Waw-consecutive and waw-conjunctive in Genesis 1

[RBerman]

Preface: My Hebrew textbook is packed away because I'm moving. Here's the text we were discussing elsewhere that seemed more appropriate to discuss here:

Genesis 1:14-19, ESV

14And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

KBertsche and I were discussing the language of Genesis 1, in particular the use of the prefix waw which appears commonly throughout the text. In my understanding, waw has two usages in that position. Waw can prefix the second of either two nouns (usually) or two verbs (less commonly) in a simple conjunctive sense. Or it can prefix the second of two verbs in a consecutive sense of "and then..." meaning that the second verb describes action after the action described in the first verb. In a narrative about the past using the consecutive construction, the first verb will take perfect tense, and the second verb will take the waw[/] prefix and be inflected in imperfect tense.

The six days of creation each begin with the formula "and God said..." ( ויאמר אלהים / wayyomer elohim in Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24). KBertsche linked an article in which James Stambaugh argued that this construction showed that the days of creation were consecutive rather than simultaneous. KBertsche pointed out that waw also appears throughout individual days of the creation narrative and said that, if taken literally, Genesis 1:14-19 would say that God first said "let there be light" and then made the stars (somewhere) and then subsequently placed them in the sky. Specifically, he said:

The ESV text dealt with the waw-consecutive consistently. In the ESV text of Day 4, every time a sentence or independent clause starts with "and", it is a translation of the Hebrew waw-consecutive, and has sense of "and then".

My questions are as follows:

1) Is it not the case that the same phrase ויאמר אלהים occurs at the beginning of this verse:

Genesis 1:26, ESV

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Other examples can be multiplied of the same thing, e.g. Genesis 2:7, 18, 23.

2) Given that waw can prefix a verb in either a conjunctive or consecutive sense, how is it determined which sense is intended in a particular case? Is it a matter of grammar, or of semantic context?

3) Does a consecutive sense imply that the first action has ceased when the second begins? I'm not one to trust Wikipedia uncritically. In its article on the consecutive waw, it gives the following example:


[i]

Wikipedia (ugh)

šāmar hammeleḵ eṯ dəḇar YHWH wayyišpôṭ eṯ-haʿam bəṣeḏeq

• שָׁמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת דְּבַר יהוה וַיִּשְׁפּוֹט אֶת הַעַם בְּצֶדֶקThe king kept the word of the LORD and he judged the people in righteousness.

© source where applicable

It seems to me that the sense of this sentence is that "keeping the word of Yahweh" and "judging the people in righteousness" are two related and ongoing events. That is, it's not the case that the king started by keeping the word of Yahweh, "and then" stopped doing so but started judging the people in righteousness. Rather, judging the people in righteousness is one example of keeping the word of Yahweh. Is that correct?

[KBertsche]

My questions are as follows:

1) Is it not the case that the same phrase ויאמר אלהים occurs at the beginning of this verse:

Genesis 1:26, ESV

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Yes, this is a waw-consecutive, but for some reason the ESV translators used "then" here instead of "and". Days 3 and 6 each contain two consecutive creative acts, while the other Days have one creative act.

Other examples can be multiplied of the same thing, e.g. Genesis 2:7, 18, 23.

Yes. Each of these is a waw-consecutive.

2) Given that waw can prefix a verb in either a conjunctive or consecutive sense, how is it determined which sense is intended in a particular case? Is it a matter of grammar, or of semantic context?

It's mostly a matter of grammar. The waw-consecutive is the normal grammatical construction for a Hebrew narrative sequence. It can be used for both past and for future narrative. Here's the basic construction for past events, which is by far the most common:
1) the first verb of the narrative sequence is a finite verb in the perfect tense
2) subsequent verbs in the narrative sequence are finite verbs in the imperfect tense, prepended by waw. Although they are imperfect in form, they are treated as perfect, and normally translated as past tense. The waw is generally translated as "and" or "then" or (my preference) "and then".

Note that the waw's of Gen 1:2 do not prepend verbs, so are not waw-consecutives. They are waw-conjunctives.

Note that the last waw in Gen 1:14 and the first waw (first word) of Gen 1:15 prepend verbs, but that the verb forms are not finite imperfect forms. These are likewise waw-conjunctives rather than waw-consecutives.

[I]3) Does a consecutive sense imply that the first action has ceased when the second begins?

Generally, yes. There are instances where a waw-consecutive jumps back in time or acts as a pluperfect. The context generally tells us this.

One example is Gen 2:15, which begins with a waw-consecutive. This is essentially jumping backward in time by restating 2:8, after the aside of 2:10-14.

[robrecht]

1. If this a rhetorical question, it is not clear what point you might be trying to make. If you merely lack access to the Hebrew text, yes, but note what follows is a direct quote.

