Biblical Hebrew Forum

[yochanan bitan <ButhFam AT compuserve.com>]

re: gen 2:19 vayyitser
a string has formed:

> > > 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."
 
[I agree--RB]

(Dave Washburn:)
> > The key word there is "normally."   [...]  [WP] 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.
[...]
> > Dave Washburn

[I suspect that I might disagree, but there are ways to expand this
acceptably--RB]

(John Ronning:)
> 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.[end quote]

glad to see you point out what is/was a glaring fault in samuel rolles
driver. however, i'm not sure what the 'party line' is. e.g.:
1. sequentiality has nothing to do with the "aspect" of a verb [two
different sequential systems are used], 
2. nor does it carry on a tense/aspect from any previous verbs. [beginning
students and even some published grammarians sometimes do not see #2, is it
party line?]
3. vayyiqtol is certainly aorististic in its aspectual orientation. driver
had things backwards, 
and is an example of how far people can go in creating a 'system' from the
outside. 
and further illustrates how misleading it can be to call vayyiqtol an
"imperfect" consecutive.

so what about from the inside? what could or would or should a biblical
hebrew speaker 
have done with gen 2.19, given their impoverishment of not having access to
english? 
{we can have a little fun on list, as long as its recognised as fun,
right?}

the word 'translation' has a tendency to take us away from their
perspective. we have a tendency to say translation "a" is possible and
translation "b" is possible, so take your pick. 

in real languages, things don't work that way. 
there is always a 'give and take' 
with default understandings 
and more nuanced, refined, marked, rare understandings. 
something is needed for a person to break out of a default understanding. 
something is used to process a communication and some assumptions are made 
by the encoder of a communication. 
encoders assume that minimal clarity is achieved, though in real
conversations the listener has an opportunity to question a missed cue.

at gn 2.19 an author must either choose a form like vayyitstser Y"Y-elohim 
(which does not MARK pluperfectivity) 
or an author can choose a form like  veY"Y-elohim yatsar 
(which MARKS a 'break' in time flow, or packaging-structure [i.e. paragraph
+ contexualizing constituent], 
or literary flow [i.e. dramatic pause or focal noun phrase] in descending
probability in narrative)

it is not enough to say that 'sometimes' a vayyiqtol can be used in a
pluperfect context. 
[it certainly existed and is not a textual accident, as the moabite stone,
line 7, demonstrates.]
when can it be used? 
how can an author use it? 
what conditions or signals are expected to accompany such a rare usage? 
[everyone acknowledges that it is rare.] 
I have provided a preliminary answer in "Methodological Collision Between
Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis, The problem of 'Unmarked Temporal
Overlay' and the pluperfect/nonsequential wayyiqtol" in Biblical Hebrew and
Discourse Linguistics, ed. Robert Bergen, (S.I.L., 1994: 138-154). 
two obvious answers are (1) lexical/semantic repetition/reference and (2)
the inherent nature of the events [e.g. Ju 11.1].

i don't think "the inherent nature of the events" would qualify in genesis
2.19 because the author has already re-oriented his time frame very
carefully in genesis 2.4-7. 
Y"Y-elohim formed man (first mainline event) at a time when no plant
existed. this is very elaborately spelled out. thus, in the immediate
context of 2.4-7 the next trajectory of events in 2.8 has a natural
sequential interpretation. 
{no plants} > {formed man} > {planted garden}.

likewise 2.18-19
{no partner} > {formed animals} > {no partner} > {formed woman}.

[a second email will discuss some rabbinic approaches to the texts. those
interested in a 'pluperfect interpretation' may appreciate them.]

genesis two is intended as a second account, a second vision of creation as
it were, overlaying the first account. apparently, this is how the stories
were intended to be read, and that intention was for monotheists, (not for
'atheists' as one earlier poster feared.)

these descriptions are to be enjoyed and studied as special examples of
theological art. 
for the monotheist, they are as true as true can be, for all time. 

braxot
randall buth