Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bill Ross" <wross AT farmerstel.com>]

<John>
>>The non-consecutive vav is on a perfect verbal form. If the composer of
the narrative had wanted to show simple sequence, he would have used the vav
consecutive with the preterite. The perfect with vav conjunctive (where one
expects the preterite with vav consecutive) in narrative contexts can have a
variety of discourse functions, but here it probably serves to highlight
Abram's response to God's promise.

<Bill>
Would you say that in order for the subject of the second clause to be
different from the subject of the first clause then the verb form of "was
believing" would have had to be perfective (which it is not)?

Is this definitive, grammatical proof that the subject of the second clause
is identical with the subject of the first clause (ie: Abram)?

<John>
>>For a detailed discussion of the vav + perfect construction in Hebrew
narrative, see R. Longacre, "Weqatal Forms in
Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach," Biblical Hebrew and
Discourse Linguistics, 50-98.
The Hebrew verb /ma (a*m*/) means "to confirm; to support" in the Qal verbal
stem. Its derivative nouns refer to something or someone that/who provides
support, such as a "pillar," "nurse," or "guardian; trustee." In the Niphal
stem it comes to mean "to be faithful; to be reliable; to be dependable,"
or, "to be firm; to be sure." In the Hiphil, the form used here, it takes on
a declarative sense, "to consider something reliable [or, "dependable"]."
Abram regarded the God who made this promise as reliable and fully capable
of making it a reality.

<Bill>
Would you say that this quote demonstrates that the usage of the word
translated "righteousness" should actually be "dependable" and that
"righteousness" should not be considered a viable translation of the word in
this instance?

Thanks,

Bill Ross