Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[2]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: Re[2]: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
  • Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 11:50:38 -0500 (EST)



Let me respond to this in terms of the scientific methods in which I
was trained, and which may be rather different from the historical
methods to which some list members are accustomed.

It is clear to me that there is as yet no theory of Hebrew tenses
which is generally accepted and which accounts for the evidence. There
is therefore good reason to come up with new theories to explain the
evidence. I and others are proposing a hypothesis (rather than
deriving a theory from anything) that X + qatal does not mean
sequential (though it may be used for sequential events in marked
contexts) but wayyiqtol does mean sequential. Such a hypothesis is
falsifiable by finding unambiguous cases which contradict the
hypothesis; but (especially in the case of real language rather than
physics experiments) very occasional exceptions which can be explained
(even rather tortuously) in other ways are not sufficient to falsify
the hypothesis.

You are invited (not obliged of course) to show evidence to falsify
our hypotheses; if we who proposed them cannot give other explanations
of the apparent exceptions, we need to modify the hypotheses or
discard them. I have already made some modifications to my original
statement of the hypothesis (e.g. in allowing X + qatal to be actually
sequential in cases where apparent simultaneity is in focus), but have
not yet found evidence requiring me to discard it. I accept the danger
of the hypothesis becoming meaningless or tautologous (e.g. X + qatal
means past or present or future!) but I think it still has some
meaningful and explanatory content. I have yet to see alternative
hypotheses with meaningful content, apart from the traditional
four-component model, to explain wayyiqtol and X + qatal.

Do you have any evidence, other than your theory of the verb forms in
Genesis 41:50-52, that Ephraim and Manasseh were NOT twins? It makes
sense within the overall framework of Genesis: Ephraim and Manasseh
parallel Jacob and Esau, and seeing the parallel Jacob blesses Ephraim
before Manasseh (48:20). It is certainly possible, and by no means
improbable, that they were twins, and therefore this proposed
falsification of my hypotheses fails.

You wrote "the idea of wayyiqtol as sequential - chuck that one, too":
Are you really suggesting discarding an idea which explains 97% of the
very many occurrences just because not all can be proved to be
sequential? OK, we need to deal with the 3%, but that's another
matter.

Peter Kirk

______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Gen 4:1, X + qatal (Peter)
Author: ronning AT ilink.nis.za at internet
Date: 08/02/1999 16:22


<snip>

If your rule causes you to make Ephraim and Manasseh twins,
in my opinion you have the tail wagging the dog, and it's
time to chuck the rule. In any case, I don't think that
there is any greater burden on me to disprove the rule than
there is on you (or others) to establish it, and I suspect
that the proposers of this rule are being driven more by
theory than by fair consideration of all textual examples (I
will grant that people in good will think that they are
deriving these theories consistent with the text).

Similarly with the idea of wayyiqtol as sequential - chuck
that one, too
<snip>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page