Syntax of verbal sequences in Biblical Hebrew

December 1, 2017

THE USE OF TENSES IN CLASSICAL BIBLICAL HEBREW
1. A VEXED QUESTION

Verbal syntax is undoubtedly a major issue in the study of the grammar of Biblical Hebrew (BH). This aspect of BH has long been considered an enigma and, as a result, many potential explanations have been proposed. In recent years, new and more sophisticated theories based on modern linguistic models have also been elaborated (for detailed presentations, see McFall 1982; Cook 2012: 77–175, 273–75).

After briefly presenting the most important approaches to this issue (§ 1.2), I will put forward my own theory (§ 2). I will then present supporting data, first regarding past/anterior sequences (§ 3) and then for non-past/non-anterior sequences (§ 4). In the corollaries, I will briefly examine the imperative (§ 5.1) and phasal aspects (§ 5.2), then describe the doubling of sequences (§ 5.3). I will subsequently discuss the usage of this same syntax across the different literary genres (§ 6.1), the necessity of other kinds of analysis (§ 6.2) and the problem of diachrony (§ 6.3). I will conclude with a few final considerations (§ 7).

DIFFERENT APPROACHES

In scholarly research there have been at least seven approaches to the verbal system:

The traditional view held that qatal indicates a past tense and yiqtol a future tense. A prefixed waw has the power to “convert,” so to speak, these two tenses. Japhet ha-Levi (10th century C.E.) called this prefix “waw of future,” העתידי וו. Dunash ben Labrat (also from the 10th century) referred to it as “waw oblique,” עוטפת וו. David Kimchi (12th century) called it “waw of service,” השרות וו; and Elias Levita (15th century) termed it “waw conversive” הפוך וו (McFall 1982: 3, 8, 10, 176). Modern theories have tried to offer more nuanced definitions in order to open the way to new approaches, coining expres- sions such as “waw inductive” (Gell 1821: 76), “waw consec-

* I would like to thank Prof. Steven E. Fassberg for his helpful comments on an earlier version of this study, as well as Elena Hogan for helping me refine the English of this paper.

2 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

utive” (Böttcher 1868: 192–93; Ewald 1891: 244; Driver 1892: 71; GKC § 49), “waw relative” (Hitzig 1833: 27)—a definition recently revised by Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 477)—, or “waw inversive” (Joüon and Muraoka § 117).

Following the aspectual approach, qatal and yiqtol are not seen as tenses, but as aspects: perfect and imperfect, i.e., “finished” vs. “incomplete” (Ewald 1891: 3) or “completed” vs. “incipient” (Driver 1892: 1–6); “constative” vs. “cursive” (Brockelmann 1956: 39–45); “perfective” vs. “non-perfective” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 474–78).
According to the historical-comparative approach, the several meanings of qatal and yiqtol can be explained as evolu- tions of different older verbal forms. Bauer distinguished between nominal (from a West Semitic qatálta) that expresses past tense, and waw-nominal (from a Proto Semitic qataltá) that expresses future; as well as between a long yiqtol (from *yaqtulu), which expresses present-future, a short yiqtol (from *yaqtul) that expresses jussive mood, an “Affekt” yiqtol (from *yaqtula), ex- pressing intention, and a waw-yiqtol (from *yaqtul), which has kept the original protosemitic preterite meaning. In other words, both in the case of weqatal as well as in the case of way- yiqtol, the waw does not change the value of the verb; on the contrary, this value is retained (Bauer and Leander 1922: 273– 76). Some authors affirm that the yiqtol with a preterite meaning can be found even without waw (Held 1962: 282). This histor- ical-comparative approach can also be combined with the above-outlined aspectual approach (Meyer 1972: 39–57). In the past few years, most scholars have accepted the distinction between short yiqtol (*yaqtul) and long yiqtol (*yaqtulu; see espe- cially Rainey 2003).
The sequential approach: In this approach, the tense value of a verbal form is not absolute but is determined by the nature of the preceding expression, and it agrees in meaning with the introductory dominant verb. There are four kinds of sequences introduced by “past,” “future,” “present” and “imperative” (Gell 1821: 8–12; Lambdin 1971: 107–9, 118–19, 162–65, 279–82; Jenni 1981: 106–7 and for weqatal also Driver 1892: 118, 125–29, 143–46). A combination of this approach with the aspectual approach is offered by Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 525, 554).
The modal approach: According to Joosten (2012: 25–27) qatal expresses realis and represents an action that has taken place before the reference time; wayyiqtol expresses realis and denotes events contemporaneous with a point of reference anterior to the enunciation; the participle expresses contemporaneity with the enunciation; finally, yiqtol and weqatal are two nonindicative forms that express irrealis (future-modal). According to Ḥatav (1997: 29), on the grounds of a discourse-representation-structure analysis, it is necessary to combine sequentiality (wayyiqtol and wqatal) with modality (wqatal and yiqtol), progression (qotel) and perfect (qatal).
The discourse-pragmatic approach asserts that ver- bal forms do not express fixed times or aspects but possess

2 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

2) Following the aspectual approach, qatal and yiqtol are not seen as tenses, but as aspects: perfect and imperfect, i.e., “finished” vs. “incomplete” (Ewald 1891: 3) or “completed” vs. “incipient” (Driver 1892: 1–6); “constative” vs. “cursive” (Brockelmann 1956: 39–45); “perfective” vs. “non-perfective” (Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 474–78).

3) According to the historical-comparative approach, the several meanings of qatal and yiqtol can be explained as evolu- tions of different older verbal forms. Bauer distinguished between nominal (from a West Semitic qatálta) that expresses past tense, and waw-nominal (from a Proto Semitic qataltá) that expresses future; as well as between a long yiqtol (from *yaqtulu), which expresses present-future, a short yiqtol (from *yaqtul) that expresses jussive mood, an “Affekt” yiqtol (from *yaqtula), ex- pressing intention, and a waw-yiqtol (from *yaqtul), which has kept the original protosemitic preterite meaning. In other words, both in the case of weqatal as well as in the case of way- yiqtol, the waw does not change the value of the verb; on the contrary, this value is retained (Bauer and Leander 1922: 273– 76). Some authors affirm that the yiqtol with a preterite meaning can be found even without waw (Held 1962: 282). This histor- ical-comparative approach can also be combined with the above-outlined aspectual approach (Meyer 1972: 39–57). In the past few years, most scholars have accepted the distinction between short yiqtol (*yaqtul) and long yiqtol (*yaqtulu; see espe- cially Rainey 2003).

4) The sequential approach: In this approach, the tense value of a verbal form is not absolute but is determined by the nature of the preceding expression, and it agrees in meaning with the introductory dominant verb. There are four kinds of sequences introduced by “past,” “future,” “present” and “imperative” (Gell 1821: 8–12; Lambdin 1971: 107–9, 118–19, 162–65, 279–82; Jenni 1981: 106–7 and for weqatal also Driver 1892: 118, 125–29, 143–46). A combination of this approach with the aspectual approach is offered by Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 525, 554).

5) The modal approach: According to Joosten (2012: 25–27) qatal expresses realis and represents an action that has taken place before the reference time; wayyiqtol expresses realis and denotes events contemporaneous with a point of reference anterior to the enunciation; the participle expresses contemporaneity with the enunciation; finally, yiqtol and weqatal are two nonindicative forms that express irrealis (future-modal). According to Ḥatav (1997: 29), on the grounds of a discourse-representation-structure analysis, it is necessary to combine sequentiality (wayyiqtol and wqatal) with modality (wqatal and yiqtol), progression (qotel) and perfect (qatal).

6) The discourse-pragmatic approach asserts that ver- bal forms do not express fixed times or aspects but possess

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 3

functions according to the context (narrative or direct speech), the level of communication (foreground or back- ground) and the axis of time (past, present, future). In par- ticular, Niccacci (1991: 15–29; 2006) distinguishes the fol- lowing verbal forms and grammatical constructions: qatal, x- qatal, weqatal, indicative yiqtol, jussive yiqtol, x-yiqtol, weyiqtol, narrative wayyiqtol, continuative wayyiqtol, imperative, x- imperative, non-verbal sentence. In narrative contexts, the form in the foreground is the narrative wayyitol, while in direct speech—in order to express future—the foreground forms are yiqtol and weqatal.

7) The grammaticalization approach views the verbal forms not as fixed elements, but as “grams,” i.e., verbal grammatical constructions that reflect any portion of the prototypical grammaticalization path. Grams acquire and combine values that belong to several semantic domains such as taxis, aspect, tense and mood. For Cook, qatal and wayyiqtol are products of the resultative path: qatal in BH is categorized as perfect-perfective aspect (irrealis qatal and weqatal also derive from qatal), wayyiqtol is categorized as a past tense (in narrative), yiqtol is the product of the progres- sive path and is categorized in BH as an imperfective-irrealis aspect (Cook 2012: 249, 268–71). According to Andrason, qatal, yiqtol, weqatal and wayyiqtol are four different grams: BH yiqtol derives from a split functional movement (i.e., as the imperfective and modal ability paths, which jointly derive from a single lexically transparent and cognitively plausible input), a reduplicated participle as reconstructed for the Proto-Semitic *yaqattal (Andrason 2010). Wayyiqtol (from

*yaqtul) represents a resultative diachrony at an advanced moment of its development; its consecutive force depends on the incorporation of a coordinative-consecutive lexeme (*wa < *pa; Andrason 2011a: 44–46). Weqatal as well as qatal historically derive from the same construction (the Proto- Semitic verbal resultative adjective *qatal). The two formations, however, underwent distinct developments corresponding to different functional paths and therefore must be treated as two distinct phenomena (Andrason 2011b: 46). Weqatal represents a modal contamination which a Proto-Northwest Semitic consecutive and contingent input periphrasis (composed of the contingent coordinative-consecutive lexeme *wa and a resulting verbal adjective *qatal[a]) originally experienced in conditional apodoses (Andrason 2011c).

Finally, it can be observed that it is not possible to make a clear distinction between the different approaches. In particular, while scholars who proposed the sequential approach did not completely reject the traditional view that the waw has some “power,” even those scholars who defend the last three approaches admit the existence of some intro- ductory verbal categories or continuative forms, as in the sequential approach (see for instance Joosten 2012: 44–45; Cook 2012: 294).

4 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

A NEW APPROACH

What I propose in this article is a partially new approach: I will offer a simple descriptive model of the BH verbal system and I will try to prove that in one phase of BH the prominent func- tions of the verbal forms depended on a combination of se- quences and taxis.

THE NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH

Given the breadth of interpretation offered by previous approaches is it really necessary to propose a new one? I maintain that it is, for the following three reasons:

This approach allows us to explain some sentences that up to now have remained obscure, especially in poetic texts;
it can help explain more precisely some sentences that we understand now in a generic way only;
it can help us better understand the evolution of BH.
1. AN EMPIRICAL DATA COLLECTION

This study is not based on panchronic methodology, diachronic analysis, or comparative linguistics. It only represents the first step toward a more complete analysis, i.e., it offers an empirical data collection based on synchronic analysis.

In this article I present a list of examples, providing either my own translation, that of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) or, more frequently, that of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). I pay special attention to instances that are considered marginal—or even incorrect—according to other approaches.

ONLY ONE PH ASE

There is no doubt that BH is composed of different functional languages (Zatelli 2004). The aim of the present study is not to offer a solution that is valid for all kinds of BH, but to propose an explanation for the syntax of one phase in the language’s development. This syntax was the dominant one, though not the only one, in Standard BH (compare § 6.3), both in prose and in poetry. I will therefore not be dealing with Archaic BH or Late BH, as they lie outside the scope of this contribution.

SUFFIX CONJUGATION AND PREFIX CONJUGATION

As we have seen, most scholars distinguish the following verbal and nominal forms in BH: long yiqtol, short yiqtol, wayyiqtol, qatal, weqatal, qotel, imperative. In this study it is not possible to examine the entire verbal system and for reasons of space I will omit the discussion of qotel.

