Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Bryan,

Thanks for your detailed response re. Gen 42:6-17.  I don't
agree that I have presented a caricature of the position
that wayyiqtol is inherently sequential - I'm just assuming
that you mean what you say (like Peter does).  It looks to
me like you make a good case that wayyiqtol is not
inherently sequential, but then you want to call it such
anyway, and I don't understand why.

If I may summarize what you said (as I understand it):
wayyiqtol is inherently sequential, except for
1. temporal overlay
2. paraphrase
3. leitmotif
4. slowing narrative time
5. parallel threads

Randall said, "I couldn't have said it better myself."

I think I could say it better - "wayyiqtol is inherently
sequential, except when it's not."  That might be better
because (1) it's simpler, (2) it brings out the fact that
the concept of inherent sequentiality is an un-useful
concept when it has to be so highly qualified. (I think you
left out simple flashback, change of subject, and probably a
few other cases where wayyiqtol is not sequential).

Are we really to imagine that a BH writer (much less
speaker) said to himself, "I must use wayyiqtol's in
chronological sequence unless I'm going to make a temporal
overlay, a parallel thread, a paraphrase, emphasize a
leitmotif, or slow narrative time, etc., etc."?

I would prefer to say that wayyiqtol is not marked with
respect to sequence, and that the use of wayyiqtol for past
prose narrative is completely unremarkable - it's when
wayyiqtol is not used that we have to take notice (thus Gen
42:8 which has two of the occurences of the root nkr could
have drawn even more attention to that word, in my opinion,
by changing the word order - weYosep hikkir . . .).  

I just ran across an essay for non-technical types by G.
Douglass Young, in which he says simply that wayyiqtol in
prose narrative is a preterite that is used when clauses are
joined with waw and the verb is placed first - isn't it that
simple?  Doesn't Occam's razor come in here?
(simplest explanation that explains the data is to be
accepted)

Yours,

John Ronning