Help me translate 1 Kings 19:2

[ducky]

Hi Jonathan,

I disagree, it’s most definitely a jussive. When I come upon a yiqtol form I always think jussive and/or subjunctive first, indicative second.

Are you talking about יעשון?
How can it be Jussive?
The Jussive form wouldn't come with a suffix "un".
Also, this "swearing phrase" comes also in other verses in a singular form with the word יעשה (as in your example later), but if it was Jussive, wouldn't it be יעש (the short form)?

We can understand that any type of saying to the "gods" is actually some sort of request (since it is not the person that gives "them" orders), but in this case, the style of this swearing is like a statement of truth that says "This is what is going to happen to me if..." - as if the swearing is so strong that it is a statement and not a wish.

As for the כי, I agree, it doesn’t actually mean if. The construct is the same when Ruth takes an oath before Naomi.
כה יעשה יהוה לי וכה יסיף כי המות יפריד ביני ובינך:.

Also here, when we translate it with the word "if" we do it in a negative way: "if not".

Notice, in Ruth’s oath there is an original כי following the imperative phrase ​אַל־תִּפְגְּעִי־בִ֔י לְעָזְבֵ֖ךְ לָשׁ֣וּב מֵאַחֲרָ֑יִךְ.
כִּ֠י אֶל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר תֵּלְכִ֜י אֵלֵ֗ךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁ֤ר תָּלִ֙ינִי֙ אָלִ֔ין עַמֵּ֣ךְ עַמִּ֔י וֵאלֹהַ֖יִךְ אֱלֹהָֽי׃

In this case, I'm pretty sure that what you call an Imperative is a Jussive.
(When the Imperative way is with a negative word, then the form is no longer imperative but Jussive).

As far as I’m concerned one could read everything that follows that first כִּ֠י a subjunctive or jussive anticipating the oath formula כֹּה֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֨ה יְהוָ֥ה לִי֙ וְכֹ֣ה יֹסִ֔יף כִּ֣י הַמָּ֔וֶת יַפְרִ֖יד בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵינֵֽךְ.

I can't see what you're seeing. To me, it sounds like a statement.
And the second part is cut from the first part by the "swearing phrase"

And basically, before we call a form "jussive", shouldn't we expect it to come in the jussive form?

Literally,
that wherever you should go I should go etc...

My English is not perfect, but isn't "for" fits better?

[Glenn Dean]

As for the כנפש אחד מהם
The word נפש also comes as a construct.
And it is like "like the soul of one of them"

Nice! Thanxs!

Glenn

[Jason Hare]

Hey, David.

Are you talking about יעשון?
How can it be Jussive?
The Jussive form wouldn't come with a suffix "un".

There is no separate form for imperfect and jussive in the plural. What would prevent it from being jussive? I mean, I don't think it matters in the end. The forms are identical for a reason. It's a difference in nuance, not in usage. Notice this remark from Joüon & Muraoka (§44.e): "When the meaning is clearly jussive, only very rarely a form with וּן is found, e.g. יִכְרְעוּן Jb 31.10; בַּל־יֶחֱזָ֑יוּן Is 26.11." So, I don't see anything in the forms יעשון and יוסיפון that would prevent them from being read as jussives in such a situation. It's not a hill I'm willing to die on, though. It's just how I read it.

Also, this "swearing phrase" comes also in other verses in a singular form with the word יעשה (as in your example later), but if it was Jussive, wouldn't it be יעש (the short form)?

That would be a better argument. The independent jussive form (יַ֫עַשׂ) is used in only one verse officially (2 Sam 2:6), and as the qri in another verse (Ruth 1:8 יַ֫עַשׂה ← יַ֫עַשׂ). This latter verse could be an example of the longer form being used as a jussive, which the Masoretes rejected.

As far as I’m concerned one could read everything that follows that first כִּ֠י a subjunctive or jussive anticipating the oath formula כֹּה֩ יַעֲשֶׂ֨ה יְהוָ֥ה לִי֙ וְכֹ֣ה יֹסִ֔יף כִּ֣י הַמָּ֔וֶת יַפְרִ֖יד בֵּינִ֥י וּבֵינֵֽךְ.

I can't see what you're seeing. To me, it sounds like a statement.
And the second part is cut from the first part by the "swearing phrase"

And basically, before we call a form "jussive", shouldn't we expect it to come in the jussive form?

Jussives essentially express a wish. Here the person, in how I read it, is saying "It is my wish that God do x and y to me if I do not do what I'm saying right now." "I want God to punish me if I don't carry out what I'm saying." There is a sense in which just stating the wish as a future might very well be turning that wish (almost a self-invective) into a plain statement: "I am sure that God will do x and y if this should not be the case." In some sense, jussives and statements of certainty about the future have a strong overlap in more than just English and Hebrew.

Jason

[ducky]

Hi Jason,

Sorry for the long post.

There is no separate form for imperfect and jussive in the plural.

Basically, you are right.
but the separate forms did exist archaically.
And there was the long-form with the "un" and the short form without it.
Through time, the suffix "un" was dropped, and the forms became the same.
But still, we see that there are "traces" for that archaic form, and there are more than 300 YQTL that have this suffix "un".
So these forms with the "un" are actually the indicative ones.

What would prevent it from being jussive? I mean, I don't think it matters in the end. The forms are identical for a reason

But we are not talking about identical forms.
We are talking about a non-common form which is the YQTL with "un".

I can see your point that you may say. that maybe some of the "un" suffixes, through time, also was given in a manner of "poetic style" or in specific pauses or in "nice" places. But it should be checked if it was given in a non-indicative role.

It's a difference in nuance, not in usage.

You see this self-curse as a wish.
And The thing is, and that is what I think is the core of this argument, is that I think that a self-curse is not a wish.
I think it is a matter of sureness.
Like putting two equal things on two sides of the scale and see it as reality (after all, a curse is actually creating a "new" reality).

And the curse then represents the reality, like "if I jumped off the roof = I die"
It is not a matter of a wish - but it is the reality. Equal measures. A leads to B.
The person might wish that he would die, and he can think of many ways to make his wish come true - but the relationship between the result of dying and the act of jumping, is not a relation of a wish - it is just that A leads to B and that's it.

When there is a conditional relationship between A and B - the relation is not about wishing. but it is the truth.

The Wish is to want that a certain condition will occur.
But once it occurred - the wish is over - and the two sides of the conditions are related by facts.
(When A is like this, then B is like that).

And so, the self-curse is like creating a new format of an equation:
if I do/not do this = I'll get X

So, when she said: "(A)if I don't kill Eliyahu, (B)the gods will punish me", it is not a wish (no one wishes to be punished) - but the swearing/cursing is so strong, that she is like creating a new reality by putting two equal things on two sides of the scale.

So of course, you may say that the fact that she even said that is a wish, and you are right. But the wish is the macro - it is: I wish that A and B would be linked. but in the Micro - inside the now-linked A and B - it is just a matter of a cause and a result. The B is no longer based on a wish - but it is based on the A.

One says:
1. "I wish that X will play today.
2. If he does, the team will surely win the game".

The wish is to connect "X" with "playing".
And the statement is that this connection will bring a sure thing.

He didn't say: I wish X will be good enough to win the game.
But he knows that if he plays - the team will win.
All he needs now is to wish that X and "playing" are connected.

Notice this remark from Joüon & Muraoka (§44.e): "When the meaning is clearly jussive, only very rarely a form with וּן is found, e.g. יִכְרְעוּן Jb 31.10; בַּל־יֶחֱזָ֑יוּן Is 26.11."

Are these two examples that they bring really "clear" jussive as they say?

And before talking about the examples, I think that that fact that these scholars didn't write in their "rare examples" the case of יעשון in our verse, says that even they don't see that case as jussive.

