The Floppy Hat

I just found out this evening that a friend from undergrad has a blog! You can check it out here. Any blog that can manage to have posts on Judges, Tobit, the Epistle of James, and King Arthur all under one roof deserves to be visited at least once.

With the Fall semester just around the corner, it’s time for my beginning of semester run-down of classes. This semester is going to be a doozy – I have 5 resident classes and 1 SemLink (GCTS’s distance ed), not to mention doctoral apps and ministry at church (including the Hebrew class that I am now teaching).

Advanced Hebrew Grammar with Tom Petter
Calvin and I are really looking forward to this. It’s an independent study, but since we’re both taking it we’ll essentially be doing all the work together – which will include translating and syntactically tagging the entire book of Judges. I’m excited to see how this goes.

Intermediate Greek with Dave Mathewson
I’m kinda neutral towards this class – it’s required for my MABL and I really need it anyways to help further cement my Greek. But, as I’ve mentioned before on multiple occasions, Greek isn’t really my first love. However, I’ve heard that Dr. Mathewson has a different take on the Greek verbal system than we learned in Greek I & II so that should be at least mildly interesting to learn about.

Prophetical Books with Donna Petter
This is the first class I will have taken with the other Petter at GCTS, so I’m curious to see what her teaching style is like. You may remember that I took Poetical Books with Doug Stuart last semester and had fun typing my Lamentations exegesis paper, which has shown up in various parts over the summer on this blog. This time, I’m hoping to be able to do something in Jeremiah. I may also find out if I can sub in a research paper instead of the exegesis paper – since I’ve already done one at the 700 level.

Exegesis of James with Sean McDonough
I took Exegesis of John, my required Gospel exegesis course this past summer, and now I’m getting the epistle requirement out of the way this fall. I am, of course, neatly avoiding Paul. James is one of my favorite NT books, so I’m sure this class will present some fun tidbits for thought (even if it is more GREEK).

Middle Egyptian I with Alejandro Botta
We are taking advantage of the BTI again this year, and will be taking this class at Boston University. From what I understand, it’s a joint offering from the School of Theology and the Archaeology Department. We already have our textbooks for this one (just came in today!) and I’m pretty psyched. It’s going to be a lot of work, but worth it, I think.

Contemporary Theology and Theologians
This is the SemLink that I have had all summer to work on but have barely touched. Unfortunately, between two summer classes and visiting family for the past 3 weeks, I haven’t had a whole lot of spare time. That means this is essentially a sixth class I have to do this semester, which will make my life very hectic, to say the least. Nevertheless, I am and have been looking forward to some of the reading.

As you may know Mandy and I have had family visiting us over the past several weeks. We’ve very much enjoyed everyone being around, but it has cut into blogging time. I’m still hoping to finish my series on Job by the end of August, though who knows? Regardless, look for blogging to pick up again in September, complete with more book reviews.

I also had a great time interacting with Anstey’s article, and with John Hobbins regarding said article. If you were the gambling type, a safe bet would probably be that you’ll see more of that type of post in the future. Probably.

Otherwise you’ll be subjected to the normal start of semester posts about text books, CBD warehouse sales, and classes. Enjoy.

This post is a review of Matthew Anstey’s “The Biblical Hebrew qatal verb: a functional discourse grammar analysis,” Linguistics 47 (2009) 824-844. John Hobbins has already reviewed the article at length, beginning here, but I wanted to add my two cents.

First, some helpful definitions for those not necessarily in the know. Qatal is what I call the variously titled affix, suffix and perfect conjugation. Yiqtol is what I call the variously titled prefix and imperfect conjugation. Wayyiqtol is what I call the prefix/imperfect + vav conversive (or consecutive) construction. Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG) is “a theory with a rich descriptive apparatus, facilitating the modeling of language data that takes into account the several levels of interdependent information that are present in any utterance,” (Anstey 825). FDG is, to say the least, comprehensive.

It is important to note that Anstey does not set out to prove anything in particular about the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. His stated goal is simply to show that FDG provides a “descriptively robust” if somewhat “problematic” analysis of the qatal verb type.

Anstey’s article succeeds in doing exactly what he sets out to do. His discussion of qatal in narrative vs. narration (ie, direct speech), as well as the function of qatal vs. wayyiqtol in narrative is spot on. Ultimately his conclusion is that qatal and wayyiqtol differ in how they are used in the narrative, not with regard to tense (cf. Anstey 831).

One of the most refreshing things about Anstey’s article is his honesty in regards to the theoretical problems of FDG in regards to analyzing qatal. In his conclusion Anstey writes, “Hence FDG clearly o¤ers a robust descriptive apparatus, capable of modeling the multiple interpersonal and representational contributing
factors to each distinct QV function. But this raises the dilemma discussed in Section 3.2,” (Anstey 840). The dilemma discussed in Section 3.2 of the article is highly technical, but boils down to the following: FDG “strongly prefers a tenseless interpretation [of qatal verbs],” (Anstey 837). Though it might be better to say that it prefers a “monofunctional” interpretation, as Anstey does just a few paragraphs later. One could, of course, treat BH qatal as a tenseless verb, but that does not fit in with Anstey’s own opinion that qatal is a past-tense verb, as he readily admits.

Ultimately this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the article. It is also, sadly, the part that is most quickly glossed over, primarily because it is not the focus of the article. This is, of course, an inevitability. I do not ultimately find that past-tense is the best description of qatal. In my own opinion the BH verbal system has to do with aspect primarily, and tense(ie, time) only secondarily; though in truth the situation is more complex than that. That, however, is neither here nor there since–if I understand FDG correctly–similar problems would arise in any interpretation of the qatal. It would have been fascinating if Anstey had shown how these other understandings of qatal still arrive at the same problematic analysis for FDG. I think it may have added additional weight to his conclusion.

In the end, Anstey’s article is worth reading for those interested in the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. One must note, however, that the article is more about discussing the ability of FDG to provide a “robust analysis” of the BH qatal as opposed to discussing issues specifically about the qatal. To be sure, those issues are touched upon, but it is not the focus of the article. I imagine the article will be of most use to those interested in the BH verbal system as well as functional discourse grammar analysis.

Posts have been somewhat slower over the past two weeks as Mandy and I have been preparing for family to visit. Over the next several weeks we will have a veritable parade of family visiting. We’re looking forward to it, but expect that it will continue to cut into blogging time. Never fear! In August you can expect to see (at least) the conclusion of my series on Job and the continuation of Mandy’s series on Lamentations. I have a couple other posts simmering, though whether those will make it onto the Floppy Hat in August is unclear at the moment.

In the mean time, I direct you to John’s most recent series on a tense-prominent understanding of the Qatal. I’m not entirely convinced, but John is always worth reading and engaging in dialog. On a similar topic is Pete Bekins’ somewhat recent series of posts which begins here. I’ve been hoping to have the chance to interact some with what Pete has written, but other things continue to interfere.

I have been a little busy for the past week or so. As a result updates have been fairly rare. However, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to quote Michael Fox quoting Ben Sira on the strange woman.

In my view, the Strange Woman is another man’s wife, whose transgression is thus adultery. She is not a prostitute but a wanton amateur of the sort who “opens her quiver for every arrow,” as Ben Sira puts it.

The title of this post seems better suited to my friend Earl’s blog than my own. I don’t mean anything philosophical or metaphysical or whatever else theologians mean by questions like this. I simply mean, what is God like? Who is he in terms of his identity and his relationship with creation. I don’t normally post about my own faith and religious experience on this blog, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I’m making an exception in this case because I believe that Jay brings up some good points. Also, I know exactly how Jay feels.

Although I attend church (and very much love my present church context) I do, at times, find myself wondering if I believe in the same God in which much of Evangelical Christianity believes. The answer is often “no.” This was a pretty scary realization when I originally…realized it.¹ Soon after this, however, I figured that I believed in the God of the Bible, and I’d take him over the theological construct to which much of Evangelicalism clings.

In short, John Anderson pretty much sums up who God is, “God is . . . . a paradox. Vulnerable yet powerful. Tricky yet faithful. Present yet absent.” My God is a paradox, I’m okay with that. I understand that for many people God being a paradox is an uncomfortable thought. I’m sensitive to that, but if one claims to have a high view of Scripture, how can one dismiss the Scriptures’ view of God?

Rob has opened a can of worms. So, for a bit of weekend fun, head over to the link above and chime in. To be fair, this conversation was already hashed out once at Jim Getz’ blog.

Basically, the issue is that the Biblioblog Top 50 is calculated using Alexa statistics. Alexa tracks hits via their toolbar (which anyone may install, free of charge). Truth be told, there is a rather small number of people who use the Alexa toolbar. In addition, the people who install the toolbar are normally those who have some reason to do so (eg, webmasters, geeks, etc). Thus the sample which Alexa works with is not representative of the internet “population” at large.

All of this means that the Biblioblog Top 50 is not a very accurate indication of the number of hits which various biblioblog receive. It is an accurate representation of which blogs Alexa toolbar users are viewing. My guess is that very few biblioblog readers have the Alexa toolbar installed, resulting in a heavily skewed result–though that is only my conjecture, I could be entirely wrong.

So, what to do? My vote is to continue on as is. The Biblioblog Top 50 is mostly for fun, and Alexa allows us to have some fun and see blogs moving on the charts. The movements may not be accurate. One option would be to investigate better (ie, more accurate) way of tracking statistics. I have a feeling, however, that such a thing won’t be easy. The best way would be for one of the more technologically inclined among us (read: a computer geek) to write a stat program which people could then opt into by inserting a small amount of code (similar to Google Analytics) on their blog. The problem with this, as Jim Getz has already pointed out, is that there is such a wide variety of blog software in use by those in the Biblioblog community that making a package that worked with all of them (especially hosted blogs on wordpress.com, blogger or typepad) would probably be impossible.

What do you think?

Before one may speak of the structure of Job 5.2-7, one must establish that this passage is set off, structurally, from the surrounding verses in some way. In other words, is Job 5.2-7 a self-contained pericope? To some extent, no passage in the Book of Job is a self-contained pericope, since each passage is part of the greater whole and intricately related to its surrounding passages. Nevertheless, this passage is a unit that is distinguishable from the surrounding units.

Murphy treats this pericope as two separate units. Specifically, he associates verses one and two of chapter five as the conclusion of the preceding material (ie, chapter four).¹ This association is largely because of what he calls the “quasi-acrostic features” of verses three to seven.² However, as other commentators have pointed out, verses two to seven could be removed, leaving verses one and eight next to each other without interrupting the flow of the passage.³ Even if one does not agree that verses two to seven could be removed without interrupting the flow of the passage, verse one is clearly a framing statement, and not part of the pericope proper.⁴

Perhaps most convincing, from a structural perspective, as to why these verses should be taken as a unit is the inclusio which is formed by verse two and verses six and seven. Verse two is a proverbial saying, as are verses six and seven. In addition, verse two as well as verses six and seven begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. In fact, the entire pericope forms a kind of quasi-acrostic chiasm, to borrow Murphy’s terminology. This quasi-acrostic chiasm may be illustrated as follows:kaph, alef, yod, alef, kaph, kaph; with each of the letters beginning a verse line. The chiasm is as follows A-B-C-B’-A’-A’. The double occurrence of כי at the end of the section serves as a mechanism to close the pericope.

The passage may be outlined thusly:
I. Wisdom saying concerning the fate of the fool (v. 2)
II. Example Story (vv. 3-5)
     A. The fool is consumed (v. 3)
     B. The fate of the fool’s children (vv. 4-5)
          1. They lack a benefactor (v. 4)
          2. Their possessions are taken by the destitute (v. 5)
III. Wisdom sayings concerning the origin of trouble (vv. 6-7)
The basic structure of the wisdom sayings (vv. 2, 6-7) is synonymous parallelism, although verses six and seven are more complex than this basic structure may imply.

Verses six and seven are linked, not only in that verse seven further explains verse six, but also in certain structural elements. As has already been mentioned, both lines begin with the Hebrew letter kaph. Furthermore, stitch A of verse seven uses two of the same roots as stitch B of verse six, namely אדם and עמל. Dhorme has noted that whereas verse six uses two Qal yiqtol forms, verse seven uses two Hifil yiqtol forms.⁵ These instances, when taken together, show a strong connection between verses six and seven. How then do the two verses connect structurally? The following is an attempt at showing the logical, structural connections between the two verses:
6a -כי לא יצא מעפר און
6b -ומאדמה לא יצמח עמל
     7a -כי אדם לעמל יולד
          7b -ובני רשף יגביהו עוף
The logical progression from one stitch to the next may be expressed in this way: 6a and 6b conversely 7a just like 7b.

The example story (vv. 3-5) is structured as the outline above indicates. First Eliphaz states that he has seen the fool משריש, “taking root,” but that the fool’s abode was suddenly consumed. He then proceeds to speak of the negative repercussions to the fool’s children. Structurally, verse three is a synthetic parallelism, which may be more accurately termed enjambment.⁶ Stitch B of the two stitch line moves the story onward. In stitch A Eliphaz declares that he has seen the fool, whereas in stitch B he reports what took place. Verses four and five, which deal with the plight of the children of the fool, are each three stitches, as opposed to the standard two stitches in all the other verses of this pericope.

Verse four follows an interesting downward movement. Each stitch becomes shorter, which has the effect of creating a kind of falling off effect. Stitch A contains a verb, stated subject and indirect object. Stitch B contains a verb and indirect object, but lacks a stated subject. Stitch C contains a particle and a Hifil participle functioning as a predicate nominative.

Verse five has an equally fascinating internal structure. Like verse four, verse five is a tricolon line. The verse, as it has been restored, is entirely synonymous throughout the three stitches.⁷ The table below illustrates that synonymity, as well as the fascinating structural reversal in stitch C. That is, stitches A and B follow a somewhat non-standard Object-Subject-Verb word order. Stitch C, however, reverses this order, reverting to the more standard Verb-Subject-Object word order. This creates a kind of chiasm between stitches A and B on the one hand, and stitch C on the other. It is also interesting to note that stitch C replaces the expected yiqtol form with a weqatal form.