The distinction between long yiqtol (ֶהשׂﬠֲ ַי ), short yiqtol (שַׂﬠַי ) and wayyiqtol (שַׂﬠיַּ ַו ) corresponds to the morphological aspect of the verb and it is fully acceptable from a historical point of view (Joosten 2012: 13–15, among others). The same could perhaps be hypothesized for the distinction between qatal and weqatal (see for instance Andersen 2000: 39–42).

Nevertheless, it is necessary to distinguish between the morphological and historical aspects of the verbal forms and their syntactical use.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 5

In Standard BH, one finds different verbal forms in the same sentence that have the same syntactical value, especially in poetry: yiqtol can be found alongside wayyiqtol (3.4.1: Gen 37:7; Isa 63:3; 3.4.3: 1 Sam 1:10–11; 1 Kgs 1:1; 2 Sam 2:28; 3.4.3:

Deut 4:41; 2:12; 3.4.4: Ps 8:6–7; 24:2; 44:3.10; 66:6; 69:22;

74:14b; 78:13–15.20.42–50.64; 80:6–7; 81:7–8; 105:40; 114:3;

Jer 2:14–15), wayyiqtol occurs after yiqtol (4.3.3: Ps 42:6) and qatal can be found where one would expect weqatal (4.4.1: Gen 17:15–16; Lev 26:44; 4.4.2 Ps 11:2; 4.4.3: Ps 73:18; 110:6;

132:17; Isa 11:8; 19:7; 51:1; 4.4.3: Ps 110:6; 132:17; 5.1: Ps

22:22; 71:3).

For this reason I hypothesize that at one point in the develop- ment of BH, long and short yiqtol and wayyiqtol were used in an analogous way—presumably due to their similarity—and the same was true for qatal and weqatal. I identify the first unit (long and short yiqtol + wayyiqtol) as Prefix Conjugation (PC; see Fig- ure 1) and the second (qatal and weqatal) as Suffix Conjugation (SC; see Figure 2).

Obviously, this could seem to be an over-simplification. More complex approaches have been proposed for this issue. For instance, according to Qimron (1998: 31–43), the use of long and short עתיד is influenced by the position of the verb in the clause. According to Torres Fernández (2013: 219–20), some long wayyiqtol forms represent dialectal variants. Bloch (2007; 2010) postulates that these kinds of problems can be solved on either linguistic or text-critical grounds (the influence of modal forms, dialectal variants, scribal errors and so on). But the most radical and intriguing approach is Van de Sande’s theory of the “inexistence” of the wayyiqtol and of the weqatalti as converted, inverted or consecutive forms (Van de Sande 2008: 203–38).

All these approaches are possible and well argued, but for the purpose of this synchronical analysis it will be sufficient to adopt our simple theory. It will only be necessary to multiply our examples in order to show that any combination of forms (short and long yiqtol in first or second position, wayyiqtol, weyiqtol) in any order is accounted for.

6 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

THE SEQUENCES

I will begin outlining my theory by identifying the sequences of verbal forms in Standard BH. It is possible to identify two kinds of sequences involving SC or PC. The first includes the following patterns:

SC
SC + SC . . . ; SC + waw + SC . . .
SC + PC . . . ; SC + waw + PC
x + waw + PC . . .
SC + PC + SC . . . ; SC + waw + PC + waw + SC . . .
x + waw + PC + waw + SC . . .

In this table, “x” indicates any element: a secondary clause (with conjugated or not conjugated verbs), an indication of time, a non-verbal form (NV) or even any previous narrative or discourse.

I do not consider waw + PC (i.e., wayyiqtol) as a possible beginning of a sequence in this phase of BH. Nevertheless, the waw is necessary to connect “x” to PC.

The second kind includes the following patterns:

PC
PC + PC + . . . ; PC + waw + PC . . .
PC + SC; PC + waw + SC . . .
x + waw + SC . . .
PC + SC + PC . . . ; PC + waw + SC + waw + PC . . .
x + waw + SC + waw + PC . . .

Likewise, I do not consider waw + SC (i.e., weqatal) as a possible beginning of a sequence in this phase of BH. Nevertheless, the waw is necessary to connect “x” to SC.

At this point we must ask ourselves: What is the differ- ence between the two kinds of sequences and, what is the dif- ference between sequences of the same kind?

TWO KINDS OF SEQUENCES

If we do not analyze the single verbal forms independently, but rather take sequences as units, it is possible to make a distinc- tion between the two kinds of sequences. Omitting for the moment the hypothetical construction, we can state that the first group of sequences denotes: past perfect (anterior past,

3.4.3 Exod 12:35), simple past (3.1.3: Gen 1:1), present perfect (anterior present, 3.1.1: Josh 7:11), present (5.2.1: Ps 65:10) and future perfect (anterior future, 3.4.4: Isa 4:4). The second denotes: present (4.1.3: Ps 121:1), future (4.1.1: 1 Sam 18:11) and future in the past (posterior past, including prospective, 4.1.2: 2 Kgs 13:14).

This short list is not an innovation and roughly cor- responds to the taxonomies of meaning for qatal and yiqtol in many grammar books (Cook 2012: 78–79). In particular, it

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 7

should be remembered that the categories of anteriority and posteriority have been applied to the Hebrew verbal system for a long time (see for instance Joüon 1923: 509); while the cate- gory of prospective was introduced in this field more recently by Joosten (1999: 17–18; 2012: 281–83). I consider the category of “anteriority” to be distinct from the category of “tense” as it is defined by Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca (1994: 54).

What is clear in these sequences is that if the first verbal form has any value, the following verbal forms have the same value. For instance, if SC has a past perfect value, the following verbal forms (whether SC or PC) will have a past perfect value, while if SC has a future perfect value the following verbal forms (whether SC or PC) will have a future perfect value.

The difficulty is that this remains true even when the sequences do not start with an introductory dominant verb. For instance, if a sequence starts with “x + waw + PC,” PC assumes its temporal value from “x” (or from the context), and the fol- lowing verbal forms (whether SC or PC) will have the same value as the first PC.

To try to pinpoint a rule, we can state that the first group of sequences expresses absolute past and anterior, so that we can define them as “past/anterior sequences”; while the second group expresses absolute future, posterior, and present, so that we can define them as “non-past/non-anterior sequences” (compare Rogland 2003: 11).

These temporal values seem to represent the prominent meaning of the sequences, but, as we will see, the opposition between the two groups can be used in some contexts to dis- tinguish between different phasal aspects (§ 5.2).

Lastly, when heading a sequence, both SC and PC can be translated into English with a present tense. However, in the case of the former, this applies only under certain circum- stances: namely, with stative verbs (3.1.1: Josh 14:6); in performative utterances (see the discussions in Rogland 2003: 115–26; Andrason 2011d); and, lastly, to denote some phasal aspects (§ 5.2).

TAXIS

At this point it is opportune to explain the difference between the sequences in each of the two groups. In other words, we must understand why the author does not employ only two sequences: SC + SC . . . and PC + PC . . . In order to do so, it is necessary to introduce a new category: taxis. This term is defined by Maslov in the following way:

Taxis is a category which defines the “action” denoted by the predicate in terms of its relations with another “ac- tion,” named or implied in the given utterance, that is, the chronological relations between them (simultaneity, prec- edence or sequence) (Maslov 1988: 64).

I will adopt this category in order to explain BH syntax. This approach is not completely new; in particular, Michel (followed by Wagner 1997: 291) based his theory on a concept very close to taxis. Building on the results of previous studies (Köhler,

8 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Nyberg and Brockelmann), Michel concluded: “Das perfectum drückt eine unabhängige Handlung aus . . . ; das imperfectum bezeichnet eine abhängige Handlung” (1960: 256). Unfortu- nately, Michel combined this clear distinction with a philo- sophical approach and the result was a complex and rather un- clear theory.

“Independency” and “Dependency” are logical categories. However, they also include chronological relations. Michel explained: “If a perfectum follows syndetically or asyndetically on an imperfectum or a participle, it does not advance” (Eng- lish translation: Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 471). Put differ- ently: the perfect is simultaneous or contemporaneous with the previous verbal form.

It should be noted that Michel tried to offer a definition of verbal forms which was valid for both past and future sequences. In other words, he based his theory on “fixed taxis.” In this article I instead present a theory based on “relative taxis,” where the functions of the verbal forms are not abso- lute, but relative to the sequences in which they are used.

Finally, it should be noted that the category of “taxis” has recently been applied to Hebrew grammar by Andrason (2011a; 2011b; 2011d) in order to define the evolution of grams. Kuryłowicz (1973: 115–16) also explains the syntax of Semitic languages according to this category, but in his opinion qatal expresses anteriority and yiqtol simultaneity. Ḥatav (1997: 175– 88; 2004: 514.518) employs the terms “anteriority” and “sim- ultaneity” to define qatal, and “sequentiality” to define wayyiqtol (w + ay + yiqtol), weyiqtol (w + yiqtol) and weqatal (w + qatal).

SEQUENCES AND TAXIS

I combine the concept of taxis with that of sequences and examine sequences involving SC and PC in prose and poetry, but I do not follow the sequential approach in several respects:

1) I do not assign to the introductory verb the role of determining the function of the following verbal forms.

2) I consider not only the first and second place in a sequence, but also those which follow, so that I analyze not only SC + PC sequences, but also SC + PC + SC sequences.

3) In these sequences, I do not distinguish between way- yiqtol, short yiqtol (*yaqtul) and long yiqtol (*yaqtulu) or between qatálti and qataltí. I seek to show that in this phase of BH (in poetry especially) the function of a verbal form depended on the position in the sequence and not on any morphological or phonetic element.

4) I do not distinguish between the main level of com- munication (foreground) and the secondary level of communi- cation (background). The verbal forms SC and PC can be used on both levels.

5) I consider the taxis not only as a “chronological” rela- tion, but also as a “logical” one.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 9

In light of the above, I attempt to demonstrate that:

1) SC and PC have different functions in a past/anterior

sequence and in a non-past/non-anterior sequence.

2) In a past/anterior sequence, SC denotes a co-ordinate element, whereas PC denotes a sub-ordinate (usually succes- sive) element.

3) In a non-past/non-anterior sequence, PC denotes a co- ordinate element while SC denotes a sub-ordinate (usually suc- cessive) element.

11. ***CO-ORDINATION AND SUB-ORDINATION***

As these remarks indicate, the present theory is based on a dis- tinction between two categories: co-ordination and subordi- nation. Co-ordination is intended here as a verbal form which does not advance the time or the logic of narration/discourse. Sub-ordination denotes for its part a verbal form which advances the time or the logic of narration or discourse.

The writer uses co-ordination (syndetically or asyndeti- cally) in the following instances:

Beginning: to initiate a new sequence.
Epexegesis: to repeat the same action/state using dif- ferent words.
Parenthetical remark: to add some particularity to the previous action/state/event.
Parallelism: to describe an action/state/event which is contemporary to/parallel with/opposite to the first.
Negation: to negate an action/state/event which is contemporary to/parallel with/opposite to the first.
Lists: to present a series of parallel actions/states/ events.
End: to stop the chain of events.
Generic parallelism: to describe an action paral- lel/opposite to a previous section.
Rhetoric: to underline an element in a chain.

All these usages are clearly connected one to the other. Often they indicate a description or a circumstance, but it should be stressed that this is not their only use. In a past/anterior sequence, SC is more often used in the main level of communi- cation (foreground) than in the second level of communication (background), that is to say, it often has a narrative character, although it expresses contemporaneity.

It is clear that if the usage of SC indicates that time does not go forward, the writer needs another conjugation in order to describe a non-parallel action. This is what PC does. I assign to PC (with or without waw) in past/anterior sequences what Waltke and O’Connor assign exclusively to wayyiqtol:

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 sub-

10 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

jective, and often the distinction between them is blurred. Temporal sequence depends on objective fact outside the control of the speaker; logical sequence, by contrast, sub- jectively 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 sum- marizing statement of it/them. (Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 547; compare Joüon 1923: 91).