This case is a pattern that comes more than ten times in the bible (כה יעשה וכה יוסיף) in a few ways.
Two of them have the יעשון, And one of them has יוספון.

I can't believe that a famous phrase like that would be excluded from the list of their examples.
The fact that they didn't write it, tells me (at least that is how I see it) that they didn't see this as a good example to use.

So I think that these scholars are not sure enough about this verse. Because a case like that just begs to be used as an example - and it wasn't.

e.g. יִכְרְעוּן Jb 31.10;

This is a nice example. But it actually the same case that we are already talking about. Which is the "curse" itself. And I wrote above why I think that a self-curse (at least) is not a wish.

בַּל־יֶחֱזָ֑יוּן Is 26.11.

They say it is a clear jussive.
Do you read this verb in this verse as jussive?
I can understand how they read it.
But what about you? Do you read it as jussive?

(I wonder what does it say if that is the example that chose to bring).

That would be a better argument. The independent jussive form (יַ֫עַשׂ) is used in only one verse officially (2 Sam 2:6), and as the qri in another verse (Ruth 1:8 יַ֫עַשׂה ← יַ֫עַשׂ). This latter verse could be an example of the longer form being used as a jussive, which the Masoretes rejected.

You are right about that. surely there are cases that show that already in the biblical era there were switches with the forms. So I shouldn't have written that.

Jussives essentially express a wish. Here the person, in how I read it, is saying "It is my wish that God do x and y to me if I do not do what I'm saying right now." "I want God to punish me if I don't carry out what I'm saying." There is a sense in which just stating the wish as a future might very well be turning that wish (almost a self-invective) into a plain statement: "I am sure that God will do x and y if this should not be the case." In some sense, jussives and statements of certainty about the future have a strong overlap in more than just English and Hebrew.

I don't know if I understood you well, but are you saying what I wrote in this comment above?

I feel that it is not "I want God to punish me if I don't carry out what I'm saying".
But it is how you wrote later: "I am sure that God will do x and y if this should not be the case."

When someone curses the other or himself in the name of some force, he doesn't wish that the curse will occur, but the curse is a statement - a new condition was made in a new reality.

The wish is to connect A and B together.
But once the wish came true - and the A and B are connected, the B is no longer a wish. But it sure would happen, or sure not to happen - depending on the A. The wish is just wanting that connection to be made.

[Jemoh66]

One says:
1. "I wish that X will play today.
2. If he does, the team will surely win the game".

The wish is to connect "X" with "playing".
And the statement is that this connection will bring a sure thing.

He didn't say: I wish X will be good enough to win the game.
But he knows that if he plays - the team will win.
All he needs now is to wish that X and "playing" are connected.

You are equivocating on the word “wish.” You’re basically using it as the psychological state of hope. I hope God is real. But willing someone to act is something different. The old mob meme, where the goon says, “hey boss, you want i should off him” comes to mind. Here’s the volitive verb want is calling for a subjunctive, I should off him. The boss would not say, “I want that you will kill him.” No he’ll either use the imperative, “do it,” or he might want someone else to do the offing, in which case he would use a jussive, “let Mario do it.”

The oath is clearly a volitive expression. May God strike me dead if I don’t do such an such. (Translationally speaking). It seems to me you’re challenge may be due to the fact that modern English speakers have all but abandoned the subjunctive, preferring instead to use the infinitive (I want you to do such) or just lazily replacing modal forms with indicative forms at will. Luckily we still have archaic expressions like God bless you and “God be with you.” Both jussives.

Again I have found that in quoted speech the yiqtol is usually modal, not indicative. And it seems natural in an oath situation to speak modally rather than indicatively since an oath volitive expression.

