Correspondence

Abstract

CORRESPONDENCE In John G. Gammie's favourable review of my dissertation Studies in the Language of Qoheleth, With Special Emphasis on the Verbal System (HS 30 [1989]:148-152), he suggests some points of criticism to which I would like to make a few comments. As point one he proposes that in discussing the conjunctive wSC forms (verb form of the suffix conjugation preceded by the conjunction waw and constituting a syntactic unity together with the preceding verb form) I should have considered the possible use of waw as a subordinating conjunction (in case of Qoh 5:5, "so that ..."). My answer is that this possibility is in no way excluded in the discussion. The term conjunctive verb form exclusively refers to the syntactic function of the verb that, being preceded by the conjunction waw, forms a syntactical complex with the preceding (usually PC) verb form (cf. my book, p. 30). Of course the conjunctive form of such a complex may (and quite often actually does) express subordination. The reason why I chose the New International Version to translate Qoh 5:5 ("and destroy the work of your hands") was that it retained the syntax of the Hebrew text. But it should be observed that even in the English the formal co-ordination actually expresses subordination (formally, co-ordination is expressed, intended, however, is the meaning of subordination: "so that he destroys"): "Why should God be angry at what you say and destroy the work of your hand?" (NIV Qoh 5:5). As to the suggestion that I should have singled out for analysis idiomatic usages of the verb in my treatment of the current verbs, 1 admit this neglect should at least have been commented in a footnote. The reason for the omission was that the predicament of a verb being part of an idiomatic phrase in this case does not affect the aspectual value of the verb forms treated-and this was the sole target of my investigation--even if the meaning in other respects was changed by this fact. Point three of Gammie's criticism I simply do not understand. Like myself he recognizes the remarkable similarity between the predominant use of the SC in both the Manual of Discipline from Qumran and in Qoheleth, but he suggests that I do not spell out an answer to this for fear that it would undermine some of my findings. Why should I? And what is the answer that Gammie expects from me (he thinks 1 have already in my dissertation provided the elements of an answer)? I regret that Gammie was not more outspoken in this respect. Hebrew Studies 31 (1990) 276 Correspondence Lastly, I would like to thank the reviewer for his valuable observation that the Samaritan Pentateuch regularly favours the use of the definite article, a fact that reminds one of the usage in Qoheleth and may be another indication of the influence of a northern Hebrew dialect in the language of the book. Bolsaksson Uppsala University 751 20 Uppsala. Sweden I would like to respond to Mayer Gruber's review of my monograph, Isaiah 1-4 and the Post-Exilic Understanding of the Isaianic Tradition (BZAW 171, Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, 1988), which appeared in HS 30 (1989):194-196. Clearly, Gruber does not agree with my work and, of course, this is his prerogative. But the grounds on which his disagreement is based require comment inasmuch as they are not entirely appropriate to the nature of the thesis of my book and the arguments put forward to support it. Gruber maintains that my central thesis is "that the book of Isaiah is to be seen at one and the same time as a compilation of prophetic oracles spanning several centuries and as a theological unity." This is true in the most general sense, but it does not account for several important aspects of my work. Most important is the redactional reinterpretation of earlier prophetic material in the later fifth century context of the final form of the book of Isaiah. Isaiah ben Amoz, for example, addresses the situation of Israel and Iudah in relation to the emergence of Assyrian power in the region in...