As stated, I do not consider such a sub-ordination to depend on the waw: in a past/anterior sequence we can also apply this category to yiqtol without waw. It is obvious that there is no limit to the number of following actions and therefore there is no limit in the usage of PC.

The usage of SC and PC in a non-past/non-anterior sequence is simply the flipping of the usage of SC and PC in a past/ anterior sequence: in non-past/non-anterior sequences the coordi- nation value is expressed by PC and the sub-ordination value by SC. Nevertheless, here we must distinguish between epistemic PC and deontic PC (Warren 2002: 150), which corresponds to the traditional distinction between indicative yiqtol and volitive yiqtol. In the present study we can only examine the first type of PC.

As we shall see, in both cases word order within the sen- tence is irrelevant.

THE MEANINGS OF SC AND PC

As we have seen, SC and PC have different meanings depend- ing on the context.

In the first group of sequences, when SC appears in the first position it has a temporal value (past/anterior); when it appears in following positions it has a taxis value (co-ordination). In the second group, SC does not appear in the first position and always has a taxis value (sub-ordination).

The same can be said for PC: in the first group, PC does not appear in the first position and always has a taxis value (sub- ordination). In the second group of sequences, when PC appears in the first position it has a temporal value (non-past/non-ante- rior); when it appears in following positions it has a taxis value (co-ordination).

THE VERBAL FUNCTIONS IN A PAST/ANTERIOR

SEQUENCE

SC AS FIRST VERB
1. SC as the First Verb in Main Sentence in Direct Speech

We can start our explanation by examining the syntax of direct speech where the situation is quite clear: when SC is the first verbal form in a sequence it represents the first action, state or event.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 11

This first verbal form can indicate the first action/event if it is a fientive verb, or a state if it is a stative verb. It may or may not be the first word in the sentence: in this phase of BH, word order inside a sentence does not affect the function of a verbal form. Therefore we can assign the same function in the sequence to this conjugation whether or not it comes as a first word inside the sentence.

Josh 7:11 (verb-subject)

Israel has sinned (NRSV). Josh 14:6 (subject-verb)

You too know.

חָ ָטא ִי ְשׂרָ ֵאל

ַאתָּה ָידַ ְﬠ ָתּ

SC is used in the first position of a sequence even when it does not represent the predicate in the sentence:

Josh 7:20 (subject as predicate)

ח ָטאִית

It is true; I am the one who sinned (NRSV).

אָ ְמ ָנה אָ ֹנ ִכי

It should be noted that BH does not allow simple past, present perfect and past perfect to be distinguished; consequently, SC is used also for an antefact. See for instance:

1 Sam 2:30

. . . �יתְבּ יתִּ ַמרְ ָא רוֹאָמ

I had promised that your family . . . (NRSV).

Furthermore, BH does not allow a distinction between realis and irrealis, see Cook (2012: 202; compare Joosten 2012: 208–

12), who quotes Gen 26:10:

ָﬠם אֶת־אִ ְשׁ ֶ�תּ ה

ַחד אַ

ַכב שָׁ

טﬠַ ְמ כּ

וּנלּ

ָת ישִׂ ﬠ

מה־זּ ֹאת

What is this you have done to us? One of the people

might easily have lain with your wife (NRSV).

SC as First Verb in a Secondary Clause

In secondary clauses as well, when SC is the first verbal form in a chain, it represents the first action/state/event.

1 Sam 17:28 (x-qatal)

כּי ל ַמ ַﬠן ְראוֹת ה ִמּ ְל ָח ָמה ָירָ ְד ָתּ

For you have come down just to see the battle (NRSV). 1 Sam 26:21 (verb-subject)

ֲא ֶשׁר ָי ְקרָה ַנפְ ִשׁי בְּ ֵﬠי ֶני�

Because my life was precious in your sight (NRSV).

SC can be used to describe an antefact:

Gen 20:18 (infinitive-qatal)

תּ ַחת

12 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

א ִבי ֶמ ֶל�

ֵבית ל

ֶר ֶחם כּל־

דﬠַ בּ

ַצר ְיה ָוה ﬠ

כּי־ﬠָצֹר

For the LORD had closed fast all the wombs of the house of Abimelech (NRSV).

SC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Narration

Here we can examine the function of SC in the main sentences in narration. We must start from a problematic verse: Gen 1:1.

In ancient times the first word יתשִׁ רֵאבּ was considered a noun

in the absolute state employed in an adverbial locution of time,

and the following verb רָאבּ was taken as representing the first

action of the narrative. This interpretation underlies all the ancient versions, for instance the LXX: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός. In recent times, a different opinion has gained currency among scholars: the first word is seen as a noun in the con- struct state (in the beginning of) and introducing a subordinate clause: in the beginning when God created (Niccacci 1991: 30–31; this opinion was already held by Rashi). According to this view,

the verb רָאבּ does not indicate the first action of the narrative,

but background information.

I do not consider the possibility that יתשִׁ רֵאis a construct state as a definitive argument against the ancient interpretation. The word ַאחַר , for instance, comes in a construct state (Joüon and Muraoka § 103) whether it is employed as a conjunction (after the time when) or as an adverb (after that). Compare:

Jer 41:16b

After he had slain Gedaliah (NRSV). Gen 18:5a

ְגּדַ ְל ָיה את־

ָכּה ה

אַחר

תַּ ֲﬠבֹרוּ

אַחר

ְבּ ֶכם ל

ֶל ֶחם ְו ַס ֲﬠדוּ פת־

ו ֶא ְק ָחה

Let me bring a little bread, that you may refresh your- selves, and after that you may pass on (NRSV).

In the same way, in Gen 1:1 יתשִׁ רֵאבּ

locution.

could be an adverbial

If we accept this hypothesis, we can conclude that there is no difference between direct speech and narration syntax: in both cases when SC is placed in the first position of the sequence it indicates the first action/state/event.

SC can also introduce a new section in the main narrative:

Josh 9:3 (subject-verb)

. . . וְּמע שׁ

The inhabitants of Gibeon heard . . .

ויֹ ְשׁבֵי ִגבְעוֹן

See also 1 Kgs 14:1. This kind of sentence is in the foreground and always incorporates the most important elements of the sequence.

2 Kgs 15:19 (verb-subject)

ﬠל־ ָה ָארֶץ

מ ֶל�־אוּשּׁר

בָּא פוּל

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 13

King Pul of Assyria came against the land (NRSV).

See also Josh 10:33 (introduced by אז).

1 Sam 28:3 (antefact)

Now Samuel had died (NRSV).

מֵת

שׁוְּמוּ ֵאל

SC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Poetry

Likewise, in poetry, when SC is the first verbal form in a chain, it represents the first action/state/event.

Ps 11:1 (x-qatal)

In the LORD I take refuge (NRSV). Ps 39:2 (qatal)

ח ִסיִית

בַּיה ָוה

I said . . . .

Ps 40:2 (infinitive-qatal)

. . . יתִּ ַמרְ א

I waited patiently for the LORD (NRSV).

ק ִוּיִית ְיהוָה

קַ ֹוּה

OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE OF A SEQUENCE

A new sequence can be introduced not only by SC but by any other element (see examples in GKC § 111), in particular by the macrosyntactic signal ויהי, by NV, or by a secondary clause.

In this phase of BH, if the author employs ויהי, he/she wishes to stress that the new sequence is related (temporally or logically) to a previous event (compare the use of PC, § 3.4). Sometimes such a relationship is explicit:

Josh 1:1

. . . השֶׁ מ

After the death of Moses . . . (NRSV).

ֲח ֵרי מוֹת א

ו ְיהִי

In the usage of ויהי there is no difference between narration and direct speech:

Gen 41:13

כּן ה ָיה

ַתר־ ָלנוּ פּ

רשֶׁ ֲא כּ

ו ְיהִי

As he interpreted to us, so it turned out (NRSV).

SC AFTER ANOTHER SC

If SC follows another SC, it expresses co-ordination.

14 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

SC + SC in a Main Sentence in Direct Speech

Epexegesis

Gen 37:33 (infinitive-verb-subject, qatal without waw)

טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵף

א ָכ ָלְתהוּ

ח ָיּה ָר ָﬠה

A wild animal has devoured him; Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces (NRSV).

Isa 41:4 (weqatal)

מִי־פָ ַﬠל ְו ָﬠָשׂה

Who has performed and done this? (NRSV).

See also Josh 4:7 (x-qatal without waw); 2 Sam 24:17 (waw-x-

qatal); 2 Kgs 19:21 and Isa 34:2 (qatal without waw).

Parenthetical Remark

1 Sam 30:14

כּ ֵלב

ָדה ְו ַﬠל־ ֶנ ֶגב ליהוּ

ֵר ִתי ְו ַﬠל־ ֲא ֶשׁר ה ְכּ

פַּ ְשׁטנוּ ֶנ ֶגב

א ַנחְנוּ

באֵשׁ׃

שׂרַ ְפנוּ

ואֶת־ ִצ ְק ַלג

We had made a raid on the Negeb of the Cherethites and on that which belongs to Judah and on the Negeb of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag down (NRSV).

Parallelism

Gen 20:5 (subject-verb)

ִחי הוּא א

ְמרָה א

ְו ִהיא־ ַגם־ ִהוא הוא

ִתי

ַמר־לִי א אָ

הל ֹא הוּא

Did he not himself say to me, ‘She is my sister?’ And she herself said, ‘He is my brother’ (NRSV)

See also Gen 41:13; Judg 1:7; 1 Sam 18:8; 2 Sam 17:15.

Negation

See for instance 2 Sam 18:29.

List

Gen 27:37 (waw-x-qatal)

ָב ִדים ְו ָד ָגן ל ֲﬠ

ל� ְו ֶאת־כּל־א ָחיו ָנתִַיתּ לוֹ

שַׂ ְמ ִתּיו ס ַמ ְכִיתּו

ְגּ ִביר ֵהן ותִירֹשׁ

I have already made him your lord, and I have given him all his brothers as servants, and with grain and wine I have sustained him (NRSV).

See also Josh 7:11 (וגם-verb); 1 Sam 12:3.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 15

SC + SC in a Secondary Clause

Epexegesis

Deut 2:30

כִּי־ ִה ְקָשׁה ְיה ָוה אֱ� ֶהי� אֶת־רוּחוֹ ְואִ ֵמּץ אֶת־ ְל ָבבוֹ

For the LORD your God had hardened his spirit and

made his heart defiant (NRSV).

Parallelism

2 Sam 7:1

ָכּל־א ְי ָביו׃ מ

ָסּ ִביב מ

ה ִני�ַ־לוֹ

ֵביתוֹ ַויה ָוה בּ

�ֶל מֶּ ה

כּי־ ָישַׁב

Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him (NRSV).

Negation

1 Kgs 3:11

שָׁ ַא ְלָתּ ֶאת־הַ ָדּ ָבר הַ ֶזּה ְול ֹא־שָׁ ַא ְלתּ . . . ְול ֹא־

ֶשׁר א

י ַﬠן

. . .תְּלָ ַא ָשְׁו . . . תָּ ְל ַא ָשׁ

Because you have asked this, and have not asked . . . and

have not asked . . . and have asked . . . (NRSV).

Qatal and not-qatal are equivalent.

SC + SC in a Main Sentence in Narration

Epexegesis

1 Kgs 11:1–2 (subject-verb; x-qatal)

דָּ ַבק בּהֶם

ַהב נָ ִשׁים ָנ ְכ ִרוֹיּת ַרוֹבּת . . . אָ

ו ַה ֶמּ ֶל� שְׁ�מה

שְׁ�מה ל ַא ֲה ָבה׃

King Solomon loved many foreign women . . . Solomon

clung to these in love (NRSV).

Parenthetical remark

1 Kgs 15:1–2

ﬠל־

ִב ָיּם אֲ

ַל� מָ

ְנ ָבט בּן־

ֶל� ָי ָר ְב ָﬠם ל ֶמּ

ֵרה שְׂ ﬠ

ֶנה שׁמ

וּ ִב ְשׁ ַנת

�ָל ָשׁוּירבּ

ַל� מָ

ִנים שׁ

שׁ�שׁ

יהוּ ָדה׃

Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam son of Nebat, Abijam began to reign over Judah. He reigned for three years in Jerusalem (NRSV).

