®
Digital
SIL eBook 26
Exploring the Syntactic,
Semantic, and Pragmatic uses
of
יהיְ וַ
in Biblical Hebrew
Bryan L. Harmelink
E
EXPLORING THE
SYNTACTIC,
S
SEMANTIC,
S
AND
PRAGMATIC
P
U
USES
OF
IN
BIBLICAL
B
HEBREW
H
! " # $
ii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation seeks to identify the uses and functions of in biblical
Hebrew. After an introduction to the topic and a review of the treatment of in the
grammars of biblical Hebrew, the theoretical framework of the Functional,
Discourse-Pragmatic model of linguistic analysis implemented here is presented. This model
focuses on the interaction of linguistic forms and their functions, exploring the choices
made by language users and the effects of these choices on their communication.
Before proceeding with the display of the occurrences of , fundamental
aspects of the biblical Hebrew verbal system are discussed in order to establish the
context within which is analyzed. After presenting a preliminary distribution of
, the occurrences are displayed according to its Verbal and Temporal uses. This
detailed classification lays the foundation for consideration of the discourse-pragmatic
functions of , which are discussed in the final chapter.
This research was motivated by questions that arose from examples of
encountered in the biblical Hebrew text and from the discussion of its functions in the
literature. The analysis of the verbal occurrences, representing 53% of the total instances,
demonstrates the syntactic connection of in these cases. This analysis shows that
has DEICTIC features that indicate its involvement in the systems of personal, spatial,
and temporal reference. The identification of these DEICTIC features of the verbal uses
provides a significant semantic and cognitive link to its functions in temporal
iii
The analysis of in temporal expressions further informs understanding of its
syntactic and narrative contexts. In these cases, occurs in dependent clauses which
requires attention to the subsequent clauses, resulting in additional categories of use.
This analysis lays the foundation for discussing the discourse-pragmatic functions of
in the final chapter.
The DEICTIC functions of in its occurrences in temporal expressions are an
extension of the features that emerged from the analysis of the verbal occurrences. The
identification of these functions provides important evidence for the role plays in the
temporal organization of biblical Hebrew narrative and the need to carefully consider
iv
CONTENTS
Abstract
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1 Introduction
PART I:
Theoretical Background
Chapter 2 Historical Overview
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Historical Overview of Descriptive Linguistics
2.3 Historical Overview of the Study of Biblical Hebrew
Chapter 3 Survey of Scholarship on
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The Analysis of in the Traditional Approach
3.2.1 Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 1813 3.2.2 Müller, Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, 1883 3.2.3 Harper, Elements of Hebrew Syntax, 1892
3.2.4 Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 1939 3.2.5 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1991
3.2.6 Analytical Summary of the Traditional Approach
3.3 The Analysis of in the Descriptive Approach
3.3.1 Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 1971 3.3.2 Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, 1974 3.3.3 Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990
3.3.4 Kelley, Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar, 1992 3.3.5 Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1995
3.3.6 Chisholm, From Exegesis to Exposition, 1998
3.3.7 Schertz and Yoder, Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew, 2001
3.3.8 Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew, 2001
v
3.4 The Analysis of in the Textlinguistic Approach
3.4.1 Preliminary Comments
3.4.2 Schneider, Grammatik des biblischen Hebräisch, 1974 3.4.3 Richter, Grundlagen einer althebräischen Grammatik, 1980 3.4.4 Bartelmus, HYH. Bedeutung und Funktion eines hebräischen
»Allerweltswortes«, 1982
3.4.5 Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence: A Text Theoretical and Textlinguistic Analysis of Genesis 37 and 39-48, 1989
3.4.6 Niccacci, The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, 1990 3.4.7 Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique
in Biblical Hebrew Prose, 1990
3.4.8 Talstra, “A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative” 3.4.9 Winther-Nielsen, A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua.
A Computer-assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis, 1995 3.4.10 Exter Blokland, In Search of Text Syntax, 1995
3.4.11 Endo, The Verbal System of Classical Hebrew in the Joseph Story: An Approach from Discourse Analysis, 1996
3.4.12 Hatav, The Semantics of Aspect and Modality, 1997
3.4.13 Van der Merwe et al, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, 1999 3.4.14 Rocine, Learning Biblical Hebrew: A New Approach
Using Discourse Analysis, 2000
3.4.15 Analytical Summary of the Textlinguistic Approach
Chapter 4 The Need for Further Study of
4.1 Questions Raised by
4.1.1 Questions Raised by the Books that Start with 4.1.2 Questions Raised by How is Used in Jonah
4.1.3 Questions Raised by the Distribution of in Genesis
4.1.4 Questions Raised by van der Merwe’s Study of in 1 Samuel 4.1.5 Questions Raised by the Claims in the Literature Review
4.1.6 Summary
4.2 The Scope of this Study
vi
Chapter 5 General Theoretical Framework
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 The Nature of Biblical Hebrew as a Language 5.1.2 The Nature of Linguistic Description
5.2 A Functional, Discourse-Pragmatic View of Language
5.2.1 A Descriptive Orientation 5.2.1.1 Identification
5.2.1.2 Variation 5.2.1.3 Distribution 5.2.1.4 Summary
5.2.2 An Interactive Morpho-Syntactic Orientation 5.2.2.1 A Unit-in-Context Approach
5.2.2.2 Syntactic Constraints
5.2.3 A Functional-Typological Orientation 5.2.4 A Discourse-Pragmatic Orientation
5.2.4.1 Text-Types and Genre 5.2.4.2 Cohesion and Coherence 5.2.4.3 Context-Sensitivity 5.2.4.4 Choice
5.2.4.5 Default 5.2.4.6 Markedness
5.2.5 A Cognitive Orientation
5.2.5.1 The Representational Nature of Language 5.2.5.2 Information Structure
5.3 Summary
PART II:
Analytical Preliminaries
Chapter 6 Analytical Preliminaries
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The Verb in Biblical Hebrew
6.2.1 Approaches to the Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew
6.2.2 The Multi-Dimensional Verb Analysis Implemented in this Study 6.2.3 Description of the Hebrew Verb Forms
6.3 Clause Syntax in Biblical Hebrew
6.3.1 The Role of Waw in Clause Syntax 6.3.1.1 Introduction
vii
6.4 Narrative Time and the Hebrew Verbal System
6.4.1 Time and WAYYIQTOL Sequences
6.4.1.1 PROGRESSION
6.4.1.2 EXPANSION
6.4.1.3 COMPRESSION
6.4.1.4 RAPID SUCCESSION
6.4.1.5 INCLUSION
6.4.1.6 REGRESSION
6.4.1.7 CONCLUSION
6.4.2 Summary
PART III:
Syntactic, Semantic, And Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis
of
Chapter 7 Distributional Analysis of
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The Distribution of
7.2.1 Charting the Distribution
7.2.2 The Relationship of Distribution and Genre
7.3 Summary
Chapter 8 The Verbal Uses of
8.1 Overview
8.2 Uses of as the Main Verb in Independent Clauses
8.2.1 The EQUATIVE Use of
8.2.1.1 To be
8.2.1.2 “And it was so…”
