Is waw Consecutive (wayyiqtol) perfective or imperfective?

[SteveMiller]

Dear Steve:

It appears that you are struggling to preserve the teachings of a small English group known as the Plymouth Brethren and their rather nuanced view of prophesy—the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the millennium, after which the Ezekiel 38–39 war, after which the third temple: none, except the Ezekiel passage, of which I can find in Scripture. Maybe I’m too simple-minded, but there’s just too much eisegesis in that teaching for me to accept it. I look for the simple readings, exegesis. The only “evidence” for a seven year tribulation is taking Daniel 9:27 out of context with verse 26 and before. But if verse 27 is concurrent with the second half of verse 26 giving more information concerning the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD which it clearly fits and which the context seems to indicate, then that tower of speculation concerning the seven year tribulation, with an anti-Christ defiling the third temple midway through that tribulation, etc. etc. all comes tumbling down.

Thanks for replying, Karl. The final 7 year period given to the Jewish people is also in the NT book of Revelation. And it is explicitly divided into two 3.5 year halves: the 1260 days testimony of the 2 witnesses (11:3). When their testimony ends (11:7-13), that is the end of the 2nd woe (v14). Then comes the 3rd woe which is the beginning of the 1260 day persecution of God's people (12:6,14).
The Plymouth Brethren made a lot of mistakes, of course, but they had a huge positive effect on Christianity, and I am influenced by their teachings.
My point is that Dan 9 is not the only place in the Bible that mentions the 7 year period that ends the age. If it was the only place, that would be a strong argument against that teaching.

Isa 53:2 .. And there is no beauty that we should desire him. It is not uncommon for waw-consecutive to be translated as "that". "that we should desire him" comes after in time "there is no beauty".

Take the whole verse: “that he should ascend like a sucker (in botany, an unwanted growth from the root of a tree) before him, and like a root from an arid land, he doesn’t have good form and no grandeur, and should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks that we should desire specifically him.” When we look at “that we should desire specifically him” is concurrent with “he doesn’t have looks” though you might argue that it comes after “should we look at him”. Other “and”s in the verse are clearly concurrent, not consecutive.

I have bolded and underlined the waw-consecutives in your translation above.
I disagree with your translating the waw-consecutive at the beginning of the verse as "that".
Waw-consecutives often mean "that" but not in the way you are using it.
xxx happened that yyy would happen - is a common use of a waw-consecutive.
But you are using it as a relative pronoun: Who has believed our report .. that he should ascend like a sucker.
I believe you are saying that the contents of the report is "that he should ascend like a sucker ...".
A waw-consecutive is never used like that according to my knowledge. If you have an example, I would like to see it.
I understand it as v1 The prophets gave their report. After that in v2 He came up as a sucker.

I also don't think you should translate ‎the non waw-consecutive "and" in וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה as "that". (I made it red font in your quote). You are translating it in such a way as to try to make the "and" go away and be of no effect. "should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks". It would be better to say your meaning as, "should we look at him, he doesn't have good looks", without the "that", but that is not what the verse says. The "and" disallows that. The Biblical Hebrew "and" is very important in determining the sentence structure. Besides acting as a connector, it also acts as our English punctuation.

In summary, we have 3 waw's prefixed to yiqtol verbs in v2. The first one says that he grew up after the report.
The next 2 are called weyiqtol's, but the consonants are the same as a waw-consecutive. Both of these are xxxx happened that yyyy should happen.
I call that sequential.

The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn

From where do you get that meaning? Do you have any Bible verses that have that meaning?

