine the Syriac text of the Peshi!ta so as to find
traces indicating a Hebrew text different from the masoretic text.
There are only five passages in which the Syriac text agrees with the read-
ings of Mur88 different from the MT. These are the texts:
MT Mur88 Peshi!ta
Am 7,15 la, l[ Òe
Ob 17 µh,yver:/m17 µhyçyrwm18 ôná otryd Nylyá
Mi 7,5 la' law alo
Zeph 3,9 µyMi['Ala, µym[h l[ am›me Òe
Zeph 3,15 Ëbey“ao ˚ybya Ëcybbd‹eb
In three cases (Am 7,15, Mi 7,5, and Zeph 3,9) there are minor variants regard-
ing the exchange of prepositions (la/l[) and the addition of the conjunction
waw (law).
In the case of Zeph 3,15 the variant reading suggests the plural form ËyIb;y“ao
“thine enemies” (obtained by means of the mere addition of a yod), instead of
the singular. This variant is common with the LXX (e˙cqrw!n sou), the Peshi!ta,
the Targum (˚bbdAyle[b') and to the Vulgate (inimicos tuos).
A more interesting case is Ob 17 where the masculine substantive vr:/m
“possession” is understood in Mur88 as a verbal form (a participle with a suf-
fix) which the Peshi!ta paraphrases with a clause: “those who possessed them”.
This variant is also certified at the same time in the LXX (tou\ß kataklhro-
nomh/santaß aujtou/ß), in the Peshi!ta, in the Targum (ˆ/hl] ˆynIsjm' /wh}d") and in
the Vulgate (eos qui se possederant).
111-118.
16
Published in DJD II, 181-205, with the tables appearing on pp. LVI-LXXIII.
17
The form is a plural of vr:/m “possession” with 3rd person masculine plural suffix: “their
possessions”. The BHS in a note suggests reading µhyvrIwm as in Mur88. The BDB already bas-
ing itself on ancient versions, proposed, even before the discovery of Qumran, the same reading
of Mur88 with the meaning “their dispossessors” (440).
18
The form certified in Mur88 is a hifil participle from the root yr& “take possession, inhe-
rit” which in Syriac is rendered with a finite form of the corresponding yrt “those who possessed
them”. The English translation of the Peshi!ta is quoted from LAMSA, Holy Bible.
275
An_78.indb 286 21/06/11 15:39

Massimo Pazzini 287
We may, therefore, hypothesize that, in the case of Zeph 3,15 (ËyIb;y“ao) and
Ob 17 (çyrwm), we are dealing with a likely diverse Vorlage as regards the MT
(Ëbey“ao and vr:/m).
There are, nonetheless, some “distinctive readings” of Mur88 which have no

equivalent in the Syriac text of the Peshi!ta. These also deserve our considera-
tion in so far as they show us the freedom of interpretation of the ancient
scribes:
Mur88 MT Peshi!ta
Hab 3,10 twb[ µym wmrz rb;[; µyIm' µr<z< trbe aymd átpyrz
Am 7,16 πyft dw[ πyFit' Ølt
Am 9,5 bçwy … lbaw ybev]/y … Wlb]a;w“ albab Nybtyo
Jon 3,8 l[ la, l
Mi 7,12 µwyb µ/y amoy
Hag 2,1 la Ady"B] dyb
In all these instances the Peshi!ta diverges from Mur88: in the first one (Hab
3,10) the Peshi!ta follows the MT of Hab 3,10, while Mur88 reads the first
words of Ps 77,18; likewise in Am 9,5 (with the verb in the plural), Jon 3,8
(using the preposition l), Mi 7,12 (lacking the preposition b) and Hag 2,1
(using the same particle byd) the Peshi!ta lines up with the MT. The case of
Amos 7,16 is more interesting where the Syriac could have used the same He-
brew root (n'p) in the same sense as “to drop, flow in drops”,19 but the transla-
tor used the root ˀlp “teach, train”; in this case the Peshi!ta also distances itself
from the MT.
The LXX, even if maintaining an independent line of interpretation (Hab
3,10 “as thou dost divide the moving waters”; Am 7,16 “to stir up”), is certain-
ly closer to the MT (and to the Peshi!ta) than to Mur88 in Am 9,5 (plural
form), Jon 3,8 (pro/ß), Mi 7,12 (hJ hJme÷ra), and above all in Hag 2,1 (Ady"B]/e˙n
ceiri« …).
The Targum is independent from everything in rendering Hab 3,10 “the
rain-clouds passed on”20 and in Mi 7,12 “at that time”, whereas it is similar to
the Peshi!ta (and to the MT) in Am 7,16 (πylt/Ølt) and Hag 2,1 (dyb/dyb). In
Am 9,5 we find the plural, as in the MT and the Peshi!ta, but with a different
verb: “all who dwell in it will be desolated” (the root ydx).
19
The image could refer to the prophet’s mouth which “emits froth” while prophesying. Cf.
HALOT, 694 “to prophesy ecstatically”.
20
The English translation of the Targum comes from CATHCART-GORDON, Targum.
276
An_78.indb 287 21/06/11 15:39

The Vulgate faithfully follows the MT in Hab 3,10 (gurges aquarum trans-
iit), in Am 7,16 (stillabis = πyFit'), in Am 9,5 (lugebunt omnes habitantes), and
in Hag 2,1 (in manu Aggei). The use of the prepositions in Mi 7,12 (in die illa)
and Jon 3,8 (ad Dominum) is due to Latin grammar.
Three examples from the masoretic tradition
Let us briefly mention a few instances of ketiv and qere, even if this material
rather belongs to variants within the masoretic tradition.21
At times, as in Ob 11 for wr[ç “his gate” and Hab 3,14 for wzrp “his warrior
(or “leader”)”, Mur88 agrees with the ketiv of the MT (qere in the plural wyr[ç
and wyzrp), whereas it is identified with the qere of the MT (feminine singular
imperative yviL;P't]hi “mourn” (uncertain meaning) in Mi 1,10; ketiv ytçlpth).
In the first case the Peshi!ta adjusts itself with the plural of the qere
(ËhoeRt and Ëhonfïlu), in the second it differs both from the ketiv and the
qere (masculine plural imperative olplptá “roll yourselves in the dust”).
The LXX in Ob 11 has the plural ei˙ß pu/laß and also in Hab 3,14 kefala»ß
dunastw!n, while in Mi 1,10 it has a plural imperative (katapa¿sasqe)
“sprinkle dust in the place of your laughter”.
The Targum in Ob 11 has the plural of a different word: “entered his ci-
ties”; in Hab 3,14 again we have a plural “the captains of Pharaoh’s armies”,
while in Mi 1,10 we have a masculine plural imperative “cover your heads
with dust”.
The Vulgate in Ob 11 also has the plural “portas eius” and in Hab 3,14 “ca-
piti bellatorum eius”, also like the plural imperative in Mi 1,10 “pulvere vos
conspergite”.
The result of this example is that the Peshi!ta is substantially independent
from Mur88 and, at the same time, freely interprets the MT. Its readings are
very similar (at least in these cases) to those of the LXX, of the Targum and of
the Vulgate.
b. The Pesharim of the Minor Prophets
In this type of literature one usually distinguishes between the Biblical text in
itself and its commentary (the Biblical text quoted in the commentary). The
main texts which have reached us are the pesher of Habakkuk and the pesher
of Nahum.
21
Cf. GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 118-125.
277
An_78.indb 288 21/06/11 15:39

Massimo Pazzini 289
In 1QpHab XI:9 (Hab 2,16) we have in front of us a different text from the
MT, but common to the ancient versions:
Pesher MT Peshi!ta
Hab 2,16 l[rhw lrE[;hew22
“ Ørftáo
The readings of the MT lrE[;hew“ “drink thou also and remain uncircumcised” be-
comes l[rhw “drink thou also and stagger” in 1QpHab XI:9 (in the text), by a
simple transposition between two consonants. The Peshi!ta with Ørftáo
“drink yourself also and stagger” follows the reading of the pesher, also like
the LXX (diasaleu/qhti kai« sei÷sqhti)23 and the Vulgate (et consopire), while
the Targum is closer to the MT (drink you too and uncover yourself).24
The agreement of the different versions with the text of Qumran leads us to
retain that this is a likely case in which the Vorlage of the versions is different
from the MT.
In 1QpHab II:1 (Hab 1,5) we find, on the contrary, a case of agreement be-
tween the Peshi!ta, the LXX and the pesher, whereas the other versions follow
the MT:
Pesher MT Peshi!ta
Hab 1,5 µydgwb µyI/Gb' axRm
The variant µydgwb “traitors” in 1QpHab II:1 (in the commentary and in a rather
fragmentary context) as regards the MT µyI/Gb' (look among the peoples and ob-
serve) finds a correspondence in the Peshi!ta axRm “rebels”, and in the LXX
(oi˚ katafronhtai/ = µydIg“bo). The Targum (ay:m'm['b]) and the Vulgate (aspicite in
gentibus) follow, instead, the MT.25
In this case, seeing that the variant is found in the commentary of the pe-
sher and that the versions agree only partially, it is more difficult to assume by
hypothesis that there could be a Vorlage different from the MT.
22
Nifal imperative masculine singular from lr[ “to be uncircumcised”. The BHS, based on
ancient versions and on this text of Qumran, proposes in the apparatus the reading l[er:hew“. The
same reading is proposed by BDB with the sense of “reel” (790).
23
The text is somewhat different compared to the MT: “shake, O heart, and quake, the cup
of the right hand of the Lord …”.
24
The reading lf'r['tai of the Targum may be understood in this manner: “Tg. Probably re-
flects MT while seeking to render it more delicately”. Cf. CATHCART-GORDON, Targum, 153.
25
The BHS in this case recommends reading according to the MT (µyI/Gb').
278
An_78.indb 289 21/06/11 15:39

There are, however, two significant readings of the pesher which have nothing
analogous in the Peshi!ta which, instead, presupposes the MT:
Pesher MT Peshi!ta
Hab 1,14 lçml26 lvemoAaOl27 anrbdm hl tyl
28
Hab 1,17 wbrj29 /mr“j,30 htdyjm

31
As for the pesher of the prophet Nahum (4QpNah) the situation is not much
different: in six cases the Peshi!ta has a reading common with the pesher text,
whereas eight variants of the pesher do not find one that corresponds in the
Peshi!ta. It is necessary to emphasize that, in all the cases, one is not dealing
with significant variants.
c. The Damascus Document
It contains six quotations of the Minor Prophets, which differ from the MT:32
five of these are not found in the Peshi!ta version of the Minor Prophets, while
the gloss ˆk “thus” (like a wandering heifer so did Israel stray)33 of Hos 4,16 in
the CD 1,13-14 recurs in the Peshi!ta (anch) and in the Targum (ˆyk), but does
not appear in the LXX and the Vulgate. This variant can be explained, per-
haps, as a stylistic improvement in an Aramaic setting, and should not come
from a different Vorlage.
26
“You made man like fish of the sea, like a reptile, to rule over it (lvom]li)”. The English
translation of the texts of Qumran is taken from GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ-TIGCHELAAR, Dead Sea
Scrolls. The Hebrew text of the pesher of Hab 1,14 and the English translation are found on
p. 14-15.
27
“You have made men like fish in the sea, like sea creatures that have no ruler (lvemoAaOl)”.
28
“… that have no ruler (anrbdm) over them”.
29
“For this he continually unsheathes his sword” (/Br“j'). Cf. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ-TIGCHELAAR,
Dead Sea Scrolls, 14-15.
30
“Is he to keep on emptying his net …” (/mr“j,).
31
LAMSA: “Therefore they [pl.] cast their net continually”; but must be translated in the sin-
gular “his net”.
32
Cf. GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 116.
33
Quoted from DAVIES, Damascus Covenant, 234-235.
279
An_78.indb 290 21/06/11 15:39

Massimo Pazzini 291
d. Na>al 9ever
The study of manuscript 89evXIIgr,34 containing Greek fragments of the Mi-

nor Prophets, carried out during the 60’s by D. BARTHÉLEMY shows that this ma-
nuscript is the copy of a revision of the LXX produced with the aim of having
the Greek text conform almost identically to the MT.35
A comprehensive study of the Na>al 9ever manuscript shows only two ca-
ses, in common with the Peshi!ta, in which one may assume by hypothesis the
existence of a Hebrew Vorlage differing from the MT. This is the case with
Hab 2,17 and Zeph 3,7:36
MT 89evXIIgr Peshi!ta Vorlage

Hab 2,17 ˆt'yjiy“37 ptohsei se38 Çxldt ˚tyjy39
Zeph 3,7 Hn:/[m]40 phgh authß41 Hynye
42
h(y)ny[m43
In the case of Hab 2,17 we find a common tendency of the ancient versions
(LXX, Peshi!ta and 89evXIIgr) to employ the second personal pronoun per-
haps to highlight the symmetry of the parallelism: “will cover thee … will
make thee shake”. The Targum changes the verb, but keeps the second person
masculine singular suffix (˚n:yrIbtti = “will destroy thee”). On the other hand,
the Vulgate keeps the third person plural suffix like the MT (deterrebit eos).
In the case of Zeph 3,7 it is clear that the text of Na>al 9ever, the LXX and
the Peshi!ta read the Vorlage hny[m (with yod instead of waw). The Hebrew
form hny[m may be understood as Hn:y:[]m' “her spring” (89evXIIgr), or else as
h;n<y[eme “from her eyes” (LXX – Peshi!ta). The Targum in this instance, is closer
to the MT with ˆ/hr/dm] “their dwelling” (but with a plural suffix), while the
Vulgate renders exactly the MT (habitaculum eius).
34
TOV, Greek Minor Prophets.
35
This is the conclusion reached by BARTHÉLEMY, Les devanciers d’Aquila.
36
Cf. GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 116.
37
Hifil Imperfect masc. 3rd person singular from the root ttj “dismay, terrify”, with 3rd per-
son plural suffix “will terrify them”. The variant concerns the final suffix.
38
“Will overwhelm thee with fear” applied to the second person, also as in the LXX. The
Peshi!ta text also has the second person masculine singular suffix (Çxldt).
39
The vocalization proposed by the BHS is ÚT,jiy“ (the same form based on ancient versions
is proposed by the BDB, 369).
40
Substantive ˆ/[m; with 3rd person feminine singular suffix “her dwelling”.
41
Meaning “spring”; instead of this the LXX has the reading e˙x ojfqalmw!n aujthvß “from
her eyes”.
42
“Her eyes”; the same meaning is found in the free translation of LAMSA: “and she will not
fail to see of all I have decreed concerning her”. In a more literal way: “and from her eyes all
that I have commanded her shall not perish”.
43
The text of the Vorlage differs from the MT with a yod instead of the waw.
280
An_78.indb 291 21/06/11 15:39

Conclusions
The texts found in the Dead Sea region, belonging to the extra-Masoretic tradi-
tion, presuppose a Hebrew Vorlage very similar to the MT, in particular with
regard to the consonantal text. The Peshi!ta also presupposes the same situa-
tion. There are no differences in common with regard to entire verses (or signi-
ficant parts of verses), but only words (or individual letters of the alphabet).
The readings common to the Peshi!ta and to Mur88 (and differing from the
readings of the MT) may be retained as similar interpretations of non-voca-
lized texts, rather than variants due to a different Hebrew Vorlage. On the
other hand, interpretations of Mur88, distinct in a significant manner from the
MT, have nothing corresponding in the Peshi!ta which, on the contrary, is clos-
er to the MT. Nevertheless in a couple of occasions (Ob 17 çyrwm and Zeph
3,15 ËyIb;y“ao) one may speculate as to the existence of a different Vorlage.
As for the pesharim texts one may think of free translations more than of
the existence of a Hebrew text differing from the MT. The Peshi!ta at times
coincides with the variants of the pesher, but more often follows the MT (as
opposed to the readings of the pesher). At least one variant nonetheless, well
attested also in the ancient versions, could make one think of a different Vorla-
ge (l[er:hew“ of Hab 2,16). The Vorlage µydgwb (Hab 1,5), instead, is less likely.
The sole case of a common reading between the Peshi!ta and the Damascus
Document might be explained, perhaps, as deriving from a different Vorlage
(ˆk), or as stylistic amelioration in the sphere of the Aramaic language (Targum
and Peshi!ta).
The comparison with the Greek manuscript of the Twelve coming from
Na>al 9ever has revealed two variants in common which may make one think
of a Hebrew Vorlage (˚tyjy and hny[m) different from the MT (ˆt'yjiy“ in Hab 2,17
and Hn:/[m] in Zeph 3,7). These variants are also well testified in the ancient ver-
sions.44
Taken in their totality, the significant variants which might suggest a diffe-
rent Hebrew Vorlage are few. GELSTON lists five of them: the addition of ˆk in
Hos 4,16 and the varying readings µydgwb (Hab 1,5), l[rhw (Hab 2,16), ˚tyjy
(Hab 2,17) and hny[m (Zeph 3,7). To these one might add çyrwm (Ob 17) and
ËyIb;y“ao (Zeph 3,15), these also well witnessed to in the ancient versions.
The conclusion is “that the Hebrew Vorlage of the Peshi!ta was very nearly
identical with MT, although it seems probable that the translation was made at
a date when some variant readings were still in circulation”.45
44
Nevertheless, as GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 118, stresses: “there are no exclusive agree-
ments between 89evXIIgr and the Peshi!ta, and there is thus no reason to suppose any direct
link between them”.
45
GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 118. In the section entitled “Variants within the Masoretic
tradition” (118-125) GELSTON studies the Hebrew variants contained in the manuscripts of the
281
An_78.indb 292 21/06/11 15:39

Massimo Pazzini 293
The value of the Peshi!ta for textual criticism of the OT therefore turns out
to be brought into proportion. To this aim we share GELSTON’s judgment:
… it is clear that the Peshi!ta has little distinctive contribution to offer to the re-
construction of a putative original Hebrew text, at least of the Dodekapropheton,
and that when it does appear to presuppose a Vorlage distinct from MT it is by
no means a straightforward matter to reconstruct it with confidence.46
Massimo Pazzini, ofm

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Jerusalem
Bibliography
BARTHÉLEMY D., Les devanciers d’Aquila: Première publication intégrale du

texte des fragments du Dodécaprophéton trouvés dans le désert de Juda,
précédée d’une étude sur les traductions et recensions grecques de la Bible
réalisées au premier siècle de notre ère sous l’influence du rabbinat pales-
tinien (VTS 10), Leiden 1963.
BENOIT P. - MILIK J. T. - DE VAUX R., Les grottes de Murabbaˁât: Avec des con-
tributions de G. M. Crowfoot, E. Crowfoot, A. Grohmann; 1: Texte; 2:
Planches (DJD II), Oxford 1961.
CARBAJOSA I., Las características de la versión siríaca de los Salmos (Sal
90-150 de la Peshitta), (Analecta Biblica 162), Roma 2006.
CATHCART K. J. - GORDON R. P., The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated,
with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible
14), Edinburgh - Wilmington 1989.
DAVIES P. R., The Damascus Covenant: An Interpretation of the “Damascus
Document” (JSOT.S 25), Sheffield 1983.
GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ F. - TIGCHELAAR E. J. C. (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study
edition. Vol. 1: 1Q1-4Q273; Vol 2: 4Q274-11Q31, Leiden - Boston - Köln,
1997/1998.
GELSTON A., The Peshi'ta of the Twelve Prophets, Oxford - New York 1987.
GELSTON A. (ed.), “Dodekapropheton”, in The Old Testament in Syriac accor-
ding to the Peshi'ta Version, Part III, fascicle 4, Leiden 1980.
KOSTER M. D., The Peshi'ta of Exodus: The Development of its Text in the
Course of Fifteen Centuries (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 19), Assen - Am-
sterdam 1977.
various periods. These variant readings are also situated “essentially within the Masoretic tradi-
tion of the consonantal text” and do not indicate a Hebrew Vorlage different from the MT.
46
GELSTON, Twelve Prophets, 130.
282
An_78.indb 293 21/06/11 15:39

LAMSA G., The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, Philadelphia
1957.
LANE D. J., The Peshi'ta of Leviticus (Monographs of the Peshi!ta Institute Lei-
den 6), Leiden - New York - Köln 1994.
TOV E., Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis - Assen -
Maastricht 21992.
TOV E., The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Na$al <ever (8<evXIIgr). The
Seiyâl Collection I (DJD VIII), Oxford 1995.
283
An_78.indb 294 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri
Perifrasi verbali con "#$%&'( ed )*+,-' nei LXX
Nel presente articolo si intende investigare se nei LXX vi siano costruzioni

composte dai verbi "#(")$%&'( e t*+,&( (al perfetto o al piuccheperfetto) con il
participio definibili come perifrasi verbali1.
I. Elementi introduttivi
DIETRICH include i due verbi in un elenco di combinazioni perifrastiche nel pa-

ragrafo Die Kategorie der Winkelschau im Griechischen di un suo noto contri-
buto sulla perifrasi, dove si legge che la perifrasi )*+,-' + presente participio
esprime la Winkelschau e quella composta da "#(")$%&'( + presente participio
oltre alla Winkelschau esprime “resultierende Situierung”2. Negli esempi rela-
1
Con perifrasi verbale in questo contributo si considera una costruzione perifrastica costi-
tuita da verbo finito e participio che si affianca a forme sintetiche con cui condivide in particola-
re l’epressione dell’aspetto. L’articolo si divide in due parti. Nella prima parte saranno sintetiz-
zate e commentate le posizioni di diversi autori su questo tema. Per l’approfondimento del fe-
nomeno più in generale è dato rilievo anche alla perifrasi costituita da IE&# + participio (soprat-
tutto AERTS, PORTER, AMENTA). Un paragrafo è riservato al rapporto delle perifrasi presenti nel
TM e nei LXX (GOOD). La prima parte si conclude con una sintesi. Nella seconda parte si trova-
no in ordine di combinazione secondo il tempo (verbo finito – participio) le occorrenze selezio-
nate e proposte come perifrasi.
Per i testi biblici si segue l’editio maior di Göttingen dei LXX per tutti i libri finora pubbli-
cati nella collana e l’edizione di RAHLFS per i restanti libri; per il Nuovo Testamento l’edizione
consultata è quella di B. et K. ALAND et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart 271993. Le
traduzioni di confronto saranno principalmente quelle di BRENTON, la NETS (A New English
Translation of the Septuagint, ed. A. PIETERSMA - B. G. WRIGHT, New York 2007) e la Vulgata
(edizione Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam editionem, Stuttgart 1969). Circa quest’ultima versione e
all’influenza che ha esercitato e subito nell’affermazione della perifrasi, ci limitiamo a segnalare
che l’influsso alloglotto esercitato sulle traduzioni dei Vangeli dalla lingua greca va bilanciato
con la presenza nel latino precristiano di “perifrasi di tipo aggettivale”. La lingua dei Vangeli, in
concreto, ha contribuito a potenziare “di un significato aspettuale” le costruzioni perifrastiche
già usate. Cf. AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 96.
2
L’autore in nota spiega: “ ‘Situierung’ nenne ich die Kategorie, durch die eine Verbal-
handlung in Beziehung zu einer (meist impliziten) anderen Handlung gesetzt wird, bei der ‘re-
sultierenden Situierung’ als Resultat einer impliziten Handlung(sreihe): ‘Es kam dazu, dass …’.
284
An_78.indb 295 21/06/11 15:39

296 Perifrasi verbali con givnomai ed e{sthka nei LXX
tivi alla prima perifrasi non registra attestazioni dei LXX3, circa la seconda
annota:
Die Periphrase mit "#"$%&'( + Part. Präs. bedeutet zusätzlich zur Partzialisierung
eine Betonung eines bisher im Kontext unbeachteten Handlungstranges y, des-
sen “Ergebnis” auf dem stets im Vordergrund stehenden, d.h. expliziten Hand-
lungsstrang x, projiziert wird […]. Die Periphrase erscheint nur in biblischen
oder ihnen nahestehenden Texten. Sie hat jedoch eine romanische Entsprechung
in den Konstruktionen mit VENIRE AD + Inf.4
In BLASS-DEBRUNNER-REHKOPF non si registra la perifrasi con )*+,-' ma appare
quella con "#$I*Q'(5, che “nei diversi tempi esprime con il participio presente o
perfetto l’inizio di una situazione”6. PORTER scarta la teoria secondo cui ci sia
perifrasi con )*+,-' e con altri verbi7. Autori come CONYBEARE-STOCK si limita-
no ad osservare che l’uso della perifrastica nei LXX
is suggested by the great use made of the participle in Hebrew, while at the
same time there was a strong tendency towards the employment of such forms
within the Greek language itself. They are to be found in the best writers, both
in prose and poetry, from Homer downwards.
Gli esempi registrati comprendono prevalentemente il verbo IE&# e il participio,
ma sono segnalati anche casi di perifrastica con "#$%&'( e casi di sostituzione
del participio con l’aggettivo verbale8. Anche THACKERAY, sulle perifrasi, riduce
DIETRICH, Verbalaspekt im Griechischen, 199).

3
DIETRICH, Verbalaspekt im Griechischen, 209-210. Per l’ambito biblico DIETRICH cita come
prove (“Belege”) del Nuovo Testamento Mc 11,25; Lc 23,10; At 1,11; 26,6.22.
4
DIETRICH, Verbalaspekt im Griechischen, 210, n. 46. Delle occorrenze bibliche cita dai
LXX Gen 31,40; dal NT Mt 3,1; Mc 1,4.
5
Va ricordato che alcuni autori adottano come forme di riferimento il presente indicativo,
altri il presente infinito.
6
BLASS-DEBRUNNER-REHKOPF, § 354.
7
“Other grammarians cite other instances of what they call periphrastic constructions in the
NT, but these are best subsumed under normal use of the Participle, even though English trans-
lation may indicate a meaning close to that of a proper periphrasis (cf. e.g. Dietrich, “Verbal-
aspekt,” who treats +S"O1$W + Participle … )*+,-' + Present Participle …; and Blass/Debrun-
ner, § 414, who suggest certain supplementary costruction with Participle: e.g. u013OW,
l3O%&'(, etc.)” (PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 491-492). Per il NT si possono citare DANA-MANTEY,
231, che sintetizzano alcuni punti sulla perifrasi con il participio in questi termini: – è am-
piamente impiegata in greco; – occorre in tutte le voci e tempi, raramente all’aoristo; – in greco
alcune forme temporali sono espresse unicamente con la perifrasi: perfetto medio-passivo con-
giuntivo e ottativo; – nella forma finita della perifrasi oltre ad IE&# sono usati "#$%&'(, u013OW
e possibilmente NOW con il perfetto; – tra le forme perifrastiche presenti nel NT quella all’imper-
fetto è la più frequente.
8
CONYBEARE-STOCK, Grammar, § 72. Gli esempi di perifrasi con "#"$I*Q'( citati dagli auto-
ri sono Es 17,12, /"V$%$+% … /*+,3("&V$'(; Nm 10,36 (nel testo degli autori si legge 10,34
che è la numerazione del TM), /"V$I+% *-(1X%S*'; Sal 72,14, /"I$H&,$ &I&'*+("W&V$%U;
125,3, /"I$vQ,&I$ IT63'($H&I$%(; Sir 13,9, u0%OW3Y$ "#$%S; 18,33, &w "#$%S … *S&-
g%J%-%0Y$; Is 30,12, 0I0%(QÙ /"V$%S. Nella trattazione riprenderemo alcune di queste atte-
stazioni. Le costruzioni elencate sono tutte perifrasi tranne Sir 18,33, &w "#$%S 0+WObU *S&-
g%J%-%0Y$ /- F'$I(*&%G “Non diventare povero banchettando a prestito”, dove 0+WOHU è
285
An_78.indb 296 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 297
le osservazioni filologiche ai due punti essenziali: l’influsso ebraico e l’uso

della costruzione fin dalla prima grecità classica9.
La riflessione di EVANS sulla perifrasi con BCDEFGH

Della perifrasi con "#$%&'( + participio nel Pentateuco si occupa EVANS, il qua-
le osserva che il significato semantico di IE&# e "#$%&'( si sovrappone quando il
secondo verbo da divenire passa a significare essere; un chiaro esempio di tale
fenomeno si ha in Gen 18,1810, ma, avverte l’autore, non sempre (si discute
sempre di "#$%&'() c’è la perifrasi (verbale) ed è tutt’altro che scontato stabilire
se e quando "#$%&'( sia sinonimo di IE&#11. La posizione di PORTER, al riguardo,
è criticata da EVANS. Per PORTER IE&# e "#$%&'( sono sinonimi ma distinti quanto
all’aspetto e "#$%&'( conserva il proprio valore aspettuale nella perifrasi. Per
EVANS ciò equivale ad ammettere che il verbo non si comporta da ausiliare: se
si pone la semantica lessicale come il tratto di maggiore importanza per poten-
ziali usi ausiliari, la persistenza di fattori aspettuali si oppone a che ci sia pe-
rifrasi. La descrizione di "#$%&'( da parte di PORTER appare insufficiente a
EVANS, inoltre PORTER insisterebbe troppo sul significato di divenire (significato
che per EVANS si oppone alla perifrasi). Il verbo "#$%&'( per formare perifrasi
deve significare essere, solo in questo modo con il participio può formare un
equivalente a una forma temporale sintetica12. L’affermazione è ribadita da
predicativo e *S&g%J%-%0Y$ participio congiunto modale o anche causale: “… siccome ban-

chetti a prestito”.
9
THACKERAY, Grammar, 24: “The periphrastic conjugation is widely extended, but only the
strong vernacular of Tobit employs such a future as N*%&'( F(FH$'(.”; 195: “The periphrastic
conjugation widens its range, partly but not entirely owing to the influence of the Hebrew origi-
nal, the auxiliary verb being now employed with the present participle to represent the imperf.,
future, and more rarely the present tense: periphrastic in the perfect goes back to the earlier
language”.
10
xg3''& F\ "($H&I$%U N*+'( (EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 225).
11
EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 225, tra gli altri autori rimanda a FANNING, Verbal Aspect, 310,
n. 255, rilevando che, secondo quest’ultimo, nelle perifrasi "#$%&'( conserva il suo significato
(lessicale). Ecco quanto scrive FANNING nel luogo citato: “A few instances of periphrasis with
"#$%&'( do occur in the NT, and they have the sense of ‘coming to be in a process or state’.
These uses (not all indicative) are: Mark 9: 3; 2Cor. 6: 14; Col. 1: 18; Heb. 5: 12; Rev. 3: 2, 16:
10 (Mark 9: 7 is not periphrastic)”.
12
EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 226. EVANS considera inadeguata la descrizione lessicale di
"#$%&'( da parte di PORTER. Il testo di PORTER è il seguente: “Several grammarians cite instances
of "#$%&'( + Participle as forming periphrastic constructions (…; contra Winer, 440 who cate-
gorically denies this construction as periphrastic), apparently viewing "#$%&'( as synonymus as
with IE&# on the basis of lexical similarity … "#$%&'( appears to be the aspectually marked lexi-
cal equivalent of the lexically vague IE&#, and thus its vague meaning is suitable to any number
of context, while still contributing an aspectual semantic component”. PORTER riprende i casi di
perifrasi citati in TURNER, Syntax, 98 – le stesse occorrenze registrate da FANNING, vedi nota pre-
cedente – ma non accetta Ap 1,18 (PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 491). Va precisato che WINER nel
luogo citato limita l’affermazione al NT.
286
An_78.indb 297 21/06/11 15:39

EVANS in un contributo successivo, dove osserva in primo luogo che la perifra-

si, formata da un verbo ausiliare più participio o infinito, è un equivalente vici-
no alle forme verbali sintetiche attestata nel greco antico13. Sono tre i casi nel
Pentateuco in cui sembra che ci siano le condizioni per la perifrasi secondo
EVANS:
Gen 31,40
/"($H&,$ +KU R&V3'U *S"-'(H&I$%U +y -'c&'+( -'5 0'"I+y +KU $S-+HU
di giorno ero (preferibile a “diventavo”) arso dal fuoco e dal gelo la notte
EVANS propone:14
I was being burnt up by heat during the day and by frost during the night
BRENTON: I was parched with heat by day, and chilled with frost by night
NETS: by day I would become inflamed by heat and by frost by night
La traduzione più letterale è l’ultima, come pure la meno vicina all’interpreta-
zione perifrastica. Nella sua resa EVANS esprime l’azione imperfettiva passiva
(imperfetto + presente participio passivo) della costruzione.
Es 17,12
-'5 /"V$%$+% 'm OI[3IU zWS*K /*+,3("&V$'( )WU FS*&Y$ RJ#%S
le mani di Mosè furono sostenute fino al tramonto del sole15
EVANS: And Moses’ hands were supported until sunset
Anche BRENTON e NETS hanno “were supported”, traduzione che riflette la pe-
rifrasi. Come intendere la combinazione aoristo + perfetto participio passivo,
come piuccheperfetto? La resa “were supported” è esatta, ma, come si vede,
BRENTON neutralizza qualsiasi differenza – si allude alla combinazione dei tem-
pi – tra la precedente perifrasi (“I was parched”) e la seconda, mentre NETS,
in questo passo dell’Esodo, abbandona inspiegabilmente il verbo “become”
adottato in Gen 31,40.
13
EVANS, Periphrastic, 112. Qui l’autore osserva che nel periodo della koinè IE&# più partici-
pio è la perifrasi verbale più frequente. Nella nota 20 l’autore rimanda a AERTS, Periphrastica,
senza dubbio l’opera di riferimento sull’argomento; nella nota successiva EVANS dice che le pe-
rifrasi con "#(")$%&'( e u013OW molto probabilmente (“arguably”) sono variazioni di IE&# più
participio, almeno nel periodo della koinè.
14
Cf. EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 226; la Vulgata ha: “die noctuque aestu urebar et gelu”. La pe-
rifrasi è riconosciuta come tale da DIETRICH, Verbalaspekt im Griechischen, 210, vedi sopra, n. 3.
Le osservazioni di EVANS relative al confronto con il testo ebraico dei passi citati non vengono
trattate. Per chi scrive non hanno un ruolo determinante per stabilire se c’è o no perifrasi verba-
le. L’edizione critica del Pentateuco adottata da EVANS è quella di Göttingen curata da WEVERS;
per gli altri libri segue principalmente RAHLFS e per il confronto l’edizione di Cambridge a cura
di BROOKE-MCLEAN (EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 7). In questo contributo si segue l’edizione di Göt-
tingen per tutti i libri finora pubblicati e l’edizione di Cambridge per quelli mancanti nell’edizio-
ne di Göttingen.
15
Buona la resa: “e rimasero le mani di Mosè ferme …” in MORTARI, Bibbia dei LXX, 309.
287
An_78.indb 298 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 299
Nm 10,36
-'5 R $I6VJ, /"V$I+% *-(1X%S*' /0{ 'T+%[U R&V3'U16
E la nube gli faceva ombra di giorno
EVANS: And the cloud was overshadowing them by day
BRENTON: And the cloud overshadowed them by day
NETS: And the cloud came, overshadowing them by day
La traduzione di EVANS pone in evidenza l’imperfettività del presente partici-
pio, mentre BRENTON ha come punto di riferimento l’aoristo del verbo finito;
NETS esclude la perifrasi, analizzando il participio come congiunto.
Né il lessico LUST-EYNIKEL-HAUSPIE né quello di MURAOKA registrano in ma-
niera esplicita l’impiego di "#$%&'( nella perifrasi. La voce del verbo "#$%&'(
nel LUST-EYNIKEL-HAUSPIE è davvero limitata e non accenna neppure alla costru-
zione "#$%&'( + participio17. MURAOKA riporta le tre occorrenze alla voce
"#$%&'( ma separate: Gen 31,40 e Nm 10,36 rientrano sotto il significato “to
set out doing sth (ptc., mostly pres.), marking the onset of a new action or situ-
ation”18, mentre la costruzione di Es 17,12 è considerata un caso “with an ao-
rist form of ". combined with a pf. mid./pass. ptc. it is a substitute for a mid./
pass. pf.”19. Nella lettera seguente (c) la combinazione tra il perfetto di "#$%&'(
e un perfetto medio-passivo participio è equiparata a un medio-passivo perfet-
to20. Si può dire che MURAOKA parli di perifrastica in modo implicito. Diver-
samente accade per IE&# al cui uso perifrastico è riservato un intero paragrafo21.
Nelle precedenti attestazioni, secondo EVANS, il participio dà il principale
contributo aspettuale alla perifrasi: in Gen 31,40 e Nm 10,36 si ha l’equivalen-
te di un imperfetto, in Es 17,12 di piuccheperfetto.
Il primo significato di "#$%&'( (diventare), continua EVANS, sembra invece
operativo in Gen 26,13; Es 19,19; Dt 19,11 (“debatable”); 22,23; Lv 13,49;
22,13, dove il participio è aggettivato, per cui non si ha perifrasi, vale a dire
non sono esempi equivalenti a una forma sintetica22. In senso stretto si ha pe-
rifrasi, se c’è equivalenza con una forma temporale sintetica. La combinazione
più produttiva è quella con IE&# + participio23.
16
CONYBEARE-STOCK, Grammar, § 72, elencano Es 17,12 e Nm 10,36 tra le attestazioni di
perifrasi. Vedi sopra, n. 8.
17
Cf. LUST-EYNIKEL-HAUSPIE, sub voce "#$%&'(, 120.
18
MURAOKA, Lexicon, sub voce "#$%&'(, 131, n. 5.
19
MURAOKA, Lexicon, sub voce "#$%&'(, 131, n. 5b.
20
MURAOKA, Lexicon, sub voce "#$%&'(, 131, n. 5c. Tra gli altri autori qui si cita anche
EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 224-227. Sotto la medesima voce al n. 3 il participio nella costruzione di
"#$%&'( + participio in Sir 2,5; Is 30,12; Ger 18,21 è analizzato come aggettivato.
21
MURAOKA, Lexicon, sub voce IE&#, 194, dove si annota che il verbo IE&# è usato in pe-
rifrasi in diversi tempi e modi. Gli autori di riferimento sono BLASS-DEBRUNNER-REHKOPF,
§§ 352-354; AERTS, Periphrastica, soprattutto 52-96; EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 230-248.
22
EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 227.
23
EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 230.
288
An_78.indb 299 21/06/11 15:39

Tirando le somme, dunque, si intuisce che tra gli autori, e finora ne sono
stati citati solo alcuni, non vi è totale identità di vedute nel definire quando si
ha una perifrasi verbale. L’ultima affermazione di EVANS rappresenta un punto
fermo per ulteriori approfondimenti.
Criteri di individuazione della perifrasi

Di seguito viene presentata in sintesi l’indagine di alcuni autori che si sono oc-
cupati della perifrasi, producendo ampi contributi, che risultano utili per deli-
neare anche una breve storia, per forza di cose parziale, della ricerca. In queste
pagine la discussione è limitata alla perifrasi IE&# + participio, la costruzione su
cui gli autori esprimono maggiori convergenze d’interpretazione.
AERTS
Nella sistemazione di AERTS i criteri per individuare la presenza di una perifrasi
sono principalmente negativi: non si ha perifrasi o è poco probabile che vi sia,
quando IL$'( significa esistere, se è in relazione con una determinazione (“ad-
junct”) di luogo o di tempo, con dativo di possesso o di interesse, se la sua po-
sizione è enfatica. Anche dove una copula occorre senza significato intrinseco
(“intrinsic meaning”) in combinazione con il participio, non si ha perifrasi nel
greco antico. Determinare quando si ha una copula con un participio aggettiva-
to puro è in genere difficoltoso e dipende dalla sensibilità linguistica e dal con-
testo24.
Presente participio
Con il presente participio, riassumendo la discussione, non si ha perifrasi: 1) se
IL$'( è indipendente rispetto al participio25; 2) se il participio è del tutto (“com-
pletely”) aggettivato. Se c’è perifrasi, essa ha carattere prevalentemente di si-
tuazione stabile (“situation-fixing”) o descrittiva (“describing”) e intransitiva, e
spesso non si distingue dai casi del gruppo 226. Il numero dei casi dove IL$'( è
24
AERTS, Periphrastica, 12-13. Lo studioso per convenienza divide la storia della lingua gre-
ca in tre periodi: – greco antico, dagli inizi fino al 300 a.C.; – koinè, dal 300 a.C. al 1000 d.C.; –
greco moderno dal 1000 ai nostri giorni (ibid., 3). Qui vanno fatte due osservazioni. Date le pre-
messe, l’individuazione di una perifrasi non è un’operazione semplice; cosa voglia intendere
l’autore con “valore intrinseco” non è chiaro, ma ha maggiore rilievo ai fini della riflessione il
concetto di copula: in caso di perifrasi IE&# ha la funzione di copula?
25
AERTS intende dire che IL$'( deve svolgere il ruolo di ausiliare. L’indipendenza, come si
è visto, emerge quando il verbo: 1) significa esistere, 2) se ha relazione con un dativo di posses-
so o di comodo, 3) se è in posizione enfatica.
26
AERTS, Periphrastica, 17. Nella sintesi di AERTS, in sé corretta, emerge la difficoltà di in-
terpretare alcuni participi come verbali. In linea di principio, dunque, se un participio non è
289
An_78.indb 300 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 301
indipendente o associato (“associative indipendent”) riducono le occorrenze

delle vere perifrasi. Le perifrasi progressive sono rare. Man mano che la pe-
rifrasi si afferma la copula perde enfasi e diminuiscono le occorrenze dove si
trova dopo il participio27.
Aoristo participio
In linea di principo la costruzione IL$'( + aoristo participio differisce nell’a-
spetto dal presente e dal perfetto: esprime azione e non stasi o situazione stabi-
le28. Ad uno sguardo generale le costruzioni con aoristo participio e IL$'(
("#"$I*Q'() in molti casi non sono perifrastiche. L’uso si può spesso ricondurre
a circostanze particolari. L’equivalenza con il piuccheperfetto latino postulata
da BJÖRCK e altri autori non può essere assunta senza verifica. La perifrasi con
aoristo ha carattere aspettuale e non ricopre altre funzioni o sostituisce altre
forme aspettuali29.
Perfetto participio
AERTS sintetizza questa materia nei seguenti punti: 1) Le perifrasi con perfetto
participio sono le più antiche. 2) Dapprima occorrono al perfetto e piuccheper-
fetto indicativo soprattutto alla terza persona singolare e sono precedenti alle
perifrasi al congiuntivo e ottativo. 3) Le forme monolettiche del congiuntivo e
ottattivo del perfetto scompaiono nel quarto secolo a favore della perifrasi. Si
ha la sostituzione delle forme monolettiche della terza persona plurale del per-
fetto e piuccheperfetto con la perifrasi. Più tardi la ripresa delle forme mono-
lettiche è da attribuire a imitazione. 4) Le perifrasi hanno carattere di situazio-
ne stabile e il participio si comporta come un aggettivo. Dapprima il perfetto
participio attivo è usato in modo intransitivo; il participio resultativo si afferma
“completamente aggettivato”, ha buone probabilità di formare perifrasi. Ci si può chiedere in

che misura un participio equivale a un aggettivo (indica una qualità del soggetto?) e a quale tipo
di aggettivi in particolare.
27
AERTS, Periphrastica, 26. Qui AERTS introduce il concetto di perifrasi progressiva che, no-
nostante la rarità, e ciò ha un suo rilievo, è già in uso in epoca molto antica ed esprime appunto
l’aspetto progressivo. Ancora una volta l’attenzione cade sulla funzione della copula, ma è evi-
dente che, per avere la perifrasi verbale, IL$'( non deve avere la funzione di copula bensì di au-
siliare. Sarà forse una questione terminologica ma è preferibile non sovrapporre la funzione di
copula con quella di ausiliare.
28
AERTS, Periphrastica, 27.
29
AERTS, Periphrastica, 35. Sull’uso della costruzione con il senso di piuccheperfetto latino
in precedenza AERTS, Periphrastica, 27, n. 1, rimanda a BJÖRCK, |$ F(F1*-W$, 74; BLASS-DE-
BRUNNER, § 355; WOLF, Studien I, 66; II, 55. In BLASS-DEBRUNNER-FUNK, § 355, si dice che la co-
struzione non è sconosciuta al greco classico e che più tardi servirà per esprimere il piuccheper-
fetto e, con riferimento a BJÖRCK, |$ F(F1*-W$, 77s, si ricorda che la perifrasi è “influenced in
part by Lat.”, non si fa quindi riferimento alle riserve di AERTS, la cui posizione non appare
neppure.
290
An_78.indb 301 21/06/11 15:39

con lo sviluppo del perfetto resultativo nel quarto secolo. 5) La sostituzione del
congiuntivo e ottativo monolettici e delle terminazioni in -'+'( e -'+% del per-
fetto e piuccheperfetto medio-passivi con perifrasi è parallela alla sostituzione
del perfetto futuro monolettico con quello perifrastico. 6) La perifrasi del per-
fetto fa da modello a quella con il presente, quella con l’aoristo non è ben defi-
nita. 7) L’uso della perifrasi ha un risvolto stilistico.
La perifrasi nella koinè

In primo luogo va ricordato che tutti i tipi di perifrasi precedenti occorrono an-
che nella koinè. Con il participio presente oltre all’uso intransitivo e di situa-
zione stabile si afferma l’uso progressivo. Questa perifrasi descrive l’azione in
corso o una situazione come appare in un dato momento30.
La perifrasi nel greco biblico

Secondo AERTS la maggior parte dei grammatici fa dipendere la perifrasi del
tipo }$ F(F1*-W$ da un sostrato aramaico. L’equivoco è dovuto alla mancata
distinzione tra l’uso intransitivo, che stabilisce una situazione (“intransitive-
fixing”), e quello progressivo individuato da BJÖRCK, e, come conseguenza, o
all’importanza attribuita alla continuità d’uso tra il greco antico e quello del
NT o alla teoria che fa dipendere eccessivamente la perifrasi con l’imperfetto
dall’influsso semitico. AERTS ritiene che non si è tenuto nel debito conto
dell’uso della perifrasi nella lingua dei LXX, che tanta parte ha avuto nella for-
mazione stilistica di Luca. Lo studioso ribadisce che nel siriaco c’era la ten-
denza all’uso della copula con il participio, così pure nei LXX, dove la costru-
zione di IL$'( + participio appare regolarmente, anche se non in tutti i libri31.
L’esistenza della perifrasi progressiva composta da IL$'( + presente partici-
pio, che BJÖRCK nota nel NT e in leggende (“legends”) successive, era già atte-
stata nei LXX. Il confine tra la perifrasi progressiva e quella di situazione sta-
bile non è sempre netto32.
30
AERTS, Periphrastica, 52. AERTS propone esempi tratti da Erodoto, dal Vangelo di Luca e
dagli Atti degli apostoli.
31
AERTS, Periphrastica, 60-62. Non è chiaro il nesso tra l’uso intransitivo e quello progressi-
vo della perifrasi da una parte, tra la continuità d’uso con il greco antico e l’influsso semitico
dall’altra con il fatto che taluni grammatici sostengano la teoria della dipendenza della perifrasi
dall’aramaico. Valutando la consistenza degli elementi in campo, la sottolineatura dell’influsso
dei LXX ha certamente maggiori elementi di concretezza rispetto a una matrice siriaca della
perifrasi.
32
Esempi di perifrasi progressiva segnalati da AERTS, Periphrastica, 64, tra tutti quelli rac-
colti sono 2 Cr 30,10; Dan 8,5; 2 Sam 15,32; 1 Re 21,12.
291
An_78.indb 302 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 303
La combinazione dell’imperfetto di IL$'( + participio è la più frequente nel

greco antico. Nel NT, dove i criteri d’uso non differiscono, se ne incontrano un
buon numero. È difficile, sostiene AERTS, individuare una linea di sviluppo dal
greco antico alla koinè. Nei LXX talvolta la costruzione è progressiva in netto
contrasto con l’uso del greco antico33. L’estensione di quest’uso è dovuto ai
LXX e indirettamente alla corrispondente costruzione ebraica: si verifica un
influsso semitico indiretto. I testi dei LXX e del NT sono un’attendibile testi-
monianza dell’uso della lingua contemporanea. Sono pochi i passagi di non
greco e di espressioni non greche, anche dove la traduzione in ebraico o ara-
maico fa luce su di un determinato uso. Certamente non ci sono le condizioni
per un confronto con la lingua di Erodoto o di Platone. Il greco (biblico) fa uso
in questo caso di espressioni che non sono essenzialmente greche: la perifrasi
progressiva è una di queste espressioni possibili in greco ma non del tutto
greche34.
Nei LXX la costruzione IL$'( + aoristo participio non occorre. Secondo AERTS
questa perifrasi, con il valore di piuccheperfetto, acquista importanza nel pri-
mo secolo35.
Nel complesso il carattere del perfetto perifrastico rimane quello del greco
antico, cioè intransitivo e di situazione stabile. Gli si affianca un perfetto resul-
tativo perifrastico e pochi piuccheperfetti definibili Vorvergangenheitstempus.
La frequenza della perifrasi con il participio perfetto attivo è piuttosto bassa,
con il passivo le perifrasi sono più numerose36. Altre tendenze da considerare
sono le seguenti: 1) La perifrasi è limitata soprattutto all’indicativo. 2) C’è una
certa tendenza all’aggettivazione del perfetto passivo. 3) Negli scrittori popo-
lari diminuisce la frequenza in favore della perifrasi con l’aoristo37.
PORTER
La riflessione di PORTER sulla perifrasi, benché l’autore non lo dica esplicita-
mente, ha il carattere di una sorta di rifondazione della teorizzazione dell’argo-
mento. La presa di posizione è netta, PORTER ritiene, in concreto, che vi sia pe-
rifrasi verbale solo con IE&#, e coerentemente concentra le altre costruzioni co-
stituite da verbo finito + participio o infinito in un’appendice di uno dei suoi
principali contributi38.
33
Per l’autore è indiscutibile che la perifrasi con il presente participio sia una semplice vari-
ante stilistica di quella con il perfetto participio, perciò tendenzialmente non progressiva.
34
AERTS, Periphrastica, 74-75.
35
AERTS, Periphrastica, 76-77.
36
37
38
PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 487-492. In queste pagine sono trattate in ordine le perifrasi con i
292
An_78.indb 303 21/06/11 15:39

Il punto di partenza della posizione dell’autore è che il verbo IE&# è marcato

da genericità aspettuale (“aspectual vagueness”), un tratto che lo rende compa-
tibile con qualsiasi contesto aspettuale39. Nel riassumere il pensiero dei princi-
pali studiosi della perifrasi che lo hanno preceduto, PORTER rileva nei loro con-
tributi l’assenza della formulazione di criteri per riconoscere una perifrasi40.
verbi Fc$'&'(, QVJW, FI[, &VJJW, NOW, "#$%&'(.

39
“There are a number of constructions in Greek that grammarians call periphrastic, but
IE&# is by far the most common auxiliary; surely its use in periphrastic has to do with its as-
pectual vagueness and its lexical meaning” (PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 449). Alla definizione della
genericità aspettuale di alcuni verbi l’autore dedica diverse pagine (442-447). Il medesimo con-
cetto di genericità aspettuale è ribadito successivamente: “A periphrastic construction in Greek
consists of the aspectually vague verb IE&# and a Participle in agreement, linked in certain fairly
specific configurations” (487). Se da un lato PORTER riconosce a IE&#, e in linea di principio la
sua idea è condivisibile, uno statuto a sé nella formazione della perifrasi, da indurre a pensare
che solo con IE&# si può avere perifrasi verbale, quando se ne danno le condizioni, dall’altro non
applica fino in fondo questo principio quando considera IE&# uno dei verbi ausiliari, dai quali si
distingue esclusivamente per la sua maggiore frequenza. EVANS, Periphrastic, 222, ritiene inade-
guato il principio di aspettualità generica “it lacks diachronic scope and yields an artificially nar-
row definition of periphrasis”.
40
Gli autori menzionati sono: ALEXANDER, Periphrases; REGARD, La phrase nominale;
BJÖRCK, |$ F(F1*-W$; ROSÉN, Tempora des Griechischen; GONDA, Remark; AERTS, Periphras-
tica; KAHN, The verb ‘Be’ (PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 447-449). L’autore nella nota 5 (449) accen-
na alla riflessione sul tema di KARLEEN, Syntax, 113-136, e dice che non ne ha analizzato i conte-
nuti per tre ragioni: 1) la discussione di KARLEEN si concentra in primo luogo sulla generazione
sincronica della perifrasi; 2) l’autore fa proprie alcune definizioni di perifrasi in particolare quel-
le di AERTS e GONDA; 3) la sua visione dell’aspetto è più vicina all’Aktionsart che all’aspetto in
sé. Inoltre KARLEEN non dice in cosa consiste una perifrasi e mediante la grammatica transforma-
zionale cerca di spiegare il modello da cui deriva (“where the examples agreed upon by others
came from”). – Le osservazioni critiche di PORTER sono fondate. Per KARLEEN dal punto di vista
sincronico il participio perifrastico è la reintroduzione del participio aggettivale nel predicato. Il
participio perifrastico comporta il passaggio del participio attributivo a predicato per creare un
nuovo operatore della forma essere + participio (il concetto è ribadito oltre: “una costruzione pe-
rifrastica è il risultato di una trasformazione di un participio attributivo”; 125). Il participio nel
predicato deve essere considerato una trasformazione del verbo finito: l’uomo mangia > l’uomo
è mangiante, ma “la sintassi storica non accetta la derivazione del participio perifrastico da una
forma finita”. Il participio perifrastico equivalente a un verbo (durativo o no) si deve a una riana-
lisi del participio reintrodotto con IE&# (115-117). La definizione del confine tra perifrasi aggetti-
vale e perifrastica riguarda la semantica e non la sintassi e l’interpretazione dipende dai verbi o
participi presenti nel contesto. KARLEEN, per distinguere le due perifrasi, ricorre alla prova appli-
cata in inglese per individuare il participio aggettivale nel predicato: si aggiunge ‘very’ (J#'$ in
greco), che funziona in Tt 3,3 e Lc 2,51 ma non in Lc 5,17 (120). Interessante quanto afferma
della proposizione nominale, dove sembra (“it appears”) che, quando il participio fa parte di una
catena di aggettivi, IE&# può essere ridotto a zero (“zeroed”), altrimenti il participio sarebbe pe-
rifrastico (134). Stando agli esempi, a quanto pare, con “zeroed” KARLEEN intende definire la
funzione di copula di IE&#. Quanto esposto è sufficiente per dare lo spunto ad alcune considera-
zioni. Ferme le critiche di PORTER, KARLEEN tenta in qualche maniera di dare una spiegazione
all’origine della perifrasi anche originale, se si vuole (con il passaggio del participio da attributi-
vo a predicato), benché gli argomenti addotti non appaiano così stringenti, anzi talvolta discuti-
bili. Che la rianalisi, poi, riguardi il solo participio e non l’intera costruzione perifrastica fa sor-
gere più di qualche dubbio. Che il verbo IE&#, perché si abbia perifrasi con il participio, non
debba essere copula è una teoria che si può sottoscrivere, ma KARLEEN (e non è il solo) non dice
293
An_78.indb 304 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 305
Natura e funzione di IJFC

A conferma del suo assunto PORTER muove dalla critica che RUJIGH fa a KAHN41.
Qui interessa essenzialmente ricordare che, sulla base delle sue ricerche,
RUJIGH42 sostiene che, quanto all’adattabilità all’uso copulativo “IE&# è il verbo
meno marcato semanticamente della lingua”. Sulla scia di questa affermazione
PORTER individua nel significato semantico lessicale generico del verbo, che
gravita intorno al significato centrale di ‘essere presente’ (“being present”), la
condizione per l’uso di ausiliare nelle costruzioni perifrastiche43.
Definizione della perifrasi in greco44

Mancano nella letteratura specializzata criteri comuni per definire la natura e la
funzione della perifrasi. Nonostante il tentativo di sistemazione da parte di
AERTS, PORTER sostiene che rimangono ampi margini di soggettività nella deter-
minazione dell’esistenza contestuale di una perifrasi45. Molti grammatici non
ne danno una definizione. Stando all’autore, le condizioni richieste perché si
abbia una perifrasi sono due: 1) la presenza di verbo ausiliare con aspettualità
generica, 2) la concordanza del participio con il suo referente. Il primo fattore
è necessario per evitare incompatibilità aspettuale con il participio, in caso
contrario si ha una costruzione verbale catenative46. Il verbo IE&# + participio
costituisce l’unità minima grammaticale della perifrasi, dove l’ausiliare stabi-
lisce atteggiamento, persona e relazione al discorso, il participio determina
l’aspetto verbale47. Oltre alla concordanza, perché vi sia perifrasi, i due mem-
in caso di perifrasi quale sia la funzione di IE&#, probabilmente proprio perché concentra la sua
attenzione prevalentemente sul participio. Quanto alla derivazione della perifrasi, è molto più
probabile la sua dipendenza dall’uso predicativo del participio. Cf. TUSA MASSARO, Sintassi, 199,
che parla, va precisato, di “formazioni perifrastiche del Perfetto e dei tempi da esso derivati”.
41
PORTER si rifà alla teoria espressa da RUJIGH, Review of KAHN. Cf. PORTER, Verbal Aspect,
449-452. In queste pagine sono riassunte le posizioni dei due autori.
42
RUJIGH, Review of KAHN, 67.
43
Per RUJIGH, Review of KAHN, 55, il valore locale di IE&# (“être présent, être là”) è fon-
damentale, anche se rimane centrale la costruzione copulativa. Cf. PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 450.
44
Il titolo di questo paragrafo riprende quello del volume di PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 492.
45
Così FANNING, Verbal Aspect, 311.
46
Si assume in prestito l’aggettivo inglese “catenative”.
47
EVANS, Periphrastic, 223, riconosce che senza la nozione di genericità (aspettuale) di POR-
TER sarebbe difficile definire l’apporto aspettuale dell’ausiliare alla forma perifrastica, e sostiene
che PORTER ha ragione nell’affermare che nella perifrasi è il participio a determinare l’aspetto.
EVANS ritiene che sia la semantica lessicale e non quella aspettuale a determinare il possibile uso
di un verbo come ausiliare in una perifrasi. Alcuni verbi si adattano per il loro significato lessi-
cale ad essere grammaticalizzati in questo ruolo. Quando un verbo lessicalmente adatto diventa
grammaticalizzato in funzione ausiliare, si ha come risultato un certo grado di aspettualità gene-
rica. Come per PORTER anche CAMPBELL, Verbal aspect, è il participio a determinare l’aspetto
della perifrasi. Una perifrasi con presente participio sarà imperfettiva come riflesso del tema del
presente che è imperfettivo (33-34). Quanto alla spazialità, CAMPBELL afferma che le perifrasi se-
guono gli stessi principi delle forme sintetiche: il presente indicativo dell’ausiliare veicola pros-
305
An_78.indb 305 21/06/11 15:39

bri devono essere adiacenti; se vi sono elementi aggiunti, devono essere con-
nessi al participio (cioè alla parte che veicola il significato lessicale della co-
struzione), nel caso, invece, determinino l’ausiliare, ne sanciscono l’autonomia
rispetto al participio. Si rimane nell’incertezza, quando tra i due membri si
frappone un sintagma locativo o temporale48.
Una perifrasi sostituisce una forma semplice, quando quest’ultima non è
più usata. In caso di coesistenza di entrambe le forme si pone un problema di
sinonimia, data per assodata da alcuni autori ma non da PORTER, per il quale la
sinonimia è cognitiva ma non assoluta. Le due forme possono occorrere in uno
stesso contesto, ma la perifrasi conserva un suo significato semantico49.
simità spaziale, l’imperfetto lontananza spaziale. Nella perifrasi con presente indicativo e il par-
ticipio perfetto entrambi i costituenti veicolano prossimità spaziale. Il risultato è una maggiore
prossimità, così come avviene nella forma sintetica, l’aspetto è imperfettivo (36). – La neutralità
aspettuale di IE&# teorizzata da PORTER, tuttavia, non avrebbe il consenso di MCGAUGHY, Descrip-
tive Analysis, § 5.3, dove si legge: “Like other verbs, IL$'( participates the verbal system in si-
gnaling tense, mood and aspect, though only to a limited degree … its morphology distinguishes
tense as time and mood, and it contributes to tense as aspect in periphrastic constructions”. L’au-
tore pone in evidenza i limiti dell’esposizione della voce riservata al verbo IE&# in BAUER, Lexi-
con. La critica principale è la confusione tra il livello semantico e quello sintattico. BAUER, re-
stringendo la discussione alla perifrasi, pone questa costruzione nella seconda (II) sezione IE&#
“as a copula, uniting subject and predicate” come sub-categoria (II. 4). Per MCGAUGHY, invece,
la perifrasi è una sottocategoria “which defines the strictly grammatical function of IE&# as a
tense indicator (i.e., it is lexically empty; § 10.3)”. Più avanti, nell’introdurre il paragrafo sulla
perifrasi, lo studioso ricorda, volendo alludere a possibili convergenze d’uso, che in inglese ci
sono due gruppi di ausiliari, i “primary auxiliaries”, che indicano tempo e aspetto (have, be, do),
e i “modal auxiliaries”, che indicano tempo e modo (can, could, dare, may etc.). Allargando lo
sguardo ad altri fattori, aggiunge che in greco le funzioni di tempo, modo e aspetto sono segna-
late per mezzo di un sistema di prefissi, infissi e suffissi più che dagli ausiliari. Dopo aver elen-
cato le diverse combinazioni perifrastiche con IE&# + participio, MCGAUGHY propone tre esempi
di perifrasi. In Lc 5,16 'T+bU F\ }$ u0%OW3Y$ /$ +'[U /3v&%(U la perifrasi }$ u0%OW3Y$
corrisponde, secondo lo studioso, a un imperfetto in una proposizione formata da soggetto e ver-
bo intransitivo; Mt 7,29 }$ "Z3 F(F1*-W$ 'T+%cU rientra nella struttura soggetto – verbo tran-
sitivo – oggetto. Tale costruzione perifrastica va distinta da quella composta da soggetto – verbo
equativo (copula) – predicato (“Subject—Equative Verb—Subjective Complement”) (§ 49).
L’esempio di riferimento è Gv 1,49b *k IL ~ SmbU +%G QI%G (§ 13.1). MCGAUGHY ha ragione a
insistere sulla distinzione tra i casi di perifrasi e di predicato, ma non tutte le attestazioni di co-
struzioni sono chiare come quelle da lui portate ad esempio. Sono senza dubbio pertinenti e di-
sambiguanti, tuttavia, le sue affermazioni relative al ruolo di IE&# nel definire l’aspetto (se ne de-
duce che per MCGAUGHY la perifrasi va intesa come unità) e alla distinzione tra ‘copula’ e ‘au-
siliare’.
48
Il fatto è che PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 453, fa degli elementi frapposti tra i membri della
perifrasi una discriminante troppo decisiva: arriva a comprendere anche il soggetto tra di loro!
Lo stesso principio (con esempi di soggetto frapposto) è ribadito in PORTER, Idioms, 45-46. Per
EVANS lo sforzo di PORTER di individuare elementi formali per distinguere una perifrasi: indeter-
minatezza aspettuale, l’abbandono della distinzione tra participi pienamente aggettivati e quelli
come costituenti di perifrasi, l’ordine delle parole, non sono argomenti convincenti. Nell’indivi-
duazione della perifrasi, soprattutto di quelle sostitutive, è inevitabile la soggettività. Cf. EVANS,
Periphrastic, 233. I limiti della posizione di PORTER emergono con tutta evidenza in casi come
Gen 39,23 %T- }$ ~ a3O(FI*&%6cJ'd +%G FI*&W+,3#%S "($*-W$ F({ 'T+b$ %TQV$, citato
dallo stesso EVANS (232) che ritiene, a ragione, }$ … "($*-W$ perifrasi.
295
An_78.indb 306 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 307
Una volta stabilito che un participio è aggettivato, che sia o no in parallelo

con altri aggettivi, per alcuni grammatici non c’è perifrasi. PORTER, al contrario,
spinge a superare questa visione. Che un participio possa svolgere la funzione
di aggettivo, argomenta, è un dato di fatto, ma nella perifrasi un participio con-
serva e afferma l’aspetto verbale50. Una posizione certamente condivisibile.
EVANS
Nelle conclusioni (255-257) EVANS riconosce che, nella determinazione del-
l’occorrenza di una perifrasi, concorrono inevitabilmente fattori soggettivi. Lo
sforzo di PORTER di stabilire criteri formali in questo campo è invalidato da cri-
teri arbitrari personali e dalla poca attenzione alle sfumature della lingua greca.
EVANS definisce la perifrasi una combinazione di un ausiliare più participio o
infinito come quasi (“as near”) equivalente (perifrasi sostitutiva) o supplenza
(perifrasi suppletiva) di una forma sintetica. Negli ausiliari vanno considerati i
tratti lessicali semantici e non quelli aspettuali al fine di stabilire la grammati-
calizzazione della loro funzione. Nel Pentateuco gli ausiliari sono IE&#, "#$%&'(
combinati con presente e perfetto participio e &VJJW seguito da presente e aori-
sto infinito.
La teoria di AERTS, secondo cui i LXX hanno influito sull’uso della perifrasi
nel greco del NT, è fondata ma non nei termini formulati dallo studioso, inoltre
49
PORTER non spiega quale sia il significato proprio della perifrasi o la sua funzione. A tale
proposito, soprattutto per la funzione che la perifrasi può svolgere in un racconto, andrebbero ri-
valutate le osservazioni di GONDA, Remark, 99-102. Secondo questo autore, per fare un esempio,
il passaggio dalla forma finita narrativa a quella perifrastica è riferibile alla necessità di sottoli-
neare lo stato delle cose. Il contrasto tra le due forme, inoltre, emerge quando sono presenti en-
trambe in un medesimo contesto (101).
50
PORTER, Verbal Aspect, 454. L’autore poco prima fa un’osservazione pertinente ma debo-
le sul piano dell’interpretazione. Commentando alcuni esempi in inglese addotti da AERTS per
chiarire quando un participio è aggettivato o no, PORTER dice che tali espressioni dimostrano che
la traduzione in inglese (dal greco) non è un criterio valido per stabilire se in un dato contesto si
ha o meno l’aggettivazione del participio. Un parlante può dire “uomo vedente” (“seeing man”)
o “uomo cieco” (“blind man”) ma può non avere la capacità di capire se ‘vedente’ è aggettivato.
Lo stesso è valido per il greco. Qui PORTER rimanda a BJÖRCK, |$ F(F1*-W$, 25. La debolezza
a cui si è accennato sta nel fatto che non è la competenza del parlante che qui conta ma l’uso, e
se ci sono criteri per mettere a fuoco l’uso aggettivale o verbale del participio. Poniamo che un
parlante riuscisse a determinare l’uso aggettivale di ‘vedente’ in una costruzione perifrastica,
quali ripercussioni avrebbe nell’uso della perifrasi aggettivale? Semplicemente nessuna, il par-
lante se ne serve perché la percepisce come corretta grammaticalmente. Va ancora osservato che
PORTER definisce la perifrasi un’unità grammaticale ma finisce per attribuire la determinazione
dell’aspetto al solo participio.
Per EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 231, PORTER non si affranca dalla soggettività nell’analisi ed inol-
tre è difficile che in un participio aggettivato o sostantivato operi ancora l’aspetto, l’uso sempre
sostantivato di l3OW$ nel Pentateuco ne è un esempio. Siccome participi di questo tipo non oc-
corrono al presente e al perfetto l’opposizione perfettività/imperfettività non è operativa. La que-
stione richiede di essere approfondita nella grecità antica. In assenza di criteri oggettivi si può
stabilire l’aggettivazione di un participio in base al contesto.
296
An_78.indb 307 21/06/11 15:39

né la perifrasi progressiva né quella con il futuro prendono avvio dai LXX. Per
formulare conclusioni sulle perifrasi greche e l’influsso ebraico occorrono dati
più esaustivi. Non è stato stabilito perché non si ha sempre perifrasi rispetto a
una costruzione ebraica che potrebbe motivarla o rispetto a !"! + participio51.
Gli studi, infine, non hanno prodotto dati sufficienti che permettano di studiare
la frequenza della perifrasi nel Pentateuco rispetto a quella del greco extra
biblico.
Queste considerazioni di EVANS sono in parte condivisibili. L’autore, però,
non discute le varianti (che possono offrire interessanti elementi sulla ricezio-
ne della perifrasi) e il tratto di quasi equivalenza delle perifrasi con le forme
sintetiche: non dice in cosa si distinguono sostanzialmente le due forme. Attri-
buisce, infine, un’importanza decisiva al rapporto con l’ebraico. Con ciò non si
vuol dire che un confronto con la lingua tradotta non possa essere illuminan-
te, ma non è questa comparazione a produrre elementi discriminanti per stabi-
lire se una costruzione sia perifrastica o no in greco, al più fornisce notizie
sulla tecnica di traduzione e sull’interpretazione del traduttore. Stabilire che
una perifrasi rispecchi un modello di traduzione è un fatto, un’altra è l’analisi
in greco.
AMENTA
L’autrice52 riconosce che:
51
Per DIETRICH, Verbalaspekt im Griechischen, 201, la costruzione semitica non ha la stessa
funzione di quella greca; in ebraico il participio ha per lo più valore aggettivale, in greco verba-
le. Un calco sintattico, osserva AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 65, non necessariamente comporta
implicazioni semantiche.
52
La monografia dell’autrice è stata recentemente recensita da BENTEIN, Review, 127-141.
Nel suo puntuale contributo l’autore 1) ricorda: – le diverse proposte di classificazione della pe-
rifrasi verbale come temporale, aspettuale, modale o come participiale, gerundiale, infinitivale; –
che la ricerca si è concentrata soprattutto sulle lingue europee e sull’evoluzione della perifrasi
dal latino nelle lingue romanze; – gli studi di COSERIU (Aspecto Verbal; Problem des griechi-
schen Einflusses) e DIETRICH (Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen) sulle perifrasi aspet-
tuali con verbi come esistere, venire, andare, prendere; entrambi gli studiosi giungono alla con-
clusione che le lingue romanze hanno ereditato dal greco tale costruzione attraverso la
mediazione del primo latino cristiano; 2) presenta gli studi principali su questioni specifiche ri-
guardanti la perifrasi (classificazione, ricerca, evoluzione, origine, influsso aramaico o ebraico,
definizione del concetto di perifrasi verbale ed altre questioni); 3) dopo aver esposto per sommi
capi il contenuto dei sette capitoli del volume, muove alcuni appunti all’autrice. AMENTA non
chiarisce a quali perifrasi aspettuali appartengono quelle che integrano i sistemi verbali … nel-
l’espressione di significati aspettuali e cosa le differenzia da altre perifrasi verbali; – non rispon-
de a PORTER per il quale IE&# è l’unico vero ausiliare e ritiene che non c’è distinzione tra funzio-
ne nominale e verbale del participio come base della delimitazione; – non studia in dettaglio in-
flussi esterni e interni sulle perifrasi verbali greche e ignora EVANS (Verbal Syntax); – ipotizza
che il participio nelle perifrasi verbali con verbi di stato si sia sviluppato da una funzione nomi-
nale a una verbale; – non registra esempi della produzione successiva al NT per quanto concerne
la grammaticalizzazione di IE&# e non contestualizza gli esempi. Per BENTEIN, inoltre, la defini-
297
An_78.indb 308 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 309
La varietà e la complessità di realizzazioni comprese sotto l’etichetta di «forme

verbali perifrastiche» ne hanno determinato difficoltà di identificazione e di
caratterizzazione,
e aggiunge:
Nella sua definizione più ampia, una perifrasi è un sintagma verbale complesso
costituito da un verbo di modo finito che apporta al costrutto informazioni
grammaticali relative al tempo, al modo, alla persona e da un verbo di modo
non finito (gerundio, participio, infinito) legati direttamente o tramite una parti-
cella o una congiunzione53.
L’opposizione tra le teorie poligenetica e monogenetica sull’origine della pe-
rifrasi ha interessato anche gli studi sul greco e sul latino54. La definizione del-
la perifrasi dipende dalla grammaticalizzazione del verbo finito come ausiliare,
fenomeno che comporta nel verbo desemantizzazione, decategorizzazione e ri-
duzione e perdita del peso fonologico55.
zione proposta da EVANS manca di precisione. In futuro la ricerca dovrà studiare in maniera si-
stematica la perifrasi nel greco post-classico e nel greco medievale, definirne la tipologia su cri-
teri semantici e morfosintattici. Si prevede un approccio scalare nella definizione delle perifrasi
verbali, perché, si pensa, esprimano diversi gradi di grammaticalizzazione.
Sull’ultima affermazione c’è da fare un rilievo sostanziale. L’approccio scalare, infatti, ma-
nifesta tutta la debolezza della teoria che estende la categoria di ausiliare in termini omogenei a
più verbi, sulla base della comune costruzione sintattica, e pone in secondo piano, se non ignora
il fatto oggettivo, che non tutti i verbi ‘ausiliari’, o definiti tali, possono desemantizzarsi come
IE&# (ciò è innegabile) o ne posseggono la “aspectual vagueness”. Del resto lo stesso BENTEIN
cita PUSCH-WESCH, Verbalperiphrasen, 4, per i quali questo approccio porterebbe a un uso in-
flazionistico del concetto di perifrastica con la conseguente svalutazione della terminologia de-
scrittiva.
Lo studio delle perifrasi verbali per il greco post-classico, prosegue BENTEIN, deve seguire
criteri semantici e un approccio diacronico che evidenzi il rapporto tra forme semplici e perifra-
stiche; va approfondita la distribuzione delle categorie di tempo, aspetto e modo tra il verbo fini-
to e il non-finito; la communis opinio che la perifrasi verbale possa ridursi all’imperfettività è
una semplificazione; le perifrasi verbali vanno inquadrate all’interno dell’evoluzione dell’intero
sistema verbale (con rimando a BROWNING, Medieval and modern Greek, 36ss); non va trascurata
la fonologia nell’analisi del fenomeno (con rimando a HORROCKS, A History, 76, dove l’autore,
però, non fa accenno alla fonologia!). Aggiungiamo che a conclusione del paragrafo The impact
of bilinguism HORROCKS (78) sostiene che vari fenomeni di carattere lessicale e sintattico, inclusa
la perifrasi, nonostante gli innegabili contatti tra greco e latino, sono da attribuire a un processo
interno alle due lingue, allorché si passa dallo stadio di dialetto locale a lingua internazionale,
con il noto slittamento verso l’adozione di forme analitiche, espressione di un registro più popo-
lare. Queste note di BENTEIN offrono un quadro condivisibile dello stato della ricerca e dei suoi
possibili sviluppi. L’autore non ha tutti i torti nel suggerire la produzione di studi più settoriali, i
contributi per lo più trattano la perifrasi sotto vari punti di vista, producendo risultati di carattere
generale.
53
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 11.
54
La prima teoria considera le perifrasi aspettuali come espressione di uno sviluppo interno
alla lingua, la seconda le comprende nei fenomeni che a partire dal latino tardo si sono sviluppa-
ti nelle lingue romanze. Cf. AMENTA, Perifrasi verbali, 12-13.
55
Una parola sottoposta a desemantizzazione perde il suo contenuto lessicale e assume fun-
zione grammaticale; il verbo finito della perifrasi sottoposto alla decategorizzazione passa da
verbo pieno a semi-ausiliare/modificatore. Cf. AMENTA, Perifrasi verbali, 20.22.25. DIK, Copula
298
An_78.indb 309 21/06/11 15:39

AMENTA individua nel passaggio dalla funzione nominale-aggettivale a

quella verbale del participio, “in presenza del verbo ausiliare/modificatore
IL$'(/esse”, la ragione della formazione delle perifrasi aspettuali. Il fenomeno
può essere causato “dall’analogia formale delle due strutture”56.
AMENTA introduce una distinzione che ai fini della discussione si può rivela-
re di primaria importanza: un participio aggettivale non equivale a un aggetti-
vo come tale, il primo “denota una condizione permanente nel soggetto”, il se-
condo indica per lo più “una qualità presente nel sostantivo”. Oltre ad essere
aggettivale un participio può assumere il ruolo di sostantivo e, fattore da non
trascurare, non perde la sua natura verbale, come prova la presenza di avverbi
che lo determinano. La studiosa individua nella coordinazione con sostantivi o
aggettivi un segno dell’uso aggettivale del participio57.
Mentre prima ha parlato di ausiliarizzazione del verbo finito nella perifrasi
verbale, in seguito afferma che “la copula apporta al costrutto tutte le informa-
zioni di tipo verbale (tempo, aspetto, modo) e il participio le informazioni les-
sicali”58. La perifrasi assume valore aspettuale se il participio ha funzione ver-
Auxiliarization, 55-56, sostiene che l’ausiliarizzazione della copula non concerne la desemantiz-
zazione.
56
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 29-30. Che le due strutture siano analoghe nella sintassi è
evidente e che si possa parlare di slittamento da una funzione a un’altra è condivisibile, ma qua-
le sia la ragione a monte dello slittamento non viene spiegato, così come non si pone neppure la
domanda del perché in una costruzione perifrastica aggettivale è percepita una potenzialità es-
pressiva verbale.
57
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 30-32. La distinzione a cui si accenna è accettabile ma fine a
se stessa nell’economia della discussione. Se si confrontano “egli è buono” ed “egli è benedicen-
te/benedetto”, emerge subito una differenza radicale: il primo enunciato è attivo (intransitivo), il
secondo è attivo (transitivo) e il terzo passivo, nel quale “benedetto” rimanda implicitamente a
qualcuno che ha dato la benedizione, ossia ad un’azione. Con un verbo intransitivo la differenza
non viene meno. Dire che in un’eventuale coordinazione del tipo “Egli è libero e camminante” il
participio sia aggettivato è un esercizio d’immaginazione. Si possono trovare possibili usi affini:
“Egli è sempre libero” vs. “Egli è sempre camminante”, ma “camminante” non smette d’essere
verbo, per cui è naturale dire “Egli è camminante lungo la strada” ma non “Egli è libero lungo la
strada”. Ritornando all’esempio precedente, nel caso dovessero apparire in coordinazione “egli è
buono e benedetto”, il riferimento all’azione in “benedetto” scomparirebbe? Non sembra una so-
luzione così scontata. Un esempio piuttosto vistoso a sfavore di una tale posizione si ha in Gen
1,2 R F\ "K }$ aH3'+%U -'5 a-'+'*-Ic'*+%U, -'5 *-H+%U /01$W +KU agc**%S, -'5
0$IG&' QI%G /0I6V3I+% /01$W +%G ÄF'+%U. Aquila ha R F\ "K }$ -V$W&' -'5 %TQV$, -'5
*-H+%U /0 5 03H*W0%$ agc**%S, -'5 0$IG&' QI%G /0 (6I3H&I$%$ /0 5 03H*W0%$ uF1+W$,
dove è chiaro che }$ unisce come copula "K a -V$W&' e %TQV$, mentre è predicato verbale ri-
spetto a *-H+%U e ausiliare di /0 (6I3H&I$%$ (medio) con cui forma un’evidente perifrasi. Teo-
dozione e Simmaco hanno la stessa costruzione con lo stesso participio. In altri termini, in que-
sto testo, come può accadere altrove, si può pensare a un’ellissi di }$ sia come predicato verbale
che come ausiliare.
58
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 33. L’affermazione è quanto meno ambigua, perché senza
dubbio IL$'( è copula nel costrutto aggettivale. Che continui a esserlo nella perifrasi sul piano
semantico non sembra possibile: nell’ausiliarizzazione IL$'( non è elemento di collegamento tra
soggetto e predicativo ma, come AMENTA afferma dopo (45), un costituente della perifrasi in cui
i membri hanno perso la propria autonomia sintattica e semantica. DE LA VILLA POLO, Auxiliari-
299
An_78.indb 310 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 311
bale59. In questa condizione la costruzione può essere coordinata con altri verbi
finiti.
Nelle perifrasi che hanno come modificatori verbi di movimento il partici-
pio ha “mantenuto una funzione essenzialmente predicativa circostanziale”,
perché completa in qualche maniera il significato del verbo finito con il quale è
in relazione60.
Nell’articolazione del complesso e strutturato sistema verbale greco le pe-
rifrasi hanno tutto sommato, continua AMENTA, una funzione marginale e
secondaria61.
Sull’origine e l’affermarsi della costruzione, soprattutto nei testi del NT,
concorrono l’influsso indiretto del costrutto semitico (attraverso i LXX) e la
diffusione che la forma aveva acquisito nella lingua corrente62.
dad verbal, 197-198, individua i seguenti criteri di identificazione per l’ausiliarizzazione: mu-
tamento nell’argomentazione del verbo; restrizioni nella collocazione della negazione e di altri
elementi dipendenti. Il primo criterio è valido nella costruzione con il participio, gli altri due con
l’infinito. Successivamente (205) classifica come “indizi” di ausiliarizzazione i seguenti fattori:
l’evoluzione posteriore di un verbo come ausiliare può indicare che in epoca precedente avesse
tratti di ausiliarizzazione; il contenuto semantico modale, aspettuale, temporale, ecc. L’autore
tratta di verbi di movimento e altri verbi mai espressamente di IE&#, a cui dedica un solo accen-
no, rimandando ad altri studiosi. Ad ogni modo l’evoluzione diacronica, precisa, non è una pro-
va dell’ausiliarizzazione sincronica ma un indizio, perché un verbo può a un certo punto essere
usato come ausiliare senza che vi fossero segni precedenti (205).
59
Sarebbe più esatto dire che è la costruzione bimembre a diventare verbo.
60
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 35. Ci sembra opportuno rilevare che la definizione di predi-
cativo circostanziale riferita da AMENTA è da altri, compreso chi scrive, applicata al participio
predicativo (che completa il significato del verbo), mentre i participi segnalati da AMENTA nel
paragrafo “Participio circostanziale in greco” andrebbero analizzati come congiunti (appunto
circostanziali) e non come predicativi. Riprendiamo (in parte) Mc 1,39, un esempio registrato
dall’autrice (37): -'5 }JQI$ -,3c**W$ IEU +ZU *S$'"W"ZU 'T+Y$. Il testo viene tradotto
“andò predicando per le loro sinagoghe”. Nel passo citato, sul piano semantico, “il participio
predicativo modifica il verbo finito nell’espressione della modalità o delle circostanze in cui si
verifica un evento”. Tale modificazione opera soprattutto “nei casi in cui vi sia una relazione
quasi sinonimica” tra i due verbi, come in “pregò dicendo”. Nella pagina successiva (38) AMEN-
TA osserva: “in effetti (l’esempio) avrebbe un altro significato, se le determinazioni locative fos-
sero poste tra il verbo … e il participio”. Va rilevato quanto segue. In primo luogo il participio
non è predicativo e la traduzione proposta, anche se è efficace, non rispecchia il rapporto sintat-
tico tra il verbo finito e il participio che è congiunto. Non si vede a quale livello il participio mo-
difichi il verbo finito. Nel caso di Mc 1,39 il participio ha valore finale: “andò a predicare”.
Nell’espressione “pregò dicendo” (in greco) è preferibile e più esatto definire il participio, sulla
scia dell’analisi corrente, come congiunto modale grafico o descrittivo per il suo evidente pleo-
nasmo. Nella nota 2 di pagina 45 l’autrice accenna ai verbi di conoscenza e percezione che “pos-
sono reggere una costruzione participiale con funzione di complemento”. Quanto espresso è cor-
retto, ma è proprio con questi verbi che si ha il participio complementare o predicativo secondo
la più comune analisi. Se AMENTA intende proporre come perifrastici usi di participi come quelli
qui riferiti, si ha un’estensione d’uso della perifrasi più che soggettiva, a piacimento.
61
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 45.
62
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 65-66. La studiosa rimanda a MANDILARAS, Non-Literary Pa-
pyri, 50, dove si sostiene che l’esistenza di un processo endogeno alla lingua greca è evidenziato
dalla presenza di peculiarità linguistiche del NT in testi greci non soggetti a influssi semitici. –
300
An_78.indb 311 21/06/11 15:39

Per quanto concerne la semantica è il participio a svolgere la funzione ver-

bale e poter reggere argomenti propri, mentre IL$'( “è una marca grammaticale
indicante tempo, modo e persona”. La costruzione tende ad assumere l’aspetto
progressivo e a sottolineare l’“estensione temporale” rispetto a una forma
imperfettiva monolettica63.
La perifrasi, rispetto alle forme sintetiche dell’imperfettività, mette a fuoco
un punto dell’azione in corso. Un esempio chiarificatore è il seguente: Quando
entrarono nella sinagoga insegnava (linea continua) / stava insegnando (punto
dell’azione)64.
Un’indice del grado di grammaticalizzazione è l’acquisizione da parte del
verbo finito di una certa rigidità sintattica nella posizione, che tende ad opporsi
all’interposizione di elementi tra i costituenti della perifrasi65. La desemantiz-
zazione gli impedisce di essere negato e di reggere argomenti indipendente-
mente dal participio, la decategorizzazione “di essere coniugato in tutti i tempi
e modi”66.
Guardando sempre a passi del NT, AMENTA ipotizza che l’uso della perifrasi
si possa far risalire a ragioni “d’ordine stilistico e di marcatezza” più che lessi-
cale, al fine di marcare l’aspetto durativo67.
Si può anche essere d’accordo con la teoria dell’autore fatta propria da AMENTA, ma questa origi-
ne non spiega il perché della nascita della perifrasi, ossia a quali finalità espressive risponda. I-
noltre, considerata l’operatività di due fattori, l’uno endogeno l’altro allofono, occorre precisare
se vi è convergenza di significato e di funzione tra la perifrasi endogena e quella allofona, e se la
perifrasi nel NT, per fare un esempio, dipenda sul piano del significato più dall’una che dall’al-
tra o, contestualmente, possa esprimere ora un uso in linea con lo sviluppo endogeno ora con
l’influsso allofono.
63
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 69. Sulla base di quanto su esposto l’origine della perifrasi
potrebbe rispondere all’esigenza di esprimere l’imperfettività con più enfasi. Un’ipotesi del ge-
nere postulerebbe un indebolimento aspettuale della forma monolettica corrispondente, data la
compresenza delle due forme. Contro una tale proposta depone il fatto che la perifrasi, per quan-
to diffusasi, non raggiunge mai la stessa frequenza della forma monolettica.
64
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 71. L’esempio è ambiguo. Se il soggetto di “entrarono”
comprende anche il soggetto del verbo della principale, allora il verbo di quest’ultima è “inse-
gnava”, meglio ancora “si mise a insegnare” (l’ingressività non è solo dell’aoristo). Se non ne fa
parte, occorre scrivere “stava insegnando”. L’incertezza si riflette nella traduzione proposta
dall’autrice per Lc 19,47, -'5 }$ F(F1*-W$ +b -'Q{R&V3'$ /$ +y mI3y, “e stava insegnando
ogni giorno nel tempio”: “stava insegnando” (punto dell’azione) si oppone palesemente a “ogni
giorno” (di senso distributivo e, dunque, periodico), casomai, il senso è “si fermava a insegna-
re”, “se ne stava a insegnare ogni giorno”. Lo stesso esempio di AMENTA, ma in termini più ge-
nerici (“enseñaba” vs “estaba enseñando”) e in sintonia, nel commento, con la critica qui esposta
si trova in COSERIU, Aspecto Verbal, 110. Sempre COSERIU (108-109) sembra che leghi la nascita
della perifrasi con il presente e l’aoristo participio alla mancanza nel greco di forme per espri-
mere una visione verbale parziale (= punto dell’azione).
65
Per l’autrice l’interposizione del soggetto è indice di coreferenza (AMENTA, Perifrasi a-
spettuali, 78). Abbiamo visto come per PORTER il soggetto interposto è al contrario segno di indi-
pendenza tra i due verbi (cf. sopra, n. 48).
66
Nonostante la decategorizzazione di IL$'( nel NT, il verbo è usato all’imperativo (AMEN-
TA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 83).
67
Quanto affermato dall’autrice può avere fondamento, tuttavia andrebbe verificato in un
301
An_78.indb 312 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 313
Un punto chiave è che le perifrasi e le forme sintetiche convivono68. Le

prime non sopperiscono a limiti del sistema verbale esistente ma tendono a e-
splicitare significati particolari69.
Gli studiosi postulano che nelle lingue indoeuropee le perifrasi da una pri-
ma fase, nella quale esprimevano opposizione aspettuale, siano passate a mar-
care, in taluni contesti, la temporalità. Le forme analitiche, secondo AMENTA,
non dipendono dalla ristrutturazione del sistema verbale dove, concretamente,
le opposizioni strutturali rimangono operative, ma sono forme che integrano il
sistema verbale70.
Elementi sul rapporto della perifrasi verbale tra LXX e TM: GOOD
Alla luce di quanto ha affermato EVANS sulla mancanza di studi più sistematici
sull’influsso dell’ebraico sulle perifrasi greche, può offrire dati interessanti il
recente volume di GOOD sul rapporto tra il sistema verbale ebraico e la sua resa
in LXX Cronache. Si riassume essenzialmente quanto l’autore scrive sul co-
strutto perifrastico ebraico e greco senza entrare nel merito della tecnica di
traduzione.
In linea generale, dov’è possibile, per ogni forma ebraica il traduttore ado-
pera un equivalente costante. Avendo come punto di riferimento la sua com-
prensione dell’ebraico parlato ai tempi della traduzione, il traduttore ha reso le
forme qatal con l’aoristo, il qotel con il presente, la forma yiqtol con il futuro,
le forme perifrastiche con le forme perifrastiche71.
Nell’ebraico biblico tardivo il participio occorre nei tre assi temporali, pas-
sato, presente e futuro. In un contesto di passato il participio perifrastico con
!"! può indicare azione contemporanea a un’altra forma verbale. In un contesto
futuro spesso veicola la nozione di azione imminente o in progressione e può
trovarsi in forma perifrastica accompagnato da una forma yiqtol di !"!72. Quan-
to al participio perifrastico in greco in rapporto all’indicativo, GOOD ricorda
che in greco oltre alle forme sintetiche ci sono anche quelle analitiche o tempi
perifrastici. Questi consistono in una forma del verbo IE&#, che grammaticaliz-
quadro più ampio, applicando, nel caso, la linguistica testuale.

68
L’autrice si rifà a HASPELMATH, Periphrasis, 659. Per lo studioso le perifrasi verbali e le
forme sintetiche hanno una distribuzione complementare. Cf. AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 132.
69
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 132. Il concetto è tratto da BYBEE-PERKINS-PAGLIUCA, Evolu-
tion, 133. Anche HASPELMATH, Periphrasis, 659, sottolinea che il processo di grammaticalizza-
zione delle perifrasi non opera per colmare una lacuna. Quanto a BYBEE-PERKINS-PAGLIUCA, Evo-
lution, 133, HASPELMATH, Periphrasis, 660, osserva che, come altri autori, non pongono in
relazione la perifrasi con eventuali paradigmi flessivi. L’autore accetta la teoria dei diversi gradi
di grammaticalizzazione (con rimando a LEHMANN, Grammaticalization) ma, nello stesso tempo,
ammette l’impossibilità di definirne con esattezza i vari livelli (661).
70
AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali, 133-134.
71
GOOD, Translation, 3.
72
302
An_78.indb 313 21/06/11 15:39

za modo, tempo, persona e numero, e un participio, che grammaticalizza aspet-

to e voce. GOOD, quindi, considera la perifrasi nella sua unità.
I tempi perifrastici sono una maniera di indicare azione o stato soprattutto
sotto l’aspetto imperfettivo o stativo. Quando la perifrasi è con il participio
presente, indica l’aspetto imperfettivo o durativo, quando si ha il perfetto, si
esprime l’aspetto perfettivo-imperfettivo o stativo. Queste costruzioni occorro-
no al passato, presente e futuro ed equivalgono alle forme regolari dell’indica-
tivo73.
Participi nominali con !"! sono tradotti in greco perifrasticamente: “Per-
haps this reflects the increase in periphrastic constructions in Hebrew contem-
porary with the translator”. La nozione durativa del participio è talvolta rinfor-
zata per mezzo di !"! e in greco è resa con IE&# + participio74. Se da una parte
una buona percentuale di participi sono tradotti come nomi, perché spesso so-
no sostantivati, dall’altra, a causa dell’incremento della costruzione perifrasti-
ca sia nell’ebraico contemporaneo al traduttore sia nel greco ellenistico, ci si
potrebbe attendere la resa di alcuni participi nominali in forme verbali anali-
tiche75.
I verbi stativi sono spesso tradotti con aggettivi e !"! con IE&#. Questi fe-
nomeni sono influenzati dall’ebraico contemporaneo. Nell’ebraico rabbinico,
poi, gli aggettivi subentrano ai verbi stativi, e !"!, che, nel suo significato di
‘essere’ allarga di molto l’uso, diventa marca temporale per aggettivi e par-
ticipi76.
GOOD nella discussione non parla di perifrasi verbale, sembra che la sottin-
tenda. Ad ogni modo non si pone il problema se aggettivo e participio abbiano
le stesse funzioni o se queste coincidano solo in determinati contesti né riman-
da ad altri contributi77.
73
74
75
GOOD, Translation, 166. L’idea di un fenomeno parallelo di una graduale e sempre mag-
giore diffusione della perifrasi in ebraico e greco è ribadita anche successivamente: l’influsso
dell’ebraico contemporaneo sul traduttore è agevolato dall’incremento della costruzione nel gre-
co ellenistico (168). L’aumento della frequenza delle forme perifrastiche (soprattutto nei tempi
passati durativi), osserva GOOD, è un fenomeno che ha le sue radici nell’ebraico parlato dell’epo-
ca del traduttore (GOOD, Translation, 200). Per l’espressione del passato durativo in ebraico l’au-
tore (p. 84, n. 23) rimanda a PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ, Grammar, 98: Quest’ultimo annota che il verbo
! $"!$ , nel periodo rabbinico, perde gradualmente il significato di ‘divenire’, con la conseguente
scomparsa della forma "!' +" .#, a ciò corrisponde un incremento del significato di ‘essere’ del mede-
simo verbo nell’ebraico rabbinico. Nello stesso tempo i verbi stativi tendono ad essere sostituiti
(da formazioni perifrastiche) con aggettivi: 4L. $T nel suo significato di ‘egli era grande’ è sostituito
nell’ebraico rabbinico da ! $"!$ + aggettivo 4ML $T. Qui si può osservare che nel fenomeno or ora es-
posto non si ha la sostituzione della forma semplice con !"! + participio ma con l’aggettivo e
che l’alternativa si ha solo con i verbi stativi e non è un uso esteso potenzialmente a tutti i verbi
come in greco.
76
77
Al riguardo si possono citare alcune tra le principali grammatiche di ebraico. GKC,
303
An_78.indb 314 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 315
Una sintesi e spunti di riflessione

Un breve status quaestionis della riflessione sulla perifrasi ci è offerto da MAR-
KOPOULOS. Nonostante gli innumerevoli studi sull’argomento, osserva l’autore,
la definizione di perifrasi rimane intuitiva. Negli studi che vanno da AERTS
(1965) a HASPELMATH (2000) affiora costantemente la nozione di paradigma, e
la descrizione della perifrasi si ha in relazione alle forme sintetiche. Si parla di
perifrasi suppletiva, in genere, sia quando in una lingua esiste il paradigma
composto da forme sintetiche, sia quando mancano forme sintetiche sinonime,
per cui la definizione di perifrasi si stabilisce in rapporto ad un’altra lingua.
Casi simili HASPELMATH (Periphrasis, 660) li definisce perifrasi categoriali. Non
c’è unanimità su quali elementi si possa stabilire che ci sia perifrasi. Alcune
proprietà appaiono punti fermi: la non composizionalità delle parti; la loro u-
nità sintattica (come la rigidità del loro ordine); la povertà morfologica delle
forme. Tali condizioni, tuttavia, non occorrono sempre congiuntamente. Tra le
ventidue proprietà individuate dagli studiosi per definire un verbo come ausi-
liare tre appaiono le più condivise e convincenti: ausiliare e verbo devono ave-
re il medesimo soggetto; il loro ordine è fisso; nessuno o pochi elementi devo-
§ 116r si limita a segnalare che al participio è aggiunto il perfetto !"! per dare enfasi ad un’azio-
ne continua nel passato, così come si usa l’imperfetto !"!" per sottolineare un’azione continua
nel futuro (rispettivamente il iussivo "!" o l’imperfetto consecutivo). Più articolata l’esposizione
in JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 121 e-g. Nel punto g si registra che nei libri tardivi la perifrasi talvolta ri-
sulta superflua, ma, ad un’attenta osservazione, la costruzione è vicina (al significato) dell’im-
perfetto incoativo greco o al presente grafico storico. Nella medesima opera in § 154 m si osser-
va, riguardo alla perifrasi, che il participo esprime l’aspetto durativo e !"! la sfera temporale.
Va rilevato che il contenuto del sottoparagrafo g appare piuttosto empirico e poco documen-
tato sul piano storico (non si riflette sul fenomeno) e dell’analisi testuale (quale ruolo svolge la
perifrasi nella succesione delle azioni?). In WALTKE-O’CONNOR, § 37.7.1 b, si ricorda che dall’u-
nione di una forma finita del verbo !"! il participio acquista una componente aspettuale e/o mo-
dale, dando luogo a forme progressive passate, future e iussive (nella nota 51 di pagina 628 si
osserva che, quando il participio precede !"! o è aggettivo o sostantivo); – c nell’ebraico biblico
tardivo !"! + participio sta per una forma perfettiva, questa forma perifrastica si fa risalire all’in-
flusso dell’aramaico (qui si rimanda all’edizione originale in francese di JOÜON, § 121 g). Gli
stessi autori osservano, dopo la citazione di JOÜON, che: “Lacking firm formal criteria to distin-
guish the full range of roles noted here, we must sometimes hesitate over identifying precise nu-
ances”. Qui si rileva che in JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 121 g, il riferimento all’aramaico è scomparso
(come pure nell’edizione del 1991, ristampa 1993) e non sembra che, per ciò che riguarda la pe-
rifrasi, se ne parli altrove. C’è inoltre da chiedersi se l’incertezza ammessa da WALTKE-O’CON-
NOR sulla definizone della sfumatura contestuale della perifrasi non dipenda da una carente ri-
flessione sulla sintassi della costruzione. L’influsso aramaico sulla perifrasi ebraica è inserito in
un quadro meno generico da MURAOKA, Participle, 200-201: “… we have pointed out above that
the structure in question is firmly rooted in pre-exilic books, whereas the corresponding struc-
ture in Aramaic becomes a real factor only in the Official Aramaic of the Persian period … The
most one could say is that in the Second Temple period this native Hebrew syntagm was rein-
forced through constant contacts with Aramaic … Such a restructuring of the Hebrew tense sys-
tem may have intesified with the onset of the influence of Official Aramaic”. L’autore, tuttavia,
non formula un’ipotesi sull’origine endogena della costruzione. Sui criteri per individuare un
aramaismo nell’ebraico cf. HURVITZ, Hebrew and Aramaic, 24-37, dove non si accenna alla pe-
rifrasi.
304
An_78.indb 315 21/06/11 15:39

no interporsi. Malgrado ciò non è stata formulata una definizione soddisfacen-

te. Gli ausiliari possono essere descritti solo sulla base di proprietà attinenti
(relevant). Non essendoci chiari parametri per stabilire il livello di grammati-
calizzazione delle costruzioni con ausiliari, si può stabilire solo se sono più o
meno grammaticalizzate78.
Si può aggiungere quanto segue. La perifrasi è una costruzione che ha un’ori-

gine endogena alla lingua greca e nel greco dei LXX subisce l’influsso della
lingua di partenza, almeno per i testi tradotti. Perché si abbia perifrasi verbale
il verbo finito deve subire principalmente un processo di ausialiarizzazione.
Per quanto concerne il participio, occorre che la forma svolga il ruolo di verbo
e non di aggettivo.
Su taluni argomenti la discussione rimane ancora aperta. In primo luogo è
da chiarire, prendendo spunto da PORTER, nonostante le riserve di EVANS, se il
processo di ausiliarizzazione sia uniforme per tutti i verbi adoperati in questa
funzione. Prendendo come riferimento il verbo "#$%&'(, il più vicino a IE&#, ab-
biamo visto che sono diversi autori a riconoscere che "#$%&'( conserva nella
perifrasi il suo valore aspettuale (o lessicale?): PORTER, FANNING (nota 11). Lo
stesso EVANS ammette una differenza di fondo tra i due verbi. Affermando che
talvolta il significato di "#$%&'( si sovrappone a quello di IE&# e che "#$%&'(
nella costruzione perifrastica conserva il proprio valore aspettuale e che le pe-
rifrasi con "#$%&'( e u013OW, almeno nel periodo della koinè, appaiono alter-
native alle perifrasi con IE&#, non fa altro che riconoscere tacitamente uno sta-
tuto particolare ad IE&# nella costruzione della perifrasi.
Qui vale riaffermare che nel presentare e commentare la posizione di alcuni
autori si è a più riprese suggerito di evitare di definire come copula il verbo es-
sere e di preferire il più esatto ausiliare, quando il verbo è parte integrante del-
la perifrasi79.
Che il participio debba comportarsi come verbo e poter reggere argomenti
propri, perché si abbia perifrasi, trova il consenso generale, ma una coordina-
zione contestuale tra aggettivo e participio prova che il participio è aggettivo?
Non è così certo, un passo come Sir 41,27, -'5 N*2 'E*OS$+,3bU aJ,Q($YU -'5
Iu3#*-W$ O13($ N$'$+( 0'$+bU a$Q30%S, “e sarai veramente discreto e trove-
rai grazia presso ogni uomo” dovrebbe indurre a una certa cautela. Qui è evi-
dente che IE&# svolge la doppia funzione di copula con 'E*OS$+,3HU e di ausi-
liare con Iu3#*-W$. Inoltre, se il participio è sostantivato e conserva la reggen-
za del verbo, vuol dire che il participio rimane essenzialmente verbo e che può
78
MARKOPOULOS, Future, 11-13.
79
L’autore non discute segnatamente della perifrasi, ma la lettura del recente libro di MORO,
Breve storia, lascia pochi dubbi sulle particolarità del verbo. Sono sufficienti anche le sole pagi-
ne 95-97 del volume per prendere atto delle implicazioni e delle riflessioni, un po’ troppo trascu-
rate, condotte nel corso dei secoli su IE&# (e non sugli altri verbi).
305
An_78.indb 316 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 317
avere un uso aggettivale, non l’inverso80. Pertanto la domanda da porsi non è

tanto quando il participio nella perifrasi è verbo, ma quando è aggettivo81.
Non è infine casuale l’insistenza sulla perifrasi con IE&#, che di fatto è quel-
la originaria82. Non si intende dire che gli altri verbi finiti non formino perifrasi
con il participio, ma che questi esprimono (e si sono costruiti in perifrasi pro-
prio per questo) in maniera più esplicita una modalità che caratterizza l’azio-
ne del participio. Quanto affermato, per chi scrive, vale anche per "#$%&'( ed
)*+,-'83.
80
Prendiamo ad esempio Gen 39,23 -'5 /"V$I+% xgIJ 0%(&w$ 03%g1+W$, Å'($ F\ }$
/3"'XH&I$%U +w$ "K$. Il valore lessicale del radicale di 0%(&v$ è transitivo ma, mentre il so-
stantivo vuole il genitivo, il verbo corradicale 0%(&'#$W regge l’accusativo. Per il sostantivo cf.
Gen 4,2; 13,7; per il participio cf. Es 2,16; 3,1. Gli esempi si potrebbero moltiplicare. Così av-
viene con /3"1+,U e /3"1X%&'(. Anche il sostantivato ~ /3"'XH&I$%U si comporta da verbo
(Pr 12,11; 28,19). EVANS, Verbal Syntax, 235, ha dunque ragione nel sostenere la costruzione
perifrastica di }$ /3"'XH&I$%U in Gen 39,23 ma non adduce argomenti sintattici. Per l’uso di
/3"1+,U cf. 1 Mac 3,6; Sap 17,16 e a conferma Mt 10,10; 20,2; Lc 10,7; 13,27; 1 Tm 5,18. Ciò
vale anche per il sostantivato ~ l3OW$, che regge, come il verbo l3OW, il genitivo. Ciò vuol
dire, com’è noto, che la natura di un participio sostantivato rimane verbale. Supporre che tale
condizione permanga anche per un participio aggettivato è nell’ordine delle cose. Qualcosa del
genere sostiene RIJKSBARON, Syntax and Semantics, 128, quando afferma, considerando la co-
ordinazione tra l’aggettivo e il participio in questo passaggio dell’Edipo re %Ç+I "Z3 KLGMNO
%Ç+’ %É$ PLEQIRMGO IE&5 +y "I $G$ JÑ"Ö, “Unlike adjectives, however, the participle has
aspectual meaning, and this may be relevant here. Thus, 03%FIÜ*'U … may exhibit the ingres-
sive nuance of the aorist of verbs of emotion”. Per gli aspetti verbali e nominali del participio
ebraico e le loro interazioni v. GEIGER, Partizip, §§ 647-649.
81
Cf. sopra, n. 57.
82
Un quadro dello sviluppo della perifrasi con il perfetto con i verbi essere e avere nelle
lingue europee è delineato in DRINKA, Periphrastic Perfects, 105-128.
83
Benché riguardi le lingue romanze, a supporto di quanto si sostiene, valga questo passag-
gio di GIACALONE RAMAT, Boundaries of Grammaticalization, 118-119: “Besides the two auxilia-
ries ‘be’ and ‘have’, which appear completely grammaticalized, though with different distribu-
tion in Romance languages and dialects […], there is another group of less grammaticalized
forms which allow us to single out a continuum of grammaticalization and to highlight the scalar
nature of the auxiliary category”.
306
An_78.indb 317 21/06/11 15:39

IIa. Occorrenze di perifrasi con "#$%&'( nei LXX84
Presente indicativo – presente participio attivo

2 Esd 4,20
-'5 g'*(JI[U E*OS3%5 "#$%$+'( /0 5 áI3%S*'Jw& -'5 /0 (-3'+%G$+IU MJ,U
+KU _*0V3'U +%G 0%+'&%G85
E ci furono re potenti in Gerusalemme e governarono su tutta la regione a occi-
dente del fiume
BRENTON: And there were powerful kings in Jerusalem, and they ruled over all
the country beyond the river
NETS: and kings became strong in Ierousalem and ruled over the whole west of
the river
TM: !&$ !Y -/ &G- 5Y 2I<=+ ,"T"
' C' X- +# 021 XB&
+ +";25- E#!Y ,"9"
' x' f- ,"<' 2+ 7B
-
Vulgata: nam et reges fortissimi fuerunt in Hierusalem qui et dominati sunt om-
ni regioni quae trans Fluvium est
Il verbo "#$%$+'(, che qui non ha il significato di ‘diventare’, può certamente
svolgere la funzione di verbo copulativo rispetto a E*OS3%# e di ausiliare di
/0 (-3'+%G$+IU, perché è possibile ipotizzare la sua ellissi con il participio, an-
che se un’alternativa potrebbe essere l’ellissi di IE*#$.
Presente imperativo – presente participio attivo

Ez 2,8
&w "#$%S 0'3'0 (-3'#$W$ -'QÙ ~ %L-%U ~ 0'3'0 (-3'#$W$86
Non esasperare come questa casa che esaspera
BRENTON: be not thou provoking, as the provoking house
NETS: Do not become one who embitters just like the embittering house
TM: "&' F1 !- ."G) (+ "&' 7;"
1 !' f;2
+ %-
Vulgata: et noli esse exasperans sicut domus exasperatrix est
Il primo participio, come il secondo che però è attributivo, non è sostantivato,
e la resa di NETS non è corretta ed è incoerente (per fare un esempio) rispetto
a Gen 17,1 -'5 "#$%S l&I&0+%U tradotto correttamente da NETS: “and become
blameless”. Ora, se l’aggettivo, a ragione, non è sostantivato, non si vede per-
ché debba esserlo il participio in Ez 2,8; la traduzione risente dell’ebraico, vi-
sto che 0'3'0 (-3'#$W$ rende il sostantivo ebraico "&' 7+ . I due participi sot-
tintendono l’oggetto &I come in Ez 2,3; 20,21; Ger 39(TM32),29; 51(TM 44),
3; 51(TM 44),8. Non mancano altri oggetti retti dal verbo come in Dt 31,27;
84
Alle occorrenze di perifrasi verbale con "#$%&'( elencate di seguito vanno accluse anche
quelle registrate da EVANS: Gen 31,10; Es 17,12; Nm 10,36. L’elenco qui proposto non ha alcu-
na pretesa di esaustività.
85
In Là 236-314-762 si ha /"V$%$+% per "#$%$+'(. Questa variante è un indizio che nella
perifrasi verbale l’ausiliare concorre a esprimere l’aspetto? Si può anche pensare più semplice-
mente che al presente storico sia stato preferito l’aoristo.
86
I codici A 147 fanno seguire al primo participio -'5 *c “anche tu”.
318
An_78.indb 318 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 319
3 Re 13,21.26. Si può notare, a conferma della perifrasi, che nelle due occor-
renze di Ezechiele citate il verbo regge il pronome quando traduce forme finite
di verbi ebraici rispettivamente in Ez 2,3 (/d'0%*+VJJW /" *I 03bU +b$ %L-%$
+%G â*3',J) +%kU 0'3'0 (-3'#$%$+1U &I – pronome aggiunto dal traduttore –,
%t+($IU 0'3I0 #-3'$1$ &I87 e Ez 20,21 -'5 0'3I0 #-3'$1$ &I -'5 +Z +V-$'
'T+Y$88. Nella maggioranza delle attestazioni in Ezechiele il participio presen-
te 0'3'0 (-3'#$W$ rende il sostantivo ebraico "&' 7+ (2,5.6.7.8; 3,9.26.27; 12,2.3.
9.25.27; 17,12; 24,3: qui con oggetto in ebraico e greco; 44,6). Altrove il so-
stantivo ebraico è reso con aF(-#', a$v-%%U, a$+(J%"#', a0I(QvU, /3IQ(*&HU89.
La scelta del traduttore di servirsi del participio si può spiegare con l’intenzio-
ne di esprimere l’azione della ribellione, ossia un atteggiamento o compor-
tamento costante che un aggettivo non potrebbe rendere nella sua dimensione
aspettuale90.
Sir 13,9
ä3%*-'JI*'&V$%S *I FS$1*+%S u0%OW3Y$ "#$%S91
Quando un potente ti chiama, allontànati / stattene lontano
Qui la perifrasi è apodosi del precedente genitivo assoluto, interpretabile sia
come temporale sia come ipotetico.
BRENTON: If thou be invited of a mighty man, withdraw thyself
NETS: When a powerful person invites you, be reserved
La Vulgata risolve il genitivo assoluto con un participio (passivo) congiunto al
soggetto dell’imperativo:
advocatus a potentiore discede ex hoc
87
Il TM corrispondente è "G;BD + !- (0 '"EQ;2%1 2%) &$ 8+ '" " )/=;2
' &+ 7$ &X1 %Y 0"D' &EF + %1 l.E% ) ).
+ " '/%Y >- 2EX
88
Il TM corrispondente è 0" '/=$ !- "G;B&
' 7+ -_ -#.
89
Cf. MURAOKA, Hebrew/Aramaic Index, 88.
90
In Ger 5,23 +y F\ J'y +%c+Ö /"I$vQ, -'3F#' a$v-%%U -'5 a0I(QvU i due aggettivi
attributivi rendono due participi attributivi. Il TM corrispondente è !&E7B ) G2) ! $"!$ ! 1Z!- 05$ 2$ +#. Qui
1 &&E:
la resa privilegia la qualità del soggetto e non l’azione.
91
In O si ha "#$%S u0%OW3Y$ per u0%OW3Y$ "#$%S: la trasposizione ristabilisce la posi-
zione degli elementi della perifrasi più consueta; 603 ha u0%OW3Y$ 6IG"I “allontanandoti datti
alla fuga / allontanati e fuggi ”.
319
An_78.indb 319 21/06/11 15:39

Presente imperativo – perfetto participio passivo

Gdt 15,10
ITJ%",&V$, "#$%S 0'3Z +y 0'$+%-31+%3( -S3#Ö
Sii benedetta presso l’onnipotente/dall’onnipotente Signore
Nei LXX il verbo "#$%&'( non appare mai connesso all’aggettivo verbale IT-
J%",+HU92.
BRENTON: blessed be thou of the Almighty Lord
NETS Be blessed before the omnipotent Lord93
Imperfetto indicativo – presente participio attivo

2 Mac 8,27
(~0J%J%"v*'$+IU F\ 'T+%kU -'5 +Z *-GJ' /-Fc*'$+IU +Y$ 0%JI&#W$)
0I35 +b *1gg'+%$ /"#$%$+% 0I3(**YU ITJ%"%G$+IU -'5 /d%&%J%"%c&I$%(
+y -S3#Ö +y F('**'$+(94
(ma, quando ebbero raccolto le armi dei nemici e portato via le spoglie,) riguar-
do al/durante il sabato benedicevano incessantemente e rendevano grazie al Si-
gnore che li aveva salvati
BRENTON: … they occupied themselves about the sabbath, yielding exceeding
praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them
NETS: … they kept the sabbath, giving great praise and acknowledgement to
the Lord, who had preserved them
Vulgata: … sabbatum agebant benedicentes Dominum qui liberavit eos
Il senso del testo non è: “… e passarono il sabato benedicendo incessantemen-
te e ringraziando …”95. Osservare o celebrare il sabato o la festa si esprime con
verbi quali l"W, 6SJ1**W, ã"(1XW96. L’imperfetto /"#$%$+% non va disgiunto
dai participi (ITJ%"%G$+IU -'5 /d%&%J%"%c&I$%(), che non sono congiunti mo-
dali, ma componenti della perifrasi.
92
Sulla perifrasi con l’aggettivo verbale cf. TUSA MASSARO, Sintassi, 206: “gli aggettivi ver-
bali uscenti in -+HU, insieme ai Participi perfetti in -&V$%U – tardivamente subentrati nella lingua
greca in concorrenza con quelli in -+HU –, in unione con IE&# ed NOW, costituiscono forme pe-
rifrastiche atte ad esprimere i tempi del Perfetto e i suoi derivati”.
93
Per i rapporti del testo dei LXX con la Vetus Latina e la versione di Girolamo cf. MOORE,
Judith, 94-95.
94
Il codice 93 ha /"V$%$+% per /"#$%$+%. Una variante dovuta a fattori aspettuali? Il codice
771 omette -'# prima di /d%&%J%"%c&I$%(. Questa omissione depone a favore della perifrasi,
in questo caso limitata a /"#$%$+% 0I3(**YU ITJ%"%G$+IU; /d%&%J%"%c&I$%( passa a partici-
pio congiunto modale, per cui si ha “durante il sabato benedicevano incessantemente rendendo
grazie”.
95
La Bibbia della CEI (Editio princeps 2008), 686.
96
Per l"W cf. 2 Mac 15,3; 1 Esd 5,50; 7,14; per 6SJ1**W (più legato al comando di osser-
vare il sabato) cf. Es 31,13.14.16; Lv 19,3.30; 26,2; Is 56,6; per ã"(1XW cf. Dt 5,12.15; Ez
20,20; 44,24.
309
An_78.indb 320 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 321
Sal 98,8
~ QIHU, *k IT#J'+%U /"#$%S 'T+%[U -'5 /-F(-Y$ /0 5 01$+' +Z /0 (-
+,FIc&'+' 'T+Y$97
O Dio, tu eri benigno con loro e/ma facevi giustizia di tutte le loro pratiche
MORTARI: o Dio, tu eri loro propizio pur castigando tutte le loro pratiche98
BRENTON: O God, thou becamest propitious to them, though thou didst take
vengeance on all their devices
NETS: O God, it was you who was being very merciful to them and an avenger
of all their practices
TM (Sal 99,8): 0.E2"$ 2' 5;2
Y 5- 0WI) / +# 0!1 2$ ."
$ '"!$ %8I) / 2%)
Vulgata: Domine propitius fuisti eis et ultor super commutationibus eorum
In MORTARI il participio è interpretato come congiunto concessivo, ma la
coordinazione (-'#) sotto il profilo grammaticale si oppone a questa lettura.
Nelle ultime due traduzioni il participio è reso come sostantivato. Quella del
passo in esame è l’unica occorrenza di participio di /-F(-VW che nei LXX è co-
struita con /0 #, mentre sono diverse le attestazioni di forme finite del medesi-
mo verbo con questa preposizione99. Questi dati si oppongono all’interpreta-
zione del participio come sostantivato. Il participio non è neppure predicativo
complementare, non indica un modo di essere o agire del soggetto né completa
l’idea generica di /"#$%S ma forma con esso una perifrasi che è sostituibile con
/dIF#-I(U (l’imperfetto non è attestato nei LXX). In alternativa a /"#$%S si può
anche pensare all’ellissi di }$.
Aoristo indicativo – presente participio attivo

Mi 2,1
å"V$%$+% J%"(XH&I$%( -H0%SU -'5 /3"'XH&I$%( -'-Z /$ +'[U -%#+'(U
'T+Y$100
Tramavano tribolazioni ed escogitavano mali nei loro letti
CARBONE-RIZZI: Andarono pianificando travagli e operando cose cattive sui loro
giacigli101
BRENTON: They meditated troubles, and wrought wickedness on their beds
NETS: They came devising troubles and working out evil deeds on their beds
TM: 0.EG$ (+ X+ 7;2
' 5- 5&$ "2) 5IY 9B , 1#%;"
$ G) XI+ > "E!
Vulgata: vae qui cogitatis inutile et operamini malum in cubilibus vestris
97
Hanno /"V$%S per /"#$%S S 2032 Lb´ Rc.
98
MORTARI, Salterio, 241.
99
Ne registriamo alcune: Os 2,15; 4,9; Am 3,2.14.
100
In W si premette %m a /3"'XH&I$%(.
101
CARBONE-RIZZI, Il libro di Michea, 94.
321
An_78.indb 321 21/06/11 15:39

Aoristo indicativo (passivo) – presente participio medio

Sal 125,3
/"I$vQ,&I$ IT63'($H&I$%(102
(Noi) gioimmo
MORTARI sembra interpretare il participio come perfetto:
siamo stati colmati di gioia103
BRENTON: we became joyful
NETS: and we became people gladdened
TM (Sal 126,3): 1"F' <) >+ J0" '"!$
Vulgata: facti sumus laetantes
Il participio indica azione e non qualità acquisita.
Aoristo indicativo – perfetto participio attivo

Is 30,12
-'5 PJ0 #*'+I /0 5 iIcFI( -'5 M+( /"H""S*'U -'5 0I0%(QÙ /"V$%S /0 5 +y
JH"Ö +%c+Ö104
(perché …) e confidaste nella menzogna e perché mormorasti e hai confidato su
questa parola
BRENTON: … and because thou hast murmured, and been confident in this respect
NETS: (Because) … and hoped in a lie and because you murmured and trusted
in this word
TM: #"4$ 9$ J09[ ]$ f' .# HM4 $0 +# YZP3 9D+ JFV+ O+ f' .#
Vulgata: pro eo quod reprobastis verbum hoc et sperastis in calumniam et tu-
multum et innixi estis super eo
Aoristo indicativo (passivo) – perfetto participio passivo

Ez 36,34
-'5 R "K R P6'$(*&V$, /3"'*Qv*I+'(, a$Q{ ç$ M+( P6'$(*&V$, /"I$vQ,
e la terra desolata sarà lavorata, mentre era/appariva desolata
BRENTON: and the desolate land shall be cultivated, whereas it was desolate
NETS: and the annihilated one shall be tilled instead of becoming annihilated
TM: !<$ <$ Z+ !/$ +"!$ &Z3 %[ /F. f. LO) 9$ f) !N$ Z. +*!. c&3 %$ !$ +#
Vulgata: et terra deserta fuerit exculta quae quondam erat desolata
La costruzione P6'$(*&V$, /"I$vQ, inverte il testo ebraico !<$ <$ Z+ !/$ +"!$ , antici-
pando il verbo rispetto a quella (più corrente) attestata in 2 Mac 3,34 e Gb
24,20 (!<$ <$ Z+ è un sostantivo). Il parallelo con il participio attributivo preceden-
te non prova l’uso aggettivale. Cf. sotto Lam 1,16.
102
In Dt 16,15 si ha -'5 N*2 IT63'($H&I$%U vs F. <) >$ W%. /"$ '"!$ +#, la cui resa nella Vulgata è:
“erisque in laetitia”.
103
104
In L´’é-86c-233 Tht. (= TM) si ha M+( /"H""S*I$ -'5 0I0%(QH+IU /"V$I*QI.
311
An_78.indb 322 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 323
Aoristo indicativo (medio o passivo) – perfetto participo passivo

Sal 29,8
(a0V*+3Ii'U F\ +b 03H*W0H$ *%S,) -'5 /"I$vQ,$ +I+'3'"&V$%U
ma distogliesti il tuo volto e mi sono turbato
MORTARI: (ma hai distolto il tuo volto) e sono rimasto sconvolto105
BRENTON: (but thou didst turn away thy face), and I was troubled
NETS: (but you turned away your face,) and I became troubled
' '"!$ (l" 30?$ f$ &+ f. A+ !' HP9)
TM (Sal 30,8): 4!$ O+ '0 "/"
Vulgata: (abscondisti faciem tuam) et factus sum conturbatus
Il verbo +'31**W, quando non è in forma attiva, è considerato passivo106, per
cui la perifrasi precedente si può rendere “e ne (dell’azione compiuta da Dio)
fui turbato”, ma la natura del verbo permette di ipotizzare l’uso riflessivo (in-
tensivo) diretto: “… e mi sono turbato”107. Ad una prima analisi l’interpreta-
zione del participio come aggettivato sembra possibile, tuttavia in /"I$vQ,$
+I+'3'"&V$%U il participo non sta per un aggettivo: lo stato di turbamento è
conseguenza dell’azione precedente, la perifrasi esprime una condizione vissu-
ta dal soggetto, non una sua qualità acquisita come in “fui/divenni buono”. Un
caso analogo si ha in 3 Re 20,4, -'5 /"V$I+% +b 0$IG&' xO''g +I+'3'"&V$%$,
“e lo spirito di Achab si turbò”, ma anche “fu turbato”.
Sal 72,14
-'5 /"I$H&,$ &I&'*+("W&V$%U MJ,$ +w$ R&V3'$
E fui flagellato tutto il giorno
MORTARI: e sono stato flagellato tutto il giorno108
BRENTON: For I was plagued all the day
NETS: And I became scourged all day long
TM (Sal 73,14): 1M`!B4
. ($ 9JI
. $0 "!' %7 $#
Vulgata: et fui flagellatus tota die
La resa di NETS non ha senso. La durata dell’azione subita è espressa dall’ac-
cusativo di tempo.
Is 42,22
-'5 /"V$I+% ~ J'bU 0I03%$%&IS&V$%U -'5 F(,30'*&V$%U
e il popolo fu spogliato e depredato
BRENTON: and the people were spoiled and plundered
NETS: and the people were plundered and spoiled
TM: "JAZ$ +# HJHDB1
$ 9. %J! +#
Vulgata: ipse autem populus direptus et vastatus
105
MORTARI, Salterio, 132. La traduzione proposta intende esprimere l’effetto dell’azione
veicolato dal perfetto.
106
Cf. MONTANARI, Vocabolario, 2086.
107
NIDA-LOUW, Lexicon I, 25.244, registra il verbo +'31**W nel campo semantico delle
‘attitudini ed emozioni’, che, come verbum affectuus, esprime il coinvolgimento del soggetto
nell’azione. La carica mediale, dunque, è già del verbo in sé e può riflettersi contestualmente
nella diatesi media in quanto processo spontaneo medio: “The spontaneous process middle in-
volves … an internal, physical change of state”, cf. ALLAN, Middle Voice, 68.
108
312
An_78.indb 323 21/06/11 15:39

Come si può notare NETS ha abbandonato la costante “became”, qui forse più
improponibile che altrove.
Lam 1,11
EFV, -c3(I, -'5 /0 #gJIi%$, M+( /"I$vQ,$ P+(&W&V$,109
Vedi, Signore, e guarda, perché sono diventata disonorata
BRENTON: behold, Lord and look; for she is become dishonoured110
NETS: Look, O Lord, and see that I have become one dishonored
TM: !4$ 4MH
) "/"
' '"!$ "(' !V"
$ D' !. +# ! $#! +" !%) &+
Vulgata: vide Domine considera quoniam facta sum vilis
La sostantivizzazione del participio da parte di NETS non appare sostenibile
ed è probabile che dipenda più dall’ebraico che dal greco. Si può sostenere che
nella perifrasi /"I$vQ,$ P+(&W&V$, il participio possa essere sostituito dall’ag-
gettivo l+(&%U, perché anche l’aggettivo rimanderebbe ad un agente, permet-
tendo così di esprimere la passività, sicché il participio sarebbe aggettivato. Il
participio, tuttavia, esprime il processo proprio del verbo e non solo la qualità
in sé. Participio e aggettivo condividono il significato veicolato dalla radice ma
non il modo di esprimerla.
Lam 1,16
/"V$%$+% %m Sm%# &%S P6'$(*&V$%(, M+( /-3'+'(Q, ~ /OQ3HU111
i miei figli furono annientati, perché il nemico prevalse
BRENTON: my sons have been destroyed …
NETS: my sons became put away …
TM: O)"M% &O. $I "(' 1"<' <MZ
) " .0O$ J"!$
Vulgata: facti sunt filii mei perditi …
In LIDDELL-SCOTT, sub voce a6'$vU, si afferma che a6'$K "Ü"$I*Q'( sta per
a6'$ÜXI*Q'(, disappear, e che a6'$wU }$ significa disappeared. Queste due
traduzioni corrispondono alla resa del passivo di a6'$ÜXW nello stesso lessico.
L’equivalenza tra la forma monolettica (a6'$ÜXI*Q'() e quella perifrastica
(a6'$K "Ü"$I*Q'() con aggettivo depone a favore di quella con il participio,
anche se, sotto la voce a6'$ÜXW – nello stesso lessico, come in altri – la costru-
109
Hanno la lezione /"I$vQ,$ S* A O 407 86 538 e varie versioni nonché Tht.
(/"I$H&,$p); gli altri testimoni hanno /"I$vQ,. La variante evidentemente non influisce sulla
perifrasi.
110
Il testo greco a fronte di BRENTON ha èFI per EFV e /"I$vQ, per /"I$vQ,$.
111
Senza che vi siano conseguenze per la perifrasi, omettono %m 410-920.
313
An_78.indb 324 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 325
zione con il participio non è registrata112. In 2 Mac 3,34 i giovani apparsi

(/61$,*'$) di nuovo a Eliodoro (v. 33):
+'G+' F\ IE0H$+IU a6'$I[U /"V$%$+%
dette queste cose divennero invisibili/scomparvero
BRENTON … they appeared no more
NETS: … they vanished
Vulgata … non conparuerunt
Se il traduttore in Lam 1,16 avesse scritto a6'$I[U in luogo di P6'$(*&V$%(,
non avrebbe trasmesso il medesimo messaggio. Il participio, rispetto all’agget-
tivo, esprime in maniera esplicita l’azione subita ‘dai figli’ da parte del nemi-
co, l’aggettivo vi alluderebbe.
1 Mac 9,13
-'5 /"V$I+% ~ 0HJI&%U *S$,&&V$%U113 a0b 03WêQI$ )WU _*0V3'U
e divampò la battaglia dal mattino fino a sera
BRENTON: and the battle continued from morning till night
NETS: and the battle was joined from the morning until evening
Vulgata: et commissum est proelium a mane usque ad vesperam
Stando a EVANS la perifrasi /"V$%$+% … /*+,3("&V$'( )WU FS*&Y$ RJ#%S in Es
17,12 equivale a un piuccheperfetto, per cui /"V$I+% … *S$,&&V$%U equivar-
rebbe a *S$K0+%. In 1 Mac 9,47, dove però mancano le determinazioni tempo-
rali presenti in 9,13 e in Es 17,12, si legge -'5 *S$KiI$ ~ 0HJI&%U.
Aoristo congiuntivo – presente participio attivo

Lv 13,49
-'5 (/Z$) "V$,+'( R ã6w OJW3#X%S*' ë 0S33#X%S*'114
e (se) la piaga diventa verde o rossa
Si opta per questa traduzione per evitare l’improbabile resa “e se la piaga ver-
deggi o rosseggi”. L’articolo di ripresa115 scarta il rapporto attributivo del sog-
112
LIDDELL-SCOTT, 286. Nel seguente passaggio di Lam 1,4, 0í*'( 'm 0cJ'( 'T+KU
P6'$(*&V$'(, %m mI3I[U 'T+KU a$'*+I$1X%S*($, 'm 0'3QV$%( 'T+KU a"H&I$'(, -'5 'T+w
0 (-3'($%&V$, /$ _'S+4, “tutte le sue (di Sion) porte sono distrutte, i suoi sacerdoti fanno il
lamento, le sue vergini sono condotte via ed essa è piena d’amarezza”, all’unico verbo finito
a$'*+I$1X%S*($ corrisponde il participio ebraico 1"F' $0%7 30, agli altri participi greci, altrettanti
participi ebraici. La distinzione di P6'$(*&V$'( rispetto a a"H&I$'( e a 0 (-3'($%&V$, è
d’ordine aspettuale, ma tutti compongono perifrasi con un ausilare sottinteso. I participi
P6'$(*&V$'( e a"H&I$'(, a differenza di 0 (-3'($%&V$,, che è medio, sono chiaramente passi-
vi e rinviano evidentemente ad agenti esterni.
113
La perifrasi sta per *S$K0+'(.
114
Il TM è 1;$ <+ L. %[ M% Y&. Y+ &. +" 9 .I 3*!. ! $"!$ +#, dove ai due participi greci si oppongono due aggettivi
ebraici. Il codice 392 ha 6'#$,+'( per "V$,+'(; questa variante rende i due participi predicativi.
Il codice 426 ha O3W+bU JIS-v (“se diventa bianca la piaga della pelle”) per OJW3#X%S*'. Nei
LXX 1;$ <+ L. %[ è tradotto con 0S33#XW mentre 1P L%$ con 0S33HU; l’aggettivo greco 0S33HU non è
attestato in LXXLv (cf. HATCH-REDPATH II, 1246). L’aggettivo 1P L%$ e il verbo corradicale non
sono attestati in TMLv.
314
An_78.indb 325 21/06/11 15:39

getto con i participi, che non sono congiunti, al più possono essere predicati-
vi116. La Vulgata ricorre a due aggettivi: “si alba aut rufa macula fuerit”; BREN-
TON traduce: “and the plague be greenish or reddish”, NETS: “and the attack
becomes greenish or reddish117”. A favore dell’interpretazione perifrastica de-
pone Mt 16,3, -'5 03Wê· *v&I3%$ OI(&$, 0S331XI( "Z3 *+S"$1XW$ ~ %T3'$HU,
“e la mattina (dite): Oggi c’è tempesta, il cielo è rosso mentre si fa scuro”. In
luogo dei due participi il traduttore avrebbe potuto usare i due aggettivi
OJW3HU (Is 15,6) e 0S33HU (Nm 19,2), ma non lo fa perché intende sottolineare
il processo verbale118.
Dt 19,11
/Z$ F\ "V$,+'( l$Q3W0%U &(*Y$ +b$ 0J,*#%$ -'5 /$IF3Ic*2 'T+b$ -'5
/0'$'*+4 /0{ 'T+Ñ$
Ma se un uomo odia il vicino e gli tende un’insidia e si leva contro di lui
BRENTON: But if there should be in thee a man hating his neighbour, and he
should lay wait for him, and rise up against him
NETS: But if there be a person hating his neighbor and he lies in wait for him
and attacks him
TM: #"4$ 9$ 1Y$ +# M4 O&. %$ +# J!9) &) 4+ % )0P > Z"%' ! 3"!+ '"B"C' +#
In entrambe le traduzioni il participio è reso come attributivo coerentemente
con l’interpretazione di "V$,+'( in funzione di predicato verbale, in BRENTON
necessaria a causa dell’opzione della lezione /$ *%#119. Questa resa ha un certo
fondamento ma non è convincente120. La stessa Vorlage pone il rapporto tra
115
In Lv 13,42 si pone il caso dell’apparizione di una piaga nella calvizie /Z$ F\ "V$,+'(
/$ +y 6'J'-3&'+( 'T+%G … ã6w JIS-w ë 0S33#X%S*', e nel versetto 47 su una veste -'5
m&'+#Ö /Z$ "V$,+'( /$ 'T+y ã6w JV03'U. Nel versetto 42 l’aggettivo e il participio sono attri-
buti del sostantivo senza articolo. Simile il caso di 13,19 -'5 (/Z$) "V$,+'( /$ +y +H0Ö +%G
)J-%SU %TJw JIS-w ë +,J'S"wU JIS-'#$%S*' ë 0S33#X%S*' … “e (se) compare nel posto
della ferita una piaga bianca o lucente, che va verso il bianco o il rosso (tra il bianco e il rosso)”.
116
Cf. BASILE, Sintassi, 541. Qui l’autore parla di funzione predicativa del participio nelle
“forme suppletive del perfetto e del piuccheperfetto” composte dal participio aoristo o perfetto
seguito da IL$'(, "#"$I*Q'( o NOI($. Predicativi sono i due participi OJW3ÜX%S*'( e
0S33ÜX%S*'( in Philo Alexandrinus, Quod deterius, § 16, F(Z +%G+% /$ +y $Ñ&Ö +KU Jh03'U,
M+'$ /$ %E-Ü7 -%(JoFIU OJW3ÜX%S*'( ë 0S33ÜX%S*'( 6'$Y*(, F(IÜ3,+'( +%kU JÜQ%SU, /$
%ìU "I"Ñ$'*($, “Per questo nella legge riguardante la lebbra (si ordina che), quando in una casa
si manifestano cavità verdeggianti o rosseggianti, (qualcuno deve) togliere le pietre sulle quali
sono apparse”. Il participio predicativo rappresenta una proposizione dipendente. Cf. SMYTH,
Grammar, § 2106.
117
WEVERS, Notes Leviticus, 192, traduce: “here «the inflected spot» should become
greenish or reddish”.
118
In questi passi, come altrove, vale quanto afferma MURAOKA, Lexicon, sub voce "#$%&'(,
131 nel N. B.: “Many of the senses of "#$%&'( may be perceived as an aoristic or ingressive var-
iant of IE&#”, osservazione senz’altro condivisibile. La non coincidenza sostanziale tra aggettivo
e participio è espressa in SMYTH, Grammar, § 1857: “The periphrasis of the present participle
with /*+#, etc. is employed to adjectivize the participle or to describe or characterize the subject
like an adjective, i.e. the subject has a quality which it may display in action”. Quest’ultima af-
fermazione va considerata con attenzione.
119
La lezione appare in B 121 68à-83-630c.
315
An_78.indb 326 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 327
! 1"!+ '" e X"%' in termini di predicato: “e se sarà un uomo odiante”, che è cosa di-
versa da: “se ci sarà un uomo odiante/che odia”. La successiva coordinata G&- %$ +#
E2 depone a favore dell’interpretazione predicativa della precedente costruzione
ebraica, che viene ripresa nei LXX dalla perifrasi /Z$ F\ "V$,+'( … &(*Y$
equivalente a /1$ +(U &(*4.
Aoristo congiuntivo – presente participio passivo

Ez 18,3
/Z$ "V$,+'( N+( JI"%&V$, R 0'3'g%Jw 'Ä+, /$ +y â*3',J
Se sarà più detta questa parabola in Israele!
vale a dire, non sarà più detta, come traduce BRENTON:
surely this parable shall no more be spoken in Israel
NETS: if this comparison ever comes to be spoken again in Israel
TM: 2%) &$ 8+ '"=+ ! 1Z!- 2X$ F$ !- 2I X7+ DE5 0<1 2$ ! 1"!+ '";0%'
Vulgata: si erit vobis ultra parabola haec in proverbium in Israhel
L’avverbio N+( determina il participio e ciò favorisce l’interpretazione peri-
frastica.
Aoristo congiuntivo – perfetto participio passivo

Dt 22,23
åZ$ F\ "V$,+'( 0'[U 0'3QV$%U &I&$,*+IS&V$, a$F3#121
E se una fanciulla vergine è promessa a un uomo
BRENTON: And if there be a young damsel espoused to a man
NETS: But if there is a girl a virgin engaged to a man
$ G+ [!&$ 5Y -/] &5/ ! 1"!+ '" "('
TM: X"%' 2+ !8$ &I$ %7+ !2B.
In entrambi i luoghi il participio è analizzato come attributivo. In Dt 20,7 si ha
-'5 +#U ~ l$Q3W0%U, M*+(U &I&$v*+IS+'( "S$'[-' -'5 %T- NJ'gI$ 'T+v$; “Chi
è l’uomo che si è fidanzato con una donna e non l’ha presa?”. Qui il per-
fetto &I&$v*+IS+'( è medio122. Nel ‘Dialogo con Trifone’ Giustino scrive K'5
îW*w6 Fh, ~ +w$ z'3Ü'$ &I&$,*+IS&h$%U (medio), g%SJ,QI5U 03Ñ+I3%$ /--
g'JI[$ +w$ &$,*+w$ 'T+y z'3(o&123, … “E Giuseppe, che era fidanzato con
Maria, volendo in un primo momento ripudiare Maria, la sua promessa sposa
…”. Questo passo dimostra che in linea di principio l’aggettivo verbale &$,*+v
120
Si può sostenere il rapporto attributivo tra X"%' e % )/I 8.
121
SPICQ, Note, 190, osserva che nei LXX &$,*+IcW “significa di solito fidanzare” ma che
in Tob 6,12 “si tratta di matrimonio” (anche HATCH-REDPATH registra il verbo in 6,12, mentre
RAHLFS e l’edizione di Cambridge/Sinaitico in 6,13). Nella nota 6 traduce Dt 22,23 “se una fan-
ciulla vergine è fidanzata a un uomo”.
122
Si accetta la traduzione di SPICQ, Note, 190.
123
Iustinus, Dialogus, 204.
327
An_78.indb 327 21/06/11 15:39

potrebbe sostituire il participio &I&$,*+IS&V$, in Dt 22,23. L’aggettivo non è

attestato nei LXX tuttavia la traduzione dall’ebraico sarebbe anche potuta es-
sere … 0'[U 0'3QV$%U &$,*+w …, ma tale possibilità non rende automati-
camente aggettivo il participio e, come nei due casi precedenti, scartata la pos-
sibilità che nel contesto del passo in esame "V$,+'( significhi ‘esserci’, l’inter-
pretazione perifrastica di "V$,+'( … &I&$,*+IS&V$, è certamente possibile124.
Aoristo imperativo – perfetto participio passivo

Sal 68,26
"I$,Qv+W R N0'SJ(U 'T+Y$ P3,&W&V$,
Sia desertificata/resa deserta la loro abitazione
TM (Sal 69,26): !N$ Z. +0 1/$ &"$ VB"
' !' f+
Un’ipotetica concorrenza dell’aggettivo N3,&%U con il participio ha i suoi limi-
ti, perché "I$,Qv+W R N0'SJ(U 'T+Y$ N3,&%U potrebbe significare: “La loro abi-
tazione diventi / sia un deserto”125. Il participio, inoltre, è passivo e rimanda
evidentemente all’agente che, dal contesto (cf. i versetti 24-25), è Dio. BREN-
TON ha: “Let their habitation be made desolate (aggettivo)”, NETS: “Let their
steading become desolated (participio passivo)”.
Ger 18,21
-'5 %m l$F3IU 'T+Y$ "I$V*QW*'$ a$23,&V$%( Q'$1+Ö -'5 %m $I'$#*-%(
'T+Y$ 0I0+W-H+IU &'O'#37 /$ 0%JV&Ö126
e i loro uomini siano eliminati con la/dalla morte e i loro giovani cadano di spa-
da in guerra
BRENTON and let their men be cut off by death, and their young men fall by the
sword in war
NETS and let their men become destroyed by death and their youths become
felled by dagger in battle
124
Benché non sia una prova dirimente, si può osservare che sulla base di Dt 20,7 e di Giu-
stino il passo di Dt 22,23 equivale a åZ$ F\ "V$,+'( a$w3 &I&$,*+IS&h$%U 0'[F'
0'3QV$%$, dove è evidente che il participio è verbo e non sembra possibile l’alternativa …
a$w3 &$,*+bU 0'[F' 0'3QV$%$.
125
Un esempio è rappresentato da Is 64,9 0HJ(U +%G ã"#%S *%S /"I$vQ, N3,&%U tradotto
da BRENTON e NETS rispettivamente: “The city of thy holiness has become desolate (aggettivo)”
e “Your holy city has become a wilderness (sostantivo)”.
126
Hanno N*+W*'$ per "I$V*QW*'$ 763 C´ 86mg 410; in A si legge _*+Y+IU. Premettono
/$ a Q'$1+Ö A C´-90-239 86mg. La prima variante facilita la costruzione perifrastica. Si può sup-
porre che in "I$V*QW*'$ si percepisse una sfumatura di modalità che nei testimoni citati si è
preferito eliminare, ad ogni modo questa variante conferma la perifrasi. Lo stesso esito si ha con
_*+Y+IU. In questo caso si ha "I$V*QW*'$ 'm "S$'[-IU 'T+Y$ l+I-$%( …, -'5 %m l$F3IU
'T+Y$ _*+Y+IU a$23,&V$%( /$ Q'$1+Ö “Siano le loro donne senza figli …, e i loro uomini,
perché si ergono/incombono, siano eliminati con la/dalla morte”. Il participio congiuto _*+Y+IU
sembra alludere a una presenza funesta per il profeta. Gli “uomini” devono essere gli stessi che
tramano ai suoi danni (*S$IJ1J,*'$ ïv&'+' -'+Z +KU iSOKU &%S) di cui si parla nel versetto
precedente (v. 20). In alternativa si può legare l’imperativo a _*+Y+IU, per cui si ha “… riman-
gano eliminati …”, una lettura meno probabile.
317
An_78.indb 328 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 329
TM: !<$ F$ 4+ N' D. O&3 FB"

3 () <p 1!"
3 &JF
) D. / 3#<$ " )I&p ![ J"!+ '" 1!"
3 Z) +0%. +#
Vulgata: et viri earum interficiantur morte iuvenes eorum confodiantur gladio in
proelio
L’imperativo "I$V*QW*'$ è ausiliare di a$23,&V$%( e 0I0+W-H+IU, con questo
ultimo è ipotizzabile, ma non necessariamente, l’ellissi di N*+W*'$.
Perfetto indicativo – perfetto participio passivo

Gios 9,12
$G$ F\ /d,31$Q,*'$ -'5 "I"H$'*($ gIg3W&V$%(
ma ora (i pani) si sono seccati e sono diventati corrosi / si sono corrosi
BRENTON and now they are dried and become mouldy
NETS: but now they are dried and have become bug-infested
TM: 1"L' xp '0 ! $"!$ +# ZO$") ! )*!' !f$ 9. +#
Nei LXX l’aggettivo verbale g3W+HU è adoperato come neutro sostantivato127;
l’aggettivo g3*(&%U ha il senso passivo di “commestibile” con valore positi-
vo, mentre il participio esprime valore negativo. In 9,5 si legge ~ l3+%U 'T+Y$
+%G /0 (*(+(*&%G d,3bU -'5 IT3W+(Y$ -'5 gIg3W&V$%U “il pane delle loro
provviste (era) secco, ammuffito e corroso”. Ai due participi IT3W+(Y$ -'5
gIg3W&V$%U si oppone nel TM il solo sostantivo 1"L' xp '0: nei LXX si ha una sorta
di descrizione particolareggiata del processo di deterioramento del pane.
La forma IT3W+(Y$ è participio di IT3W+(1W “andare in sfacelo, ammuffi-
re”128, verbo intransitivo, che nel contesto non è aggettivato, come non lo è
gIg3W&V$%U. Nel Pastore di Erma nell’ottava similitudine l’angelo, dopo avere
distribuito i rami del salice, li riprende e ä'3o +($W$ /Jo&g'$I +ZU ïogF%SU
d,3ZU -'5 gIg3W&h$'U ñU u0b *,+ÑU, “Da alcuni riceveva i rami secchi e cor-
rosi come da un tarlo”, diversamente ó+I3%( F\ /0IFÜF%S$ d,3oU, aJJ' %T-
}*'$ gIg3W&h$'( u0b *,+ÑU, “xltri glieli consegnavano secchi ma non erano
corrosi da un tarlo”129. Nel primo passo gIg3W&h$'U è predicativo, nel secondo
}*'$ e gIg3W&h$'( formano un’evidente perifrasi. In Gios 9,12 si potrebbe
discutere se "I"H$'*($ gIg3W&V$%( sia vero passivo o se non piuttosto un
medio riflessivo diretto, tuttavia la lettura perifrastica è sostenibile130.
127
Cf. MURAOKA, Lexicon, 124; LUST-EYNIKEL-HAUSPIE, 113.
128
Cf. MONTANARI, Vocabolario, 892.
129
Herma, Le Pasteur, 67,6.7.
130
Nei passi di Erma citati nel primo d,3oU e gIg3W&h$'U sono predicativi, nel secondo lo
è solo d,3oU.
318
An_78.indb 329 21/06/11 15:39

IIb. Occorrenze di perifrasi con )*+,-' nei LXX131
Piuccheperfetto – presente participio attivo

4 Mac 16,15
-'5 "Z3 M+I *S$IJv&6Q,U &I+Z +Y$ 0'#FW$, Im*+v-I(U +b$ åJIoX'3%$
~3Y*' g'*'$(XH&I$%$
e, infatti, quando fosti arrestata con i tuoi figli, stavi ferma a guardare che Elea-
zaro veniva torturato
SCARPAT traduce: … te ne stavi attonita a guardare Eleazaro sotto le torture132
Nel commento l’autore definisce Im*+v-I(U “una reminiscenza omerica”, e do-
po il rimando a Mt 20,6, +# çFI _*+v-'+I MJ,$ +w$ R&V3'$ a3"%#, annota che il
perfetto )*+,-' nel greco tardivo tende ad assumere il significato di “prendo
(assumo) un tale atteggiamento”133. In 1 Re 19,20 e 4 Mac 16,15 il piuccheper-
fetto sottolinea la persistenza dell’azione espressa dal participio. Un esempio
di tale uso si trova negli Acta Pauli et Theclae. In 9,6-7 la madre di Tecla dice
della figlia a+I$#XI( "Z3 +%[U JI"%&V$%(U u0’ 'T+%G -'5 _1JW+'( R 0'3QV$%U
“è intenta alle sue (di Paolo) parole ed è presa la fanciulla”134. L’autore in-
dugia sul comportamento di Tecla -'5 +%ò+W$ %Ä+WU "($%&h$W$ ôh-J' %T-
a0I*+3o6,, aJJö }$ a+I$ÜX%S*' +y JÑ"Ö ä'òJ%S, “e, mentre accadevano que-
ste cose, Tecla non si voltò, ma era intenta alle parole di Paolo” (10,9-10)135.
Tecla appare irremovibile R F\ Im*+n-I( ä'òJÖ a+I$ÜX%S*' (20,9) “ma lei se
ne stava a fissare Paolo/continuava a fissare Paolo”136. Questi tre testi, accomu-
nati dallo stesso verbo a+I$ÜXW, evidenziano un vero e proprio climax intensi-
vo. Il piuccheperfetto Im*+n-I( non svolge un ruolo sintattico diverso da }$ ri-
spetto al participio a+I$ÜX%S*', benché se ne distingua per il fatto di esprimere
una particolare modalità dello svolgimento dell’azione.
131
Sulla base dei dati raccolti non appaiono perifrasi con il perfetto )*+,-'.
132
SCARPAT, Maccabei, 381.
133
SCARPAT, Maccabei, 388.
134
LIPSIUS-BONNET, Acta, 242. Non ci sono varianti relative ad a+I$#XI(.
135
LIPSIUS-BONNET, Acta, 243. Delle varianti di questo testo riportiamo quelle dei testimoni
greci: aJJ{ }$ MJ, 03bU +b$ JH"%$ 0'cJ%S 03%*VO%S*' E; aJJ{ }$ 03bU +b$ JH"%$
0'cJ%S (+b$ +%G 0'cJ%S JH"%$) a0%gJV0%S*' F G; aJJZ +%G JH"%S 0'cJ%S õ-%S*I$ C.
Le prime due marcano l’attenzione di Tecla verso le parole di Paolo. Nel NT il verbo a+I$ÜXW
compare solo nella letteratura lucana e due volte in quella paolina (2Cor 3,7.13). In perifrasi con
IE&# appare in Lc 4,20 e At 1,10, dove la costruzione sembra sottolineare proprio il persistere
dell’attenzione.
136
LIPSIUS-BONNET, Acta, 249.
319
An_78.indb 330 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 331
Piuccheperfetto – perfetto participio attivo

1 Re 19,20
(-'5 a0V*+I(JI$ ú'%kJ a""VJ%SU …, -'5 ILF'$ +w$ /--J,*#'$ +Y$
03%6,+Y$,) -'5 ú'&%SwJ Im*+v-I( -'QI*+,-Ù /0{ 'T+Y$
(e Saul inviò messaggeri …, e videro l’assemblea dei profeti,) e Samuele stava a
capo di loro
BRENTON: … and Samuel stood as appointed over them
NETS: … and Samouel stood as appointed over them
TM: 1!"3 4) 9[ O_$ '0 L<P) 9 4%J< + (1"%' D+ '0 1"%"
) ZJ . %3 %&+ .` .# … 1"C' %$ 4+ <. 4J%Z$ F4. Z+ '` .#)
' O' +*!. /Y. ![ 4B/
Vulgata: … et Samuhel stantem super eos
Quest’ultima versione fa dipendere L<P) 9 da %&+ .` .# e lo interpreta come participio
predicativo, infatti, la proposizione -'5 ú'&%S,J Im*+v-I( -'QI*+,-Ù /0{
'T+Y$ è sostituibile con -'5 ú'&%S,J -'QI*+,-H+' /0{ 'T+Y$, ossia con parti-
cipio predicativo dipendente da ILF'$: “e che Samuele li presiedeva”, oppure,
mediante coordinazione, con -'5 ú'&%S,J -'QI*+v-I( /0{ 'T+Y$ “e Samuele li
presiedeva”.
Conclusioni
Nella prima nota dell’articolo è stato affermato che con perifrasi verbale si in-
tende una costruzione perifrastica composta da verbo finito e participio che si
affianca a forme sintetiche con cui condivide in particolare l’espressione del
aspetto. È stato evitato intenzionalmente di parlare di equivalenza per il fatto
evidente, come è stato notato, che le perifrasi verbali, in realtà, non si sono dif-
fuse (si parla della letteratura presa in esame) mai al punto da raggiungere una
frequenza pari alle forme sintetiche. Non si dà quindi una vera concorrenza
d’uso, segno che vi sono tratti semantici che si oppongono a una semplice so-
stituzione.
Nel corso della trattazione sono stati presentati e discussi alcuni punti car-
dine alla base della teoria della perifrasi verbale, che in parte sono stati ripresi
nel paragrafo Una sintesi e spunti di riflessione. Qui vale la pena riprendere il
principio che il participio conserva la sua natura verbale in tutti i suoi usi e
che, in quanto tale, oltre ad esprimere l’aspetto proprio del tempo, veicola an-
che la diatesi. Nella definizione di una perifrasi verbale rispetto a una aggetti-
vale occorre tenere conto anche di questo fattore. Non a caso sembra che le
maggiori difficoltà nel definire una perifrasi come verbale si abbiano soprattut-
to con il participio perfetto passivo, che tende (per ragioni aspettuali) “all’ag-
gettivazione”137. La considerazione della diatesi comporta un ridimensio-
namento del quoziente di soggettività nella determinazione di una perifrasi
verbale. In linea di principo essa è tale quando il participio non ha altri usi sin-
137
320
An_78.indb 331 21/06/11 15:39

tattici. Naturalmente è il contesto in cui la potenziale perifrasi occorre a stabi-

lirne la presenza.
La grammaticalizzazione del verbo finito come ausiliare e fattori concomi-
tanti come la sua desemantizzazione e decategorizzazione vanno valutati sulla
base di una possibile scala di realizzazione non solo in chiave diacronica. Se si
sostiene che "#$%&'( spesso sembra conservare il significato di “diventare” si
fa un’affermazione corretta, benché, con tutta evidenza, occorre ammettere che
una tale lettura può poggiare più sulla traduzione (non sempre riuscita) che su
una reale prova fondata nel testo. Si intende dire che, pure nel caso "#$%&'(
conservi del tutto il suo significato originario, stabilito che il participio non ab-
bia altri usi sintattici, forma con esso perifrasi verbale. La differenza sostanzia-
le con IE&# non è il fatto che "#$%&'( non subisce riduzione e perdita del peso
fonologico, ma la permanenza più o meno latente nel secondo verbo del suo si-
gnificato, che in una perifrasi può sottolineare talora anche un grado di valore
ingressivo o progressivo. La potenziale interscambiabilità di una perifrasi con
una forma sintetica non può essere l’unico principio per stabilire se c’è o no
perifrasi verbale.
Rosario Pierri, ofm

Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme
Bibliografia
AERTS W. J., Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of ISDGH and TUIHD as
Auxiliaries or Pseudo-Auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the Present
Day, Amsterdam 1965.
ALEXANDER W. J., “Participial Periphrases in Attic Prose”, American Journal of
Philology 4 (1883) 291-308.
ALLAN R. J., The Middle Voice in Ancient Greek: A Study of Polysemy, Amster-
dam 2003.
AMENTA L., Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e latino: Origini e grammaticalizza-
zioni, Milano 2003 (rist. 2007).
BASILE N., Sintassi storica del greco antico, Bari 2001.
BAUER W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, translated and adapted by Willian F. ARNDT and F.
Wilbur GINGRICH from the fourth edition of W. Bauer’s Lexicon, Cambridge
- Chicago 1957.
BLASS F. - DEBRUNNER A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göt-
tingen 91954.
321
An_78.indb 332 21/06/11 15:39

Rosario Pierri 333
BLASS F. - DEBRUNNER A. - FUNK R. W., A Greek Grammar of the New Testa-

ment and Other Early Christian Literature, Cambridge - Chicago 1961.
BLASS F. - DEBRUNNER A. - REHKOPF F., Grammatica del Greco del Nuovo Te-
stamento (Supplementi al “Grande Lessico del NT” 3), Brescia 1982.
BENTEIN K., Review article: L. AMENTA, Perifrasi aspettuali in greco e in lati-
no: Origini e grammaticalizzazioni, Journal of Greek Linguistics 10 (2010)
127-141.
BJÖRCK G., |$ F(F1*-W$, Die periphrastischen Konstruktionen im Griechi-
schen (Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistika Vetenskops-Samfundet i Uppsa-
la 32,2), Uppsala 1940.
BRENTON L. C. L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, London
1851 (rist. Grand Rapids 1980).
BROWNING R., Medieval and Modern Greek, Cambridge 1999.
BYBEE J. - PERKINS R. - PAGLIUCA W., The Evolution of Grammar Tense, Aspect,
and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago 1994.
CAMPBELL C. R., Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings
in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 15), New
York et al. 2008.
CARBONE S. P. - RIZZI G., Il libro di Michea: Secondo il testo ebraico Masoreti-
co, secondo la versione greca della LXX, secondo la parafrasi aramaica
targumica (Testi e commenti. Sezione: La Parola e la sua Tradizione 3),
Bologna 1996.
CONYBEARE F. C. - STOCK G., A Grammar of Septuagint Greek, Boston 1905
(rist. Zondervan 1981).
COSERIU E., “El Aspecto Verbal Perifrástico en Griego Antiguo” in Actas del
III Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Madrid 1968, 93-116.
COSERIU E., “Das Problem des griechischen Einflusses auf das Vulgärlatein”, in
id. - W. D. STEMPEL (ed.), Sprache und Geschichte: Festschrift für Harri
Meier zum 65. Geburtstag, München 1971, 135-147.
DANA H. E. - MANTEY J. R., A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,
Upper Saddle River 1927 (rist. 1957).
DIETRICH W., “Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt im Griechischen und Lateini-
schen”, Glotta 51 (1973) 188-228.
DIETRICH W., Der periphrastische Verbalaspekt in den romanischen Sprachen:
Untersuchung zum heutigen romanischen Verbalsystem und zum Problem
der Herkunft des periphrastischen Verbalaspekts (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
für romanische Philologie 140), Tübingen 1973; versione spagniola (trad.
M. MARTÍNEZ HERNÁNDEZ): El aspecto verbal perifrástico en las lenguas
románicas, Madrid 1983.
DIK S. C., “Copula Auxiliarization: How and Why?”, in M. HARRIS - P. RAMAT
(ed.), Historical Development of Auxiliaries, Berlin 1987, 53-84.
333
An_78.indb 333 21/06/11 15:40

DRINKA B., “The Formation of Periphrastic Perfects and Passives in Europe:

An Areal Approach”, in B. J. BLAKE - K. BURRIDGE (ed.), Historical Linguis-
tics 2001, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 2003, 105-128.
EVANS T., Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and
Hebrew Interference, Oxford 2001.
EVANS T., “Periphrastic Tense Forms in the Greek of Tobit”, in F. GARCÍA MAR-
TÍNEZ - M. VERVENNE (ed.), Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and
Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologica-
rum Lovaniensium 192), Leuven 2005, 109-119.
FANNING B. M., Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford 1990.
GEIGER G., Das hebräische Partizip in den Texten aus der judäischen Wüste
(Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah), Leiden 2011 (in prepara-
zione).
GIACALONE RAMAT A., “Testing the Boundaries of Grammaticalization”, in A.
GIACALONE RAMAT - P. J. HOPPER (ed.), The Limits of Grammaticalization
(Typological Studies in Language 37), Amsterdam 1998, 107-127.
GONDA J., “A Remark on ‘Periphrastic’ Construction in Greek”, Mnemosyne 4,
ser. 12 (1959) 97-112.
GOOD R., The Septuagint’s Translation of the Hebrew Verbal System in Chron-
icles (VTS 136), Leiden 2010.
HASPELMATH M., “Periphrasis” in G. BOOIJ - Ch. LEHMANN - J. MUGDAN (ed.),
Morphology: A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, Vol. 1
(Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), Berlin 2000,
654-664.
HATCH E. - REDPATH H. A. (ed.), A Concordance to the Septuagint and the
Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal
Books) in Three Volumes, Oxford 1897 (rist. Grand Rapids 1987).
Hermas, Le Pasteur (Sources chrétiennes 53), R. JOLY (ed.), Paris 1968.
HORROCKS G., A History of the Language and its Speakers, London - New York
1997.
HURVITZ A., “Hebrew and Aramaic in the Biblical Period: The Problem of
‘Aramaisms’ in Linguistic Research on the Hebrew Bible” in I. YOUNG
(ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology, London -
New York 2003, 24-37.
Iustinus, Dialogus cum Tryphone (Patristische Texte und Studien 47), M. MAR-
COVICH (ed.), Berlin - New York 1997.
Roma 22006.
JOÜON P., Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique, Rome 21923.
KAHN C. H., The verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek (Foundations of Language Sup-
plement Series 16), Dordrecht 1973.
334
An_78.indb 334 21/06/11 15:40

Rosario Pierri 335
KARLEEN P. S., The Syntax of the Participle in the Greek New Testament, Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1980.
LEHMANN Ch., Thoughts on Grammaticalization (Studies in Theoretical Lin-
guistics 1), München 1995.
LIDDELL H. G., SCOTT R., STUART JONES H. et al., Greek-English Lexicon: with a
revised supplement, Oxford 1996.
LIPSIUS R. A. - BONNET M. (ed.), Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha: Pars prior, Lip-
siae 1891 (rist. 1972).
LUST J. - EYNIKEL E. - HAUSPIE K., Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint,
Stuttgart 22003.
MANDILARAS B. G., Verb in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri, Athen 1973.
MARKOPOULOS Th., The Future in Greek: From Ancient to Medieval, New York
2009.
MCGAUGHY L. C., Toward a Descriptive Analysis of Einai as a Linking Verb in
the New Testament Greek (SBL Dissertation Series 6), Montana 1972.
MONTANARI F., Vocabolario della lingua greca, Torino 22004.
MOORE C. A., Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
(The Anchor Bible 40), New York 1985.
MORO A., Breve storia del verbo essere (Biblioteca Scientifica 46), Milano
2010.
MORTARI L. (ed.), Il Salterio della tradizione. Versione del Salterio greco dei
LXX, Torino 1983.
MORTARI L. (ed.), La Bibbia dei Lxx: 1. Il Pentateuco, Roma 1999.
MURAOKA T., Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint Keyed to the Hatch-
Redpath Concordance, Grand Rapids 1998.
MURAOKA T., “The Participle in Qumran Hebrew with Special Reference to its
Periphrastic Use”, in id. - J. F. ELWOLDE (ed.), Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages
(Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 33), Leiden - Boston - Köln
1999, 188-204.
MURAOKA T., A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain - Paris -
Walpole 2009.
NIDA E. - LOUW J. P., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains, I-II, New York 1988.
PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ M., An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (trad. J.
ELWODE), Leiden - New York - Köln 1997.
Philo Alexandrinus, Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat. Texte; introduction,
traduction et notes par Irène FEUER (Les Oeuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie 5)
Paris 1965.
PIETERSMA A. - WRIGHT B. G. (ed.), A New English Translation of the Septua-
gint, New York 2007.
PORTER S. E., Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference
to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1), New York 1989.
335
An_78.indb 335 21/06/11 15:40

PORTER S. E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages: Greek
2), Sheffield 1992.
PUSCH C. D. - WESCH A. (ed.), Verbalperiphrasen in den (ibero-)romanischen
Sprachen. Perífrasis verbals en les llengües (ibero-)romàniques. Perífrasis
verbales en las lenguas (ibero-)románicas, Hamburg 2003.
REGARD P. F., La phrase nominale dans la langue du Nouveau Testament, Paris
1919.
RIJKSBARON A., The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An
Introduction, Amsterdam 2002.
ROSÉN H. B., “Die zweiten Tempora des Griechischen: Zum Prädikatsausdruck
beim griechischen Verbum”, Museum Helveticum 15 (1957) 133-154.
RUJIGH C. J., “A Review of Ch. H. KAHN, The Verb ‘Be’ in Ancient Greek”, Lin-
gua 48 (1979) 43-83.
SCARPAT G., Quarto libro dei Maccabei, Brescia 2006.
SMYTH H. W., Greek Grammar, Revised by MESSING G. M., Cambridge 1956
(rist. 1976).
SPICQ C., Note di lessicografia neotestamentaria, II (Supplementi al Grande
Lessico del Nuovo Testamento 4), Brescia 1994.
THACKERAY H. St. J., A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to
the Septuagint, Vol. I: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence, Cam-
bridge 1909 (rist. Tel-Aviv 1970).
TURNER N., Syntax (J. H. MOULTON, A Grammar on NT Greek, Vol. III), Edin-
burg 1963 (rist. 1976).
TUSA MASSARO L., Sintassi del greco antico e tradizione grammaticale, Paler-
mo 1993 (rist. 1995).
DE LA VILLA POLO J., “La identificación de la auxiliaridad verbal en Griego”,
Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 22 (1989) 195-208.
WALTKE B. K. - O’CONNOR M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Wi-
nona Lake 1990.
WEVERS J. W., Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (Society of Biblical Litera-
ture. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 44), Atlanta 1997.
WINER G. B., A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek Regarded as
a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Translated from the German,
with large additions and full indices by W. F. MOULTON, Edinburg 31882.
WOLF K., Studien zur Sprache des Malalas, I-II Vol., München 1911-1912.
336
An_78.indb 336 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra
Sinners and Syntax

Poetry and Discourse in Jeremiah 5
1. Syntax in poetry. A change of mind
It is an honour to have the occasion to contribute to this volume for Alviero

NICCACCI. I remember well the pleasant surprise I experienced when he sent me
the first edition, in Italian, of his grammar on Hebrew verbal syntax in prose.
We appeared already to have been in dialogue for some time on this topic,
since NICCACCI reacted in his work to two review articles I had published on the
‘Grammatik’ of Wolfgang SCHNEIDER, who experimented in his work with the
interaction of verbal grammar and discourse.1 After this first contact on the
syntax of narrative texts, the dialogue was extended to the domain of verbal
syntax in poetry. In my view, it is now my turn to react to two articles that Al-
viero NICCACCI has written on that topic.2 It is very interesting to see how he
has proceeded in studying the use of verbs in poetry. His two contributions on
syntax and poetry are principally different in their approach to the position of
the syntax of the verbs. The difference can be easily summarized in terms of
“poetry does not demonstrate any verbal system” (1997) versus “it is possible
and rewarding to search for a verbal system in poetry” (2006). In 1997 NICCAC-
CI concentrated on stylistic features of poetic texts: rhetorical ordering, parallel
clauses and semantics, especially word pairs. The role of syntax was seen as
being mainly to help the reader identify parallel clause constructions. A verbal
system cannot be detected, NICCACCI then stated. In 2006 NICCACCI reactivated
his earlier line of thinking about texts and grammar so as to apply it to poetry.
As in narrative texts, there is also in poetry a systematic use of verbal forms,
he now states. It can be analysed in a similar way: by a procedure of arguing
from form to function. Paradigmatic forms identify grammatical functions;
compound patterns identify higher level syntactic functions. Verbal forms
1
NICCACCI, The Syntax of the Verb; SCHNEIDER, Grammatik; TALSTRA, Text Grammar I + II.
2
NICCACCI, Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry; NICCACCI, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal Sys-
tem in Poetry.
337
An_78.indb 337 21/06/11 15:40

338 Sinners and Syntax: Poetry and Discourse in Jeremiah 5
mark the main line and the secondary line of communication, phenomena of
consecution (i. e., protasis – apodosis constructions) and modality. In his 2006
article NICCACCI focuses especially on patterns of alternating usage of qatal and
yiqtol. These appear as a peculiarity of poetic texts (249.253-261). His contri-
bution is to try to go beyond an analysis of individual verbal forms and to
search for a consistent explanation for the grammatical functions of these pat-
terns of verbal forms. He does so by plotting them on a temporal axis, in order
to see whether these patterns exhibit consistent functions in a context of refe-
rence to past, presence or future (248.266). Before I comment on this proposal
I want to give a short outline of the domain of research where the contribution
of NICCACCI’s work is located.
I very much admire the independent mind of a scholar who, after continued re-
search, can simply write “I have changed my mind”, as NICCACCI did in his
2006 article (247). That is important, since this change of mind implies that as
readers of the Hebrew Bible we no longer have to deal with, in terms of lingu-
istics, a strict division between the two worlds of narrative and poetic texts.
The distinction between the two articles by NICCACCI mentioned here is not
only that they provide a different answer to the question of whether there is a
verbal system in poetry; rather, they discuss the basic question of whether we
need a special starting point for the linguistic analysis of poetry. Is the signifi-
cation of poetic structure done primarily by parallelism or lexical repetition,
whereas the signification of narrative discourse is primarily done by patterns of
grammatical elements? Or can linguistic and rhetorical interests be brought
into cooperation in our reading of poetic texts?
To Hebrew scholars such cooperation of analytical methods is clearly as
desirable as it is hard to achieve. Some scholars have decided to concentrate in
their work on poetry on literary and rhetorical analysis only, without addres-
sing questions of linguistic system on the level of clausal analysis and dis-
course structure.3 Other scholars have experimented with analytical work, as-
suming some overlap of literary and linguistic categories. In that case a num-
ber of options exist:
a. One may start with the description of poetic texts in terms of their basic
unit, the poetic line or colon, and then try to make an inventory of the syntactic
features of cola, such as the number of predications, the number of constitu-
ents and the number of syllables. This approach implies that the study of syn-
tax is to be located within the framework of poetic lines and can be used to
measure regularity in poetic units (O’CONNOR4 and CLOETE5).
3
WENDLAND, The Discourse Analysis; WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry.
4
O’CONNOR, Hebrew Verse Structure.
5
CLOETE, Versification and Syntax.
327
An_78.indb 338 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 339
b. Another option is to divide the world of prose and poetry into two sepa-
rate domains of text building, by applying categories fully different from the
ones being used to analyse prose (FOKKELMAN6). As a result, instead of clause,
sentence and paragraph, we have colon, strophe and stanza. This approach
implies that the study of syntax may serve to establish some features of textual
cohesion, but it cannot be used to measure poetic units such as cola. That is ba-
sically the criticism of CLOETE’s matrix of the syntactic features of poetic lines,
as expressed by FOKKELMAN.7 FOKKELMAN measures poetic lines and strophes
differently: i. e., by counting the number of syllables used. He finds a high le-
vel of regularity that in his view cannot be explained in terms of language sys-
tem or syntax but has to be regarded as an expression of poetic skills. Here one
may ask, in my view, if the public performance of ancient poetry did not re-
quire it to be very selective in using syntactic units. But that still would not ex-
clude syntactical analysis of poetry.
c. Still another option is to give priority to syntactic observations and after
that to try to establish how these relate to the construction of poetic lines and
text segmentation. Here one enters the dialogue on distributional (formal) and
functional grammar. Some scholars base their syntactical analysis of poetic
texts on a universal linguistic model of clause types and the functions of their
elements. The assumption is the existence of a ‘basic functional pattern’: i. e.,
the same syntactic functions appear in the same structural positions in the mo-
del. Every language uses at least one basic functional pattern for the construc-
tions of clauses. The function of clauses in actual texts can be interpreted by
the way they implement the model.8 The distributional approach, such as the
one used in NICCACCI (2006), works the other way around and attempts to de-
rive a model from the variation of syntactic forms and their distribution as
observed in the actual texts. What signs do we find that help the reader to na-
vigate through the textual structure? What is the function of the various pat-
terns found?
Both types of syntactic analysis, the functional and the formal, share the
same assumption: language, whether it is in prose or in poetry, is a system of
communication. Even a poetic text is not meant in the first place to be ‘a thing
of beauty’9; rather, it is an intense form of linguistic communication. Poetry is
very creative in using assonance, chiasm, parallelism, repetition, and it is at the
6
FOKKELMAN, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible.
7
FOKKELMAN, Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible, 21-24, discusses CLOETE’s matrix of mini-
mum and maximum numbers of various features (units, stresses, predications, constituents). Are
these fixed restraints in the production of poetic lines? Are syntactic constraints descriptive? Are
they prescriptive?
8
ROSENBAUM, Word-Order, 17-20.
9
See O’CONNOR, Hebrew Verse Structure, 638, his remarks on truth and beauty, LOWTH ver-
sus KEATS.
328
An_78.indb 339 21/06/11 15:40

same time also very selective in its usage of linguistic patterns. Clause length,
constituent order and rhythm all contribute to the effective performance of a
poetic text. That fact, for both functional and distributional linguists, does not,
however, necessarily imply that poetic texts can only be analyzed in terms of
poetic skills rather than in terms of their creative employment of linguistic sys-
tem. In my view, NICCACCI’s work in 2006 represents an important step in con-
tinuing the research into how syntax and rhetorical skills cooperate in classical
Hebrew poetry.
Some scholars base their syntactical analysis of poetic texts on a universal
linguistic model of clause types and the functions of their elements. The as-
sumption is the existence of a ‘basic functional pattern’: i. e., the same syntac-
tic functions appear in the same structural positions in the model. Every lan-
guage uses at least one basic functional pattern for the constructions of clauses.
The function of clauses in actual texts can be interpreted by the way they im-
plement the model.10 The distributional approach, such as the one used in NIC-
CACCI (2006), works the other way around and attempts to derive a model from
the variation of syntactic forms and their distribution as observed in the actual
texts. What signs do we find that help the reader to navigate through the tex-
tual structure? What is the function of the various patterns found?
2. Exegetical and rhetorical analysis of poetry. What about syntax?
To illustrate syntax in exegetical and rhetorical analysis of poetry, I will use a

segment from the text of Jeremiah 511 (see Appendix). In the reading by some
authors, for instance FISCHER12 and CARROLL13 in their commentaries to Jeremi-
ah, a distinction between poetry and prose as text types does not appear to be
crucial to the process of textual interpretation. This is not because these au-
thors would observe no linguistic differences between text types; it is rather
because they prefer to concentrate directly on themes and literary genres when
discussing the interpretation and the redaction history of the book. They also
do not analyse segments of text in terms of a linguistic analysis of discourse.
Other scholars concentrate on poetic form (i. e., on rhetorical and colometrical
features) as the dominant factor in the interpretation of a text like Jeremiah 5.
This does imply, however, that text segments in prose (verses and phrases,
such as “saying of the Lord”14) or text segments not considered to fit the larger
10
ROSENBAUM, Word-Order, 17-20.
11
Part of a project for syntactic analysis of poetic and prophetic texts, funded by NWO,
2004-2009 to experiment with the syntax of poetry and expand WIVU data base. It resulted in a
full syntactic analysis of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Psalms.
12
FISCHER, Jeremiah, 1-25.
13
CARROLL, Jeremiah.
329
An_78.indb 340 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 341
poetic structure are treated as secondary elements of the text (e. g., v. 9 in
LUNDBLOM15).
As a result, the question posed by NICCACCI of how to integrate linguistic
system and poetic skills in the interpretation of poetry is quite often simply not
addressed in exegetical praxis. Independent of whether a scholar considers co-
lometrical analysis as either superfluous or indispensable, the use of clause
types and verbal forms is commonly considered ‘free’, and they are translated
accordingly. I will briefly discuss the way in which the authors mentioned ana-
lyse Jeremiah 5,1-9.
2.1.
FISCHER (56) argues that in Jeremiah we find prose and poetry to be only slight-
ly different. Artistic prose and poetry make use of similar stylistic devices. Ac-
cording to FISCHER the text types of prose and poetry in the book of Jeremiah
are mixed, with both applying stylistic phenomena, such as parallelism and le-
xical repetition. Hence there is no reason to present or analyse poetic sections
differently from prose sections.
Thus text divisions in 5,1-9 can be made according to themes and dialogue
partners (237): v. 1-2 God demands justice; v. 3-6 The prophet explains the de-
struction; v. 7-9 God asks questions of the people of Jerusalem concerning
what is next.
For a translation the complete text has been segmented into what FISCHER
calls meaningful lines (Sinnzeilen). Since no linguistic analysis is applied, the
interpretation and translation of the lines is occasionally somewhat easy going
with syntax, illustrating the idea that verbal forms cannot be interpreted in a
syntactically consistent way. The following are some examples (232):
V. 6 Two cases of qatal, translated in present tense: “viele sind ihre Ver-
brechen, zahlreich sind ihre Anwendungen.”
V. 5b-6a qatal in perfect tense.
V. 7 wayyiqtol “obwohl” … past tense; this translation is exegetical, not
syntactical (242)
yiqtol in past tense: “rotteten”
V. 8 qatal “sind sie geworden”
yiqtol present tense “wiehern sie”
CARROLL16 speaks of ‘poems’ in Jeremiah 5, but he does not discuss the quali-
ties or the linguistic features of these texts as poetry. In his reading of the
chapter, it appears to be composed of various poems, loosely connected into
one prophetic composition. In chapter 5 “a number of discrete units are used to
present a justification of the destruction of the nation” by the enemy. The ways
14
CLOETE, Versification and Syntax, 100.149
15
LUNDBLOM, Jeremiah 1-20.
16
CARROLL, Jeremiah, quotes from 174.177.178.
330
An_78.indb 341 21/06/11 15:40

of Yahweh in the experience of the destruction of Jerusalem require “a theodi-

cy”. In the text segment discussed here, CARROLL distinguishes two poems:
5,1-6 and 5,7-9. The first one argues that not even one righteous person was
found in Jerusalem to prevent its destruction; the second section continues the
themes of 5,1-6 since it wants to “attack the community for its idolatrous
practices.”
Different from FISCHER, who bases his argument for text division also on the
literary identification of the speakers, CARROLL does not divide the text on the
basis of changes in speaker and addressee. Only the subject matter decides: the
sections are ‘search for a righteous man’ and ‘accusation of the people’. As a
result, CARROLL’s grammatical interpretation of clause types and verbal forms
follows his interpretation of the subject matter.
V. 5b qatal past perfect tense: “they had broken the yoke”
V. 6 qatal future: “a lion shall slay them”
yiqtol future: “a wolf shall destroy them”
Participle: “a leopard is watching”
yiqtol future: “shall be torn”
V. 8 qatal: “are many, are great”.
The works of FISCHER and CARROLL, by their emphasis on literary analysis, ap-
pear to express the traditional view on syntax in poetry: there is no system in
the use of verbal forms. There is clear variation in translation of the same ver-
bal forms.
2.2.
For the other two authors mentioned above, poetic form is the dominant tex-
tual feature. One option then is to search for syntactic effects or syntactic con-
straints present in poetic texts. This is practised in the work of CLOETE.17 An-
other option is to regard the poetic text as a literary domain by itself, governed
mainly by lexical repetition and well balanced rhetorical structure. This is
practised in the work of LUNDBLOM.18
In this section I will discuss elements of their work and address the ques-
tion of whether any interaction is possible between syntax and the poetic struc-
tures observed. To facilitate the comparison of my text syntactic analysis and
their poetic ordering I present them both in the outline of the text of Jeremiah
5,1-9 in the Appendix. The type of linguistic analysis that is basic to this out-
line will be explained in §3 below. A problem for the comparison is that CLOE-
TE only discusses the segmentation of the text into cola. Higher level divisions
of the text into larger segments of texts is something he does not study. How-
ever, if one just compares clauses and cola, one may conclude that in many ca-
17
CLOETE, Versification and Syntax.
18
LUNDBLOM, Jeremiah 1-20.
331
An_78.indb 342 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 343
ses a syntactic clause matches with a poetic line (colon). In the remaining ca-
ses it appears that one can reconstruct a colon, as defined by CLOETE, by com-
bining clauses of particular types (marked by the sign ‘=’ in the Appendix).
That fact suggests that linguistic system and poetic structure should not be
kept too separate. The following are some examples of the differences between
syntactic clauses and poetic lines (cola):
a two parallel imperative clauses in colon 1b
b two predications: a finite verb and a complement clause with infinitive con-
struct in colon 3e
c two predications with a change of subject: pronominal object suffix >>
subject in colon 3b and 7d
d a combination of b. and c. in colon 3c
e two predications: embedding of a quotation (colon 2a) or of an attributive
clause in colon 6d
The division of cola in 1ef and in 9bc is grammatically inconsistent. In line
with other cases of type b, mentioned above, in these cases one would need
one colon, rather than two. Why are longer poetic lines not accepted here?
Here the matching of the colometry by CLOETE and the syntactic clause analy-
sis fails.
CLOETE has done an interesting experiment to try to establish what syntactic
constraints are active in the construction of poetic lines. The problem thus be-
comes clear. The counting of only predications and constituents within poetic
lines, as practised by CLOETE, is not sufficient for a syntactic description of a
colon. Other syntactic restraints (a-d) are active as well: particular clause
types, only in a particular order, appear to be used as one colon. In those cases
one is confronted with the phenomenon of linguistic hierarchy. Some constitu-
ents belong to the main clause, others are only part of an embedded clause or a
clause that in itself is a constituent of the main clause. This reveals the main
question: can one really do syntax within the boundaries of poetic lines?
Would a cooperation of syntactic analysis and colometric analysis not be
served much better if one reverses the order? To proceed from linguistic clau-
ses to poetic lines appears to be much more effective than the other way
around.
Unfortunately CLOETE does not address text syntax, not even the problem of
the verbal forms. So one wonders how his experiment would go at higher le-
vels of textual organisation.
The rhetorical analysis by LUNDBLOM proceeds from poetic lines to the larger
unit of the stanza and from there to the pattern made by the order of the stan-
zas. That makes it possible to compare his work with the textual hierarchy
based on syntax.
332
An_78.indb 343 21/06/11 15:40

LUNDBLOM’s division of the text into cola equals the one proposed by CLOE-
TE, except for v. 3. The fronted noun phrases (v"0"9 + !#!") are disconnected
from the following resumptive clause, which is regarded as a separate colon.
LUNDBLOM adds further divisions of the text into five higher units, called stan-
zas (see the Appendix). The technique to create them is basically one of litera-
ry reading: “stanzas can be delimited both by key words and speaker change”
(372). The next step, the arrangement of the stanzas in a chiastic ordering
around the centre in v. 4-5d (= stanza 3), is for LUNDBLOM an important key to
the interpretation of the text. To him textual meaning depends on ordering and
balance, as is clear when LUNDBLOM repeatedly praises the text with expres-
sions like “balancing terms”, “excellent use of repetition” (372), “fine balance”
(373), “It also contains an argument” (372), and “the center was typically the
climax and pivot point” (373).
This triggers the question of what relationship can be seen between the syn-
tax of this text as a discourse with syntactic hierarchy and the presentation of a
it as a system of stanzas. Is the reader of the poetry mainly confronted with
‘beauty and balance’? Interestingly, LUNDBLOM deals with the verbs much more
consistently than the other exegetes mentioned. A good example is stanza 4,
v. 5e-6, where he translates:
5ef But they together, they have broken the yoke (qatal)
6ab has struck them (qatal), will destroy them (yiqtol)
6cd a leopard is prowling around (participle); everyone … will be torn apart
(yiqtol)
6ef for … are many; are numerous (qatal—qatal: the argument for a translation
in present tense may be the stativic nature of the verbs involved)
One wonders: if the basic communication is by balance and repetition, what do
the verbal forms contribute? The commentary is silent on this point.
After doing colometrical or rhetorical analysis of a poetic text, do we really

know more about it in terms of discourse and communication? What about
clause types and verbal forms? Is there no text linguistic system? In syntactic
analysis of poetic texts there is, of course, no need to avoid or dismiss observa-
tions on the level of rhetorical features. But the problem is the order of the ob-
servations made and the conclusions drawn. A colometrical approach to poetry
actually skips the independent syntactic approach to poetic texts as discourse.
Balance seems to replace discourse as the main category of communication.
As demonstrated above, this can even be used as an argument to skip certain
parts as secondary to the text, on account of their doing damage to the balance.
The challenge to scholarly work is whether we, in line with NICCACCI’s
change of mind, can make observations in poetic texts starting the other way
around. Can one, when beginning with syntactic observations, find ways to re-
integrate syntactic and rhetorical analysis of poetry? The syntactic analysis of
333
An_78.indb 344 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 345
a text in clauses and in a syntax based clausal hierarchy may help test the
approach defended by NICCACCI in his 2006 article on verbal system in poetry.
3. Jeremiah 5: poetic discourse and syntactic hierarchy
In the Appendix I propose a syntactic hierarchy of Jeremiah 5,1-9. It is a pro-

posal made in continuation of NICCACCI’s line of research, through analysing a
poetic text according to its syntax: clauses and verbal forms, as well as the or-
der of clause constituents, the division into paragraphs and the marking of par-
ticipants. This requires accepting also in the structure of a poetic text the pre-
sence of textual hierarchy. This does not exclude the phenomenon of parallel-
ism (i. e., just sets of two clauses), rather it analyses parallelism as part of it.
Text syntactic analysis first segments and presents the text according to its
clauses (a clause being defined as just one predication with its satellites). Se-
condly, it analyses the text according to the hierarchy of its clauses.19 The ba-
sic idea of the text syntactic analysis presented here is the assumption that the
text presents sufficient linguistic signs to establish in it a main domain of com-
munication and a number of hierarchically structured sub domains. The argu-
ments to do so are based on the observation of linguistic markers that guide the
process of reading: 1. clause type (defined by the presence of conjunction, ver-
bal form and constituent order), 2. set of participants (indicated by nouns, pro-
nouns or verbs) in a textual domain or sub domain, and 3. lexical repetition of
elements found in clauses or in textual domains. It implies that verbal forms
are not used in isolation for textual analysis but rather, in combination with
clause types and presence of participants, they are read as markers of textual
organisation and as markers that guide the process of communication within
the various textual domains established.
Certainly, exegetes reading the text of Jeremiah 5 are used to observing
such markers and drawing conclusions from them concerning the presence or
the changes of sender and addressee in the text. The proposal made in this
paper, however, in line with the thinking of Alviero NICCACCI, is to pursue the
textual analysis in terms of linguistic features much further, before entering the
domain of rhetorical, historical or theological interpretation. Only then will
one be able to address the question raised by NICCACCI concerning what linguis-
tic system governs the use of verbal forms in Hebrew poetry and prophecy.
Trying to contribute to the text grammar of complex poetic texts is not an easy
task; nevertheless, the linguistic features of the text present sufficient clues to
use them, as shown in the arguments listed above. For the sample text of Je-
19
The textual analysis is the result of a computer assisted procedure. See TALSTRA, Text
segmentation; TALSTRA, A Hierarchy of Clauses.
334
An_78.indb 345 21/06/11 15:40

remiah 5,1-9, this line of argumentation runs as follows (line numbers men-
tioned refer to the Appendix):
3.1. Main domain of the discourse

Line 1 (v. 1) and line 57 (first line of v. 10) are indicative of the main domain
of communication in the text. They both begin with a fronted plural imperative
without a conjunction (as for instance with the imperatives of lines 2-4), and
they both present the same participants ‘you’ (the unidentified plural group
charged with a command to enter the city) and the feminine singular (i. e., Je-
rusalem), also referred to by the pronominal suffix in v. 1 and 10). Between
line 1 and line 57 the reader will not again encounter a similar clause construc-
tion with the same participants. In terms of text syntax, therefore, the entire
section of v. 1-9 is located between these two imperatives of v. 1 and v. 10
(lines 1 and 57). The text segment of v. 1-9 can be subdivided into further em-
bedded domains of communication, based on the clause types used and the
participants being referred to. The second domain of communication is located
in the text segments of lines 1-9.10-13 and 44-56.
3.2. Second domain of discourse

Lines 1-9 (v. 1)
The first section, lines 1-9, is dominated by imperative clauses followed by a
1%' -yiqtol construction. It has three participants: after the ‘you’ (plural) and
‘her’ (the city), one also encounters an ‘I’. ‘I’ might be able to pardon ‘her’.
The last clause of v. 1 (line 9), a weyiqtol, continues the 1%' -yiqtol clause of line
5, so that lines 1-9 constitute one long sentence: “search the city, whether you
can find a righteous one, that I may pardon her”.
Line 10-13 (v. 2).
The verbs used here are only yiqtols. Since one finds no indication of a new di-
rect speech section (no marker of a new sender or addressee is present), the
reader may assume that the direct speech continues. The use of lexical ant-
onyms (i. e., ‘truth’ versus ‘lie’) corroborates this. This means that this section
is also spoken by ‘I’ to ‘you’ (plural), the ones that are communicating in lines
1-9, while it also introduces a new participant: ‘they’. The ‘they’, thus far un-
known, is mentioned again in lines 17ff and is likely to be identified in line 45
(sons of Jerusalem). The 1%' -yiqtol construction here is different from the one
used in v. 1, since it is continued by ,C4 + yiqtol: “in case they say ‘…’, there-
fore (by those very words) they swear by a lie.”
Lines 44-56 (v. 7.8.9)
A subset of the participants active in lines 1-9 (‘I’ and the feminine singular) is
present again in v. 7, in line 44 (a yiqtol clause). The difference is that the fe-
minine singular now has become the addressee: “How could I for this forgive
you (fem. sing.)?” In line 45 this section also introduces a new constituent:
335
An_78.indb 346 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 347
“your (fem.) sons” and the evil things they are doing. The use of the yiqtols,
the lexical repetition of the verb F4A, and the overlap of constituents provide
the arguments to connect the section of lines 44-51 (v. 7-8) directly back to the
section beginning with line 1 (v. 1). V. 9, lines 52-56, connects back to the
question in first person yiqtol of line 44. The addressee is not introduced again
and, since this section is also being used elsewhere (Jeremiah 5,29 and 9,9), it
can best be regarded as a redactional addition. This, however, does not alter
the process of syntactic analysis. V. 9 is part of the same domain of discourse.
It can be read as a preliminary conclusion, addressing again the unidentified
two plurals of the main line communication in v. 1 and 10.
The use of the verbs in this section demonstrates some of the interesting
features NICCACCI discussed in his 2006 article: the main line of the communi-
cation is in yiqtol (lines 44.52 and 56), and the background information, pro-
viding the arguments for the main statements, uses qatal (lines 45.50). Qatals
can be elaborated by wayyiqtols, as in lines 46-48; however, qatal sections can
also be terminated by yiqtols, as in lines 49 and 51. In my view (to be elabo-
rated in the paragraph below), this arrangement of verbal forms elaborates the
line of argumentation. The clause with a fronted subject—“it is your sons that
have left me”—is continued by a short story (“Sprosserzählung”, in the gram-
mar of SCHNEIDER) in lines 46-48. But the argument is not just a story; it ends
with an actual situation—in yiqtol: “they even troop into the houses of harlots”
(the lexical interpretation of the verb is uncertain). Similarly, in lines 50-51
(v. 8ab) the qatal is followed by yiqtol: “well equipped stallions they have be-
come, each of them neighs (yiqtol) to its neighbours wife”.
3.3. Third domain of discourse

Lines 14-43 (v. 3-6)
Once the syntactic connections of lines 1-13 and 44-56, indicative of the se-
cond domain of communication, have been established, the section of lines
14-43 (v. 3-6) is, as a consequence, regarded as further embedded: a third do-
main, located within the higher level discourse about ‘you’ (plural), ‘I’ and
‘the city’ (‘her’ and ‘you’; fem. sg.). There is a complete change of partici-
pants in this domain, as well as a change of the clause types used: qatal is now
dominant. Based on the clause types used and on the sets of participants, the
domain of lines 14-43 can be subdivided into two sections:
Lines 14-24 (v. 3)
These lines are addressed to YHWH, the vocative in line 14, and followed by the
fronted element (“your eyes”) and a nominal clause: “YHWH, your eyes, aren’t
they in search for truth (cf. v. 1, line 8)?” Additional statements, found in lines
17-23, are made in qatal, giving information in past perspective or as back-
ground concerning what God has done. “You have shattered them, but
they …”.
336
An_78.indb 347 21/06/11 15:40

Lines 25-43 (v. 4-6)

Here an ‘I’ is speaking about ‘they’ and ‘YHWH’. Since the introduction of the
‘I’ speaking is done by a w-x-qatal clause ( +# + subject + qatal), this clause (line
25) is analysed as a second part of the dialogue with YHWH that started in line
14. “I myself have said …”. In lines 26-33, this ‘I’ is addressing himself. So
lines 26-33 have to be set apart as an embedded, fourth domain of discourse.
Line 25, “Then I myself have said”, is syntactically continued by line 34,
which is also a qatal clause with a fronted subject: “Certainly, they, they to-
gether have broken …”. From line 34 on, qatals dominate. However, here
again one can observe that qatal sections, which provide background informa-
tion, are concluded by yiqtol clauses (lines 37 and 41): “For that reason a lion
from the forest has slain them, a wolf from the desert destroys them. A leopard
is watching, … everyone who goes out is torn into pieces.” Here again one
finds that the argument built up by qatal (what has happened) is continued by
yiqtol (what is happening as a consequence even now at the moment of com-
munication).
3.4. Fourth domain of discourse

Line 26-33 (v. 4b-5d)
The direct speech section where the prophet addresses himself begins with a
statement of fact by a nominal clause—“certainly these are the poor”—fol-
lowed by qatal. This is background information serving as the first argument
for the main statement in this section, the yiqtol (cohortative) continued by
weyiqtol: “Let me go …”. The "C-qatal following provides the assumption
that provides the second argument: “no doubt it is they who know the ways
of YHWH”.
4. Testing. Text grammar and poetry
Once a text syntactic hierarchy of a text has been established, one has the ma-
terials on one’s desk to perform two tests on textual structure20: first, the usage
of the verbal forms in poetic discourse and second, the comparison of a text
syntactic approach and a rhetorical approach of text segmentation. These two
tests interrelate since one can only analyse the use of the verbs in each
(sub)domain of the discourse separately. In this way, one can search for pat-
terns of clause type connections and experiment to find a consistent means of
grammatical interpretation. As such, this testing is also a way to find out how
far one can get with a consistent ‘form to function’ approach.
20
TALSTRA, Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry.
337
An_78.indb 348 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 349
4.1.
Verbal forms. The relative short text discussed may be sufficient to conclude
that the thesis defended by NICCACCI is a promising start for continued research:
the use of verbs in poetry is not free but is instead part of a linguistic system.
The matrix of verbal functions in prose, as described by NICCACCI (248), is ap-
plicable to poetic texts as well. Discussion is needed on additional verbal pat-
terns that occur in poetry. From textual hierarchies, as presented here, one
should first list the patterns of clause connections found, such as imperative—
0-imperative; imperative—w-imperative; imperative—yiqtol; yiqtol—w-yiqtol;
qatal—yiqtol, and see how these patterns are further connected within a partic-
ular domain of communication. In the text segment of Jeremiah 5,1-9 one can
observe that the usage of these patterns fits the matrix of verbal forms in direct
speech sections of narrative texts, as presented by NICCACCI. Yiqtol and impera-
tive present the main line of communication, weyiqtol a next step: promise,
possibility, a goal chosen. Background information (i. e., a secondary line of
communication with respect to yiqtol clauses or verbless clauses, such as in
lines 14-16.26) is presented by qatal (lines 17-24). Such qatals can be contin-
ued by wayyiqtols, as in lines 46-48 (v. 6). Thus in background sections we
find that pattern creating a ‘short story’ as part of the argument built up in a
text segment. Similar to direct speech sections in prose texts, narrative sections
are used as embedded within the main line of communication (cf. 1 Sam
12,6ff).
As demonstrated above, one also finds qatal—yiqtol, as in lines 37.41 (v. 6)
and lines 49.51 (v. 7). Does this pattern used in poetry still fit into the system
as defined for prose: yiqtol is main line (foreground) and qatal is secondary
line (background)? NICCACCI sees two functions for the qatal—yiqtol pattern21:
1. these verbs can function according to their own temporal axis (i. e., qatal re-
ferring to past and yiqtol to future) and 2. both verbal forms can act on the
temporal axis of the past, in which case qatal presents a single fact and yiqtol
functions as habitual.
I am not convinced that one should use the features of time reference and
aspect in a context of syntactic analysis where verbs are analysed primarily as
markers of linguistic communication. SCHNEIDER, in his grammar, dismissed
these features as primary markers of verbal function. He rather saw time refe-
rence or aspectual features as an effect of particular lexical items added in a
clause (e. g., adverbs). In my view, the hierarchical syntactic structure of a poe-
tic text has to be taken here into consideration as an important factor in the
analysis. Instead of the ‘temporal axis’, it is the hierarchical position that the
yiqtol clause takes within the text that helps to clarify its function. To focus on
21
NICCACCI, The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry, 249-250.253-255; summary
on 266.
349
An_78.indb 349 21/06/11 15:40

one example: NICCACCI discusses (258) the order of qatal—yiqtol in Psalm

78,20. Both verbs function in this text in the context of reference to the past:
qatal gives “a single piece of historical information” (257) and yiqtol “contin-
uous action”. NICCACCI translates: “Behold, he smote (qatal) the rock and water
gushed out (wayyiqtol), indeed, streams were overflowing (yiqtol).” In my
view these lines are not, as such, a reference to the past. They are part of an ar-
gument in an embedded direct speech section where Israel questions the power
of God. Their main question is whether God can arrange (yiqtol) a table in the
desert (19b). V. 20 gives the argumentation, starting with background verbal
forms: “Clearly, He has smashed a rock, and water gushed out.” Yiqtol ends
this background section: “and streams flow over.” This concluding yiqtol
marks the shift back into the main communication, with Israel saying: “We ad-
mit these streams as a fact.” Then the next line connects back to the mainline
question of 19b: “Can (yiqtol) he also give bread?”
The same analysis (the hierarchy of primary and secondary lines of com-
munication) is also valid for the cases in Jeremiah 5 discussed above. In gene-
ral terms one may state that in sections of secondary line communication the
qatal presents the prior information the addressee needs to have in order to
process the information the reader is to get from the main line of textual com-
munication. When yiqtols are used to close the range of qatal clauses, they
conclude the argument and indicate in what way all the background informa-
tion given produces a valid argument for the main line communication. Thus,
line 49 closes the qatal section started in line 45, and line 51 closes a second
short qatal section started with line 50. Lines 37 and 41 in a similar way close
the qatal section started in line 34.
4.2. Text segmentation: balance or hierarchy?

At first sight, the linguistic segmentation of the text into paragraphs and the li-
terary rhetorical segmentation by LUNDBLOM into stanzas match reasonably
well. Disagreement begins when one considers the different views on textual
structure as a whole. Especially LUNDBLOM’s proposal of an additional ordering
of the stanzas themselves into a chiastic structure does not match with a text
syntactic hierarchy. A minor detail is the position of the first line of v. 4 (line
25). From a text syntactic point of view this line is continued in v. 5 (line 34),
the direct speech section of the prophet addressing himself being embedded
deeper into the discourse structure, since it is located between these two qatal
clauses. But this detail also demonstrates the differences. In LUNDBLOM’s analy-
sis stanzas are unified sections of poetic expression that only as a whole can
become part of a larger literary structure. Thus, stanza 3 (lines 25-33) is consi-
dered a unity. Moreover, since it is posited in the centre of stanzas 1-5, this
middle stanza presenting Jeremiah’s speech about the poor and the powerful is
considered the centre and peak of the composition. Stanzas 1-2 and 4-5 are re-
339
An_78.indb 350 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 351
garded as a chiastic frame around it. However, this chiastic ordering has some
linguistic implications. First, the proposed chiastic frame seems to require that
in stanza 4 Jeremiah speaks to YHWH, since he does the same in stanza 2. The
text of stanza 4, however, has no linguistic indication of YHWH as the addres-
see, and one may question why the prophet would inform YHWH about the con-
sequences of Jerusalem’s sinful behaviour.
Secondly, stanza 5 matches stanza 1 with the repetition of the verb F4A.
However, this is not mere repetition, since in the course of the various dia-
logues the discourse appears to proceed. After the option expressed in stanza
1—“so that I may forgive”—the discourse has come to a negative conclusion
in stanza 5: “how could I forgive?”. Finally, stanza 9 is regarded as a redac-
tional addition. That may be correct, but why for that reason exclude this seg-
ment from the rhetorical analysis? Only because it would ruin the proposed
chiastic composition? But what is then the communicative power of the fi-
nal text as we have it? This seems a confusion of rhetorical and redactional a-
nalysis.
The chiastic ordering of stanzas, as proposed by LUNDBLOM, does not match

with the text syntactic hierarchy as presented in the Appendix. The main point
of disagreement concerns the analysis of a poetic text as a balanced unity and
the analysis of a poetic text as a proceeding discourse.
A discourse is, in terms of text grammar, not a text expressing itself prima-
rily by features of balance and beauty. A discourse represents a communica-
tive process, using arguments, questions and statements, with its peak or its
conclusions being more at the end of all dialogues rather then in the middle.
The question is why a chiastic pattern, with stanza 3 in the middle position,
would be a more effective presentation of the text’s communication than an
hierarchical ordering that follows the discourse as a communicative process.
Read that way, stanza 3, with Jeremiah’s speech about the poor and the power-
ful, represents a next and disappointing observation: nowhere can the righteous
person desired be traced. If one wants to see a ‘peak’, it should be in the ques-
tion about F4A in v. 7: is there any argument left for Me to forgive? The search
of v. 1 has been in vain.
4.3. Conclusions.
In conclusion, here are a few statements summarizing the thesis of this contri-
bution.
1. Verbal forms in poetic texts are not used freely; they function within a lin-
guistic system. Their functions in poetry are not really different than those of
verbal forms in prose. The verbal system in poetry has most in common with
the use of verbs in direct speech sections in prose.
340
An_78.indb 351 21/06/11 15:40

2. Research into the verbal system of poetry can not be done by a concentra-
tion on more or less isolated pairs of clauses only. It is only effective when
done in interaction with text syntax and textual hierarchy. The function of
verbal forms interacts with the position of the verbal clauses in the syntactic
hierarchy.
3. The study of verbal syntax in poetry requires a textual analysis where syn-
tax takes priority over colometrical and rhetorical analysis. Poetic lines, the
cola, can be defined by the syntactic clauses identified and not the other way
round. Poetry selects particular clause types to define a colon.
4. The fact that poetry is very selective in the clause types it uses and is also
very effective in the clause types it combines to create poetic lines (cola)
makes it a promising field for further text syntactic research. Can one further
integrate text grammar, analysis of clause types, the marking of participants
and the hierarchy of communicative domains with the study of poetic features
used for effective public performance, such as assonance, lexical repetition,
limited clause length?
Eep Talstra
Vrije Universiteit—Faculty of Theology (‘Werkgroep Informatica’), Amsterdam
Bibliography
CARROLL R., Jeremiah (Old Testament Library), London 1986 (Reprint 1996).
CLOETE W. T. W., Versification and Syntax in Jeremiah 2-25: Syntactic Con-
straints in Hebrew Colometry (Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series 117), Atlanta 1989.
FISCHER G., Jeremiah 1-25 (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Te-
stament), Freiburg - Basel - Wien 2005.
FOKKELMAN J. P., Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible: At the Interface of Pros-
ody and Structural Aanalysis. Volume III: The Remaining 65 Psalms (Stu-
dia Semitica Neerlandica 43), Assen 2003.
LUNDBLOM J. R., Jeremiah 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (Anchor Bible), New York 1999.
NICCACCI A., “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry”, JSOT 74 (1997) 77-93.
352
An_78.indb 352 21/06/11 15:40

Eep Talstra 353

247-268.
O’CONNOR M., Hebrew Verse Structure, Winona Lake 21997.
ROSENBAUM M., Word-Order Variation in Isaiah 40-55. A Functional Perspec-
tive (Studia Semitica Neerlandica 35), Assen 1997.
SCHNEIDER W., Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch, München 92002.
TALSTRA E., “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible. I: Elements of a Theory”, Bib-
liotheca Orientalis 35 (1978) 169-174; “Text Grammar and Hebrew Bible.
II: Syntax and Semantics”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 39 (1982) 26-38.
TALSTRA E., “Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Linguistic Structure or Rhetori-
cal Device?”, JNWSL 25 (1999) 101-126.
TALSTRA E., “Text segmentation and linguistic levels: Preparing data for
SESB”, in Handbook SESB (Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible), Stuttgart -
Haarlem 2004, 23-26.
TALSTRA E., “A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative”, in E. J.
VAN WOLDE (ed.), Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible. Papers of the Til-
burg Conference 1996 (Biblical Interpretation Series 29), Leiden 1997,
85-118.
WATSON W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques, Shef-
field 1984.
WENDLAND E. R., The Discourse Analysis of Hebrew Prophetic Literature: De-
marcating the Larger Textual Units of Hosea and Joel (Mellen Biblical
Press Series 40), Lewiston - Queenston - Lampeter 1995.
342
An_78.indb 353 21/06/11 15:40

An_78.indb 354
Appendix 1 Syntax Ref. Colometry .
Text ln domain Pred Vrs Cloete Lundblom
-
[<Co>
‫<[ ]בחוצות ירושלם‬Pr> ‫]שוטטו‬ L1 Q Impv 2plM 01 1.a Stanza 1.
[<Ij> ‫<[ ]נא‬Pr> ‫<[ ]ראו‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ | | | L2 Q Impv 2plM 01 1.b .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]דעו‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ | | | L3 Q Impv 2plM 01 = .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]ברחובותיה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]בקשו‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ | | | L4 Q Impv 2plM 01 1.c .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]איש‬Pr> ‫<[ ]תמצאו‬Cj> ‫]אם‬ | | | | L5 Q xYqt 2plM 01 1.d .
[<eX> ׁ‫]יש‬ [<Cj> ‫]אם‬ | | | | | L6 Q NmCl ---- 01 1.e .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]משפט‬PC> ‫]עשה‬ | | | | | L7 Q PtcA -sgM 01 = .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]אמונה‬PC> ‫]מבקש‬ | | | | | L8 Q PtcA -sgM 01 1.f .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]לה‬Pr> ‫]אסלח‬ [<Cj>‫]ו‬ | | | | L9 Q Wey0 1sg- 01 1.g .
[<Cj> ‫]ואם‬ | | | L10 Q Defc ---- 02 2.a .

===================================================================+| | | | ======= . . .
[<Su> ‫<[ ]יהוה‬PC> ‫|| ]חי‬ | | | L11 QQ NmCl ---- 02 = .
===================================================================+| | | | ======= . . .
[<Pr> ‫]יאמרו‬ | | | L12 Q WxYq 3plM 02 = .
[<Pr> ‫]ישבעו‬ [<Aj> ‫]לשקר‬ [<Cj> ‫]לכן‬ | | | L13 Q xYqt 3plM 02 2.b .
[<Vo> ‫]יהוה‬ | | L14 Q Voct ---- 03 3.a 3.a Stanza 2
[<Fr> ‫| ]עיניך‬ | | | L15 Q CPen ---- 03 = = .
[<PC> ‫]לאמונה‬ [<Ng>

‫<[ ]לוא‬Qu>‫]ה‬ | | | | L16 Q NmCl ---- 03 = 3.b .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]אתם‬Pr> ‫| ]הכיתה‬ | | L17 Q 0Qtl 2sgM 03 3.b c .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]חלו‬Ng> ‫<[ ]לא‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ | | | L18 Q WxQt 3pl- 03 = = .
[<PO> ‫| ]כליתם‬ | | L19 Q 0Qtl 2sgM 03 3.c d .
[<Pr> ‫]מאנו‬ | | | L20 Q 0Qtl 3pl- 03 = = .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]מוסר‬Pr> ‫| ]קחת‬ | | | | L21 Q InfC ---- 03 = = .
[<Aj> ‫<[ ]מסלע‬Ob> ‫<[ ]פניהם‬Pr> ‫| ]חזקו‬ | | | L22 Q 0Qtl 3pl- 03 3.d e .
[<Pr> ‫]מאנו‬ | | | L23 Q 0Qtl 3pl- 03 3.e f .
[<Pr> ‫]לשוב‬ | | | L24 Q InfC ---- 03 = = .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]אמרתי‬Su> ‫<[ ]אני‬Cj>‫]ו‬ | | L25 Q WXQt 1sg- 04 4.a Stanza 3
===================================================================+| | | ======= . . .
[<Su> ‫]הם‬ [<PC> ‫<[ ]דלים‬Mo> ‫]אך‬ || | | L26 QQ AjCl -plM 04 =+b .
[<Pr> ‫| ]נואלו‬ || | | L27 QQ 0Qtl 3pl- 04 4.b .
[<Ob> ‫]דרך יהוה‬ [<Pr> ‫]ידעו‬ [<Ng> ‫]לא‬ [<Cj> ‫]כי‬ | || | | L28 QQ xQtl 3pl- 04 4.c .
21/06/11 15:40
An_78.indb 355
[<Ob> ‫]משפט אלהיהם‬ | || | | L29 QQ Ellp ---- 04 4.d .
[<Co>
‫<[ ]אל הגדלים‬sc> ‫<[ ]לי‬Pr> ‫]אלכה‬ || | | L30 QQ 0Yqt 1sg- 05 5.a .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]אותם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]אדברה‬Cj>‫| ]ו‬ || | | L31 QQ Wey0 1sg- 05 5.b .
[<Ob> ‫<[ ]דרך יהוה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]ידעו‬Su> ‫<[ ]המה‬Cj> ‫]כי‬ || | | L32 QQ xQtl 3pl- 05 5.c .
[<Ob> ‫]משפט אלהיהם‬ || | | L33 QQ Ellp ---- 05 5.d .

===================================================================+| | | ======= . . .
[<Ob> ‫]על‬ [<Pr> ‫]שברו‬ [<Mo>
‫<[ ]יחדו‬Su> ‫<[ ]המה‬Mo> ‫]אך‬ | | L34 Q XQtl 3pl- 05 5.e Stanza 4
[<Ob>
‫<[ ]מוסרות‬Pr> ‫| | ]נתקו‬ | | L35 Q 0Qtl 3pl- 05 5.f .
[<Su><sp> ‫ מיער‬/ ‫<[ ]אריה‬PO> ‫<[ ]הכם‬Cj> ‫| ]על כן‬ | | L36 Q xQtl 3sgM 06 6.a .
[<PO> ‫<[ ]ישדדם‬Su> ‫]זאב ערבות‬ | | | L37 Q XYqt 3sgM 06 6.b .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]על עריהם‬PC> ‫<[ ]שקד‬Su> ‫]נמר‬ | | | L38 Q PtcA -sgM 06 6.c .
[<Su> ‫]כל‬ | | | L39 Q Defc ---- 06 6.d .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]מהנה‬Pr> ‫<[ ]יוצא‬Re> ‫| ]ה‬ | | | L40 Q PtcA -sgM 06 = .
[<Pr> ‫]יטרף‬ | | | L41 Q XYqt 3sgM 06 = .
[<Su> ‫<[ ]פשעיהם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]רבו‬Cj> ‫]כי‬ | | L42 Q xQtl 3pl- 06 6.e .
[<Su> ‫<[ ]משבותיהם‬Pr> ‫]עצמו‬ | | L43 Q 0Qtl 3pl- 06 6.f .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]לך‬Pr> ‫<[ ]אסלוח‬Aj> ‫<[ ]לזאת‬Qu> ‫]אי‬ | L44 Q xYqt 1sg- 07 7.a Stanza 5
[<PO> ‫<[ ]עזבוני‬Su> ‫| ]בניך‬ | L45 Q XQtl 3pl- 07 7.b .

------------------------------------------------------------------+| | | | ------- . . . .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]בלא אלהים‬Pr> ‫<[ ]ישבעו‬Cj>‫]ו‬ || | | | L46 QN Way0 3plM 07 7.c .
[<Ob>‫<[ ]אותם‬Pr> ‫<[ ]אשבע‬Cj>‫]ו‬ || | | | L47 QN Way0 1sg- 07 7.d .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]ינאפו‬Cj>‫]ו‬ || | | | L48 QN Way0 3plM 07 = .

------------------------------------------------------------------+| | | | ------- . . . .
[<Pr> ‫]יתגדדו‬ [<Co> ‫]בית זונה‬ [<Cj>‫]ו‬ | | | L49 Q WxYq 3plM 07 7.e .
[<Pr> ‫]היו‬ [<Su><sp>

‫ משכים‬/ ‫| ]סוסים מיזנים‬ | L50 Q XQtl 3pl- 08 8.a .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]יצהלו‬Co> ‫<[ ]אל אשת רעהו‬Aj> ‫]איש‬ | | L51 Q xYqt 3plM 08 8.b .
[<Pr> ‫<[ ]אפקד‬Ng> ‫<[ ]לוא‬Co> ‫<[ ]על אלה‬Qu>‫]ה‬ | L52 Q xYqt 1sg- 09 9.a addition
[<PC> ‫| ]נאם יהוה‬ | L53 Q NmCl ---- 09 . . .
[<Co> ‫<[ ]בגוי‬Cj> ‫]ואם‬ | L54 Q Defc ---- 09 9.b .
[<PC> ‫<[ ]כזה‬Re> ‫| ]אשר‬ | L55 Q NmCl ---- 09 = .
[<Su> ‫<[ ]נפשי‬Pr> ‫<[ ]תתנקם‬Ng> ‫]לא‬ | L56 Q xYqt 3sgF 09 9.c .
| ---------.
[<Co> ‫]בשרותיה‬ [<Pr> ‫]עלו‬ L57 Q Impv 2plM 10 10.a .
21/06/11 15:40
An_78.indb 356 21/06/11 15:40
David Volgger
Die Bestattung Jakobs (Gen 50,1-14) – oder: Die Tora

Israels auf dem Weg von Ägypten nach Kanaan
1. Einleitung
Das letzte Kapitel des Buches Genesis erzählt in den Versen 1-14 von der Be-
stattung Jakobs, der zwar in Ägypten gestorben, aber in Kanaan, in der Höhle
von Machpela, beigesetzt worden ist. Am Ende der Josefsgeschichte, die von
Gen 37 bis 50 reicht und großteils in Ägypten spielt, rückt somit das gelobte
Land von neuem in den Mittelpunkt des Erzählinteresses. Will man diesen lite-
rarischen Befund erklären, muss man meines Erachtens folgende Tatsache be-
achten: Die Josefsgeschichte ist nicht bloß Teil einer spannenden Ursprungser-
zählung des Volkes Israel mit zahlreichen Überraschungen, sie gehört auch zur
„Tora Moses“, wie sie im Pentateuch vorliegt. Das hebräische Wort „Tora“ be-
zeichnet dabei einen ganz bestimmten „Lebensstil“, der erklärt, warum man
sich als Israelit oder Israelitin so verhält und nicht anders. Die Tora legt also
fest, was dem „way of life“ des Volkes Israel entspricht und was dem wider-
spricht.
Interpretiert man Gen 50,1-14 in diesem Horizont, so gilt es folgende Fra-
gen zu beantworten: Was bedeutet die Bestattung Jakobs in Kanaan für ganz
Israel? Welche göttlichen Weisungen lassen sich aus der Erzählung über die
Bestattung Jakobs ableiten? Inwiefern ist dieser Abschnitt ein organischer Be-
standteil der gesamten Tora in den fünf Büchern Moses?1
Zunächst sollen aber die Ausführungen in Gen 50,1-14 mit all ihren Details
eingehend untersuchen werden, um abschließend ihre Gesamtaussage im Hori-
zont der Tora Israels textgerecht zu ermitteln.
1
Mit diesem Beitrag wünsche ich meinem Kollegen und Jubilar Prof. Dr. Alviero NICCACCI
„Frieden und Heil“. A. NICCACCI hat sich intensiv und detailliert mit dem ägyptischen Einfluss
auf das Alte Testament auseinandergesetzt, wie beispielsweise seine Studie „Sullo sfondo Egi-
ziano di Esodo 1-15“, 7-43, zeigt.
343
An_78.indb 357 21/06/11 15:40

358 Die Bestattung Jakobs (Gen 50,1-14)
2. Die Textstruktur von Gen 50,1-14
Nach dem Tod Jakobs gingen seine zwölf Söhne daran, den letzten Willen ih-
res Vaters in die Tat umzusetzen. Die Ausführungen zur Bestattung Jakobs in
Gen 50,1-14 lassen sich in zwei Abschnitte gliedern: Der erste Abschnitt
50,1-11 erzählt ausführlich, wie der Leichnam Schritt für Schritt für das Be-
gräbnis vorbereitet (V. 1-6) und aus Ägypten bis an die Grenze Kanaans trans-
portiert wurde (V. 7-11). Damit ging die Bitte Jakobs an seinen Sohn Josef in
Erfüllung (Gen 47,30f): „Begrab mich nicht in Ägypten! … bring mich fort
aus Ägypten…!“ Der zweite Abschnitt 50,12f erzählt vom Trauerzug der
zwölf Söhne Jakobs von der Grenze Kanaans bis zur Höhle von Machpela. Da-
mit ging die Bitte Jakobs an alle zwölf Söhne in Erfüllung, seinen Leichnam ja
in der Höhle von Machpela zu bestatten (Gen 49,29-33). Die gesamte Erzäh-
lung schließt mit der Rückkehr des Trauerzugs nach Ägypten (Gen 50,14). In
Übereinstimmung mit dieser Textstruktur steht zunächst Josef in 50,1-11 als
zentrale Handlungsfigur im Vordergrund. Die zwölf Söhne, die natürlich alle
am Trauerzug bis zur Grenze Kanaans teilgenommen haben (Gen 50,8), treten
aber erst ab Vers 50,12 gemeinsam in Erscheinung.
3. Die Freigabe von Jakobs Leichnam durch den Pharao

(Gen 50,1-6)
Mögen auch alle Söhne um Jakob geweint haben, Vers 1 spricht nur von Josef
und seiner Reaktion auf das Ableben seines Vaters: „Er warf sich auf das
Angesicht seines Vaters, weinte um ihn und küsste ihn.“ Bei einem Todesfall
zu weinen, gehörte zum allgemeinen Trauerritual. Es sei daran erinnert, dass
bereits Abraham um seine Frau Sara weinte (Gen 23,2). Einen Verstorbenen
zu küssen kommt hier zum ersten und einzigen Mal im Buch Genesis vor und
galt wohl als Zeichen des Abschieds.2
Im Anschluss daran folgen mehrere Handlungen, die dazu angetan waren,
den Abtransport des Leichnams eher zu verzögern als zu beschleunigen. Jakob
hat nicht darum gebeten, seinen Leichnam einbalsamieren zu lassen. Dennoch
befahl Josef den ägyptischen Ärzten, auf diese Weise den Körper seines ver-
storbenen Vaters zu behandeln (Gen 50,2). Das hebräische Wort für „Einbalsa-
mieren“ (jGnx) kommt im TaNaK nur in diesem Kapitel vor (Gen 50,2f.26). Ja-
kob und später Josef waren die einzigen Israeliten, deren Leichen auf diese
Weise für die Bestattung vorbereitet wurden.3 Offensichtlich bedurfte es dazu
2
Zu Gen 50,1 vgl. JACOB, Das erste Buch der Tora, 931f.
3
Nur dem Leichnam Asas, des Königs von Juda, wurde nach 2 Chr 16,14 eine spezielle Be-
handlung zu Teil, bevor er in der Davidsstadt begraben wurde; vgl. GALPAZ-FELLER, And the
Physicians Embalmed Him, 211.
344
An_78.indb 358 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 359
ägyptischer Spezialisten,4 die nach ihrer Tradition den Körper des Verstorbe-
nen einerseits in mehrere Teile zerlegten und andererseits zu einer neuen Inte-
grität wieder zusammenfügten. Bei dieser Bestattungspraxis mag der Tod als
Zerrissenheit und das (neue) Leben als Verbindung der einzelnen Körperteile
aufleuchten. Jan ASSMANN hat dieses ägyptische Todesbild, das auch im My-
thos von Isis und Osiris verankert ist, bestens nachgezeichnet.5 Für unseren
Zusammenhang ist von Bedeutung, dass Jakobs Einbalsamierung in Gen 50
frei von mythischen, magischen oder theologischen Implikationen bleibt und
lediglich als Teilaspekt der ägyptischen Begräbnispraxis gekennzeichnet wird.6
Vielleicht sollten die Ärzte den Leichnam „nur“ für eine lange Reise vor-
bereiten? Auch in diesem Fall wäre die Einbalsamierung, die Josef angeordnet
hat, ein erster Schritt, um Jakobs letzten Willen zu erfüllen.7 Die ganze Proze-
dur dauerte jedenfalls 40 Tage (V. 3).
Die Ägypter, so setzt der Text in Vers 3 fort, beweinten den Toten 70 Tage.
Diese Trauerperiode dürfte wohl die 40 Tage der Einbalsamierung einschlie-
ßen.8 Von Interesse ist dabei, dass die Ägypter die Initiative ergriffen und den
Toten beweint haben. Ob auch die Söhne Israels an diesem ägyptischen Trau-
erbrauch teilgenommen haben,9 verrät der Text nicht eindeutig. In diesem Fall
wären sie im Subjekt „die Ägypter“ (in V. 3) enthalten. Josef machte jedenfalls
keinerlei Anstalten, dieses ägyptische Totenritual zu unterbinden oder abzu-
brechen. Er ließ die Tage des Weinens vorübergehen ebenso wie die Tage der
Einbalsamierung (Gen 50,3f).10
Erst im Anschluss daran ergriff Josef selbst die Initiative (V. 4-6) und be-
kundete dem Pharao den letzten Willen seines Vaters. Dabei ging er besonders
behutsam vor, als würde er etwas ganz Außergewöhnliches von seinem ägypti-
schen Landesherrn fordern.11 Er nahm nämlich nicht direkt mit dem Pharao
Kontakt auf, sondern wandte sich zunächst an die Beamten am Hof, die dann
seine Bitte an die richtige Adresse weiterleiten sollten. Zu diesem Zweck ver-
sicherte sich Josef der Gunst der Beamten, „wenn ich in euren Augen Gunst
4
GALPAZ-FELLER, And the Physicians Embalmed Him, 214-216, weist darauf hin, dass Gen
50,2 nicht von speziellen Einbalsamierungspriestern spricht, sondern von Ärzten, die normaler-
weise für Krankheiten zuständig waren.
5
Vgl. dazu ASSMANN, Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten, 29-53.
6
Mit der Formulierung ~yjinUx]h; ymey> Wal.m.yI !Ke yKi in Vers 3 dürfte wohl ein ägyptischer Brauch
angesprochen sein; vgl. dazu auch Est 2,12 und BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Ja-
cob, 23f.
7
Der Name „Israel“ für „Jakob“ in Gen 50,2 kommt nur einmal in Gen 50,1-14 vor und
dürfte auf den Auftrag Jakobs an Josef in Gen 47,29-31 zurückweisen; vgl. BERMAN, Identity Po-
litics and the Burial of Jacob, 24.
8
Vgl. GALPAZ-FELLER, And the Physicians Embalmed Him, 213.
9
So GALPAZ-FELLER, And the Physicians Embalmed Him, 212.
10
Zur Trauer um Jakob vgl. BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 24f.
11
Zur Anfrage Josefs an den pharaonischen Hof vgl. BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Buri-
al of Jacob, 25f.
345
An_78.indb 359 21/06/11 15:40

gefunden habe“ (V. 4) und unterstrich dabei seine Position als Bittsteller gleich
zwei Mal durch das hebräische an', „bitte, doch“ (V. 4). Diese beiden sprachli-
chen Merkmale erinnern an die Worte Jakobs, mit denen er Josef in Gen 47,29
gebeten hat, seinen letzten Willen zu erfüllen.
Jakob Gen 47,29 Wenn ich doch Gunst in deinen Augen gefunden habe …
Josef Gen 50,4 Wenn ich doch Gunst in euren Augen gefunden habe …
Im Anschluss daran erwartet der Leser von Gen 50, dass Josef den letzten Wil-
len seines Vaters in Vers 5 genau wiederholt. Überraschenderweise änderte er
aber einiges am Wortlaut der direkten Rede Jakobs aus Gen 47,29f:12
Jakob Gen 47,29f Leg doch deine Hand unter meine Hüfte, dass du mir Lie-
be und Treue erweist:
Begrab mich nicht in Ägypten!
(30) Und wenn ich mich zu meinen Vätern gelegt habe,
bring mich fort aus Ägypten und begrab mich in ihrer
Grabstätte.
Josef Gen 50,5 Mein Vater hat mich beschworen:
Siehe, ich sterbe!
In meinem Grab, das ich für mich im Land Kanaan ge-
graben habe, dorthin begrabe mich.
Die Unterschiede, die den Schwurgestus betreffen, sind noch geringfügig.
Während Josef in 50,5 vorgab, sich durch Schwur seinem Vater verpflichtet zu
haben, forderte Jakob in 47,29 eine konkrete Geste. Josef sollte seine Hand un-
ter dessen Hüfte legen und sich dazu verpflichten, seinen letzten Willen zu er-
füllen. Gen 47,31 bestätigt schließlich, dass Josef der Aufforderung seines Va-
ters, ihm zu schwören, nachgekommen sei: „Und er sprach: Schwöre mir! Und
er schwor ihm (Al [b;V'YIw: yli h['b.V(hi rm,aYOw:).“
Der Inhalt des Schwurs, den Josef in Gen 50,5 wiedergibt, weicht aller-
dings beträchtlich vom Auftrag Jakobs in Gen 47,29f ab, in dem er von allem
Anfang an Ägypten als letzte Ruhestätte kategorisch ausgeschlossen hat:
(47,29) „Begrab mich nicht in Ägypten!“ Josef unterdrückte diese abweisende
Formulierung und setzte an den Beginn des Schwurs den Hinweis auf das per-
sönliche Ableben seines Vaters: (50,5) „Siehe, ich sterbe!“ Mag diese Ankün-
digung der Sache nach mit 47,29f übereinstimmen, der betreffende Vers 47,30
formuliert dennoch anders: „und wenn ich mich zu meinen Vätern gelegt ha-
be.“ Anscheinend wollte Josef vor dem Pharao und seinen Beamten jeglichen
Hinweis auf Jakobs Vorfahren vermeiden.
Jakob sollte nach 50,5 auch nicht in das Grab seiner Väter gelegt werden,
sondern in das Grab, das er im Land Kanaan für sich selbst gegraben habe
(hGrk). Der Hinweis auf ein derartiges Grab fehlt aber nicht nur in den letzten
Willensbekundungen Jakobs, sondern auch im gesamten Buch Genesis (25,19-
12
Vgl. BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 26.
346
An_78.indb 360 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 361
49,33). Nicht einmal Abraham hat für Sara eine Grabstätte in die Erde gegra-
ben oder in den Felsen gehauen. Gen 23 hält dagegen fest, dass Abraham seine
verstorbene Frau lediglich in eine Höhle bei Machpela legte, nachdem er die-
sen Ort mit dem dazugehörige Feld als Grabbesitz erworben hatte. Gen 23 geht
auch nicht weiter darauf ein, ob oder wie Abraham die Höhle als Grabanlage
für seine Frau ausgebaut habe. Er plante auch keine neue Begräbnisstätte für
sich selbst, sondern wurde wie Sara in der Höhle von Machpela beigesetzt
(Gen 25,7-11).
Wenn Jakob seinen Söhnen in Gen 49,31f auftrug, seinen Leichnam in der
Höhle von Machpela beizusetzen, war er sich dessen bewusst, dass dort schon
mehrere Menschen, Männer und Frauen, Seite an Seite lagen. Von daher über-
rascht, dass Josef gegenüber dem Pharao einen ganz anderen Eindruck erweck-
te. Nach seinen Worten habe Jakob, als er noch in Kanaan war, für seine Be-
stattung bereits Vorsorge getroffen und sein eigenes Grab angelegt. Diese Vor-
stellung wäre mit der Begräbnistradition von Machpela, wie sie das Buch Ge-
nesis kennt, nur dann vereinbar, wenn man das Grab Jakobs auf einen kleinen
Locus in der Familiengrabstätte beschränken würde. Die Vorbereitungen Ja-
kobs wären dann aber recht bescheiden ausgefallen und würden im Gegensatz
zu den Anstrengungen so mancher Pharaonen stehen, die den Großteil ihres
Lebens mit dem Bau von Felsengräbern oder Pyramiden zugebracht haben.
Josef wollte mit dem Hinweis auf Jakobs persönliche Grabstätte in Kanaan
offenbar an die Begräbnissitten einflussreicher ägyptischer Menschen anschlie-
ßen und damit dem Pharao erklären, warum Jakob nicht in Ägypten, sondern
in Kanaan bestattet werden musste. Wie es nämlich in Ägypten Brauch war,
die Pharaonen oder andere Notablen in ihren selbst geplanten und errichteten
Gräbern beizusetzen, so sollte es auch mit Jakob in Kanaan geschehen.
Gen 50,1-5 zeichnet somit einen Josef, der darum bemüht war, für seinen
verstorbenen Vater eine Bestattung nach ägyptischen Modell vorzubereiten.
Deshalb wurde der Leichnam Jakobs nach ägyptischem Brauch einbalsamiert
und die in Ägypten übliche Frist für die Einbalsamierung und das Beweinen
des Verstorbenen genau eingehalten.13 Zudem sollte der Leichnam nach dem
Vorbild einflussreicher ägyptischer Persönlichkeiten in die Grabstätte gelegt
werden, die diese bereits zu Lebzeiten für sich selbst errichtet haben. Was die
Begräbniskultur betrifft, schien es keine kulturellen Unterschiede zwischen der
Familie Jakobs und den vornehmsten ägyptischen Familien zu geben, als ob
die Tora der Bestattungskultur – zumindest nach Gen 50,1-5 – in Ägypten und
Kanaan bzw. Israel ein und dieselbe wäre.14
13
So auch GALPAZ-FELLER, And the Physicians Embalmed Him, 213.
14
Dass Josef bestrebt war, sich der ägyptischen Kultur und Denkweise anzugleichen, hat
sich nach BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 13-19, bereits in Josefs Auftritt vor
dem ägyptischen Thron in Gen 41,14-46 und seiner Bitte für seine Familie vor dem Pharao in
Gen 46,31-47,10 gezeigt.
347
An_78.indb 361 21/06/11 15:40

Der aufmerksame Leser von Gen 47-50 wird allerdings in 47,29f bemer-
ken, dass Jakob und seine Söhne, sobald sie unter sich waren, sehr wohl anders
dachten und dementsprechend auch planten und handelten. Das gesamte Ver-
halten Josefs in Gen 50,1-5, das ägyptische Begräbniskultur widerspiegelt,
diente also letztlich nur dazu, Jakobs letzten Willen behutsam in die Tat umzu-
setzen, nämlich seinen Leichnam wider Erwarten nicht in Ägypten beizuset-
zen, sondern von dort fortzubringen. Auf diese Weise kam Josef dem Auftrag
seines Vaters aus Gen 47,27-31 nach.
Wenn der Pharao nach Vers 6 seinem Diener Josef die Erlaubnis erteilte,
den Leichnam Jakobs zu bestatten, sprach er lediglich den Weg zum Grab und
die Beisetzung des Verstorbenen an: ^ybia'-ta, rboq.W hle[] „Geh hinauf und begrabe
deinen Vater!“ Es fehlen alle weiteren Details zur Lage und Beschaffenheit
des Grabes. Die Formulierung entspricht dabei dem kleinsten gemeinsamen
Nenner zwischen den letzten Worten Jakobs an seine Söhne und den Worten
Josefs an die pharaonischen Hofbeamten, denen er im Rahmen ägyptischer Be-
stattungspraxis seine Pläne für die Grablegung seines Vaters dargelegt hat.
Wenn der Pharao nicht ausdrücklich darauf bestand, dass Josef nach der Be-
stattung wieder zurückkehrt, war dennoch nichts anderes zu erwarten, weil
dieser sich vor dem Pharao bereits in Vers 5 dazu verpflichtet hatte: „dann
komme ich wieder zurück“.15 Aus der Sicht des Pharao blieb Josef also ein
Ägypter, der den durchaus berechtigten letzten Wunsch seines Vaters erfüllen
wollte. Am Ende kehrte dieser auch wieder nach Ägypten zurück (V. 14), wäh-
rend der Leichnam Israels im Land Kanaan, in der Höhle von Machpela, zu-
rückblieb.
4. Der Trauerzug bis an die Grenze Kanaans (Gen 50,7-11)
Die Verse Gen 50,7-11 schildern den Trauerzug bis zur Grenze Kanaans.
Gleich zu Beginn in Vers 7 heißt es: „Und Josef zog hinauf, um seinen Vater
zu begraben.“ Dies entspricht dem Auftrag Pharaos in Vers 6: „Zieh hinauf,
begrab deinen Vater, wie du geschworen hast.“ Josef ist es also gelungen, den
Pharao davon zu überzeugen, dass sein Vater nur außerhalb von Ägypten be-
stattet werden konnte.
Der Trauerzug setzte sich aus zahlreichen unterschiedlichen Gruppierungen
zusammen (V. 7f): „Alle Diener des Pharao, die Ältesten seines Hauses und al-
le Ältesten des Landes Ägypten (8) und das ganze Haus Josef, seine Brüder
und das Haus seines Vaters.“ An der Spitze der Aufzählung stehen die ägypti-
schen Notabeln, die das Land des Pharao wohl umfassend repräsentierten.
Gleich zweimal wird betont, dass alle Diener des Pharao und alle Ältesten des
15
Vgl. BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 26f.
348
An_78.indb 362 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 363
Landes Ägypten zugegen waren. Auch Wagen und dazugehörige Reiter, natür-
lich allesamt ägyptische Heeresnotabeln, gehörten zum Trauerzug (V. 9).16 Die
gesamte Szenerie konnte den Eindruck erwecken, als ob der Pharao selbst zu
Grabe getragen würde.
Das „Haus Josef, seine Brüder und das Haus seines Vaters“ (V. 8) bildeten
im ganzen Trauergeleit nur eine kleine Untergruppe, wenn man bedenkt, dass
Josef lediglich zwei Söhne und elf Brüder hatte und das Haus seines Vaters Ja-
kob insgesamt etwa 70 Personen zählte (Gen 46,26f).17 Die Kleinkinder und
die Herden Jakobs blieben ohnehin in Goschen zurück (Gen 50,8), was die
Rückkehr der Israeliten nach Ägypten noch sicherer machte.
Der Abschnitt 50,7-9 lässt also keinen Zweifel daran, dass es sich bei dem
Leichenzug um ein ägyptisches Unternehmen handelte. Nur in der Mitte der
Prozession waren Menschen wie Josef und seine Brüder, die wussten, dass der
Weg über die Grenzen Ägyptens und seine Bräuche hinausführen werde.
In Vers 10 heißt es dann, dass der Trauerzug in Goren-Atad, jenseits des
Jordan, Halt machte. „Jenseits des Jordan“ kann je nach Beobachtungsstand-
punkt links oder rechts vom Fluss meinen.18 Der Trauerzug gelangte jedenfalls
am Jordan an eine natürliche Grenze. Im weiteren Textverlauf wird deutlich,
dass es sich dabei auch um eine kulturelle Grenze handelt.
Der gesamte Leichenzug hielt in Goren-Atad eine sehr große und würdige
Totenklage, an der alle teilnahmen, inklusive das Haus Israel mit Josef. Die
Erzählung fährt mit einem Verb im Singular fort, wobei nur Josef als Subjekt
der Handlung in Frage kommt: „und er hielt für seinen Vater eine Trauer von
sieben Tagen (~ymiy" t[;b.vi lb,ae wybia'l. f[;Y:w:).“ Der Leser dürfte sich fragen, ob es
sich dabei um einen ägyptischen oder israelitischen bzw. kanaanäischen Trau-
erbrauch handelte. Von sieben Tagen war allerdings in Ägypten nicht die Re-
de: Die Einbalsamierung Jakobs dauerte nämlich 40 (V. 3) und seine Bewei-
nung insgesamt 70 Tage (V. 3). Es ist also in Gen 50,10 nicht klar, ob Josef ei-
ner ägyptischen oder israelitischen bzw. kanaanäischen Begräbnispraxis folgte,
während der gesamte Trauerzug eine überaus große und würdige Totenklage
abhielt.19
16
Auf einem der Wagen dürfte wohl die Mumie Jakobs transportiert worden sein. BERMAN,
Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 28f, interpretiert das Verb l[yw zu Beginn von Vers 50,9
als H-Stamm mit Josef als Subjekt und führt dazu aus: (S. 29) “If we understand the verb as a
hiphil, with Josef as the actor, then in a sense Joseph has come full circle. Initially, he had
planned to execute the journey and funeral without pomp and circumstance. Upon seeing the im-
mense display of the Egyptian aristocracy, Joseph now adds his own touch to make the occasion
an Egyptian one and initiates the participation of the military. This corps is not merely ‘along-
side’ him (as in wyˁlw ˀtw), but ‘with’ him (as in wyˁl ˁmw).”
17
Vgl. Ex 1,1-5.
18
Zur Route des Trauerzugs und zur geographischen Größe „jenseits des Jordan“ vgl. DEM-
SKY, The Route of Jacob’s Funeral Cortege, 54-63.
19
Eine Trauerperiode von sieben Tagen gab es nach BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Buri-
al of Jacob, 30, nur in Israel, Ugarit und Mesopotamien, nicht aber in Ägypten; vgl. dazu auch
363
An_78.indb 363 21/06/11 15:40

Von besonderem Interesse ist ein Erzähldetail am Ende des zweiten Ab-
schnitts. Vers 11 spricht von ortsansässigen Kanaanitern, die die Trauerfeier
bei Goren-Atad sozusagen von außen beobachteten, ohne daran teilzunehmen.
Sie kamen dabei zum Schluss: „Das ist eine würdige Trauerfeier von Ägyp-
tern.“ In ihren Augen handelte es sich also ganz offensichtlich um ein fremdes,
ägyptisches Ereignis, weshalb sie den Ort auch „Trauer der Ägypter“ (Abel-
Mizrajim) nannten. Die Ortsbezeichnung markierte zugleich eine kulturelle
Grenze, die ägyptische und kanaanäische Trauerbräuche klar voneinander un-
terschied.20 An dieser Stelle, an der Grenze zu Kanaan ging Josefs spezieller
Auftrag zu Ende. Es war ihm nämlich tatsächlich gelungen, den Leichnam sei-
nes Vaters aus Ägypten fortzuschaffen.
Insgesamt gibt auch der Abschnitt Gen 50,6-11 ägyptisches Kulturkolorit
zu erkennen: Der gesamte Leichenzug war ägyptisch dominiert; die große
Trauerfeier am Jordan zeigte in den Augen der Kanaaniter eine ägyptische No-
te; nur Josefs siebentägige Trauer konnte nicht eindeutig als ägyptisches Trau-
erritual identifiziert werden.
Der folgende Abschnitt lässt allerdings mit einer auffälligen Veränderung
aufhorchen: Der ägyptische Trauerzug wandelt sich plötzlich in Gen 50,12f zu
einer rein israelitischen Angelegenheit.
5. Der Trauerzug der zwölf Söhne Jakobs von der Grenze Kanaans
bis zur Höhle von Machpela (Gen 50,12f)
Die Verse 50,12f heben die gemeinsame Verantwortung der zwölf Söhne Ja-
kobs für die Bestattung ihres Vaters hervor.21 Zunächst unterstreicht Vers 12,
dass sie genau das taten, was ihnen Jakob aufgetragen hatte.22 Wenn dann Vers
13 die Taten konkret aufzählt, tauchen nicht nur Phrasen und Worte aus der
Rede Jakobs an seine zwölf Söhne in Gen 49,29-32, sondern auch aus seiner
Rede an Josef in Gen 47,30 (vgl. das Verb aGfn „tragen“) auf. Gen 50,13 führt
also beide Reden Jakobs zusammen und bestätigt, dass nicht nur Josef,
sondern alle zwölf Söhne gemeinsam den letzten Willen ihres Vaters er-
füllt haben.
JACOB, Das erste Buch der Tora, 936.

20
Zur möglichen „Verortung“ von Goren-Atad und Abel-Mizrajim vgl. BARTELMUS, Topo-
graphie und Theologie, 35-57, und SCHWEIZER, Fragen zu Literarkritik von Gen 50, 64-68.
21
Gen 50,12f unterscheidet nicht mehr zwischen Josef und seinen Brüdern; vgl. JACOB, Das
erste Buch der Tora, 937.
22
BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 20-22, weist auf die Ausführungsnotiz
in Gen 50,12(f) hin, die gegenüber Jakobs Auftrag in Gen 49,29-33 relativ spät folgt. Es ist da-
her fraglich, ob alles, was in Gen 50,1-11 erzählt wird, auch tatsächlich als Erfüllung des ur-
sprünglichen Auftrags gewertet werden kann. Vergleiche dazu die anschließende Interpretation
zu Gen 50,12f.
350
An_78.indb 364 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 365
Im Anschluss daran nennt Vers 13 den Bestimmungsort für den Leichnam,

nämlich „das Land Kanaan“ (Gen 49,30), und präzisiert: „die Höhle des Feldes
von Machpela“. Eine kurze Schlussnotiz erklärt noch, warum Jakob gerade in
dieses Grab gelegt werden musste. Es handelte sich dabei nämlich um „das
Feld, das Abraham als Grabbesitz vom Hetiter Efron gegenüber von Mamre
gekauft hatte“. Alle diese Angaben zum Bestattungsort stimmen mit der Rede
Jakobs an seine Söhne in Gen 49,29f überein:
Gen 49,29f in der Höhle, die auf dem Feld des Hetiters Efron ist, (30) in der
Höhle, die auf dem Feld Machpela ist,
die gegenüber von Mamre im Land Kanaan ist, die Abraham mit
dem Feld vom Hetiter Efron als Grabbesitz gekauft hat.
Gen 50,13 … in der Höhle des Feldes Machpela,
die Abraham mit dem Feld als Grabbesitz vom Hetiter Efron ge-
genüber von Mamre gekauft hat.
Der Abschlussvers Gen 50,14 bestätigt, dass Josef nach dem Begräbnis wieder
nach Ägypten zurückgekehrt ist, wie er es dem Pharao nach 50,5 versprochen
hatte.23 Dasselbe taten auch seine Brüder und alle Menschen, die mit dem
Trauerzug zum Begräbnis Jakobs aufgebrochen waren. Am Ende waren Josef
und seine Brüder wieder in Ägypten und unter Ägyptern.24 Gen 50,1-14 lässt
letztlich offen, ob der Pharao und die Ägypter als Figuren der Textwelt von
Gen 47,27-50,14 jemals bemerkt haben, dass Josef und seine Brüder im Ge-
horsam gegenüber dem letzten Willen ihres Vaters Israel die Grenze Ägyptens
bzw. den Rhythmus ägyptischer Lebenswirklichkeit überschritten haben und
in ein neues Land vorgedrungen sind. Die Familie Jakobs und die Höhle
von Machpela in Kanaan haben dieses Geheimnis jedenfalls bis auf weiteres
gehütet.
6. Der Grabbesitz Abrahams in Machpela (Gen 23)
Gen 23,3-20 erzählt davon, wie Abraham für seine verstorbene Frau Sara eine
Grabstätte in Kirjat-Arba bzw. Hebron erworben und ihren Leichnam dort
beigesetzt hat. Gleich zu Beginn wandte er sich an die Einwohner der Stadt
mit seinem Vorhaben, ein Grab für Sara zu kaufen. Ans Ziel gelangte er aber
erst nach zwei Verhandlungsrunden, zunächst mit den hetitischen Notablen im
Stadttor (V. 6-9) und sodann mit dem Hetiter Efron, dem das Feld mit der
Höhle von Machpela gehörte (V. 10-15). Die Verse 16-18 gehen noch auf die
Realisierung (V. 16) und die Folgen (V. 17f) des Rechtsgeschäfts von Abraham
Vgl. BERMAN, Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob, 31.

23
In Gen 50,14 tritt wieder Josef als Anführer seiner Brüder in den Mittelpunkt; vgl. auch
24
NAUMANN, Der Vater in der biblischen Josefserzählung, 61.
351
An_78.indb 365 21/06/11 15:40

und Efron ein, bevor eine Bestattungsnotiz (V. 19) und eine knappe Zusam-
menfassung (V. 20) das Kapitel abschließen.
In der gesamten Erzählung hat Abraham ausschließlich mit den ortsansässi-
gen Hetitern zu tun: Die „Söhne Hets“ (txe-ynEB., V. 3.5) waren seine Gesprächs-
partner und galten als „Bürger des Landes“ (#r<a'h'-~[;, V. 7). In ihrer Anwesen-
heit wandte sich auch der Hetiter Efron an Abraham (V. 10). Die Söhne Hets
waren auch zugegen, als Abraham den Kaufvertrag mit Efron verhandelte
(V. 10.16) und als Rechtsgeschäft ratifizierte (V. 18.20). Die gesamte Szene
fand im Stadttor (V. 10.18) von Kirjat-Arba statt, wo die Söhne Hets als recht-
mäßige Repräsentanten der Stadt und der umliegenden Region die Bitte Abra-
hams anhörten und dem rechtmäßigen Verkauf des Grundstücks durch Efron
beiwohnten.
Das Besondere an Gen 23 ist die Tatsache, dass Abraham nicht irgendein
Grundstück kaufen wollte, sondern ein Grundstück mit einer ganz besonderen
Widmung, nämlich einen „Grabbesitz“. Die relevante hebr. Phrase rb,q,-tZ:xua]
kommt dabei gleich dreimal in Gen 23,3-20 vor:
Erstens: In Vers 4 stellt Abraham eine sehr präzise Bitte an die Hetiter: Er
möchte einen „Grabbesitz“ (rb,q,-tZ:xua) erwerben, um Sara zu begraben. Die He-
titer antworteten ihm, dass seinem Ansinnen nichts im Wege stehe. Sie erklär-
ten sich sogar dazu bereit, die auserlesensten Gräber dafür zur Verfügung zu
stellen. Abraham sollte dort seine Frau Sara in allen Ehren begraben. In den
Augen der Hetiter war allerdings von vornherein klar, dass Abraham nach dem
Begräbnis wieder weiterziehen werde, weil er als „Fremder und Beisasse“
nicht zu ihrer Bürgerschaft gehörte und auch weiterhin auf Wanderschaft blei-
ben werde. Aus diesem Grund boten sie ihm ihre eigenen Grabanlagen an.
Was sie aber nicht wahrgenommen haben oder nicht wahrnehmen wollten, war
der konkrete Inhalt der Bitte Abrahams, nämlich einen eigenen Grabbesitz
(rb,q,-tZ:xua) für Sara zu kaufen, also nicht bloß eine ihrer Begräbnisstätten in An-
spruch zu nehmen (V. 3-8).
Zweitens: In den Versen 8f kommt Abraham auf sein Anliegen zurück und
besteht darauf, einen „Grabbesitz“ (rb,q,-tZ:xua) zu erwerben (V. 9). Er wandte
sich dabei an alle anwesenden Hetiter und versicherte sich ihrer Unterstützung
für die noch ausstehenden Verhandlungen mit Efron. Dieser sollte ihm näm-
lich die Höhle von Machpela um den vollen Kaufpreis überlassen.
Drittens: Vers 20 unterstreicht noch einmal Abrahams ursprüngliche Kauf-
intention und bestätigt, dass die Hetiter, die Bürger von Kirjat-Arba, der spezi-
ellen Widmung des Feldes Efrons tatsächlich zugestimmt haben: „Das Feld
und die Höhle, die darauf ist, sind an Abraham als Grabbesitz (rb,q,-tZ:xua) über-
gegangen von den Söhnen Hets.“
Abraham hat also das Feld Efrons nicht nur als Grundbesitz, sondern als
Grabbesitz, d. h. mit der speziellen Widmung als Begräbnisstätte erworben.
Das Feld mit der Höhle von Machpela ist dadurch auf zweifache Weise mit
352
An_78.indb 366 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 367
dem Haus Abraham verbunden: Als Grundbesitz weist es auf Abraham und al-
le künftigen Nachkommen, die das Feld besitzen werden. Als Grabbesitz weist
es hingegen auf Sara und alle weiteren Verstorbenen aus dem Haus Abraham,
die dort im Laufe der Jahre noch bestattet werden. Die Charakteristik und die
Qualität des Feldes mit der Höhle von Machpela haben sich in Gen 23 also
tiefgreifend geändert.
Die weitere Erzählung in Gen macht deutlich, dass Abraham das Feld nicht
als Acker benutzt hat. Er hat dort auch keine Gedenkbauten errichtet oder re-
gelmäßige Trauerfeiern abgehalten. Insofern ist er ein „Fremder und Beisasse“
im Land Kanaan und in der Umgebung von Kirjat-Arba geblieben. Dennoch
gingen Abraham und sein Haus anlässlich der Bestattung Saras eine ganz be-
sonders enge Beziehung zum Feld und zur Höhle von Machpela ein, so dass
dieser Ort ab diesem Zeitpunkt in unüberbrückbarer Diskontinuität zur dort an-
sässigen Bevölkerung stand. Abraham hat es nämlich strikt abgelehnt, Sara in
einem Grab der Hetiter beizusetzen und legte sie stattdessen in die bis dahin
noch unbenützte Höhle von Machpela, die er zusammen mit dem umliegenden
Feld vom Hetiter Efron gekauft hatte.
Der Grabbesitz Machpela wurde somit zu einem Sinnbild für den Beginn
einer neuen Bürgerschaft, die sich von den Hetitern in Kirjat-Arba oder insge-
samt von den Bewohnern Kanaans eindeutig unterschied.
7. Gen 50,1-14 und die Tora Israels
Nach Gen 50,1-6 scheinen sich israelitische und ägyptische Trauerbräuche, is-
raelitische Tora und ägyptische Lebensweisheit nicht zu unterscheiden. Das
bedeutet aber noch nicht, dass die Trauerrituale, von denen diese Verse han-
deln, jemals als konkrete israelitische Toraweisungen interpretiert wurden, als
ob alle (angesehenen) verstorbenen Israeliten 40 Tage einbalsamiert und 70
Tage betrauert werden müssten. Der gesamte Abschnitt enthält auch kein ein-
ziges Gebot aus dem Munde YHWHs. Zu Beginn haben wir die Frage gestellt:
„Welche göttlichen Weisungen lassen sich aus der Erzählung über die Bestat-
tung Jakobs ableiten?“ Nach den Ausführungen zu Gen 50,1-14 dürfte klar ge-
worden sein, dass aus diesem Abschnitt – im Allgemeinen – keine konkreten
Weisungen für die israelitische Bestattungspraxis folgen.
Die göttliche Tora ist aber auf eine andere Weise das zentrale Thema unse-
rer Erzählung. Die Darlegung dieses Sachverhalts soll zugleich auf die ein-
gangs gestellte Frage antworten: „Inwiefern ist der Abschnitt Gen 50,1-14 ein
organischer Bestandteil der gesamten Tora in den fünf Büchern Moses?“ Dies-
bezüglich gilt es mit Blick auf Saras und Jakobs Begräbnisstätte zunächst fol-
gende Frage zu stellen: Sollte die Tora und ihre Erkenntnis mit dem Tod Is-
raels (bzw. Jakobs) in das kulturelle Wissen der anderen Nationen eingeglie-
353
An_78.indb 367 21/06/11 15:40

dert oder diesem gar untergeordnet werden? Auf die Erzählung in Gen 23 an-
gewandt: Sollte der Leichnam Saras in das Grab eines angesehenen Hetiters in
Kiryat-Arba gelegt und somit Teil einer hetitischen Nekropole werden? Oder
auf unsere Erzählung in Gen 50,1-14 angewandt: Sollte Jakobs Leichnam in
Ägypten begraben und somit Teil einer ägyptischen Nekropole werden? Die
Antwort kann nur „Nein!“ lauten: Schon Abraham hat es entschieden abge-
lehnt, seine verstorbene Frau Sara in ein hetitisches Grab zu legen und erwarb
stattdessen einen eigenen Grabbesitz, über den nur er und seine Nachkommen
verfügen durften. Auch Jakob hat es auf das Schärfste abgelehnt, in Ägypten
begraben zu werden, und befahl deshalb Josef und allen seinen Söhnen, seinen
Leichnam nicht in Ägypten, sondern in Kanaan, im Grab der Vorfahren beizu-
setzen. Übertragen auf die Tora-Erkenntnis könnte man die Bestattung Jakobs
bei seinen Vorfahren folgendermaßen interpretieren: Tora-Erkenntnis gesellt
sich zu Tora-Erkenntnis. Sie muss sich keiner anderen Weisheit weder in
Ägypten noch in Kanaan bei- oder unterordnen. Sie bleibt souverän und unab-
hängig gegenüber allen Erkenntnissen und Lebensgewohnheiten bei den an-
deren Nationen.
Zugleich geht aber aus der Erzählung Gen 50,1-14 hervor, dass das unvor-
eingenommene Auge bei der Bestattung Jakobs keinen Unterschied zwischen
ägyptischen Gepflogenheiten und israelitischen Trauerbräuchen ausmachen
konnte: Jakobs Leichnam wurde nach ägyptischer Sitte 40 Tage einbalsamiert
und 70 Tage lang von den Ägyptern beweint. Den außergewöhnlichen Ort für
das Grab Jakobs außerhalb von Ägypten begründete Josef in Übereinstimmung
mit der ägyptischen Vorstellung, dass Jakob sein Grab bereits zu Lebzeiten
dort errichtet hätte. Die Totenfeier für Jakob an der Grenze zu Kanaan war in
den Augen der kanaanäischen Einwohner ein rein ägyptisches Ereignis. Die
Vorbereitungen für die Bestattung, die Trauerfeierlichkeiten und die Prozessi-
on an die Grenze Kanaans waren also allesamt Ausdruck ägyptischer Begräb-
niskultur. Eine spezielle Erkenntnis von Tora in Israel kam dabei jedenfalls
nicht ausdrücklich zum Vorschein.
Das unvoreingenommene Auge konnte zudem auch den Grabbesitz von
Machpela nicht von anderen Feldern in Kanaan oder in der Umgebung von
Kirjat-Arba unterscheiden. Es gab auf diesem Feld weder Kultbauten noch re-
gelmäßige Trauerfeiern. Abraham und seine Nachkommen siedelten sich dort
weder an noch gingen sie dazu über, ihren Grundbesitz zu verändern.
Übertragen auf die Tora-Erkenntnis könnte das bedeuten: Auch wenn die
Tora Israels auf der Erdoberfläche nicht als Kontrastprogramm zu anderen
Weisheiten ins Auge fällt, spricht das keineswegs gegen ihre Lebendigkeit.
Die Tora wird nicht vergehen, sie bleibt auch dann noch eine Realität, wenn
sie zuweilen unsichtbar oder unzugänglich ist.
Wenn die bisherigen Überlegungen zutreffen, stellen sich zum Schluss
noch folgende Fragen: Warum ist es unter diesen Bedingungen überhaupt noch
354
An_78.indb 368 21/06/11 15:40

David Volgger 369
sinnvoll, von Jakob, Israel usw. gesondert und in Absetzung von Ägypten oder
Kanaan zu sprechen? Warum sollte man die israelitische Tora-Erkenntnis von
der ägyptischen oder kanaanäischen Weisheit unterscheiden, anstatt von einer
gemeinsamen Weisheit zu sprechen, die sich auf vielfältige Weise artikuliert,
der Sache nach aber ein und dieselbe ist?
Für die Beantwortung dieser Fragen ist die Erzählung Gen 50,1-14 von
zentraler Bedeutung. Josef und seine Brüder wussten nämlich, dass sie von ei-
ner ganz speziellen Erkenntnis geleitet wurden, auch wenn sie die ägyptischen
Trauerbräuche für ihren verstorbenen Vater Jakob akzeptierten oder dabei so-
gar mitmachten. Als sie aber alleine den Leichnam ihres Vaters nach Machpe-
la brachten (V. 12f), zeigte sich, dass all ihr Handeln von einer hintergründigen
Motivation bestimmt war: Sie gehorchten nämlich vom Anfang an dem letzten
Willen ihres Vaters und legten am Ende seinen Leichnam in das Grab seiner
Vorfahren. Auf dem letzten Abschnitt des Trauerzugs zum Grab Jakobs in Ka-
naan wurde also eine neue Gemeinschaft sichtbar, die sich in den letzten Moti-
ven und Beweggründen ihres Handelns von der ägyptischen Begräbniskultur
deutlich absetzte.
Die Tora Israels kann sich also durchaus in der Grammatik und Kultur an-
derer Weisheiten und Lebensstile artikulieren. An einem bestimmten Punkt
wird aber deutlich, dass sie einen anderen Ursprung hat und ein anderes Ziel
verfolgt. Anders ausgedrückt, die Tora-Erkenntnis mag zwar zuweilen „ohne
Ort“, d. h. u-topisch erscheinen, sie enthält aber in sich eine ganz konkrete
„Topographie“, die vorgibt, wohin es gehen soll – d. h. so zu handeln und nicht
anders.
David Volgger, ofm

Pontificia Universitas “Antonianum”, Rom
Bibliographie
ASSMANN J., Tod und Jenseits im Alten Ägypten, München 2003.

BARTELMUS R., „Topographie und Theologie: Exegetische und didaktische An-
merkungen zum letzten Kapitel der Genesis (Gen 50,1-14)“, Biblische No-
tizen 29 (1985) 35-57.
BERMAN J., „Identity Politics and the Burial of Jacob (Genesis 50:1-14)“, The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 68 (2006) 11-31.
355
An_78.indb 369 21/06/11 15:40

DEMSKY A., „The Route of Jacob’s Funeral Cortege and the Problem of ˁEber
Hayyarden (Genesis 50,10-11)“, in M. BRETTLER - M. FISHBANE (ed.),
Min$ah le-Na$um. Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sar-
na in Honour of his 70th Birthday (JSOT.S 154), Sheffield 1993, 54-63.
GALPAZ-FELLER P., „‘And the Physicians Embalmed Him’ (Gen 50,2)“, ZAW
118 (2006) 209-217.
JACOB B., Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis übersetzt und erklärt, Berlin 1934.
NAUMANN T., „Der Vater in der biblischen Josefserzählung: Möglichkeiten der
Charaktermodellierung in biblischen Erzählungen“, Theologische Zeit-
schrift 61 (2005) 44-64.
NICCACCI A., „Sullo sfondo Egiziano di Esodo 1-15“, LA 36 (1986) 7-43.
SCHWEIZER H., „Fragen zur Literarkritik von Gen 50: Diskussionsbeitrag zu R.
BARTELMUS BN 29 (1985) 35-53 [sic!]“, Biblische Notizen 36 (1987)
64-68.
356
An_78.indb 370 21/06/11 15:40

Wilfred G. E. Watson
Alcuni brani dell’Antico Testamento e testi dal Vicino

Oriente antico
Introduzione
Questo breve contributo al volume in onore del Professor Alviero NICCACCI

rende omaggio a chi si è sempre mostrato ben disposto ad aiutarmi, da lontano,
in questioni che riguardano la poesia e la linguistica ebraiche1.
Non è una novità che i testi dell’antico Vicino Oriente hanno equivalenti
nei testi biblici. Difatti il destinatario di questo volume ha scritto molto in
merito2. Per questa ragione, e in suo onore, ho qui raccolto alcuni brani
dell’Antico Testamento che hanno dei paralleli nei testi antichi dal Vicino Ori-
ente. Non sono testi difficili e il confronto dimostra chiaramente come la tradi-
zione ebraica non fosse isolata nel mondo della Mezzaluna Fertile.
1. Noè e il vino
Il nome ‘Noè’ (>I- /) si trova nei seguenti passi biblici: Gen 5,29-32; 6,8-9,29;
10,1.32; Is 54,9; Ez 14,14.20 e 1 Cr 1,4. Occorre anche nell’apocrifo Sir 44,17
e nei testi di Qumran: 4QCommGenA 1,1.4.13.21; 2,1.4.5.7; 4QCommGenD
3,2; CD 3,1; 4QPrFêtesb 3,2; 5QRègle 1,73. Finora, il nome dell’eroe del dilu-
vio è rimasto un mistero. Di solito viene spiegato, rispetto al racconto del Dilu-
vio, col significato di “riposo”4. In Gen 8,3-4 si legge:
1
Ringrazio il professor Fabrizio A. PENNACCHIETTI che ha avuto la gentilezza di correggere
il mio italiano e anche per le citazioni di testi antichi in italiano.
2
NICCACCI, Cantico dei Cantici; NICCACCI, La lode del creatore; NICCACCI, Diluvio; NIC-
CACCI, Isaiah xviii-xx. A questi si può aggiungere WATSON, Reflexes of Akkadian Incantations
in Hosea.
3
CLINES, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew V, 652.
4
“No firm etymology for the name Noah … has been established, but it is generally derived
from the root nw$, to rest, settle down, repose, etc; thus ‘Noah’ may mean ‘rest’ ” – BAILEY,
Noah and the Ark, 1123b. Vd. anche HALOT, 684b-685a.
371
An_78.indb 371 21/06/11 15:40

372 Alcuni brani dell’Antico Testamento e testi dal Vicino Oriente antico
Le acque diminuirono dopo centocinquanta giorni e nel settimo mese, nel di-
ciassette del mese, l’arca si posò sulle montagne dell’Ararat5.
Così, il nome ebraico >I- / viene derivato dallo stesso verbo >/ (qui > -/f$ -#). Trovia-
mo una spiegazione molto simile in Gen 5,29:
E (Lamech) lo chiamò Noè, dicendo: «Costui ci consolerà del nostro lavoro e
della fatica delle nostre mani, a causa del suolo che il Signore ha maledetto».
Ma forse non sono altro che etimologie popolari6. Invece, si può citare un altro
passo, cioè Gen 9,20-21:
Ora Noè, coltivatore della terra, cominciò a piantare una vigna. Avendo bevuto
il vino, si ubriacò …
Il verbo egiziano nw$ significa “bere; ubriacarsi; ubriacare”7 e perciò, alla luce
di questo brano del libro della Genesi, non è da escludere che il nome ebraico
“Noè” si spieghi come derivante da un verbo preso in prestito dalla lingua egi-
ziana o da una lingua affine a quella8. Non sarebbe un caso isolato perché ap-
punto la parola ebraica per l’arca, cioè !G$ f) è ben conosciuta come un prestito
dalla lingua egiziana – probabilmente dalla parola egiziana tb.t, “cassa”9.
2. Il transito del Mar Rosso
È risaputo che Mosè, alzando la mano, fece dividere le acque del Mar Rosso
per lasciare passare gli israeliti dopodiché fece ritornare le acque al loro solito
posto.
Allora Mosè stese la mano sul mare. E il Signore durante tutta la notte, risospin-
se il mare con un forte vento d’oriente, rendendolo asciutto; le acque si divisero.
Gli Israeliti entrarono nel mare sull’asciutto, mentre le acque erano per loro una
muraglia a destra e a sinistra … (Es 14,21-23)
Mosè stese la mano sul mare e il mare, sul far del mattino, tornò al suo livello
consueto … (Es 14,27; vd. Es 14,15-17; 15,8)
Nel testo egiziano intitolato “Racconto della Corte del re Cheops”10 troviamo
un episodio simile. Nel racconto, il faraone stava su una barca remata da venti
5
Traduzione: NICCACCI, Diluvio, 17.
6
Una spiegazione completamente diversa sarebbe “longevo” da >#/ “essere disteso, riposa-
re”; vd. CLINES, Dictionary of Classical Hebrew V, 899.
7
Eg. nw$, “trinken; sich betrinken; trunken machen” (ERMAN-GRAPOW, Wörterbuch 2,
224.3-7); cf. anche Eg. nw$, “Trunkenheit” (ERMAN-GRAPOW, Wörterbuch 2, 224.8-9), “drunken-
ness” (WILSON, Ptolemaic Lexikon, 498).
8
Sul significato della ubriachezza di Noè si veda STEINMETZ, Vineyard, Farm, and Garden.
9
Vd. HALOT, 1677b-1678; e per la parola egiziana tb.t vd. ERMAN-GRAPOW, Wörterbuch 5,
261.6 (“Kasten”).
10
Papiro Westcar, c. 1600 a. C. Per una traduzione vd. SIMPSON, Literature of Ancient Egypt,
15-30 (“King Cheops and the Magicians”), oppure PARKINSON, Tale of Sinuhe, 102-127 (“The
Tale of King Cheops’ Court”).
372
An_78.indb 372 21/06/11 15:40

Wilfred G. E. Watson 373
donne e andava su e giù per un lago. Però, la donna che fungeva da capovoga
lasciò cadere nell’acqua un suo pendente di turchese a forma di pesce. Così,
smise di remare finchè non fosse ritrovato quel ciondolo perduto, poiché ne
rifiutava un sostituto. Per risolvere il problema il faraone fece venire il sacer-
dote-lettore Djadjaemankh, il quale pronunciò parole magiche:
Allora egli mise una parte dell’acqua del lago al di sopra dell’altra parte
e trovò il pendente a forma di pesce sopra un coccio.
Lo riprese e lo diede alla sua padrona.
L’acqua era profonda dodici cubiti al centro
e finiva a ventiquattro cubiti, una volta piegata.
Poi pronunciò le sue parole magiche
e fece tornare le acque del lago al loro solito posto11.
Anche qui si vede che l’autore biblico ha adoperato un tema egiziano nel suo
racconto che tratta appunto del faraone e del suo esercito e che si svolge pro-
prio in Egitto.
3. Un rituale con buoi
Nell’occasione di una pestilenza che aveva colpito Israele durante il regno del
re Davide, costui fu consigliato dal profeta Gad di costruire un altare sull’aia
di Araunà, il Gebuseo. Il re andò sull’aia e Araunà gli venne incontro:
Poi Araunà disse: «Perché il re mio signore viene dal suo servo?»
Davide rispose: «Per acquistare da te quest’aia e innalzarvi un altare al Signore,
perché il flagello cessi di colpire il popolo.»
Araunà disse a Davide: «Il re mio signore prenda e offra quanto gli piacerà!
Ecco i buoi per l’olocausto; le trebbie e gli arnesi dei buoi serviranno da legna».
(2 Sam 24,21-22)
Così Davide comprò l’aia, mise su un altare e fece gli appositi sacrifici. In que-
sto modo la pestilenza cessò.
In un altro passo, questa volta dal primo libro dei Re, si narra di come Eli-
seo lasciò i suoi genitori per seguire il profeta Elia, concludendo l’atto con un
rito simile a quello sopra descritto.
Partito di lì, Elia incontrò Eliseo figlio di Safàt. Costui arava con dodici paia di
buoi davanti a sé … Eliseo prese un paio di buoi e li uccise; con gli attrezzi per
arare ne fece cuocere la carne e la diede alla gente, perché la mangiasse. (1 Re
19,19-21)
In tutti e due i casi, il rito che includeva il bruciare un aratro ed il sacrificio di
buoi fa pensare a un simile rituale ittita. Come parte di un rituale funerario, il
decimo giorno si bruciava un aratro e le ceneri venivano trasportate sul luogo
dove erano già state bruciate le teste di cavalli e di buoi12:
11
Traduzione sulla base di PARKINSON, Tale of Sinuhe, 111.
359
An_78.indb 373 21/06/11 15:40

Disfacciano un aratro e lo brucino nello stesso luogo. Le ceneri le prenda una

vecchia e le butti dove le teste dei cavalli e le teste dei buoi sono state inceneri-
te. Taglino i buoi a pezzi e i cuochi li prendano13.
Secondo HOFFNER14 questo è un tentativo di trasformare sia il bestiame che
l’aratro in una forma che possa seguire il defunto nell’oltretomba. Nel caso di
Eliseo, invece, il rito probabilmente sta a significare che il profeta non avrà più
niente a che fare con la sua vita di prima. Nell’azione di Davide, invece, sem-
bra che il sacrificio sia stato fatto per placare un dio che aveva inflitto la pesti-
lenza15. In questo caso il nome ‘Araunà’ sembra essere anatolico, forse urrita16,
il che va d’accordo con il parallelo altresì anatolico, cioè ittita.
4. Bel e il Drago
La narrativa di cui ora parliamo è il racconto in lingua greca intitolato “Bel e il

Drago” che costituisce un’aggiunta tardiva al Libro di Daniele, scritto in ara-
maico17. Il secondo episodio dell’aggiunta, “La distruzione del serpente”, inco-
mincia così:
Vi era un gran drago e i Babilonesi lo veneravano. (Dn 14,23)
Daniele propose di uccidere il drago senza nemmeno una spada o un bastone:
Daniele prese allora pece, grasso e peli e li fece cuocere insieme, poi ne preparò
focacce e le gettò in bocca al drago che le inghiottì e scoppiò. (Dn 14,27)
Un avvenimento molto simile fa parte del racconto ittita “Il mito di Illuyan-
ka”18. Nel mito, l’episodio in questione ha inizio con la lotta, nella città di
Ki?kilu??a, tra un serpente (in ittita, illuyanka) e il dio della tempesta, lotta che
si conclude con la sconfitta del rettile. In seguito il dio della tempesta invitò
tutti gli dèi a partecipare a una festa preparata dalla dea Inara:
Lei preparò ogni cosa in gran quantità – coppe di vino, recipienti di marnuwan
(una bevanda) e coppe di wal.i (un’altra bevanda): nei recipienti ne aveva ver-
sato in abbondanza.
12
GURNEY, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 61 (“On the tenth day a plough is burned and
the ashes are brought to the place where ‘the heads of the horses and cattle were burned’ ”).
13
HOFFNER, Alimenta Hethaeorum, 44-45.
14
HOFFNER, Alimenta Hethaeorum, 45 (“Here is an attempt to convert livestock and plow
into a form in which they can follow the deceased into the after-life”).
15
Nella tradizione ittita esistono diverse preghiere contro la peste (si vedano le cinque pre-
ghiere di Mursili al riguardo tradotte da SINGER, Hittite Prayers, 56-69) che furono pronunciate
durante rituali non conservati.
16
Al riguardo si vede WYATT, Araunah the Jebusite, 39-40 (“The Hurrian rather than the
Hittite form of the word appears to be the more likely source of the biblical form”).
17
Bel e il Drago v. 23-42 (Il testo segue l’edizione di RAHLFS).
18
Per una edizione del mito vd. BECKMAN, Myth of Iluyanka.
360
An_78.indb 374 21/06/11 15:40

Poi la dea Inara si recò alla città di Ziggaratta, dove incontrò un uomo di nome
Aupa?iya e invitò anche lui alla festa. Questi accettò l’invito, a patto però di
potersi accoppiare con lei, richiesta a cui lei acconsentì. Dopodiché la dea l’ac-
compagnò alla festa dove egli si nascose. In seguito la dea Inara indossò tutti i
suoi abbigliamenti e invitò il serpente alla festa.
Allora il serpente comparve assieme alla [sua prole] e mangiarono (e bevvero) –
essi scolarono ogni coppa e si saziarono. Non riuscirono però a tornare nella
(loro) tana, (cosicché) Aupa?iya giunse e legò il serpente con una corda. (Poi) il
dio della tempesta arrivò e ammazzò il serpente.
Le somiglianze tra i due racconti sono chiare, ma evidentemente divergono in
alcuni punti. Nel mito anatolico il serpente e la sua prole mangiano in tale
quantità da non riuscire più a tornare nella loro tana. Così il serpente viene le-
gato (da un essere umano) per essere ucciso (da un dio)19. Invece nel racconto
del Libro di Daniele, il serpente, per conto suo20, mangia tanto che finisce per
scoppiare. Quello che i due racconti hanno in comune è la capacità di un essere
umano di superare in furbizia un serpente, ovviamente un motivo folclorico21.
Per quanto riguarda il primo episodio di “Bel e il Drago” (Dn 14,1-22), vi si

racconta che Daniele venne portato dal re persiano Ciro di fronte ad un grande
idolo di bronzo, oggetto di particolare venerazione da parte dei Babilonesi:
I Babilonesi avevano un idolo chiamato ‘Bel’, al quale offrivano ogni giorno
dodici sacchi di fior di farina, quaranta pecore e sei barili di vino. (Dn 14,3)
In questo brano, Daniele dimostra che a mangiare e a bere le offerte non è
l’idolo, bensì i sacerdoti e le loro famiglie. Per documentare la cosa, la sera
prima egli aveva sparso della cenere sul pavimento del tempio, sicché il matti-
no seguente si videro le impronte di piedi umani. In questo brano, che parla di
Bel, l’idolo babilonese, c’è un’eco dell’enorme quantità di cibo e di bevande
che nel racconto ittita faceva parte dei preparativi per la festa.
5. Giuditta e Oloferne
Nel Libro di Giuditta troviamo un brano dove Oloferne, comandante in capo di

Nabucodònosor, re dell’Assiria, invita Giuditta a un banchetto. Egli si deliziò
talmente della sua presenza e della sua bellezza che “bevve abbondantemente
tanto vino quanto non ne aveva mai bevuto solo in un giorno da quando era al
“Although the Storm-god needs a mortal’s help to trap and disarm the serpent, the execu-
19
tion must be carried out by the Storm-god himself”: HOFFNER, Hittite Myths, 134.
20
Il riferimento alle famiglie nell’episodio del Libro di Daniele sembra echeggiare questo
aspetto del mito ittita.
21
Altri esempi in WATKINS, How to Kill a Dragon.
361
An_78.indb 375 21/06/11 15:40

mondo” (Gdt 12,20), si ubriacò e si addormentò nella sua tenda. Lasciata sola
con lui, Giuditta mise in atto il suo piano:
Avvicinatasi alla colonna del letto che era dalla parte del capo di Oloferne, ne
staccò la scimitarra di lui; poi, accostatasi al letto, afferrò la testa di lui per la
chioma … E con tutta la forza di cui era capace lo colpì due volte al collo e gli
staccò la testa. Indi ne fece rotolare il corpo giù dal giaciglio e strappò via le
cortine dai sostegni. Poco dopo uscì e consegnò la testa di Oloferne alla sua an-
cella, la quale la mise nella bisaccia dei viveri e uscirono tutt’e due … (Gdt 13,
6-10)
Giuditta disse loro: «Ascoltatemi bene, fratelli: prendete questa testa e appende-
tela sugli spalti delle vostre mura.» (Gdt 14,1)
Quando spuntò il mattino, appesero la testa di Oloferne alle mura. (Gdt 14,11)
Questo atto è riassunto in un versetto in poesia nello stesso libro:
I suoi sandali rapirono i suoi occhi,
la sua bellezza avvinse il suo cuore,
e la scimitarra gli troncò il collo. (Gdt 16,9)
Nell’episodio dell’Epopea di Gilgame? chiamato nella tradizione sumerica
“Gilgame? e Huwawa” si narra come Enkidu decapitò il mostro Huwawa,
guardiano della foresta dei cedri, tagliandogli la testa al collo e mettendola in
un sacco di cuoio.
Appena Huwawa gli disse questo,
Enkidu, pieno di ira e di collera, gli troncò il collo.
Misero (la testa) in un sacco di cuoio,
entrarono davanti ad Enlil.
Dopo aver baciato la terra davanti ad Enlil,
gettarono giù il sacco di cuoio ed estrassero la testa.
La misero giù davanti ad Enlil22.
Invece, nella tradizione babilonese, è Gilgame? a uccidere Huwawa:
[Escuchó Gilgame? las palabras] de su amigo,
se sacó [la espada del] flanco.
Gilgame? le alcanzó de lleno en la nuca23.
Poi, in quella tradizione, è sempre Gilgame? che porta la testa di Huwawa24,
ma il risultato rimane lo stesso. In più, il motivo di appendere la testa tagliata
come un trofeo (Gdt 14,1.11) si trova spesso nei rilievi assiri25. Nuovamente
nel racconto biblico, che sembra svolgersi in Babilonia, troviamo dei motivi ti-
22
“Als (Huwawa) das zu ihm gesagt hatte, trennte ihm Enkidu voller Wut und Zorn den
Hals durch. Sie steckten (den Kopf) in einen Ledersdack, sie traten zu Enlil ein. Nachdem sie
vor Enlil den Boden geküßt hatten, warfen sie den Ledersack hin und holten das Haupt hervor.
Sie legten es vor Enlil hin” – EDZARD, Gilgame?, 190 (linee 178-184).
23
Tavola V 261-264, traduzione: SANMARTÍN, Epopeya de Gilgame?, 176.
24
Tavola V 302-303; cf. SANMARTÍN, Epopeya de Gilgame?, 180.
25
Per es., nel rilievo che mostra Assurbanipal e la sua regina in un banchetto nel giardino
reale mentre la testa del re elamita pende da un albero; vd. REED, Blurring the Edges, 129-130,
fig. 12 e 13.
362
An_78.indb 376 21/06/11 15:40

pici della civiltà babilonese ed assira, in questo caso la decapitazione di un ti-

ranno e il fatto di appendere la sua testa alla vista di tutti.
6. Il libro di Giona
In un famoso brano del libro di Giona leggiamo come un verme abbia assalito
la pianta che gli dava l’ombra, così che essa si seccò.
Allora il Signore Dio fece crescere una pianta di ricino (,M"Y"$ Y' ) al di sopra di Gio-
na per far ombra sulla sua testa e liberarlo dal suo male. Giona provò una gran-
de gioia per quel ricino (,M"Y"$ Y' ). Ma il giorno dopo, allo spuntar del sole, Dio
mandò un verme (/9. 4Mf. ) a rodere il ricino (,M"Y"$ Y' ) e questo si seccò. Quando il
sole si fu alzato, Dio fece soffiare un vento d’oriente, afoso. Il sole colpì la testa
di Giona, che si sentì venir meno e chiese di morire, dicendo: «Meglio per me
morire che vivere». (Gn 4,6-8)26
Il nome ebraico di questa pianta è ,M"Y"$ Y' , e il nome del verme è /9. 4Mf
. . Sembra
che la parola ebraica ,M"Y"$ Y' corrisponda alla parola accadica kukkan,tu che si-
gnifica “ricino” (cioè la pianta di ricino)27. In più, una delle parole accadiche
riferite ad un insetto, probabilmente un verme, è q+q!nu, scritta anche g+g!nu
e guqq!nu28. È possibile, dunque, che il testo ebraico presenti una versione di
un gioco di parole sulla base della lingua accadica? Ossia che la pianta chia-
mata in accadico kukkan,tu (= eb. ,M"Y"$ Y' ) sia stata distrutta da un insetto chia-
mato nella stessa lingua quq!nu?29 Non è per caso che Oloferne viene da Nini-
ve, e così termini assiri nel suo riguardo non sarebbero fuori luogo30.
Come conclusione si può dire che questo contributo dimostra come uno sguar-
do alle parole, ai testi ed alle usanze delle civiltà antiche vicine a quella ebrai-
ca possa approfondire ancora una volta la nostra conoscenza della tradizione
biblica.
Wilfred G. E. Watson
Northumberland (GB)
26
Traduzione: NICCACCI, Syntactic Analysis of Jonah, 16-17.
27
,M"Y"$ Y' è “most probably the castor-oil plant” (HALOT, 1099) e corrisponde all’eg. k3k3,
“ricino”. Per questa parola vd. SANDY, Egyptian Terms for Castor. Invece, AHRENS, Was ist
q"q#j&n, propone il significato di “zucca vuota” (gourd), che corrisponde al greco -c-$%U con lo
stesso significato. Anche ROBINSON, Jonah’s Qiqayon Plant, accetta il significato di “gourd”.
STOL, Cucurbitaceae, 84, sotto il titolo “Jonah’s «tree»”, commenta: “Later tradition has always
identified the plant as cucurbitaceous; specifically the gourd, in Syriac qarˀ!”.
28
Vd. CAD Q, 312; SODEN, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch II, 928; e BLACK, A Concise Dic-
tionary, 291.
29
Questa parola è un prestito entrato nell’aramaico giudaico nella forma di quqy!nâ.
30
Per simili casi di impiego di parole straniere in un contesto appropriato (per es., parole
egiziane in un oracolo contro l’Egitto) vd. RENDSBURG, Linguistic Variation.
363
An_78.indb 377 21/06/11 15:40

Bibliografia
AHRENS K., “Was ist q,q!j5n Jona 4,6.7?”, Zeitschrift für Semitistik 4 (1926)
256.
BAILEY L. R., “Noah and the Ark”, Anchor Bible Dictionary: Vol. IV, New
York 1992, 1123-1131.
BECKMAN G., “The Anatolian Myth of Iluyanka”, Journal of the Ancient Near
Eastern Society 14 (1982) 11-25.
BLACK J. - GEORGE A. - POSTGATE N. (ed.), A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian
(SANTAG Arbeiten und Untersuchungen zur Keilschriftkunde 5), Wiesba-
den 22000.
CLINES D. J. A. (ed.), Dictionary of Classical Hebrew: Vol. V, Sheffield 2001.
EDZARD D. O., “Gilgame? und Huwawa A. I. Teil”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 80 (1990) 165-203.
ERMAN A. - GRAPOW H., Wörterbuch der ägyptische Sprache, 7 vols. (Berlin
1926 - 1963; reference courtesy of the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae
website).
GURNEY O, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, Oxford 1977.
HOFFNER H. A., Alimenta Hethæorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor
(American Oriental Society 55), New Haven 1974.
HOFFNER H. A., Hittite Myths (Writings from the Ancient World 2), Atlanta
2
1990.
NICCACCI A., “Cantico dei Cantici e canti d’amore egiziani”, LA 41 (1991)
61-85.
NICCACCI A., “La lode del Creatore: L’inno egiziano di Aton e la tradizione bib-
lica”, in Diaconus Verbi: Marijan Jerko Fu"ak 1932. – 1992., Zagreb
1995, 137-159.
NICCACCI A., “Diluvio, sintassi e metodo”, LA 44 (1994) 9-46.
NICCACCI A., “Isaiah xviii-xx from an Egyptological Perspective”, VT 48
(1998) 214-238.
PARKINSON R. B., The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems
1940-1640 BC, Oxford 1997.
RENDSBURG G., “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign’ Factor in the Hebrew
Bible”, in S. IZREˀEL - R. DRORY (ed.), Language and Culture in the Ancient
Near East (Israel Oriental Studies 15), Leiden - New York - Köln 1995,
177-190.
REED S., “Blurring the Edges: A Reconsideration of the Treatment of Enemies
in Ashurbanipal’s Reliefs”, in J. CHENG - M. H. FELDMAN (ed.), Ancient Near
Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Stu-
dents, Leiden - Boston 2007, 101-130.
ROBINSON B., “Jonah’s Qiqayon Plant”, ZAW 97 (1985) 390-403.
364
An_78.indb 378 21/06/11 15:40

SANDY D. B., “Egyptian Terms for Castor”, Chronique d’Égypte 62 (1987)

49-52.
SANMARTÍN J., Epopeya de Gilgame&, rey de Uruk, Traducción y edición: Bar-
celona 2005.
SIMPSON W. K., The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, In-
structions, and Poetry, New Haven - London 1973.
SINGER I., Hittite Prayers (Writings from the Ancient World 11), Atlanta - Lei-
den 2002.
VON SODEN W., Akkadisches Handwörterbuch I-III, Wiesbaden 1965-1981.
STEINMETZ D., “Vineyard, Farm, and Garden: The Drunkenness of Noah in the
Context of Primeval History”, JBL 113 (1994) 193-207.
STOL M., “The Cucurbitaceae in the Cuneiform Texts”, in J. N. POSTGATE -
M. A. POWELL (ed.), Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, Cambridge 1987,
81-92.
WATKINS C., How to Kill a Dragon. Aspects of Indo-European Poetics, Oxford
1995.
WILSON P., A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the
Temple of Edfu (Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 78), Leuven 1997.
WYATT N., “ ‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the throne of David”, Studia Theologi-
ca 39 (1985) 39-53.
365
An_78.indb 379 21/06/11 15:40

An_78.indb 380 21/06/11 15:40
Wojciech Wùgrzyniak
La problematica temporale dei verbi nei Salmi 14 e 53
Il problema dei tempi1 in ebraico è notoriamente il problema principale, a volte

trascurato, e nonostante i diversi tentativi “si è ancora lontani da una soluzione
accettata”2. La situazione è ancora più spinosa nel campo dei testi poetici3. Ba-
sta guardare come vengono tradotti i verbi finiti nei diversi testi poetici per no-
tare che gli esegeti si sentono molto liberi se non perplessi davanti al mysteri-
um verborum Hebræorum.
Lo scopo di questo articolo è spiegare il valore temporale dei verbi presenti
nei Salmi 14 e 53 seguendo principalmente la teoria linguistico-testuale propo-
sta da A. NICCACCI4. Anche se l’autore ha sviluppato il sistema basandosi inizi-
almente sui testi narrativi, negli ultimi anni ha fornito alcuni principi per ana-
lizzare anche i testi poetici5.
1. Il testo
I Salmi 14 e 53 sono pertinenti non solo perché il testo di ambedue è quasi

uguale e le maggiori differenze toccano soltanto alcuni versetti (14,5-6; 53,6).
1
L’articolo presente è una leggera modificazione di un paragrafo della mia tesi dottorale in-
titolata Lo stolto ateo: Studio dei Salmi 14 e 53, scritta sotto la guida di prof. A. NICCACCI e dife-
sa allo Studium Biblicum Franciscanum a Gerusalemme il 30. 01. 2010.
2
NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 1; JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 111 a. Per un esempio di come gli esperti possa-
no presentare diversi pareri cf. le due constatazioni: “qatal and yiqtol mark distinctions of
aspect, not of tense” (GIBSON-DAVIDSON, § 55) e “Hebrew temporal forms express at the same
time tenses and modalities of action. As in many languages, they mainly express tenses” (JOÜON-
MURAOKA, § 111 c).
3
Cf. l’opinione di NICCACCI: “It was and still is fairly a common opinion among scholars,
although not always openly declared, that the verbal forms in poetry, more than in prose, can be
taken to mean everything the interpreter thinks appropriate according to his understanding and
the context” (Poetry, 247).
4
NICCACCI, Sintassi.
5
NICCACCI, Proverbi 22,17-23,11; Sintassi, § 168-174; Jonah; Proverbi 23,12-25; Proverbi
23,26-24,22; Malachi; Poetry; NICCACCI-CORTESE, Poveri.
366
An_78.indb 381 21/06/11 15:40

382 La problematica temporale dei verbi nei Salmi 14 e 53
È interessante che in questi Salmi in pratica non c’è neppure un verbo finito
che sia tradotto nello stesso asse temporale da tutti i commentatori moderni6.
La traduzione proposta sotto è una traduzione piuttosto letterale. La tradu-
zione dei verbi cerca di seguire la teoria di NICCACCI. Dato che i titoli dei Salmi
non contengono i verbi finiti e non influiscono sul valore temporale dei verbi
nel salmo, vengono omessi nella traduzione.
Salmo 14
1"!6 E ' %7 ,"%@ ) MD4' D + 4@O$ $0 &<X . %-$ 1
UOMVB!
8 >) P98 ,"%@ ) !4"$ d 4' 9[ JO"9: ' /+ !8 ' J/"Fd' Z+ !8 '
1L: $ %B"
Ç$ )0DB4
+ 98 . R"Y^Å ' Z+ !' Ä1 '"<. ]$ <' !#!8 d $ +" 2
U1"!6
8 ' %B/7 %3 Z&) P ;q 4"(E ' >+ <. Z@ ") ![ /M%&+ 4 '
JF4: $ %7 03 Ç #;Å $ F+ ." &Ä A$ 4P(: !. 3
ULF8 $ %B1 3 .T ,"%d q) OMVB! E >) P98 ,"%X )
, 3#%: $ "4) Ç 9[ kP Å B4($ ÄJ9L+ $" %P 4: ![ 4
1FE3 43 J4C+ %@ $ "N' 9 . "@4) CP+ %
UJ%&8 $ Y$ %P 4@ !#! d $ "+q
LF. ?E $ JLF[ k@ $ z 1ZX $ 5
UY";8 ' e. &ML@ D+ 1"!6 'd %B"
q7 (8 '
JZ"OE ' /$ ":0' 9B/ $ e. 9[ 6
UJ!A8 ) F+ <. !@#! $ +" "(= '
4%: ) &Ç $ >+ '" /9JZ Å . +" Ä,M`_' <' ,f@ ) '" "<: ' 7
MNE 9. /JO@ Z+ ! $#!"+ OJZ@ D+
U4%) &8 $ >+ '" F<: . >+ '" OPYd 9[ ".q 4:I) $"
1 Lo stolto ha detto nel suo cuore: “Non c’è Dio”.
Si sono corrotti, hanno fatto cose abominevoli, non c’è chi faccia il bene.
2 Il Signore dai cieli ha guardato sui figli dell’uomo
per vedere se c’è un saggio, uno che cerca Dio.
3 Ognuno si è allontanato, insieme si sono guastati,
non c’è chi faccia il bene, non c’è neppure uno.
4 Forse non hanno saputo tutti gli operatori d’iniquità?
Mangiatori del mio popolo hanno mangiato il pane,
il Signore non hanno invocato.
5 Là hanno tremato di tremore,
perché Dio è nella generazione del giusto.
6
Ad esempio: &<. %$ “sagen” (Einheitsübersetzung), “sprach” (HITZIG), “hat gesprochen”
(HIRSCH), “a dit” (La Bible de Jérusalem), “se disent” (Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible);
JF4$ %7 30 “are perverse” (New American Bible), “were corrupt” (WELLHAUSEN), “have become cor-
rupt” (New International Version); & .\k' “ha disperso” (Conferenza Episcopale Italiana), “disper-
se” (CASTELLINO), “disperde” (RAVASI); !/P$ ZO' !7 “tu les confondras” (MANNATI), “tu les as confon-
dus” (VESCO), “tu les couvres de honte” (Sefarim).
367
An_78.indb 382 21/06/11 15:40

Wojciech Węgrzyniak 383
6 Confondevate il consiglio del povero,

perché il Signore è il suo rifugio.
7 Chi darà da Sion la salvezza d’Israele?
Quando il Signore volgerà la sorte del suo popolo,
esulterà Giacobbe, si rallegrerà Israele.
Salmo 53
1"!6 E ' %7 ,"%@ ) MD4' D + 4@O$ $0 &<X . %-$ 2
UOMVB! 8 >) P98 ,"%@ ) 4 3#9d $ q JO"9: ' /+ !8 ' +# J/"Fd' Z+ !'8q
1L: $ %$ "0)Ç DB4
+ 98 . R"Y^Å ' Z+ !' Ä1 '"<. ]$ <' 1"!6 'd %8 7 3
U1"!6 8 ' %B/
7 %3 Z&d ) P ;q 4"(E ' >+ <. Z@ ") ![ /M%&+ 4 '
JF4: $ %7 03 Ç #;Å $ F+ ." IÄ A$ MK: (p 4
ULF8 $ %B1 3 .T ,"%d q) OMVB! E >) P98 ,"%X )
, 3#%: $ "4) Ç 9[ kP X ÄJ9L+ $" %P 4: ![ 5
1FE3 43 J4C+ %@ $ "N' 9 . "@4) CP+ %
UJ%&8 $ Y$ %P 4@ 1"!6 'd %q7
LF. ?: $ !Ç $"!B% Å $ P 4 LÄ F. ?BJL . F[ k8 $ z 1ZX $ 6
WmE0P$ F /M<@ e+ 9. & .\k ' 1"!6 'd %B"
7 (8 '
U1A8 $ %$ <+ 1"!6 : ' %B" 7 (8 ' !/$ P Zd O' !7q
4%: ) &Ç $ >+ '" /M9Å Zp +" Ä,M`_' <' ,f@ ) '" "<: ' 7
MNE 9. /JO@ Z+ 1"!6 ' %7 OJZ@ D+
U4%8 ) &$ >+ '" F<: . >+ '" OPYd 9[ ".q 4:I) $"
2 Lo stolto ha detto nel suo cuore: “Non c’è Dio”.
Si sono corrotti, rendevano abominevole l’iniquità,
non c’è chi faccia il bene.
3 Dio dai cieli ha guardato sui figli dell’uomo
per vedere se c’è un saggio, uno che cerca Dio.
4 Ognuno si è sviato, insieme si sono guastati,
non c’è chi faccia il bene, non c’è neppure uno.
5 Forse non hanno saputo gli operatori d’iniquità?
Mangiatori del mio popolo hanno mangiato il pane,
Dio non hanno invocato.
6 Là hanno tremato di tremore – non c’era tremore –
perché Dio ha disperso le ossa del tuo assediante.
[li] hai confusi, perché Dio li ha respinti.
7 Chi darà da Sion le salvezze d’Israele?
Quando Dio volgerà la sorte del suo popolo,
esulterà Giacobbe, si rallegrerà Israele!
368
An_78.indb 383 21/06/11 15:40

2. Commento sul valore temporale dei verbi
Seguendo la teoria proposta da NICCACCI, si applicherà soprattutto il principio

secondo cui la funzione delle forme verbali in poesia è in linea di principio la
stessa che in prosa, più precisamente nel discorso diretto7. Rimane inoltre in
vigore la regola fondamentale che richiede di assegnare alle diverse forme ver-
bali la loro solita funzione8.
14,1 (53,1-2)
Il testo dei Salmi 14 e 53 comincia con un qatal in prima posizione (&7- %$ ) che
colloca l’azione nell’asse del passato (“ha detto”)9. Anche se la maggioranza
dei commentatori e delle traduzioni lo rende con il presente, è meglio mante-
nere la funzione normale del qatal10. Per collocare l’azione nel presente l’auto-
re avrebbe potuto usare il participio &7I) % oppure un’altra proposizione non ver-
bale11.
I due qatal che seguono in Sal 14,1 (BG"5' .+ !' B.">' X+ !' ) descrivono due azioni
parallele nel passato, nella stessa linea principale di &7- %$ 12. Poi viene impiegata
la proposizione nominale GET;!8I) 5 ,"%) che esprime una linea secondaria della
comunicazione e indica una circostanza concomitante.
Alcuni ritengono che BG"5' .+ !' B.">' X+ !' sono due azioni da porre in un altro asse
temporale rispetto al precedente &7- %$ 13. Tuttavia non si vedono ragioni per una
tale operazione.
7
NICCACCI, Poetry, 247. Cf. la sua opinione sulla differenza tra poesia e discorso diretto:
“The main difference is that direct speech, as prose in general, consists of pieces of information
conveyed in a sequence, while poetry communicates segments of information in parallelism.
The result is linear vs. segmental communication. As a consequence, poetry is able to switch
from one temporal axis to another even more freely than direct speech. This results in a greater
variety of, and more abrupt transition from, one verbal form to another” (ibid. 248).
8
NICCACCI, Malachi, 59.
9
Così la LXX (IL0I$). Nei Salmi &7- %$ occorre 13 volte e sempre viene tradotto nella LXX
con l’aoristo IL0I$. Con il passato traducono BAETHGEN, BARNES, BRIGGS, CRAIGIE, EWALD, KIRK-
PATRICK, PODECHARD, VESCO. Per il qatal del passato che inizia la narrazione in poesia cf. GIBSON-
DAVIDSON, § 58 d.
10
NICCACCI, Poetry, 248. Il motivo per rendere &7- %$ con il presente è chiarito ad es. da DE-
LITZSCH, Psalmen, 154 (“Ausdruck einer allgem., von vielen einzelnen Fällen abgezogenen Er-
fahrungsthatsache”) o CASTELLINO, Salmi, 788 (“lo stolto non si è espresso una volta ma ugual-
mente e ripetutamente”). GUNKEL, Psalmen, 233, invece suppone uno specifico stile profetico
(“Scheltreden”) in cui il qatal va interpretato nell’asse del presente.
11
Cf. soprattutto &7I) % !f$ %- !f$ 5- +# (1 Re 18,11.14); inoltre: W"6' d- 5X$ &$ 2+ &7I) % (Pr 24,24); &7I) % 2EW
%&$ W+ (Is 40,6); G%$ 2+ &7I) % "E! (Is 45,10); b&1 %$ " '/D) &E"
' "7' E=2' =+ &7I) % (Abd 3).
12
Così la LXX (F(V6QI(3'$ -'5 /gFIJcOQ,*'$, Sal 14; F(I6Q13,*'$ -'5 /gFIJcOQ,*'$, Sal
53), BRIGGS, VESCO.
13
Come un passaggio dal passato (&7- %$ ) al presente (BG"5' .+ !' B.">' X+ !' ) è inteso ad es. da CRAI-
GIE e PODECHARD vedi n. 9; invece dal presente al passato da CASTELLINO e SABOURIN. BARNES e
KIRKPATRICK rendono B.">' X+ !' con il presente, invece BG"5' .+ !' con il passato.
384
An_78.indb 384 21/06/11 15:40

La situazione cambia nel Salmo 53, dove il qatal J/"F' Z+ !' è seguito da un we-
qatal JO"9' /+ !' +#14. Secondo NICCACCI il weqatal può designare il passaggio all’asse
del futuro15, oppure esprimere una linea secondaria della comunicazione
nell’asse del passato16. Se accettiamo la prima interpretazione, il testo trasmet-
te l’idea di ‘totalità temporale’ delle azioni dei malvagi (nel passato, nel futuro
e nel presente espresso dalla proposizione nominale che segue). Invece il pre-
valere della linea della comunicazione nel passato può esprimere diversi aspet-
ti quali abitudine o descrizione17. Da parte mia preferisco collocare anche
l’azione 4 3#9$ JO"9' /+ !' +# nel passato.
14,2-3 (53,3-4)
Il passaggio dai verbi in qatal della prima posizione nel v. 1 (53,2) a x-qatal
nel v. 2 (R"Y' Z+ !' 1 '"<. ]$ <' 1"!6
' %7 ; 53,3 – R"Y' Z+ !' 1 '"<. ]$ <' ! $#! +") può avere due significati:
o indicare l’inizio di una nuova unità poetica nella linea principale oppure
designare il passaggio al livello secondario della comunicazione18. Mi pare che
sia l’x-qatal del v. 2 (53,3) sia quello del v. 3 (53,4) devono essere interpretati
come qatal di linea principale. Anche non volendo distinguere tra prima o se-
conda linea della comunicazione, è difficile giustificare il cambio di asse
temporale nei v. 2-3 (53,3-4), come fanno vari autori19. In realtà tutte le azioni
si svolgono nell’asse del passato20.
14
Questa differenza non è stata accolta nel testo della LXX, dove sia nel Salmo 14 che nel
Salmo 53 compare la congiunzione -'#.
15
16
NICCACCI, Poetry, 248. Secondo il tradizionale punto di vista il weqatal esprime la sempli-
ce successione (“e poi”); cf. JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 115 c. Cf. anche l’opinione di WILLIAMS, Syntax,
§ 182: “ ‘Simple’ waw with the perfect may occur in biblical Hebrew when two or more verbs
are in a closely related series”.
17
18
Cf. lo schema in NICCACCI, Poetry, 248.
19
Cf. CASTELLINO, OESTERLEY, PODECHARD, RAVASI che rendono R"Y' Z+ !' con il presente, invece
i verbi del versetto seguente con il passato. La maggioranza degli esegeti interpreta tutti i verbi
in 14,2-3 (53,3-4) come se indicassero il presente; cf. l’opinione espressa nella grammatica di
GIBSON-DAVIDSON (§ 57 c): “In the present time frame characteristic of prose discourse and poet-
ry QATAL is used […] largely in poetry, to describe a number of actions which are tantamount
to states in that they occur in non-specific, i. e. typical or recurrent situations” e porta come uno
degli esempi Sal 14,2-3.
20
Così anche la LXX (F(V-SiI$, /dV-J($'$, PO3IQ,*'$), BARNES, BRIGGS, CRAIGIE, KIRKPA-
TRICK, VESCO.
370
An_78.indb 385 21/06/11 15:40

14,4 (53,5)
È il versetto che probabilmente ha creato il maggior numero di traduzioni dif-
ferenti dei verbi finiti21. Il problema non è legato tanto alla sequenza dei verbi
(qatal, x-qatal e x-qatal), ma piuttosto al carattere stativo del verbo J9L+ $"22.
Nonostante le difficoltà si possono fare almeno due osservazioni riguardan-
ti la domanda J9L+ $" %P4![ :
1) Nel MT oltre ai Salmi 14 e 53, ci sono 16 casi in cui la domanda %P4![ è atte-
stata con il verbo 9L": dieci volte è seguita da qatal23, quattro volte da yiqtol24 e
due volte da un infinito costrutto25. Inoltre ci sono 17 casi in cui il verbo 9L" è
preceduto dalla particella interrogativa ![ senza la negazione. In otto casi la
particella è seguita da qatal26, una volta da x-qatal27, quattro volte da yiqtol28,
una volta da x-yiqtol29, tre volte dall’infinito costrutto30. Non compare mai l’in-
terrogazione con il participio di 9L"31.
2) La LXX traduce la costruzione ![ /%P4![ + qatal di 9L" con tempi diversi: per-
fetto (6x), presente (6x), aoristo (5x) e piuccheperfetto (1x). La traduzione con
il futuro si trova solo nei Salmi 14 e 53, fatto che può essere spiegato con la
lettura del verbo come yiqtol e non qatal (J9L+ )" invece di J9L+ $", come in alcuni
Mss ebraici)32. Tempi diversi vengono impiegati anche nella traduzione della
costruzione ![ /%P4![ + yiqtol di 9L": futuro (5x), presente (1x) e perfetto (2x).
21
Ecco la lista degli assi temporali (sicuramente non completa) scelti dagli esegeti per tra-
durre i tre verbi: J9L+ $" – J4C+ %$ – J%&$ Y$ in Sal 14,4 (53,5):
1) presente – presente – presente (la maggioranza, ad es. BARNES, BRIGGS, CASTELLINO, DE-
LITZSCH, DUHM, GOLDINGAY [Sal 53], JACQUET, KIRKPATRICK, KRAUS, LIMBURG, OESTERLEY, RAVASI,
SEYBOLD, TATE, ZENGER);
2) presente – presente – passato (SABOURIN);
3) presente – passato – passato (CRAIGIE, LIFSCHITZ, PETERS, SAVOCA, VESCO);
4) futuro – presente – presente (ALONSO SCHÖKEL-CARNITI);
5) futuro – presente – passato (KING);
6) futuro – passato – presente (MESCHONNIC);
7) futuro – passato – passato (LXX, che probabilmente legge nel primo caso yiqtol e non qatal
in accordo con alcuni Mss ebraici);
8) passato – presente – presente (LELIÈVRE-MAILLOT, SCHMIDT);
9) passato – passato – passato (CALÈS, GIRARD, GOLDINGAY [Sal 14], HERKENNE, HIRSCH, KIS-
SANE, KITTEL).
22
GKC, § 106 g; JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 111 h.112 a; WILLIAMS, Syntax, § 163.
23
Gen 44,15; Gdc 15,11; 1 Sam 20,30; 2 Sam 2,26; 11,20; 19,23; Is 40,28; Ez 17,12;
Zc 4,5.13.
24
2 Sam 3,38; 2 Cr 32,13; Is 40,21; 43,19.
25
2 Cr 13,5; Mi 3,1.
26
Gen 29,5; Gdc 18,14; 1 Re 22,3; 2 Re 2,3.5; Gb 38,33; 39,1; Dn 10,20.
27
Gb 20,4.
28
2 Sam 19,36; Gb 37,15.16; Sal 88,13.
29
Es 10,7.
30
Gen 43,7; Ger 13,12; 40,14.
31
Anche se il MT attesta 95 occorrenze di ogni genere del participio di 9L".
32
Così quattro manoscritti della raccolta di DE ROSSI (380.554.683.696) e due della raccolta
di GINSBURG (7.26), DE ROSSI, Lectiones IV, 8; GINSBURG, Writings, 1138.
371
An_78.indb 386 21/06/11 15:40

Le osservazioni precedenti suggeriscono con probabilità relativamente alta

che si deve escludere l’asse del futuro per la proposizione , 3#%$ "4) 9P[ kB4($ J9L+ $" %P4![ .
La scelta tra l’asse del passato o quella del presente rimane aperta a motivo del
verbo stativo 9L". Dato che l’asse dominante nel salmo è quello del passato e
che l’interrogazione è seguita da due x-qatal (1F3 43 J4C+ %$ "N' 9. "4) CP+ % e J%&$ Y$ %P4 ! $#! +"
nel Salmo 14, o J%&$ Y$ %P4 1"!6
' %7 nel Salmo 53), preferisco l’interpretazione se-
condo cui la proposizione interrogativa è collocata nell’asse del passato33.
La proposizione interrogativa J9L+ $" %P4![ si riferisce al tempo in cui sono state
commesse le azioni descritte sia prima della domanda (14,1.3; 53,2.4) che do-
po (14,4bc.5-6; 53,5bc-6).
14,5-6 (53,6)
La situazione dei verbi in questo passo comune è più chiara nel Salmo 53.
Dopo l’x-qatal che apre il versetto (LF. ?BJL . F[ k$ 1Z$ ) segue un qatal negato (! $"!B% $ P4
LF. ?$ ), poi un x-qatal (W $0PF /M<e+ 9. & .\k' 1"!6 7 (' ), un qatal (!/P$ ZO' !7 ) e ancora un x-qa-
' %B"
tal (1A$ %$ <+ 1"!6 7 (' ). Tutte le azioni si svolgono dunque nell’asse del passato34.
' %B"
Le due proposizioni subordinate con "(' + x-qatal fungono da commento delle
proposizioni che precedono e marcano il secondo livello della comunicazione.
Il Salmo 14 non presenta difficoltà nel v. 5. L’azione si svolge nel passato35
e la proposizione nominale subordinata (Y";' e. &MLD+ 1"!6 7 (' ) funge da commento
' %B"
della proposizione principale. La situazione si complica nel v. 6, dove il salmi-
sta passa all’x-yiqtol (JZ"O' /$ " '09B/ $ e. 9[ ). Le possibilità fondamentali sono due: in-
terpretare l’x-yiqtol come iniziale collocando l’azione nel futuro (indicativo o
volitivo), oppure trattare JZ"O' /$ " '09B/ $ e. 9[ come un x-yiqtol legato con il versetto
precedente, e quindi come passaggio ad un secondo piano della comunicazione
(ma sempre nell’asse del passato) per indicare un’abitudine36. Ambedue le in-
terpretazioni sono plausibili e attraenti. Preferisco la seconda per due ragioni:
una sintattica, l’altra testuale. Il parallelismo sintattico tra i v. 5 e 6 può sugge-
rire che le azioni si svolgono nello stesso asse temporale. Inoltre nel luogo pa-
rallelo del Salmo 53 abbiamo un qatal (!/P$ ZO' !7 , v. 6) che indica azione svolta
nel passato. Anche le versioni antiche traducono JZ"O' /$ in Sal 14,6 come l’azio-
33
Cf. BEER, Gemeindepsalmen, 14; BUDDE, Psalm 14 und 53, 163.
34
In modo diverso hanno inteso la LXX (6%g,Qv*%$+'() e la Vg (trepidabunt), collocando
l’azione dello spaventarsi nel futuro: “saranno spaventati”. Nel caso del Salmo 14, la stessa
azione si svolge nell’asse del passato: /FI(J#'*'$ (LXX) e trepidaverunt (Vg).
35
Cf. la nota di GOLDINGAY, Psalms I, 211, n. d, che riguardo al v. 5 scrive: “There is no hint
of change in meaning from the qatals in vv. 1-4”.
36
NICCACCI, Poetry, 248. Sull’ambiguità del passaggio dal qatal all’x-yiqtol cf. NICCACCI,
Malachi, 72. Per l’uso delle forme yiqtol e qatal in stichi paralleli cf. anche DAHOOD, Psalms III,
420-422. È interessante che la LXX metta l’azione nel passato (aoristo -'+2*Oc$'+I), quando
non si vedono le ragioni per assumere che il traduttore greco leggesse una forma verbale
diversa.
372
An_78.indb 387 21/06/11 15:40

ne svolta nel passato (LXX: -'+2*Oc$'+I; Vg: confudistis). Interpretando

BX"G' .$ come azione svolta nel passato si deve tuttavia registrare la tendenza
contraria nelle traduzioni moderne37.
14,7 (53,7)
Nell’ultimo versetto tutte le forme verbali sono legate all’asse del futuro38. Il
- +" ,E_^' 7' ,f) '" "7' ) in cui l’x-yiqtol
versetto comincia con l’interrogazione (2%) &$ 8+ '" .5BX
,f) '" "7' può essere interpretato come futuro indicativo o volitivo39. Poi segue il
costrutto (EF5- .BGX+ ! $#! +" GBX=+ ) che fa da protasi dello schema sintattico a due
membri.40 L’apodosi è composta da due yiqtol di prima posizione, probabil-
mente con valore di yiqtol indicativi41. Il primo (2 )A $") è volitivo morfologi-
camente, ma nell’apodosi anche lo yiqtol di prima posizione può essere indica-
tivo.42 Interpretando due yiqtol come indicativi si comprende il testo come una
predizione, mentre l’interpretazione volitiva indicherebbe un desiderio, una
preghiera.
3. Conclusioni
Sintetizzando l’uso dei verbi finiti nei Salmi 14 e 53, si possono fare le seguen-
ti osservazioni:
1) Dal punto di vista degli assi temporali, ambedue i Salmi possono essere
divisi in due parti: 14,1-6.7; 53,1-6.7.
37
Cf. alcune traduzioni: “volete confondere” (Conferenza Episcopale Italiana); “you would
confude” (New Revised Standard Version); “wollt ihr vereiteln” (Einheitsübersetzung); “vous
bafouez” (Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible).
38
Il commentario di LELIÈVRE-MAILLOT è l’unico di mia conoscenza a collocare tutti i verbi
del v. 7 nel presente: “Qui accorde… quand Dieu ramène… est dans l’allégresse… se réjouit”
(Psaumes, 35).
39
Per il senso volitivo opta la maggioranza degli esegeti traducendo: “Oh, venisse! / Oh,
venga!”. Tuttavia anche quando si sceglie la traduzione letterale “chi darà?”, l’interrogazione
connota il senso del futuro volitivo. Inoltre si mantiene la corrispondenza tra la domanda ("7' ) e
la riposta (! $#! +"). Così la LXX (+#U Fû*I(), Vg (quis dabit), e autori moderni, ad es. GIRARD,
HIRSCH, LIFSCHITZ, MANNATI, SABOURIN, VESCO, HOSSFELD-ZENGER (2000).
40
Per lo schema sintattico a due membri (protasi-apodosi), cf. NICCACCI, Sintassi, § 95-127.
41
Così la LXX nel Salmo 52 (a"'JJ(1*I+'( â'-Wg -'5 IT63'$Qv*I+'( â*3',J) e anche
ALONSO SCHÖKEL-CARNITI, CRAIGIE, HIRSCH, JACQUET, KIRKPATRICK, KRAUS, TATE, VESCO, HOSS-
FELD-ZENGER (2000). DUHM, Psalmen, 41, spiega che 2 )A $" è una forma poetica di 2" 'A $". Secondo i
BRIGGS, se 2 )A $" è una forma tardiva, ha perso il suo significato iussivo. Inoltre osservano che quan-
do la proposizione precedente è interpretata come temporale, è meglio intendere i due ultimi
verbi del salmo come futuro indicativo; cf. BRIGGS-BRIGGS, Psalms, 109.112. Come yiqtol voliti-
vi sono stati intesi dalla LXX nel Salmo 13 (a"'JJ(1*QW â'-Wg -'5 IT63'$Qv+W â*3',J) e an-
che da ANDERSON, DAHOOD, DELITZSCH, GOLDINGAY, GUNKEL, KÖNIG, PODECHARD, SCHMIDT, SA-
BOURIN.
42
NICCACCI, Sintassi, §§ 113.118. Cf. anche WALTKE-O’CONNOR, § 34.2.1c.
388
An_78.indb 388 21/06/11 15:40

2) In 14,1-6 e 53,1-6 le azioni si svolgono nell’asse del passato. Le forme

verbali che lo indicano sono il qatal e l’x-qatal o anche l’x-yiqtol. Lo scambio
tra qatal e x-qatal può designare il passaggio ad una linea secondaria della co-
municazione oppure essere semplicemente una questione di stile43.
3) In 14,7 e 53,7 vengono usate le forme verbali x-yiqtol e yiqtol che colloca-
no le azioni nel futuro.
4) La prospettiva del salmista è quella tra passato e futuro. Il suo occhio ha
visto le azioni compiute nel passato (14,1-6; 53,1-6) che hanno causato la si-
tuazione presente, e perciò si rivolge a quelle a venire (14,7; 53,7).
L’analisi del valore temporale dei verbi nei Salmi 14 e 53 mostra che il siste-
ma proposto da NICCACCI può essere applicato ai testi poetici in modo plausibi-
le e fruttuoso. Nel caso del Salmo 14 l’analisi ha portato alla traduzione quasi
identica con le versioni antiche, un fatto sconosciuto alla stragrande maggio-
ranza delle traduzioni moderne.
Wojciech Wùgrzyniak
Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Paw8a II w Krakowie
Bibliografia
ALONSO SCHÖKEL L. - CARNITI C., I Salmi I, Roma 1992.

ANDERSON A. A., The Book of Psalms I: Psalms 1-72 (New Century Biblical
Commentary), Grand Rapids - London 1981.
BAETHGEN F., Die Psalmen (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
II.2.2), Göttingen 1892.
BARNES W. E., The Psalms: With Introduction and Notes, Vol. I-II (Westmin-
ster Commentaries), London 1931.
BEER G., Individual- und Gemeindepsalmen. Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung des
Psalters, Marburg 1894.
BRIGGS C. A. - BRIGGS E. G., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Book of Psalms (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh 1906.
BUDDE K., “Psalm 14 und 53”, JBL 47 (1928) 160-183.
CALÈS J., Le livre des Psaumes I., Paris 51936.
CASTELLINO G., Libro dei Salmi, Torino - Roma 1955.
CRAIGIE P. C., Psalms 1-50 (Word Biblical Commentary 19), Waco 1983.
43
NICCACCI, Jonah, 30.
374
An_78.indb 389 21/06/11 15:40

DAHOOD M., Psalms: Introduction, Translation, and Notes I-III (Anchor Bible
16-17A), New York 1966-1970.
DELITZSCH F. J., Die Psalmen (Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher des Alten
Testaments 4/1), Leipzig 51894.
DUHM B., Die Psalmen (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament XIV),
Freiburg i. B. - Leipzig - Tübingen 1899.
EWALD H., Die Dichter des alten Bundes I/2: Die Psalmen und die Klaglieder,
Göttingen 1866.
GIBSON J. C. L., Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, Edinburgh
4
1994.
GINSBURG C. D., The Writings: Diligently Revised According to the Massorah
and the Early Editions with the Various Readings from Mss. and the An-
cient Versions, London 1926.
GIRARD M., Les Psaumes: Analyse structurelle et interprétation, Vol. I: Ps 1-50
(Recherches: Nouvelle série 2), Montréal - Paris 1984.
GIRARD M., Les psaumes redécouverts: De la structure au sens, Vol. II:
51-100, Montréal 1994.
GOLDINGAY J., Psalms, Vol. I-II (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament
Wisdom and Psalms), Grand Rapids 2006-2007.
GUNKEL H., Die Psalmen (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
II.2.2), Göttingen 51968.
HERKENNE H., Das Buch der Psalmen (Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testamen-
tes V.2), Bonn 1936.
HIRSCH S. R., Die Psalmen, Meisenheim am Glan 1914.
HITZIG F., Die Psalmen: Erster Band, Leipzig - Heidelberg 1863.
HOSSFELD F.-L. - ZENGER E., Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1-50 (Neue Echter Bibel:
Altes Testament 29), Würzburg 1993.
HOSSFELD F.-L. - ZENGER E., Psalmen: 51-100 (Herders Theologischer Kom-
mentar zum Alten Testament), Freiburg - Basel - Wien 2000.
HOSSFELD F.-L. - ZENGER E., Die Psalmen II: Psalm 51-100 (Neue Echter Bibel:
Altes Testament 40), Würzburg 2002.
JACQUET L., Les Psaumes et le cœur de l’Homme: Étude textuelle, littéraire et
doctrinale, Vol. I-III, Gembloux 1975-1979.
Roma 22006.
KING P., The Books of Psalms: Part 1 with a Commentary (Pamphlet Bible Se-
ries 43), New York 1962.
KIRKPATRICK A. F., The Book of Psalms: With Introduction and notes, Cam-
bridge 1902.
KISSANE E. J., The Book of Psalms: Translated from a Critically Revised He-
brew Text, Vol. I: Psalms 1-72, Dublin 1953.
KITTEL R., Die Psalmen (Kommentar zum Alten Testament 13), Leipzig 1914.
375
An_78.indb 390 21/06/11 15:40

KÖNIG E., Die Psalmen, Gütersloh 1927.

KRAUS H.-J., Psalmen: I. Teilband (Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament
15/1), Neukirchen-Vluyn 51978.
LELIÈVRE A. - MAILLOT A., Les Psaumes: Traduction, notes et commentaires:
Psaumes 1 à 50, Genève 21972.
LIFSCHITZ D., Tutti sono corrotti: Salmi 11-14 (La Tradizione ebraica e cristiana
commenta i Salmi 5), Leumann 1994.
LIMBURG J., Psalms (Westminster Bible Companion), Louisville 2000.
MANNATI M., Les Psaumes: Tome I-II, Paris 1966-1967.
MESCHONNIC H., Gloires: Traduction des psaumes, Paris 2001.
NICCACCI A., “Proverbi 22,17-23,11”, LA 29 (1979) 42-72.
NICCACCI A., Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (SBF. Ana-
lecta 23), Jerusalem 1986.
NICCACCI A., “Syntactic Analysis of Jonah”, LA 46 (1996) 26-31.
NICCACCI A., “Proverbi 23,12-25”, LA 47 (1997) 33-56.
NICCACCI A., “Proverbi 23,26-24,22”, LA 48 (1998) 49-104.
NICCACCI A. - CORTESE E., “L’attesa dei poveri non sarà vana. Il Sal 9/10 attua-
lizzato”, in L. CAGNI (ed.) Biblica et semitica: Studi in memoria di Frances-
co Vattioni, Napoli - Roma 1999, 139-149.
NICCACCI A., “Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi”, LA 51 (2001)
55-107.
247-268.
OESTERLEY W. O. E., The Psalms, London 1962.
PETERS N., Das Buch der Psalmen, Paderborn 1930.
PODECHARD E., Le Psautier, traduction littérale et explication historique: I.
Psaumes 1-75, Lyon 1949.
RAVASI G., Il libro dei Salmi I-III: Commento e attualizzazione, Bologna 92002.
DE ROSSI J. B., Variae lectiones Veteris Testamenti ex immensa Mss. editorumq.
Codicum congerie haustae et ad samar. textum, ad vetustiss. versiones, ad
accuratiores sacrae criticae fontes ac leges examinatae. Vol. I-IV, Parmae
1784-1788.
SABOURIN L., Le livre des Psaumes, traduit et interprété (Recherches Nouvelle
Série 18), Montréal - Paris 1988.
SAVOCA G. et al. (ed.), I Canti di Sion: Traduzione interlineare dei Salmi
Ebraici, London - Messina 1983.
SCHMIDT H., Die Psalmen (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 15), Tübingen
1934.
SEYBOLD K., Die Psalmen (Handbuch zum Alten Testament 1/15), Tübingen
1996.
376
An_78.indb 391 21/06/11 15:40

TATE M. E., Psalms 51-100 (Word Biblical Commentary 20), Dallas 1990.
VESCO J.-L., Le psautier de David traduit et commenté, I (Lectio Divina 210),
Paris 2006.
WALTKE B. K. - O’CONNOR, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Wi-
nona Lake, Indiana 1990.
WELLHAUSEN J., The Book of Psalms: A New English Translation (The Sacred
Books of the Old and New Testaments 14), New York - London - Stuttgart
1898.
WILLIAMS R. J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, Toronto - Buffalo - London 21982.
377
An_78.indb 392 21/06/11 15:40

Ziony Zevit
Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew: Four Short Studies
Semantics1 is that branch of linguistics that deals with meaning below the level
of the sentence: clauses, phrases and their constituents. Most research into the
semantics of Biblical Hebrew focuses on the meanings of words and lexemes
considered not only in the literary context of the Bible itself, but also of the so-
cio-cultural world of ancient Israel, to the degree that it is knowable. The re-
sults of such research then become available for lexicographers, philologists
and biblical exegetes in their respective undertakings. This article in honor of
Alviero NICCACCI, a scholar who has contributed much to our understanding of
how living speech is presented in Hebrew scriptures, focuses on a semantic
oddity, syntagms.
Syntagm refers to a sequence of individual words or lexemes that constitute
a single semantic unit with its own meaning, a meaning not obvious from its
underlying constituents. Its meaning, not accessible when only the component
elements are considered, can usually be determined with some confidence after
observing how the syntagm is used in multiple contexts and by evaluating it
alongside other words or syntagms from the same semantic field.
For example, the meaning of the common English expression “How do you
do?” is far from clear. Formally, it appears to be a query into how X does
something even though no vocable refers to what is being done or accom-
plished. Consequently, it would be proper to ask the following question in re-
sponse: “How do I do what?”
Theoretically, the unmentioned “what” would be clear from the context
of the utterance. So, addressed to a baker who had produced a delicious cake,
it could be understood as being a curtailed formulation of “How do you do
that?” “That” would be understood as referring to the complex of activities in-
volved in baking the cake. Addressed to a plumber, it might elicit a response
about washers, fittings, and pipes. Such an understanding of the query, how-
1
I thank Rachel ZEVIT and Gary EDWARDS for technical assistance in preparing this article.
Except when indicated otherwise, all translations in this article are by the author.
378
An_78.indb 393 21/06/11 15:40

394 Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew: Four Short Studies
ever, is incorrect. The expression is not used to inquire about how anybody
does anything.
When employed in a social situation, the query elicits verbal responses
such as “Fine, thank you” or even a silent smile, shrug, or grimace indicating
respectively, “fine,” “I’m not so sure,” or “not so well.” From the responses,
the meaning of the syntagm can be inferred and rendered as “How are you?”
The rendering itself is understood by native speakers and those who have mas-
tered English idiom not as an existential inquiry but as a conventional abbre-
viation of “How are you faring/managing/getting along?”
This is explicated historically by the sense of “thrive” associated with “do”
in 19th century England when this syntagm functioned as a conventional greet-
ing among the upper classes. It contrasted with the lower class “hullo/hello”
that became internationalized after Thomas A. EDISON promoted it as a conven-
tional telephone greeting. In contemporary American speech “How do you
do?” may contrast with the informal and ungrammatical “How you doing?”
and the informal western Americanism, “Howdy!”—a contraction of “How do
you (do)?” that has lost all traces of polite interrogation and concern for well-
being. Ten native speakers of English and American whom I interviewed in-
formally around a dinner table were unable to explain why “How do you do?”
is used as a greeting or what it actually means. All, however, could translate it
into other locutions that made sense to them and that functioned as its semantic
equivalent.
Syntagms are a feature of idiomatic speech in living languages and can be
identified in Biblical Hebrew also. They are products of what was once a liv-
ing language, a relatively small corpus of which is preserved in the Hebrew
Bible. Because of this limitation, the historical development of a particular
syntagm can be traced only sometimes—as in the Americanism howdy—but
sometimes its origin can only be hypothesized. In no case, however, can its
meaning be predicted since syntagms are not generated paradigmatically.
Study 1
The bound form l(+ &+ 93 D+ in Lev 5,15.18.25 translates literally as “in your evalua-
tion.”2 In verse 15, “he will bring for YHWH a ram without blemish from the
flock animals l(+ &+ 93 D+ , in your evaluation, silver sheqels in the sanctuary weight
for a guilt-offering.” In verses 18 and 25, however, it occurs in a similar ex-
2
This first study is based, almost in its entirety, on a famous crux that was first explained
by E. A. SPEISER in 1960, but cited here from SPEISER, 1967. I summarize SPEISER’s work because
his article remains unknown to most Hebrew linguists and most Biblicists aside from the galant
handful that study Leviticus. I consider it a model for the proper inquiry into and analysis of
syntagms.
379
An_78.indb 394 21/06/11 15:41

Ziony Zevit 395
pression: “he will bring an unblemished ram from the flock l(+ &+ 93 D+ , in your eva-
luation, for a guilt offering.” These verses raise the following question: What
does “in your evaluation” mean? In verse 15, it might call for a priest to deter-
mine that the ram is worth at least one sheqel weight of silver according to a
standardized sanctuary weight. In verses 18 and 25, it appears to call for the
priest to evaluate whether or not the ram is unblemished. The apparent switch
in what is to be evaluated between these laws is unlikely since all three are in-
tended to govern similar circumstances.
The problem is exacerbated by verses from Lev 27 where l(+ &+ 93 recurs some
21 times, twice in bound constructions with a following noun (verses 2 and
12). Verses 1-3 of the chapter illustrate the problem clearly, defying any litera-
ry translation: “… when anyone explicitly vows ! $#!"4. /P Z?$ +0 l(+ &+ 93 D+ and <then>
will be l(+ &+ 93 of the male from twenty years to sixty years, and <then> will be
l(+ &+ 93 fifty sheqels of silver in the sanctuary weight.” In verse 23, the phrase is
nominalized and rendered definite by the article: “… and the priest will calcu-
late for him the amount of l(+ &+ 93 !$ until the year of Jubilee.” Rendering this as
“the ‘your evaluation’ ” creates nonsense. The priest is determining the value
of something. It is his, not your, evaluation that is the concern of the rule. The
pronominal suffix appears to be incorrect yet it is the only suffix used in the
multiple attestations of the syntagm.
In 1960, E. A. SPEISER, considering the syntax of l(+ &+ 93 !$ , realized that l(+ &+ 93
was treated as a single noun whose meaning had been lost to both ancient and
modern interpreters. On the basis of Akkadian parallels and of all the biblical
contexts where it appears—the syntagm is used in contexts involving moneta-
ry payment in Lev 5 (and Num 18,16) and often in Lev 27 in the commutation
of vows—SPEISER proposed that it means “convertible into a payment of sil-
ver.” The original bound form, noun + 2ms possessive suffix, had become fro-
zen and its original meaning lost as it evolved into a technical term: “the value
in silver of X.” 3 When this meaning of the syntagm is read in the passages
translated above, their meaning is clear. Although the texts appear superficially
to be concerned with animals or humans, they actually refer to the value of
animals or humans converted into silver of a standardized weight (and, possib-
ly, purity). His explanation is broadly accepted by exegetes examining the re-
levant passages.4
A stage in the development of this syntagm may be discerned in an expres-
sion used in 2 Ki 12,5: M(&+ 93 /MZ?+ .0 RA3 (3 , “the silver of humans, its value” in
which the pronominal suffix is not frozen.
The noun vC&94 is attested epigraphically on a large, unprovenanced ostra-
con reported to have been found in the western Hebron hills.5 It occurs at the
3
SPEISER, Leviticus, 124-128.
4
MILGROM, Leviticus, 326-327; HARTLEY, Leviticus, 73; LEVINE, Leviticus, 30-31.
380
An_78.indb 395 21/06/11 15:41

end of a list of payments in silver whose combined weight of sheqels and ge-
rahs is greater than 5 sheqels, but immediately before what appears to be a
sum: 2 silver (sheqels) 12 gerahs. This use is consistent with those in the bibli-
cal text. The value of the silver payments after conversion to a conventional
standard is evaluated (and most likely entered into an account scroll) as the
much smaller number.
Study 2
The prudishness of Israelites is indicated by the absence of clinical words for

genitalia and by the use of few words for sexual intercourse in Biblical He-
brew. Hebrew 25G is used to refer to a male on female sexual penetration (Gen
20,31; Deut 21,13; 22,22; 24,1; Isa 62,5) while 2Aw refers to the same act but
connotes coercive force (Deut 28,30 [by a man other than her affianced]; Isa
13,6 [by rampaging enemies who killed their men and murdered their babies];
Jer 3,2 [by anonymous men for whom she waited]; Zech 14,2 [by soldiers who
capture Jerusalem]). In any event, the traditions preserved by Masoretes direc-
ted that a form of the verb G<w be read aloud at every occurrence of the ketiv,
2Aw indicating that that verb was considered obscene. It had become the He-
brew equivalent of the F-word.6
Israelite authors preferred euphemisms and circumlocutions most of which
are transparent. As a consequence, all readers of the Bible are familiar with %#G
+ 2% “come to” (Gen 16,2; 38,8; Deut 22,13), or 05/.% + G<w, “lie with” (Gen
19,32; Exod 22,15; Lev 20,18), !w%/w"% + .%+ 5D" or .#% + objective suffix, “to
have sexual relations with” (Gen 4,1.17 [followed by verbs indicating concep-
tion and birthing]; 19,5 [involves forced sodomy]; 24,16; 38,26; Num 3,17.18.
35; Judg 11,39; 19,22 [involves forced sodomy]; 19,25 [involves rape]; 21,12;
1 Sam 1,19; 1 Ki 4,1).7
Samuel David LUZZATTO (1800-1865) suggested that 2% + %#G developed the
meaning “to have intercourse with” from the sense of coming (in) to a place
where a woman was, whether or not intercourse was involved. Of the three ex-
pressions adduced above, this is the most common and retains a genteel, eu-
phemistic quality.8 Likewise, 05/.% + G<w is transparent in that it alludes to a
5
ESHEL, Late, 158-161. Citing others, Esther ESHEL proposes that SPEISER’s derivation of the
odd form be replaced by explaining its morophology as reflecting a doubled third radical charac-
teristic of adjectival patterns (p. 159 and see A9ITUV, Echoes, 193). The word, however, does not
function as an adjective in the inscription or in the relevant biblical passages.
6
The phonetically similar sounding noun 2 -AX) , “consort” occurring in Ps 45,10 and Neh 2,6;
(and its Aramaic cognate in Dan 5,2.3.23) seems not to have offended sensibilities. BRENNER, In-
tercourse, 21-30, provides a thoughtful analysis of the explicit terms used by Israelite authors for
sexual intercourse.
7
SCHORCH, Euphemismen, 96-97.130-131.202-206.
396
An_78.indb 396 21/06/11 15:41

Ziony Zevit 397
horizontal position that is a usual prerequisite for human sexual intercourse.

Both these expression evolved by synecdoche: the first or second part of the
process—entering the place, assuming a horizontal posture—came to refer to
the final part, the sexual act itself.9
The significantly different act described in Deut 27,21, ;2(;0 $ 5' G<I) X &B&%$
!7$ !) =+ , “Cursed <is> the one who lies with any domestic animal,” does not in-
volve a horizontal posture. A clinical depiction of the posture involved is pro-
vided by the verb 5G&, used in the hifil to describe breeding domestic animals
by having males mount females (Lev 19,19) and in the Qal to describe assum-
ing a crouching or crawling (mating) posture when engaging in bestiality (Lev
18,23; 20,15). Consequently 05 + G<w in Deut 27,21 illustrates that this syn-
tagm refers to something other than what might be inferred from its etymo-
logy.10
The expression .G<w + ,./—*&ek5bet is attested only in the form f+ G+ <$ X+ +
suffix—“give/place intercourse” or, what is more likely, “give/place (his/your)
penis” used only of males (Lev 18,20.23 and 20,15 [the latter two involving
domestic animals]; Num 5,20), is a related syntagm.11 This is obvious from the
verses addressing bestiality since reclining horizontally cannot be involved. In-
termediate stages between the evolution of the euphemism into a syntagm are
the expressions 5&- $@;.G- <+ X' , “lying or layer of seed” (Lev 15,18) and &<$ $@ G(- X+ 7' ,
“lying down of a male” (Num 31,17) referring to sexual intercourse (Lev
15,18).12
It is of exegetical interest to note here that Lev 18,20 outlaws insemination
by proxy as a general practice: “And to the wife of your kinsman, do not give
your penis for seed to become impure by her.” If the circumstances envisioned
by this law involve a childless wife whose husband has been unable to impreg-
nate her, it prohibits what is required in the almost similar circumstances in-
volving levirate marriages (Deut 25,5-6) described in the story of Judah and
Tamar (Gen 38).
The expression 5D" + direct object referring to sexual intercourse is a syn-
tagm, but unlike others discussed above, no satisfactory account for its deve-
8
ROTHSTEIN, And Jacob Came, 95. ROTHSTEIN lists a number of other expressions not consi-
dered here: G + %#G, “come in (Josh 23,12), or 25 + %#G “come on” (Gen 19,31); 25 + !25 “ascend
on” (Gen 31,10-12 [used of goats]), and 2% + v2!, go/walk to (Amos 2,7 [the object of the prepo-
sition is a prostitute]); see p. 91-95.
9
SCHORCH, Euphemismen, 96.
10
ORLINSKY, Root, 22, notes that Deuteronomy uses 05 + G<w exclusively while Leviticus
and Numbers, the Priestly source uses .% + G<w in all cases but Lev 15,33. J and E use both.
11
ORLINSKY, Root, 40; MILGROM, Leviticus, 927; SCHORCH, Euphemismen, 207.
12
SCHORCH, Euphemismen, 156.206-207. ORLINSKY, Root, 37-39, follows some medieval
and 20th century lexicographers and grammarians in connecting G<w in some sexual contexts
with an Arabic s-k-b meaning “pour out,” hence “outpouring of seed.” This meaning is also
appropriate for Job 38,37, where it has to do with precipitation. See also KADDARI, ,#2"7, 1086b.
397
An_78.indb 397 21/06/11 15:41

lopment based on semantically transitional texts is available.13 Verbs of cogni-

tion in Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian—idû, commonly “know, understand,
perceive through the mind” and lam!du, “learn”—are used rarely to refer to
sexual intercourse.14 This shows only that a semantic development that can po-
sited for Hebrew 9L" + direct object (in an appropriate context) is not unprece-
dented: learning/knowing > knowing/learning from sexual experience > sexual
intercourse. Unfortunately, evidence for the posited mid-stage is lacking both
in Hebrew and Akkadian. The mid-stage is usually posited on the basis of the
semantic logic of European languages (themselves influenced by translations
of the Bible) ignoring the fact that the Hebrew verb is transitive. Consequent-
ly, any posited development can only be considered a weak hypothesis even
though the meaning of the well attested Hebrew syntagm is undisputed. The
most widely known use of this syntagm is in Gen 4,1 usually rendered in Eng-
lish as “And the man knew Eve his wife.” The context however does not indi-
cate why the author preferred it over one of the two common euphemisms: %#O
+ 4% or 19//% + OCw.
Judging from its the distribution in narrative, legal, and oratorical contexts,
it is likely that 4% + %#O is used only in cases of a couple’s first licit sexual act
after an agreement has been reached about the signification of the act (even if
the woman is a concubine or prostitute: Hagar (Gen 16,2-4); Leah (Gen
29,21); Rachel (Gen 29,23); Bilhah (Gen 30,3-4); Rachel to Jacob (Gen 30,16
[speaking figuratively]); Tamar (Gen 38,8-9); Judah when bartering with a
prostitute, actually his disguised daughter-in-law, Tamar (Gen 38,16); part of
the marriage process (Deut 22,13); Saul’s concubine (2 Sam 3,7); Ohalah, the
prostitute (Ezek 23,44).15
The contextual distribution of the 49 examples of 19//% + OCw in Biblical
texts does not fall into any discernible categories such as illicit versus licit, or
13
The standard suggestions are listed conveniently (and dismissed) by WENHAM, Genesis,
100-101.
KADDARI, ,#4"<, 365b.401b, proposes that the development is seen by a parallelism in Ps
91,14, "<' Z+ 9L. $"B"(' J!O) +T>. %[ J!V) K+ ?. %[ .# YZ. F$ "O' "(' , “Because he desired me, I will rescue him//I will raise
him up because he knew my name.” KADDARI implies a sexual meaning in the verb-preposition
combination O + YwF, something along the lines of “long for, desire” (cf. Gen 34,8; Deut 21,11)
in this context that he then transfers to 9L". An erotic, sexual sense of YwF, however, is inappro-
priate in the context of the psalm and KADDARI made his point by citing the relevant parallel
words out of context.
The sense “being devoted to, concerned for, feeling closely connected with” (Deut 7,7;
10,15) is more appropriate for YwF in the psalm. If this interpretation is accepted, there is no rea-
son to associate the parallel verb 9L", whose object is the divine name, with sexual desire.
14
CAD ad idû and lam!du. See also TAWIL, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 138; ROTHSTEIN,
And Jacob Came, 95, note 14.
15
This is expanded from the data provided in ROTHSTEIN, And Jacob Came, 91.93. ROTH-
STEIN discusses the earlier suggestions of LUZZATTO and A. EHRLICH. Essentially a study of how
and why Jubilees retells patriarchal stories involving sexual relations, ROTHSTEIN explains some
of the changes in Jubilees as due to its author’s concern with the legal nuances of 4% + %#O.
383
An_78.indb 398 21/06/11 15:41

Ziony Zevit 399
coerced versus willing relations. Consequently, the syntagms can only be

characterized blandly to wit: they reference socially conventional and uncon-
ventional sexual behavior of all types (Gen 34,7; 39,10.12; 2 Sam 11,11;
12,11), even in legal contexts (Lev 15,24; Num 5,1.19; Deut 22,23.25.28).
Only 9L" + direct object appears unconnected to social or legal significa-
tions. It refers to the act itself.16 Consequently, it alone was appropriate in de-
scribing the first sexual act that took place in a time before society, laws, rules,
and conventions. In the primeval history, Gen 1-11, it recurs after Gen 4,1 with
Cain (Gen 4,16), and again with Adam before the birth of Seth (Gem 4,25).
Study 3
Whereas 4#YO + 9<w refers to listening and obeying or acquiescing or following

oral instructions approximately 107 times in the Hebrew Bible, 4#Y4 + 9<w, oc-
curring only 16 times, is sometimes used differently.17 In three passages em-
ploying the second expression, the context does not mention any speech what-
soever and nothing in the context suggests that speech occurred. There was
nothing to hear. Nevertheless, all three employ the word 4#Y , “voice/sound.”
One example is in Exod 4,8-9:
(8) And it be, if they do not believe you 4PY4+ J9<+ Z+ '" %P4 +#, (literally, and will not
hear/listen for the sound/voice of) the first sign, they will believe the sound/voi-
ce of the last sign. (9) And it will be that if they do not believe in both these
signs and l4P3 Y4+ ,J9<+ Z+ '" %P4 +#, and will not hear/listen for your sound/voice, you will
take from the waters of the Nile ….
The “signs” to which these verses refer were acts, described in Exod 4,2-7,
performed in silence. The first involved Moses turning his staff into a snake
and then back into a staff; the second, making his hand leprous and then re-
turning it to its prior healthy state. There was nothing to be heard. The mean-
ing of the expression in verse 8 is something like “pay attention (to what can
bee seen) and learn something.” In verse 9, 4#Y4 + 9<w is not a syntagm.
+ , and
A second example is Jer 18,19: “Listen to me, YHWH, "O"$ &' +" 4MY4+ 9<. ZJ
hear for the sound/voice of my opponents.” Jeremiah does not cite anything
that his opponents may have said; rather, he goes on to describe what they did:
“they dug a pit for me” (Jer 18,20). His instruction to YHWH is to pay attention
to what he, Jeremiah, will say and to learn from that what his opponents did to
him, not what they said to him.
The final example of this syntagm is from Gen 3,17 containing the divine
rebuke to Adam on account of his behavior: “because lf3 Z+ %' 4MY4+ f$ 9+ <. Z$ , you
16
ROTHSTEIN, And Jacob Came, 93.
17
Typical examples of 4#YO+ 9<w are Deut 8,20; 13,19; 16,15; and of 4#Y4 + 9<w are Gen
16,2; Exod 15,26; 18,24; 1 Sam 2,25; 15,1; 1 Ki 20,25; 2 Ki 10,6.
384
An_78.indb 399 21/06/11 15:41

heard/listened to the sound/voice of your wife, and ate from the tree about
which I commanded you …”. Nowhere in the preceding narrative does the wo-
man address any comment whatsoever to Adam. The story describes what hap-
pened: “… she took from its fruit and she ate and she gave also to her husband
with her and he ate” (Gen 3,6). No oral communication of any sort is described
between them. In this context, the divine rebuke can only mean “because you
learned from your wife.”
In this syntagm, the verb 9<w, usually referring to hearing, is associated
with the semantic field of cognition and understanding (see also Gen 11,7;
Deut 28,49; 2 Sam 14,17; 1 Ki 3,11). The word 4#Y atypically has nothing to do
with sound but with deeds and actions.
Study 4
Having introduced this article with an analysis of a common English question

that turned out not to be a question at all, I conclude it with a similar example
from Biblical Hebrew.
When confronted by an unprecedented and unexpected situation caused by
others, speakers in Biblical narratives sometimes ask 1/"w9/#0"w9//"w9 /%H !<.
This translates into English as “What is this that we/you (male, female, singu-
lar or plural) have done?” The problem with the question is that in all contexts
where it is posed, the speaker knows full well what was done. For example, in
Gen 12,18, even though Pharaoh asks Abraham "K' /"$ >' 9$ /%P\B!<. , “What is this
that that you have done to me?” he knows exactly what Abraham did. Pharaoh
goes on to recite to Abraham what he said and how he passed off Sarah as his
sister. A similar question is asked by Abimelech of Gerar in the parallel story
about Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 26,10).
In Gen 42,28, when the brothers discover what they had paid out in Egypt
' %7 !>$ 9$ /%P\B!<. , “What is this that God
in their sacks of grain, they ask J04$ 1"!6
has done to us?” They knew exactly that what had been done to them—they
were staring at their silver in their sacks and understood that they were in
trouble.
In Exod 14,5, Pharaoh asks J0">' 9$ /%P\B!<. , “What is this that we have done?”
He knew the answer to the question because he was the one who had just al-
lowed the Israelites to depart Egypt. Moreover, he follows up his question with
the following words: “that we have sent Israel away from serving us.” These
examples suffice to indicate that in cases of /%H !< questions, questioners
do not actually solicit information (Gen 3,13; Exod 14,11; Judg 2,2; 15,11;
Jon 1,10).
These questions contrast with !H !< and /"w9 !< questions intended by the
speaker to elicit information. For example, in Gen 20,9, Abimelech’s question
385
An_78.indb 400 21/06/11 15:41

Ziony Zevit 401
to Abraham, J0K$ /"$ >' 9B!

$ <3 , “What did you do to us?” is answered in verses 11-13
where Abraham explains and rationalizes his behavior. Similarly, in 1 Sam
14,43 and 20,1 questions are asked and responses given, though in the second
example the response successfully avoids the question.
In Gen 27,20, Isaac cannot imagine how Esau’s hunt was so successful in
so short a time, so he asks %Pe<+ 4' f$ &+ !. <' ! 3\B!<. , “What is this, you were quick to
find <game> my son?” Jacob in the guise of Esau answers, “Indeed, YHWH your
god caused <it> to happen (that is, come) before me.”
In 1 Sam 10,11, onlookers seeing Saul’s ecstatic behavior with a group of
prophets ask each other, w"YB, ' O3 4+ ! $"!$ ! 3\B!<. , “What is this that happened to the
son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” In context, their question is
whether or not Saul’s behavior indicates that he has joined a group of ecstatics.
None of the onlookers know. Although nobody actually responds to the ques-
tion, the narrative does so in verse 13, “and he ceased from acting ecstatical-
ly.” The implicit negative answer to the question is supplied retroactively by
the narrator.
One example is significantly different. In 2 Sam 3,24, Joab challenges Da-
vid for allowing Abner to leave safely: MfF+ K. Z' ! 3\B!N$ 4$ l"43 %) & )0O+ %. %OB!
$ )*!' !/"
$ >' 9$ !<3
vM4!$ W43 )` .#, “What did you do? Here, Abner came to you. Why is this that you
sent him away and he went?” Joab demanded that his cousin David explain
why he did not restrain Abner. David remained silent. As the narrative later
clarifies, David’s silence constituted an answer that Joab interpreted correctly
as a license to do what was necessary but in a way that would not implicate
David in Abner’s death (2 Sam 3,26-34).18
Addressing only the /%H !< and !H !< questions, the sole difference between
the two is that the demonstrative pronoun referring to the situation is feminine
in the first question and masculine in the second. Nothing intrinsic to the cir-
cumstances precipitating the questions explains the selection of the pronoun
selected. No other noun in the sentence determines the grammatical gender of
18
An example of a true question that receives no response is found in Gen 4,10. YHWH asks
Cain, !<$ L$ %[ !B, $ >' 9$ !<3 , “What did you do? The sound of your brother’s
$ <' "4. %) 1"Y' 9P[ e l"F' %$ "<) ;+ 4MY /"
blood(s) cry out to me from the ground.”
YHWH is not portrayed as omniscient in the Genesis narratives (see Gen 3,9.11), so the ques-
tion is real. What YHWH knows for sure is that Abel’s blood in the ground crys out to him, but he
does not know why. God asks his question but does not wait for a response. Cain’s reply to the
first question about Abel—“I do not know, am I my brother’s guardian”—suggested to YHWH
that since Abel was not around, Cain must somehow be responsible. Everything that follows in
the chapter is about the pollution of the ground. It is the reason for Cain’s banishment from the
region, not the killing of Abel. The story, however, leaves open the possibility that the question
here was rhetorical, but of little interest to YHWH. Philology must bow to exegesis.
386
An_78.indb 401 21/06/11 15:41

the demonstrative used.19 Perusal of the questions indicates that they mean dif-
ferently in their contexts and fill different rhetorical functions.
At a rhetorical level, ."w5 .%@ !7 types of questions function as comments
about a set of unfavorable circumstances or about a situation gone awry and
they usually fault the person to whom the question is addressed. Responses are
not given to such questions because they are not, in fact, questions. Conse-
quently, although they may denote anger and frustration, they constitute a syn-
tagm denoting culpability: “I blame you for this”.20
Conclusions:
These four case studies describe the meanings of a number of syntagms and re-
lated vocables as they are used in Biblical Hebrew and suggest appropriate
English translations. The translations provided for most of these are not the
“meanings” of these items as free-standing lexemes. They are all contextually
bound to particular sets of circumstances within which they are recurrent ut-
terances or parts of utterances.
• 2% + %#G “to engage in licit sex after an agreement has been reached about the
signification of the act”
• v<&5G “the value in silver of X”
• .% + 5D" or .#% + 5D" and appropriate object or pronominal suffix “to partici-
pate actively in coitus with a member of the opposite sex.”
• ."w5 .%@ !7 “I blame you for this.”
• .G<w “penis”
• 2#W2 57w “to pay attention in order to become cognizant of something.”
19
In Gen 44,15, the brothers—after Joseph’s goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack—return
to the city and enter before Joseph. “Joseph said to them, 0."1 8' 5Y &X1 %Y ! 1Z!- !81 5Y F- !;!
- 7$ , “What is
this deed that you have done?” In this case, the demonstrative !@ is explicable as necessitated by
the reference to the “taking of the goblet” as a !w57, “deed,” a grammatically masculine noun.
Joseph intended that the brothers respond to his question, however unsatisfactorily. See also
2 Sam 12,21.
These are excluded from my discussion because the pronoun may be explained as due to the
accompanying word. One could argue that in each of these two examples the accompanying
word was inserted because these were !@ !7, not .%@ !7 types of questions. I choose not to ad-
vance such an argument.
20
BARTOR, Pattern, 460-464, suggests that some rhetorical questions, such as those dis-
cussed here, are part of a literary pattern that she terms the “juridicial dialogue.”
402
An_78.indb 402 21/06/11 15:41

Ziony Zevit 403
For this information to be useful in non-English settings, scholars should not

translate the English renderings. They should consider the analyses of each da-
tum and work out an appropriate dynamic equivalent for whatever target lan-
guage interests them.
Ziony Zevit
American Jewish University, Los Angeles
Bibliography
A9ITUV S., Echoes from the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the
Biblical World, Jerusalem 2008.
BARTOR A., “The ‘Juridical Dialogue’: A Literary-Judicial Pattern”, VT 53
(2003) 445-464.
BRENNER A., The Intercourse of Knowledge: On Gendering Desire and Sexuali-
ty in the Hebrew Bible, Leiden 1997.
ESHEL E., “A Late Iron Age Ostracon Featuring the Term v<&52,” Israel Explo-
ration Journal 53 (2003) 151-163.
HARTLEY J. E., Leviticus (Word Bible Commentary 4), Dallas 1982.
LEVINE B. A., Leviticus %&W"# (The JPS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia - New
York - Jerusalem 1989.
MILGROM J., Leviticus 1-16 (Anchor Bible 3), New York 1991.
ORLINSKY H. M.,“The Hebrew Root ü-K-B”, JBL 63 (1944) 19-44.
.#?:w. ,A-.7& ,#?". D5 K?2%7 %&W7! ,#w2 &d#% .."%&W7! ."&G5! ,#2"7 ,d?7 "&DW
ROTHSTEIN D., “ ‘And Jacob Came (in)to [%#G + 2%]….’: Spousal Relationships
and the Use of a Recurring Syntagm in Genesis and Jubilees”, Henoch 29
(2007) 91-103.
SCHORCH S., Euphemismen in der Hebräischen Bibel (Orientalia Biblica et
Christiana 12), Wiesbaden 2000.
SPEISER E. A., “Leviticus and the Critics”, in J. J. FINKELSTEIN - M. GREENBERG
(ed.), Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser,
Philadelphia 1967, 123-142; published originally in M. HARAN (ed.), Ye-
hezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume, Jerusalem 1960.
TAWIL H., An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymologi-
cal-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Suppplements on Biblical
Aramaic, Jersey City 2009.
WENHAM G. J., Genesis 1-15 (Word Bible Commentary 1), Waco 1987.
403
An_78.indb 403 21/06/11 15:41

An_78.indb 404 21/06/11 15:41
Tamar Zewi
On "(' !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# !%$ &$ in Biblical Hebrew
1.
The role of the particles ! )*!' and ! )*!' +# in Biblical Hebrew has been amply dis-
cussed in dictionaries, grammars, monographs, and individual articles, wholly
or partly dedicated to this issue. Various studies generally point out the presen-
tative, demonstrative, and deictic nature of ! )*!' and ! )*!' +#, and they occasionally
define these particles or some of their uses as calling attention and even as
being emphatic. Also noted in scholarly literature is the frequent occurrence of
! )*!' after verbs of speech and ! )*!' +# after verbs of sight or in similar contexts, the
latter sometimes being interpreted as expressing surprise.1 A decrease in the
use of ! )*!' and ! )*!' +# in Late Biblical Hebrew has been noticed,2 yet when these
particles are used they play roles similar to those attested in Classical Biblical
Hebrew.
Examples of these basic conditions for the appearance of ! )*!' and ! )*!' +# are
as follows:
The particle ! )*!' following verbs of speech:

3 P ` .# “And (he) said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another
LM9 1M4F[ "f' <+ 4. F$ ! )*!' &<%
dream’ ” (Gen 37,9).3
#" $0 +H%$ "f) Z+ ! $0"K3 e' f+ M9<P+ ZB4($ &Z3 %[ 4%) &P$ w+ '"D+ &O$ L$ !P wP3 9 "CP' 0%$ ! )*!' 4%J<
) ZB4 3 P ` .# “Then the
+ %3 u! &<%
LORD said to Samuel, ‘Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel, at which the
two ears of every one that hears it will tingle’ ” (1 Sam 3,11).
Both examples follow finite forms of the verb &<. %$ and introduce the content of
the speech.
1
E. g., references in dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew: BDB, 243b-244b; HALOT, 252; KAD-
DARI, ,#4"<, 222f; references in grammars of Biblical Hebrew: GKC, §§ 105 b.147 b, JOÜON-MU-
RAOKA, §§ 105 d.164 a; other references: MCCARTHY, Uses; MURAOKA, Emphatic, 137-140; KAT-
SUMURA, Funktion; KOGUT, Meaning; ZEWI, Particles; V. D. MERWE, Cognitive.
2
ESKHULT, Traces, 365.
3
English translations of Biblical verses are cited from the RSV with occasional minor
changes.
389
An_78.indb 405 21/06/11 15:41

406 On yKi ha;r: and hNEhiw“ ha;r: in Biblical Hebrew
The particle ! )*!' +# following verbs of sight:

. w4$ YF$ e+ '" %e) )` .# “And Isaac went out to
1"%' D$ 1"K' <. +I ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# #" $0"9) %PÉ$ '` .# O&3 9$ /M0?+ 4' !LP3 É$ D. FJP
meditate in the field in the evening; and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and be-
hold, there were camels coming” (Gen 24,63).
%4) <$ &!$ !$ ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# &9. .*!. " )0"9B/
) %3 u! FY. ?+ '` .# !%3 &+ '" +# #" $0"9B/
) %3 % $0BFY. k+ u! &<%
. P ` .# 9Z"
$ 4' %7 4K) k. /+ '` .#
9Z"$ 4' %7 /PO"O' A+ Z%) OC3 &3 +# 1"AJA ' “Then Elisha prayed, and said, ‘O LORD, I pray thee,
open his eyes that he may see.’ So the LORD opened the eyes of the young man,
and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire
round about Elisha” (2 Kgs 6,17).
Both examples follow verbs of sight: the sight formula %&+ .` .# #" $0"9) %PÉ$ '` .# in the first
) %3 … FY. ?+ '` .# in the second
example, and the compound sentence %&+ .` .# … " )0"9B/
example.
The particle ! )*!' +# in contexts involving sight, visions, etc.:

!K3 %) !$ 1"&' $H +T!. ,"D) &O. 9$ &Z3 %[ Z%) L"k' 4. +# ,Z$ 9$ &J*/. ! )*!' +# ! $"!$ !V$ 4$ 9[ .# !%$ D$ Z<3 ]3 !. "!' +" .# “When the
sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming
torch passed between these pieces” (Gen 15,17).
3 P ` .# “Then
#"4$ C) %PwP) 0 +# ,/$ $0M" ,"%) ! )*!' +# JLY+ ?+ '` .# J0N$ 9' <) W4. !$ "<' J%&J+ % $0BJLY+ k' Mf%' &Z3 %[ 19$ 4$ 4J%Z$ &<%
Saul said to the people who were with him, ‘Number and see who has gone
from us.’ And when they had numbered, behold, Jonathan and his armor-bearer
were not there” (1 Sam 14,17).
The first example involves a divine vision, whose content is introduced by the
particle ! )*!' +#, while a verb of sight is absent. In the second example the verb
LY. k$ ‘count’ occurs twice but the verb !%$ &$ follows it only once, it being implied
in the context in the second occurrence. In this case ! )*!' +# introduces the deduc-
tion arising from the count.
2.
In this paper I do not intend to discuss anew the fundamental meanings and
functions of ! )*!' and ! )*!' +#, but to tackle another issue, which concerns only the
latter particle. While ! )*!' +# is widely recognized as a particle that follows verbs
of sight or similar contexts,4 it is not the only one to follow such verbs. A com-
mon Classical Biblical Hebrew particle to follow verbs of sight is "(' . One of its
several roles is subordinating conjunction, introducing content clauses in the
role of object complement clauses after verbs of the verba sentiendi group,
namely verbs of sense perception like feel, believe, know, etc.5 Since both ! )*!' +#
4
MCCARTHY, Uses, is also dedicated to this particle alone. However, the many roles of ! )*!' +#
described in that article may all be construed as related to its basic usage as a deictic particle and
its occurrence with verbs of sight or in similar contexts.
5
A content clause is a subordinate clause which serves as a replacement for a noun and pro-
vides its content. On the term ‘content clause’ and on content clauses in the role of object com-
390
An_78.indb 406 21/06/11 15:41

Tamar Zewi 407
and "(' occur after verbs of sight, it remains to be seen what is the fundamental
distinction between the function and use of these two particles in combination
with these verbs. The particle "(' in this role is very rarely substituted by &Z3 %[ ,
and is regularly replaced in certain Late Biblical Hebrew texts by the par-
ticle Z3 .
As stated above, ! )*!' +# has been recognized as calling attention and adding a
nuance of surprise to an episode. It has also been recognized as introducing
circumstantial clauses6 and as being used after “verbs of observation or enqui-
ry, in contexts where a close observation or enquiry (and cognitive proximity)
is implied or stated”.7 Here I would like to follow, reexamine, and support a
simple explanation for the differentiation between the use of ! )*!' +# and "(' fol-
lowing verbs of sight, formulated by FOLLINGSTAD in his words:
Semantically, "C and !0!# complements tend to mark different types of percep-
tions. "C marks what appear to be private and cognitive thoughts, whereas !0!#
complements typically indicate newly apparent visual physical perception.8
This explanation is not intended to replace but to complement the observations
presented to date regarding the meaning and function of ! )*!' +#.
In almost one hundred occurrences in the Bible, ! )*!' +# follows the verb !%$ &$ ,
mostly in qal stem. In a few more than one hundred occurrences in the Bible,
"(' follows the verb !%$ &$ , again mostly in qal stem. These similarly large num-
bers of examples provide a special opportunity to compare them for any signi-
ficant distinctions. Examining the range of meanings of the verb !%$ &$ in dictio-
naries of Biblical Hebrew yields two basic chief definitions: (1) a physical act
of observation, and (2) a non-physical act of observation.9 Under the latter de-
finition !%$ &$ reveals itself as belonging to the group of verbs of sense percep-
tion, and can be interpreted as ‘realize’, ‘know’, ‘perceive’, ‘become aware’,
‘think’, etc. It has been noted in the literature that in expressing this latter
meaning the verb !%$ &$ may be complemented by an object content clause con-
veying the content of the non-physical perception.10 It has also been occa-
sionally remarked that ! )*!' +# is related to physical observation.11 Furthermore, as
stated above, it has been noted that "(' is related to cognitive thoughts while
! )*!' +# to visual physical perception.12 However, all these indications have not
evolved into a general exclusive theory concerning the fundamental consistent
plement clauses in Biblical Hebrew, see ZEWI, ,C#/, 627f.649-651, and ZEWI, Content.
6
E. g., recently, ESKHULT, Traces, 365.
V. D. MERWE, Cognitive, 139.
7
8
FOLLINGSTAD, Deictic, 154; note further discussion on p. 167.
9
See, e. g., BDB, 906f; HALOT, 1157-1159. All nuances of meaning of this verb are sub-
categories of these two basic meanings. This is especially clear in KADDARI, ,#4"<, 973-975, in
which all nuances in meaning of !%$ &$ are assembled under these two categories.
10
See, e. g., BDB, 907a, JOÜON-MURAOKA, § 157 d.
11
See, e. g., BDB, 907b.
12
FOLLINGSTAD, Deictic, 154.167, and see above.
391
An_78.indb 407 21/06/11 15:41

distinction between "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ . Examining all examples of these
two combinations in Biblical Hebrew, the distinction between the physical and
non-physical observation stands out as the most valid between the two parti-
cles following !%$ &$ , and it accords with the majority of occurrences. This asser-
tion is further discussed and demonstrated below. Although this basic explana-
tion works for most but not all of the examples, and there are several excep-
tions, it should still be viewed as the fundamental explanation for the differen-
tiation between the two particles "(' and ! )*!' +# after !%$ &$ . The lack of one hundred
percent suitability of any one explanation for all relevant linguistic evidence
should not surprise us, since languages often show tendencies in linguistic u-
sage more than clear-cut unequivocal usage rules.
Examples for the use of "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ according to the two basic
meanings of the verb !%$ &$ , the perceptual and physical, are presented and dis-
cussed below, followed by the examination of the small number of exceptions.
3.
3.1 Examples of "(' + !%$ &$ conveying perceptual meaning

Most examples of !%$ &$ followed by "(' convey non-physical meaning. In all of
them !%$ &$ should generally be interpreted in terms of perception. Translations
reflecting the perceptual meaning occasionally occur in the RSV, although in
most cases these tend to be fossilized, using the most common sight verb
‘to see’.
The following example presents the combination of OMV + !%$ &$ :
OMVB"(' &M%!B/ ' %7 %&+ .` .# “And God saw that the light was good.” (Gen 1,4).
$ %3 1"!6
Similar examples with OMV + !%$ &$ are Gen 1,10.12.18.21.25;13 3,6; 6,2; 40,16;
49,15; Ps 34,9; Eccl 3,22; similar other expressions are !<$ 9) $0 ‘was pleasant’
13
Saadya Gaon’s Medieval Arabic Bible translation for ‘to see’ in these verses of Gen 1 is
of special interest for our case, since it uses the verb ˁalima ‘to know’ instead of ‘to see’. Saadya
Gaon probably introduced this translation into the text to avoid personification of God, but at the
same time it genuinely reflects the perceptual meaning of !%$ &$ in these verses. Saadya Gaon
could consider and render such a translation because it is part of the semantic scope of !%$ &$ .
392
An_78.indb 408 21/06/11 15:41

Tamar Zewi 409
(Gen 49,15) or " )0"9) D+ OMV ‘it pleased (someone)’ (Num 24,1) following !%$ &$ .14
Counterpart negative examples displaying 9&. + !%$ &$ or the like are, e. g.:
1M`!B4 . ($ 9&. Y&. MD4' /POZ+ F+ <. &e3 )"B4C$ +# c&3 %$ D$ 1L$ %$ !$ /9. &$ !D$ &. "(' ! $#! +" %&+ .` .# “The LORD saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6,5);
#"O' %$ YF$ e+ '" " )0"9) D+ ,9. $0(+ /M0D+ /M9&$ "(' #>$ 9) %&+ .` .# “So when Esau saw that the Canaanite
women did not please Isaac his father …” (Gen 28,8);15
and similarly Exod 10,10; 1 Sam 12,17.
In the following example the verb !%$ &$ is involved in a process of a ques-
tionable decision:
! 3\!. &O$ ;$ !B/
. %3 /"
$ >' 9$ "(' /"
$ %' &$ !<$ 1!$ &$ O+ %B4
. %3 W43 <" 3 P ` .# “And Abimelech said to Abra-
3 O' %[ &<%
ham, ‘What were you thinking of, that you did this thing?’ ” (Gen 20,10).
Even the RSV, which as noted commonly uses ‘to see’ for !%$ &$ , in this case
clearly chooses ‘to think’. The JPS goes even further: “ ‘What, then,’ Abime-
lech demanded of Abraham, ‘was your purpose in doing this thing?’ ” !%$ &$ in
its perceptual use can mostly be interpreted as ‘to realize,’ devoid of any real
act of viewing, e. g.:
) (' #>$ 9) %&+ .` .# “Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob” (Gen
OPY9[ ."B/%3 YF$ e+ '" W&. OB"
28,6);
%J! !C% . %3 !P<6Z+ %&+ .` .# “And when Solomon saw that the young man
$ 4$ <+ !>P) 9B"(' &9. .*!B/
was industrious” (1 Kgs 11,28).
Other such examples are Gen 16,4.5; 29,31; 30,1.9; 31,5; 32,26; 38,14; 39,3;
42,1; 44,31; 50,15; Exod 8,11; 9,34; 32,1; 32,25; Judg 6,22; 9,55; 12,3; 16,18;
18,26; 20,36; 20,41; 1 Sam 5,7; 9,16; 10,14; 12,12; 13,11; 23,15; 26,3; 28,21;
31,5; 31,7; 2 Sam 10,6.9.14.15.19; 17,23; 1 Kgs 3,28; 12,16; 16,18; 21,29;
2 Kgs 3,26; 6,32; 11,1; Isa 59,16; Jer 3,8; 17,6.8; Ezek 12,3; 19,5; 23,13; Ps
10,14; 119,159; Job 2,13; Eccl 2,24; 4,4; Lam 1,20; Esth 3,5; 7,7; 1 Chr 10,5.7;
19,6.10.15.16.19; 21,28; 28,10; 2 Chr 12,7; 15,9; 22,10; 32,2.
14
Only two examples display the combination of OMV + !%$ &$ with ! )*!' +#, not "(' . One is the con-
cluding remark of the sixth day of creation: &YP3 OB"!' +" .# O&3 9B" 3 !' +" .# LP%<+ OMVB! )*!' +# !>$ 9$ &Z3 %B4
[ (B/
$ %3 1"!6
' %7 %&+ .` .#
"]' ]' !. 1M" “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there
was evening and there was morning, a sixth day” (Gen 1,31). This verse is an exception among
the other occurrences of OMV + !%$ &$ in Gen 1 in its mentioning the object of God’s seeing:
!>$ 9$ &Z3 %B4 $ %3 “everything that he had made.” This attests to the physical act of looking at a ma-
[ (B/
terial object, and it describes a physical viewing of the whole creation. The second example is
LP%<+ !OMV $ ! )*!' +# c&3 %$ !B/
$ %3 J0"%' &$ "(' 1!"
3 4) 9[ !43 9[ .0 +# !<JY + P ` .# “They said, ‘arise, and let us go up against
$ J&<%
them; for we have seen the land, and behold, it is very fertile’ ” (Judg 18,9). This verse again
mentions a material object: c&3 %$ !B/ $ %3 , “the land,” which is being viewed by the speakers.
15
The interpretation of !%$ &$ as expressing non-physical perception is occasionally reflected
elsewhere in the JPS as well. Thus ‘realize’ instead of ‘see’ is used in the JPS for Gen 28,8:
“Esau realized that the Canaanite women displeased his father Isaac,” and similarly for
1 Sam 12,17.
393
An_78.indb 409 21/06/11 15:41

The perceptual meaning of !%$ &$ is sometimes also revealed in the con-
tiguous use of the verbs !%$ &$ and 9L. $", e. g.:
$ (' J%&J+ J9LJ+ “And you shall know and see that your wickedness is
!D$ &. 1C3 /+ 9. &B"
great” (1 Sam 12,17);
$ 9' ! $#! +" "(' 9L. )` .# 4J%Z$ %&+ .` .# “But when Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with
L '#;B1
David …” (1 Sam 18,28);
9Z. ?3 $# !9$ &$ "L' $"D+ ,"%) "(' !%) &J+ 9;. “You may know and see that there is no wrong or
treason in my hands” (1 Sam 24,12);
" .0O$ 4J
+ "Z. $04+ "4. %) F4. ZB"
$ (' Zx) O. <+ ! 3H !9$ &$ "(' J%&J+ % $0BJ9;+ &<%
3 P ` .# c&3 %$ !$ " )0Y+ 'HB4C$ 4+ 4%) &$ >+ '"BW43 <3 %&$ Y+ '` .#
+ “Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the
J*N3 <' "f' 9+ .0<$ %P4 +# "O' !$ +H4' +# "k' A+ C. 4J
land, and said, ‘Mark, now, and see how this man is seeking trouble; for he sent
to me for my wives and my children, and for my silver and my gold, and I did
not refuse him’ ” (1 Kgs 20,7).
Similar examples are 2 Kgs 5,7; Jer 2,19.
Common in all the examples in this section is that !%$ &$ means some type of
non-physical perception and it is followed by a content clause introduced by "(' .
Two more examples, one with &Z3 %[ and another with Z3 following !%$ &$ , reveal
non-physical perception as well:
#" $0k$ <' & $I $` .# LP%<+ 4"(' >+ <. %J!B&Z3 %[ 4J%Z$ %&+ .` .# “And when Saul saw that he had great suc-
cess, he stood in awe of him” (1 Sam 18,15);
/J4C+ t' !B, ' %' &$ +# “Then I saw that wisdom excels folly” (Eccl
. <' !<$ C+ F$ 4. ,M&/+ '" Z )`Z3 " '0%$ "/"
2,13).
In both examples nothing refers to any type of physical entity that could be
viewed, and the sight verb !%$ &$ indicates an abstract perception.
3.2 Examples of "(' + !%$ &$ conveying physical meaning

Clear-cut examples of "(' + !%$ &$ which convey physical meaning are scarce,
only three having been identified:
!Y3 Z+ <. sK$ Cp "(' ,;) &+ .`!. &(. (B4
' (B/ ) %3 VM4B%}$ '` .# “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and
$ %3 %&+ .` .# #" $0"9B/
saw that the Jordan valley was well watered everywhere” (Gen 13,10);
. %3 W .` .# Z"%' ,"%) "(' %&+ .` .# !PC $# !P( ,?3 '` .# “He looked this way and that,
4MFD. J! )0<+ V+ '` .# "&' e+ N' !B/
and seeing no one he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exod 2,12);
1C3 N$ 9' "f' &+ D. ;' 1 '"<. ]$ !B,
. <' "(' 1/" 3 %' &+ 1f3 %. 4%) &$ >+ '" " )0DB4
+ %3 &<% 3 P ` .# “And the
. P / !P( !ZP3 <B4%3 ! $#! +" &<%
LORD said to Moses, ‘Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: ‘You have seen
for yourselves that I have talked with you from heaven’ ’ ” (Exod 20,22).
The first of these contains the physical sight organs, the eyes: #" $0"9B/
) %3 VM4B%}$ '` .#
%&+ .` .# “And Lot lifted up his eyes, and saw.” Yet mention of the eyes does not al-
ways reflect pure physical meaning. In the following example, in which the
eyes are accompanied by the verb of sight !%$ &$ and "(' , physical watching and
non-physical perception are intertwined:
394
An_78.indb 410 21/06/11 15:41

Tamar Zewi 411
1C"
3 4) %[ &D) L. <+ !. "?B"
' (' ,"<$" 3 )0"9) ! )*!' +# “And now your eyes see, and the
' +0O' "F' %$ " )0"9) +# /M%P & 1C"
eyes of my brother Benjamin see, that it is my mouth that speaks to you” (Gen
45,12).
Here Joseph expects his brothers to ‘see’ his mouth speaking and to ‘realize’
that it is speaking at the same time.
Eight more examples are found that appear to involve both physical and
non-physical observation at the same time. These are:
LP%<+ %#!' !?$"B" $ (' !]$ %' !B/ $ %3 1"&' e+ N' !. J%&+ '` .# !<$ +"&$ e+ <' 1&$ O+ %. %MO(+ "!' +" .# “When Abram entered
Egypt the Egyptians saw that the woman was very beautiful” (Gen 12,14);
sL$ $"D+ ML +ID' O .H9B"
$ (' s/M%$ &+ (' "!' +" .# “And when she saw that he had left his garment in her
hand” (Gen 39,13);
1 '"&. ?+ %3 Z%P&B49. M0"<' +"BL ." #"O' %$ /"Z' $"B"(' RAM" ) %&+ .` .# “When Joseph saw that his father laid
his right hand upon the head of Ephraim” (Gen 48,17);
! 30t+ !. WMf<' 1"!6 ' %7 #"4$ %) %&$ Y+ '` .# /M%&+ 4' &A$ "(' ! $#! +" %&+ .` .# “When the LORD saw that he turned
aside to see, God called to him out of the bush” (Exod 3,4);
J%&+ '` .# MZ%P&B/%3 sDB/$ &$ C+ '` .# J!/) /P+ < +" .# s&$ 9+ f. <' s?$ 4+ Z+ '` .# MD&+ FB/
. %3 Fx. '` .# "f' Z+ 4' k+ !B4
. %3 LP<9[ .` .# L '#;$ c&$ $` .#
JA p0 $` .# 1&MD ) (' 1"f' Z+ 4' k+ !. “Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took
$ 'T /<B"
his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with
it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled” (1 Sam
17,51);
L43 $`!. /<) "(' L '#;$ ,O$`3 .# 1"Z' F[ 4. /+ <' #"L$ O$ 9[ "(' L '#;$ %&+ .` .# “But when David saw that his servants
were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead” (2 Sam
12,19);
L 3ID3 #"4$ 9$ W4) Z+ .` .# !L3 }$ !. !K$ A' <+ !B,
. <' %>$ <$ 9B/ [ %3 Ot) .` .# 19$ !B4 $ (' Z"%' !$ %&+ .` .# “And when the
$ ($ L<. 9B"
man saw that all the people stopped, he carried Amasa out of the highway into
the field, and threw a garment over him” (2 Sam 20,12);
,M&%$ D$ RA3 (3 !. O&B" . (' 1/M% $ &+ (' "!' +" .#“And whenever they saw that there was much money
in the chest” (2 Kgs 12,11, and similarly its parallel in 2 Chr 24,11).
All these involve physical viewing of an object followed by a realization of a
situation.
Considering the abundant examples presented above of "(' + !%$ &$ conveying
non-physical perception, the very few examples given in this section, most of
which also involve some sort of realization, should be taken as exceptional and
as deviating from the fundamental prevalent use of this combination for non-
physical perception.
3.3 Examples of ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ conveying physical meaning

The combination ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ to express physical observation, in reality or in a
dream or revelation, is very common—in fact it is its foremost role. Numerous
cases of other verbs and expressions conveying physical viewing, like RY) Z+ .` .#,
) %3 %}$ '` .#, " )0"9B/
#" $0"9B/ ) %3 FY. ?+ '` .#, are also evident.16 Examples are as follows:
16
As explained above, though the expression " )0"9B/
) %3 %}$ '` .# consists of the actual sight organs,
the eyes, it does not necessarily convey a physical act of viewing.
395
An_78.indb 411 21/06/11 15:41

' %3 FP. 0 &A. $` .# “And Noah removed the covering of

!<$ L$ %[ !$ " )0k+ JO&+ F$ ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# !O$ f) !. !A) C+ <B/
the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry” (Gen 8,13);
,Z$ O+ (' !. &PV"Y' (+ c&3 %$ !$ &PV"Y' !4$ 9$ ! )*!' +# %&+ .` .# &($ (' !. c&3 %3 " )0kB4
+ (B4 + 9. RY) Z+ .` .# “And
$ 9. +# !&P$ <9[ .# 1P LA+ " )0kB4
he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the
valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a
furnace” (Gen 19,28);
#" $0&+ Y. D+ WO. t+ D. HF. %7 30 &F. %. 4 '"%B! ) %3 1!$ &$ O+ %. %}$ '` .# “And Abraham lifted up his
. )*!' +# %&+ .` .# #" $0"9B/
eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his
horns” (Gen 22,13);
! )*!' +# J%&+ '` .# 1!"
3 )0"9B/
) %3 ! $#! +" FY. ?+ '` .# J%&+ '" +# !K3 %B"
) )0"9B/
) %3 FY. k+ ! $#! +" 9Z"
$ 4' %7 &<%
3 P ` .# ,M&<P+ Z 1%P$ O(+ "!' +" .#
,M&<P+ Z WM/D+ “As soon as they entered Samaria, Elisha said, ‘O LORD, open the eyes
of these men, that they may see.’ So the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw;
and lo, they were in the midst of Samaria” (2 Kgs 6,20);
4O$ %p !$ " )0?+ 4' L<P) 9 LF$ %3 4 '"%. ! )*!' +# !%3 &+ %3 $# " .0"9) %}$ %3 $# “I raised my eyes and saw, and behold,
a ram standing on the bank of the river” (Dan 8,3).
Other examples are Gen 18,2; 24,63; 26,8; 29,2; 31,10; 33,1; 37,25; 40,6;
41,22; 42,27; Exod 2,6; 3,2; 39,43; Lev 13,5.6.8.13.17.20.21.25.26.30.31.32.
34.36.39.43.53.55.56; 14,3.37.39.44.48; Josh 5,13; 7,21; 8,20; Judg 3,24; 9,34;
14,8; 21,21; 1 Sam 10,11; 14,16.17; 2 Sam 13,34; 18,24; 2 Kgs 6,20.30; 11,14;
Jer 4,23.24.25.26; Ezek 1,4.15; 2,9; 8,2.7.10; 10,1.9; 37,8; 44,4; Zech 2,15;
4,2; 5,1.9; 6,1; Dan 8,15; 10,5; 12,5; 2 Chr 23,13.
3.4 Examples of ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ conveying perceptual meaning

The combination ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ to express perception is very scarce, with only
eight examples identified:
c&3 %$ !B4
$ 9. M(&+ ;B/
. %3 &>$ DB4
$ ($ /"F' Z+ !B"
' (' !/$ F$ Z+ '0 ! )*!' +# c&3 %$ !B/ ' %7 %&+ .` .# “And God saw the
$ %3 1"!6
earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the
earth” (Gen 6,12);
1MZ4+ Z' 4M</+ (' MN9' J* 30"%) ! )*!' +# ,O$ 4$ " )0kB/ + %3 OPY9[ ." %&+ .` .# “And Jacob saw that Laban did not
regard him with favor as before” (Gen 31,2);17
%J! R&P3 9B!Z) YB1 + 9. ! )*!' +# ! 3\!. 19$ !B/ $ %3 "/" ' %' &$ !ZP3 <B4%3 ! $#! +" &<% 3 P ` .# “And the LORD said to Mo-
ses, ‘I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people’ ” (Exod
32,9, and similarly Deut 9,13);
!C$ t) <. 4 3I9) 1C3 4$ 1/"
3 >' 9[ 1C" 3 !6
) %7 ! $#!"4. 1/% 3 V$ F[ ! )*!' +# %&3 %) $# “And I looked, and behold, you
had sinned against the LORD your God; you had made yourselves a molten calf”
(Deut 9,16);
"e' F) !. "4BL
' .T!B%
p P 4 ! )*!' +# " .0"9) ! $0"%3 &+ f' .# "/%
' DB& 3 P 4 +# “But I did not believe
$ Z3 %[ L9. 1"&' O$ ;+ 4. "f' +0<. %7 !B%
the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it; and, behold, the half was
not told me” (1 Kgs 10,7, and similarly 2 Chr 9,6);18
17
This example is repeated in Jacob’s personal communication with Rachel and Leah in
Gen 31,5, but it presents "(' instead of ! )*!' +#: 1P Z4+ Z' 4P</+ (' "4. %) J* 30"%B"
) (' ,C"
3 O' %[ " )0kB/
+ %3 "CP' 0%$ !%P3 & ,!3 4$ &<%
3 P ` .#
“and said to them, ‘I see that your father does not regard me with favor as he did before’ ”
(Gen 31,5).
18
Again, this example does not convey physical observation, although it includes a mention
of the organs of sight, the eyes.
396
An_78.indb 412 21/06/11 15:41

Tamar Zewi 413
FJ&
. /J9&J+ 4O3 !3 4P(!. ! )*!' +# Z<3 ]$ !. /F. f. J>9[ .*Z3 1">' 9[ N. !B4
. (B/ ' %' &$ “I have seen every-
$ %3 "/"
thing that is done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a striving after
wind” (Eccl 1,14).
4O3 !$ %J!B1 .I ! )*!' +# OMVO+ !%) &J+ !F$ <+ >' O+ !C$ t+ .0%[ % $*B!C$ 4+ "D' 4' D+ " '0%[ "f' &+ <. %$ “I said to myself,
‘Come now, I will make a test of pleasure; enjoy yourself.’ But behold, this also
was vanity” (Eccl 2,1);
1F) .0<+ 1!3 4$ ,"%) +# 1"Y' Zp 9[ !$ /9. <+ ;' ! )*!' +# Z<3 ]$ !. /F. f. 1">' 9[ .0 &Z3 %[ 1"Y' Zp 9[ !B4
$ (B/
$ %3 !%3 &+ %3 $# " '0%[ "f' O+ Z. +#
“Again I saw all the oppressions that are practiced under the sun. And behold,
the tears of the oppressed, and they had no one to comfort them!” (Eccl 4,1).
These examples are exceptions to the fundamental prevalent use of ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$
for the physical act of viewing, as demonstrated in the previous section.
3.5 Proximity of "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$

In two cases "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ appear in adjacent utterances. The first is:
"Z%
' P &B49. "&P' F "K) A. !Z6
$ Z+ ! )*!' +# "<M4
' F[ D. " '0%BR
[ %. RAM"B4
) %3 &<%
3 P ` .# &/$ k$ OMV "(' 1"?P' %!B&
$ >. %&+ .` .#
“When the chief baker saw that the interpretation was favorable, he said to Jo-
seph, ‘I also had a dream: there were three cake baskets on my head’ ” (Gen
40,16).
As expected, here the combination "(' + !%$ &$ conveys a perception, and the
' F[ D. , from which !%$ &$ is absent but the context is a dream, in-
phrase ! )*!' +# "<M4
troduces the material object of the act of viewing, which happens in a dream.
The second example is found in two approximate verses:
+ C$ +# ,P &![ %. %&+ .` .# “And when Aaron and all the peo-
#" $0k$ &M9 ,&. Y$ ! )*!' +# !ZP3 <B/%3 4%) &$ >+ '" " )0DB4
ple of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone” (Exod 34,30);
+ %3 4%) &$ >+ '"B" )0O+ J%&$ +# “The people of Israel saw the face of
!ZP3 < " )0k+ &M9 ,&. Y$ "(' !ZP3 < " )0kB/
Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone” (Exod 34,35).
The first of these verses should be understood as conveying physical observati-
on, the second as conveying a non-physical perceptual realization of the physi-
cal observation just occurred. These two examples precisely reflect the diffe-
rence between "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ or only ! )*!' +# in similar contexts.
4.
In conclusion, the great majority of examples of "(' + !%$ &$ reflect non-physical
observation, that is, perception or realization of a fact or a situation, while the
great majority of examples of ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ reflect a physical act of viewing of
a material object, whether in reality or in dreams or revelation. These two
meanings indeed constitute the fundamental distinction between "(' + !%$ &$ and
! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ .
Tamar Zewi
University of Haifa
397
An_78.indb 413 21/06/11 15:41

Bibliography
ESKHULT M., “Traces of Linguistic Development in Biblical Hebrew”, Hebrew

Studies 46 (2005) 353-370.
FOLLINGSTAD C. M., Deictic Viewpoint in Biblical Hebrew Text: A Syntagmatic
and Paradigmatic Analysis of the Particle "C, Dallas 2001.
Roma 22006.
KATSUMURA D., “Zur Funktion von hinn6h and wehinn6h in der biblischen Er-
zählung”, Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 13 (1987) 3-21.
.#GAw/ ,I-/<& ,#G"/ L9 RG4%< %&Y<! ,#w4 &e#% ./"%&Y<! /"&O9! ,#4"< ,eG< "&LY
KOGUT S., “On the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ! )*!' in Biblical Hebrew”,
in S. JAPHET (ed.), Studies in Bible (Scripta Hierosolymitana 31), Jerusalem
1988, 133-154.
MCCARTHY D. J., “The Uses of wehinn6h in Biblical Hebrew”, Biblica 61
(1980) 330-342.
V. D. MERWE C. H. J., “A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective on ! )*!' in the Penta-
teuch, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth”, Hebrew Studies 48 (2007) 101-140.
MURAOKA T., Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew, Jerusalem -
Leiden 1985.
ZEWI T., “The Particles ! )*!' and ! )*!' +# in Biblical Hebrew”, Hebrew Studies 37
(1996) 21-37.
.657-627 (FGAw/) u9 #00#w4 ,G/"&O9O ,C#/ "V?w<G ,u/ "Oe
ZEWI T., “Content Expressions in Biblical Hebrew”, in G. GOLDENBERG - A.
SHISHA HALEVY (ed.), Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar: Studies in
Memory of H. J. Polotsky, Jerusalem 2009, 302-316.
Biblical Translations
JPS = Tanakh. A New Translation of the Holy Scriptures According to the Tra-
ditional Hebrew Texts, Philadelphia 1985.
RSV = MAY H. G. - METZGER B. M. (ed.), The New Oxford Annotated Bible
with the Apocrypha: Revised Standard Version, Oxford 1977.
398
An_78.indb 414 21/06/11 15:41

Sintesi degli articoli
BARANOWSKI K. J., The Article in the Book of Qoheleth
L’uso dell’articolo nel libro di Qoelet è spesso considerato come caotico e co-
stituisce per molti un argomento a favore di un originale non-ebraico del libro
oppure della sua tardiva data di composizione. Però le supposte incongruenze
nell’uso dell’articolo in Qoelet devono essere esaminate di nuovo alla luce
dell’uso dell’articolo in altre lingue nord-semitiche nonché dello studio dell’ar-
ticolo nella linguistica moderna. Infatti un’attenta lettura dei singoli versetti e
delle pericopi nei loro propri contesti mostra che l’articolo in Qoelet è usato
piuttosto in maniera logica e consistente per esprimere il pensiero dell’autore
nella prospettiva da lui voluta. Perciò l’analisi grammaticale concernente l’ar-
ticolo nella Bibbia Ebraica deve investigare le ragioni contestuali della presen-
za o dell’assenza dell’articolo.
BARTELMUS R., !"! (!#!): Sein oder werden? Sein und werden!
Ein hebräisches (aramäisches) Allerweltswort und das Phänomen
des lebenslangen Lernens
Motivato dall’incarico di scrivere l’articolo HYH per il “Theologisches Wör-

terbuch zu den Qumrantexten” (ThWQ) l’autore offre in questo contributo una
visione rivista e aggiornata delle sue tesi concernenti il significato e la funzio-
ne del verbo ebraico HYH, pubblicate nel 1982 in ATS 17. Riguardo all’uso
della radice in qal (che è stato il punto centrale nel suo precedente contributo)
c’è poca necessità di rivedere la precedente opinione. Tuttavia nei rotoli del
Mar Morto il participio qal di HYH è molto più frequente che nell’Antico Te-
stamento, ed è usato non solo per denotare il futurum instans (cf. Es 9,3); è
usato in maniera analoga al termine greco ]$. Tutte le altre funzioni sono
identiche. È invece degno di nota l’aumento delle occorrenze di HYH nifal, in
particolare del participio. Seguendo la ricerca riguardante le “coniugazioni”
nell’ebraico biblico condotta da E. JENNI, il quale ha mostrato che il nifal sta
per “das Geschehen eines Vorgangs oder einer Handlung am Subjekt selber
ohne Rücksicht auf die Art oder den Grad der Mitwirkung dieses Subjekts an
diesem Geschehen”, l’autore sostiene che la Gente di Qumran si serviva della
399
An_78.indb 415 21/06/11 15:41

differenza fra il nifal e il qal di HYH per esprimere l’opposizione fra “diventa-
re” e “essere” – un modello di pensiero che giocò un ruolo importante nell’am-
biente ellenistico di Qumran, ma non nell’AT.
CHIESA B., Divagazioni tiberiensi
In onore di Alviero NICCACCI, caro amico e grande studioso, il cui contributo

alla conoscenza dell’Ebraico biblico può solo essere maggiormente apprezza-
to, sono qui presentate alcune spigolature sulla tradizione di lettura tiberiense
dell’Ebraico biblico e l’attività masoretica locale, tratte da diverse fonti medie-
vali, sia giudaiche sia musulmane.
CRIMELLA M., Il Signore vede il cuore!

Fra analisi sintattica e narratologia. Il caso di 1 Sam 16,1-13
Il saggio presenta anzitutto per sommi capi il metodo sintattico di NICCACCI ap-
plicato alla prosa ebraica; passa poi ad introdurre le distinzioni di RABATEL nel-
lo studio del punto di vista (punto di vista raccontato, rappresentato e asserito).
L’ipotesi di lavoro è unire le due prospettive, utilizzando l’analisi sintattica
come base per reperire i punti di vista. L’applicazione all’episodio dell’unzio-
ne di Davide (1 Sam 16,1-13) mostra che il narratore, nell’alternanza continua
dei punti di vista asseriti (dialoghi) di Dio e di Samuele e per mezzo di una se-
rie di successive complicazioni, ha fatto crescere la tensione narrativa, provo-
cando una grande attesa nel lettore. Il profeta, a dispetto del proprio ruolo,
vede solo secondo le apparenze mentre il Signore vede il cuore. Al culmine
della narrazione, allorché il più piccolo dei figli di Iesse entra in scena e sem-
bra ormai realizzarsi lo scioglimento, un inatteso décrochage sintattico riba-
disce il punto di vista rappresentato da Samuele (v. 12c), profeta che sino alla
fine vede solo secondo le apparenze. Così l’elezione di Davide appare essere
unicamente opera divina.
ESKHULT M., Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses

Expressing Circumstance in Biblical Hebrew Narration
La discussione concerne la nozione di circostanza nella narrazione. Secondo il

livello al quale si riferiscono le descrizioni e le osservazioni – una proposizio-
ne, un periodo, o un episodio – la discussione mette a fuoco elementi che sono
descrittivi di un agente al tempo dell’azione, o descrivono una situazione come
un tutto, oppure contestualizzano persone ed eventi. A livello della proposizio-
400
An_78.indb 416 21/06/11 15:41

Sintesi degli articoli 417
ne, la circostanza – come viene descritta qui – si riferisce a ciò che il soggetto
o l’oggetto è, non in generale ma in riferimento alla realizzazione dell’azione.
A livello del periodo, la circostanza si riferisce alla descrizione di situazioni
costituite da due o più proposizioni statiche connesse alla linea principale degli
eventi. A livello testuale, la circostanza si riferisce a proposizioni contestualiz-
zanti, con un soggetto preposto seguito da qatal. Il denominatore comune per i
tre livelli è che a un agente viene attribuita una condizione che si riferisce al
contesto e quindi viene appresa come una circostanza associata, prescindendo
dal fatto che sia un’attitudine attribuita o una qualità, un’attività continua, o
anche un’azione compiuta.
FASSBERG S. E., The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth
Anche se alcuni hanno assegnato alla lingua di Qoelet una datazione relati-
vamente antica, questa viene solitamente vista come post-esilica. Credo che ci
siano esempi, in Qoelet, che riflettono un passaggio dal qal al piel, in maniera
simile a ciò che è attestato nelle fonti del periodo del Secondo Tempio. Questi
verbi costituiscono un’ulteriore evidenza in favore della datazione tardiva
del libro: (a) &x) F' ‘egli indagò’ (Qoh 12,9); (b) JV9) <' ‘rimasero in poche’
(Qoh 12,3); (c) !!$ Y) ‘diventò non affilato’ (Qoh 10,10); (d) J& +TAp ‘furono chiuse’
(Qoh 12,4).
GEIGER G., Erzählte Welt und wayyiqtol
L’articolo descrive la funzione del “tempo” wayyiqtol nella cornice della lin-
guistica testuale di H. WEINRICH come “primo piano (forground) della narrazio-
ne”. Vengono fornite definizioni di questi due termini che sono leggermente
diversi da quelle usate da NICCACCI. “Narrazione” indica indifferenza nei con-
fronti del tempo reale, ciò che è spesso, ma non necessariamente, in correlazio-
ne con il passato. Il “primo piano” descrive gli avvenimenti fondamentali di un
testo in ordine logico, ma non necessariamente cronologico. Così la mag-
gioranza delle funzioni che sembrano sbilanciate possono essere inquadrate in
un sistema uniforme. Di solito il discorso narrativo segue la struttura della nar-
razione storica. Commentando eventi narrati, il narratore usa i tempi del di-
scorso. Nella narrazione ebraica biblica azioni negate stanno di solito nello
sfondo. Per la continuazione dello sfondo nell’asse temporale del passato – sia
nella narrazione, sia nel discorso – la narrazione biblica passa spesso velo-
cemente al primo piano.
401
An_78.indb 417 21/06/11 15:41

GROSS W., wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme:

Una ripetizione di ripresa viene per lo più discussa nell’ambito della critica let-
teraria. Tuttavia, una ripetizione di ripresa non è usata solo per editare testi, ma
è un comune strumento stilistico usato da un autore nella composizione di un
testo. In questo contributo vengono discusse le sfumature stilistiche e letterarie
della ripresa nell’Antico Testamento, quando viene espressa da wa=yiqtol.
Una ripetizione di ripresa deve essere distinta dall’analessi (flashback) come
pure dalla prolessi.
ISAKSSON B., The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant:

Subordinate Structures in Isaiah 52,13–53,12
Basandosi sulle ultime ricerche concernenti al sistema verbale del semitico

centrale e sul concetto di subordinazione circostanziale, l’autore analizza la
profezia del Servo sofferente di YHWH ponendo l’attenzione sulle relazioni del-
le proposizioni subordinate nel testo. Nella sintassi testuale dell’ebraico bibli-
co alternanze di ‘tempo’ sono frequenti. L’articolo mostra che alternanze fra
differenti tipi di proposizioni segnalano relazioni proposizionali gerarchiche
che guidano l’ascoltatore dalla linea del racconto e dalla linea principale profe-
tica a circostanze concomitanti, tramite proposizioni qualificanti finali, tempo-
rali, consecutive, comparative e causali. Questa gerarchia è per lo più codifica-
ta senza specifiche congiunzioni subordinanti. Si tratta di un’economia orale
del testo dove le proposizioni sono ordinate in modo ipotattico o paratattico
con segnali testuali che erano immediatamente percepibili agli attenti ascolta-
tori contemporanei.
JOOSTEN J., A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions:

Una regola sintattica dell’ebraico biblico, descritta per primo in dettaglio da

Alviero NICCACCI, stabilisce che l’uso di yiqtol è ristretto a posizioni non-inizia-
li nella proposizione. Apparenti forme yiqtol in prima posizione, oppure che
seguano immediatamente la congiunzione we, sono in realtà forme iussive. La
regola è cruciale per una corretta analisi della sintassi verbale ebraica. Tuttavia
comporta un certo numero di eccezioni. Questo articolo esplora la sintassi del-
le eccezioni mostrando che esse, in realtà, non disturbano la delicata architettu-
ra del sistema verbale ebraico.
402
An_78.indb 418 21/06/11 15:41

MESSINA P., Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico:

L’uso della linguistica testuale, secondo l’accezione di H. WEINRICH, è stata ap-

plicata con successo all’ebraico biblico da Alviero NICCACCI. Il presente artico-
lo, sintesi di un più ampio lavoro, rappresenta il tentativo di utilizzare una tale
metodologia anche all’aramaico biblico. La posizione del verbo nella proposi-
zione è stata assunta come principio dirimente, in base al quale vengono iden-
tificati le forme verbali e i costrutti sintattici, nei quali è possibile suddividere
le proposizioni e individuare la loro posizione rispetto alla Linea Principale e
alla Linea Secondaria del racconto, sia nella Narrazione che nel Discorso Di-
retto. Nel corso della trattazione dei vari argomenti sono state inoltre messe in
evidenza analogie e differenze con il sistema verbale ebraico.
NOTARIUS T., Text, Discourse and Tenses

Il canto di vittoria in 2 Sam 22,33-46 implica un certo numero di problemi

testuali e linguistici molto specifici che lo distinguono dall’intera composizio-
ne del canto di Davide e anche dalla maggior parte della ‘poesia arcaica’. In
particolare il passo si oppone a una inequivocabile categorizzazione del discor-
so e presenta diverse forme verbali inaspettate in un passo poetico di questo
tipo. Come risultato di una dettagliata analisi del discorso, della morfosintassi
e della semantica, si afferma che il genere del discorso del passo è un resocon-
to retrospettivo, caratterizzato dall’impiego di un tipo relativamente arcaico
del sistema dei tempi verbali. Nel suo complesso il testo mostra alcuni tratti
dialettali o specifiche convenzioni letterarie, che lo uniscono chiaramente al
linguaggio della poesia epica ugaritica.
PAZZINI M., The Peshi!ta of the Twelve Prophets

Questo articolo tratta alcune varianti significative fra il testo della Peshi!ta e i
testi rinvenuti nella regione del Mar Morto (Qumran, Na>al 9ever e Wadi Mu-
rabba‘ât). I testi presi in considerazione sono: Murabba‘ât 88, i Pesharim dei
Profeti minori, il Documento di Damasco e un manoscritto proveniente da Na-
>al 9ever (89evXIIgr). La conclusione di quest’analisi è “che la Vorlage
ebraica della Peshi!ta era pressochè identica al TM, anche se sembra probabile
che la traduzione sia stata fatta in una data nella quale alcune lezioni varianti
403
An_78.indb 419 21/06/11 15:41

erano ancora in circolazione”. Il valore della Peshi!ta, per quanto concerne la

critica testuale dell’AT, deve dunque essere ridimensionato.
PIERRI R., Perifrasi verbali con "#$%&'( ed )*+,-' nei LXX
Questo contributo studia le perifrasi verbali formate dai verbi "#$%&'( ed

)*+,-' con il participio presenti nei testi dei LXX. La chiave di lettura della ri-
cerca condotta dall’autore è che il participio conserva la sua natura verbale in
tutti i suoi usi e che la sua aggettivazione è meno frequente e integrale di quan-
to si sostiene. La teoria secondo cui si ha perifrasi verbale aspettuale solo in
caso di una possibile concorrenza con forme monolettiche ha un suo fon-
damento, ma non è normativa in senso assoluto. A tale proposito si può attin-
gere alla teoria della gradualità della grammaticalizzazione intesa non solo dal
punto di vista diacronico: si hanno perifrasi con un maggiore o minore grado
di grammaticalizzazione, e quindi di ‘fusione’ tra i due costituenti. Le perifrasi
composte da "#$%&'( ed )*+,-' con il participio sono costruzioni parallele a
quelle composte con IE&# ed NOW ma con una loro peculiarità modale più
o meno presente nei vari contesti. Ciò vale soprattutto per "#$%&'(, mentre
)*+,-' conserva in modo più accentuato il proprio significato.
L’articolo si compone di due parti: nella prima sono sintetizzate e commen-
tate le posizioni di diversi autori sul tema della perifrasi verbale, nella seconda
si trovano in ordine di combinazione secondo il tempo (verbo finito – partici-
pio) le occorrenze selezionate e interpretate come perifrasi.
TALSTRA E., Sinners and Syntax:

Questo articolo discute la questione basilare se sia necessario o no un punto di

partenza particolare per l’analisi linguistica della poesia. Il significato della
struttura poetica è costituito in primo luogo dal parallelismo o dalla ripetizione
lessicale? Il significato del discorso narrativo è dato in primo luogo da modelli
di elementi grammaticali? Oppure possono gli interessi linguistici e retorici
cooperare nella nostra lettura dei testi poetici?
Un’analisi che tiene conto di questi fattori è rappresentata dall’approccio
distribuzionale, del genere di quello proposto da NICCACCI nel 2006, dove lo
studioso tenta di individuare un modello sulla base della variazione delle for-
me sintattiche e della loro distribuzione così come appaiono nei testi in nostro
possesso. Quali segni grammaticali troviamo che aiutano il lettore a orientarsi
nella struttura testuale? Qual’è la funzione dei vari modelli trovati?
404
An_78.indb 420 21/06/11 15:41

Nell’appendice propongo una gerarchia sintattica di Geremia 5,1-9. Si trat-

ta di una proposta fatta in continuità con la linea di ricerca di NICCACCI, tramite
l’analisi di un testo poetico secondo la sua sintassi: le proposizioni e le forme
verbali, come pure l’ordine dei costituenti della proposizione, la divisione in
paragrafi e la valutazione dei partecipanti.
La conclusione è che la ricerca nel sistema verbale della poesia non può es-
sere condotta concentrandosi esclusivamente su coppie di proposizioni più o
meno isolate. Risulta produttiva solo quando è elaborata in interazione con la
sintassi del testo e la gerarchia testuale. Lo studio della sintassi del verbo in
poesia richiede un’analisi testuale nella quale la sintassi ha la priorità sull’ana-
lisi colometrica e retorica. Le linee poetiche, i cola, possono essere definiti dal-
le proposizioni sintattiche identificate e non vice versa. La funzione delle for-
me verbali interagisce con la posizione che le proposizioni verbali assumono
nella gerarchia sintattica.
VOLGGER D., Die Bestattung Jakobs (Gen 50,1-14) – oder:

Die Tora Israels auf dem Weg von Ägypten nach Kanaan
Questa ricerca sulla sepoltura di Giacobbe in Gen 50,1-14 tenta di rispondere

alle seguenti domande: Cosa significa la sepoltura di Giacobbe in Canaan per
tutto Israele? Quale istruzione divina risulta da questa sezione del libro della
Genesi? In che senso questa narrazione rappresenta un elemento organico di
tutta la Torah nei cinque libri di Mosè? Dopo un’analisi dettagliata del testo di
Gen 50,1-14 ed un confronto con la narrazione sulla sepoltura di Sara in Gen
23 segue un capitolo conclusivo in cui l’autore riassume i risultati della ricerca
e risponde alle domande iniziali.
WATSON W. G. E., Alcuni brani dell’Antico Testamento

e testi dal Vicino Oriente antico
In questo contributo si confrontano sei brani della Bibbia con parole, testi e
immagini dell’antico Vicino Oriente. Gli esempi sono scelti dai libri della Ge-
nesi (il nome di Noè), Esodo (il transito del Mar Rosso), 2 Samuele (un rituale
di sacrificio), Daniele (l’episodio ‘Bel e il drago’), Giuditta (la decapitazione
di Oloferne) e Giona (il verme e la pianta).
405
An_78.indb 421 21/06/11 15:41

W.GRZYNIAK W., La problematica temporale dei verbi

nei salmi 14 e 53
L’articolo mira a spiegare il valore temporale dei verbi presenti nei Sal 14 e
53, seguendo principalmente la teoria linguistica-testuale proposta da A. NIC-
CACCI. Quest’ultimo ha sviluppato la sua teoria basandosi sui testi narrativi. Ne-
gli ultimi anni, tuttavia, ha fornito alcuni principi per analizzare anche i testi
poetici. Nella prima parte di questo contributo viene presentato il testo ebraico
con una nuova traduzione. Nel seguito si presenta un’analisi delle forme ver-
bali usati nei due salmi. A partire della teoria di NICCACCI, si applicherà soprat-
tutto il principio secondo cui la funzione delle forme verbali in poesia è in li-
nea di principio la stessa che in prosa, più precisamente nel discorso diretto.
Nella conclusione si propongono osservazioni generali sul valore temporale
dei verbi usati nei Sal 14 e 53. Si nota che entrambi possono essere divisi in
due parti (14,1-6.7; 53,1-6.7) e che la prospettiva del salmista è quella tra pas-
sato e futuro. L’analisi mostra che il sistema proposto da A. NICCACCI – plausi-
bile e produttivo in caso dei Sal 14 e 53 – è un metordo che può offrire ele-
menti all’interpretazione di altri testi poetici.
ZEVIT Z., Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew: Four Short Studies
Questo studio analizza dei sintagmi dell’ebraico biblico i cui significati, in-
comprensibili sulla base di etimologie trasparenti, possono essere stabiliti solo
attraverso un’analisi dei contesti pragmatici nei quali sono inseriti. Vengono
presentati esempi tratti dai campi semantici del commercio, del comportamen-
to sessuale, della conoscenza e della richiesta.
ZEWI T., On "(' !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# !%$ &$ in Biblical Hebrew
L’articolo segue, riesamina e sostiene con una semplice spiegazione il diffe-

rente uso fra l’uso di ! )*!' +# e "(' succesivi al verbo !%$ &$ . È stato notato occasional-
mente che ! )*!' +# è connesso a un’osservazione fisica, ed è stato proposto che
mentre "(' è connesso a pensieri cognitivi ! )*!' +# è relazionato ad una percezione
fisico-visiva. Esaminando tutti gli esempi di "(' + !%$ &$ e ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$ in ebraico bi-
blico, la distinzione fra l’osservazione fisica e non-fisica spicca come la più va-
lida fra le due particelle che seguono !%$ &$ , e si accorda con la maggioranza del-
le occorrenze. Questa spiegazione non intende sostituire bensì integrare le os-
servazioni presentate fino ad oggi riguardo al significato e alla funzione di ! )*!' +#.
406
An_78.indb 422 21/06/11 15:41

Abstracts
BARANOWSKI K. J., The Article in the Book of Qoheleth
The use of the article in the book of Qoheleth is commonly considered chaotic
and taken as an argument in favor of a non-Hebrew original of the book or its
late date of composition. However, the claim of inconsistencies in the use of
the article in the book of Qoheleth should be reexamined in light of the use of
the article in cognate North-West Semitic languages and of linguistic study of
the article. Indeed, a careful and close reading of single verses and sections of
the text in their respective contexts reveals that the article is used in a mean-
ingful and logical manner in order to convey the author’s thought in his own,
particular perspective. Therefore, any grammatical analysis of the article in the
Hebrew Bible should be concerned with possible contextual reasons of its use
and non-use.
BARTELMUS R., !"! (!#!): Sein oder werden? Sein und werden!
Ein hebräisches (aramäisches) Allerweltswort und das Phänomen
des lebenslangen Lernens
Motivated by the mandate to write the article HYH for the “Theologisches
Wörterbuch zu den Qumrantexten” (ThWQ), the author gives in this paper a
revised resp. enhanced view of his theses concerning meaning and function of
the hebrew verb HYH, published 1982 in ATS 17. Pertaining to the usage of
the root in qal (which has been the central point in his previous paper) there is
however only little need to revise the former opinion: Anyway, the Dead Sea
Scrolls use the participle qal of HYH much more than the Old Testament, and
they use it not only to denote the futurum instans (cf. Ex 9,3)—they use it ana-
logous the greek ]$. All other functions are identical. Noticeable in contrast is
the increase of the occurrence of HYH nifal, and here especially of the partici-
ple. Following the research of E. JENNI concerning the “stems” in BH, who
showed that nifal stands for “das Geschehen eines Vorgangs oder einer Hand-
lung am Subjekt selber ohne Rücksicht auf die Art oder den Grad der Mitwir-
kung dieses Subjekts an diesem Geschehen”, the author argues, that the Qum-
ran People used the difference between the nifal and the qal of HYH to ex-
407
An_78.indb 423 21/06/11 15:41

press the opposition between “to become” and “to be”—a thought pattern
which played an important role in the Hellenistic environment of Qumran, but
not yet in the OT.
CHIESA B., Divagazioni tiberiensi
Some gleanings on the Tiberian reading tradition of Biblical Hebrew and the
local Masoretic activity are here collected from various Medieval sources, both
Jewish and Muslim, in the hope of honouring Alviero NICCACCI, a good friend
and a great scholar, whose contribution to our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew
could hardly be underestimated.
CRIMELLA M., Il Signore vede il cuore!

Fra analisi sintattica e narratologia. Il caso di 1 Sam 16,1-13
This essay presents first briefly NICCACCI’s syntactical method applied to He-
brew prose; then it introduces RABATEL’s distinctions of point of view (narra-
ted, represented and asserted point of view). The working hypothesis is to
combine the two perspectives, using the syntactical analysis as a basis to find
the points of view. The episode of David’s anointing (1 Sam 16,1-13) shows
that the narrator, by the interplay of asserted points of view (dialogues) of God
and Samuel and a series of successive complications, has increased the narra-
tive tension, causing a great expectation in the reader. The prophet, in spite of
his role, sees the outward form but the Lord looks at the heart. At the climax of
the narrative, when Jesse’s youngest child comes on stage and it seems to be
realized the dénouement, an unexpected syntactical décrochage reiterates
the represented point of view of Samuel (v. 12c), the prophet who until the
end sees the outward form alone. So David’s election appears to be only di-
vine work.
ESKHULT M., Thoughts on Phrases and Clauses

Expressing Circumstance in Biblical Hebrew Narration
This discussion concerns the notion of circumstance in narration. According to

the level upon which descriptions and remarks bear—a clause, a sentence, or
an episode—the discussion brings into focus elements that are descriptive of
an actant at the time of action, or describe a situation as a whole, or contextua-
lize persons and events. On the clausal level, circumstance—as described
here—relates to what the subject or object is, not in general but at the perfor-
408
An_78.indb 424 21/06/11 15:41

Abstracts 425
mance of the action. On the sentence level, circumstance relates to the descrip-
tion of situations built up by two or more static clauses connected to the main
line of events. On the textual level, circumstance relates to contextualizing
clauses, with a preposed subject followed by qatal. The common denominator
for the three levels is that an actant is ascribed a condition that bears on the
context and is hence apprehended as an attendant circumstance, irrespective of
whether it is an ascribed capacity or quality, an ongoing activity, or even a
completed action.
FASSBERG S. E., The Shift from qal to piel in the Book of Qoheleth
Though some have assigned the language of Qoheleth to a relatively early

date, it has generally been viewed as post-exilic. I believe that there are ex-
amples in Qoheleth that reflect a shift from qal to piel, similar to that attested
in Second Temple period sources. These verbs constitute additional evidence
for the late date of the book: (a) &x) F' ‘he investigated’ (Qoh 12,9); (b) JV9) <'
‘they became few’ (Qoh 12,3); (c) !!$ Y) ‘it became blunt’ (Qoh 10,10); (d) J& +TAp
‘they were shut’ (Qoh 12,4).
GEIGER G., Erzählte Welt und wayyiqtol
The paper describes the function of the wayyiqtol tense in the framework of
WEINRICH’s text linguistics as “foreground of the narration”. Definitions for
both terms are provided which are slightly different from those NICCACCI uses.
“Narration“ means indifference towards the real time, which correlates often,
but not necessarily, with the past tense. “Forground” means the basic events of
the text in a logical, but not necessarily in a chronological order. So most of
the seemingly unbalanced functions of the wayyiqtol tense can be sorted into a
uniform system. Basically, the oral narration (discorso narrativo) follows the
same rules “real” narration (narrazione storica) does, whereas commenting on
narrated events, the narrator uses the discourse tenses. As a rule in Biblical He-
brew narration, negated actions are backgrounded. Within the continuation of
the background in past time frame—both in narration and discours—, biblical
narration shifts often quickly into the forground.
409
An_78.indb 425 21/06/11 15:41

GROSS W., wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme:

Resumptive repetition is mainly discussed as a literary critical criterion. How-

ever, resumptive repetition is not only used to edit texts but it is a common sty-
listic device employed by an author in the composition of a text. In this contri-
bution the stylistic and literary nuances of the resumption in the Old Testament
are discussed, in so far as it is expressed by wa=yiqtol. Resumptive repetition
is to be distinguished from the analepsis (flashback) as well as from the pro-
lepsis.
ISAKSSON B., The Textlinguistics of the Suffering Servant:

Subordinate Structures in Isaiah 52,13–53,12
On the basis of the latest research on the Central Semitic verbal system and on
the concept of circumstantial subordination, the prophecy on YHWH’s Suffering
Servant is analysed with a focus on the subordinate clausal relations in the
text. Biblical Hebrew text syntax is full of ‘tense’-switches. The article shows
that switches between different types of clauses signal hierarchical clausal re-
lations that guide the listener from storyline and prophetic main line to atten-
dant circumstances, through final, temporal, consecutive, comparative and cau-
sal qualifying clauses. This hierarchy is most often coded without specific sub-
ordinating conjunctions. It is an oral economy of the text where clauses are
hypotactically or paratactically ordered with textual signals that were imme-
diately perceivable to the attentive contemporary receivers.
JOOSTEN J., A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions:

A syntactic rule of Biblical Hebrew, first described in detail by Alviero NICCAC-

CI, stipulates that yiqtol is restricted to non-first positions in the clause. Os-
tensible yiqtol forms in first position, or immediately following the conjunction
we, are in reality jussives. The rule is crucial for a correct analysis of Hebrew
verbal syntax. Nevertheless, it suffers a number of exceptions. The present ar-
ticle explores the syntax of the exceptions showing that they do not really dis-
turb the delicate architecture of the Hebrew verbal system.
410
An_78.indb 426 21/06/11 15:41

Abstracts 427
MESSINA P., Il sistema verbale dell’Aramaico Biblico:

Text linguistics according to the interpretation of H. WEINRICH has been applied

to Biblical Hebrew by Alviero NICCACCI. The present article, summary of a
broader work, aims at applying this methodology to Biblical Aramaic as well.
The position of the verb in the sentence has been adopted as a leading princi-
ple. On this base, verbal forms and syntactical constructions are identified and
classified according to their function in relation to the foreground and back-
ground of the text, both in narration and in direct speech. Throughout the ex-
position of the various topics, similarities and differences with the Hebrew
verbal system have been highlighted.
NOTARIUS T., Text, Discourse and Tenses

The Victory Song in 2 Sam 22,33-46 entails a number of very specific textual
and linguistic problems that distinguish it from the whole composition of the
Song of David and also from most parts of the ‘archaic poetry’. In particular,
the passage resists unambiguous discourse categorization and exposes diverse
verbal forms hardly expected in a poetic passage of this kind. As a result of a
detailed discursive, morphosyntactic, and semantic analysis, it is claimed that
the discourse mode of the passage is a retrospective report, the passage repre-
sents a relatively archaic type of the system of verbal tenses, but altogether
demonstrates some dialectal or specific conventional literary features, that visi-
bly unite it with the language type of the Ugaritic epic poetry.
PAZZINI M., The Peshi!ta of the Twelve Prophets

This article deals with some significant variants between the text of the Peshi!-
ta and the texts found in the region of the Dead Sea (Qumran, Na>al 9ever and
Wadi Murabba‘ât). The texts taken into consideration are: Murabba‘ât 88, the
Pesharim of the Minor Prophets, the Damascus Document, and a manuscript
from Na>al 9ever (89evXIIgr). The conclusion is “that the Hebrew Vorlage
of the Peshi!ta was almost identical with that of the MT, although it seems pro-
bable that the translation was made at a date when some variant readings were
still in circulation”. The value of the Peshi!ta for textual criticism of the OT
therefore must be reconsidered.
411
An_78.indb 427 21/06/11 15:41

PIERRI R., Perifrasi verbali con "#$%&'( ed )*+,-' nei LXX
This article presents a study of the periphrasis formed from the verbs "#$%&'(
and )*+,-' with the participle found in the LXX. The reading key of the au-
thor’s research is that the participle conserves its verbal nature in all of its uses
and that its adjectival use is less frequent and integral than what is usually
maintained. The theory that aspectual periphrasis may be found only in the
case of a possible interchange with synthetic forms is well-founded but it is
not, however, the norm in the absolute sense. It is also possible to draw from
the theory of the gradualness of grammaticalization, viewed not only from the
diachronic point of view, i. e. there are periphrasises that have a greater or les-
ser degree of grammaticalization and therefore of ‘fusion’ of the two parts.
The periphrasis made up of "#$%&'( and )*+,-' with the participle, are parallel
constructions to those made up of IE&# and NOW but with their own modal u-
niqueness more or less present in the various contexts. This is especially valid
for "#$%&'(, while )*+,-' conserves it’s meaning in a more emphasised way.
The article is composed of two parts: the first part contains a synthesis and
a discussion on the various positions of the different authors regarding the pe-
riphrasis, the second part outlines the selected and interpreted occurrences as
periphrasis in combination order according to tense (finite verb – participle).
TALSTRA E., Sinners and Syntax:

This paper discusses the basic question of whether we need a special starting
point for the linguistic analysis of poetry. Is the signification of poetic structure
done primarily by parallelism or lexical repetition, whereas the signification of
narrative discourse is primarily done by patterns of grammatical elements? Or
can linguistic and rhetorical interests be brought into cooperation in our read-
ing of poetic texts?
One way to do this is by a distributional approach, such as the one pro-
posed by NICCACCI in 2006, where he attempts to derive a model from the va-
riation of syntactic forms and their distribution as observed in the actual texts.
What grammatical signs do we find that help the reader to navigate through the
textual structure? What is the function of the various patterns found?
In the Appendix I propose a syntactic hierarchy of Jeremiah 5,1-9. It is a
proposal made in continuation of NICCACCI’s line of research, through analysing
a poetic text according to its syntax: clauses and verbal forms, as well as the
order of clause constituents, the division into paragraphs and the marking of
participants.
412
An_78.indb 428 21/06/11 15:41

Abstracts 429
It is concluded that research into the verbal system of poetry can not be
done by a concentration on more or less isolated pairs of clauses only. It is on-
ly effective when done in interaction with text syntax and textual hierarchy.
The study of verbal syntax in poetry requires a textual analysis where syntax
takes priority over colometrical and rhetorical analysis. Poetic lines, the cola,
can be defined by the syntactic clauses identified and not the other way round.
The function of verbal forms interacts with the position verbal clauses take in
the syntactic hierarchy.
VOLGGER D., Die Bestattung Jakobs (Gen 50,1-14) – oder:

Die Tora Israels auf dem Weg von Ägypten nach Kanaan
This examination of Jacob’s burial in Gen 50,1-14 tries to answer the follow-
ing questions: What is the meaning of Jacob’s burial in Canaan for the whole
people of Israel? Which divine instruction can be derived from this section of
the book of Genesis? To what extent is this story an organic component of the
entire Torah in the five books of Moses? After a close text analysis of Gen
50,1-14 and an outlook on the story of Sarah’s burial in Gen 23 follows a con-
cluding chapter in which the author summarizes the results of the examination
and answers the questions put at the beginning.
WATSON W. G. E., Alcuni brani dell’Antico Testamento

e testi dal Vicino Oriente antico
Here six passages from the Bible are compared with words, texts and images
from the ancient Near East. They are from the books of Genesis (Noah’s
name), Exodus (the crossing of the Red Sea), 2 Samuel (a sacrificial ritual),
Daniel (the ‘Bel and the Dragon’ episode), Judith (the decapitation of Holofer-
nes) and Jonah (the worm and the plant).
W.GRZYNIAK W., La problematica temporale dei verbi

nei salmi 14 e 53
The purpose of this article is to analyze the Hebrew verbs in the Psalms 14 and
53, relying on the text linguistic theory of A. NICCACCI. NICCACCI, known espe-
cially for his theory of the Biblical Hebrew verb system in prose, began in re-
cent years to apply his theory on poetry as well. First, the Hebrew Text of the
two psalms with a new translation in Italian is presented. Next, the verbal
forms in Ps 14 and 53 are analyzed, applying the main principle of NICCACCI’s
413
An_78.indb 429 21/06/11 15:41

theory, i. e., that the verbal system in Biblical Hebrew poetry functions basical-
ly the same way it does in prose, viz., in direct speech. In the conclusion, I pro-
pose some general observations regarding the use of the verbal forms in Ps 14
and 53. Both psalms can be divided into two parts (14,1-6.7; 53,1-6.7), and the
perspective of the psalmist is between the past and the future. The paper shows
that the application of the theory of NICCACCI onto Ps 14 and 53 is plausible and
fruitful. It helps to understand the difficult logic of the nearly identical psalms
and possibly can also help with the interpretation of other poetic texts.
ZEVIT Z., Syntagms in Biblical Hebrew: Four Short Studies
This study analyzes syntagms in Biblical Hebrew whose meanings, indiscerni-

ble on the basis of transparent etymologies, can be established only through an
analysis of the pragmatic contexts within which they are embedded. Examples
are presented from the semantic fields of commerce, sexual behavior, cogni-
tion, and querying.
ZEWI T., On "(' !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# !%$ &$ in Biblical Hebrew
The article follows, reexamines, and conveys support in a simple explanation

for the differentiation between the use of ! )*!' +# and "(' following the verb !%$ &$ . It
has been occasionally remarked that ! )*!' +# is related to physical observation, and
it was suggested that while "(' is related to cognitive thoughts ! )*!' +# is related to
visual physical perception. Examining all examples of "(' + !%$ &$ and ! )*!' +# + !%$ &$
in Biblical Hebrew, the distinction between the physical and non-physical ob-
servation stands out as the most valid between the two particles following !%$ &$ ,
and it accords with the majority of occurrences. This explanation is not inten-
ded to replace but to complement the observations presented to date regarding
the meaning and function of ! )*!' +#.
414
An_78.indb 430 21/06/11 15:41

