Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] 2Sam24:1 v. Gen18:1-3

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] 2Sam24:1 v. Gen18:1-3
  • Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:31:28 +0100

On 13/08/2005 23:43, Read, James C wrote:

I always thought that adonai meant my lord/master/sir in the singular.


No. It is usually a divine title and as such has a singular referent although plural in form, just like Elohim. But when referring to humans, adonay is plural "my masters", whereas adoni is singular "my master". This is quite regular: -i is the basic 1st person singular possessive suffix, but when added to a plural which would otherwise by -im, construct -ey, the suffixes contract together resulting in -ay.

Anyway, the point here is that earlier it was argued that the 'wa' prefix can only be understood as a succession of events. ...


Do you think I argued this? I do not hold that the WAYYIQTOL form is strictly sequential, and I have not seen anyone on this list recently supporting this position. On the other hand, I do hold that the default understanding of an unbroken series of WAYYIQTOL forms is that they are sequential, unless this non-sequentiality is marked in some way. But this verse is not a counter-example to this position because the series of WAYYIQTOLs is broken, see below.

... However, as is clear from this example, that is not always true. The first clause, 'Yah appears to Abram', is an introduction to the account and the subsequent clauses expand on how that happened by backing up a bit and explaining the
story. i.e. this is not a strict sequence of events even though the second
clause begins
with the 'wa' prefix.

No, it does not. The second clause is v.1b, W:HW.) YO$"B ... "(and) he was sitting...", a verbless clause with a participle. It is a normal part of Hebrew discourse that a story starts with verbless clauses giving the background situation, which is then followed by a series of events which are typically marked with WAYYIQTOL. And this story follows that structure, following the initial summary in v.1a.

In exactly the same way 2Sam24 starts with a scene setting statement that Yah
got angry and
then backs up a little and explains how that happened.


This may be a possible interpretation. But the structure is not the same as in Genesis 18, for there is no break in the sequence of WAYYIQTOL forms and nothing else (apart from theological presuppositions) to indicate non-sequentiality. So, I would like to see a proper linguistic argument, rather than the implied theological one, for non-sequentiality here.


--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page