The King is Weeping:
A Textual/Grammatical Note on 2 Sam 19:2
David L. Washburn
Powell, WY, USA
1. The coordination of a participle and an imperfect with waw-consecutive
in the report to Joab in 2 Sam 19:2 continues to baffle grammarians. Some
merely point it out with little or no comment, while others try to classify
it according to some system.(1) Commentators tend to skip over the problem
(Blaikie n.d.:277-288; Keil and Delitzsch n.d.:2:443; McCarter
1984:396-411).(2)
2. The difficulty of this verse has to do with the form of
way.it:)ab."l. In the context, especially given the preceding
participle, the waw-consecutive form appears out of place. Although it is
usually translated "The king is weeping and mourns for his son" (NASB, cf.
NIV), a strictly literal translation would be "is weeping
(bokeh) and mourned (way.it:)ab."l)." As noted, the
presence of a waw-consecutive imperfect within a quote that states present
continuous realities presents problems for our understanding of the Hebrew
verb system.(3)
3. To solve the grammatical problem, two manuscripts of MT, along with the
Syriac version and the Targums, read a participle, Umit:)ab."l.(4)
Generally accepted canons of textual criticism suggest that this reading is
inferior, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the waw-consecutive is
the harder reading, but is far from incomprehensible. For another,
way.it:)ab."l best explains the origin of the other reading,
since we can easily show that the participial reading arose because of the
anomalous use of the waw-consecutive. It would be impossible to prove that
the waw-consecutive reading arose because someone did not understand the
participial reading.
4. A handful of other passages feature a participle followed by a
waw-consecutive verb; the problem is, all but one are poetic.(5) The one
prose reference is Num 22:11, but this is not a true parallel to the text
under discussion. In Num 22:11, the participle hyc) is
adjectival, not verbal; it is part of the nominal phrase h(m hyc)
mmcrym. Thus, we do not have a true non-poetic parallel to 2 Sam
19:2.
5. I would like to suggest that the solution to this verse is not in
grammar or text-critical questions, but in punctuation. To put it another
way, why do we assume that wyt)bl (l )b$lm is part of the report
to Joab?
6. The clause layout of verses 2 and 3 appears as in (1)-(6):
* (1) wygd lyw)b
* (2) hnh hmlk bkh
* (3) wyt)bl (l )b$lm
* (4) wthy ht$(h bywm hhw) l)bl lkl h(m
* (5) ky $m( h(m bywm hhw) l)mr
* (6) n(cb hmlk (l bnw
7. The flow of thought is carried by the series of waw-consecutive clauses,
as is normal in Hebrew prose narrative (Andersen 1974:77). These occur in
(1), (3) and (4). (5) is a dependent clause introduced by ky
that explains (4), while (2) and (6) are quotes that use verbs without
conjunctions.(6)
8. The resulting translation appears as (7)-(12):
* (7) It was reported to Joab:
* (8) "Behold, the king is weeping."
* (9) He mourned for Absalom,
* (10) and the victory that day turned to mourning for all the people,
* (11) because that day the people heard the report:
* (12) "The king is grieving for his son."
9. Thus it is possible that 19:2 reads, "It was reported to Joab, 'Behold,
the king is weeping,' for he was mourning for Absalom."(7) Of course, David
has already been said to lament in v. 1; this is probably the reason
grammarians and commentators assume that wyt)bl is reported
speech.(8) On the other hand, the statement that he mourned his son is
repeated yet another time in v. 3, this time introduced by the
direct-speech indicator l)mr. The clauses in this passage are
short and choppy, and direct speech is generally indicated as such (e.g.,
wygd, v. 2). On the other hand, waw-consecutive clauses tend to
signal the end of a quote (vv. 4, 6, 9--note also that none of the other
quotes in the passage includes a waw-consecutive). David's lament is
described several times in several ways (vv. 1, 3, 5), so it would not be
unusual to see another one in v. 2 following the report to Joab.
10. If the quote in v. 2 ends with bkh, the problem disappears.
The textual decision to stay with the waw-consecutive reading is
vindicated, as it should be, and grammar comes to the aid of textual
criticism. This interpretation is consistent with the grammar of the
passage, and it is well suited to the discourse structure. While it does
not absolutely preclude other possibilities, I believe it offers a
reasonable explanation of an ongoing grammatical problem, as well as a
small demonstration of the ways that the disciplines of grammatical
analysis and textual criticism can complement and inform each other.
© TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1996.
Endnotes
1 GKC:329 classifies it as an imperfect with waw-consecutive: "In dependence
on participles, which represent what at present continues or is being
repeated ... behold the king weepeth ... and mourneth ... for Absalom."
Waltke and O'Connor 1990:561 say, "After a participle used as a predicate
in present time, subordinate wayyqtl may have a stative present sense ...."
Yet, their whole premise about the wayyqtl form is that it is essentially
perfective (ibid.:554). It is difficult to see how a "stative present" can
also be "perfective." Cf. Driver 1892:91-92: "In continuation of the
present, as expressive of a general truth." Joüon 1965:326 suggests that
the second verb would have had the same sense even if it were written as a
simple waw-conjunctive or as a participle. In note 2, however, he suggests
that "après un participe l'usage demande un waw inversif." He does not say
why this should be so.
2 Smith 1909:362 says merely that the verse "logically belongs after v.5,
unless the author means that news was carried to Joab while still in the
field." Like the others, he does not mention the grammatical problem we are
dealing with here. Conroy 1978:76 suggests that "the rather exceptional
sequence bkh wyt)bl (participle + wyqtl) may be another sign of the more
poetic level of language used at this climax ...." He refers in n. 136 to
GKC and Joüon 1965 with the qualification that "most of the texts given
occur in poetry." See also his refutation of the idea put forth by Smith
and others that the verse belongs after v. 5 (ibid.:47-48, n. 12).
3 Niccacci 1990:109 appears to disagree with this when he says that
"'narrative discourse' begins with a (foreground) construction as is normal
in pure discourse: either QATAL in first position or its equivalent,
x-QATAL, or even with a simple noun clause (with or without a participle)."
4 Anderson 1989:221 adopts this reading.
5 As Joüon and others have noted, poetry is not a valid criterion for
determining "normal" Hebrew syntax. The reason for this is that, in every
language, poetry has a freedom to suspend, alter and break grammatical
rules that prose does not have; in essence, poetry makes its own rules (see
Austin 1984). For a more extended discussion of the problems inherent in
Hebrew poetry, see Niccacci 1990.
6 If n(cb is a participle, then the case for ending the first
quote with bkh is strengthened, for this means that both quotes
use a participle rather than a finite verb. Holladay 1971:280 gives two
forms of the perfect, ne(:cab and ne(Ecab, but the
second form is identical to the normal niphal participle. In this context,
a "perfect" verb would be out of place, since the action is reported as
linear and continuing up to the present time. A participle, however, fits
the context well, is consistent with the form, and fits the literary
structure of the pericope as outlined here. The LXX translates both the
participle in v. 2 and n(cb with present tenses, which provides
further evidence that the latter may indeed be a participle. On the other
hand, it is equally possible that the LXX reflects a different Hebrew
Vorlage. For a summary of some of the problems in determining when this is
or is not the case in the books of Samuel, see Aejmelaeus 1996.
7 For this use of the wayyqtl form see Waltke and O'Connor 1990:551-552.
8 I am indebted to Dr. John J. Collins (personal letter) for this
observation.
Bibliography
Aejmelaeus, Anneli 1996. "The Septuagint Text of 1 Samuel." In VIII
Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate
Studies: Paris 1992, ed. Leonard Greenspoon and Olivier Munnich. Septuagint
and Cognate Studies, no. 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 109-129.
Andersen, Francis I. 1974. The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew. The Hague:
Mouton.
Anderson, A. A. 1989. 2 Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 11. Waco:
Word.
Austin, Timothy R. 1984. Language Crafted: A Linguistic Theory of Poetic
Syntax. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Blaikie, W. G. n.d. The Second Book of Samuel. Expositor's Bible. New York:
Doran.
Conroy, Charles 1978. Absalom Absalom! Narrative and Language in 2 Sam
13-20. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
Driver, S. R. 1892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Holladay, William L. 1971. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Joüon, Paul 1965. Grammaire de l'hŽbreu Biblique. Rome: Institut Biblique
Pontifical.
Kautzsch, E., ed. 1910. Gesenius' Hebew Grammar. 2nd ed. Translated and
revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon.
Keil, C. F. and F. Delitzsch. n.d. Commentary on the Old Testament. Reprint
ed., 1983. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
McCarter, P. Kyle 1984. II Samuel. Anchor Bible, vol. 9. Garden City:
Doubleday.
Niccacci, Alviero 1990. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, no. 86.
Sheffield: JSOT.
Smith, Henry Preserved 1909. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Books of Samuel. International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribners.
Waltke, Bruce K., and O'Connor, M. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.