8.2.1.3 “And that’s the way it happened…” 8.2.1.4 Territorial Expressions
8.2.1.5 The Formulaic Expression
8.2.1.5.1 Occurrences of in Genesis, Samuel-Kings, and Chronicles
8.2.1.5.2 Occurrences of in Isaiah 8.2.1.5.3 Occurrences of in Jeremiah 8.2.1.5.4 Occurrences of in Ezekiel
8.2.1.5.5 Occurrences of in Jonah
8.2.1.5.6 Occurrences of in Haggai
viii 8.2.1.6 Expressions of Age
8.2.1.6.1 Age: + S +
8.2.1.6.2 “The days of… were”: + N + NUM
8.2.1.6.3 Other References to Age, but without 8.2.1.7 Quantity
8.2.1.7.1 Quantity Statements
8.2.1.7.2 Reference to a Number with 8.2.1.7.3 Reference to Weight with 8.2.1.8 With Prepositions
8.2.1.8.1 With 8.2.1.8.2 With 8.2.1.8.3 With 8.2.1.8.4 With
8.2.1.8.5 With Indicating Comparison 8.2.1.8.6 With Indicating Possession 8.2.1.8.7 With Meaning “became”
8.2.1.8.8 With Meaning “became” and Indicating Possession 8.2.1.8.9 With Indicating Distribution
8.2.1.8.10 With Followed by Infinitive Construct 8.2.1.8.11 With !
8.2.1.8.12 With 8.2.1.8.13 With " 8.2.1.8.14 With #" 8.2.1.8.15 With " 8.2.1.8.16 With $"
8.2.1.9 Analytical Summary of the EQUATIVE Use of
8.2.2 The EXISTENTIAL Use of
8.2.2.1 EXISTENTIAL Occurrences of
8.2.2.2 Analytical Summary of the EXISTENTIAL Use of
8.2.3 The DEICTIC Use of
8.2.3.1 DEICTIC Occurrences of
8.2.3.2 Analytical Summary of the DEICTIC Use of
8.2.4 The DESCRIPTIVE Use of
8.2.4.1 DESCRIPTIVE Occurrences of
8.2.4.2 Analytical Summary of the DESCRIPTIVE Use of
8.3 Uses of as an Auxiliary Verb
8.3.1 Occurrences as an Auxiliary
8.3.2 Analytical Summary of the Uses of as an Auxiliary Verb
ix
8.5 Uses of %%%% &&&&
8.5.1 Verbal Uses of % & 8.5.1.1 EQUATIVE Uses of % &
8.5.1.1.1 As Auxiliary Verb with Participle 8.5.1.1.2 Quantity
8.5.1.1.2.1 Basic Quantity Statements with % & 8.5.1.1.2.2 “All the days of…”
8.5.1.1.2.3 Period of time 8.5.1.1.3 With Prepositions
8.5.1.1.3.1 With 8.5.1.1.3.2 With
8.5.1.1.3.3 With Indicating Comparison 8.5.1.1.3.4 With Indicating Possession 8.5.1.1.3.5 With Meaning “became”
8.5.1.1.3.6 With Meaning “became” and Indicating Possession 8.5.1.1.3.7 With Meaning “for”
8.5.1.1.3.8 With ! 8.5.1.1.3.9 With $" 8.5.1.2 DEICTIC Uses of % &
8.5.1.3 DESCRIPTIVE Uses of % &
8.5.1.3.1 DESCRIPTIVE with ADJECTIVE COMPLEMENT
8.5.1.3.2 DESCRIPTIVE with QAL PASSIVE
8.5.1.4 Summary of the Uses of % &
Chapter 9 The Temporal Uses of
9.1 Overview
9.2 Introduction to Temporal Expressions in Biblical Hebrew
9.2.1 The Syntax of Temporal Expressions in Hebrew Grammars 9.2.1.1 Introduction
9.2.1.2 GKC, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar
9.2.1.3 Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax
9.2.1.4 Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline
9.2.1.5 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew
9.2.1.6 Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
9.2.1.7 Waltke and O’Connor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
9.2.1.8 Pratico and Van Pelt, The Basics of Biblical Hebrew
9.2.1.9 van der Merwe et al, Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar
9.2.1.10 Summary
9.2.2 Theoretical Background for the Analysis of Temporal Expressions 9.2.2.1 Speaker Deixis
x
9.3 Temporal Expressions with
9.3.1 With ' / '(
9.3.1.1 “After these things”
9.3.1.1.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.1.1.2 Followed by QATAL
9.3.1.1.3 Followed by WE X-QATAL
9.3.1.1.4 Analytical Summary of the “After these things” Use of 9.3.1.2 After: '
9.3.1.2.1 After: '( + NOUN
9.3.1.2.2 After: '( Followed by a VERB
9.3.1.2.2.1 Infinitive Construct 9.3.1.2.2.2 QATAL
9.3.1.3 With '(
9.3.1.3.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.1.3.2 Followed by QATAL
9.3.1.4 Summary of the Uses of '( 9.3.2 With Prepositions
9.3.2.1 With
9.3.2.1.1 Occurrences of with + Infinitive Construct 9.3.2.1.1.1 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.2.1.1.2 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL
with Intervening Clauses
9.3.2.1.1.3 Infinitive Construct Followed by QATAL
9.3.2.1.1.4 Summary of Infinitive Constructs Used with
-9.3.2.1.2 Occurrences of with Specific Temporal Reference 9.3.2.1.2.1 Specific Temporal Reference Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.2.1.2.1.1 With ) / " *
9.3.2.1.2.1.2 With " * / " * 9.3.2.1.2.1.3 Infinitive Construct + " 9.3.2.1.2.1.4 With % $+
9.3.2.1.2.1.5 With % * , 9.3.2.1.2.1.6 With $ * $
9.3.2.1.2.1.7 With $ * $ * $ 9.3.2.1.2.1.8 With NUMBER- $+
9.3.2.1.2.1.9 With -* +- + NUMBER
9.3.2.1.2.1.10 With$+ + INFC
9.3.2.1.2.1.11 With "
-9.3.2.1.2.1.12 At a Specific Time 9.3.2.1.2.1.13 With #') _____ 9.3.2.1.2.1.14 With
xi 9.3.2.1.2.2.1 With -* 9.3.2.1.2.2.2 With . $+ $/" 9.3.2.1.2.2.3 With " + INFC
9.3.2.1.2.2.4 With$+ +- + NUMBER
9.3.2.1.2.2.5 With #') +- + NUMBER
9.3.2.1.2.2.6 With Year Formulas Involving a Number 9.3.2.1.2.2.7 With $" +- + NUMBER
9.3.2.1.2.2.8 With 9.3.2.2 With
9.3.2.2.1 With Infinitive Constructs
9.3.2.2.1.1 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.2.2.1.2 Infinitive Construct Followed by WAYYIQTOL
with Intervening Clauses
9.3.2.2.1.3 Infinitive Construct Followed by QATAL
9.3.2.2.1.4 Infinitive Construct Followed by YIQTOL
9.3.2.2.1.5 Summary of Infinitive Constructs Used with
9.3.2.2.2 Occurrences of with Specific Temporal Reference 9.3.2.3 With
9.3.2.3.1 With + Infinitive Construct 9.3.2.3.2 With + Temporal Phrase
9.3.2.3.2.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.2.3.2.2 Followed by QATAL
9.3.2.3.2.3 Followed by WE-X-QATAL
9.3.2.4 With 9.3.2.4.1 With 01
9.3.2.4.1.1 With 01 Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.2.4.1.2 With 01 Followed by QATAL
9.3.2.4.1.3 With 01 Followed by (WE)-X-QATAL
9.3.2.4.1.4 With 01 Followed by WE-X-PTC
9.3.2.4.2 With '23* 9.3.2.4.3 Some time later $ 9.3.2.4.4 “From that day…”
9.3.2.4.5 Event-Referenced Use of
9.3.2.5 Analytical Summary of the Use of with Prepositions
9.3.3 With (
9.3.3.1 With ( as Temporal 9.3.3.2 With ( as Manner 9.3.4 With
9.3.4.1 Occurrences with
xii 9.3.5.1 Followed by WAYYIQTOL
9.3.5.2 Followed by WE-X-QATAL
9.3.6 Occurrences of with Adverbs 9.3.6.1 “While”: #" + QATAL
9.3.6.2 “Meanwhile”: ) #" ) #" 9.3.6.3 “As often as, whenever”: INFC +
9.3.6.4 “Only, just”: 4
9.4 Summary of the Temporal Uses of
Chapter 10 Exploring The Discourse-Pragmatic Uses of
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Pertinent Theoretical Concepts
