Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

> 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.

This is the funniest thing I've read here in many a day.  So what 
you're saying is, Ibzan judged Israel for an indeterminate time 
(wayyiqtol), took time off to have 60 kids (wayyiqtol) and raise them 
old enough to marry them all off, then resumed judging for 7 years 
(wayyiqtol).  Elon judged Israel (wayyiqtol) then judged some more 
(wayyiqtol).  Abdon, like Ibzan, judged for a while (wayyiqtol), took a 
vacation to raise his children and grandchildren (wayyiqtol) and then 
resumed judging (wayyiqtol).  Oh, "clearly sequential."  Uh huh.  
Sure.  Get real.

> >   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.

I didn't see a response to Ian on this subject, but the fact that Page 
Kelly might talk about it is meaningless in the present context.  
Every explanation I've seen of this phenomenon is badly contrived 
and frankly lame.  They just prove my point about ad hoc 
conventions developed in order to save the sequentiality idea.

> >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.

Do you really suppose I haven't read them, Andrew?  You border on 
being insulting with this kind of condescension.  It was years of 
study of these grammars that pointed out to me the weakness of the 
theory.  And incidentally, it's Jouon, not Juon, and you need a 
comma after it.  I can be condescending, too <g>

> >   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.

Like Ibzan and Abdon, right?  Yup.  "Easily detected."  I suggest you 
read something beyond the basics.  You could start with Andersen, 
and then move on to my 1994 Hebrew Studies paper.  You are 
clearly one of those people who needs to "get over it."  A good basic 
book on linguistics would be a good investment, as well, something 
like Radford's "Transformational Grammar."  Andersen and I both 
show plenty of places where there is no connection between a 
wayyiqtol and what precedes.  Until your learning gets beyond this 
kind of simplistic regurgitation of what you've read, I don't think we 
can have a productive conversation.
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur