Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the elaboration on your hypothesizing - I'm not
opposed to such.
Concerning Ephraim and Manasseh - any parallels there might
be with Jacob and Esau can also be found with brothers who
aren't twins, like Isaac and Ishmael.  The birth of twins is
a notable event, so if the birth of two brothers is
mentioned but it's not mentioned that they are twins I would
say there is no reason to call them twins, and the syntax
used in the description of the brothers' being named counts
against both ends of your hypothesis.

Concerning a theory that accounts for 97% of the data being
pretty good - I'd just point out again that just because 3%
of wayyiqtols can't be taken as sequential doesn't mean that
97% of wayyiqtols must be sequential - many that are assumed
to be sequential may be simultaneous or reverse sequential 
(I like Dave's "I forgot my checkbook" example). Anyway, 
the view that wayyiqtol is unmarked for sequence explains 
100% of the data!

You also have a lot of wayyiqtol pairs that one could say
are inherently non-sequential, such as pairs where the first
wayyiqtol is a verb like wayyemaher which is treated
adverbially with
the following wayyiqtol.  Then there are all the
"epexigetical"
wayyiqtols where the second wayyiqtol restates or amplifies
on 
the first - these are also non-sequential. (Presumably all
of these are somehow counted in the 97% that are supposedly
sequential - I'd be interested to know why). All of this
data suggests to me that the idea of sequence being inherent
in wayyiqtol faces a rather high threshold of proof
which won't be overcome.

Bryan, you wrote:

> . . .
>
> (me, re. Gen 18:7)
> Thus I view Gen 18:7 we'el habbaqar
> > rats Abraham as functionally equivalent to wayyarots Abraham 'el
> > habbaqar, and the question for the interpreter is not "why the change in 
> > verbal >
> > form" (the change is dictated by the change in word order), but "why the 
> > change in
> > word order"?
> >
> (your response)
> The use of the X-qatal in 18:7 indicates that while Sarah was baking,
> Abraham was running.  Contrast with the wayyiqtol in 18:8.  There Abraham's
> taking the butter, etc. is *not* simultaneous with the servant's
> preparation of the calf.  The calf was prepared, and then Abraham assembled
> and presented the meal.
>
>

Like I said,  we'el habbaqar  rats Abraham is functionally
equivalent to wayyarots Abraham 'el habbaqar, since if we
had the former you would be compelled to give an identical
interpretation as you gave above.  This interpretation would
be dictated by the context + logic, not the verbal form
used.

I'm confused, however, comparing the above with what you
proposed before:

Bryan wrote:
>  1.  X-qatal--->wayyiqtol
>
>  2.  wayyiqtol--->X-qatal
>
>  Series (1), when found at the beginning of a narrative paragraph
> (anywhere  in a pericope), will give antecedent information, describing 
> the situation at the time when the following wayyiqtol pushes the 
> narrative time forward.
>  I think this is your pluperfect idea, Peter.
>
>  In (2), the X-qatal gives simultaneous (with the preceding wayyiqtol)
>  information.  It functions as a topicalizing clause; that is, it shifts
> the  focus of the narrative from the layout of a plotline to the layout of
>  information which clarifies, contrasts with, or is simultaneous with
> the  plotline.  Is pluperfect an accurate characterization of X-qatal in
> this  second series?  Doesn't seem quite right to me.
>

Bryan, isn't the Gen 18:7 example series 2, in which case
(per your hypothesis) Abraham's running to the herd would
have to be simultaneous with him giving directions to Sarah?

And doesn't the example of Gen 19:22-25 which we discussed
before fit under series 1 (specifically v. 23 is X + qatal
at start of paragraph), which per your analysis would make
the sun rise (and Lot's arrival and the fire and sulphur)
pluperfect, rather than joined with the following?  (I grant
it's not quite the same as your series 1 because here you
have three X + qatals before you get to the wayyiqtol).

Another case that shows that wayyiqtol plus X + qatal can be
functionally equivalent to wayyiqtol plus wayyiqtol (and not
simultaneous) is Gen 24:46:
wa'esht wegam haggemallim hishqathah - I drank, and also she
watered the camels.

These two events are sequential since the servant drank from
the same pitcher with which Rebekah drew water for the
camels, and in any case 24:19-20 uses all  wayyiqtols to
describe the same events and makes it beyond debate that
they are sequential:

wattekal lehashqotho . . . wattish'ab lekol gemallayw - when
she finished giving him a drink, . . . she drew (water) for
his camels.

Conclusion, wa'esht wegam haggemallim hishqathah is
functionally equivalent to wa'esht wattashq 'eth
haggemallim, and I assume that again it is the departure 
from normal word order (not a distinction in meaning in the 
forms) that results in the use of the qatal in this case.

Yours,

John Ronning