Lev 26:3-4 — Conditional

[Jason Hare]

Gesenus §159.d

(b) Jussive in protasis (cf. § 109 h, i) and apodosis, Ps 104:10 תָּֽשֶׁת־ח֫שֶׁךְ וִיהִי לָ֑יְלָה (if) thou makest darkness, it is night; imperfect in the apodosis, Ps 104 ᵇ; cohortative Pr 1:23. Also in Ex 7:9 יְהִי לְתַנִּין it shall become a serpent, is the apodosis to a suppressed protasis if thou cast it down; so in 2 K 5:10 וְיָשֹׁב is the apodosis to a protasis if thou wash, contained in what precedes.

The jussive is strongly connected to the imperfect, often being the same form—though at other times being a shortened form of the imperfect (normally the form that is also used with the vayyiqtol).

For example, the imperfect (yiqtol) of עָשָׂה is יַעֲשֶׂה, whereas the jussive is the shortened יַ֫עַשׂ and the narrative past (vayyiqtol) is normally וַיַּ֫עַשׂ, though there is a minority form וַיַּעֲשֶׂה. Other than third-heh roots, the yiqtol and the jussive are almost always identical. For example, וַיַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה עָמְרִ֛י הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיָּ֕רַע מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְפָנָֽיו׃ (1 Kings 16:25) in contract to וַיַּ֨עַשׂ אַחְאָ֧ב בֶּן־עָמְרִ֛י הָרַ֖ע בְּעֵינֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לְפָנָֽיו׃ (1 Kings 16:30). There is clearly no difference in meaning here, and we see it in other settings. The longer form is far less common.

The first subsection here offered imperfects (yiqtols) in both the protasis and the apodosis of a conditional (Should this happen, this will happen.). Alternatively, a command could be used (Should this happen, do that.). This subsection offers jussives in the same sense. Here are the verses that Gesenius mentions as examples:

Psalms 104:20 (in BHS)
תָּֽשֶׁת־חֹ֭שֶׁךְ וִ֣יהִי לָ֑יְלָה בֹּֽו־תִ֝רְמֹ֗שׂ כָּל־חַיְתֹו־יָֽעַר׃

Proverbs 1:23
תָּשׁ֗וּבוּ לְֽתֹ֫וכַחְתִּ֥י הִנֵּ֤ה אַבִּ֣יעָה לָכֶ֣ם רוּחִ֑י אֹודִ֖יעָה דְבָרַ֣י אֶתְכֶֽם׃

Exodus 7:9
כִּי֩ יְדַבֵּ֨ר אֲלֵכֶ֤ם פַּרְעֹה֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר תְּנ֥וּ לָכֶ֖ם מֹופֵ֑ת וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן קַ֧ח אֶֽת־מַטְּךָ֛ וְהַשְׁלֵ֥ךְ לִפְנֵֽי־פַרְעֹ֖ה יְהִ֥י לְתַנִּֽין׃

2 Kings 5:10
וַיִּשְׁלַ֥ח אֵלָ֛יו אֱלִישָׁ֖ע מַלְאָ֣ךְ לֵאמֹ֑ר הָלֹ֗וךְ וְרָחַצְתָּ֤ שֶֽׁבַע־פְּעָמִים֙ בַּיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וְיָשֹׁ֧ב בְּשָׂרְךָ֛ לְךָ֖ וּטְהָֽר׃

In the final example, I would have identified both הָלוֹךְ and יָשֹׁב as infinitive absolutes, which are used as imperatives in other texts (such as the Ten Commandments’ שָׁמוֹר [Deuteronomy 6:11] and זָכוֹר [Exodus 20:7]). However, Gesenius seems to identify יָשֹׁב as a jussive. This form is found in 14 other verses, which are marked by Logos as veqatal (in which we see יָשֹׁב instead of יָשׁוּב, though Isaiah 12:1 has יָשֹׁב as a bare yiqtol of this verb). This option certainly exists. Logos does indeed mark הָלוֹךְ as infinitive absolute.

Generally, does it make sense what Gesenius is offering? Would you agree or disagree with his assessment (without accusing him of describing something other than biblical Hebrew, which should be kept on this thread). If there is any disagreement with how the text should be read (a change in its pointing or grammar), I would ask that the text be pointed alternatively to demonstrate what that difference might be.

[kwrandolph]

Who is John Cook that I should listen to him?

You don’t remember him? You are a big part of his reason for leaving B-Hebrew years ago.

No I don’t remember him, and just dropping a name means nothing to me.

By the way, many of what you call weyiqtol are also not irreal. Like Dr. Rolf Furuli, who used to post on this forum, I don’t recognize the wayyiqtol as being separate from the weyiqtol.

I’ve seen plenty to cause me to distrust Furuli’s abilities with the Hebrew language, especially his defense of the New World Translation’s translation of סָבִיב in this thread on Jeremiah 25:9. That alone convinced me that he doesn’t have any intution for how the language works even on a basic level.

Well, he got his PhD in Hebrew, which as far as I can tell from what you wrote, you have not done.

I have spoken.

LOL!!!

You’re right. It’s just risible when someone argues by simply saying “that’s my opinion.” This is all I hear from you in support of your claims. Your feelings. Your claims. No evidence.

Do you want pages long articles in this discussion, like what we find on academia.edu, or discussion type responses? You gave no more evidence than I, and I suspect for the same reason.

תָּשׁ֫וּבוּ is not an imperative. It is a 2mp yiqtol. The imperative form is שׁ֫וּבוּ. It may be a yiqtol used with imperative force (something you’d have to argue for), but it is certainly not an imperative in form.

It is a Yiqtol used with imperative meaning. Look at the context of the verses around it. The other verbs in that verse refer to present actions, not future dependent upon the fulfillment of the first verb.

This is, again, your claim. There’s is no need to read it as an imperative. That’s just your opinion.

And it is just your opinion that it isn’t. At least here I look at the context of the surrounding verses, which you don’t do.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

No I don’t remember him, and just dropping a name means nothing to me.

Thou art no respecter of persons.

Well, he got his PhD in Hebrew, which as far as I can tell from what you wrote, you have not done.

Oh, I wasn’t aware that a Ph.D. in Hebrew language meant anything to you, who so detest the achievements of others and would level the playing field in order to elevate one who has barely completed a single semester of formal Hebrew study to the highest heights and set him above everyone who has ever laid pen to paper on the subject of the Hebrew language, for he claims himself to know better than anyone else.

Do you want pages long articles in this discussion, like what we find on academia.edu, or discussion type responses? You gave no more evidence than I, and I suspect for the same reason.

I’m not opposed to reading well researched argumentation. Please, refrain, however, from linking me to empty words.

And it is just your opinion that it isn’t. At least here I look at the context of the surrounding verses, which you don’t do.

Yes, you’re the master of reading within context. We get it.

[Jason Hare]

Gesenius 159.e

(c) Cohortative (see § 108 e) in the protasis; perfect in the apodosis, Ps 40:6; imperfect consecutive, Jb 19:18 אָק֫וּמָה וַיְדַבְּרוּ־בִי (if) I arise, they speak against me; on the cohortative in the apodosis, cf. § 108 f.

Given the strong connection between the cohortative (eqtelá/niqtelá), we should not be surprised to find it in the same situation already described regarding the yiqtol and imperatives.

Not much different here, so we’ll move to the next section.

Gesenius 159.f

(d) Imperfect consecutive in the protasis (§ 111 x), Ps 139:11 וָאֹֽמַר if I say, &c. (with a noun-clause as the apodosis); with a frequentative perfect consecutive in the apodosis, 1 S 2:16.

Any comments or questions about these two sections?

[kwrandolph]

Ps 139:11 is mistranslated in this example, it should read “But I say…” indicating one of the many uses of the waw.

There’s no understood “if” in that statement.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Ps 139:11 is mistranslated in this example, it should read “But I say…” indicating one of the many uses of the waw.

There’s no understood “if” in that statement.

Karl W. Randolph.

Again, argument via fiat. The NIV, the ESV, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NASB, and so many other translations render the opening of the verse as “If I say...” I know you think we shouldn’t use translations as arguments, but you didn’t mention Hebrew at all in your comment—only how you would render it in translation. I’m sure, though, that your facility with Hebrew surpasses that of all Bible translators for the past four hundred years. Credit where credit is due, as they say.

[kwrandolph]

Ps 139:11 is mistranslated in this example, it should read “But I say…” indicating one of the many uses of the waw.

There’s no understood “if” in that statement.

Karl W. Randolph.

Again, argument via fiat.

And the statement in Gesenius is not an argument via fiat? He lists no other examples to back up his claim. (I saw no reason to write out the Hebrew again as it was already quoted in the snippet from Gesenius.)

The NIV, the ESV, the KJV, the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NASB, and so many other translations render the opening of the verse as “If I say...” I know you think we shouldn’t use translations as arguments, but you didn’t mention Hebrew at all in your comment—only how you would render it in translation.

Read the context of the surrounding verses and note how the psalmist records his plight. There is no need for this one off fiat reading that Gesenius promotes.

Karl W, Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Read the context of the surrounding verses and note how the psalmist records his plight. There is no need for this one off fiat reading that Gesenius promotes.

In the other conversation, you mentioned that I did not take the context of Genesis 4 into consideration. I took your advice and made an effort to thoroughly explain the entire context by translating and analyzing the verbs for their form and tense. However, I didn’t receive a response when I asked for clarification on how you think I ignored the context. I hope you understand that I don’t wish to be reduced to merely discussing entire chapters as a means to prove I read the text in context. I feel like you’re just trying to assign me additional tasks without contributing anything yourself. It appears that labeling something as “out of context” has become a generic argument that lacks substance in our discussions.

[kwrandolph]

Read the context of the surrounding verses and note how the psalmist records his plight. There is no need for this one off fiat reading that Gesenius promotes.

In the other conversation, you mentioned that I did not take the context of Genesis 4 into consideration. I took your advice and made an effort to thoroughly explain the entire context by translating and analyzing the verbs for their form and tense. However, I didn’t receive a response when I asked for clarification on how you think I ignored the context.

Your claim in Genesis 4 was clearly contradicted in the verses in context. I was not convinced by your pilpul and simply didn’t want to take the time and effort to respond showing why your pilpul was unconvincing.

I hope you understand that I don’t wish to be reduced to merely discussing entire chapters as a means to prove I read the text in context.

Fair enough, the same reason I didn’t want to respond to your pilpul.

I feel like you’re just trying to assign me additional tasks without contributing anything yourself. It appears that labeling something as “out of context” has become a generic argument that lacks substance in our discussions.

Verses taken out of context can so often be massaged to give readings other than what the writer intended. That’s why context is so important.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

I’m sorry, but everything you’ve just written was taken out of context.