That's what HALOT says, apparently from congnate languages. See below. I bolded the relevant part.
ענה: MHeb., DSS; Ug. Ány )Gordon Textbook §19:1883; Aistleitner 2060; Pardee UF 7 (1975):363; UF 8 (1976):261; cf. Fisher Parallels 1: p. 300 no. 437 and 438, p. 363 no. 570); Deir Alla 1:13 Ányh (Hoftijzer-vdK. Deir Alla 212), OArm. EgArm. Palm. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 218), JArm. Sam. (Petermann Gloss. 65), CPArm. Syr. Mnd. (Drower-M. Dictionary 24a); Eg. Án(n) intrans. to turn back (from), trans. to turn something e*.g. the hands), to avert (Erman-G. 1:188f); Akk. enuÖ to turn something round, change )AHw. 220b(; for a different ענה see Joüon Biblica 13 (1932):309ff; Kutsch ZThK 61 (1964):193ff; Delekat VT 14 (1964):37f; THAT 2 basic meaning, to turn around, turn to face something cf. THAT 2:336.
HALOT did not give any verses with that meaning.

An answer is not necessarily spoken, hence to emphasize that the answer is spoken, “he answered and said”.

That makes sense. Thanks!

אָמַ֣ר and ‎ דִּבֶּר are very common in Tanach. When used together, the order is always ‎ דִּבֶּר first and then אָמַ֣ר.
I do not know the difference in meaning between the 2 verbs.

Again, אמר specifically refers to the spoken word, דבר has more the idea of expression, which can be by pointing or other non-verbal means. Usually, however, the expressing is done verbally. But to emphasize that the expression is spoken, אמר is used too.

thanks! makes sense

(In Isaiah 53) So, all the waws prefixed to verbs are sequential. 4/4

Not the first and third ones in verse 2, as I mentioned above, nor the one beginning verse 9, which gives more information concerning the action already mentioned in verse 8.

v2 previously discussed. In v8 he died. In v9 "and He gave with the wicked his grave" comes after his death in the previous verse. You can say it gives more info, but that more info is sequential.

When we take verse two in context with verse one, verse two starts the message mentioned in verse one, hence the first waw should again be translated as “that”.

as discussed above.

Out of the four waws prefixed on Yiqtol verbs, three are clearly concurrent, and the fourth can be taken either way. The context and grammar favors that last one to be concurrent.

Narration of history will be a whole different kettle of fish̦—the very nature of history is that one event follows another. Hence analyzing narration of history won’t give you an answer that can be convincing to others.

As I said, if it is all waw consecutives and all sequential, it means nothing for this test.
It may be that there are some non-sequential statements in the chapter.
If the non-sequentials also start with waw consecutives, that would be strong evidence against my point.
If the non-sequentials start with non-waw consecutives, but the sequentials start with waw consecutives, that would be evidence in favor of my point.

[Isaac Fried]

Seems to me that דיברis 'spoke', and אמרis 'said'. ‎ דִּבֶּרis of the root דברDBR, a stalwart member of the root family
דבר, זבר, טבר, סבר, צבר, שבר, תבר
טפר, ספר, צפר, שפר, תפר
all having the concrete meaning of 'accumulate', as becoming a root that includes the uni-literal root ר R.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[R.J. Furuli]

Dear Steve,

You asked:

Is there any difference between wayyiqtols and weyiqtols other than in the vowels? So would they be the same in the DSS?

Most scholars believe that Hebrew has four conjugations: yiqtol, wayyioqtol, qatal, and weqatal. Some scholars in the last part of the 20th century argued that weqatal is not an independent conjugation but a qatal with prefixed waw. In the middle of the 20th century some scholars argued that wayyiqtol was not an independent conjugation (A. Sperber,J. Washington Watts, D. Michel, L. Eddleman, J.J. Curtis and others). As for weyiqtol, Alivero Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose (1990, argues that weyiqtol is an independent conjugation. His basis is discourse analysis, and he argues that the different conjugations plays diferent discourse roles, particularly forground and background actions.

In th late 1990s, I and others had several discussions with Niccacci on b-hebrew. Perhaps these are still in the archives? For example, I remember that we discussed the different verbs in Proverbs 31.

One problem with Niccacci's system is that when a conjugation is given a restricted fixed meaning—here a particular discouse function—the Hebrew text is intepreted in the light of this fixed meaning— and that leads to a great number of forced interpretations. The same problem is seen when wayyiqtol is given a restricted fixed meaning—here, actions that follow each other—that will also lead to many forced interpretations. Languages do not work this way. Languages do not have a restriced number of conjugations that always have the same narrow meaning. A language is a living meadium whose parts can be used in many different ways, both in connection with meaning and in connection with discourse function.

To claim that wayyiqtol always is consecutive in effect rejects the view that the way-element only is a simple conjunction—because the conjunction waw can have many different functions. Moreover, this view requires an etymological explanation of what the way-element really is. A number of publications have tried this- and many discussions on b-hebrew have included explanations as well—but no one has to date given a plausible explanation why the way-element is something different from simple waw.


Best regards,

Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway

[kwrandolph]

Dear Steve:

My introduction to the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren was very negative, through a book written by a man who the New Testament says won’t enjoy eternity with God unless he repents (so far there’s no indication that he has repented) then published under another man’s name (somewhat dishonest, eh?). It claimed to be a book clarifying the book of Revelations, but I had already read Revelations, that book basically butchered Revelations. “By their fruits you shall know them” Matthew 7:20 and I saw negative fruits from that book as it stunted the spiritual maturation of new believers. Those were my observations while I was at a place called L’Abri.

Another fruit of Plymouth Brethren teachings is an unhealthy fixation on prophesy connected with wild fancies of speculation. For example, nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of the construction of a third temple. In fact, from the descriptions of the construction of the first temple, we today don’t know where it was built. It was not built where the Dome of the Rock presently stands. Very likely, it was not built on what today is called the “Temple Mount”. We just don’t know where it was built. And that’s just one problem.

One major problem with Revelations is that it’s apocalyptic literature. Even the numbers can be symbolic, in a similar manner as “seventy sevens” is in Daniel. In Daniel, the visions were explained right away, so we know what the symbolism means, in Revelations almost none of the symbolism is explained, rather we need to use “Scripture interprets Scripture” and find other places where the same or similar symbolism is used. Most, not all, of those other places are found in Old Testament prophetic books.

A second problem with Revelations is that it is a series of vignettes dealing with different subjects. The book is not a narrative with one event following another. The final judgment day is mentioned a few times at the end of some vignettes in Revelations.

I don’t claim to understand all of Revelations, but what I do understand contradicts the Plymouth Brethren narrative.

The final 7 year period given to the Jewish people is also in the NT book of Revelation. And it is explicitly divided into two 3.5 year halves: the 1260 days testimony of the 2 witnesses (11:3). When their testimony ends (11:7-13), that is the end of the 2nd woe (v14). Then comes the 3rd woe which is the beginning of the 1260 day persecution of God's people (12:6,14).

This is a perfect example of an exegetical no-no called “collapsing contexts”. These are passages taken from two vignettes separated by one description of the final judgment day. Do those two time periods mentioned represent the same time period from two different perspectives? Or are they two completely different time periods? If they’re different, are they sequential, or separated by years, even centuries? Which one comes first?

There’s good reason that the New Testament and especially Revelations is not part of what we cover here in B-Hebrew.

Take the whole verse: “that he should ascend like a sucker (in botany, an unwanted growth from the root of a tree) before him, and like a root from an arid land, he doesn’t have good form and no grandeur, and should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks that we should desire specifically him.” When we look at “that we should desire specifically him” is concurrent with “he doesn’t have looks” though you might argue that it comes after “should we look at him”. Other “and”s in the verse are clearly concurrent, not consecutive.

I have bolded and underlined the waw-consecutives in your translation above.
I disagree with your translating the waw-consecutive at the beginning of the verse as "that".

I explained later why that’s a legitimate translation.

But you are using it as a relative pronoun: Who has believed our report .. that he should ascend like a sucker.
I believe you are saying that the contents of the report is "that he should ascend like a sucker ...".
A waw-consecutive is never used like that according to my knowledge. If you have an example, I would like to see it.

Just look at the end of the same verse, “he has no looks that we should desire specifically him.” That is a concurrent use.

I also don't think you should translate ‎the non waw-consecutive "and" in וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה as "that". (I made it red font in your quote). You are translating it in such a way as to try to make the "and" go away and be of no effect. "should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks". It would be better to say your meaning as, "should we look at him, he doesn't have good looks", without the "that", but that is not what the verse says. The "and" disallows that. The Biblical Hebrew "and" is very important in determining the sentence structure. Besides acting as a connector, it also acts as our English punctuation.

This is a question of English usage, and I was not too happy with how it comes out in English. Basically, I wanted to emphasize the Hebrew usage, even at the expense of good English.

The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn

From where do you get that meaning? Do you have any Bible verses that have that meaning?

That's what HALOT says, apparently from congnate languages. … HALOT did not give any verses with that meaning.

This is a lexicographic no-no. Words in different languages can have widely divergent meanings, even in close cognate languages. For example, שכח in Hebrew means “to forget” while in Aramaic “to find”. I’ve seen other examples from cognate language pairs.

This practice of deliberately applying cognate language meanings into Hebrew was started in the early 1800s in Germany as part of an anti-Christian movement and apparently has been the basis of all major lexica since. This misuse of cognate languages is the same as and is based on the etymological fallacy.

… nor the one beginning verse 9, which gives more information concerning the action already mentioned in verse 8.

In v8 he died. In v9 "and He gave with the wicked his grave" comes after his death in the previous verse. You can say it gives more info, but that more info is sequential.

Verse 8 נגזר מארץ חיים “he was severed from the land of the living” poetic for “he was killed”. Verse 9 starts with ויתן את רשעים קברו is not only poetic but an idiomatic phrase indicating how he was killed. Because it’s more information on how he was killed, it’s concurrent.

Out of the four waws prefixed on Yiqtol verbs, three are clearly concurrent, and the fourth can be taken either way. The context and grammar favors that last one to be concurrent.

Narration of history will be a whole different kettle of fish̦—the very nature of history is that one event follows another. Hence analyzing narration of history won’t give you an answer that can be convincing to others.

As I said, if it is all waw consecutives and all sequential, it means nothing for this test.
It may be that there are some non-sequential statements in the chapter.
If the non-sequentials also start with waw consecutives, that would be strong evidence against my point.
If the non-sequentials start with non-waw consecutives, but the sequentials start with waw consecutives, that would be evidence in favor of my point.

You have a point there. It may give results that contradict your claims.

If my understanding of verbal conjugations is correct, then the beginning of a narrative thread usually starts with a Qatal, further events with Yiqtols usually prefixed with waws. These are when all verbs are in indicative mood usages. In non-indicative usages we find different patterns.

Karl W. Randolph.

[SteveMiller]

Seems to me that דיברis 'spoke', and אמרis 'said'. ‎ דִּבֶּרis of the root דברDBR, a stalwart member of the root family
דבר, זבר, טבר, סבר, צבר, שבר, תבר
טפר, ספר, צפר, שפר, תפר
all having the concrete meaning of 'accumulate', as becoming a root that includes the uni-literal root ר R.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Thanks Isaac,
What would you say is the difference in meaning between "spoke" and "said"?

[SteveMiller]

Dear Steve:

My introduction to the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren was very negative, through a book written by a man who the New Testament says won’t enjoy eternity with God unless he repents (so far there’s no indication that he has repented) then published under another man’s name (somewhat dishonest, eh?). It claimed to be a book clarifying the book of Revelations, but I had already read Revelations, that book basically butchered Revelations. “By their fruits you shall know them” Matthew 7:20 and I saw negative fruits from that book as it stunted the spiritual maturation of new believers. Those were my observations while I was at a place called L’Abri.

