Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky <hermeneutics AT kulikovskyonline.net>
  • To: b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
  • Subject: RE: My understanding of Gen 1:1-3
  • Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:19:32 +0200


On 09:17 AM 16/08/2002 -0600, Dave Washburn wrote:
Peter, I tend to agree with you about Gen 1:1-2 as you know, but I'm
afraid Ian has you on the matter of the WAYYIQTOL. Your
explanation of books that begin with this form is weak at best,
contrived at worst and tends to ignore the whole question of sources
(which I'm not going to get into). The fact is that Niccacci, Hatav
and other recent writers on the topic suffer from a case of circular
reasoning: we "know" that the WAYYIQTOL denotes sequence,
therefore we approach texts that are simple narrative in order to
prove it, and we know they're simple narrative because they use the
WAYYIQTOL and it's a sequential form. QED.

Of the recent works on the topic, I find Galia Hatav's the most
exciting because of her work on the question of modality. At the
same time, questions of sequentiality and syntax are relegated to
lists of statistics and selected, dare I say, obvious, examples that
seem (probably unconciously) to have been selected somewhat ad
hoc. The questions I raised some 10 years ago have yet to be
answered, particularly wrt to the extended passage in Judges that I
presented. The latter part of Judges 12 has several "chains" of
WAYYIQTOL that cannot possibly be "sequential," in terms of time
or "logical consequence" or any of the other common extensions of
the term.

I don't see the problem here at all. They seem quite clearly sequential to me.

Ian mentioned the beginning of Ezekiel; Jonah 1:1 is
likewise a problem, and I haven't seen any of the recent treatments
deal with any of this.

See my response to Ian. I think Page Kelly talks about this in his grammar as well.

The simple fact is that the WAYYIQTOL is not a "sequential" form
and never was.

Not according to virtually every other Hebrew grammarian including Driver, GKC, Kelly, Juon Waltke and O'Connor.

Even F. I. Andersen, in "The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew," while trying to preserve the idea of sequentiality, had to
admit that in many, many cases the form begins a new section of
narrative. These kinds of exegetical back-flips are unnecessary
unless one has some major stake in preserving the idea of inherent
sequentiality. If one does, one needs to get over it, to put it bluntly.

Note that although the wayyiqtol form normally indicates sequence, it does on occasion begin a section which expounds the event just mentioned ie. it is used epexegetically. It may also have a pluperfect meaning. Both these situations are easily detected by looking at the context.


cheers,
Andrew
--
Andrew & Debby Kulikovsky
Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web site:
http://hermeneutics.kulikovskyonline.net

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page