2. Grammar and semantic context should alway be considered together, but the use of the waw-imperfect narrative syntax is extremely widespread and not typically subject to controversial interpretation by those who focus primarily upon the text in its plain meaning. But there are no doubt controversial discussions of which I am simply unaware.

3. There is not enough context of your Wikipedia example but I think the quoted translation and your interpretation of it are quite possible. Note that your sentence begins with a perfect verb as does Gn 1,26, which nonetheless appears after the 'and it was so' waw-imperfect. If I now understand the point you are trying to make, you should focus on the perfect verb, which I think is meant to stress that God made the lights and not merely a continutation of the narrative. But you may win the battle and lose the war for I think this stressed point is didactic, which is part of the intended purpose of the narrative, which is not merely a simple historical narrative imho.

Thanks, Robrecht

[John Reece]

[I]3) Does a consecutive sense imply that the first action has ceased when the second begins?

Not necessarily. The following (From Waltke & O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax) is a summation of the varieties of connection represented by the waw relative/consecutive:

Relative waw with a prefix form represents a situation that is usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding statement. The succession may be either absolute or subjective, and often the distinction between them is blurred. Temporal sequence depends on objective fact outside the control of the speaker; logical sequence, by contrast, subjectively exists in the way a speaker sees the relationship between situations. Sometimes with wayyqtl a situation is represented as a logical entailment from (a) preceding one(s) or a logical contrast with it/them or as a summarizing statement of it/them. If the explanatory situation in fact occurred prior to the leading one, it may be necessary to translate wayyqtl as a pluperfect. Wayyqtl may be used after any clause which provides a starting point for development, as happens when wayyqtl is used epexegetically, after a circumstantial clause or phrase.

[robrecht]

Sorry, I made a mistake above. I should not try to do Hebrew exegesis on my phone! I have amended my post below to remove the error:

1. If this a rhetorical question, it is not clear what point you might be trying to make. If you merely lack access to the Hebrew text, yes, but note what follows is a direct quote.

2. Grammar and semantic context should alway be considered together, but the use of the waw-imperfect narrative syntax is extremely widespread and not typically subject to controversial interpretation by those who focus primarily upon the text in its plain meaning. But there are no doubt controversial discussions of which I am simply unaware.

3. There is not enough context of your Wikipedia example but I think the quoted translation and your interpretation of it are quite possible. Note that your sentence begins with a perfect verb, unlike Gn 1,26, which nonetheless appears after the 'and it was so' waw-imperfect. If I now understand the point you are trying to make, you should focus on the repetition of the idea in 1,26, which I think is meant to stress that God made the lights and not merely a continutation of the narrative. But you may win the battle and lose the war for I think this stressed point is didactic, which is part of the intended purpose of the narrative, which is not merely a simple historical narrative imho.

Thanks, Robrecht

[RBerman]

Yes, this is a waw-consecutive, but for some reason the ESV translators used "then" here instead of "and". Days 3 and 6 each contain two consecutive creative acts, while the other Days have one creative act.

I should have thought the "some reason" was obvious. They think that the waw in Genesis 1:26 implies chronologic succession, but they think that the waw in verses 14-19 do not. Thus they use "then" in verse 26 but "and" in verses 14-19. I know from our previous discussion that you would translate the whole thing differently, using "and then" in 14-19 as well as in 26.

It's mostly a matter of grammar. The waw-consecutive is the normal grammatical construction for a Hebrew narrative sequence. It can be used for both past and for future narrative. Here's the basic construction for past events, which is by far the most common:
1) the first verb of the narrative sequence is a finite verb in the perfect tense
2) subsequent verbs in the narrative sequence are finite verbs in the imperfect tense, prepended by waw. Although they are imperfect in form, they are treated as perfect, and normally translated as past tense. The waw is generally translated as "and" or "then" or (my preference) "and then".

Note that the waw's of Gen 1:2 do not prepend verbs, so are not waw-consecutives. They are waw-conjunctives.

Yes, thank you for helping me understand that distinction in the other thread, which is why I did not refer to Genesis 1:2 in this thread.

Note that the last waw in Gen 1:14 and the first waw (first word) of Gen 1:15 prepend verbs, but that the verb forms are not finite imperfect forms. These are likewise waw-conjunctives rather than waw-consecutives.

You've lost me; the last waw in Genesis 1:14 is on the final word, וְשָׁנִֽים׃, meaning "and years." It's not a verb, though.

[RBerman]

Not necessarily. The following (From Waltke & O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax) is a summation of the varieties of connection represented by the waw relative/consecutive:

Relative waw with a prefix form represents a situation that is usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding statement. The succession may be either absolute or subjective, and often the distinction between them is blurred. Temporal sequence depends on objective fact outside the control of the speaker; logical sequence, by contrast, subjectively exists in the way a speaker sees the relationship between situations. Sometimes with wayyqtl a situation is represented as a logical entailment from (a) preceding one(s) or a logical contrast with it/them or as a summarizing statement of it/them. If the explanatory situation in fact occurred prior to the leading one, it may be necessary to translate wayyqtl as a pluperfect. Wayyqtl may be used after any clause which provides a starting point for development, as happens when wayyqtl is used epexegetically, after a circumstantial clause or phrase.

I had a feeling it was something along these lines. It sounds like the sort of thing that would lead the ESV translators to translate those waws as "and" instead of "then" or "and then" in our target text.

[KBertsche]

Not necessarily. The following (From Waltke & O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax) is a summation of the varieties of connection represented by the waw relative/consecutive:

Relative waw with a prefix form represents a situation that is usually successive and always subordinate to a preceding statement. The succession may be either absolute or subjective, and often the distinction between them is blurred. Temporal sequence depends on objective fact outside the control of the speaker; logical sequence, by contrast, subjectively exists in the way a speaker sees the relationship between situations. Sometimes with wayyqtl a situation is represented as a logical entailment from (a) preceding one(s) or a logical contrast with it/them or as a summarizing statement of it/them. If the explanatory situation in fact occurred prior to the leading one, it may be necessary to translate wayyqtl as a pluperfect. Wayyqtl may be used after any clause which provides a starting point for development, as happens when wayyqtl is used epexegetically, after a circumstantial clause or phrase.

John--thanks for posting this; it is very helpful.

Some comments:
1) they say that it is "usually successive" which agrees with my answer of "generally" successive.
2) they make the important point that this "succession" is in the mind of the story-teller; it may be either a temporal succession or a logical succession. "The distinction between them is often blurred" (i.e. the story-teller doesn't make a clear distinction between temporal and logical succession). This is an important observation for our interpretation of Gen 1: if the author didn't make a clear distinction between temporal and logical progression, then we shouldn't make a sharp distinction between them, either.
3) since it is "usually successive", we should normally interpret and translate the waw-consecutive as successive, unless context indicates otherwise

[KBertsche]

I should have thought the "some reason" was obvious. They think that the waw in Genesis 1:26 implies chronologic succession, but they think that the waw in verses 14-19 do not. Thus they use "then" in verse 26 but "and" in verses 14-19. I know from our previous discussion that you would translate the whole thing differently, using "and then" in 14-19 as well as in 26.

I don't think your explanation is obvious at all. It's possible. But it's also possible that they thought 1:26 implied chronology more clearly than did 1:14, or maybe they Just did this for stylistic reasons. We'd have to ask the translators (I may see one of them next summer; I'll try to remember to ask him.)

For what it's worth, I just looked through all of the English translations in my Bible software. Comparing just the waw-consecutives that begin verses 17 (the middle of Day 4) and 26 (the beginning of a Day), the most common treatment is to translate both waw-consecutives with "and" (ASV, Bible in Basic English, Douay-Rheims, Darby, JPS Tanakh, KJV, Webster, Young's Literal). This is probably the most consistent and safest way to do it.

But this is a thread on biblical languages. So how or why ESV or any other translation chose the wording that they did is secondary. We primarily want to understand what the original language says and means.

Note that the last waw in Gen 1:14 and the first waw (first word) of Gen 1:15 prepend verbs, but that the verb forms are not finite imperfect forms. These are likewise waw-conjunctives rather than waw-consecutives.

You've lost me; the last waw in Genesis 1:14 is on the final word, וְשָׁנִֽים׃, meaning "and years." It's not a verb, though.

Sorry, my bad. Instead of "the last waw" I should have said "the waw which begins the last clause" of Gen 1:14.

[RBerman]

I don't think your explanation is obvious at all. It's possible. But it's also possible that they thought 1:26 implied chronology more clearly than did 1:14, or maybe they Just did this for stylistic reasons. We'd have to ask the translators (I may see one of them next summer; I'll try to remember to ask him.)

For what it's worth, I just looked through all of the English translations in my Bible software. Comparing just the waw-consecutives that begin verses 17 (the middle of Day 4) and 26 (the beginning of a Day), the most common treatment is to translate both waw-consecutives with "and" (ASV, Bible in Basic English, Douay-Rheims, Darby, JPS Tanakh, KJV, Webster, Young's Literal). This is probably the most consistent and safest way to do it.

Which gets to my point that "He made the stars and placed them in the heavens" seems more like two ways of talking about the same phenomenon than two separate actions occuring at different times. Whereas your argument turns on the requirement that those waw are best understood as "and then" implying two different actions arranged in sequence. I'm not qualified to say that you're correct and all the English Bible translations are wrong, so any argument which hangs on that expectation will not find a sympathetic ear.

[KBertsche]

Which gets to my point that "He made the stars and placed them in the heavens" seems more like two ways of talking about the same phenomenon than two separate actions occuring at different times. Whereas your argument turns on the requirement that those waw are best understood as "and then" implying two different actions arranged in sequence. I'm not qualified to say that you're correct and all the English Bible translations are wrong, so any argument which hangs on that expectation will not find a sympathetic ear.

But the natural way to interpret this would be a succession of events. First, because this is the usual meaning of a waw-consecutive. Second, because the string of waw-consecutives in Day 4 (like all of the first 6 Days) ends with "and then there was evening, and then there was morning". These last two waw-consecutives are obviously successive. So you'd need to build a pretty strong contextual case to argue that some of the waw-consecutives in the middle of the string are not successive.

[robrecht]

Which gets to my point that "He made the stars and placed them in the heavens" seems more like two ways of talking about the same phenomenon than two separate actions occuring at different times. Whereas your argument turns on the requirement that those waw are best understood as "and then" implying two different actions arranged in sequence. I'm not qualified to say that you're correct and all the English Bible translations are wrong, so any argument which hangs on that expectation will not find a sympathetic ear.

Now tell us why you think the author/redactor stressed his point by repetition and expansion and you will be closer to a true (imho) interpretation …

But if all you choose to say is that the text does not say and it can only be understood as a plain narrative description of phenomenon, you will continue to go around in circles on the surface of the text without entering into its depth of meaning.

Thanks, Robrecht

[KBertsche]

I'm not qualified to say that you're correct and all the English Bible translations are wrong, so any argument which hangs on that expectation will not find a sympathetic ear.

How does my argument being correct imply that "all the English Bible translations are wrong"?!? I've already given examples of many Bible translations that treat these waw-consecutives consistently; consistency is the essence of my argument. The "and" that these many translations use both within Day 4 and at the beginning of each Day is broad enough to leave open the question of succession. It certainly does not rule out succession.

I understand that you would like to ignore the Hebrew text, ignore the immediate context, read the account in a modern translation, and interpret the account in the way you have always done or in whatever way feels best to you. Sorry, but this won't cut it. You need to have contextual and (Hebrew) grammatical arguments for your interpretation, as I do for mine.

[robrecht]

How does my argument being correct imply that "all the English Bible translations are wrong"?!? I've already given examples of many Bible translations that treat these waw-consecutives consistently; consistency is the essence of my argument. The "and" that these many translations use both within Day 4 and at the beginning of each Day is broad enough to leave open the question of succession. It certainly does not rule out succession.

I understand that you would like to ignore the Hebrew text, ignore the immediate context, read the account in a modern translation, and interpret the account in the way you have always done or in whatever way feels best to you. Sorry, but this won't cut it. You need to have contextual and (Hebrew) grammatical arguments for your interpretation, as I do for mine.

Clearly it does not. He's overreaching. Although I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew syntax ('though the analysis is fine), I do not want you to think that I agree with him from a rhetorical perspective.

Thanks, Robrecht

[RBerman]

But the natural way to interpret this would be a succession of events. First, because this is the usual meaning of a waw-consecutive. Second, because the string of waw-consecutives in Day 4 (like all of the first 6 Days) ends with "and then there was evening, and then there was morning". These last two waw-consecutives are obviously successive. So you'd need to build a pretty strong contextual case to argue that some of the waw-consecutives in the middle of the string are not successive.

Evening and morning are distinct events separated by 12 hours (on average, dependent on latitude, etc. etc.) in normal usage. "He made the stars and placed them in the heavens" on the other hand could easily describe a single event. But now we're past the issue of language and into the issue of hermeneutic, which as has been noted is not the focus of this forum. My language question has been answered to my satisfaction.

How does my argument being correct imply that "all the English Bible translations are wrong"?!? I've already given examples of many Bible translations that treat these waw-consecutives consistently; consistency is the essence of my argument. The "and" that these many translations use both within Day 4 and at the beginning of each Day is broad enough to leave open the question of succession. It certainly does not rule out succession.

I agree that "and" does not rule out succession. But neither does it require succession in the way "and then" (or just simply "then") does. And of course, consistency is context dependent; there's nothing wrong with ESV using "and" sometimes and "then" as appropriate for the context of each instance.

I understand that you would like to ignore the Hebrew text, ignore the immediate context, read the account in a modern translation, and interpret the account in the way you have always done or in whatever way feels best to you. Sorry, but this won't cut it. You need to have contextual and (Hebrew) grammatical arguments for your interpretation, as I do for mine.

Now you're casting aspersions on motive, which is neither charitable nor relevant.