Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <596547 AT ican.net>]

B-Haverim,

I write re John's examples of non-sequential(?) wayyiqtols:

Once again, we are down to the question whether a sequential form can
*begin* a sequence because most of (all?) his examples are really of one
type, wayyiqtol which back-references to an earlier point in time and
resumes a sequence of events from there.  I'll try a schematic
representation.  

The numbers represent the wayyiqtols in the text.
The letters represent the events to which the wayyiqtols refer.
The + or - represents whether the wayyiqtol is in logical, real-world
sequence with the wayyiqtol it follows in the text.

1+  2+  3+  4+  5-   6+
a    b    c    d    b    d

Wayyiqtol #5 is not in sequence with #4.  Wayyiqtol #5 back-references to
event (b).  As John has illustrated for us, this is a common occurrence in
BH prose.  That's important, thanks, John.  Does the existence of
wayyiqtols such as #5 prove that wayyiqtol is not sequential?  While the
more obvious answer may be yes, the better answer may be no.  **Notice a
very important detail in the schematic representation:  the wayyiqtol which
is marked "minus" is also clearly a reference to an earlier event.**

Re Ocham's razor:  nope, I do not buy that a sequential form which
back-references or begins a sequence, or is used in hendiadys or paraphrase
is so hard for the native speaker of BH to keep track of that we must think
it unlikely.  It is no more difficult linguistically than making two passes
at a stubborn beard with one's razor.   ;-)

Dave asked if 100% is better than 97%.  100% is disconcerting to me because
we are not talking about physical science or engineering.  We are talking
about linguistics, which is human behaviour and hardly mechanical even when
it comes to the obligatory.  In
addition, 97% correlation has found the limits of a hypothesis.  100% has
not, and so may represent either a misunderstanding or an unrefined
generalization.  Is that the pursuit?  For 100%?  Hmmm....

Dave also asks why a sequential wayyiqtol is worth defending.  If a
wayyiqtol with sequential meaning can be established, it will be a great
aid in the temporal reconstruction of narratives with the same precision
that the writer "intended."  I.e., the goal is well-founded exegesis.  If
it cannot be established, well, so be it.


hth,
Bryan