What does this structure reveal about the verse? Does it impact the meaning? Perhaps not in any non-obvious way. The reversal of word order in the final stitch is likely a way of indicating the end of the line and, possibly, the end of the discussion of the fool’s children, or even the entire example story. In this way it is a mechanism to show closure, not dissimilar to verses six and seven starting with kaph. The change from yiqtol verbal forms to a weqatal form likely serves the same purpose. Notice also that stitch C switches to a plural subject, whereas the other stitches have had collective singulars.

In summary, there are several major structural patterns and many minor ones in this passage. The major structural patterns, in order of priority, are 1) the inclusio formed by wisdom sayings at the beginning and end of the pericope; 2) the tricolon structure of verses four and five; and 3) the synonymous parallelism within verse five. The inclusio clearly establishes the limits of the passage, while the tricolon structure in verses four and five tie together the bulk of the example story, specifically the report of the fate of the fool’s children. Finally, the synonymous parallelism in verse five, aside from representing a stroke of artistic genius, serves as a mechanism for closing the example story before moving on to the final wisdom saying.

There are also many minor structural patterns which have been mentioned. The two that are likely deliberate, and therefore of interest to one studying the passage, are 1) the quasi-acrostic pattern and 2) the structure of verses six and seven. The first is likely deliberate since it serves to both set off this section from the surrounding sections, as well as indicate the close of the section by two successive lines beginning with kaph. It also ties the entire passage together. The second is important since one might argue that verses six and seven are the end towards which the entire pericope–perhaps even the entirety of Eliphaz’ first speech so far–points.

The community lament, the funeral song, and the city lament appear to be the main influences on the poetry of Lamentations. In chapter two, the community lament is particularly strong, though it consists only of complaint and petition. In verses 18-22, several points of comparison can be made with the three forms summarized above:

18-19: The initial address to the wall is a characteristic found in the city lament.¹ These verses also contain the summons to mourn found in the qinah form. While not exactly a petition itself, the poet here calls on Daughter Zion to petition God. There is also a continuation of the complaint in the description of the condition of the children in verse 19.

20: The standard petition of the community lament is found here in the mouth of the city – an imperative directed at God. In this case, ראה and נבט are the verbs chosen to encourage God to act. Of course, the fact that the poet demands that God “look” indicates that he is not currently “looking,” therefore hints at the divine abandonment motif of city laments (also featured frequently in individual laments). Also in this verse is the hint of reprimand and incredulity that is often found in the psalmic laments: because of God’s actions XY and Z has occurred – does God really want XY and Z to continue?

21-22: The poet returns to the complaint against God. God is accused of slaughtering the people without mercy, and no one has escaped his wrath. This is, of course, also a general description of the distress in correlation to the qinah. As in the beginning of the chapter, the blame continues to be assigned to the deity – echoes of the city lament. Finally, in these last two verses as well as verse 20, there is the possibility that that the personification of the city as a woman could be an Israelite version of the “weeping goddess” of the city lament.

Verses 20-22 in and of themselves are a mini-lament, since they are put as a unit into the mouth of Daughter Zion. She begins with a petition, and moves on to the complaint, as noted above.

Obviously a tone of sorrow and mourning permeates the entire passage, though anger is especially prominent in chapter two. After evaluating the forms most likely to have influenced chapter two and specifically verses 18-22, one could indeed say that Lamentations is a mixture of forms. The community lament is especially prominent in chapter two, and several features of the Mesopotamian city lament can also be seen. Whether or not the qinah form had a real influence on this chapter is debatable; a general feeling of lamentation is of course common to all three forms. Nevertheless, chapter two cannot be pinpointed into any one form. The variety of motifs drawn together, however, is “not something to be scoffed at or derided, but should be celebrated and enjoyed.”² It is difficult to tell if the pulling of various types of lament was intentional; either way, the poet shows his skill in weaving a dramatic and emotional portrayal of the grief of the people, pulling in whatever resources he had available, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Whether one wants to create a new form, as does Berlin, or be satisfied identifying the poem as a creative mixture of several types of forms, the end result is one of emotional rawness that probably would have been used by the community in their mourning of the destruction of Jerusalem and the death and exile of many of her people. In this respect, it could have been used very much as a metaphorical dirge. Certainly, it is very unlikely that the poem was used to commemorate the re-building of the temple, as it is theorized that some city laments were used. The closest connections for use are those of the community lament, which later became integrated into the formal liturgy of the community.³