Parallelism

Gen 19:23–24 (subject-verb)

בָּא צֹ ֲﬠרָה׃

ָה ָא ֶרץ ְולוֹט ﬠל־

השֶּׁ ֶמשׁ ָיצָא

16 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

The sun rose on the earth and at that moment Lot came to Zoar.

Sam 4:11 (subject-verb)

ְפ ִני וּ ִפי ְנחָס׃ חָ

מֵתוּ

ֵני־ ֵﬠ ִלי ב

ואֲרוֹן אֱ� ִהים ִנ ְלָקח וּ ְשׁ ֵני

The ark of God was captured; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died (NRSV).

A few verses later, in 1 Sam 4:17, we see the same syntax in direct speech.

See also Gen 18:20; Josh 11:13; Judg 3:24; 1 Sam 9:17.

Negation

Kgs 3:3

ִי ְשׂ ָראֵל דָּ ֵבק אֶת־

ֶשׁר־ ֶה ֱח ִטיא א

בֶּן־ ְנבָט

ַחטּ ֹאות ָירָ ְב ָﬠם בּ

רַק

לֹא־סָר מִ ֶמּ ָנּה׃

Nevertheless he clung to the sin of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to commit; he did not de- part from it (NRSV).

SC + SC in Poetry

Epexegesis

Ps 85:3–4 (qatal without waw)

ַס ְפָתּ ָכל־ﬠֶבְ ָר ֶת� א

ָלה׃ סֶ

כּ ִסּיָת ָכל־חַ ָטּאתָם

�ֶמּﬠ

ןוֲֹﬠ

נשָׂא ָת

אַ ֶ�פּ׃

מחֲרוֹן

ה ִשׁיבוֹת

You forgave the iniquity of your people; you pardoned all their sin. Selah. You withdrew all your wrath; you turned from your hot anger (NRSV).

Parallelism

Ps 9:6 (qatal without waw)

גּ ַﬠרְ ָתּ גוֹיִם א ַבּדְ ָתּרָ ָשׁע

You have rebuked the nations, you have destroyed the wicked (NRSV).

Negation

Compare, for instance, Ps 102:18.

List

Ps 74:13–15 (x-qatal and qatal)

ﬠל־הַ ָמּ ִים׃

ָﬠ ְ�זּ ָים ִנים בְ ַתנִּי

פוֹ ַררְ ָתּ ָרא ֵשׁי אתָּה ִשׁ ַבּרְ ָתּ

ל ִצ ִיּים׃

ָﬠם ל

ֲא ָכל מ

וּנֶּנ תְּ תּ

ְו ָי ָתן ל

אתָּה ִרצְַּצָתּ ָרא ֵשׁי

מ ְﬠ ָין ָו ָנחַל

בָ ַקְﬠָתּ

אתָּה

אתָּה הוֹ ַבְ ָתּשׁ ַנ ֲהרוֹת אי ָתן׃

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 17

You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. You cut openings for springs and torrents; you dried up ever-flowing streams (NRSV).

This array of SC is correctly interrupted by one occurrence of PC (see § 5.3). See also Jer 2:8.

PC IN THE SECOND POSITION

It is clear that if the usage of SC indicates that time does not go forward, the writer needs another conjugation in order to describe a non-parallel action. As I have salready mentioned, this is what PC does.

. . . + PC in Direct Speech

Gen 24:35

מאד ַו ִיּ ְגדָּל

ֲאדֹ ִני את־

�ַר בּ

ויה ָוה

The LORD has greatly blessed my master, and he has become wealthy (NRSV).

Gen 37:7 (waw-x-yiqtol and wayyiqtol)

מּתֵי ֶכם

ֻל א

ֻס ֶבּי ָנה תְ

ָמּ ִתי ְו ַגם־ ִנ ָצּ ָבה ְו ִה ֵנּה א ֻל

ָמה ק

ו ִה ֵנּה

ַותִּ ְשַׁ ֲתּח ֶויןָ ַל ֲא ֻל ָמּתִי׃

Suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright; then your sheaves gathered around it, and bowed down to my sheaf (NRSV).

Isa 63:3 (we-yiqtol)

בְּאַ ִפּי

ִתּי ְו ֶא ְדרְ ֵכם א

ִאישׁ אין־

ִדּי וּ ֵמ ַﬠ ִמּים ל ַב

וּפּ ָרה ָדּ ַר ְכ ִתּי

ְג ָא ְל ִתּי א

ְבּ ָג ַדי ְו ָכל־ ַמ ְלוּבּ ַשׁי ﬠל־

ָמתִי וְ ֵיז ִנ ְצ ָחם בּ ֲח

ו ֶארְ ְמ ֵסם

I have trodden the wine press alone, and from the peoples no one was with me; I trod them in my anger and tram- pled them in my wrath; their juice spattered on my gar- ments, and stained all my robes (NRSV).

. . . + PC in a Secondary Clause

1 Sam 15:24

בּקוֹ ָלם׃

את־ ָה ָﬠם ָו ֶאְ ַשׁמע

כּי ָי ֵרא ִתי

Because I feared the people and obeyed their voice (NRSV).

. . . + PC in Narration

1 Sam 1:10–11 (wayyiqtol and waw-infinitive-yiqtol)

ְב ֶכּה׃ ַותִּדֹּר ֶנדֶר תִ

ְיה ָוה וּ ָבכֹה ﬠל־

ללֵּ פַּת ְִתַּו . . .

She prayed to the LORD, and wept bitterly. She made

this vow (NRSV).

18 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

I consider הכֶּ ְב תִ a punctual action. The insertion of the infini- tive shows that the author considered yiqtol equivalent to way- yiqtol. See also 1 Kgs 3:4.

Deut 4:41 (long yiqtol without waw, with אז)

ﬠ ִרים

שׁ�שׁ

ֶשׁה מ

ַי ְבדִּיל אָז

. . .

. . . then Moses set apart three cities (NRSV).

See also Josh 8:30; 19:50; 22:1; 2 Sam 12:31; 1 Kgs 3:4; 8:1; 2

Kgs 3:24–26.

PC is also used in negative sentences when the writer wishes to stress that the following verbal form is successive:

Kgs 1:1 (yiqtol)

ְבּ ָג ִדים ְול ֹא ִיחַם לוֹ׃ בּ

ִמים ַו ְי ַכ ֻסּהוּ בּ ָיּ

ו ַה ֶמּ ֶל� ָדּ ִוד ָז ֵקן בּא

King David was old and advanced in years; and although they covered him with clothes, he could not get warm (NRSV).

Sam 2:28 (yiqtol)

ֲח ֵרי א

ָה ָﬠם ְול ֹא־ ִירְ ְדּפוּ עוֹד כּל־

וְּמד ﬠַ יַּ ַו ָפר וֹשּׁבּ

ו ִיּ ְת ַקע יוֹ ָאב

ִי ְשׂרָ ֵאל

Joab sounded the trumpet and all the people stopped; they no longer pursued Israel (NRSV).

. . . + PC in Poetry

Ps 8:6–7 (x + PC; wayyiqtol, waw-x-yiqtol and yiqtol)

תּ ַﬠ ְטּרֵהוּ׃ ַתּ ְמִישׁ ֵלהוּ

ִהים ְו ָכבוֹד ְו ָה ָדר מ ֱא�

טﬠַ מּ

ו ְתּ ַח ְסּרֵהוּ

ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ֵשׂי ָידֶי�

Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honor. You have given them dominion over the works of your hands (NRSV).

Ps 24:2 (waw-x-yiqtol)

כּי־הוּא ﬠל־ ַי ִמּים ְי ָס ָדהּ ְו ַﬠל־ ְנ ָהרוֹת ְיכוֹנְ ֶנ ָה

For he has founded it on the seas, and established it on the rivers (NRSV).

Ps 44:3 (wayyiqtol, yiqtol, wayyiqtol)

לאֻ ִמּים ַו ְתַּ ְלּשׁ ֵחם׃

תּרַע

אתָּה ָי ְד� וֹגּ ִים הוֹ ַר ְתּשָׁ ַותִּ ָטּ ֵﬠם

You with your own hand drove out the nations, but them you planted; you afflicted the peoples, but them you set free (NRSV).

Ps 44:10 (negative; yiqtol)

אף־ ָז ַנ ְח ָתּ ַותַּ ְכ ִלי ֵמנוּ ְולֹא־תֵ ֵצא בּ ִצ ְבאוֹתינוּ

Yet you have rejected us and abased us, and have not

gone out with our armies (NRSV). Ps 66:6 (x-yiqtol)

ברָ ֶגל

ָנּ ָהר ַי ַﬠְברוּ בּ

ַי ָבּ ָשׁה ל

ה ַפ� ָים

He turned the sea into dry land; they passed through the river on foot (NRSV).

Ps 69:21–22 (wayyiqtol and waw-x-yiqtol)

לָנוּד וָ ַא ִין וְ ַל ְמ ַנ ֲח ִמים וְל ֹא

לבִּי ָו ָאנוָּשׁה ָו ֲאַ ֶוּקה

ָרה שׁבְ

ח ְרפָּה

מֶץ׃

ִתי ר ֹאשׁ ְו ִל ְצ ָמ ִאי ַי ְשׁקוּני בּ ָברוּ

מ ָצאתי׃ ַו ִתּיְּנוּ

Insults have broken my heart, so that I am in despair. I looked for pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me poison for food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (NRSV).

20 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Ps 74:14 (yiqtol)

ל ִצ ִיּים׃

ָﬠם ל

ֲא ָכל מ

וּנּנתֶּ ְִתּ

ְו ָיתָן ל

אתָּה ִר ַצּ ְצתָּ ָרא ֵשׁי

You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness (NRSV).

Ps 78:13–15 (wayyiqtol and yiqtol)

בַּ ִמּדְ ָבּר

צרִים

עקַּ ַב ְי . . . ֵנד ־וֹמכּ

ַקע ָים ַו ַיּ ֲﬠ ִבירֵם ַו ַיּ ֶצּב־ ַמ ִים בּ

He divided the sea and let them pass through it, and made the waters stand like a heap. . . . He split rocks open in the wilderness (NRSV).

Ps 78:20 (wayyiqtol and waw-x-yiqtol)

הֵן הִ ָכּה־צוּר ַו ָיּזוּבוּ מ ִים וּנ ָח ִלים ִישְׁטֹפוּ

Even though he struck the rock so that water gushed out

and torrents overflowed (NRSV). Ps 78:42–50 (wayyiqtol and yiqtol)

ִמ ְצ ַר ִים בּ

ֶשׁר־ ָשׂם א

ִנּי־ ָצר׃ מ

ֶשׁר־ ָפּ ָדם א

ָידוֹ יוֹם את־

ל ֹא־ ָז ְכרוּ

ֶהם ְו ֹנ ְז ֵלי ֶהם א ֵרי

ָדם ְי ל

בּ ְשׂ ֵדה־צֹ ַﬠן׃ ַו ַיּהֲ ֹפ�

אתוֹתיו וּמוֹ ְפ ָתיו

ַויּ ֹא ְכ ֵלם וּ ְצ ַפרְ ֵדּ ַ� ַותַּ ְשׁ ִחיֵתם׃ ﬠרֹב

ֶהם בּ

בּל־ ִישְׁ ָתּיוּן׃ ְישַׁ ַלּח

בַּבָּ ָרד ַגּפְ ָנם

ַא ְרבֶּה׃ ַיהֲרֹג ל

ָח ִסיל ְיבוּלם ִוי ִגי ָﬠם ל

ו ִתּיֵּן

ְר ָשׁ ִפים׃ ל

ָרם וּ ִמ ְק ֵני ֶהם בּ ִﬠי

ָבּ ָרד ל

ֲח ָנ ַמל׃ ַו ַיּסְ ֵגּר בּ

ו ִשׁ ְקמוֹתם

מ ְל ֲא ֵכי

ְשׁ ַל ַחת מ

ָרה ָו ַז ַﬠם ְו ָצ ָרה ﬠ ְב

וֹפּא

חרוֹן

ישַׁ ַלּח־בָּם

רָ ִﬠים׃ ְיפַ ֵלּס ָנ ִתיב ל ַאוֹפּ

They did not keep in mind his power, or the day when he redeemed them from the foe; when he displayed his signs in Egypt, and his miracles in the fields of Zoan. He turned their rivers to blood, so that they could not drink of their streams. He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them. He gave their crops to the caterpillar, and the fruit of their labor to the locust. He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with frost. He gave over their cattle to the hail, and their flocks to thunderbolts. He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, a company of destroying angels. He made a path for his an- ger (NRSV).

