Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: WAYYIQTOL and QATAL

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: WAYYIQTOL and QATAL
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:42:09 +0200


On 19/01/00 (WAYYIQTOL and QATAL) Cees van Veelen wrote:


I try to understand the discussions on the list about the difference
between WAYYIQTOL and QATAL and to see what effect diffent views have
on the translation.
Now I came to Gensis 1:5:
And he called (WAYYIQTOL) God (subject) the light Day, and the darkness
He called (QATAL) night. (I kept the word order, to show the chiastic
structure).
This structure is found again in verse 10.
Now I don't see any difference in tense or aspect between WAYYIQTOL or
QATAL in these examples.
The two grammars I have (Jouon and Schneider) don't give a convincing
answer. Jouon writes that hebrew liks to shift from WAYYIQTOL to QATAL
just because the same verb is repeated, Schneider writes this
construction is used to mark the end of a narrative part.
How is this construction to be evaluated? The only thing I can imagine
is that the chiastic word order and the shift from WAYYIQTOL to QATAL
is to create (or emphasize) a contrast: God called the light Day, _but_
the darkness He called Night.



Dear Cees van Veelen,

In order to understand the function of a tense transition from wayyiqtol to x-qatal such as the one attested in Gen 1:5 and 10, it is useful to consult Jouon #118d-g, were 4 different such cases are listed. Jouon states that "biblical writers deliberately avoid wayyiqtol and replace it with w- ... qatal when they do not want to express succession."

This is a good start. If the writer had used a second wayyiqtol in Gen 1:5, the naming of the darkness would have been presented as a coordinated, successive item to the naming of the light, i.e. "THEN God called the light day AND THEN he called the darkness light."
Instead by avoiding a second wayyiqtol and shifting to x-qatal, he intends to show that the second naming is not coordinated, successive to the previous one, and on the same level with it, but it is rather communicated in constrast with it, connected with it, even dependent on it, i.e. "Then God called the light day WHILE (AT THE SAME TIME, or SIMILARLY, or ON THE OTHER HAND) he called the darkness night."

I think that wayyiqtol signals the narrative mainline, or foreground, while x-qatal signals a secondary line, or background, of the preceding wayyiqtol. Indeed, *welaxo$ek qara' layla* is not an independent sentence, it can not stand alone in the text, it needs rely on a narrative wayyiqtol.
The narrative wayyiqtol can precede, as in Gen 1:5, 10, or follow, as in Gen 3:1 and 4:1. When the narrative wayyiqtol precedes, the x-qatal conveys a background information to it. When, on the contrary, the narrative wayyiqtol follows, the x-qatal conveys the setting of the story, or antecedent information necessary to understand the story that follows. In the latter case, the x-qatal starts a new story or a new episode of the same storyas is the case in Gen 3:1 and 4:1.

Peace and all good.
Alviero Niccacci


Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Tel. +972 - 2 - 6282 936
POB 19424 - 91193 - Jerusalem Fax +972 - 2 - 6264 519
Israel
Home Page: http://www.custodia.org/sbf
Email mailto:sbfnet AT netvision.net.il




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page