Thanks for sharing, Karl. That would be good reason to reject Plymouth Brethren teaching, if these guys were ones who came up with the teachings.
The group you describe is probably a sect of the Exclusive Brethren, maybe the Taylor Brethren. They have little in common with the Plymouth Brethren from about 100 years before them. The Plymouth Brethren split into thousands of denominations, generally categorized into 3 groups: "Open" (receive other Ghristians), "Closed" (do not receive other Christians) and "Exclusive" (shun other Christians).
Some of the most fruitful Christian lives in history have been of the Plymouth Brethren of the late 1800's - early 1900's. George Mueller, Robert Chapman, Anthony Norris Groves, James Deck. DL Moody was helped greatly by them. Hudson Taylor was supported by them.

Another fruit of Plymouth Brethren teachings is an unhealthy fixation on prophesy connected with wild fancies of speculation. For example, nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of the construction of a third temple. In fact, from the descriptions of the construction of the first temple, we today don’t know where it was built. It was not built where the Dome of the Rock presently stands. Very likely, it was not built on what today is called the “Temple Mount”. We just don’t know where it was built. And that’s just one problem.

The 3rd temple seems pretty clear to me in Rev 11:1-2 as well as others in the NT. Jesus said that Elijah would come and restore all things prior to Jesus' 2nd coming (Mat 17:11).

One major problem with Revelations is that it’s apocalyptic literature. Even the numbers can be symbolic, in a similar manner as “seventy sevens” is in Daniel. In Daniel, the visions were explained right away, so we know what the symbolism means, in Revelations almost none of the symbolism is explained, rather we need to use “Scripture interprets Scripture” and find other places where the same or similar symbolism is used. Most, not all, of those other places are found in Old Testament prophetic books.

I agree. I personally think all the numbers in Rev are literal. They have symbolic meaning also, like Daniel's #'s.

A second problem with Revelations is that it is a series of vignettes dealing with different subjects. The book is not a narrative with one event following another. The final judgment day is mentioned a few times at the end of some vignettes in Revelations.

The structure is basically chronologic.

I don’t claim to understand all of Revelations, but what I do understand contradicts the Plymouth Brethren narrative.

The Plymouth Brethren of 100+ years ago were a diverse group with diverse understandings of non-essentials such as prophecy. Darby was the leader of the pre-trib rapture group who eventually excommunicated Benjamin Newton, the leader of the post-trib. The excommunication was ostensibly not because of the difference in interpretations but for other trumped up charges of heresy on Newton. That was the beginning of the end for the blessing on Plymouth Brethren.

The final 7 year period given to the Jewish people is also in the NT book of Revelation. And it is explicitly divided into two 3.5 year halves: the 1260 days testimony of the 2 witnesses (11:3). When their testimony ends (11:7-13), that is the end of the 2nd woe (v14). Then comes the 3rd woe which is the beginning of the 1260 day persecution of God's people (12:6,14).

This is a perfect example of an exegetical no-no called “collapsing contexts”. These are passages taken from two vignettes separated by one description of the final judgment day. Do those two time periods mentioned represent the same time period from two different perspectives? Or are they two completely different time periods? If they’re different, are they sequential, or separated by years, even centuries? Which one comes first?

Those are questions that can be answered by studying the passages. The 2 1260 day periods have to be sequential because the 1st period occurs before the end of the 2nd woe and the 2nd period occurs after the 2nd woe. This by the way is not a Plymouth Brethren teaching.

There’s good reason that the New Testament and especially Revelations is not part of what we cover here in B-Hebrew.

I understand. I thought you made a good point that if Dan 9 said there is supposed to be a 7-year period before the end of this age, it should say so somewhere else in Scripture. So for that reason I thought it was relevant to bring in the final 7 years in Revelation. That is probably enough on the subject.