Indice dei passi citati
Bibbia ebraica
La numerazione segue la Bibbia ebraica, anche se è citata la LXX.
Genesi Genesi Genesi

1 69 6,8-9,29 371 16,4 107, 409
1,2 310 6,12 412 16,5 409
1,5 59, 248 7,1 114 16,13 112
1,10 408 7,4 67 16,13s 140
1,12 408 8,3 59 17,1 318
1,14-19 68 8,3s 371s 18,1 116
1,18 408 8,5 59 18,2 114, 157s, 412
1,21 47, 408 8,6 62 18,15 114
1,25 408 8,13 412 18,18 297
1,29 47 8,21 47 18,22 116s
1,30 47 9,4 116 19,5 396
1,31 409 9,18 63 19,6 126
2,1 149 9,20s 372 19,23-25 120s
2,25 115 10,1 371 19,28 412
3,6 400, 408 10,10 63 19,31 397
3,8 112 10,32 371 19,32 396
3,9 401 11,7 400 20,9 400s
3,11 401 12,8 109 20,10 409
3,13 400 12,14 411 20,11-13 401
3,17 399s 12,18 400 20,31 396
4,1 396, 398s 13,7 317 21,9 112
4,2 317 13,10 410 21,14 115
4,19 401 13,11s 118 21,16 159s
4,16 399 14,12 116 21,27 165
4,17 396 14,15 58 21,32 165
4,25 399 15,15 215, 217 22,13 412
5,29-32 371s 15,17 406 23 361, 365-367
6,2 408 16,2 396, 399 23,2 358
6,5 409 16,2-4 398 24,10 160
An_78.indb 431 21/06/11 15:41

Genesi Genesi Genesi

24,15 116 32,30 116 44,31 409
24,16 116, 396 33,1 113, 412 45,12 411
24,18 109 34,7 399 46,26s 363
24,22 115 34,8 398 46,31-47,10 361
24,30 117 36,11ss 63 47,27 365
24,56 116 37,2 110 47,27-31 362
24,58 214 37,7 181 47,29-31 359s
24,63 113, 406, 412 37,9 405 47,30 364
25,6 76 37,20 180 47,30s 358
25,19 360 37,25 412 48,1 113
25,25 100, 111 37,35 111 48,17 411
26,8 113s, 412 38 397 49,11 272
26,10 400 38,8 396 49,15 408s
26,13 112, 299 38,8s 398 49,21 80
26,27 116 38,14 409 49,29s 365
27,20 401 38,16 398 49,29-33 358, 364
28,6 409 38,24s 118 49,31s 361
28,8 409 38,26 396 49,33 361
28,12 115s 39,3 409 50,1-14 357-370
29,2 412 39,10 109, 399 50,15 409
29,5 113, 386 39,12 399 50,26 358
29,9 117 39,13 411
29,21 398 39,23 47, 306, 317 Esodo
29,23 398 40,6 412 1-15 18
29,31 114, 309 40,16 408, 413 1,1-15 363
30,1 409 41,10 111 2,2 100, 114
30,3s 398 41,14-16 361 2,6 412
30,9 409 41,15 215 2,10 149
30,16 398 41,22 412 2,11 113
30,38s 160 41,34 214 2,12 410
31,2 412 41,43 110 2,16 317
31,5 409, 412 41,48 47 2,19s 138
31,10 318, 413 42,1 409 3,1 317
31,10-12 398 42,7s 160 3,2 114, 412
31,19 120 42,8 118 3,4 411
31,34 143 42,23 114 3,10 92
31,40 296, 298s 42,27 412 3,11 92
32,14 163 42,28 400 3,14 18, 214
32,23s 162-164 43,7 386 3,18 92
32,23-33 163 44,12 115 4,2-7 399
32,26 409 44,15 386, 402 4,8s 399
An_78.indb 432 21/06/11 15:41

Indici dei passi e degli autori citati 433
Esodo Levitico Levitico

5,20 112 1,1s 132 20,15 397
8,11 409 4,6 190 20,18 396
9,3 60, 67 4,17 190 22,13 299
9,34 409 4,35 47 26,2 320
10,7 386 5,15 394s 26,5 47
10,10 409 5,18 394s 26,12 65
14,5 400 5,25 394s 27,21 395
14,10 113 11,15 47
14,11 400 13,5 97, 412 Numeri
14,13s 169 13,6 412 3,17s 396
14,15-17 372 13,8 412 3,35 396
14,21-23 372 13,13 412 3,42 47
14,22 116 13,17 412 5,1 399
14,25 67 13,19 299, 326 5,19 399
14,27 372 13,20s 412 5,20 397
15 23, 262, 271, 13,25s 412 10,34 296, 298s, 318
277 13,30-32 412 11,7 97
15,8 372 13,34 412 11,10 160
15,16 272 13,36 412 16,27 111
15,26 399 13,37 97 18,16 395
17,12 296, 298s, 318, 13,39 412 19,2 326
325 13,42 326 21,9 47
18,24 399 13,43 412 22,21 164
19-24 20 13,47 326 22,22 116
19,3 215, 217 13,49 325 22,31 112
19,19 299 13,53 412 22,35 164
20,18 160 13,55 97, 412 22,38 117
20,21 160 13,56 412 24,1 409
20,22 410 14,3 412 24,2 113
21,28 47 14,37 412 31,7 397
22,15 396 14,39 412 33,3 160
23,8 215, 217 14,44 412 33,5 160
23,20 67 14,48 412
31,13s 320 15,18 397 Deuteronomio
31,16 320 15,24 399 1,1-6 132
32,1 409 15,33 397 2,34 47
32,9 412 18,32 397 5,2-5 135
32,25 409 18,20 397 5,12 320
34,30 413 19,3 320 5,15 320
34,35 413 19,19 397 7,7 398
39,43 412 19,30 320 8,20 399
An_78.indb 433 21/06/11 15:41

Deuteronomio Giosuè Giudici

9,13 412 4,9 148 3,23 110, 118
9,16 412 5,9 148s 3,24 118, 141s, 412
9,18 165 5,13 113, 116, 412 3,25 117, 141s
9,25 165 6,4-20 167 3,26 156
10,15 398 6,9 112 3,27 167
13,19 399 6,25 148, 156 4,1 118
15,2 217 7,21 412 4,12ss 120
16,1 217 7,26 148 4,16 80
16,15 322, 399 8,20 412 4,21 116, 156
16,19 215 8,21s 160 4,32 156
17,13 214 8,23 112 5 80, 262, 277
18,22 64 8,28 148 6,6 156
19,3 217 8,29 148 6,19 115
19,11 299, 326s 9,5 329 6,11 116
20,7 327s 9,12 329 6,13 117
21,11 398 9,27 148 6,21 118
21,13 396 10,1-3 144s 6,22 409
22,13 396, 398 10,39 47 6,24 148s
22,22 396 13,13 148 6,38 156
22,23 299, 327s 14,13-15 139s 7,2-8 167s
22,25 399 14,14 148 7,19 110
22,28 399 15,63 148 7,13 117
24,1 396 16,10 148 7,16-22 165-169
24,9 217 19,29 218 8,4 111
25,5s 397 22,11s 160 8,20 111
27,1 217 22,28 214 8,32 111
27,21 397 23,12 397 8,34 113
28,30 396 8,28 156
28,49 400 Giudici 9,34 111, 113s, 412
31,27 318 1,4s 161 9,43 167
32 262, 277 1,17 112s 9,55 409
32,4 260 1,19 156 10,4 148
33,2 201 1,21 148 11,1 149
1,24 113 11,7 134-136
Giosuè 2,2 400 11,15-22 134
2,1 110s 2,5 148 11,39 148, 396
2,5 126 2,20 156 12,2s 133
2,9-12 136-138 3,6 156 12,3 135, 409
2,16 149 3,16 115 12,6 115, 194
2,21s 160 3,20 118 13,9 116
3,16 137 3,21s 108 14,6 102
An_78.indb 434 21/06/11 15:41

Giudici 1 Samuele 1 Samuele

14,8 412 9,27 110 18,28 412
14,9 112 10,6 102 19,20 330s
14,19 102 10,10 102 20,1 401
15,6 138 10,11 402, 412 20,22 100
15,11 386, 400 10,13 402 20,30 386
15,14 102 10,14 409 20,36 109
15,19 148 10,23 96, 99 20,37 112
16,18 409 10,24 96 22,33-46 257-281
18,2 118 11,11 167 23,11 214
18,9 114, 409 11,6 102 23,15 409
18,12 148 12,12 409 24,12 410
18,14 386 12,17 109, 409s 26,3 409
18,17 137 13,3 213s 28,13 113
18,26 409 13,10 94 28,19 218
18,28s 116 13,11 409 28,21 409
18,29 148 13,13s 9 30,3 156
19,7 109 13,14 97, 103 30,8 214
19,18 136 13,17 115 31,5 409
19,22 396 13,17s 167 31,7 409
19,25 396 14,1 160
19,30 143s 14,3 160 2 Samuele
20,16 115 14,6 160 1,23 100
20,36 409 14,16 412 2,26 386
20,41 409 14,17 406, 412 2,28 115, 167
21,12 396 14,43 214, 401 3,7 398
21,21 412 15 89 3,16 112
15,1 399 3,24 402
1 Samuele 15,12s 94 3,26-34 402
1,14 90 15,15-23 94 3,38 386
1,19 396 15,23 95 5,12 156
2,3 109 15,26 90 6,1 47
2,25 399 15,35 90 7,14 65
3,11 405 16,1-13 85-106 10,6 409
4,11 156 16,14 102s 10,9 409
5,1 156 17,39 129 10,14s 409
5,7 409 17,42 100 10,19 409
6,12 112 17,49s 161 11,2 113
6,19 160 17,51 411 11,11 399
9,2 96, 99 17,56 100 11,20 386
9,10s 118 18,5 115 12,11 399
9,16 409 18,15 114, 410 12,19 114, 411
An_78.indb 435 21/06/11 15:41

2 Samuele 1 Re 2 Re
12,21 402 19,9 164 19,9 159
12,41 156 19,13 164 25,9 47
13,8 109 19,19-21 373 25,18-20 160
13,34 412 20,4 323
14,7 400 20,7 410 Isaia
15,16-32 119 20,25 399 9,1 178
15,26 214 20,43 111 9,5 181, 199
15,30 111s 21,8s 160 10,2 47
15,32 302 21,12 302 11,5 63
17,14 119 21,29 409 13,6 396
17,23 409 22,3 386 15,6 326
18,14 115 22,22 214 18-20 21
18,24 113, 412 22,35 161 19,18 67
18,26 113 22,37 161 30,12 296, 299, 322
19,2 147s 37,9 158s
19,23 386 2 Re 40,6 384
19,36 386 1,9 117 40,21 386
20,12 411 2,3 386 40,28 386
22 181, 190s 2,5 386 41,7 47
24,21s 373 2,14 160 42,16 115
3,7 214 42,22 323
1 Re 3,26 409 43,19 386
1,22 117 4,32s 160 45,1 126
3,11 400 5,11s 160 45,10 384
3,28 409 5,7 40 50,4 47
4,1 396 6,17 406 52,13-53,12 22, 173-212
5,2 111 6,20 412 52,7 178
10,7 412 6,30 412 52,7-12 187
11,8 112 6,32 409 54,1-17 187
11,28 409 7,5 160 56,6 320
11,39 218 7,7 160 59,16 409
12,16 409 7,8 160 60,11 126
12,32s 161 8,29 160 62,5 396
13,21 319 9,1-29 119s 64,4 47
13,26 319 9,15s 160 64,9 328
16,18 409 10,6 399
17,1 70 11,1 409 Geremia
17,10 117 11,3 111 2,19 410
18,11 384 11,14 412 3,8 409
18,14 384 12,5 395 4,14 90
18,21 90 12,11 411 4,21 90
An_78.indb 436 21/06/11 15:41

Geremia Ezechiele Abdia

4,23-26 412 12,25 319 3 384
5 337-355 12,27 319 11 288
5,23 319 14,14 371 16 64
7,3 55 14,20 371 17 286s, 292
7,23 65 16,28 160 21 64
9,9 347 17,12 319, 386
10,11 221 18,2 125 Giona
13,12 386 18,3 327 1,10 400
17,6 409 19,5 409 3,8 287s
17,8 409 20,5 160 4,6-8 377
18,19s 399 20,20 320
18,20 328 20,21 318s Michea
18,21 299, 328s 23,13 409 1,3s 258
25,23 47 23,44 398 1,10 288
31,29 125 24,3 319 2,1 321
31,30 125 27,5 47 3,1 386
32,29 318 30,6 214 7,5 286
34,9s 159 36,34 322 7,12 287s
40,14 386 37,8 409
41,10 161 37,23 65 Abacuc
44,2 318 44,4 412 1,5 289, 292
44,8 318 44,6 319 1,14 290
47,5 47 44,24 320 1,17 290
46,2 126 2,16 289, 292
Ezechiele 2,17 291s
1,4 412 Osea 3 262
1,15 412 2,15 321 3,10 287s
2,3 318s 4,1 206 3,14 288
2,5-8 319 4,9 321 3,19 258
2,8 318 4,16 290, 292
2,9 412 6,6 206 Sofonia
3,9 319 3,7 291s
3,26s 319 Amos 3,9 286
8,2 412 2,7 397 3,15 286s, 292
8,7 412 3,2 322
8,8 412 3,14 322 Aggeo
10,1 412 7,15 286 2,1 287s
10,9 412 7,16 287s 2,13 214
12,2 319 9,5 287s
12,3 319, 409
12,9 319
An_78.indb 437 21/06/11 15:41

Zaccaria Salmi Cantico dei Cantici

1,12 90 106,2 217 1,16 100
2,15 412 119,159 409
4,2 412 126,3 296, 322 Qoelet
4,5 386 139,10 217 1,3 41
4,13 386 1,4 41
5,1 412 Giobbe 1,5 41
5,9 412 1,17 167 1,6 42
6,1 412 2,13 409 1,7 41
14,2 396 3,21 192s 1,9 41
3,23 181 1,13 41
Salmi 12,17 112 1,14 41s, 413
9-10 21 20,4 386 1,17 42
10,14 409 24,7 111 2,1 412
13,2 217 24,20 322 2,3 41
14 381-392 28 17, 20, 22 2,4-9 45s
18 181, 190s, 257- 30,1 64 2,11 41s
278 32,22 109 2,13 410
24,6 201 37,15s 386 2,16 44
29,5 124 37,19-24 17 2,17 41s
30,8 323 38,33 386 2,18-20 41
34,9 408 38,37 397 2,21 38s, 43
42,6 216 39,1 386 2,22 38s, 41, 60
42,12 216 41,26 47 2,24 409
43,5 216 2,26 42
45,10 396 Proverbi 3,1 41
52,7 217 1,16 217 3,1-8 43
53 381-392 2,5 206 3,15 47s
65,5 206 12,11 317 3,16 41
66,4 217 12,21 40 3,19 42
69,24s 328 13,19 60 3,21 41
69,26 328 22,17-23,11 17, 21 3,22 409
69,36 217 23,26-24,22 21 4,1 41, 413
72,3 17 24,24 384 4,3 41
73,14 296, 323 28,19 317 4,4 42, 47, 409
79,5 217 4,6 42
85,14 217 Rut 4,7 41
88,4 206 1,8 214 4,13 37
88,13 386 1,18 107 4,15 41
94,16 217 1,21 111 4,16 42
97,3 217 2,15 109 4,17 39
99,8 321 5,1 41
An_78.indb 438 21/06/11 15:41

Qoelet Qoelet Daniele

5,8 41 11,2 39, 41 2,20 226, 238, 240s,
5,9 36 11,3 41 249
5,12 39, 41 11,4 41s 2,23 235
5,15 39,42 11,5 42 2,24 225s, 234, 249
5,17 41 11,7 41 2,25 234
6,1 39,41 11,10 39 2,31 231, 239, 241
6,2 39 12,1 40 2,32 232
6,5 42 12,2 41 2,34 234s, 239
6,7 44s 12,3 44, 125 2,35 246
6,8 35 12,3-7 46s, 218 2,40 226s
6,9 42 12,4 125 2,41 224, 241
6,11 37 12,7 41s 2,42 240s
6,12 41 12,9 124s 2,43 224, 238, 240s
7,7 47s 12,14 47 2,44 227s
7,8 42 2,45 224
7,11 41 Lamentazioni 2,48s 243
7,14 39s, 47 1,4 325 3,1 232
7,20 41 1,11 324 3,1s 224, 242
8,8 42 1,16 322, 324s 3,3 236, 242
8,9 41, 47 1,20 409 3,4 230, 243
8,11 39s 3,30 206 3,6 235
8,12 39 3,7 234-236
8,14 37, 41 Ester 3,7-9 244
8,15 41 2,3 47 3,12 246
8,16 41 2,12 359 3,15 237, 247
8,17 41 3,5 409 3,16 247
9,1 37, 47 3,15 111 3,17 233, 247
9,3 39, 41 5,9 111 3,18 235, 240
9,6 41 7,7 409 3,19 223s
9,9 41 8,11 47 3,23 223
9,13 41 9,29 47 3,25 231, 246
9,4 45 3,26 224, 229, 234
10,5 39, 41 Daniele 3,27 224, 229s, 244
10,6 35 1,17 10 4,1 243
10,7 41 2 58, 71 4,1-3 242
10,10 125 2,1 242 4,2 225, 227
10,11 37 2,4 221, 226, 233 4,3 235
10,16 41 2,9 226 4,4 223, 230, 236,
10,17 41, 44 2,10 233 242s
10,19 44 2,11 235 4,5 235
10,20 41 4,7 239, 241
An_78.indb 439 21/06/11 15:41

Daniele Daniele Esdra

4,8 223 6,7 229, 233 4,8 221, 242
4,9 232 6,11 230, 239 4,9 236, 242
4,10 239 6,13 245 4,12 240
4,11 226, 231, 249 6,14-19 222 4,13 237
4,12 233s, 249 6,15 223, 236 4,14 237s
4,16 225, 227, 233 6,17-21 244s 4,15 226
4,20 233s, 249 6,18 222 4,16 231, 233
4,22 231 6,20 227 4,19 231, 235, 250
4,23 233 6,22 233 4,20 231s, 250, 318
4,24 226 6,23 224s 4,21 226
4,26 239 6,25 235 4,21s 250
4,29 233 6,27 231, 240s, 246s 4,22 226, 234
4,30 227s 7,1 236, 242 4,23 236
4,31 234 7,2 238s 4,24 238s, 245
4,32 226, 246 7,4 239 5,2 230, 245
4,33 237 7,6 232, 239, 241 5,3 230, 243
4,34 231, 237, 246 7,7 231s, 239, 241 5,5 236
5,1s 224, 242 7,8 238, 240 5,8 240
5,1-4 223 7,9 239 5,11 231, 246
5,2 225, 396 7,10 231 5,12 223
5,3 242, 396 7,11 239, 241 5,14s 222
5,3s 223 7,13 239, 241 5,15 226, 229, 231,
5,5 235 7,14 224 234, 249
5,6 230 7,16 225, 247 5,16 231, 236s, 246
5,7 234, 244 7,17s 225 5,17 247
5,10 225s, 229, 233, 7,19 231 6,1s 242
249 7,20 231 6,3s 233
5,15 237, 246 7,21 231, 239 6,7 226, 234
5,17 226 7,23-27 247-249 6,10 231, 241
5,19 239, 241 7,27 224, 244 6,13 236
5,21 227s, 232 7,28 221 6,18 221, 242
5,22 235 8,3 412 7,12-26 221
5,23 231, 235, 247, 8,5 302 7,19s 226
396 8,15 412 7,20 229
5,24 236 10,5 214 7,25 226, 235
5,26-28 223 10,20 386
5,29 235 11,17-19 218 Neemia
6,1 224 12,1 60, 66 2,6 396
6,3 227 12,4 206 6,6 60
6,4 239 12,5 412 13,19 126
6,5 236
An_78.indb 440 21/06/11 15:41

1 Cronache 2 Cronache 2 Cronache

1,4 371 9,6 412 24,11 411
10,5 409 12,7 409 30,10 302
10,7 409 13,5 386 32,2 409
19,6 409 15,9 409 32,13 386
19,10 409 16,14 358
19,15s 409 18,21 214
19,19 409 22,9 117
21,28 409 22,10 409
28,10 409 23,13 412
Scritti deuterocanonici ed apocrifi
1 Esdra (LXX) 1 Maccabei Siracide

5,20 320 9,47 325 2,5 299
7,14 320 9,13 325 6,19 17
13,9 296, 319
Giuditta 2 Maccabei 18,33 296s
5,10 320 3,34 322, 325 41,27 316
12,20 375s 8,27 320 44,9 64
13,6-10 376 15,3 320 44,17 371
14,1 376
14,11 376 4 Maccabei Daniele (Bel e il drago)
16,9 376 16,15 330 14,1-22 375
14,23 374
Tobia Sapienza 14,27 374
6,12/13 327 1-19 23
17,16 317
An_78.indb 441 21/06/11 15:41

Nuovo Testamento
Matteo Luca 1 Corinzi

3,1 296 4,20 330 13,9 55
7,29 306 5,16 306
10,10 317 7,34s 19 2 Corinzi
11,18s 19 10,7 317 3,7 330
16,3 326 13,27 317 3,13 330
20,2 317 19,47 312 6,14 297
20,6 330 23,10 196
27,63 110 Galati
Giovanni 6,3 110
Marco 1,19-51 17
1 20 1,49 306 Colossesi
1,4 296 4,6-38 17 1,18 297
1,39 311 15s 17
3,6 317 20,1-29 17 1 Timoteo
9,3 297 5,18 317
9,7 297 Atti degli Apostoli
11,13 110 1,10 330 Ebrei
11,25 296 1,11 296 5,12 297
26,6 296
26,22 296 Apocalisse
1,18 297
3,2 297
16,10 297
Manoscritti del Mar Morto
1QpHab II:9 289 1QapGen XXIII:9 58 1QS IV:18 64

1QpHab XI:9 289 1QapGen XXIII:10 58 1QS VI:4 62
1QapGen XII:10 63 1Q26 68, 72 1QS VIII:4 65
1QapGen XX:27 63 1Q26 1:1 69 1QS IX:3 65
1QapGen XXI:7 58 1Q26 1:4 72 1QS IX:20 69
1QapGen XXII:1 58 1Q27 72 1QS X:5 69
1QapGen XXII:2 58 1Q27 1i:3s 71 1QS X:10 65
1QapGen XXII:8 58 1QS III:13ss 69 1QS XI:3s 72
1QapGen XXII:9 58 1QS III:16 65 1QS XI:5 69
An_78.indb 442 21/06/11 15:41

1QS XI:7 69 4Q381 76-77:15 65 4Q502 1:6 65

1QS XI:11 69 4Q382 104:3 65 4Q511 10:10s 69
1QSb V:25s 63 4Q385 6:9 64 4Q529-537 58
1QM I:12 66 4Q394 3-7i:18 63 4Q530 2ii:6 58
1QM VI:6 64s 4Q394 3-7ii:1 63 4Q530 2ii:9 58
1QM XVII:5 70 4Q395 :10 63 4Q530 7ii:7 64
1QM XVIII:10 66 4Q396 1-2iii:7 65
1QHa V:18 70 4Q402 4:4 65 5Q13 1:7 371
1QHa XI:33 67 4Q402 4:12 69
1QHa XI:37 65 4Q403 1i:22 70 11Q10 XV:5 64
1QHa XVII:24 65 4Q405 13:6 70 11QT XXIX:7 65
1QHa XIX:14 70 4Q415-418 68, 72 11QT XXXI:7 57
1QHa XX 68s 4Q415 6:4 72 11QT XXXIV:7 57
1QHa XX:9 68 4Q416 2i:5 72 11QT XLVII 63
1QHa XXI:21 70 4Q416 2iii:9 72 11QT XLVIII:16 65
4Q416 2iii:14 72 11QT LVII:8 63
4QSama IV:4 93 4Q416 2iii:17s 72 11QT LIX:13 65
4Q166 II:12 65 4Q416 2iii:14 71s 11QT LXI.LXII 62
4Q174 1-2i:11 65 4Q416 2iii:21 71 11QT LXI:3 64
4Q175 :6 62 4Q417 1i:6 72
4Q180 1:1s 70 4Q417 1i:18 72 CD I:13s 290
4Q206 4i:18 58 4Q417 2i:11 72 CD II:2ss 70
4Q213a 1:18 64 4Q418 10a:1 72s CD II:9ss 70
4Q252 14:2 62 4Q418 43-45i:2 72 CD II:20 64
4Q252 I.II 371 4Q418 43-45i:4 72 CD III:1 371
4Q252 I:12 62 4Q418 69ii:7 70 CD VI:16 63
4Q254a 3:2 371 4Q418 77:2 71 CD VIII:3 62
4Q256 XIX:3 69 4Q418 77:4 72 CD XIII:8 70
4Q265 7:7 65 4Q418 123ii:4 73
4Q258 II:9 62 4Q418 126ii:5 66 Mur24 B:15 58
4Q258 VI:6 65 4Q418 172:1 71 Mur24 C:13 58
4Q258 VII:4 65 4Q418 184:2 73 Mur24 E:11 58
4Q258 IX:10 65 4Q418 190:2 73 Mur88 286-288, 292
4Q266 3iii:25 62 4Q418a 19:3 65
4Q268 2i:8 70 4Q423 68, 72 8!evXIIgr 291s
4Q300 3:4 71 4Q427 2ii 68
4Q381 1:1 65 4Q463 1:2 65 Mas1k I:2 69
4Q381 33+35:3 65 4Q491 11ii:17 64s
An_78.indb 443 21/06/11 15:41

Indice degli autori citati
ABULHAM MAS 75S BARTELMUS 53-57, 60, 62S, 66S, 69, 73S,
ADINOLFI 80, 82 364, 369
AERTS 295, 298-305, 307, 315, 331S BARTHÉLEMY 80, 82, 95, 104, 291, 293
A!ITUV 33, 49, 396, 403 BARTOR 402S
AHRENS 377S BASILE 326, 332
AJDUKIEWICZ 36, 49 BAUER 306, 332
ALAND 295 BAUER + LEANDER 203, 209, 221, 227,
ALEXANDER 304, 332 229, 231, 233-235, 238, 249, 254
ALLONY 76, 82 BAUMANN 90
ALONSO SCHÖKEL + CARNITI 386, 388S BAUMGARTEN 62
ALTER 90, 104 BECKER 154, 170
ALTMANN 75, 82 BECKMAN 374, 378
AMENTA 295, 308-313, 332 BEER 387, 389
ANBAR 154, 170 BEIT-ARIÉ 80, 82
ANDERSEN F. I. 114, 121 BEN-!AYYIM 123S, 126
ANDERSEN T. D. 174, 176, 178, 180S, 209 BENTEIN 308S, 333
ANDERSON 258, 261S, 266, 268, 278, 388S BERGSTRÄSSER 274, 278
ANDRASON 174, 176, 178, 182, 209 BERLIN 113, 121, 123, 126
ASSMANN 359, 369 BERMAN 359-365, 369
AVIGAD + SASS 32S, 49 BIEBERSTEIN 155, 160, 170
AVISHUR + HELTZER 33, 49 BJÖRK 301S, 304, 307, 333
BLACK 377S
BAETHGEN 384, 389 BLAU 123, 126, 141, 151, 225, 243, 254
BAILEY 371, 378 BLENKINSOPP 177S, 187-193, 196, 198-
BAL 87, 104 204, 206, 209
BALDI 80, 82 BLASS + DEBRUNNER 296, 299, 301, 332S
BANETZ + BEN-SHAMMAI 75 BLOCH 179S, 183, 209
BAR-EFRAT 245, 254 BLUM 155, 162, 164, 170, 216, 219
BARNES 384-386, 389 BLYTHIN 205S, 209
BARONI 90, 104 BOMAN 54, 74
BARR 32, 35, 49 BOMBECK 230, 254
An_78.indb 444 21/06/11 15:41

BONEH + DORON 270, 278 COSTACURTA 92, 100, 104

BORDREUIL + PARDEE 277S COXON 240, 254
BRENNER 396, 403 CRAIGIE 384-386, 388S
BRENTON 298S, 318-329, 331, 333 CROATTO 44, 49
BRIGGS 384-386, 388S CROSS 260, 278
BROCKELMANN 181, 209, 229, 254 CROSS + FREEDMAN 179, 209, 257, 260S,
BROOKE + MCLEAN 298 266, 268S, 278
BROWNING 309, 333 CRÜSEMANN 263, 278
BRUCK 259, 272, 278
BUBER + ROSENZWEIG 97, 104, 133, 147S, DAHL 174S, 179, 209, 270, 278
151, 153, 158, 160 DAHOOD 31, 33, 49, 260, 278, 387S, 390
BUDDE 387, 389 DANA + MANTEY 296, 333
BUTH 119, 121, 144, 149-151, 154, 170, DAVIDSON 115S, 121
221-223, 235S, 254 DAVIES G. I. 32, 47, 49
BYBEE 118, 121, 174-179, 191, 194, 209 DAVIES P. R. 290, 293
BYBEE + PERKINS + PAGLIUCA 313, 333 DEGEN 181, 209
DELITZSCH 384, 386, 388, 390
CALÈS 386, 389 DELSMAN 31, 49
CAMPBELL 305S, 333 DEMIRDACHE + URIBE-ETXEBARRIA 265, 278
CAQUOT 259, 278 DEMSKY 363, 370
CARBAJOSA 284, 293 DHORME 97, 100, 104
CARBONE + RIZZI 321, 333 DIETRICH 295S, 298, 308, 333
CARROLL 340-342, 352 DÍEZ MACHO 75, 82
CASTELLINO 382, 384-386, 389 DIK 309S, 333
CATHCART + GORDON 287, 289, 293 DOBBS-ALLSOPP 33, 49, 179, 209
CHESTERMAN 36, 49 DOTAN 78S, 82
CHIESA 76, 78, 80, 82 DRINKA 317, 334
CHISHOLM 257-261, 163, 265, 267S, 270S, DRIVER 109, 115S, 121, 189S, 200-204,
273, 278 209, 214, 218S
CLINES 371S, 378 DRORY 80, 82
CLINES + ELWOLDE 206, 209 DUHM 191, 210, 386, 388, 390
CLOETE 338-344, 352, 354S
COHEN D. 222, 229, 232, 234, 238, 254 EDZARD 376, 378
COHEN M. 75, 82, 92, 97, 104 EHRLICH 158, 170, 398
COLLINS 243, 254 EMERTON 271, 278
COMPAGNANO DI SEGNI 80, 82 ERMAN-GRAPOW 372, 278
COMRIE 174, 209 ESHEL 396, 403
CONYBEARE + STOCK 296, 299, 333 ESKHULT 109, 118, 120S, 141, 151, 243,
COOK E. M. 224, 231, 250, 254 254, 405, 407, 414
COOK J. A. 119, 221, 142, 149-151 ESLINGER 100S, 105
COQUET + DE ROBERT 94, 99, 104
COSERIU 308, 312, 333
An_78.indb 445 21/06/11 15:41

EVANS 297-299, 304-309, 316-318, 325, GREENFIELD 234, 238, 253

334 GREENSTEIN 257, 271, 277, 279
EWALD 384, 390 GRELOT 237, 254
GRILLET + LESTIENNE 100, 105
FANNING 297, 305, 316, 334 GROSS 130, 136, 149, 152-154, 165, 170,
FASSBERG 124-126 179, 210, 213, 216, 219
FIRMAGE 33, 49 GUNKEL 158, 170, 384, 388, 390
FISCHER G. 340, 342, 352 GURNEY 374, 378
FISCHER W. 177, 192S, 206, 210 GZELLA 33, 50, 178, 210, 221, 224S, 227,
FLEISCHMANN 174, 183, 210 229-232, 237, 239S, 243, 254S
FOKKELMAN 90, 92, 96S, 99S, 103, 105,
339, 352 HABEL 89, 92, 105
FOLLINGSTAD 407, 414 HALKIN 75S
FRITZ 160, 170 HALLIDAY 183S, 195, 210
FÜCK 76, 83 HALLO 259S, 279
HARRINGTON 68, 71S, 74
GALPAZ-FELLER 358S, 361, 370 HARTLEY 395, 403
GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ + TIGCHELAAR 290, 293 HASPELMATH 313, 315, 334
GARR 271, 273, 279 HATAV 107, 113, 119, 121, 151S, 265, 279
GASS 163, 170 HATCH + REDPATH 325, 334
GEIGER 232, 254, 317, 334 HENKIN 151
GELSTON 285S, 288, 290-293 HERKENNE 386, 390
GENETTE 87, 101, 105 HERMISSON 162, 170
GESENIUS + KAUTZSCH (+ COWLEY) 67, HITZIG 382, 390
92S, 109, 111, 114, 116, 260, 314S, 386, HOFFNER 374S, 378
405 HOLZINGER 160
GIACALONE RAMAT 317, 334 DE HOND 78, 83
GIANTO 180, 182, 210 HOOROCKS 309, 334
GIBSON + DAVIDSON 118, 121, 381, 384S, HOSSFELD + ZENGER 388, 390
390 HUART 75, 83
GIL 79, 83 HUEHNERGARD 181, 210
GINSBERG 259, 279 HURVITZ 315, 334
GINSBURG 386, 390 HUTZBERG 94, 105
GIRARD 386, 388, 390
GIVÓN 119, 121, 201, 210 ISAKSSON 31, 43, 50, 110, 114, 117, 121,
DE GOEJE 76 150, 152, 173, 176, 178-180, 182-186,
GOGEL 32S, 50 188, 190-195, 208, 210
GOLDENBERG 44, 50
GOLDINGAY 386-388, 390 JACOB 158, 170, 358, 363S, 370
GONDA 304, 307, 334 JACQUET 386, 388, 390
GOOD 295, 313S, 334 JENNI 59, 64S, 67, 72-74, 97, 105
GORDIS 48, 50, 125S JONGELING 97, 105
An_78.indb 446 21/06/11 15:41

JOOSTEN 95, 105, 123S, 126, 218S KUHR 114, 122

JOÜON 97, 105, 120S, 315, 334
JOÜON + MURAOKA 32, 47, 50, 109, 111, LAMSA 286, 290S, 294
116-118, 121, 149, 152, 177, 182, 191, LANE 284S, 294
203S, 206, 210, 315, 334, 381, 385S, LEHMANN 187, 195, 210, 313, 335
390, 405, 407, 414 LELIÈVRE + MAILLOT 386, 388, 391
LEMAIRE 32, 50
KADDARI 397S, 403, 405, 407, 414 LEVI DELLA VIDA 78, 83
KAHN 304S, 334 LEVINE 395, 403
KAMP + REYLE 265, 279 LI 221, 224, 227, 229, 232, 234, 236,
KANT 75 238-242, 255
KARLEEN 304S, 335 LIDDLE + SCOTT 324S, 335
KATSUMURA 405, 414 LIFSCHITZ 386, 388, 391
KEIL + DELITZSCH 260S, 263, 266S, 269, LIMBURG 386, 391
279 LIPSIUS + BORMET 330, 335
KESSLER 90, 96, 105 LOHSE 62, 64, 74
KHAN + ÁNGELES GALLEGO + OLSZOWY- LONG 154, 171
SCHLANGER 79, 83 LONGACRE 265, 279
KHOURY 78 LUNDBLOM 341-344, 350-352, 354S
KIENAST 109, 121 LUST + EYNIKEL + HAUSPIE 299, 329, 335
KING 386, 390 LUTHER 153
KIRKPATRICK 384-386, 388, 390 LUZZATTO 396, 398
KISSANE 386, 390 LYONS 34-36, 42, 44, 47, 50
KITTEL 386, 390
KLEIN 94, 99S, 102, 105 MAIER 62-65, 67-69, 74
KOENEN 163, 170 MALTER 78, 83
KOGAN + TISHCHENKO 258, 279 MANNATI 382, 388, 391
KOGUT 113S, 122, 405, 414 MARCUZZO 77
KÖNIG 111, 122, 160, 170, 388, 391 MARGOLIOUTH 76, 79, 83
KORCHIN 173, 186, 210 MARGUERAT 87, 105
KOSCHMIEDER 155, 171 MARGUERAT + BOURQUIN 89, 91, 97, 105
KOSESKA-TOSZEWA + GARGOV 34, 50 DE MARIVAUX 75
KOSTER 284S, 293 MARKOPOULOS 315S, 335
KOTTSIEPER 178, 180, 210 MARMARDJI 75-77, 83
KOUWENBERG 123, 126 MATTHIESSEN + THOMPSON 183, 211
KRAHMALKOV 181, 210 MCCARTER 95, 105, 257-262, 266, 268,
KRAUS 386, 388, 391 279
KRAUSE 67, 74 MCCARTHY 405S, 414
KRIFKA 267, 270, 279 MCGAUGHY 306, 335
KROPP 76, 83 MEADOWCROFT 243, 245, 248, 255
KRÜGER 126 V. D. MERWE 149, 152, 405, 407, 414
KUHL 154, 171 MESCHONNIC 386, 391
An_78.indb 447 21/06/11 15:41

MEYER 112, 116, 122 V. PEURSEN 37, 50, 56S, 74

MICHEL 257, 265, 279 PIATTELLI 75
MILGROM 395, 397, 403 PIETERSMA + WRIGHT 295, 335
MILIK 71 PIETSCH 181, 184, 211
MILLER 32, 50, 217, 234, 255 PIQUER OTERO 271, 277, 280
MONTANARI 323, 329, 335 PODECHARD 384S, 388, 391
MOORE 320, 335 POLAK 236, 255
MORAN 150, 173-175, 211, 271, 279 POLZIN 90, 105
MORO 316, 335 PORTER 295-297, 303-307, 312, 316, 335S
MORTARI 298, 322S, 335 PREMPER 111, 122
MOULTON 107, 122 PROPP 271, 289
MÜLLER A. R. 32, 50 PUSCH + WESCH 309, 335
MÜLLER H. P. 206, 211
MURAOKA 180, 211, 225, 234, 238S, 255, QIMRON 216, 219
271, 279S, 299, 315, 326, 329, 335,
405, 414 RABATEL 87S, 100S, 105S
RABIN 115, 122
NAUMANN 365, 370 RAHLFS 295, 298, 374
NEBES 185, 211 RAINEY 173-175, 211, 271, 280S
NICCACCI passim RATNER 123, 127
NICCACCI + CORTESE 381 RAVASI 382, 385S, 391
NIDA + LOUW 323, 335 REED 376, 378
NOTARIUS 151S, 186, 211, 259, 265, 269S, REGARD 304, 336
272, 280 DE REGT 131, 152
NOTH 162, 171 REICHENBACH 265, 281
NYBERG 109, 113, 116, 118, 122, 183, REINHART 119
190, 192, 196, 201S, 211 RENDSBURG 377S
RENZ + RÖLLIG 184, 188, 211
O’CONNOR 338S, 353 REVELL 180, 211, 213, 219
OESTERLEY 385S, 391 RICHTER 153S, 166, 171, 213
DEL OLMO LETE + SANMARTÍN 259, 280 RIJKSBARON 317, 336
ORLINSKY 397, 403 ROBINSON 377S
ROGLAND 224, 227, 255, 271, 281
PARDEE 259S ROSÉN 213, 219, 221, 234, 236, 255, 304,
PARKER 259, 280 336
PARKINSON 372S, 278 ROSENBAUM 339S, 353
PARRY 258, 280 ROSENBLATT 78, 83
PARTEE 267, 280 ROSENTHAL 243, 249, 255
PAT-EL 234, 255 DE ROSSI 386, 391
PELLAT 77, 83 RÖSSLER 213, 219
PÉREZ FERNÁNDEZ 314, 335 ROTH 76, 83
PETERS 386, 391 ROTHSTEIN 397-399, 403
An_78.indb 448 21/06/11 15:41

ROWLEY 241, 255 SPEISER 394-396, 403

RUBINSTEIN 202, 211 SPERBER 80, 83
RUDOLPH 159, 171 SPICQ 327, 336
RUJIGH 305, 336 STEINMETZ 372, 379
RUNDGREN 110, 120, 122 STERNBERG 91, 96, 102, 106
STEVENSON 239, 256
SABOURIN 384, 386, 388, 391 STIPP 155, 158, 161, 171S
SAKITA 267, 281 STRACK 163, 172
V. D. SANDE 173, 178, 180, 211 LE STRANGE 77, 83
SANDY 377, 379 STOL 377, 379
SANMARTÍN 376, 379
SARFATTI 32, 50 TALMON 154, 172
SAVOCA 386, 391 TALSHIR 274, 281
SCARPAT 330, 336 TALSTRA 186, 211, 337, 345, 348, 353
SCHERER 166, 171 TATE 386, 388, 392
SCHMIDT H. 386, 388, 391 TAWIL 398, 403
SCHMIDT L. 160, 171 THACKEREY 297, 336
SCHMUTTERMAYR 259, 261S, 265, 281 TOMLIN 174, 211
SCHNEIDER 67, 74, 337, 349, 353 TOOLAN 266, 281
SCHOORS 31, 39, 41-43, 50, 126 TOTTOLI 78, 83
SCHORCH 35, 50, 396S, 403 TOV 283, 291, 294
SCHRAMM 75 TROPPER 173-182, 185, 187, 211, 259,
SCHÜLE 32, 50, 176S, 180S, 184, 211 271S, 277, 281
SCHWEIZER 364, 370 TURNER 297, 336
SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER 31, 51 TUSA MASSARO 305, 320, 336
SEEBASS 159, 171
SEELIGMAN 154, 171 URBACH 80
SEGERT 33, 51, 195, 211, 221, 229, 231-
234, 236, 249, 256 VAJDA 78S, 83
SEOW 126S VESCO 382, 384-386, 388, 392
SEYBOLD 386, 391 VIGNOLO 103, 106
SHEPHERD 221, 225, 228 DE LA VILLA POLO 310S, 336
SIMPSON 372, 379 VIRONDA 90, 93S, 99S, 106
SINGER 374, 379 VOGT 233S, 237, 249, 256
SIVAN 33, 51, 259, 271, 281
SKA 87, 106, 154, 163, 171 WALTERS 102, 106
SKLARE 79, 83 WALTISBERG 181, 211
SMITH C. 265-271, 281 WALTKE + O’CONNOR 155, 172, 260, 262,
SMITH H. P. 92, 106 272, 281, 315, 336, 388, 392
SMITH M. P. + PITARD 259, 277, 281 WATKINS 375, 379
SMYTH 326, 336 WATSON 338, 353, 371
V. SODEN 177, 211, 377, 379 WATTS 189, 211
An_78.indb 449 21/06/11 15:41

WEINRICH 85S, 106, 129-133, 135S, 140- WINER 297, 336

142, 144, 146, 150, 152, 222, 233, 235, WOLF 301, 336
256 WRIGHT 108, 111S, 116, 122
WELLHAUSEN 382, 392 WÜSTENFELD 77
WENDLAND 338, 353 WYATT 374, 379
WENHAM 398, 403
WÉNIN 89, 106 XRAKOVSKIJ 269, 281
WESSELIUS 237, 256
WESTERMANN 158, 172 YOUNG 258, 261, 281
WEVERS 298, 326, 336 YUN 33, 51
WIENER 154, 172
WILDBERGER 159, 172, 178, 211 ZADOK 33, 51
WILLIAMS 385S, 392 ZENGER 386
WILLIAMSON 206, 211 ZEVIT 107, 122
WILLI-PLEIN 71, 74 ZEWI 117, 122, 271, 281, 405, 407, 414
WILSON 372, 379 ZIMMERMANN 31, 51
BDB 233S, 262, 286, 289, 291, 405, 407

CAD 377, 398
DJD 62, 67, 71S, 258, 260, 278, 286, 293S
HALOT 90, 125, 198, 203, 233S, 237, 260, 262, 287, 371S, 377, 405, 407
KAI 33, 177, 184
KTU 185, 259, 272
An_78.indb 450 21/06/11 15:41

Collana Analecta
Studium Biblicum Franciscanum - Jerusalem
77 L. Cignelli - R. Pierri, Sintassi di greco biblico (Lxx e NT). Quaderno II.A.

Le diatesi, Milano 2010, 140 pp.
76 E. Cortese, Il tempo della fine. Messianismo ed escatologia nel messaggio

profetico, Milano 2010, 252 pp.
75 R. Mazur, La retorica della lettera agli Efesini, Milano 2010, 580 pp.
74 M Pazzini, Il Targum di Rut, Milano 2009, 136 pp.
73 F. Manns, Jérusalem, Antioche, Rome. Jalons pour une theologie de l’Eglise

de la circoncision, Milano 2009, 442 pp.
72 M. Pazzini, Il libro dei Dodici profeti. Versione siriaca - vocalizzazione

completa, Milano 2009, 138 pp.
71 N. Casalini, Parole alla Chiesa. La tradizione paolina nelle lettere pastorali,

Milano 2009, 470 pp.
70 N. Ibrahim, Gesù Cristo Signore dell’universo. La dimensione cristologica

della lettera ai Colossesi, Milano 2007, 240 pp.
69 L. D. Chrupcała, The Kingdom of God. A Bibliography of 20th Century

Research, Jerusalem 2007, xliv+873 pp.; fully indexed.
68 R. Pierri (a cura di), Grammatica Intellectio Scripturae. Saggi filologici di

Greco biblico in onore di Lino Cignelli OFM, Jerusalem 2006, 17x24, 386 pp.
67 N. Casalini, Lettura di Marco. Narrativa, esegetica, teologica, Jerusalem

2005, 381 pp.
66 N. Casalini, Introduzione a Marco, Jerusalem 2005, 303 pp.
65 A. Niccacci - M. Pazzini - R. Tadiello, Il Libro di Giona. Analisi del testo

ebraico e del racconto, Jerusalem 2004, 134 pp.
64 M. Pazzini, Lessico Concordanziale del Nuovo Testamento Siriaco. Jerusalem

2004, XIX-469 pp.
63 A. M. Buscemi, Lettera ai Galati. Commentario esegetico, Jerusalem 2004,

XXVI-691 pp.
An_78.indb 451 21/06/11 15:41

62 F. Manns, L’Évangile de Jean et la Sagesse, Jerusalem 2002, 316 pp.
61 L. Cignelli - R. Pierri, Sintassi di Greco Biblico. Quaderno I,A: Le

concordanze, Jerusalem 2003, 108 pp.
60 M. Pazzini, Il Libro di Rut. Analisi del testo siriaco, Jerusalem 2002, 108 pp.
59 R. Pierri, Parole del Profeta Amos. Il libro di Amos secondo i LXX, Jerusalem
2002, 161 pp.
58 N. Casalini, Le Lettere Cattoliche e Apocalisse di Giovanni. Introduzione

storica, letteraria e teologica, Jerusalem 2002, 368 pp.
57 N. Casalini, Teologia dei Vangeli, Jerusalem 2002, 402 pp.
56 F. Manns, Le Midrash. Approche et commentaire de l’écriture, Jerusalem

2001, 200 pp.
55 I. Molinaro, Ha parlato nel Figlio. Progettualità di Dio e risposta del Cristo

nella lettera agli Ebrei, Jerusalem 2001, 360 pp.
54 N. Casalini, Le lettere di Paolo. Esposizione del loro sistema di teologia,

Jerusalem 2001, 304 pp.
53 N. Casalini, Iniziazione al Nuovo Testamento, Jerusalem 2001, 396 pp.
52 A. Niccacci (Ed.), Jerusalem. House of Prayer for All Peoples in the Three
Monotheistic Religions, Jerusalem 2001, 193 pp.
51 A. Niccacci - M. Pazzini, Il Rotolo di Rut. Analisi del testo ebraico, Jerusalem

2001, 106 pp. Prima ristampa ETS, Milano 2008.
50 G. C. Bottini, Giacomo e la sua lettera. Una introduzione, Jerusalem 2000,

311 pp.
49 J. C. Naluparayil, The Identity of Jesus in Mark. An Essay on Narrative

Christology, Jerusalem 2000, xviii-636 pp.
48 A. M. Buscemi, Gli inni di Paolo. Una sinfonia a Cristo Signore, Jerusalem

2000, 200 pp.
47 E. Cortese, Deuteronomistic Work. English translation by S. Musholt,

46 M. Pazzini, Grammatica Siriaca, Jerusalem 1999, 188 pp.
45 L. D. Chrupcala, Il Regno opera della Trinità nel Vangelo di Luca. Jerusalem

1998, 276 pp.
An_78.indb 452 21/06/11 15:41

44 M. Adinolfi - P. Kaswalder, Entrarono a Cafarnao. Lettura interdisciplinare
di Marco. Studi in onore di V. Ravanelli, Jerusalem 1997, 20022, 306 pp.
43 A. M. Buscemi, San Paolo: vita, opera e messaggio, Jerusalem 1996, 335 pp.
Prima ristampa ETS, Milano 2008.
42 F. Manns, L’Israël de Dieu. Essais sur le christianisme primitif, Jerusalem

1996, 340 pp.
41 F. Manns (Ed.), The Sacrifice of Isaac in the Three Monotheistic Religions.

Proceedings of a Symposium on the Interpretation of the Scriptures held in Jerusalem.
March 16-17 1995, Jerusalem 1995, 203 pp.; ills.
40 A. Niccacci (Ed.), Divine Promises to the Fathers in the Three Monotheistic

Religions. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Jerusalem, March 24-25th, 1993,
39 M. C. Paczkowski, Esegesi, teologia e mistica. Il prologo di Giovanni nelle

opere di S. Basilio Magno, Jerusalem 1996, 264 pp.
38 P. Garuti, Alle origini dell’omiletica cristiana. La lettera agli Ebrei. Note di

analisi retorica, Jerusalem 1995, 20022, 439 pp.
37 G. Bissoli, Il Tempio nella letteratura giudaica e neotestamentaria. Studio

sulla corrispondenza fra tempio celeste e tempio terrestre, Jerusalem 1994, 20022,
XIV-239 pp.
36 F. Manns, Le Judaïsme ancien, milieu et mémoire du Nouveau Testament,

35 G. C. Bottini, Introduzione all’opera di Luca. Aspetti teologici, Jerusalem

1992, 255 pp.
34 N. Casalini, Agli Ebrei. Discorso di esortazione, Jerusalem 1992, 459 pp.
33 F. Manns, L’Évangile de Jean à la lumière du Judaïsme, Jerusalem 1991,

20002, 548 pp.
32 N. Casalini, I misteri della fede. Teologia del Nuovo Testamento, Jerusalem

1991, 722 pp.
31 A. Niccacci, Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica. Principi e

applicazioni, Jerusalem 1991, XI-264 pp.
30 N. Casalini, Il Vangelo di Matteo come racconto teologico. Analisi delle

sequenze narrative, Jerusalem 1990, 114 pp.
An_78.indb 453 21/06/11 15:41

29 P. A. Kaswalder, La disputa diplomatica di Iefte (Gdc 11,12-28). La ricerca
archeologica in Giordania e il problema della conquista, Jerusalem 1990, 364 pp.
28 N. Casalini, Libro dell’origine di Gesù Cristo. Analisi letteraria e teologica

di Matteo 1-2, Jerusalem 1990, 173 pp.
27 A. Niccacci, Un profeta tra oppressori e oppressi. Analisi esegetica del

capitolo 2 di Michea nel piano generale del libro, Jerusalem 1989, 211 pp.
26 N. Casalini, Dal simbolo alla realtà: l’espiazione dall’Antica alla Nuova

Alleanza secondo Ebr 9,1-14. Una proposta esegetica, Jerusalem 1989, 276 pp.
25 E. Testa, La legge del progresso organico e l’evoluzione. Il problema del

monogenismo e il peccato originale, Jerusalem 1987, 458 pp., 74 pls.
24 A. Lancellotti, Grammatica dell’ebraico biblico. A cura di Alviero Niccacci,

Jerusalem 1996, VIII-200 pp.
23 A. Niccacci, Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica, Jerusalem
1986, 127 pp.
22a F. Manns, Jewish Prayer in the Time of Jesus, Jerusalem 1994, 20022, XI-
291 pp.
22 F. Manns, La prière d’Israël à l’heure de Jésus, Jerusalem 1986, 304 pp.
21 F. Manns, Pour lire la Mishna, Jerusalem 1984, 246 pp.
20 V. Cottini, La Vita Futura nel Libro dei Proverbi, Jerusalem 1984, 404 pp.
19 F. Manns, Le symbole eau-Esprit dans le Judaïsme ancien, Jerusalem 1983,

340 pp.
18 A. Vítores, Identidad entre el cuerpo muerto y resucitado en Orígenes según

el “De resurrectione” de Metodio de Olimpo, Jerusalem 1981, 259 pp.
17 A. M. Buscemi, L’uso delle preposizioni nella lettera ai Galati, Jerusalem

1987, 119 pp.
16 G. C. Bottini, La preghiera di Elia in Giacomo 5,17-18. Studio della

tradizione biblica e giudaica, Jerusalem 1981, 200 pp. 2 pls.
15 L. Cignelli, Studi Basiliani sul rapporto “Padre Figlio”, Jerusalem 1982,

128 pp.
14 B. Talatinian, Il Monofisismo nella Chiesa armena. Storia e Dottrina,

An_78.indb 454 21/06/11 15:41

13 F. Manns, Bibliographie du Judéo-Christianisme, Jerusalem 1979, 263 pp.
Non disp.
12 F. Manns, Essais sur le Judéo-Christianisme, Jerusalem 1977, 226 pp. Non

disp.
11 F. Manns, “La Vérité vous fera libres”. Etude exégétique de Jean 8,31-59,
10 M. F. Olsthoorn, The Jewish Background and the Synoptic Setting of Mt

6,25-33 and Lk 12,22-31, Jerusalem 1975, 88 pp.
9 L. Cignelli - I. Mancini - M. Brlek, Bonaventuriana. Saggi in occasione del

VII centenario della morte di S. Bonaventura, Jerusalem 1974, 159 pp.
8 G. Giamberardini, Il culto mariano in Egitto. Vol. III. Secolo XI-XX,

Jerusalem 1978, 487 pp.; 24 pls.
7 G. Giamberardini, Il culto mariano in Egitto, Vol. II. Secolo VII-X. Jerusalem

1974, 432 pp.; ills.
6 G. Giamberardini, Il culto mariano in Egitto, Vol. I. Secolo I-VI. Jerusalem

1975, 330 pp.; 24 pls.
5 M. Miguéns, El Pecado que entró en el mundo. Reflexiones sobre Rom. 5,12-

14, Jerusalem 1972, 138 pp.
3 E. Testa, Il Peccato di Adamo nella Patristica (Gen. III), Jerusalem 1970,

217 pp.
2 M. Miguéns, El Paráclito (Jn 14-16), Jerusalem 1963, 277 pp.
1 A. Lancellotti, Grammatica della lingua accadica, Jerusalem 1962, 19952,

XVI-194 pp.; 43 pp. testi accadici.
An_78.indb 455 21/06/11 15:41

An_78.indb 456 21/06/11 15:41

(Analecta) G. Geiger (Editor), M. Pazzini (Editor) - en Pase Grammatike Kai Sophia. Saggi Di Linguistica Ebraica in Onore Di Alviero Niccacci, OFM-Terra Santa (2011)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(Analecta) G. Geiger (Editor), M. Pazzini (Editor) - en Pase Grammatike Kai Sophia. Saggi Di Linguistica Ebraica in Onore Di Alviero Niccacci, OFM-Terra Santa (2011)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Frontespizio_Niccacci.

pdf 1 17/06/11 09:56

STUDIUM BIBLICUM FRANCISCANUM

Per informazioni sulle opere pubblicate

Edizioni Terra Santa

Franciscan Printing Press

An_78.indb 2 21/06/11 15:36

Saggi di linguistica ebraica

Gregor Geiger (ed.)

An_78.indb 3 21/06/11 15:36

Proprietà letteraria riservata

Finito di stampare nel luglio 2011

An_78.indb 4 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 5 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 6 21/06/11 15:36

Sintesi degli articoli ............................................................................. 415

Abstracts ............................................................................................... 423

Indici dei passi e degli autori citati ...................................................... 431

An_78.indb 7 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 8 21/06/11 15:36

Il titolo di questa Festschrift, /$ 01*2 "3'&&'+(-4 -'5 *%6#7, dedicata al Prof.

An_78.indb 9 21/06/11 15:36

Mi sia permesso esprimere qui un ringraziamento personale ad Alviero.

Gerusalemme, 13 Giugno 2011

An_78.indb 10 21/06/11 15:36

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

An_78.indb 11 21/06/11 15:36

G. Claudio BOTTINI, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Gerusalemme

An_78.indb 12 21/06/11 15:36

Scheda bio-bibliograﬁca di Alviero Niccacci

Alviero è nato il 30 novembre 1940 a S. Nicolò di Celle (Perugia). La persona-

All’inizio del 1973 raggiunse lo Studium Biblicum Franciscanum dove si tro-

An_78.indb 13 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 14 21/06/11 15:36

NICCACCI è autore di numerosi libri e articoli e di moltissime recensioni di libri

Padre NICCACCI è membro dell’Associazione Biblica Italiana, della Catholic

An_78.indb 15 21/06/11 15:36

(con O. BATTAGLIA), Il Vangelo oggi. Vol. V: Il Vangelo dello Spirito secondo

An_78.indb 16 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 17 21/06/11 15:36

“La foi eschatologique d’Israël à la lumière de quelques conceptions égyp-

An_78.indb 18 21/06/11 15:36

(con E. BOSETTI), “L’indemoniato e il festaiolo: Lc 7,34-35 (Mt 11,18-19) sullo

An_78.indb 19 21/06/11 15:36

“L'Agnello che è nel mezzo del trono li pascerà”, in M. ADINOLFI - A. NICCACCI

An_78.indb 20 21/06/11 15:36

“Isaiah xviii-xx from an Egyptological Perspective”, VT 48 (1998) 214-238.

An_78.indb 21 21/06/11 15:36

“Der Skarabäus von Amwas”, in: K.-H. FLECKENSTEIN - M. LOUHIVUORI - R. RIES-

An_78.indb 22 21/06/11 15:36

T. BALLARINI et al. (ed.), Ultimi storici. Salmi. Sapienziali: Antonianum 55

An_78.indb 23 21/06/11 15:36

O. KEEL, Jahwehs Entgegnung an Ijob: LA 31 (1981) 397.

An_78.indb 24 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 25 21/06/11 15:36

An_78.indb 26 21/06/11 15:36

J. KAHL, Steh auf, gib Horus deine Hand: LA 48 (1998) 565-566.

An_78.indb 27 21/06/11 15:37

E. N. TESTA, Gesù vero uomo ﬁglio di Maria: LA 52 (2002) 571-575.

An_78.indb 28 21/06/11 15:37

B. BACKES - M. MÜLLER-ROTH - S. STÖHR (ed.), Ausgestattet mit den Schriften

Giovanni Claudio Bottini, ofm

An_78.indb 29 21/06/11 15:37

Il titolo di questa Festschrift, /$ 012 "3'&&'+(-4 -'5 %6#7, dedicata al Prof.