Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Peter and Randall,


The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from your posts is that
sequentality is not *the semantic meaning* of wayyiqtol but only a
pragmatic implicature! The requirement for sequentiality as a semantic
meaning would be that wayyiqtols *allways* would express a sequence (the
following wayyiqtol would always express an action occurring after the one
expressed by the previous wayyiqtol). However, you both state that this is
not the case with particular verbs.

I am not sure that you agree in my conclusion, because you both seem to say
that "This use of wayyiqtol is hendiadys", and that solves everything! I
have no problems with the term hendiadys and neither with your
interpretation of it, but the reason for your interpretation is your
knowledge of the world (which is pragmatics), and in any case will a use of
one wayyiqtol after another with a non-sequential meaning *definitely* show
that sequentiality is not a semantic meaning of wayyiqtol.

Could both of you please confirm or deny the following proposition:
"Sequentiality is not the semantic meaning of wayyiqtol."


Regards
Rolf


Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
University of Oslo





>See my interleaved answers to Rolf's questions.
>
>If the rest of the hundreds of examples of non-sequential wayyiqtol
>which he claims to have found (in narrative) were no more certain than
>these, I would have to conclude that there is no definite evidence for
>any non-sequential wayyiqtol (in narrative) apart from the well-known
>cases of hendiadys.
>
>Peter Kirk
>

>
>Dear list-members,
>
>
>I read the book of Ruth today. It has several thought-provoking verbs,
>which become even more interesting when we keep in mind that the text is
>narrative.
>
>How would those of you who believe that wayyiqtols present a sequence of
>events explain the following cases:
>
>1:4 Did the sons of Naomi marry Moabite women and thereafter live about ten
>years in Moab, or did the ten years start before their marriages?
>
>PK: The context allows either. In favour of the latter, I suppose it
>would be odd that there were no children if they had been married ten
>years, and Ruth does seem to have been quite young (but then maybe she
>was married in Moab as a child). The wayyiqtol verb sequence suggests
>the former.
>
>1:9-10 Did the women first raise their voice and then weep, or did both
>things occur together?
>
>PK: I think everyone agrees that there are certain instances like this
>of hendiadys in which the two verbs are simultaneous.
>
>1:19 Was the whole town first stirred and then the women exclaimed "Can
>this be Naomi"?, or did both things occur at the same time?
>
>PK: Perhaps hendiadys again, but for each individual the emotion
>leading to the exclamation must have preceded the actual utterance of
>words.
>
>2:6,11 Did the foreman first answer and then reply, or is this one and the
>same thing?
>
>PK: A well-known hendiadys.
>
>2:23 Did Ruth first stay close to the maidens and then she started to live
>with her mother-in-law, or did Ruth live with her mother-in-law before she
>met the maidens?
>
>PK: Well, there is no indication in the story that Ruth had actually
>got as far as a house in Bethlehem or spent a night there before the
>events of chapter 2. Perhaps she had. But a recent cartoon film I saw
>of the story of Ruth gave more insight on this than many scholarly
>commentaries. Where did Naomi and Ruth live in Bethlehem? Well, maybe
>the cartoon suggested that they had Elimelech's house in Bethlehem,
>but that this was in a rather ruinous condition after at least ten
>years! Maybe they had to spend their first night in Bethlehem at some
>sort of inn or caravanserai, and the next day, while Ruth was in the
>field, Naomi was making the old house habitable. And so the last part
>of 2:23 really is consecutive. At least, there is no proof that it
>wasn't.
>
>3:7 Did Boaz first eat, then drink and then be in good spirits, or did all
>three things occur together?
>
>PK: Eating and drinking may be a hendiadys, though also it may have
>been the custom (as now in Azerbaijan) to drink only after eating. And
>then the good spirits resulted from the eating and even more the
>drinking, so sequential.
>
>How would those of you who do not accept that a qatal without we has future
>meaning explain the qatal mkr in 4:3? Can the selling be anything but
>future in relation the deictic center which was speech time?
>
>PK: This verse has more than one interpretation. One is that Naomi now
>wants to sell this land and the kinsman has a duty to buy it - that
>implies a future reference, or else MFK:RFH could be rendered "has put
>on the market". The other is that Naomi had at an earlier time sold the
>land to a third party (the equivalent at that time of mortgaging it)
>and it is now the duty of the kinsman to redeem it from the third
>party. I am not sure (without reference books to hand) how far the
>choice between these is linked to the verb forms and how far to
>different understandings of ancient Israelite traditions. But it does
>illustrate the danger of assuming a temporal sequence etc. on the basis
>of translations rather than a thorough exegetical study of each
>occurrence.
>
>
>Regards
>Rolf
>
>