Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Lee, Bryan, Peter, Randall)
Peter_Kirk at SIL.ORG
Peter_Kirk at SIL.ORG
Sat Feb 6 14:45:18 EST 1999
Thank you for these examples. To me these are not real exceptions to
the rule mentioned before:
Cases at start of paragraph:
Gen 21:1: I think the time line of Genesis suggests that Sarah was
already pregnant before the stay in Gerar (ch.20). At least only one
year passed between 17:1,24 and 21:5.
Gen 14:1-2: The text is probably corrupt, but this also is very likely
a flashback: this war was very likely already going on when Abram
moved to Mamre 13:18.
Gen 15:1: Perhaps the pluperfect meaning can be explicitly cancelled
in such a case.
Cases within a story: These mostly fit the pattern mentioned before of
wayyiqtol... w-X qatal which (as Bryan mentioned before) indicate
pairs of events which are taken together, simultaneous or at least
viewed as such
Gen 18:7: This and 18:6 can hardly be simultaneous (we don't actually
know the ordering), but I guess the point is to emphasise the hurry by
suggesting that Abraham's visits to the tent and to the herd were all
Gen 41:52: again a pair with 41:51. I guess the children are taken as
twins named on the same occasion rather than in succession; the second
name may have been given before the first explanation.
Gen 19:10: They pulled Lot inside as they were shutting the door,
Gen 40:22: Pharaoh's two decrees are taken as simultaneous.
Gen 19:24: This one can be a flashback: already, before Lot reached
Zoar and could see what had happened, the Lord had rained down
sulphur, and Lot's wife had been turned to a pillar of salt (having
looked back on the journey). Or does this view contradict v.22?
Actually the two X-qatal's in v.23 make this situation even more
Judges 6:21: The angel disappeared simultaneouly with, or before, the
meat was burned up.
Exodus 9:23: Immediacy emphasised by stating simultaneity? YHWH
certainly did not need to wait for Moses' action.
Jonah 1:4: Harder to explain, but perhaps a point is being made as in
Exodus 9:23 that YHWH's actions do not depend on men's but have been
prepared in advance. Modern meteorologists would agree that the wind
was already on its way!
Conclusion: You have not yet found clear and unambiguous examples of X
+ qatal introducing a clearly sequential event or story, rather than a
simultaneous event (or one treated as such) or a flashback.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Lee, Bryan, Peter, Randall)
Author: ronning at ilink.nis.za at internet
Date: 05/02/1999 23:12
"Lee R. Martin" wrote:
Thanks, Lee, I don't have Niccacci but following up your
reference to Lambdin I see he agrees that Gen 4:1 is not
pluperfect - he lists Gen 4:1 as an example of a disjunctive
"indicating either the completion of one episode or the beginning
of another: (p. 164). Another example he gives in that category
with X + qatal is Gen 21:1 (maybe debatable, depending on what
paqad refers to); also Gen 22:1 (agreeing with the interpretation
gave yesterday), and Gen 14:1 and 15:1.
For X + qatal within a story that is sequential, I would add Gen
we'el habbaqar rats 'Avraham also Gen 41:52 we'eth shem
hashsheniy qara' 'Ephrayim (sequential with wayyiqra', v. 51).
Others could be sequential:
Gen 19:10 wayyishlexu . . . wayyabiy'u . . . we'eth haddeleth
(could be nearly simultaneous, but not completely, I think)
Gen 40:22 we'eth sar ha'ophim talah
Bryan, don't these examples (and Randall's - Jon 1:4, Judg 6:21,
Exod 9:23, Gen 19:24) violate the "rule" you quoted (if I
remember correctly from a couple months ago) that "qatal never
advances the story line," or something to that effect?
More information about the b-hebrew