Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Dave Washburn wrote:

> 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."
>
(Dave)
> 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

Coincidentally I'm just finishing reading an article on Genesis 2 which
cites a paper by Randall Buth on the subject, so I'll look forward to
hearing what Randall has to say (and Bryan).  In the meantime, I recall
S. R. Driver's explanation for the waw-consecutive along the lines of
the Greek imperfect - it's consecutive, Driver said, because when you
say such and such began to happen, then it implies there is a sequence
with the next verb.

But since we know the "waw-consecutive" is built off the jussive (which
is more like the Greek aorist than the imperfect), not the imperfect, I
have often wondered why people still insist on the "party line," as
someone else said.

I think Driver was also led astray by the fact that there is a clear way
to express the plu-perfect (i.e. the qatal without waw in an "aside"),
so he assumed that if this device was not used, it was not to be
understood as pluperfect.

And thanks for the bibliography.

John Ronning