Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

George Athas wrote, incorporating his correction:
> Hi Mark.
> 
> I just had a few comments on your explanation of the use of waw
> consecutive in Gen 2:19. Waw Consecutive verbs serve to advance events
> in a narrative. They are not to be translated as pluperfects. They are
> the next event in a narrative. You would not normally use a waw consecutive
> form to say, "X had happened." You would use a waw consecutive to say,
> "Then X happened."

The key word there is "normally."  The problem is, it's a form that is 
also used to open narratives, begin whole books (such as Jonah) 
and provide an explanatory aside as in 2 Sam 19:2 (see my article 
on this passage in TC at 
http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/TC/vol01/Washburn1996.html 
for details).  The view that George has stated is the general "party 
line" view of both traditional grammar and of current discourse 
approaches.  However, neither approach has managed to provide a 
unified syntactic explanation of the various uses of the so-called 
imperfect with waw-consecutive, which I tend to abbreviate WP.  
For a different approach, see my article in *Hebrew Studies* 1994 
beginning on p. 27.  It is true that the WP is the form of choice for 
simple narrative, but this is because it is a simple declarative 
sentence, not because it carries a value of consecutivity.  As such 
it can carry just about any meaning including past and pluperfect.  
Even Waltke and O'Connor, who declared it to be "always 
subordinate," recognized this fact, though they could not explain it 
adequately with their structuralist approach.  The upshot is, as has 
already been pointed out, that one's presuppositions about the text 
will most likely determine whether one translates Gen 2:19 as a 
past (consecutive) or as a pluperfect, and either one is possible 
within the range of usage of the WP.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.