Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Studium Biblicum Franciscanum <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

On  04/19/99 (a test/problem case for wayyiqtol) Rodney K. Duke wrote:

<snip>

> In short, the thesis that storytellers use historic
> present for immediacy of action, and hence the wayyiqtol (part of the
> thesis is that yiqtol presents ACTION), seems to be a simpler
> construct/solution.
>
<   >
> Rodney

===========================REPLY
Dear Rodney Duke,

I do not see a possibility for admitting the use of the historic present in
BH. History and stories are told in the narrative tense, which is wayyiqtol.
Immediacy is expressed with *hinneh* and a nonverbal clause, or also with a
x-qatal.
*Hinneh* is a particle of direct speech used to convey information that is
important to the addressee in the moment of communication, and that
requires of him to react in some way. It is sometimes used in historical
narrative to express immediacy or to give a "graphic narration".
================================

> A "test/problem case" for wayyiqtol theories.
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I would like to make another inquiry regarding sequences of wayyiqtols.
> I know that some of you strongly disagree with the theories I have been
> adopting and adapting.  They are trial balloons.  The negative responses
> are as helpful to me as the positive.  Thank you.
>
> [I had been taught that the wayyiqtol went back to a preterit, prefixed
> conjugation, a theory PROVEN by the short forms.  At this point in my
> understanding, I see the various explanations for wayyiqtol vs. weqatal
> as just theories.  I don't see that anyone has demonstrated THE answer
> for the origin or historical development of wayyiqtol vs. weqatal.  I am
> trying to understand the different models.  Right now the 'simplest' and
> most encompassing model seems to be that yiqtols are ACTION oriented and
> modal, using 'modal' in a broad sense, and qatals, in narrative are
> EVENT oriented.]
>
> One problematic text that I just noticed is Gen 45:24.
> wayyiqtol: wayeshallach
> wayyiqtol: wayyeleku
> wayyiqtol: wayyomer
>
> If we see the three wayyiqtols as narrative wayyiqtols reporting a
> sequence of EVENTS, each with a new Reference time (Hatav), and each
> representing the simple past (English: "And he sent away his brothers,
> and they went, and he said to them..."), then a logical problem is
> created.  The last wayyiqtol does not make sense, if it refers to an
> EVENT, which is the third in a sequence.  We must see it as a past
> perfect: "he had said to them..."
>
> (I think that Prof. Niccacci would say that the first two are "narrative
> wayyiqtols" and that the third is a "continuation wayyiqtol.")
>
> Either way, to remove the awkwardness, we must come up with complex
> models for what wayyiqtols express and how we know it.
>
> On the other hand, if yiqtols present ACTION, and if in story-telling
> the narrator assumes a speaking time contemporaneous with the action (a
> common device for creating 'realism'), then it seems possible to view
> this verse as presenting not three separate events, but three
> overlapping ACTIONS (expressed better, but not perfectly with the
> historic present: "And he sends away his brothers and they go, and he
> says to them...").
>
> So, how would the models of understanding wayyiqtol account for and
> explain the sequence in Gen 45:24 and which model seems the most
> successful?
>
> Thanks!
> Rodney
=========================REPLY

Rodney,

I am not able to understand the difference between "ACTION oriented" and
"EVENT oriented".

Regarding Gen. 45:24 I would not say that is problematic. I would
translate: "Then he sent his brothers away, and they departed. He said to
them..."
It is obvious that Joseph's speaking precedes the brothers' leaving. Yet, I
think that we are not justified to translate: "He had said to them..."
I can only try to prove this indirectly by observing that if the narrator
intended to structure his information in that way, he had at his disposal a
specific construction to do it effectively, and that is x-qatal. The fact
that he did not use it, is an indirect proof that it did not intend to
present the information on Joseph's saying in a secondary level in order to
show its proper chronological place in time.
We need to bear in mind that chronological sequence is not always the
writer's criterion for presenting the information.

An example of x-qatal with the purpose of conveying an information as
preceding the mainline of narrative is Gen. 31:33-34:
"So Laban went (NARRATIVE wayyiqtol) into Jacob's tent, and into Leah's
tent, and into the tent of the two maidservants, but he did not find them
(welo' + qatal = negative wayyiqtol, NARRATIVE). And he went out (NARRATIVE
wayyiqtol) of Leah's tent, and entered (NARRATIVE wayyiqtol) the tent of
Rachel. ===Now Rachel had taken (waw-x-qatal) the household gods and had
put them (CONTINUATION wayyiqtol) in the camel's saddle, and had sat
(CONTINUATION wayyiqtol) upon them. Thefore Laban felt (NARRATIVE
wayyiqtol) all about the tent, but did not find them (welo' + qatal =
negative wayyiqtol, NARRATIVE)."

In Gen. 45:24 we find a phenomenon that can be indicated as "narrative
anticipation". I tried to illustrate it in a previous posting--Re: 2Ki 20:7
and Isa 38:21. Similar cases that I indicated are as follows: Gen.
37:21-22; 2Sam. 5:7; Josh. 2:4; and possibly Judg. 4:18-19.
Peace and all good,

Alviero Niccacci