Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Dear Bryan,

You wrote, re.  my comment on Num 13:16:

> <...>
> It is off-the-line or "background" information in the main
> narrative as is the entirety of vv. 13:3b-20.  At the same
> time, the wayyiqtols *within* this off-the-line section are
> indeed sequential within the off-the-line section.

You mean Moses issued the spies instructions after he sent them off?  By my 
count
there are only three wayyiqtols in this section (all in vv. 16-17), and none 
of them
are sequential.   I wouldn't even call the first one an "event" that could be
sequential with anything (you could force it to be an event by translating it 
as
Moses' initial re-naming of Joshua, then place it sequentially before the 
sending of
the spies, but I think the context indicates this is simply a parenthetical 
remark to
explain who "Hoshea" is in the list of spies [Moses called Hoshea . . . 
"Joshua"] -
when Moses gave him his new name is unknown to us, but the name has been used 
in
direct speech as early as Exod 17:14).


Concerning Num 14:10, ukebod YHWH nir'ah be'ohel mo`ed 'el kol beney Yisrael 
(Then the
glory of the Lord appeared in the tent of meeting to all the Israelites), and 
my
suggestion that this is both sequential and the main event of the section, 
you said:

>
>
> History does not happen linearly.  Two lines of development
> or ten lines of development can occur simultaneously or
> intertwine.  Yet language is linear because the communicator
> can only say one thing at a time.  Linear language needs
> mechanisms by which it can accurately talk about a
> non-linear reality.  One device BH can use for this purpose
> is the alternation between wayyiqtol and X-qatal.  The
> writer of Num 14:10 did not want to express that *first* the
> congregation said to stone Joshua and Caleb and *then* the
> glory of the Lord appeared.  Rather he wanted to communicate
> that at the two events occurred in seperate lines of
> development, perhaps even co-occurent (I do not insist on co-occurrence).  
> He does
> this with the use of the X-qatal you mention as opposed to a wayyiqtol in 
> the same
> place.

If two wayyiqtols were used you would come to the same conclusion anyway 
since it's
obvious that many wayyiqtols are overlapping in time, and people don't need 
to be
informed about separate lines of development (what exactly is that supposed 
to mean,
anyway?).  Conversely, I think any unbiased reader would agree that the 
appearance of
the glory of the Lord is sequential to the Israelites saying that Joshua and 
Caleb
should be stoned (just as wayyera' kebod YHWH is used sequentially in Num 
16:19 and
20:6).  Anyway, Hebrew has ways of clearly indicating simultanaeity, such as 
with an
infinitive construct, or participle; X + qatal is not needed for that.

>
> Re mainline vs. off-the-line (or Niccacci's
> "background"--personally I use the term background a little
> differently):  Mainline clauses are not any more or less
> important than off-the-line clauses.  It is often true that
> off-the-line clauses present critical or climactic
> information.  Mainline and off-the-line clause should be
> defined, IMO, by how they relate to the behavioral purpose
> of the discourse.  For instance, the purpose of a Historical
> Narrative is to tell a story set in the past.  The mainline
> clause is the one which moves forward narrative time, and
> the off-the-line clause is the one which retards the forward
> movement of narrative time.  In Hortatory Discourse, the
> purpose is different; it is designed to alter the behavior
> of the listener.  So the mainline clause is the one that
> gives a command or volition, and the off-the-line clauses
> are the one which present the problems that the exhortations
> address, or the reasons, motivations, and purposes for the
> exhortations.
>
> Personally, I prefer not to use the term "background" for
> all off-the-line material because I think it connotes "less
> important," "less emphasized," which is often not the case.
> I think discourse grammarians have a special meaning for the
> word background that is quite appropriate, but I think it is
> difficult for English speakers to forget the more common,
> colloquial signification of the word.

I think "off-line" is just as bad a characterization of the appearance of the 
glory of
the Lord  as "background."  It would be like the orchestra in a western 
playing
"background music" at the appearance of the cavalry just in time to save the 
settlers
from massacre.  I also doubt that the unbiased reader would regard the 
wording of
"the glory of the Lord appeared . . . " as "retarding the narrative."   By 
departing
from the standard word order, however, it certainly does make His appearing  
stand out
in the narrative - perhaps helping the reader not skip over it as if it were 
just
another wayyiqtol!

Yours,

John