Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
ronning at ilink.nis.za
Mon Feb 8 16:22:42 EST 1999
Peter Kirk wrote:
> . . .
> 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.
Peter, if you can always say that sequential events are just
"treated as simultaneous" (even when in the real world they
have to be sequential) then I'll never be able to find
"clear and unambiguous examples" of X + qatal as
sequential. Isn't this like "heads I win, tails you lose"?
If your rule causes you to make Ephraim and Manasseh twins,
in my opinion you have the tail wagging the dog, and it's
time to chuck the rule. In any case, I don't think that
there is any greater burden on me to disprove the rule than
there is on you (or others) to establish it, and I suspect
that the proposers of this rule are being driven more by
theory than by fair consideration of all textual examples (I
will grant that people in good will think that they are
deriving these theories consistent with the text).
Similarly with the idea of wayyiqtol as sequential - chuck
that one, too
(Bryan quoted someone who said only 3% of wayyiqtol are
nonessential - I'd point out that there are gobs of others
in that 97% that don't have to be sequential, so I don't
accept that it's all that rare). While on the subject of
Ephraim and Manasseh, note that besides X + qatal being
sequential in Gen 41:52, wayyiqra' in Gen 41:51 is NOT
sequential with v. 50 (i.e. it regresses chronologically -
unless again you are going to make the boys twins).
How could you get more clear than Gen 19:22-24?
v. 22 - I can do nothing until you [Lot] arrive there [at
v. 23 - hashshemesh yatsa' `al ha'arets, weLot ba' Zo`arah
v 24 - wYhwh himtir . . .
If you treat the three qatals in vv. 23-24 as simultaneous,
or nearly so, then yatsa' in v. 23 has to be chronologically
after v. 22 (unless the angel wasn't telling the truth).
More information about the b-hebrew