Ps 78:64 (negative; yiqtol)

תִ ְב ֶכּי ָנה׃

ֶרב ָנ ָפלוּ ְו ַא ְל ְמ ֹנ ָתיו ל ֹא בּ ֶח

כֹּ ֲה ָניו

Their priests fell by the sword, and after this their widows

made no lamentation.

Ps 80:6–7 (wayyiqtol, yiqtol and waw-x-yiqtol)

תִּישׂ ֵמנוּ

ִלישׁ׃ שׁ

ְד ָמעוֹת בּ

ֶחם ִדּ ְמ ָﬠה ַו ַתְּשׁקמוֹ ל

ה ֱא ַכ ְל ָתּם

א ְי ֵבינוּ ִי ְל ֲﬠגוּ־לָמוֹ׃

ְשׁ ֵכ ֵנינוּ ְו ל

מדוֹן

You have fed them with the bread of tears, and given them tears to drink in full measure. You made us the scorn of our neighbors; our enemies laughed among themselves.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 21

Ps 81:7–8 (yiqtol, wayyiqtol, yiqtol)

ָת קרָא

ֲﬠבֹרְ ָנה׃ ַבּ ָצּרָה תּ

דוּדּמ

יופָּ כּ

וְֹכמ שׁ

ֵסּ ֶבל מ

ה ִסירוֹ ִתי

מ ִרי ָבה

ﬠל־מי

א ְבָ ְחנ�

ֵס ֶתררַ ַﬠם בּ

ֶﬠ ְנ� אֶ

ו ֲאַ ְחלּ ֶצ ָךּ

I relieved your shoulder of the burden; your hands were freed from the basket. In distress you called, and I res- cued you; I answered you in the secret place of thunder; I tested you at the waters of Meribah (NRSV).

Ps 105:40 (wayyiqtol and waw-x-yiqtol)

שׁ ַמ ִים ַישְׂ ִבּי ֵﬠם׃

ָלו ְו ֶל ֶחם שׂ

שָׁ ַאל ַו ָיּבֵא

He asked, and he brought quails, and gave them food from heaven in abundance (NRSV).

Ps 114:3 (wayyiqtol and yiqtol)

לאָחוֹר

ַיּרְ ֵדּן יִסֹּב ה

ה ָיּם ָר ָאה וַ ָיּ ֹנס

The sea looked and fled; Jordan turned back (NRSV). Jer 2:14–15 (x-yiqtol)

ﬠָ ָליו

ַבז׃ ל

ָיה ה

�ַ וּדּמ

ִית הוּא בּ

ְי ִליד אם־

ה ֶﬠ ֶבד ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל

ישְׁ ֲאגוּ כ ִפרִים

Is Israel a slave? Is he a homeborn servant? Why then has he become plunder? The lions have roared against him (NRSV).

See also Ps 78:58 (yiqtol); 80:6–7 (yiqtol); Isa 41:5 (weyiqtol, yiqtol

and wayyiqtol).

Isa 4:4 (future perfect, waw-x-yiqtol)

ִצוֹיּן ְואֶת־ ְדּ ֵמי ְירוּ ָשׁ ַל� בּנוֹת־

אִם ָר ַחץ אֲדֹ ָני אֵת צֹאַת

ִמ ִקּרְ ָהּבּ

Once the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion and cleansed the bloodstains of Jeru- salem from its midst.

See also Isa 6:11 (compare GKC §§ 106o, 107l).

COMING BACK TO SC

If the writer needs a co-ordinate verbal form after PC, he/she comes back to SC.

. . . PC + SC in Direct Speech

Epexegesis

Gen 41:11(x-qatal without waw)

וֹמ�ח

ִפ ְתרוֹן כּ

אישׁ

ִני ָוהוּא א

ָחד א

ַל ְי ָלה בּ

חלוֹם

ו ַנּ ַח ְל ָמה

חָ ָל ְמנוּ׃

We dreamed on the same night, he and I, each having a dream with its own meaning (NRSV).

22 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Parallelism

Deut 6:22–23 (waw-x-qatal)

משָּׁם

בּ ִמ ְצרַ ִים . . . ְואוֹתנוּ הוִֹציא

. . . תת

ו ִיּ ֵתּן ְיה ָוה אוֹ

The LORD displayed before signs . . . against Egypt. He

brought us out from there (NRSV). 1 Kgs 12:29

בּדָן

ְואֶת־ ָהאֶ ָחד ָנתַן בּ ֵבית־אֵל

ו ָיּ ֶשׂם אֶת־הָאֶ ָחד

He set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan (NRSV).

Here, there are two perfectly symmetrical actions in the fore- ground. See also 1 Kgs 3:20.

List

1 Sam 22:10 (with waw)

ְפּ ִל ְשׁ ִתּי ָנתַן ה

ֶרב ָגּ ְל ָית ח

בּיהָוה וְ ֵצידָה ָנתַן לוֹ וְ ֵאת

ַו ִיּ ְשׁ ַאל־לוֹ

לוֹ׃

He inquired of the LORD for him, [and] gave him provi- sions, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine (NRSV).

Generic Parallelism

1 Sam 19:5 (verb as first word; without waw)

ָכל־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאלרָ ִאי ָת ַו ִשׂתְּ ָמח ל

ָלה וְֹגד הﬠָ וּשׁתּ

ו ַיּ ַשׂﬠ ְיה ָוה

And the LORD brought about a great victory for all Israel. You saw it, and rejoiced (NRSV).

. . . PC + SC in Narration

Epexegesis

Josh 11:12 (verb-subject, without waw)

ה ֱחרִים אוֹתם

ִפי־ ֶח ֶרב ל

םכֵּ יַּ ו

He struck them with the edge of the sword, he utterly

destroyed them.

Parenthetical Remark

Num 7:6–8

אל־

את־ ָה ֲﬠ ָג�ת ְו ֶאת־ ַה ָבּ ָקר ַו ִיּ ֵתּן אוֹ ָתם

ֶשׁה מ

ַחקּיִּ ַו . . .

ְב ֵני ֵגרְוֹשׁן ל

ָבּ ָקר ָנתַן ה

ְר ַבּ ַﬠת א

ה ֲﬠ ָג�ת ְו ֵאת

יתֵּ שׁ

ה ְל ִו ִיּם׃ את

לבְ ֵני

ָבּ ָקר ָנתַן ה

ַנת שׁמ

ה ֲﬠ ָג�ת ְו ֵאת

ְר ַבּע א

ָד ָתם׃ ְו ֵאת ﬠבֹ

כּ ִפי

ﬠבֹ ָד ָתם

ִפי כּ

מ ָר ִרי

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 23

So Moses took the wagons and the oxen, and gave them to the Levites: two wagons and four oxen he gave to the Gershonites, according to their service; and four wagons and eight oxen he gave to the Merarites, according to their service (NRSV).

Parallelism

Gen 19:36–38

. . . ןבּ

ְבּ ִכי ָרה ה

ֲא ִבי ֶהן׃ ַו ֵתּ ֶלד מ

בנוֹת־לוֹט

יתֵּ שׁ

ֶריןָ ֲה תַּ ַו . . .

ו ַה ְצּ ִﬠי ָרה ַגם־ ִהוא ָי ְלדָה בֵּן

Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son . . . the younger also bore a son (NRSV).

These sorts of sequences are very frequent: see for instance Gen 4:3–4; 18:33; 25:5–6; 27:5–6; 35:18; 40:21–22; 41:51–52;

41:54; Josh 4:12; 6:25; 10:13. In all these occurrences the paral- lelism is between two symmetrical actions in the foreground (in this respect I agree with Cook 2012: 297). There is no differ- ence in the aspect, in the tense, or in the function of these ver- bal forms.

Negation

1 Sam 3:18 (with waw)

וּנֶּמּמִ

כחֵד

ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים וְלֹא את־כּל־

שׁמוּאל

ו ַיּ ֶגּד־לוֹ

So Samuel told him everything and hid nothing from him (NRSV).

Josh 11:11 (without waw)

כּל־

ֲח ֵרם ל ֹא נוֹתר ה

ִפי־ ֶח ֶרב ל

הּבָּ ר־שֶׁ א

ַה ֶנּ ֶפשׁ את־כּל־

וּכּיַּ ו

ְנשָׁ ָמה

And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed (NRSV).

List

Josh 15:2–3 (with waw)

ֶנה ֶנ ְג ָבּה׃ הפּ

ַה ָשׁלֹּן מן־

ֶמּ ַלח ה

ְק ֵצה ָים מ

ֶהם ְגּבוּל ֶנ ֶגב ל

ו ְי ִהי

מִ ֶנּ ֶגב

צִ ָנה ְוﬠָ ָלה

ְק ַר ִבּים ְו ָﬠַבר ﬠ

ַמﬠֲ ֵלה ל

ֶנּ ֶגב אל־מ

ו ָיצָא

הקַּ ְרקָ ָﬠה׃

א ָדּרָה ְו ָנַסב

ְצרוֹן ְוﬠָ ָלה חֶ

בּרְ ֵנ ַ� ְו ָﬠַבר

ל ָק ֵדשׁ

And their south boundary ran from the end of the Dead Sea, from the bay that faces southward; it went out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, passed along to Zin, and went up south of Kadesh-barnea, along by Hez- ron, up to Addar, and made a turn to Karka.

24 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

End of the Chain of Events

Gen 41:57 (subject-verb)

אל־יוֹ ֵסף

ְבּשֹׁר ל

ְצ ַר ְימָה מִ

וָּאבּ

ו ָכל־ ָה ָא ֶרץ

All the world came to Joseph in Egypt to buy grain (NRSV).

Gen 45:15 (verb-subject)

אִוֹתּ׃

אחָיו

כֵןדִּ ְבּרוּ

ֵליהֶם ְו ַא ֲחרֵי ﬠ

ָכל־ ֶאחָיו ַו ֵיּבְ ְךּ ל

ו ְי ַנשֵּׁק

And he kissed all his brothers and wept upon them; and after that his brothers talked with him (NRSV).

See also Exod 12,50; Josh 6:14; with waw: Josh 11:11; 11:23; 14:15; 24:33; Judg 1:8. Usually, the new sequence that follows begins with ויהי.

Generic Parallelism

Josh 4:14

את־יְהוֹ ֻשׁ ַ�

ִדּגַּל יְה ָוה ההוּא

םוֹיּבּ

On that day the LORD exalted Joshua (NRSV).

In this case, SC is not parallel to another single verbal form, but rather to the entire previous chain. See also Josh 4:19; 11:12.

Rhetoric

The writer wishes to underline an element in a chain.

Josh 4:9

הֵ ִקים ְיהוֹ ֻ�שַׁ

Those twelve stones Joshua set up.

. . . PC + SC in Poetry

Epexegesis

Ps 78:21

ָב ִנים א

ֵרה שׂﬠְ

יםתֵּ ְשׁוּ

ב ִי ְשׂרָ ֵאל׃

ָלה ﬠָ

ֲﬠקֹב ְו ַגם־ ַאף ב ַי

ו ִיּ ְת ַﬠ ָבּר ְו ֵאשׁ ִנ ְשּׂ ָקה

He was full of rage; a fire was kindled against Jacob, his anger mounted against Israel (NRSV).

See also Ps 78:24.31.57 (without waw).66.

