280 460 as in English “they say” or in similar expressions in the Romance languages. This is
an important area of further research, but is beyond the scope of the present study.
9.3.1.1.2 Followed by
QATAL
In three cases, the first verbal element to follow the temporal expression is a
QATAL
.
After these things, the cupbearer and the baker for the king of
Egypt offended their lord, the king of Egypt.
Pc-vqw3msXa Pd Pa-ncmp Pa-acp vqp3cp
ncmsc ncms-np Pc-Pa- vqPms Pp-ncmpcX3mp Pp-ncms np
, 4
6 8 4
;
Gen 40:1
After these things, the son of the woman, the mistress of the
house, became sick; and his sickness was so severe that there
was no breath left in him. Pc-vqw3msXa Pd Pa-ncmp Pa-acp
vqp3ms
ncmsc-Pa-ncfs ncfsc Pa- ncms Pc-vqw3msXa ncmscX3ms
ams Pd Pp Pr Pn-vnp3fs-PpX3ms ncfs
, -
; 8 ;
+ ?
1 Kgs 17:17
After these things Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard which
was in Jezreel beside the palace of Ahab king of Samaria.
Pc-vqw3msXa Pd Pa-ncmp Pa-acp ncms vqp3ms Pp-np Pa-np Pr Pp-np
Pp ncmsc np ncms np
, +
8 + 4
1 Kgs 21:1
The immediately preceding context of each of these examples is as follows:
Gen 40:1
Joseph is in prison
1 Kgs 17:17
They had food for a long time
1 Kgs 21:1
The king went back to Samaria The back-reference in these examples is not to any specific event, but rather to the
preceding section of the narrative as a whole. The
QATAL
which follows the temporal
281 expression indicates that either the event took place or the state of affairs existed prior to
the event of the first
WAYYIQTOL
of the narrative which follows.
9.3.1.1.3 Followed by
WE X
-
QATAL
In one instance, the verbal element following the temporal clause is
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
.
After these things, God tested Abraham, and said to him,
“Abraham” And he said, “Here I am.”
Pc-vqw3msXa Pd Pa-ncmp Pa-acp Pc-Pa-ncmp vpp3ms Po-np Pc-
vqw3ms PpX3ms np Pc-vqw3ms PiX1cs
, I ? :
8 ;
;
Gen 22:1
The immediately preceding context of this example is as follows:
Gen 22:1
Abraham was in Philistia a long time As in the previous examples with
, , the amount of time
that passed since the preceding events of the narrative is uncertain. The question from the Gen 22:1 example is how the temporality of the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
I ? : is related to the clause with
. This is a further example of the reason why it is crucial to understand the function of the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
. The
NASB
renders the first part of this verse “Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham,” but from this
translation, there is no way to tell whether the Hebrew has the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
or a
WAYYIQTOL
. Wenham comments, for example, that [t]he introduction, ‘After these things God tested Abraham,’ is of great
moment, both from a dramatic and a theological perspective. It serves to cushion the listener from the full impact of the horrific command to
Abraham, and it diverts attention from the question whether Isaac will be sacrificed to whether Abraham will stand up to the test. ‘After these
things’ suggests that some time has elapsed between this trial of Abraham and the events recorded in chap. 21. Wenham 1994, 103
282 Wenham also comments regarding the use of
? : that “[i]t is unusual that this story begins with this generic form rather than with his personal name, ‘the Lord’”
Wenham 1994, 103. It is surprising, however, that there is no mention of the word order. Regarding this aspect of Gen 22:1, Hamilton comments that
[n]ormal Hebrew syntax calls for the verb to precede the subject; hence we would expect: ‘tested Elohim Abraham.’ But the placing of the subject
first, as here, draws special attention to it: ‘the Elohim—he tested Abraham’ Since the ‘he’ is already contained in the verb, ‘the Elohim’
must be taken as a casus pendens. Hamilton 1995, 101
Comments like these show the important role that grammar and syntax play in how commentators interpret aspects of the text. Their grammatical tradition and
analytical perspective play a fundamental role in what is perceived as significant and noteworthy. For example, Speiser’s comments on Gen 22:1 are as follows:
God put Abraham to the test. Heb. is inverted for emphasis, and the effect is heightened by the definite article with Elohim. The idea is thus
conveyed that this was no ordinary procedure, but that God had a particularly important objective in mind. But the precise shading is
difficult to determine. It might be that God chose to do so, or that it was an exceptional test. Speiser 1964, 162
It is clear from these comments that how these syntactic features are perceived can greatly influence the importance that is attributed to them. Full discussion of the role
and function of the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
is not possible here, but it would be necessary for a complete analysis of why this part of Gen 22:1 is
I ? : rather than ? : I . The text needs to be accepted as it is, but comprehensive
analysis involves understanding the factors which motivate the different syntactic options available in the language. Neither analysis above of the
WE
-
X
-
QATAL
—as casus pendens
283 or as emphasis—provides a satisfactory answer to the question of its function here. This
is an issue which requires more detailed analysis and research.
9.3.1.1.4 Analytical Summary of the “After these things” Use of
