Biblical Hebrew Forum

[John Ronning <ronning AT ilink.nis.za>]

Alviero wrote:
 

<snipped part of discussion of methodology> 


> Gen. 1:5, 10 for mainline information with *wayyiqra'* versus
> background, coincidental information with X + *qara'*--"God called the
> light day while the darkness He called night.". . .
> x-qatal's main function of conveying background information
> remains in every case.

Dear Alvieri,

I appreciate your informative posts since you began contributing to this 
list, but I have difficulty believing that someone who has not prejudged the 
issue would see "and the darkness he called `night'" as "background 
information."

While it may be true that the naming of light and darkness are simultaneous, 
it seems likely from the context that the purpose for the construction of v. 
5 is not to express simultaneity but to contrast light and darkness (or if 
you prefer, their naming), and thus both "And God called the light `day'" and 
"while the darkness he called `night'" are on equal footing - both brought 
center stage in order to contrast them.  Similarly v. 10 and also Gen 4:4b-5a 
where you have this same "chiasm of indirect object" (to use F. Andersen's 
terminology), where again the context would seem to be not focusing on 
simultaneity or "background" information but on contrasting Cain and Abel:

The LORD looked to Abel and to his gift
But to Cain and his gift he did not look

Again, I don't understand how the second line can be "background information" 
(or do you analyze this one differently because of the negative?).

I think you have suggested in a previous post that both weqatal and yiqtol 
are mainline forms for future situations.  So, a methodological question - 
what evidence would lead you (if you found it in the Bible) to conclude that 
qatal functions as a mainline form in written past narrative?

Yours,

John Ronning