I always thought that adonai meant my lord/master/sir in the singular.
Anyway, the point here is that earlier it was argued that the 'wa' prefix can only be understood as a succession of events. ...
... 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 theNo, 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.
story. i.e. this is not a strict sequence of events even though the second
clause begins
with the 'wa' prefix.
In exactly the same way 2Sam24 starts with a scene setting statement that YahThis 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.
got angry and
then backs up a little and explains how that happened.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.