Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Actually what I had asked about was a test for wayyiqtol
followed by X + qatal and simultaneity but this topic is
fine too.  But first, one other comment about wayyiqtol >> X
+ qatal - the example of Gen 24:46, however one tries to
explain it (i.e. actually sequential events are just
represented as a package in the narrative, etc.), shows that
in ambiguous contexts one cannot use the rule "wayyiqtol
plus X + qatal means simultaneous events" since one can
never know if it's true, or if actually sequential events
are just represented as a package.

Arguments for wayyiqtol as inherently sequential seem to
alternate between (1) wayyiqtol is perfective >> perfective
is inherently sequential, and (2) statistics.  A couple
examples to address these:

(1) 1 Kings 15:17, 21
17  wayya`al Ba`sha ... wayyiben 'eth haRamah (Baasha went
up and built/fortified Ramah)
21  wayehi kishmoa` Ba`sha wayyexdal mibbenoth 'eth haRamah
and when Basha heard it he stopped building Ramah

So yes, 1 Ki 6:9 is not redundant, and if wayyiqtol is
perfective it's not necessarily sequential (Basha stopped
fortifying Ramah after he had already completed the job?).

I note the same type of example occurs with the qatal in Gen
11:5 The LORD came down to see the city and tower which the
sons of men had built (banu). I suppose some would like to
repoint to bonu.
11:8 and they stopped building the city

(2) - statistics
Example - Gen 42:6-17 (the boundaries of the example are
somewhat arbitrary, and not particularly relevant).  The
narrative wayyiqtols are numbered sequentially (direct
speech is omitted), verse numbers are in parentheses.

Introduction - v. 6 Joseph was the one ruling over the land;
it was he who sold grain to all the people of the land:
1. (6) wayyabo'u 'axey Yoseph   so the brothers of Joseph
came
2. (6) wayyishtaxawu lo . . .   and bowed down to him . . .
3. (7) wayyar' Yoseph 'eth 'exayw  when Joseph saw his
brothers
4. (7) wayyakkirem              he recognized them
5. (7) wayyithnakker            and he disguised himself
6. (7) wayedabber 'ittam . . .  and spoke harshly with them
7. (7) wayyo'mer 'aleyhem . . . and said to them, "from
where
                                have you come?"
8. (7) wayyo'meru . . .         they answered, "from the
land
                                of Canaan, to buy food"
9. (8) wayyakker Yoseph . . .   Though Joseph recognized his
                        brothers, they did not recognize him
10. (9) wayyizkor Yoseph . . .  Joseph remembered the
dreams...
11. (9) wayyo'mer 'aleyhem . . .and he said to them, 
                                You're pies...
12. (10) wayyo'meru 'elayw . . .and they said to him, No...
13. (12) wayyomer 'aleyhem . . .and he said to them, No...
14. (13) wayyo'meru 'elayw . . .and they said to him, 12...
15. (14) wayyomer 'aleyhem . . .and Joseph said to them,...
16. (17) wayye'esoph 'otham . . .and Joseph put them in
prison . . .

Observations:
A. If  one views wayyiqtol as inherently sequential, there
is only one problem out of 16; i.e. 94% are sequential,
chronologically arranged as follows:

1
2
3
4, 9
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

However, this one example (#9) out of 16 is enough to prove
that the wayyiqtol is not inherently sequential, since
viewing it as sequential yields nonsense (note, however, one
need not translate it as a pluperfect).

If we get rid of the idea that the wayyiqtol is inherently
sequential, then we can see there are other wayyiqtols in
this chain that may not be sequential as well:

3 does not need to follow 2 (there's no need to assume
Joseph didn't see his brothers until they had their faces in
the dirt).  Why relate the matters non-sequentially? Perhaps
economy of expression (the exact sequence of events is
trivial and relating it would require too many changes of
subject).

6 can be epexigetical of 5 (i.e. he disguised
himself/pretended to be a foreigner in part by speaking
harshly with them)

What to do with 10 since 9 actually goes back
chronologically to 4?  I think 9-10 is best viewed as a
parallel chain to 4-8; the latter concentrates on the
external observations, 9-10 deals with what's going on in
Joseph's mind, but 4-8 and 9-10 are simultaneous or
overlapping (at least they have an identical starting
point), and both lead up to 11.

But if you find some way to explain away the non-sequential
9 ("bad" Hebrew, corrupt text, etc.), you are left with 10
being not necessarily sequential with 8.

Thus the statistics are suddenly not so overwhelming

B.  (1) The fact that narrative is carried forward by series
of wayyiqtols, and that these wayyiqtols are usually
chronological, is a useful observation.
     (2) That wayyiqtol is inherently sequential is not a
valid hypothesis.

C.  If one wants to transform the rule about wayyiqtol being
inherently sequential to "wayyiqtol is inherently sequential
unless the context proves that it's not" then you are left
with a theory that fits 100% of the data (by definition),
yet is inherently unverifiable.  Note the same analysis
applies to the idea that wayyiqtol plus X + qatal is
inherently simultaneous, which seems to have recently become
"wayyiqtol plus X + qatal is inherently simultaneous except
when it's clear that it's not."

Case closed?


Do I correctly assume that those viewing wayyiqtol as
perfective also view qatal as perfective (I'm not arguing
against such a view)?  If so, would you say that the qatal
in weqatal is also perfective or would you say that it has
an historically different origin, and so it is not
perfective?

Why do I ask?  Because if you do NOT view weqatal in chains
of future or past-habitual events as perfective, then I
would ask the following:
Is weqatal in a chain of future events (or past habitual)
inherently sequential?  If not, how do you account for the
fact that the vast majority are sequential?  Whatever answer
you come up with, you can probably use the same (or mirror
image) reasoning to explain the same phenomenon for the
wayyiqtol.

John Ronning