Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Alviero Niccacci <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>]

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