10.2.1 Macrosyntactic 10.2.2 Discourse Markers
10.2.3 Discourse-Pragmatic Functions
10.3 Evaluating the Verbal Uses of
10.4 Evaluating the Temporal Uses of
10.5 Evaluating the Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of
10.5.1 The Cognitive Dimension
10.5.1.1 Creating Temporal Frames of Reference 10.5.1.2 Episode Initiator?
10.5.1.3 Focus and Foreground
10.6 Pointers for Encounters With in the Text
10.6.1 Is it Verbal or Temporal? 10.6.2 What is its Category of Use?
10.6.3 What is the Possible Discourse-Pragmatic Function? 10.6.4 Summary
10.7 Areas for Future Research
10.7.1 Sentence Syntax 10.7.2 Role of in Narrative 10.7.3 Uses of * *
10.7.4 Temporal Organization of Narrative
xiii
PART IV:
References and Appendices
Works Cited
Appendices
Westminster Grammatical Tags
Residue
xiv
ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration Page
1. Don Quixote figure, riding a horse ...96
xv
TABLES
Table Page
1. Eras of Hebrew Study ...17
2. Identification of ...75
3. Variations of ...75
4. Frequency of Occurrence of and 5 . ...77
5. Occurrences of 6* by book ...78
6. Basic Text-Types ...93
7. TAMP Profile...113
8. Narrative Time ...114
9. Three-Vowel System ...117
10.Five-Vowel System...117
11.Function to Function ...121
12.Form to Form ...122
13. " in the Hebrew Bible ...130
14.Temporal Progression ...130
15.Depiction of Events in Narrative ...132
16.WAYYIQTOL Sequences ...133
17.Format of Data Display...148
18. * ) in Isaiah ...161
19.Adjective Phrase Complement...179
xvi
21.Views of and ...267
22.Temporal Progression ...269
23.Pattern of with ' ...278
24.Coordinate Temporal Expressions...289
25.Temporal Reference Following – ...318
26.Parallel Structure of % ... ...352
27.Object of Transitive Verb ...353
28.Intervening Clauses...375
29.Infinitive Constructs Used with and ...380
30.Temporal Expressions with ...391
31.Clause Nucleus and Margins ...436
32.Verbal or Temporal? ...449
xvii
ABBREVIATIONS
BDB ...Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. 1996. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
BHRG ...van der Merwe, C. H. J., J. A. Naudé, and J. H. Kroeze. 1999. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
GKC ...Gesenius, W. and E. Kautsch. 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Trans. and rev. by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
HALOT ...Koehler, L. and Baumgartner, W. 1995. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill. JPS...JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH. 2000. Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society.
NASB...New American Standard Bible. 1995. Updated ed. Anaheim, CA: Lockman Foundation.
NIV ...New International Version. 1984. International Bible Society. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This is a study of –one of the elements involved in the well-crafted ways in
which the biblical Hebrew text depicts the temporal dimensions of narrative. In The Art
of Biblical Narrative, Alter asks the following insightful questions:
Why at a particular juncture does the narrator break the time-frame of his story to insert a piece of expository information in the pluperfect tense, or to jump forward to the time of his contemporary audience and explain that in those days it was the custom in Israel to perform such and such a practice? Why does he pause to make a summarizing statement about the condition of a character, as, for example, in the observation about Joseph’s already established viceregal status just as the ten brothers arrive in
Egypt? Why at certain points is the regular rapid tempo of narration slowed down to take in details of a kind for which in general no time is allowed? (Alter 1981, 184-85)
Understanding how time is depicted is an important part of reading narrative, as
Fokkelman comments, “The narrator is not obliged to provide indications of narrated
time, but he is quite capable of it. Whenever we hear this kind of information it is always
important” (Fokkelman 1999, 36). It is possible to know that indications of narrated time
are important, but not really know what significance they have in the flow of the text.
For example, what is the function of a shift ahead in time or a reference to a previous
time? Many of the same questions raised by literary or narrative studies are of interest
pursuit of answers to these questions. The goal of this inductive, text-based study is not
to merely derive syntactic formulas or structural representations of the text, but rather to
use linguistic methods to explore the junctures and pauses—such as those referred to by
Alter—to better understand the temporal shape of the text. So, in one sense this study is
about because it is the element in focus, but in another sense is only a small part
of what motivated this research into the temporal organization of text in biblical Hebrew.
The opening chapter of 1 Samuel provides many good examples of the types of
questions explored in this research. One of the first questions that emerges from reading
1 Sam 1:1-3 has to do with the fact that the book starts with . Does this have any
significance for the whole book or is its function restricted to the first clause? Notice also
that occurs again in 1:2. What, if any, significance should be associated with two
occurrences in such close proximity?
$ & ! $ !+/ $ & * * #'* 7
8 ! 9%/ %'5) % : $'* ; * ; %
< & &- $ <' ' $ $ 5 ; =
8$ #& * <' % $ #& * < &!
* $ ; " % * *"* >
? + */ ' )@ ;'(5
8 $ & ( ) '* !% &!'* " $ *
The next questions have to do with the four occurrences of with a non-verbal
item. What is the function of ; %, ; , <' %, and $ * ? How do these items interact
with the temporal organization of the opening of 1 Samuel? Where does the “action” of
What is the relationship between this WEQATAL and the previous two occurrences of
?
8 + * * + % * * * % ;5 < &! * ' @ & $+ A
8B *' C * * <' $ & * ' * 5 & <' % D
In 1 Sam 1:4 another occurs, but this time with $+ . To what day or time
does the expression $+ refer? Immediately following this is the first WAYYIQTOL
' @ & (other than the three ), but this is quickly followed by , raising questions
about how the preceding WAYYIQTOL should be read. The questions continue in 1:5, first
of all with 5 & <' %, which is in some way connected to ; secondly, the temporal
reference of the clause * <' must be determined; and, finally in 1:5, the WE -X-QATAL C * requires interpretation of the temporal nature of the QATAL as well as
the function of the .
The questions could continue clause by clause, but it should be clear from just the
first five verses that there are many issues of temporal organization, the interpretation of
the verbal forms, and the function of that need a principled basis by which to read these
elements in the text.
Advances in textlinguistic studies of biblical Hebrew have led to increased
understanding of the uses and functions of a variety of linguistic elements in the text of
the Hebrew Bible. is one of these elements in biblical Hebrew that has been
considered from a textlinguistic perspective, resulting in the identification of several
possible functions that it performs in the depiction of time in the biblical Hebrew text.
textlinguistic understanding of its functions, recommending that be left
untranslated.1 Other descriptions of discuss its role in the text, but are limited in
scope. The most significant recent study specifically of is van der Merwe’s “The
Elusive Biblical Hebrew Term : A Perspective in Terms of its Syntax, Semantics, and
Pragmatics in 1 Samuel,” but, as its title indicates, the study is limited to 1 Samuel.
The impetus for this study initially came from an even more limited corpus: the
book of Jonah. During a graduate course which focused on the translation of the Hebrew
text of Jonah, the five occurrences of found therein were discussed. It quickly
became apparent that the different occurrences of could not be merely dismissed and
left untranslated and it was clear that the syntactic environment and the pragmatic factors
of each occurrence required careful consideration. Increased curiosity led to looking into
the use of in Genesis, which then motivated the formulation of further questions.
The occurrences of in the Hebrew Bible can easily be found by computer
programs which allow this type of search; in a matter of seconds all the occurrences can
be displayed. In the attempt, however, to discern the parameters which motivate the use
of in the biblical text, this type of data-display is essentially useless since the
occurrences are extracted from the context in which they occur. For the type of analysis
carried out here, it was important that each occurrence of be encountered in its
1 For example, Ross (2001, 139-40) in Introducing Biblical Hebrew states: “In older
context, rather than merely listed in concordance-fashion. Repeated readings of extensive
sections of the Hebrew Bible, carefully taking note of its temporal organization, has
formed the basis of the observations and analysis summarized here.
If the main Hebrew grammars are consulted, two basic approaches to are
found which can be broadly characterized as follows: 1) means “and it came to pass”
and should be left untranslated because it is unnatural and clumsy in English; 2) is a
macrosyntactic marker which “indicates simply that the narrated events occurred in the
past” (Ross 2001, 139-40).
One of the questions that immediately arises is whether these approaches are
adequate or not. Regarding the first approach, there are numerous unnatural and clumsy
peculiarities in biblical Hebrew, as in any language, but this is certainly not sufficient
reason to leave them untranslated. Regarding the second approach, which appears to have
a degree of textlinguistic sensitivity, the question is whether markers that simply indicate
a past tense frame of reference even exist. If they do exist, would this adequately describe
how functions? Also, how can the uneven distribution of be explained? How
can the absence of be explained in contexts which are unambiguously past? If the
function of is to indicate past tense and certain past-tense narratives do not have any
occurrences of , how is its absence explained?
Within both approaches, an important question is whether every occurrence of
should receive the same treatment. Should certain occurrences be ignored as if they
not to resort to a mechanical rendering of every as “and it came to pass”
characteristic of a version like the NASB, but rather to carefully analyze the syntactic and
pragmatic parameters of the use of in the text in order to develop sensitivity to its
varied uses. To merely label as a discourse marker and then merely acknowledge its
presence as an indicator of past tense is to greatly underestimate the benefit that can come
from a thoroughgoing linguistic approach to the text. After the next chapter, which
outlines the current state of research on , the conceptual foundation for this linguistic
approach will be presented.
And finally, in these introductory remarks, it needs to be made clear that this is
not a mere academic exercise. To some, the way is handled in grammars of biblical
Hebrew—or even how it is rendered in translation—may seem inconsequential at best.
As a linguist and translator, however, this is intolerable! When this study was in the early
stages as a mere idea, the implications of how is dealt with in translation seemed
significant; after processing and pondering all the data, awareness of the significance of
8
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
2.1
Introduction
Good scholarship requires that any potentially useful procedure, approach, or
technique be used in the attempt to understand the complexities of the Hebrew text as
well as possible. If certain linguistic models are proving themselves to be beneficial in
the research of other languages, full consideration should be given to the implementation
of these models with their accompanying insights in ongoing research in biblical Hebrew.
Previous eras of scholarship should also be considered, even if the same type of
analytical tools of current research were not employed.
Notice that this is a textual study, which is the reason for the extensive
text-in-context examples. It is recommended that all the examples be read and processed in each
section. This is the best way for the textual examples to make their own case. It is also
recommended that constant reference be made to the biblical Hebrew text from which the
examples are taken. However, if the reader’s time does not permit systematic study of all
2.2
Historical Overview of Descriptive Linguistics
Since the end of the nineteenth century, there have been many significant
developments in the history of Linguistics. These developments have shaped the
conceptual basis for the way language is studied in what is commonly referred to as
Descriptive Linguistics. Since certain aspects of this conceptual basis underlie the present
study, they’ll be briefly discussed here. The study of language obviously did not begin in
the nineteenth century, but this is an adequate time-frame for tracing the most relevant
concepts for this study.
Every era of scientific inquiry is shaped by general intellectual trends and
movements. Eighteenth and early nineteenth century linguistic studies were greatly
influenced by Romanticism: “the history-centred outlook of nineteenth-century linguistic
scientists was related to the general state of science at the time” (Sampson 1980, 14).
This diachronic outlook gave rise to the emphasis on historical reconstruction and a very
developmental, law-governed view of language. This view was also deeply influenced by
Darwinian principles of evolution and natural selection, to the extent that some linguists
“saw the Indo-European language-family as having reached a dominant position
linguistically, as Man has become dominant zoologically” (Sampson 1980, 19). In the
study of language in general, this led to a perception of the superiority of European
languages and the linguistic structures they employ.
With increased exposure to the diversity of the world’s languages, serious
questions arose concerning the validity of the diachronic model. Impetus for this shift
Saussure’s Cours de linguistique générale is representative of the shift from this
diachronic perspective to a focus on synchronic studies. Saussure, commenting on the
priority of synchronic over diachronic analyses, stated that “[t]he first thing that strikes us
when we study the facts of language is that their succession in time does not exist insofar
as the speaker is concerned” (Saussure 1916, 81). Saussure’s interest was in how
language is actually used by speakers at a given period in time.
