Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Bryan,

Are you accepting John's statement as quoted below?

John Ronning wrote:

> On the other hand, I think it's still noteworthy that the timeline is 
> advanced from
> evening to morning without any help from wayyiqtol, and it still looks to 
> me that
> ubabboqer . . .  is just as "mainline" as the wayehi clauses.

Now, I must admit that, over the past couple days, I have started wavering on 
my position
on what the X-qatal is doing in this passage.  (Hey, I had a couple of 
overnight bus
trips and I don't sleep too well on the busses here in the Philippines.  So I 
thought
about the recent discussions!)  I'm not saying that my "large bead" idea is 
foreign to
the Tanakh.  It's just that, with the wayyiqtol chain that follows the 
ubabboqer X-qatal
clause, this may be a case where the X-qatal is introductory, introducing the 
event chain
that occurred the next morning.  But the setting up of the situation, albeit 
in a new
time, does not necessarily make the next mainline event, does it?  Yet I have 
not seen
you clearly address this contention that John has made more than once now.

John, the reason why I am considering changing my interpretation is because 
one would
normally expect that part of the wayyiqtol clause which is to be contrasted 
with a
following X-qatal clause to be found in its normal, unmarked position in the 
wayyiqtol
clause.  In this case, the "evening" is not even in the wayyiqtol clauses.  
Rather, it is
in the paragraph introduction marked by wayyihi.  I admit that taking the 
X-qatal with
the following wayyiqtol chain makes for an very short eventline between the 
direct speech
and the events of the morning.  It's only two clauses long.  But, just like 
"Meanwhile,
back on the ranch" does not advance the relating of the events, neither 
really does, "And
it was in the morning that the dew was on the land."  The contrast is being 
drawn here,
in my current way of thinking, with the paragraph marker, not with any of the 
events
marked by wayyiqtols.  The reason why the chain for the evening is so short 
compared to
the chain for the morning is because none of the activities of the people in 
the evening
are reported.

Now, I will admit that the "And in the morning" does set a new reference 
time.  But it
jumps to that time.  Were a wayyiqtol clause used here instead, it would be 
continuing
the chain introduced by the wayyihi.  The X-qatal clause breaks the flow of 
the chain of
events, making a second, longer chain about what happened in the morning.

Bottom line contention:  New reference time does not necessarily equate to 
new mainline
event.

Sorry I leapt before I looked close enough before.

Paul

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

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph