Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Peter wrote: 
> 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.

If it's any comfort, I'm with you; having spent the last 10 years or so 
studying linguistics, I lean toward a scientific approach as well.

> 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. 

Agreed.

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.

This seems a little like setting the opposing camp up for failure.  
How much evidence would it take to falsify the hypothesis?  And 
why would it take that much?  The example of 2 sam 19:2 that I 
dealt with in my TC article certainly doesn't indicate sequence, and 
even though I suggested a subordinate translation ("for he was 
weeping") for the sake of smooth English, it does not appear to be 
part of the verb form.  So that would seem to be one counter-
example; how many more are needed?

> 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.

I'm not sure I see the parallel with Jacob and Esau.  At their birth, 
Esau is called RI)$WN, "first," rather than BKWR, "firstborn," and 
Jacob is called )XYW, "his brother" rather than $NY, "second," as 
Ephraim is in ch. 41.  In the prophecy of their birth, Esau is called 
RAB and Jacob is called C(YR.  I don't see any parallel to these 
terms in ch. 41.  In ch. 27 both Jacob and Esau call themselves 
BKWR, but when Isaac realizes Jacob's deceit he calls him "your 
brother."  In ch. 41, OTOH, the two sons are clearly marked by the 
narrator as BKWR and $NY, "firstborn" and "second (born)."  A 
most natural reading would see them as something other than 
twins.

In favor of your hypothesis, though, is the chiastic arrangement of 
$M and QR) between 41:51 and 52, which would seem to pull the 
whole thing together into a single picture.  I'm not sure that's 
enough to claim they were twins, though.

> 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.

What exactly do you mean by "explains"?  The question is not 
whether 97% of them narrate sequential events in their contexts, 
but whether sequentiality is a *necessary* component of the verb 
form.  I think not; this is where my hypothesis of the wayyiqtol, that 
it is a simple statement not syntactically connected with what 
precedes (semantic and pragmatic connections are a separate 
matter) deals with the instances where it does appear in 
sequences and also deals with the instances where it doesn't.  It 
also explains why it can be used so flexibly in poetry, because it is 
the unmarked form; it is remarkable for its unremarkableness, so to 
speak.  This type of view generalizes the usage in such a way that 
it deals with both the 97% and the 3% as well.  Sequence is a 
pragmatic feature of many wayyiqtols, but it is not a *necessary 
syntactic* feature of the form itself.

As for x-qatal, I'm still working on that, but I would tentatively 
suggest that it denotes an "aside," an "oh, by the way" type of 
clause or "incidental" clause.  I'm still coming up with a good term 
for it, but I hope that communicates the direction my hypothesis is 
going at the moment.  

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