Prototype Theory and Hebrew Tense/Aspect (and misc.)
peter_kirk at sil.org
peter_kirk at sil.org
Sat Dec 18 14:02:06 EST 1999
Some interesting points here, but your arguments depend on:
1) the text of Exodus being assumed to be in chronological order
(specifically 34:4 before 37:1) (and so presumably on a rejection of
2) an understanding of 3 days in Joshua as typological;
3) astrophysics and geophysics!
So let's make it simple, as Wenham did with the flood, and look at
Genesis 5 again. 5:6 has two WAYYIQTOLs, but these events clearly took
place before the death of Adam in the previous verse.
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Prototype Theory and Hebrew Tense/Aspect (and misc.)
Author: <ronning at nis.za> at Internet
Date: 17/12/1999 21:27
Deut 10:3 is a good one:
wa'a`as 'aron ... wa'epsol shney luxot
I made an ark ... and I cut out two stone tablets
The chronological sequence is quite well known from Exodus,
and it's beyond belief that anyone would have an agenda for
changing the sequence.
The whole chronology of Josh 1-4 is pretty much impossible
viewing all the wayyiqtols as sequential.
.. the crossing on the third day is theologically crucial
to the narrative as it provides a typological link to the
crossing of the Sea and the creation narratives - it was
w.r.t. the third day of creation that dry ground came out of
the sea (reproduced at the Red Sea and the Jordan).
If one applies the "sequential paragraph" method described
above to Genesis 1, you are free to see that the order is
partly logical and partly chronological; i.e. the goal of
each "day" is accomplished sequentially, but there can be
overlapping in the events leading up to the
accomplishments. I.e. you can take each "wayyomer"
following each "nth day" as a chronological regression back
even prior to the creation (notice the author never says
anything happened "on" such and such a day until the 7th
day). When one does this, we are left with an account that
matches what astrophysicists and geophysicists have only
come to understand in the last few decades (yes you have to
follow up on the clues about the days not being normal
By the way, for believers in orthodox source criticism -
isn't LO' +OWB of Gen 2:18 an obvious play off of the
repeated refrain of Genesis 1 "God saw that it was good"?
Also, for those who think the flood chronology is difficult,
I refer you to Wenham's commentary - pretty simple,
More information about the b-hebrew