Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

---------- Original Message ----------

>Actually, the idea of an independent source starting with a
>wayyiqtol isn't ludicrious at all.  We have such forms all over the
>Hebrew Bible starting new sections, new thoughts, even a whole
>book like Jonah.  While I agree that it's possible some sources
>were written in other languages, there's nothing inherently ludicrous
>about a Hebrew source starting with a wayyiqtol.  See F. I.
>Andersen, "The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew" on wayyiqtol's use to
>begin a new idea, as well as my paper "Perspective and Purpose:
>Understanding the Josiah Story" in _Trinity Journal_ 1991 (there's
>also a link to it as a WordPerfect file at
>www.nyx.net/~dwashbur/cv.html).

Thanks for the reference to your paper. I am aware that wayyiqtols are often 
used to
begin new ideas and narratives in the bible, but have at this point not 
concerned
myself too deeply as to why. My understanding has traditionally been that the
(supposed) consecutive function of the wayyiqtol is sort of its "true" 
function, and the
developments or variations from that are a result of drift in usage like I 
mentioned in
my accompanying mail (which you also refuted). For instance, wayyiqtols are 
still
used occasionally in the Mishna and rabbinical literature (though I certainly 
have not
read any considerable sample of that segment of the Hebrew corpus) and in my
experience the choice of the form has absolutely no grammatic function that I 
have
thus run into on this list represented by anyone. It seems the rabbis used it 
when they
wanted to sound more "spruchartig", like "long ago and far away...." and they 
wanted
to imitate biblical or high literary forms, or they were using a technicus 
terminus of
their theological/midrashic discussions. Now again according to my meager 
experience (I am still working on my MA and am still acquiring basic trade 
skills and
am not yet into reading all the various papers and commentaries on the 
cutting edge
of the research yet) It seems that an explanation of 'out of place' 
wayyiqtols is a result
of the language's slide from the old BH to the later RH (rabbinical Hebrew) 
tense
system.

With this in mind, I will say that my statement about ludicrous was related 
to my
assumption that wayyiqtols at such an earlier, "pure" state of the language 
(I am
working with the early Torah view concerning Gen 1 &2) should be used 'like 
they are
supposed to', that is, in their consecutive role. Of course I know that the 
verb situation
in Hebrew is messy, and that the consecutive role is not universally the home 
of the
wayyiqtol (if it even exists, as some would maintain!), and my wording 
resulted in
confusion. I will take a look at your paper, which I have downloaded, and 
will keep my
eyes open for more on these subject in the future. At any rate, I realize my 
use of the
word "ludicrous" was inappropriate, regardless of my understanding of the 
situation. In
over half of my mails I seem to be running into the problem of causing 
confusion by
using inflammatory or literary language to make my point sound more 
entertaining in
English, and should learn that technical discussions demand a dryer medium. 
Sorry
for the confusion. But as I said above, I am aware that there are lots of 
wayyiqtols that
begin new narratives, but my apparently inadequate understanding about their 
nature
led me to believe that such useage would be of a later form, and would be 
less likely
to be found in the opening chapters of Genesis (if you are like me and 
believe Genesis
to be early). But to be truthful I do not know why this happens, and will do 
more
research here. Thanks for the prodding.




Jonathan Bailey
MA Kandidat
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg