21st Century Bible Hebrew -- deontic modality

I talked about imperatives last time to lead into the subject of modality, grammar that reflects what the “speaker” thinks or believes. I’ll start with deontic modality because it’s the easiest to explain, being more familiar to you than any other kind.

Deontic means the world isn’t the way I want it.

Imperatives are part of deontic modality and try to change the world to the way the “speaker” wants it. As I said, in BH it doesn’t always work. Sometimes the person issuing the imperative doesn’t have the authority: Avimelekh’s imperatives never work out. Sometimes they are issued to unreliable people.

The other class of deontic in Biblical Hebrew is the volitive. Volitives envision the possibility of personally doing what will fix the world.

The volitive is a 1^st singular or plural verb in the imperfect aspect, plus an –ah ending. One of the first examples you find is Genesis 19:20 in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot tells the angel “I wish to flee to Tsoar,” imaltah. (It also uses the humble na.)

הִנֵּה־נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:

It’s contrary to fact because the angel has just told Lot to flee to the mountains.

The King James Version says “let me escape there.” That misses the point. Lot is simply expressing a wish, not issuing some kind of jussive. The Septuagint has the bald statement, “I am going to flee to Tsoar.” Very rude. Especially to an angel who, after all, is speaking for Gd.

Another example in plural is in the Aqedah story, Genesis 22:5:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם:

Avraham says “we wish to go…we wish to return.”

I was on the track of what the volitive meant when I read Dr. Cook’s dissertation. He confirmed my opinion so obviously I was looking at a thing, instead of making it up as I went along.

Don’t mix up the volitive with the -ah sequential ending, which I discussed some time back with natatah. Volitives are based on imperfect aspect; natatah on perfect aspect. Here’s another example of the -ah sequential in Exodus 12:43-45.

מג וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהוָֹה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאַֽהֲרֹ֔ן זֹ֖את חֻקַּ֣ת הַפָּ֑סַח כָּל־בֶּן־נֵכָ֖ר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ: מד וְכָל־עֶ֥בֶד אִ֖ישׁ מִקְנַת־כָּ֑סֶף וּמַלְתָּ֣ה אֹת֔וֹ אָ֖ז יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ:

מה תּוֹשָׁ֥ב וְשָׂכִ֖יר לֹא־יֹ֥אכַל בּֽוֹ:

The Lord said to Mosheh and Aharon, this is the law of the Pesach, every non-Jew does not eat it.

Every eved, a man acquired with money: then circumcising him, after that he can eat from it.

A [ger] toshav or hireling shall not eat it.

The ish, “man”, point is important. Those exclusive services contracts are restricted to men of legal age to consent, and if they are not Jewish by birth, they also have to consent to circumcision, becoming at least nominally Jewish. But you can’t perform the circumcision until you have paid him the value of the contract.

I put in verse 45 so you could see all the alternatives; a ger toshav has not agreed to circumcision; a non-Jew is ineligible for inclusion in the Pesach sacrifice; a hireling may have room with you but even if he has board with you, if he’s not circumcised, he can’t be included in the Pesach sacrifice. These three classes of people are not counted when you decide whether your “family” includes enough men to a) get at least an olive’s bulk of the sacrifice AND b) eat it before midnight.