[kwrandolph]

Dear Steve:

My introduction to the teachings of the Plymouth Brethren was very negative, through a book … I saw negative fruits from that book….

Thanks for sharing, Karl. That would be good reason to reject Plymouth Brethren teaching, if these guys were ones who came up with the teachings.

I’ve neve made a detailed study of the Plymouth Brethren. Part of the reason is because I was taught that the Plymouth Brethren were those who came up with this whole schmeer about a third temple, with an anti-Christ who makes a seven year covenant, half-way though which he defiles the third temple, that there’s a seven year tribulation, etc. etc. and it was from that teaching that I saw the bad fruit. I saw no reason to study in depth the group that came up with that teaching.

Another fruit of Plymouth Brethren teachings is an unhealthy fixation on prophesy connected with wild fancies of speculation. For example, nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of the construction of a third temple.

The 3rd temple seems pretty clear to me in Rev 11:1-2 as well as others in the NT.

Is this a physical temple on the ground or is this a reference that the believers are the temple of God — 1 Corinthians 3:11–17?

Jesus said that Elijah would come and restore all things prior to Jesus' 2nd coming (Mat 17:11).

Another example of taking a verse out of context, because the very next verses indicate that the reference to Elijah was symbolic, and that John the Baptist fulfilled that prophesy, as well as Matthew 11:14, Mark 9:4–13.

A second problem with Revelations is that it is a series of vignettes dealing with different subjects. The book is not a narrative with one event following another. The final judgment day is mentioned a few times at the end of some vignettes in Revelations.

The structure is basically chronologic.

In other words, everything before Revelation 9:5 is BC, and afterwards AD? Pictures from Ezekiel indicate that the woman is the people of Israel and Psalm 2:9 indicates that the child born is Jesus.

There’s good reason that the New Testament and especially Revelations is not part of what we cover here in B-Hebrew.

I understand. I thought you made a good point that if Dan 9 said there is supposed to be a 7-year period before the end of this age, it should say so somewhere else in Scripture. So for that reason I thought it was relevant to bring in the final 7 years in Revelation. That is probably enough on the subject.

However, contextually and linguistically Daniel 9:27 is connected with the second half of Daniel 9:26, which together make up a description of the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD. There’s no reason or even indication that verse 27 is to be taken out of its context and treated separately.

A second problem with those who want to say that there’ll be a seven year tribulation is that verse 27 is mistranslated, it isn’t “he’ll make a treaty” which would use the verb כרת rather that “he’ll impose his treaty” הגביר. It took seven years for the Romans to impose their Pax Romana onto Judea. The “he” in the verse refers to the Roman people, not an individual.

Which gets us back to the beginning of this thread, namely that the “was-consecutive” is not a grammatical indication that one event follows another, even though most of its uses are in narrative where the context indications that one event follows another, rather that that grammatical construct is misnamed because all it signifies is that further information follows.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

The difference between דבר DABAR and אמר AMAR? Consider this, said on a speaker:
הוּא כבר מדבר שעה אבל עדיין לא אמר כלום

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[SteveMiller]

The difference between דבר DABAR and אמר AMAR? Consider this, said on a speaker:
הוּא כבר מדבר שעה אבל עדיין לא אמר כלום

Isaac Fried, Boston University

That is pretty good, Isaac. Is there any hint of that differentiation of meaning in the Bible? Like maybe in Proverbs?

[Isaac Fried]

See, for instance, Job 1:16
עוֹד זֶה מְדַבֵּר וְזֶה בָּא וַיֹּאמַר אֵשׁ אֱלֹהִים נָפְלָה מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם וַתִּבְעַר בַּצֹּאן וּבַנְּעָרִים וַתֹּאכְלֵם וָאִמָּלְטָה רַק-אֲנִי לְבַדִּי לְהַגִּיד לָךְ

KJV: "While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Isaac Fried, Boston University