Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

John Ronning wrote:

> Dear Galia and Alviero,
>
> I'm interested to know how the following example is
> explained by your theories.
>
> In the discussion of God giving the mannah to Israel,(Exodus
> 16), there is a series of three references to evening (when
> God would give the quail) and morning (when God would give
> the
> manna):
>
> 1a (v.6) `ereb *wiyda`tem*  In the evening you shall know .
> . .
>
> then an identical construction for the morning
>
> 1b (v.7)  uboqer *ure'item*  and in the morning you shall
> see . . .
>
> likewise the following pair use an identical construction
> (different from 1):
> 2a (v.12) beyn ha`arbayim *to'kelu*  basar  at twilight you
> shall eat meat
>
> 2b (v.12) ubabboqer *tisbe`u*  laxem  and in the morning you
> shall be satisfied with bread
>
> likewise another form used for the following:
>
> 3a (v.13) wayehi ba`ereb *watta`al*  it came about in the
> evening, quail came up
>
> 3b ?
>
> You would think that from this sequence, 3b is virtually
> "programmed" i.e. you should have:
>
> wayehi babboqer plus a wayyiqtol verb.
>

What would make you think this?  The first two pairs that you cite are part 
of the
predictive narrative that is YHWH's message to the people through Moses.  The
"wayehi," on the other hand, marks the return to the historical narrative.  
What we
see here is simply a well-marked "paragraph," a major shift in the episode.  
And the
WaYHiY clause sets the time, which is definitely not unheard of in the 
Hebrew.  The
next clause, the wayyiqtol clause with WaTTa(aL, is actually the first in the 
sequence
of events.  And, although the writer *could* have made the next clause the 
next item
in the sequence, he chose not to.  Instead, he used an X-qatal which does 
seem to be
connected with the wayyiqtol clause.  This would indicate in his mind that he
considered to the two clauses to be somehow parts of a single event.  Again, 
this is
something that is not unheard of in languages.  Consider some of the uses of 
the
aorist in Greek which sometimes is used to describe events that take place 
over a
considerable period of time, but treats them as a single unit.  What I see 
here is
exactly the grouping that you claim you expected to see, but done in the way 
that the
Hebrew does in historical narrative, i.e., the wayyiqtol plus the X-qatal.

> It looks to me like hayetah can't be background information
> for the
> previous evening, neither can it be disconnected from the
> preceding and taken non-sequentially; it does not seem to be
> "a break in the flow of communication" (Niccacci) at all,
> but seems to
> move the story along in exactly the same way as a
> wayyiqtol form would).

But it *is* background information if background information is defined as 
that which
moves the story along.  By seeing this X-qatal as a mainline actually does 
disconnect
it (or, to be more precise, distances it more) from the preceding clause than 
would
treating the two as part and parcel of the same extended event.  Please don't 
hang too
much on your interpretation of a technical term, "background information."

Your other examples in this post seem to be concerned with the same type 
pairing of
wayyiqtol and X-qatal.  You try to make them two events.  IMO, the Hebrew 
seems to
have them in closer connection, treating them as a single, extended event.

> So, while you have quite elegant theories, do you understand
> my skepticism?
>

They might, but I don't.  I do, however, see where your understanding of what 
is being
suggested by discourse level analysis is falling short.  You seem to be 
recognizing
normal patterns for historical narratives, but failing to see any distinction 
between
them and other patterns that could have been used.

The normal disclaimers apply,

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph