Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

"Lee R. Martin" wrote:

> Dear Friends,
> For a good discussion of x-qatal, I would recommend Niccacci, sections 
> 15-21, 39-50;
> and Lambdin sections 132 & 197.
>
> Lee R. Martin

Thanks, Lee, I don't have Niccacci but following up your
reference to Lambdin I see he agrees that Gen 4:1 is not
pluperfect - he lists Gen 4:1 as an example of a disjunctive
"indicating either the completion of one episode or the beginning
of another: (p. 164). Another example he gives in that category
with X + qatal is Gen 21:1 (maybe debatable, depending on what
paqad refers to); also Gen 22:1 (agreeing with the interpretation
I
gave yesterday), and Gen 14:1 and 15:1.

For X + qatal within a story that is sequential, I would add Gen
18:7
we'el habbaqar rats 'Avraham also Gen 41:52 we'eth shem
hashsheniy qara' 'Ephrayim (sequential with wayyiqra', v. 51).

Others could be sequential:
Gen 19:10 wayyishlexu . . . wayyabiy'u . . . we'eth haddeleth
sagaru
(could be nearly simultaneous, but not completely, I think)
Gen 40:22 we'eth sar ha'ophim talah

Bryan, don't these examples (and Randall's - Jon 1:4, Judg 6:21,
Exod 9:23, Gen 19:24) violate the "rule" you quoted (if I
remember correctly from a couple months ago) that "qatal never
advances the story line," or something to that effect?

Peter wrote, concerning Gen 22:1:
>An interesting example. I wonder if this rather odd collocation of 
>verb forms can be seem as some kind of seam. Perhaps 21:22-22:1a 
>(up to HF)"L.EH) was added later; for without this 22:1b flows on 
>nicely, including the flashback, from 21:21. Perhaps we are meant 
>to read 22:1a with 21:22a as an inclusio, so that 22:1b refers 
>back in its time sequence to 21:21. Can anyone find out if this 
>sequence of verb forms is regular or unique?

Lambdin says "It is interesting to note that a disjunction may be
preceded by a temporal clause.  In this case the disjunction must
be understood as applying before the clause with wayehi [then he
cites Gen 22:1] because a new episode may always be introduced,
like a new paragraph, with no conjunction at all, such as [Gen
15:1 'axar haddevarim ha'elleh hayah devar Y' 'el 'avraham]."

I think he's saying that that the wayehi clause is not the start
of the story in Gen 22:1, that we should treat Gen 22:1 just like
Gen 15:1 (I don't think he put it too well, but maybe I'm
misunderstanding him).

Yours,

John