THE VERBAL FUNCTIONS IN A NON-PAST/NON- ANTERIOR SEQUENCE
1. PC AS THE FIRST VERB

When PC falls in the first position it indicates the first non- past/non-anterior action/state/event. It may or may not be the first word in the sentence.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 25

PC as the First Verb in Direct Speech

1 Sam 18:11

I will pin David to the wall (NRSV). 1 Sam 17:32 (subject-verb)

ָד ִוד וּבַ ִקּיר בְ

אַ ֶכּה

Your servant will go (NRSV).

PC as First Verb in a Secondary Clause

ﬠ ְבדְּ� ֵילֵ�

Also in secondary clauses when PC is the first verbal form in a chain, it represents the first non-past/non-anterior action.

1 Sam 31:4

פּן־יָבוֹאוּ הָ ֲﬠ ֵר ִלים הָ ֵא ֶלּה . . .

So that these uncircumcised may not come . . . (NRSV).

In a past context, PC represents a “future in the past” action:

2 Kgs 13:14

ֲאשֶׁר יָמוּת וֹבּ

[. . . the illness] of which he was to die (NRSV).

PC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Poetry

In poetry, when PC is the first verbal form in a chain it repre- sents the first non-past/non-anterior action.

Ps 121:1 (yiqtol)

I lift up my eyes to the hills (NRSV).

ַני אֶל־ ֶה ָהרִים ﬠי

אָשּׂא

OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE OF A

SEQUENCE

As a past/anterior sequence can begin in any given way, and not only with SC, a non-past/non-anterior can also begin in any given way. For instance:

1 Sam 9:8 (non-verbal sentence)

. . . ֶסף כּ

ֶקל שׁ

ָי ִדי ֶר ַבע ב

ה ֵנּה ִנ ְמ ָצא

Here, I have with me a quarter shekel of silver . . . (NRSV).

1 Sam 17:25 (we-haya)

. . . וּנּכֶּ ַי ר־שֶׁ א

The man who kills him . . . (NRSV).

PC AFTER ANOTHER PC

ִאישׁ ה

ו ָה ָיה

If PC comes after another PC it expresses co-ordination.

26 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

PC + PC in Main Sentence in Direct Speech

Epexegesis

Josh 6:26

בִּבְכֹרוֹ יְיַ ְסּ ֶד ָנּה וּבִ ְצ ִﬠירוֹ ַיצִּיב דְּ ָל ֶתי ָה׃

At the cost of his firstborn he shall lay its foundation, and at the cost of his youngest he shall set up its gates! (NRSV).

Both sentences clearly describe the same curse.

Parenthetical Remark

1 Kgs 11:11–12

א�־

׃�דֶּ ְב ﬠַ ל

מ ָﬠ ֶלי� וּנ ַת ִתּיה

ַמּ ְמ ָל ָכה את־ה

ְקרַע א

קרֹ�ַ

ְקרָ ֶﬠ ָנּה׃ א

�ְנ בּ

ַיּד מ

א ִבי�

ַמ ַﬠן ָדּ ִוד ל

הנָּ שֶׂ ﬠֱ א

בּ ָי ֶמי� ל ֹא

I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand of your son (NRSV).

Parallelism

Gen 27:39–40

ָﬠל׃ ְו ַﬠל־ מ

ָשּׁ ַמ ִים ה

ֶרץ יִ ְהיֶה מוֹ ָשׁ ֶב� וּ ִמ ַטּל ה ָא

ְשׁ ַמ ֵנּי מ

ה ֵנּה

חרְ ְ�בּ תִ ְח ֶיה

See, away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. By your sword you shall live (NRSV).

List

1 Sam 8:11–17

ל ְפ ֵני

ְר ַכּ ְבוֹתּ וּ ְב ָפ ָר ָשׁיו ְו ָרצוּ בּ ֶמ

אֶת־ ְבּ ֵני ֶכם ִיקָּח ְו ָשׂם לוֹ

. . .וֹתְּב כַּ ֶמרְ

ו ֶאת־ ְבּנוֹתי ֶכם ִיקָּח . . .

ִבים ִיקָּח ְו ָנתַן הוֹטּ

ְשׂדוֹ ֵתיכֶם ְו ֶאת־כַּ ְר ֵמיכֶם ְו ֵזי ֵתיכֶם ו ֶאת־

ַל ֲﬠ ָבדָיו׃

ל ָס ִרי ָסיו ְו ַל ֲﬠ ָב ָדיו׃

ִל ְמ ַלא ְכוֹתּ׃

ֵﬠיכֶם ְוכַ ְר ֵמי ֶכם ַי ְשׂﬠֹר ְו ָנ ַתן ְבדֵי ֶכם . . . ִיקָּח ְו ָשׂﬠָה ְו ַז ְר ְו ֶאת־ ַﬠ

ֹא ְנכֶם ַי ְשׂﬠֹר צ

ל ֲﬠ ָב ִדים׃

תִּ ְהיוּ־לוֹ

ו ַאתֶּם

He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; . . . He will take your daughters . . . He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his cour- tiers. He will take your male and female slave . . . and put

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 27

them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves (NRSV).

The series of PC is correctly interrupted four times by SC (see § 4.4).

PC + PC in a Secondary Clause

Epexegesis

Josh 1:8 (with אז)

ילכּשִׂ ְתּ

אֶת־ ְדּ ָר ֶכ� ְואָז

כּי־ ָאז

For then you shall make your way prosperous, and then you shall be successful (NRSV).

Parallelism

Num 23:24

לֹא ִישְׁ ַכּב עד־י ֹאַכל ט ֶרף ְו ַדם־ ֲחלָלִים ִישְׁ ֶתּה׃

It does not lie down till it devours the prey, and drinks

the blood of the slain (RSV).

List

Ps 72:12–14 (yiqtol, short yiqtol, waw-x-yiqtol, x-yiqtol and we- yiqtol)

ֵוּ ַ� ְו ָﬠ ִני ְו ֵאין־עֹ ֵזר לוֹ מ ַשׁ

ְביוֹן א

כּי־ ַיצִּיל

יָ ֹחס ﬠל־ ַדּל ְו ֶא ְביוֹן

ו ַנפְוֹשׁת אבְיוֹ ִנים יוֹ ִשׁי�׃

מִ�וֹתּ וּמֵ ָחמָס ִי ְגַאל ַנ ְפשָׁם

ו ֵיי ַקר ָדּ ָמם בּ ֵﬠי ָניו׃

For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppres- sion and violence he redeems their life; and precious is their blood in his sight.

PC + PC in a Main Sentence in Poetry

Epexegesis

Ps 42:6 (yiqtol and wayyiqtol)

מַה־ ִתּ ְוֹתּשֲׁחִיח ַנ ְפשִׁי ַותֶּ ֱה ִמי ﬠָ ָלי

Why are you cast down, O my soul, and are you dis- quieted within me? (NRSV).

See also Ps 9:9 and 29:8 (x-yiqtol and yiqtol without waw).

Parallelism

Ps 22:8 (subject-verb, yiqtol)

28 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

ָשׂפָה ָי ִניעוּ רֹאשׁ׃ בְ

לִי ַי ְפִיטרוּ

כּל־רֹאַי ַי ְל ִﬠגוּ

All who see me mock at me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads (NRSV).

See also Ps 29:9 (yiqtol and wayyiqtol); 102:27 (x-yiqtol and yiqtol).

Negation

See Isa 40:31.

List

See Ps 18:26–30 (x-yiqtol); Isa 41:19 (yiqtol).

SC IN THE SECOND POSITION

SC in the second position expresses sub-ordination.

. . . + SC in Direct Speech

Gen 17:15–16 (weqatal and waw-x-qatal)

׃הָּמ שׁ

ָרה שׂ

יכּ ָרי שׂ

ְשׁ ָמהּ את־

ְ�תּ ל ֹא־ ִת ְק ָרא א ְשׁ

שׂ ַרי

ןבּ �ל

מִמֶּ ָנּה

א ָתהּ ְו ַגם ָנתִַיתּ

וּ ֵברַ ְכ ִתּי

As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her (NRSV).

Lev 26:44 (negative)

א ְי ֵבי ֶהם ל ֹא־מְ ַאְ ִסתּים ְולֹא־

ֶא ֶרץ בּ

ְהיוֹתם בּ

ו ַאף־ ַגּם־ז ֹאת

ג ַﬠ ְלִיתּם ל ַכ�תָם

Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, or abhor them so as to destroy them utterly (NRSV).

In these two occurrences of PC the writer underlines the fact that the two verbal forms are successive even though negative.

1 Sam 20:18 (not weqataltí)

ָמ ָחר חֹדשׁ ְו ִנ ְפ ֕קַ ְדָתּ

Tomorrow is the new moon; you will be missed (NRSV).

4.4.2 . . . + SC in a Secondary Clause

Deut 4:19

. . . שֶׁמ ֶשַּׁה את־

ַמ ְי ָמה ְורָ ִאי ָת ה ָשּׁ

ﬠי ֶני�

וּ ֶפן־ ִתּ ָשּׂא

And lest you lift up your eyes towards the heavens and see

the sun . . . Eccl 2:24

יּשׁ ֹאכל ְו ָשׁ ָתה

ָא ָדם בּ

אין־טוֹב

There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink

(NRSV).

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 29

In this example there can be no doubt that both PC and SC are in the foreground, and that there is no difference in the aspect of the action.

Ps 11:2 (without waw)

ﬠל־ ֶיתֶר

ָצּם ח

וּננוֹכּ תשֶׁ ק

ָשׁ ִﬠים ִי ְד ְרכוּן ה ְר

הנֵּ ה יכּ

For look, the wicked bend the bow, they fit their arrow to the string.

4.5. . . . SC + PC

If the writer needs a co-ordinate element after SC, he/she comes back to PC.

30 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

. . . SC + PC in Direct Speech

Epexegesis

1 Kgs 1:35

תַּ ְחתָּי

ﬠל־כּ ְס ִאי ְוהוּא ִימְ��

ו ָי ַשׁב

He shall sit on my throne and shall be king in my place

In 1 Kgs 1:13 the verbal forms are in reverse order (see also 1 Kgs 1:17.30). See also Lev 26:42 (reference to the same cov- enant).

Parenthetical Remark

Exod 12:8

ְמרִֹרים ﬠל־

ִלי־ ֵאשׁ וּ ַמוֹצּת צ

ֶזּה ה

ַלּ ְי ָלה בּ

ַה ָבּ ָשׂר את־

ו ָא ְכלוּ

י ֹא ְכ ֻלהוּ׃

They shall eat the lamb that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (NRSV).

Parallelism

Gen 17:20–21

אָ ִקים

ְכ ִתּי . . . ְו ֶאת־ ְבּרִי ִתי בּ ַר

ֵנּה ה

�יתִּ ﬠְ ַמ שׁ

ִי ְשׁ ָמ ֵﬠאל ִי ְצחָק וּ ְל ֶאת־

As for Ishmael, I have heard you; I bless him . . . , but my covenant I will establish with Isaac.

God will do such and such with Ishmael, but, at the same time, he will establish his covenant with Isaac.

Deut 2:28

תִֶּןתּ־ ִלי ְו ָשׁתִיתִי

ֶסף כֶּ בּ

ִבּ ֵר ִני ְו ָא ַכ ְל ִתּי וּ ַמ ִים תּ ְשׁ

ֶסף כֶּ בּ

א ֶכל

You shall sell me food for money, so that I may eat, and

supply me water for money, so that I may drink (NRSV).

The second action follows the first, but the third is parallel to the first. For this reason the writer comes back to PC. The last action follows the third and must be a SC.

End of the Chain of Events

Exod 3:20

א ֶשׁר

אתַי

בְּכֹל ִנ ְפ ְל

ִמ ְצרַ ִים את־

ָידִי ְו ִה ֵכּיתִי את־

ו ָשׁ ַל ְח ִתּי

אתְ ֶכם׃

ִקרְוֹבּ ְו ַא ֲח ֵרי־כן ְישַׁ ַלּח בּ

א ֱשׂﬠֶה

So I will stretch out my hand and strike Egypt with all my wonders that I will perform in it; after that he will let you go. (NRSV).