[talmid56]

Glenn said,

BTW, I can't wait to continue translating the rest of Ch19 to find out what happens to Jezebel (since I know that Elijah is not killed 'by tomorrow')

Why not just read it? If you are not able to read it with comprehension, you won't be able to translate properly anyway. (And no, interlinear type translating is not doing it properly; half a translation, at best.)

[Glenn Dean]

Why not just read it?

I would never read (in english) the verses I'm about to translate - atleast for me, reading the verses would "influence" my translation way too much. In addition, reading ahead "defeats the whole purpose of translating" (for me atleast) - by that I mean if you know something is in the niphal, when you go to translate you will know it's in the niphal (but it's a whole different story to "discover", on your own, that a verb is in the niphal! And then to get the enjoyment of discovering it's in the niphal (versus if you already know it's in the niphal then there's no enjoyment).

Another reason why I wouldn't ever read the story is there's alot of enjoyment in translating "verse by verse" - you get a little bit of the story each day and it might take you 4 months to read the Elijahu story - and that's wonderful to me!! (Compare and contrast that to reading (in english) the story all in 1 hour!!!)

Glenn

[Jason Hare]

I think he's asking why you don't just spend your time reading and re-reading the text. In other words, why do you translate it into English at all? Why not just spend time reading it and imaging it and staying in Hebrew completely?

[talmid56]

Jason is right, that is exactly what I meant. Now, I don't mean to say that translating and grammatical analysis have no value. But I believe that you will learn the language better if you focus primarily on learning to read and understand the text as Hebrew. There is a difference between learning the language and learning about the language. There is a richness and a flavor that is lost in translation in many cases. And as with ancient Greek, there are people who can rapidly give the forms but could not read the text they are drawn from, much less do so intelligently, if their lives depended on it. I encourage you to learn to enjoy Hebrew as Hebrew, so you won't be one of those people.

You can still achieve your goal of unfolding the story a bit at at time without translating it. Now, you may need to note and look up some vocabulary that is new, or review/learn verb forms. No problem with that. But, in my view, you would enjoy the pursuit better to make reading with comprehension your primary goal. One thing that helps is learning to ask questions of the text in Hebrew. I have just begun there, not an expert by any means. But I think it is a valid approach.

One problem with the translation approach, as Dr. Seamus Macdonald points out, is that translation is a high-order skill, not a low-order one. (See his excellent blog The Patrologist. While his focus is teaching ancient Greek and Latin communicatively, the same principle applies to Hebrew.) That is, you have to be really good at the language to translate it well. This only comes with time and effort and development of reading skills. I don't know where your skill level is, Glenn. But if you feel the need to translate to find out what is happening in the text, then you may need to work on Hebrew reading comprehension skills.

All the best,
Dewayne

[Jason Hare]

If I might share my own experience...

I recall when I was studying Hebrew in college that we spent a lot of time translating (I remember that we specifically said that we were translating, but I never wrote anything down - did it on the fly in class after having read on my own). We translated the Joseph story, the book of Amos, the Hezekiah Tunnel Inscription (Siloam), and we looked at the Mesha Stele.

It was a good experience for me in learning to look at words and analyze them and see how they fit together. However, comprehension was really slow in coming.

Where did I get comfortable with understanding what I was reading in a fluent way? Well, first, I already had a good coverage of the contents of the Bible generally. So, second, when I started attending a synagogue regularly and following along as the text was read (without translation), I had to rely on my ability to follow along mentally with what was being read while picturing it in my mind as best I could from the printed text in front of me.

I recommend that you open your copy of the Tanach and listen to a recording of someone who reads fluently at regular speed. I always point people to the Abraham Shmuelof recordings (available freely on Mechon Mamre). Just open up your Tanach and listen along as he reads. Understand what you can. Go as long as you wish.

.ἡ ἑβραῒς ἐξ ἀκοῆς, ἡ δὲ ἀκοὴ διὰ ῥήματος θεοῦ ἑβραϊστὶ ἀναγινωσκομένου
» Hebrew cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God being read aloud in Hebrew.