Linguistics was also heavily impacted by ethnography in the early twentieth
century. In American Linguistics, in particular, the work of researchers such as Edward
Sapir (1921) and Franz Boas (1911) was foundational. In contrast to the diachronic
model which had assumed that all languages were developing toward some ideal
structure, the “characteristic of the school founded by Boas was its relativism. There was
no ideal type of language, to which actual languages approximated more or less closely”
(Sampson 1980, 59). As a result, one of the hallmarks of American Linguistics is the
principle that every language is to be studied and described in its own right.
Another fundamental characteristic of Descriptive Linguistics as it developed
during the twentieth century is its focus on working from the data. As Leonard
Bloomfield stated, “[t]he only useful generalizations about language are inductive
generalizations” (Bloomfield 1933, 20). Within this perspective, linguistic terms are
defined in relation to each other in order to derive the linguistic system from the language
being studied. As Lyons comments:
In the middle of the twentieth century, a theoretical revolution took place that has
had an immense impact on the field of Linguistics. As Robins comments:
What is probably the most radical and important change in direction in descriptive linguistics and in linguistic theory that has taken place in recent years may be located in 1957, when Chomsky’s Syntactic
Structures was published, inaugurating the transformational-generative phase of linguistics…. (Robins 1968, 226)
Under the influence of Chomsky’s publications and teaching, the
transformational-generative school developed in directions not shared by others in the
field of descriptive linguistics. One of the basic conceptual distinctions in Chomsky’s
view is between competence and performance. In essence, this distinction represents the
two main schools that developed. Chomsky’s transformational-generative school focused
on competence, i.e., the more abstract, mental conception of language, whereas those not
involved in transformational-generative approaches typically focused more on
performance, i.e., actual speech.
Additionally, it was characteristic of Chomsky’s school to emphasize grammar at
the level of the sentence, seen in the phrase structure rules and transformations. The
sentence is certainly a valid level of linguistic analysis, but it has typically been out of the
approaches whose focus has been on actual speech and data that the more functional,
language-in-use models of discourse analysis have developed. In fact, Brown and Yule’s
brief definition of discourse analysis is simply that it is the study of “language in use”
(Brown and Yule 1983, 1), highlighting the communicative functions of language.
In contrast to what was happening in the Chomskyan school, the field research of
that were descriptive in the sense of being inductive and focused on data obtained in
actual language-use situations (Pike 1967; Grimes 1974; Longacre 1996). Their models
and theoretical concepts were also developed with a fundamental awareness of the
context-sensitive nature of language. Pike’s Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of
the Structure of Human Behavior in particular emphasizes the interrelated nature of
language and human behavior in general in the model known as Tagmemics.
In the shadow of Chomsky’s influence, there was significant conceptual
development in other schools of Linguistics that was laying an important theoretical
foundation for later models of language use. The work of Pike, Grimes, and Longacre
may not be the primary theoretical predecessor to later models, but their work is
representative of certain conceptual trends that would later converge with broader
currents of discourse analysis carried out within a functional approach to language.
One of the common denominators in the work of Pike, Grimes, and Longacre is
that their theoretical approaches were developed as they themselves were directly
involved in the study and analysis of a wide variety of non-Indoeuropean languages.
Their models were developed with a vivid awareness of language use in context. Also,
during the mid- to late-twentieth century, there was an increasing awareness in general
Linguistics of the social dimension of Language. Labov’s Sociolinguistic Patterns (1972)
and Hymes’ Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach (1974) are two
of the seminal publications in the field of Sociolinguistics, which is now one of the main
sub-fields within general Linguistics, with its particular concerns, methods and
linguistic study have developed a greater sensitivity to the many dimensions of language
use.
Schools of Linguistics which are functional in approach are also the result of
increased attention to how language is used. Halliday (1973), Foley and Van Valin
(1984), and Givón (2001) are some of the main theoreticians in Functional Linguistics.
There are, of course, many nuances in the individual approaches, but the
theme unifying the various functional approaches is the belief that language must be studied in relation to its role in human communication. Language is thus viewed as a system of human communication, rather than as an infinite set of structural descriptions of sentences. (Foley and Van Valin 1984, 7)
Not only has the field of Linguistics been impacted by functional, language-use
models, but there has also been significant development of cognitive approaches. As
mentioned above, the important distinction between performance and competence gave
rise to approaches and schools which focused respectively on language use and the
mental aspects of language. It is not surprising, then, that in addition to the development
of functional approaches which tend to focus on performance and language use, a variety
of cognitive approaches have developed which are more directly concerned with matters
of competence defined as the human capacity to use and interpret language. Sperber and
Wilson (1995), Lambrecht (1994), Fauconnier (1985), Lakoff and Johnson (1980), and
Jackendoff (1994) are principal scholars promoting cognitive models of linguistic study.
In summary, the attempt to adequately account for the human linguistic capacity
This brief sketch has highlighted only the most rudimentary concepts which underlie the
analysis implemented in the present study:
1) Descriptive, with a conceptual basis shaped by Tagmemics
2) Functional in its commitment to the study of language use in context; and
3) Cognitive in its attention to the interpretive processes involved in
understanding communication.
2.3
Historical Overview of the Study of Biblical Hebrew
The approach one has to the study of language in general will directly impact
analysis of a language like biblical Hebrew and, consequently, the basic framework
employed for the analysis of biblical Hebrew will directly impact the description of .
This may seem patently obvious, but it is crucial to recognize two guiding principles that
are derived from the preceding statement: 1) the basic theoretical linguistic mindset of an
era of scholarship shapes the analysis and description of language carried out during that
era, and 2) the analysis from a particular era of scholarship cannot be expected to reflect
the theoretical linguistic mindset of a later era of scholarship. This does not mean that
the mere publication of a new analytical concept immediately shapes all research in the
field, but characteristic contours and transition points are recognizable as one reviews the
development of linguistic methodology. Certain “paradigm shifts” in the Kuhnian sense
(Kuhn 1996) are also seen; for example, the rise of the Descriptive Linguistic approach in
American Linguistics and the more recent shift toward models of language use in
response to the theoretical restrictions imposed by Chomskyan sentence grammar. The
modern Linguistics, but the analytical trends and approaches eventually find their way
into the methodologies employed by biblical Hebrew scholars. Also, it is common for
vestiges of previous eras to be found in the research of a later era, especially in the period
of time prior to the more complete “paradigm shift.”
It is important to recognize that the early publications on biblical Hebrew
represent an early formative period of grammatical studies. This does not invalidate the
insights found in these publications, but rather is a reminder that the awareness of explicit
grammatical elements of biblical Hebrew has a long history. Khan, in his contribution to
the volume Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda, makes the following pertinent
comment:
It can be said … that grammatical elements are found in the early
masoretic tradition, which may go back as far as the Talmudic period. It is important to notice, however, that the existence of these elements of grammatical thought should not lead us to define the general activity of the Masoretes of this period as ‘grammar’. The main purpose of their work was still to preserve the text of Scripture rather than investigate the rules of the language of Scripture. The use of grammatical categories was ancillary to this purpose. (Khan 1999, 193)
Just as one can trace linguistic concepts like word classes back to the writings of
Aristotle, there is a long history of reflection on Hebrew. What one finds in later periods,
however, is a more conscious implementation of specific methods of analysis and
inquiry. Waltke and O’Connor’s helpful chapter on the History of the Study of Hebrew
Grammar, discusses two periods of Hebrew study during which there was an
ever-increasing development of the grammatical analysis of Hebrew:
2) Christian Hebrew Studies (16th to mid-18th centuries) (Waltke and O’Connor
1990, 31-43)
The period of Medieval Jewish Studies has been referred to as “the creative
period” during which many issues of Hebrew morphology and grammar were debated
and refined. Scholars from this period typically drew upon knowledge of Arabic to help
describe areas of Hebrew grammar (Tene 1971, 1358).
The ad fontes drive of the Enlightenment gave rise to a new interest in the
classical languages, resulting in increased interest among humanists in the study of
Hebrew. Reuchlin is representative of this era, whose 1506 publication, Rudimenta
linguae hebraicae (1506), is representative of the shift, not only from Jewish to Christian
scholars, but also from Arabic to Latin as the language by which Hebrew was evaluated.
Reuchlin’s work, as well as the work of subsequent scholars, sets the stage for the
publication of the traditional grammars of biblical Hebrew, of which reprinted and
re-edited versions are still in use today. It is no accident that the study of biblical Hebrew in
the 18th and 19th centuries is characterized by the same kind of diachronic, developmental
conceptions that were typical of the study of language in general. As intellectual trends
shifted, so also did the conceptual basis for the study of Hebrew.
Subsequent to the periods discussed by Waltke and O’Connor, the more recent
Traditional Descriptive Textlinguistic1 Blau Davidson GKC Joüon-Muraoka Kimhi Weingreen Andersen Garrett Kelley Lambdin
Pratico and Van Pelt Ross
Seow
Waltke and O’Connor
Buth Long Longacre Putnam Richter Schneider Talstra
van der Merwe
Figure 1: Eras of Hebrew Study
The basic characteristics of these three models are as follows:2
1. Traditional: this approach is characterized by a diachronic model of
description and classification that evaluates the language under consideration
on the basis of some other language such as Latin.
2. Descriptive: this is a model in which the primary concern is the synchronic
description of the language under consideration on the basis of its own
grammatical system, without the typical evaluative framework common in the
Traditional approach.
3. Textlinguistic: the primary concept in this model is the focus on how
language is used in its various communicative contexts.
1 These refer to the authors of published grammars and monographs, which are
representative of the field in general. Other important monographs are not included in this list because they do not deal with areas of analysis pertinent to the current study of .
2 One approach to Hebrew studies that is not explicitly mentioned here is the
The boundaries between these models are fuzzy in the sense that there is a
continuity and overlap of research that links them to each other. The shift from the
Traditional model to the Descriptive did not discard all previous research and start over;
in similar fashion, the Textlinguistic model does not ignore previous analysis, but rather
grows out of it. But the very nature of scientific revolutions is such that a shift in
paradigm implies that certain elements and perspectives from previous eras will not
necessarily be carried over. One of the motivations for paradigm shifts is an increasing
dissatisfaction with the prevailing model of research, which eventually leads to a major
shift.
The current state of affairs in the study of biblical Hebrew finds most scholars
employing the Descriptive approach, with strong conceptual connections to the
Traditional era. There are a number of scholars who employ textlinguistic insights or
terminology, but the core conceptual framework of their research is still within the
Descriptive model. An increasing number of scholars work within the Textlinguistic
approach, but a complete paradigm shift has not yet happened for the field of biblical
Hebrew studies in general.
It is time, however, to declare an end to the period of “infancy” referred to by
Waltke and O’Connor (1990, 55). The flood of recent publications is indicative of the
19
CHAPTER 3
SURVEY OF SCHOLARSHIP ON
3.1
Introduction
has certainly not gone unnoticed in the history of research on biblical
Hebrew. The purpose of the following sections is to review and provide a summary of
the various descriptions of in these grammars and monographs. These grammars
and monographs are not studies of , but their descriptions of are representative of
the main ways in which has been analyzed. The three categories: Traditional,
Descriptive, and Textlinguistic discussed in the previous chapter are the main divisions
here. The approach one takes to Hebrew in general—and to the verbal system in
particular—will affect how is described. The focus of the discussion here is the way
is presented in the publications considered, with some critical analysis when it is
relevant.
To review an assortment of introductory grammars, scrutinizing how they deal
with , could be perceived as somewhat unfair. Some might correctly argue that an
introductory grammar cannot be expected to thoroughly describe every aspect of the
agonizing process of selection, as the author seeks to explain the most pertinent
information in an efficient and pedagogically intuitive way. If the discussion of
something like does not receive extensive attention in an introductory grammar, that
is to be understood. It is not, however, the presence or absence or even the length or
brevity of comments regarding that are of interest here; the intention here is to
review the comments to discern the analytical perspective employed by the author(s). All
of this is done with the singular intent of working toward a better understanding of .
Any omissions and/or misrepresentations are the responsibility of the author of this study.
3.2
The Analysis of
in the Traditional Approach
3.2.1
Gesenius,
Hebrew Grammar
, 1813
The traditional understanding of is well represented by Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, in which he states that the
…introduction of independent narratives, or of a new section of the narrative, by means of an imperfect consecutive, likewise aims at a connexion, though again loose and external, with that which has been narrated previously. Such a connexion is especially often established by means of ( ) and it came to pass…. (GKC 1910, 327)
While this analysis recognizes the temporal and narrative function of and its
connection to the surrounding context, the descriptive parameters are not well defined.
This is exemplified in the following statement: “This loose connexion by means of is
especially common, when the narrative or a new section of it begins with any expression
narratives beginning with “any expression of time” are not specific enough to provide a
clear picture of what is doing.
3.2.2
Müller,
Outlines of Hebrew Syntax
, 1883
In Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, Müller describes as follows:
But very often, especially when a phrase specifying time occurs in the narrative, in order to preserve the favourite form of diction, there is prefixed to the phrase in question a “And it came to pass”, and the rest is then added on to this according as the connection requires. (Müller 1883, 17)
Müller’s description of is characteristic of the traditional era, with its
reference to as a “favourite form of diction.” This is typical of what Barr refers to in
The Semantics of Biblical Language as the “impression of Hebrew being quite
extraordinarily unique in its structure” (Barr 1983, 291). Müller’s analysis of being
merely prefixed to the phrase in question is very similar to GKC’s “loose connection.”
3.2.3
Harper,
Elements of Hebrew Syntax
, 1892
Harper’s Elements of Hebrew Syntax is also characteristic of the description of
in this period:
Notice is to be taken of the frequent occurrence of the preparatory formula
and it happened, and it was, to introduce adverbial and especially temporal clauses. This usage, while not universal, prevails largely in the earlier books. The following verb may be either Imperfect with Waw Consecutive, a Perfect, or, when the context demands, an Imperfect. (Harper 1892, 73)
Three things in particular are noteworthy: 1) the reference to as a
“preparatory formula” appears to indicate an understanding of as somewhat
usage of in the earlier books indicates an awareness of possible diachronic factors in
its pattern of usage; and 3) the remarks about the form of the following verb mention the
context around , but there is no further delineation of the parameters of usage for
these verb forms. The syntactic connection of , certain diachronic considerations,
and verb form patterns with are all issues that are discussed in greater detail in
subsequent chapters.
3.2.4
Weingreen,
A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew
, 1939
Weingreen, in apparent disagreement with GKC, reduces the force of to little
more than an unusual connection. GKC stated that established a connection “with
that which has been narrated previously,” but Weingreen describes as follows:
Often a verse or even a chapter opens with a verb which has the Waw Consecutive, as ‘and it came to pass’; this, rather than implying a continuation with what has preceded, has little more force than ‘now it happened’. In the same way * = ‘and it shall come to pass’.
(Weingreen 1939, 92)
It is certainly the case that is found, as Weingreen states, opening “a verse or
even a chapter,” but it is unclear why Weingreen dismisses the connection with what has
preceded. This matter of ’s connection to what precedes it or to what follows it is a
recurring theme throughout the history of its study.
3.2.5
Joüon-Muraoka,
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew
, 1991
The 1991 publication date of Muraoka’s translation and revision of Joüon’s 1923
Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique is somewhat misleading if it is assumed that a late
contemporary with that time period. Close reading of Joüon-Muraoka reveals many
characteristics that place it within the Traditional approach. The retention of Latin
translations in the following discussion of is telling:
Stative verbs present no particular difficulty; thus , used in the stative sense, is equivalent to and means et erat (“it was”), et fuit (“it has been”). Used in the active sense, it is equivalent to of action and usually means et ev nit (“it happened”), et factum est (“it came to pass”); sometimes, by misuse, both eveniebat (“it would happen”) and fiebat (“it would come to pass”). (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 390)
The clearest indication of the perspective employed by Joüon and retained by
Muraoka is the evaluative term “misuse,” which betrays a more prescriptive view typical
of the Traditional era rather than a fully descriptive view of Hebrew as a language on its
own terms.
In the discussion of the uses of the WAYYIQTOL form, Joüon-Muraoka states that it
is sometimes used “with the force of the French imparfait, i.e. frequentative action in the
past,” but this “use is irregular and improper” (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 393). With specific
reference to , Joüon-Muraoka states that this “improper use is mainly found with
” (Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 394). The correct form according to Joüon-Muraoka, for
example in Num 10:35 and 2 Sam 15:2, would be * . These examples will be
discussed later; the point here is that Joüon-Muraoka’s description of as an
introductory formula is within a traditional evaluative framework.
3.2.6
Analytical Summary of the Traditional Approach
One of the main concepts typical of the publications reviewed here is the
more recent approaches are already found in these publications, but consistent with the
general approach to language in that time period, the main concern is with presenting
representative cases or examples of the grammatical categories in use. Also typical of
these publications is the evaluation of as sometimes improper or as an example of
misuse.
3.3
The Analysis of
in the Descriptive Approach
3.3.1
Lambdin,
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
, 1971
In his Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, Lambdin discusses , stating that
…within a narrative sequence temporal modifiers are very frequently placed before the clause they modify and are introduced by waw-conversive + a form of the verb *. In the past tense narrative this is uniformly wayhî… (Lambdin 1971, 123)
Lambdin’s analysis shares much in common with Gesenius, but reflects a more
Descriptive approach. Lambdin lists a variety of syntactic environments in which
occurs, but the description pays minimal attention to the functions associated with the
various constructions.
In Lambdin’s section entitled “Concluding Remarks on Clause Sequences,” there
is another comment regarding which indicates an awareness of the need to explore
how is connected with the adjacent clauses. Lambdin states: “If a narrative sequence
begins with a clause containing the verb (or ), the real nature of the sequence is
not clear until we reach a continuing verb” (Lambdin 1971, 279). Awareness of clause
examples start with *, which is not attested anywhere in biblical Hebrew. Lambdin’s
concern in these examples, however, is not in explicating the function of ; his
concern is with the form of the verb that follows. For Lambdin, the mere presence of the
verb * seems to be of more consequence, stating that “the verb * in a leading clause
requires special consideration” (Lambdin 1971, 279). Unfortunately, even though
Lambdin demonstrates an awareness of certain syntactic parameters, understanding of
as a temporal modifier is not significantly advanced by Lambdin’s analysis.
3.3.2
Andersen,
The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew
, 1974
Andersen’s seminal work, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, is one of the first
studies to employ analytical techniques that are unquestionably motivated by the
principles and concerns of Descriptive Linguistics. The title of Andersen’s study is
somewhat misleading since his analysis is not at all limited to the sentence as a
self-contained unit. The frequent references to clause sequences, paragraphs, rhetorical
effects, episode transitions, as well as the section (3.4.2) entitled Discourse Function of
Epic Apposition, show the range of issues of concern to Andersen. These concerns are
detected in the following statement about :
In Hebrew, transition to a new episode in a story is characteristically marked by way h , and it came to pass, followed frequently by an episode-marginal time reference that secures a time connection between successive episodes. (Andersen 1974, 63)
The use of the word episode indicates that Andersen is looking beyond individual
mentioning that there are other options for initiating story-level episodes, nothing more is
discussed to more precisely define the use and function of .
3.3.3
Waltke and O’Connor,
An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax
, 1990
In Waltke and O’Connor’s An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, the
treatment of is, for all practical purposes, swallowed up by the discussion of the
chapter on Waw + Prefix Conjugation. Very little separate analysis is given to itself,
beyond quoting the above-cited material from Lambdin and mentioning that
“introduces the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Ezekiel, Ruth, Esther, and
Nehemiah” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 554). No further explanation is given.
In the introduction, the authors mention the studies of Schneider, Richter, and
Talstra which identify as a “macro-syntactic sign” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 54),
but they state that all “these signs are treated in the present grammar in a more traditional
framework” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990, 55). Their decision to keep the analysis within
a Descriptive framework, did not allow their description of biblical Hebrew to benefit
from the work of other scholars analyzing from a macro-syntactic or Textlinguistic
perspective.
3.3.4
Kelley,
Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar
, 1992
Kelley’s Biblical Hebrew: An Introductory Grammar contains very limited
reference to . The following comment comes in the section which discusses
The narrative use of imperfects with vav consecutive became so commonplace that they were often used in this sense even without a preceding governing perfect, especially with the imperfect forms of the verb , “he was.” (Kelley 1992, 210-11)
This comment reveals a perspective which is much more far-reaching than the
analysis of . The implications of this comment are that the occurrence of a linguistic
entity such as has little or no functional motivation. By some type of developmental
process, the frequency of the WAYYIQTOL form is apparently so overpowering that certain
verbs begin to be used in new ways. This analysis is based on the assumption that the
proper pattern is that the WAYYIQTOL follows a “preceding governing perfect” and
indicates either consequence or sequence. This is characteristic of the waw consecutive
view which must explain why a WAYYIQTOL, which by definition is sequential, is found
without a governing perfect. The use of is only marginally in focus here, since
Kelley’s concerns are more related to issues of governing sequences. Understanding of
is advanced very little by Kelley’s grammar.
3.3.5
Seow,
A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew
, 1995
Seow’s comment about in A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew uses terms like
“discourse” and “context,” but the use of such terms does not make Seow’s analysis
textlinguistic; it remains essentially descriptive despite the use of this terminology. Seow
states:
In a discourse, context may be provided in a number of ways. A past event is typically introduced by , literally, “and it was/came to pass.” Future events are introduced by * , literally, “and it shall be.” Further
some event introduced by ( (even as) or (when) or the like. (Seow 1995, 231)
One of the ways that this comment differs from the other Descriptive analyses
presented up to this point is its statement that typically introduces a past event. This
may reflect awareness of some of the early textlinguistic studies, such as the 1982 study
of * by Bartelmus (see 3.4.4 below) in which he discusses the function of as an
indication of past tense narrative. The specific ways in which is used, however, are
not addressed in any more detail beyond the citation above.
3.3.6
Chisholm,
From Exegesis to Exposition
, 1998
From Exegesis to Exposition is the title of Chisholm’s guide to using biblical
Hebrew. This is technically not a grammar, but since its goal is practical instruction in
using Hebrew in exegesis, its comments regarding are important to take into
consideration. Chisholm states that “[t]he wayyiqtol form , ‘and it so happened,’
often followed by a temporal clause, is frequently used to begin a new narrative or scene”
(Chisholm 1998, 120). Andersen’s Sentence discusses the use of at the beginning of
an episode; Chisholm here refers to being used to begin a new narrative or scene.
These are very similar claims and, at first glance, seem to help better define what is
doing. The problem, though, is that episodes, new narratives, and scenes can be found
that do not begin with . This indicates the need for greater precision in claims
regarding the function(s) of . These claims also show the way in which terms like
episode and scene are used without clear definitions. What exactly is an episode? What
Chisholm makes one further comment about the use of to introduce a
parenthetical note:
Occasionally a wayyiqtol form, especially , introduces a parenthetical note in the narrative. For example, 1 Kings 18:3 states that Ahab
summoned his palace administrator Obadiah. Verse 5 then records Ahab’s orders to Obadiah. But in between the narrator places a parenthetical note about Obadiah’s loyalty to the Lord (v. 4). This parenthesis is introduced by . For another example see 1 Chronicles 11:6, which inserts
parenthetical information about Joab’s role in the conquest of Jerusalem. (Chisholm 1998, 122-23)
This comment is indicative of the broad range of functions that are attributed to
in the literature. This is not the place for detailed discussion of this comment, but it
seems confusing to claim that can have what appear to be quite contradictory
functions. How can both begin a new narrative as well as introduce a parenthetical
note? These functions are discussed in Chapter 10, The Discourse-Pragmatic Uses of
.
3.3.7
Schertz and Yoder,
Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of
Greek and Hebrew
, 2001
Schertz and Yoder’s Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew
is similar to Chisholm’s volume in both its purpose and perspective. The authors remark
regarding , that the “pattern of followed by a subordinate clause is a very
frequent boundary marker in Hebrew narrative” (Schertz and Yoder 2001, 77). The
question that immediately arises is what type of boundary is marked in this way?
Schertz and Yoder also describe as an “example of a transition construction that
76). What is unclear from this description—as well as from the preceding discussion—is
whether is signaling the end of what precedes it, signaling the transition to what
follows, or both. Once again, without more precisely defining the textual regions in
which operates, the function of will continue to elude readers and analysts.
3.3.8
Ross,
Introducing Biblical Hebrew
, 2001
Introducing Biblical Hebrew by Ross is another in the series of recently published
introductory grammars. Regarding , Ross states that
[t]emporal clauses are frequently introduced by a form of the verb to be ( *) + consecutive. Other temporal indicators like prepositions often accompany this construction, and in the final analysis * need not be translated. (Ross 2001, 139)
Two noteworthy aspects of Ross’s statement require comment here. First of all, it
is true that other temporal indicators often accompany , but the specific reference to
prepositions is curious. The example Ross uses in this section has ) in the
morning, so presumably this is a reference to prepositions used with temporal
expressions. Secondly, Ross states that * need not be translated. This
recommendation is apparently in the interest of good English style, but needs closer
examination. There may indeed be contexts in which it is best to not retain close lexical
equivalence for , but this type of statement needs to be qualified. The implications
and ramifications of a statement like this need to be carefully evaluated. This will be
discussed later in Chapter 10.
Ross also discusses the occurrence of with infinitive constructs. As seen in
Infinitive construct does not express time by itself. The time must be determined from context. One way that the time of the clause is expressed is with forms of * + consecutive: indicating past time, and
* future time. (Ross 2001, 163)
In contrast to some previous grammars, Ross makes no mention in these
comments about ’s connection to the preceding or following narrative. Of primary
concern to Ross, it appears, is the function as temporal indicator. This actually goes hand
in hand with the recommendation to leave these forms of * untranslated. If and
* are doing nothing more than indicating past and future time respectively, why
should they be translated? It is interesting to notice that in the current analytical milieu
which tends to favor analysis of the Hebrew verbal system in terms of aspectual
distinctions rather than tense, that the mere and * forms of * are so
unambiguously assigned the function of indicating tense. It is true that infinitive
constructs do not indicate tense on their own, but is indicating tense really the function
that and * perform when they occur with infinitive constructs? Further
discussion of this question is found in Chapter 10.
3.3.9
Pratico and Van Pelt,
Basics of Biblical Hebrew
, 2001
Pratico and Van Pelt’s Basics of Biblical Hebrew is the last grammar to be
considered in this section on descriptive approaches. The authors discuss as follows:
Instead of a Perfect verbal form, the past tense narrative sequence may also begin with the temporal modifier followed by Imperfect verbs with Waw Conversive. The form is the Qal Imperfect 3ms form of
The specific function attributed to is again that of temporal modifier,
indicating past tense. It is evident in this comment that Pratico and Van Pelt are also
concerned with what follows as seen in their remarks regarding narrative sequence.
The frequent use of with temporal clauses is also discussed in this grammar:
The form may also appear at the beginning of a temporal clause within the sequence. When beginning a temporal clause, is frequently followed by a preposition or conjunction like or ( and the whole construction may be translated as “and when.” Words that designate time are commonly a part of this type of construction. (Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 196)
As temporal modifiers, in Pratico and Van Pelt’s view, and * are best left
untranslated, as seen in the following comment:
Because of their frequency in certain contexts, the temporal modifiers and are best not translated in most occurrences, though you can still translate the conjunction as “and.” Some will suggest, however, that be translated “and it came to pass that” and that be translated “and it will be that.” Given the frequency with which these temporal modifiers will sometimes appear in a narrative sequence, however, it is often best to avoid these translations in the interest of good English style. (Pratico and Van Pelt 2001, 202)
In the interest of good English style, few would argue for always retaining the
“and it came to pass that” and the “and it will be that” renderings mentioned here.1
However, should good English style be the determining factor in translation decisions
like this? According to Pratico and Van Pelt, and * are best not translated
because of their “frequency in certain contexts.” Should the frequency of an item like this
play a decisive role in translation practice? The intention here is not to argue for the “and
1 The
