Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> At 07:50 AM 17/08/2002 -0600, Dave Washburn wrote:
> > > >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.
>
> Ok. I was looking at the larger structure and flow of the account. Now that
> you have specifically pointed out what you find problematic, I can explain
> the function of the wayyiqtol more intelligently.
>
> Here is Judges 12:8-10:
> After him, Ibzan of Bethlehem led (wayyiqtol) He had (wayyiqtol) thirty
> sons and thirty daughters. He gave (wayyiqtol) his daughters away in
> marriage to those outside his clan, and for his sons he brought (wayyiqtol)
> in thirty young women as wives from outside his clan. Ibzan led (wayyiqtol)
> Israel seven years.  Then Ibzan died (wayyiqtol), and was buried
> (wayyiqtol) in Bethlehem.
>
> Ok, now as I said wayyiqtol most often indicates to sequence, but may be
> epexegetical or a pluperfect. Therefore:
> 1. led - sequence
> 2. had sons/daughters - epexegetical - because this obviously took some
> time and he most likely had many of then before he became leader.
> 3. gave away - epexegetical - in line with the context.
> 4. brought - epexegetical - in line with the context.
> 5. led - epexegetical - since v. 8 said this already.
> 6. died - sequential - obviously after he led.
> 7. buried - sequential - obviously after he died.

I'm still waiting to hear how "epexegetical" and "sequential" have any
kind of unifying factor.  The very fact that you can suggest that he
"had many of them before he became leader" indicates that the two
are fairly unrelated, syntactically speaking.  In common linguistic
usage, can a form be both X and non-X within the space of two
successive clauses?  This is my whole point about unifying factors.

> So the main storyline consists of:
> 1. Ibzan led
> 2. Ibzan died
> 3. Ibzan was buried
>
> The other wayyiqtols expound what occurred during his leadership in
> relation to his children and the length of time he ruled.

Again, according to the conventional wisdom, and especially the
discourse analysis camp, this kind of exposition would more likely
be done using qatals to make these things "off the main story line."
With some qualifications, I tend to agree with that assessment.  So
there's still the matter of explaining why they are wayyiqtols rather
than qatals.  Simply labeling them epexegetical doesn't answer this
question.  Why did the writer use wayyiqtols rather than qatals?

> BTW, I don't recall anyone saying that the wayyiqtol form ONLY indicates
> sequence.

Waltke & O'Connor, of not saying it outright, come very close.  My
copy is still packed, but I do recall them saying it is "always
subordinate" to something else, and it is this principle that leads
them to their categories of temporal sequence, logical sequence,
epexegesis and the rest.  I believe Gesenius came close to the
same thing (but he's packed, as well), and it's been a while since I
read Driver and Joüon (thanks for correcting my sloppiness, Peter).
And AFAIK, sequential forms in other languages such as Egyptian
are "always" sequential, so why should Hebrew be different, if it is in
fact sequential?

> > > 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>
>
> Do you really suppose I know exactly what you have read, David? You ARE
> being insulting with this kind of condescension.

Check my web page before assuming anything, Andrew.  I took the
time to check out yours.

> >Like Ibzan and Abdon, right?  Yup.  "Easily detected."
>
> See above.

Still waiting.

> >  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.
>
> Now you are making assumptions about what I have read.
>
I am making assessments based on what you've said, nothing
more.  Nevertheless, I'll refrain from commenting further on this part
of it if you will.

Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur