Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Bryan wrote:
> In your post about Gen 42:6-17 in which you examined the string of
> wayyiqtols  for sequentiality, you mentioned that the wayyiqtol in v. 8
> vayaker repeats the wayyiqtol of v. 7 vayakirem, thereby proving that the
> wayyiqtol is not inherently sequential.  I disagree.
> 
> I don't think anyone maintains that all the wayyiqtols represent one linear
> sequence of events like one line of dominoes: knock the first one down and
> all the rest will come down, too, all in order.  Such a description of the
> Hebrew verbal system is a mere charicature of the idea that the wayyiqtol
> is a sequential form.  The Hebrew writer is an artist among other things,
> and he knows how to use his language to the best advantage.  We must give
> him room for temporal overlay, paraphrase, leitmotif, slowing narrative
> time, and, as you say, parallel threads. 

But how can this be done with a form that is "inherently 
sequential"?  That's the big question, and I don't really see an 
answer in this post.  

> A couple things are going on with all these wayyiqtols is Gen 42, and with
> 42:8 specifically.  For one, the advance of time is by small steps.  As you
> have pointed out, several events don't *need* to be sequential in a real
> world.  The Hebrew writer in this way stretches narrative time, sort of
> putting the camera into slow-motion, by using a preponderance of the
> mainline narrative forms but actually describing very little progress.  In
> this particular meeting between Jacob's sons, this nicely achieves the kind
> of tension which is appropriate to a momentous event in the same way as
> it's achieved in a movie at a critical moment.

But in a movie we have (usually) clear indicators that we're in a 
flashback or a sudden change of scene.  I still don't see any 
explanation of how a Hebrew writer could accomplish this sort of 
artistry using a form that is *inherently* and *necessarily* 
sequential.  It seems to me that if he did, it would defeat his 
purpose because the inherent and necessary meaning of the verb 
is contradictory to what he's trying to do.

> Second, the particular type of case where the writer repeats a previous
> event (called back-looping or back-referencing) with a wayyiqtol and then
> resumes the narrative is temporal overlay.  This is what's going on in
> 42:8.  To, in a sense, refuse to demote the event to off-the-line material
> the second time it is mentioned is basically at odds with the standard use
> of the form.  On the other hand, the jarring use of the form creates
> attention to the passage that is appropriate to its thematic importance. 

I'm afraid I can't even make sense of this.  Yes, it's temporal 
overlay.  But again, temporal overlay is inherently contradictory to a 
chain of forms that are inherently sequential.  This is not a 
caricature of the idea of sequentiality, it's the logical conclusion 
that we end up at if the WP is inherently sequential.  OTOH, if it's a 
simple-statement tense/form/whatever-we-call-it, then it's a very 
nice form for doing what you describe because the "jarring use" 
comes about because of the semantic content of the clause, not 
because of the verb form.  This provides a smooth and unified 
explanation of the chain of WP clauses and allows the writer the 
flexibility you describe (and I agree that he has that flexibility) 
without having to violate the "inherent" force of the verb form.

> In this particular passage, the writer wanted to bring attention to this
> tense meeting between the brothers and the important thematic root nkr.  In
> a way the Joseph cycle (as well as the Judah/Tamar pericope) is about
> "nkr-ing."  Jacob recognizes his son's special garment stained with blood
> in Gen 37:33, but he fails to recognize the ruse of his hateful sons. 
> Judah is then bested by Tamar's clever ruse when he recognizes the damning
> evidence possessed by her in 38:26.  Joseph now in 42:7 and 8 recognizes
> his brothers, but reconcilliation will only be possible when they recognize
> and accept that Joseph is a favored man, something that is achieved through
> the clever series of tests by the disguised (also the root nkr) Joseph.  
> 
> In summary, I would say that this momentous event and the repetition of the
> root nkr (four times) in these verses are at just the strategic place for
> the Hebrew writer to do something at odds with the verbal system in
> general.  In fact, I would consider 42:8 to be an exception that proves the
> rule, so to speak.

I submit that this kind of exegetical-linguistic back-flip is 
unnecessary unless we are heck-bent on preserving the idea of 
sequentiality at all costs, a preservation which is also unnecessary.

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