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 31

In order to Underline an Element in a Chain

Gen 17:20

ָﬠ ָשׂר ְנ ִשׂי ִאם שׁ ֵנים־

מאד

ְמאד בּ

אתוֹ

אתוֹ ְו ִה ְר ֵבּי ִתי

ו ִה ְפ ֵרי ִתי

יוֹליד וּ ְנ ַת ִתּיו לגוֹי ָגּדוֹל׃

I will make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous; even he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.

Compare also Gen 17:6, 16.

. . . SC + PC in Poetry

Epexegesis

Ps 77:13

. . . ְו ָה ִגי ִתי בְ ָכל־פָּ ֳﬠ ֶל� וּבַ ֲﬠ ִלילוֹ ֶתי� אִישׂ ָחה׃

. . . I will meditate on all your work, and muse on your mighty deeds (NRSV).

Joel 2:20 (short yiqtol)

. . . וָֹנת ֲח צ

ְאוֹשׁ ְו ַת ַﬠל ב

וﬠָ ָלה

Its stench and foul smell will rise up . . . (NRSV).

Parallelism

Isa 49:11

ֶר� וּ ְמ ִס� ַתי ְירֻמוּן׃ ל ָדּ

ָה ַרי כל־

ו ַשׂ ְמ ִתּי

And I will turn all my mountains into a road, and my highways shall be raised up (NRSV).

End of the Chain of Events

Jer 46:26

ֶל�־בָּבֶל מ

ְקשֵׁי ַנ ְפשָׁם וּבְ ַיד ְנבוּכַ ְד ֶראצַּר מ ַב

וּ ְנתַתִּים בְּ ַיד

ֵמי־ ֶקדֶם ְנאֻם־ ְיה ָוה כּי

ֹןכּשְׁתּ

וּבְ ַיד־ ֲﬠבָ ָדיו ְו ַא ֲח ֵרי־כן

I will hand them over to those who seek their life, to King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and his officers. Afterward Egypt shall be inhabited as in the days of old, says the LORD (NRSV).

COROLLARIES
1. THE IMPERATIVE

Most scholars have recognized sequences headed by impera- tives. My theory asserts that in these sequences the imperative does not possess any special function, while SC keeps its sub- ordinate function exactly as when it comes after PC (for a dif- ferent opinion on precative qatal, see Andrason 2013). Below are a few examples demonstrating that the waw is not relevant:

32 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Ps 22:22 (waw-x-qatal)

ﬠ ִני ָתנִי׃

ֵיה וּ ִמ ַקּ ְר ֵני ֵר ִמים א ְר

ִפּי מ

הוֹ ִשׁי ֵﬠ ִני

Save me from the mouth of the lion! And from the horns of the wild oxen rescue me!

Ps 71:3 (qatal without waw)

ִוּיָת ְלהוֹ ִשׁיﬠ ִני צ

ִמיד תּ

לבוֹא

מעוֹן

לי לצוּר

ה ֵיה

Be to me a rock of refuge, a strong fortress, always order

to save me.

Habitual and Iterative in the Past and Non-Past

Gen 2:6 (past, PC + SC)

ְפּ ֵני־ ָה ֲא ָד ָמה׃ את־כּל־

ֶרץ ְו ִהְשׁקה מן־הָאָ

ואֵד ַיﬠֲ ֶלה

But a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground (NRSV).

Ps 122:4 (non-past, SC)

To it the tribes go up (NRSV).

2 Sam 15:1–2 (past, x + waw + SC)

ָב ִטים שְׁ

וּלﬠ

שֶׁשָּׁם

ָניו׃ לפָ

אִישׁרָ ִצים

ָכּ ָבה ְוסֻסִים ַו ֲח ִמשִּׁים מרְ

ְבשָׁלוֹם א

וֹל שַׂﬠיַּ ו

השָּׁ ַﬠר

ﬠַל־ ַיד ֶדּרֶ�

ְבשָׁלוֹם ְו ָﬠַמד א

ו ִהְ ִכּשׁים

After this Absalom got himself a chariot and horses, and fifty men to run ahead of him. Absalom used to rise early and stand beside the road into the gate (NRSV).

In the previous example the introductory dominant verb is omitted.

Ps 33:10 (non-past, SC + SC: qatal without waw)

ﬠ ִמּים׃

ְח ְשׁבוֹת מ

ִניא הֵ

ַצת־וֹגּ ִים ﬠֲ

ִפיר הֵ

יהוָה

The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples (NRSV).

Ps 33:13–14 (non-past, SC + SC: qatal without waw)

האָ ָדם׃

אֶת־ ָכּל־ ְבּ ֵני

הִ ִבּיט ְיהוָהרָ ָאה

מִ ָשּׁמַ ִים

The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all human- kind (NRSV).

Ps 65:10 (non-past, SC + PC + PC: qatal, wayyiqtol and

yiqtol)

הנָּ רֶשְׁ ﬠְ תּ

ה ָארֶץ ַו ְשׁתֹּ ְקֶ ָקהרַ ַבּת

פּ ַקדְ ָתּ

You visit the earth and water it, you greatly enrich it (NRSV).

Ps 99:7 (past, PC + SC: yiqtol and qatal without waw)

ְוחֹק ָנתַן־ ָלמוֹ׃ ﬠדֹתָיו

ְמרוּ שָׁ

ֵלי ֶהם אֲ

ﬠָ ָנן ְידַ ֵבּר

דוּמּﬠַ ְבּ

He spoke to them in the pillar of cloud; they kept his decrees, and the statutes that he gave them (NRSV).

For further examples in the non-past, see also: Jer 8:7; Ps 88:10.14; 119:10–14; Job 6:17–20. For others in the past, see Joosten (2012: 285–87).

Durative in the Past and Non-Past

With some verbs, the equivalent function is not habitual or iterative, but durative: “Les états et les activités représentent des usages ‘duratifs’, tandis que les procès d’accomplissement,

34 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

d’achèvement et de semelfactif entrent dans le type ‘fréquenta- tif’ ” (Voitila 2001: 206 n. 105; compare Joosten 2012: 286).

2 Sam 4:2 (past, PC)

ﬠל־ ִבּ ְנ ָימִן׃

תּ ָחֵשׁב

גּם־ ְבּ ֵארוֹת

For Beeroth was considered to belong to Benjamin (see Joosten 2012: 286).

Gen 31:15 (non-past, SC)

הֲלוֹא ָנ ְכ ִרוֹיּת ֶנ ְחַ ְשׁבנוּ לוֹ

Are we not regarded by him as foreigners? (NRSV). 1 Sam 9:9 (past, PC)

הרֹאֶה׃

ִנים לפָ

הַוֹיּם ִי ָקּרֵא

ָנּבִיא ל

כִּי

For the one who is now called a prophet was formerly

called a seer (NRSV). Isa 48:2 (non-past, SC)

כּי־מֵ ִﬠיר הקֹּדֶשׁ ִנ ְקרָאוּ

For they call themselves after the holy city (NRSV).

See also Jer 15:18.

THE DOUBLING OF SEQUENCES

In this phase, BH had the ability to double a sequence. We have already seen two instances with SC and PC:

Ps 74:13–15

ﬠל־ ַה ָמּ ִים׃

ִנּי ִנים ת

שִׁ ַבּ ְר ָתּ ָראשֵׁי

ל ִצ ִיּים׃

ָﬠם ל

ֲא ָכל מ

וּנּנתֶּ ְִתּ

ְו ָיתָן ל

אתָּה ִר ַצּ ְצתָּ ָרא ֵשׁי

מ ְﬠ ָין ָו ָנחַל

בָ ַקְﬠָתּ

אתָּה

Both וּנֶּנ ְתִּתּ and ָתּﬠְ בקַ continue the verbal form תָּ ַצְצִּר . Put dif-

ferently, the sequence is doubled. We can describe this process in a simple way, see Figure 3.

The same process occurs three times in 1 Sam 8:11–17 (§ 4.3.1):

ֶאת־ ְבּ ֵני ֶכם ִיקָּח ְושָׂם . . . ְורָצוּ . . .

ְו ֶאת־ ְבּנוֹתי ֶכם ִי ָקּח . . .

ְו ֶאת־ ְשׂדוֹתי ֶכם . . . ִיקָּח ְו ָנַןת . . .

ְו ַזרְ ֵﬠי ֶכם . . . ַיﬠְשֹׂר ְו ָנַןת . . .

The scheme is quite simple, see Figure 4.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 35

It is more difficult to observe such a process if the verbal forms are the same (SC and SC or PC and PC), see Figure 5.

A possible example, however, is provided by Exod 17:1–4:

ﬠל־ ִפּי

ַמסְ ֵﬠיהֶם ל

ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל מִמִּ ְד ַבּר־סִין בּ ֵני־

ֲﬠ ַדת כּל־

ו ִיּסְעוּ

תּת הָ ָﬠם׃

שְׁ ל

ִים מ

יה ָוה ַו ַיּ ֲחנוּ בִּ ְרפִי ִדים ְו ֵאין

ְו ִנ ְשׁ ֶתּה ַויּ ֹאמר מ ִים

ָלנוּ תּנוּ־

ֶשׁה ַויּ ֹאמרוּ ﬠם־מ

ָﬠם ה

.1 ַו ָיּרֶב

את־ ְיה ָוה׃

ְתּ ַנוּסּן מה־

ִדי מָּ ﬠ

ְתּ ִריבוּן מה־

ֶשׁה מ

ל ֶהם

ָמּה ֶזּה ל

ַויּ ֹא ֶמר מ ֶשׁה

ﬠל־

ָﬠם ה

ַמּ ִים ַו ָיּ ֶלן ל

םﬠָ ה םשׁ

.2 ַו ִיּ ְצָמא

ָצּ ָמא׃ בּ

ְו ֶאת־ ָבּ ַני ְו ֶאת־מ ְק ַני א ִתי

ָה ִמית ל

ה ֱﬠ ִלי ָתנוּ מִמִּ ְצ ַר ִים

ַﬠט מ

ֶזּה עוֹד ה

ָﬠם ל

א ֱﬠ ֶשׂה מה

לאמר

ְיה ָוה אל־

ֶשׁה מ

ַו ִיּ ְצ ַﬠק

ְסקָ ֻל ִני׃ וּ

From the wilderness of Sin the whole congregation of the Israelites journeyed by stages, as the LORD commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink.

The people quarreled with Moses, and said, “Give us water to drink. “Moses said to them,” Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?”
(But) the people thirsted there for water; and the people complained against Moses and said, “Why did you bring us out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and live- stock with thirst?” So Moses cried out to the LORD, “What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me” (NRSV).

(I would omit the conjunction “but” from the translation of NRSV.)

If the writer had used SC to begin the second sequence, he would have lost the link with the starting point of the narra- tive. He could therefore only use PC.

The Redaktionsgeschichte can explain why we find a discus- sion between Moses and the people twice. I explain how this is possible: In BH, the writer can double a sequence.

36 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Some other possible examples of this phenomenon include Gen 37:5–6; 42:18–26; Deut 31:22–30.

OVERRIDING ISSUES
1. THE SAME SYNTAX IN EVERY CONTEXT

When I started my research I believed, as many scholars did, that Hebrew syntax was different in narration, direct speech and poetry. The result of this research was thus unexpected: one finds the same sequences and the same taxis across these literary contexts.

It is usually held that a difference exists between narration and direct speech for the following reasons:

The first sentence of the Bible is interpreted as in the beginning when God created. Hence, the first verbal form of the narrative would be a wayyiqtol (ֹאמֶר יַּו ).
Twelve books in the Bible begin with PC.
The use of SC at the beginning of a sequence in narra- tion is considered background information.
There are several examples of wayyiqtol in narration which become qatal in direct speech (Niccacci 1986: 27–30), for

instance Gen 40:2 (narration) ִריסיו ס

שׁ ֵני

פּ ְרעֹה ﬠל

ו ִיּ ְקצֹף

becomes (direct speech): ָדיו ָב ﬠֲ ַל־ﬠ ַצף ק

ְרעֹה פּ

in Gen 41:10.

Instead, based on the results of my research I can state the following:

The first sentence can be understood in a traditional way: “In the beginning God created,” the first verbal form of the narrative is a qatal (§ 3.1.3).
In most instances, these twelve books represent (or at least they seek to represent) the continuation of a previous book. Hence, PC is not the first verbal form in the narrative chain. However, there are some occurrences of PC as a real absolute beginning, which I explain as a different syntax (§ 6.3).
Qatal in the beginning of a sequence usually expresses the most important information in the sequence. Hence, it should be considered a foreground form.
The wayyiqtols in the above mentioned examples depend on the fact that the actions follow another one and are thus not the first ones in the sequence, while the qatals in direct speech represent the first actions of the sequence.

In other words, there are no strong arguments in favour of two different syntaxes. On the contrary, one finds the same syntactical rules in narration and in direct speech, as is clear in the next example:

Josh 13:1

בּאָת

א ָתּה ָזקַ ְנ ָתּה

ָליו א

ִמים ַויּ ֹא ֶמר ְיה ָוה בּ ָיּ

בָּא

ויהוֹ ֻ�שַׁ ָז ֵקן

ב ָיּמִים ְוהָ ָא ֶרץ ִנ ְשׁ ֲא ָרה הַ ְר ֵבּה־מְאד ל ִר ְשׁ ָהּתּ׃

Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and the LORD said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed.” (NRSV).

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 37

The two couples of SC indicate the same fact that was still true when the LORD spoke. The first is a stative qatal and the second a fientive qatal without waw. The direct speech repeats exactly the same verbal forms and the same word order (sub- ject-verb-verb). The couples of SC are in the foreground; otherwise in the direct speech there would be no foreground action.

OTHER KINDS OF ANALYSIS

In this short study, I have examined the functions of SC and PC only in simple sequences. In order to correctly understand a text, one should also consider other elements such as word semantics, rhetoric, Redaktionsgeschichte, and so on.

For instance, the idiomatic expression “to eat and to drink” (which we have encountered twice in the examples quoted above) should be considered as a hendiadys: “to have a meal.” From a syntactical point of view it is composed of two different successive verbs, but it expresses only one concept (Cohen 2010–2011: 20–21). The same can be said for “to an- swer and to say,” “to speak and to say,” and so on (for a detailed list see Joosten 2012: 167–68). It is useful to recall Waltke and O’Connor’s explanation in this regard:

Another syntactic approach is based on the use of two Hebrew verbs in sequence, corresponding to a verb + ad- verb construction in other languages . . . Examples of such usage are furnished by verbs such שוב and יסף, which are often rendered with adverbs such as “again, further, con- tinually,” etc. This syntactic approach to what European languages take as an adverbial function is properly a matter for the Hebrew lexicon; once the pattern is appreciated as an integral part of Hebrew, it requires little grammatical notice (Waltke and O’Connor 1990:656).

In poetry, SC and PC are not only used in sequences, but also in more elaborated constructions such as chiasms. These con- structions are able to express more complex meanings such as, for instance, merismus (Watson 2007:205). This is a matter of rhetoric.

TOWARD A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS

In this study I have only presented a synchronic analysis. Many questions have yet to be answered, issues which require a dia- chronic analysis.

For the moment, in lieu of this type of analysis, I wish to stress one final point: I do not suppose that the “taxis syntax” was the only verbal syntax of Standard BH.

The existence of two syntaxes in Standard BH can be detected in the following examples:

38 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Jer 31:29

ְק ֶהי ָנה תּ

בנִים

ְכלוּ בֹ ֶסר ְו ִשׁ ֵנּי אָ

אבוֹת

The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth were set on edge.

Ezek 18:2

אבוֹת י ֹא ְכלוּ בֹסֶר ְו ִשׁ ֵנּי הַ ָבּ ִנים תּ ְקהֶי ָנה

The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

Jeremy employs the standard pattern SC + PC (without waw), whereas Ezekiel uses two PCs in order to express two con- secutive actions.

Isa 37:27

וּשׁוָבֹ וּתּח

ְצ ֵרי־ ָיד ק

ויֹ ְשׁ ֵביהן

Their inhabitants, shorn of strength, are dismayed and

confounded (NRSV). 2 Kgs 19:26

וּשׁבֹיֵּ וַ וּתּח

ְצ ֵרי־ ָיד ק

ויֹ ְשׁ ֵביהן

Their inhabitants, shorn of strength, are dismayed and

confounded (NRSV).

Isaiah keeps the standard pattern in order to indicate the same state with two verbal forms: SC + SC. 2 Kings employs way- yiqtol as an equivalent to qatal.

2 Kgs 20:12

ֶל�־בָּבֶל מ

בְּר ֹא ַד� בַּ ְל ֲא ָדן בֶּן־בַּ ְל ֲא ָדן שׁ ַלח

ִהיא ה

תﬠֵ ָבּ

חָ ָלה חִ ְז ִק ָיּהוּ כּי

ַמע שָׁ

ִח ְז ִק ָיּהוּ כּי אל־

ס ָפ ִרים וּ ִמ ְנ ָחה

At that time King Merodach-Baladan son of Baladan of Babylon sent envoys with letters and a present to Heze- kiah, for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick (NRSV).

Isa 39:1

ָפ ִרים ס

ֶל�־ ָבּ ֶבל מ

ַבּ ְל ֲא ָדן בּן־

ְל ֲא ָדן בּ

ַד� מרֹ

ַלח שׁ

ִהוא ה

תﬠֵ בּ

ח ָלה ַו ֶיּ ֱח ָזק׃

אל־חִ ְז ִק ָיּהוּ ַו ִיְּ ַשׁמע כּי

וּ ִמ ְנחָה

At that time King Merodach-Baladan son of Baladan of Babylon sent envoys with letters and a present to Heze- kiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recov- ered. (NRSV).

In a few instances, the two syntaxes appear side by side:

Ps 22:5b–6a

אֵ ֶלי� ָז ֲﬠקוּ ְו ִנְ ָמלטוּ

בּטְחוּ ַותְּ ַפ ְלּ ֵטמוֹ׃

They trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried, and were saved (NRSV).

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 39

In the first sentence we see the standard pattern: SC + PC, but in the second we find two SCs used to express two consecutive actions.

Obviously, one could affirm that these examples are simple variants due to the carelessness of copyists. This would open the much broader question as to how much we can rely on the Masoretic text—an issue that clearly cannot be addressed in more detail in this article.

ARE WAYYIQTOL, SHORT YIQTOL AND LONG YIQTOL EQUIVALENT? ARE QATAL AND WEQATAL EQUIVALENT?

In chapter 2.4, I hypothesized that at one point in the development of BH—possibly due to their similarity—long and short yiqtol as well as wayyiqtol were used in an analogous way, and the same was true of qatal and weqatal.

At the same time, however, I have refrained from affirm- ing whether or not they are actually equivalent as far as their semantics are concerned.

If they are not semantically equivalent, the two equiv- alences only concern the categories of coordination and subor- dination and the present inquiry can be considered complete.

If they are semantically equivalent, however, this means that the differences between short and long yiqtol and wayyiqtol and between qatal and weqatal are only phonetic and that the waw in the wayyiqtol and in the weqatal is nothing more than a conjunction (an idea already put forth by Lee 1827: 361).

In order to better explore this extremely important issue, further investigation dealing with the theories of Qimron, Torres Fernández, Bloch, Van de Sande and others would be necessary, an examination which lies beyond the scope of this study.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study presented a collection of empirical data, which appears to illustrate how, in one phase of the Hebrew language, syntax was based on a combination of sequences and taxis. This syntax was identical in narrative, direct speech and poetic contexts. SC and PC had different functions in a past/anterior sequence and in a non-past/non-anterior sequence. In a past/ante- rior sequence, SC denoted a co-ordinate element, whereas PC denoted a sub-ordinate element. In a non-past/non-anterior sequence, PC denoted a co-ordinate element while SC denoted a sub-ordinate element. Hence, wayyiqtol was not equivalent to qatal and weqatal was not equivalent to yiqtol. The historical dif- ferences between short and long yiqtol and wayyiqtol and between qatal and weqatal were lost in this phase.

However, many questions remain unanswered: When did this system begin? When did it end? Where exactly do we find it?

Even the list of syntactical constructions is not complete. In particular, due to lack of space, I did not examine the following instances:

40 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Hypothetical constructions.
Sequences introduced by a particle such as הנה.
Sequences introduced by an infinitive.
Purpose clauses.
Participle.
Deontic PC.

All the same, what has been made clear by this analysis is that BH possessed a refined and sophisticated verbal system through which it was possible to express more than just a few nuances of meaning.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 41

REFERENCES

Andersen, D. 2000. The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System. ZAH 13: 1–66.

Andrason, A. 2010. The Panchronic Yiqtol. Functionally Consistent and Cognitively Plausible. JHS 10/10.

Andrason, A. 2011a. Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqtol: A Dynamic Definition. JHS 11/7.

Andrason, A. 2011b. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Light of Grammaticalization: The Second Generation. HS 52: 19–51.

Andrason, A. 2011c. The BH Weqatal. A Homogenous Form with no Haphazard Functions (Part One). JNSL 37/2: 1– 26.

Andrason, A. 2011d. Making It Sound – The Performative

Qatal and Its Explanation. JHS 12/8.

Andrason, A. 2013. An Optative Indicative? A Real Factual Past? Toward a Cognitive-Typological Approach to the Precative Qatal. JHS 13/4.

Bauer, H., and Leander, P. 1922. Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testamentes. Tübingen: Niemeyer (repr., Hildesheim: Olms, 1991).

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Bhat, D.N.S. 1999. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Bloch, Y. 2007. From Linguistics to Text-Criticism and Back: Wayyiqṭōl Constructions with Long Prefixed Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew. HS 48: 141–70.

Bloch, Y. 2010. The Prefixed Perfective in the Construction ֹל ְקט יִ זאָ and Its Later Replacement by the Long Prefixed Verbal Form: A Syntactic and Text-Critical Analysis. JNSL 36/2: 49–74.

Böttcher, F. 1868. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache.

Vol. 2. Leipzig: Barth.

Brockelmann, C. 1956. Hebräische Syntax. Glückstadt: Neu- kirchener Verlag.

(“He ate and drank, and rose and went his way. Thus Esau

despised his birthright.” Regarding the meaning of con- secutive forms in Biblical Hebrew). Mehqarim b-Lashon 13: 13–37.

Cook, J.A. 2012. Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expres- sion of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew (Linguis- tic studies in ancient West Semitic, 7). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Driver, S. 1892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and

Some Other Syntactical Problems. Oxford: Clarendon.

42 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES

Ewald, H. 1836. A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament (trans. Nicholson, J.). London: Williams and Norgate.

Gell, P. 1821. Observations on the Idiom of the Hebrew Language.

London: Watts.

Ḥatav, G. 1997. The Semantics of Aspect and Modality: Evidence from English and Biblical Hebrew. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing.

Ḥatav, G. 2004. Anchoring World and Time in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Linguistics 40: 491–526.

Held, M. 1962. The Yqtl-Qtl (Qtl-Yqtl) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic. In: Ben-Horin, M., Weinryb, B.D., and Zeitlin, S. (eds.). Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 281–90.

Hitzig, F. 1833. Der Prophet Jesaja. Heidelberg: Winter.

Jenni, E. 1981. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Testa- ments. Basel: Helbing und Lichtenhahn.

Joosten, J. 1999. The Long Form of the Prefixed Conjuga- tion Referring to the Past in Biblical Hebrew Prose. HS 40: 15–26.

Joosten, J. 2002. Do the Finite Verbal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Express Aspect?. Journal of Ancient Near East Stud- ies 29: 49–70.

Joosten, J. 2012. The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem: Simor.

Joüon, P. 1923. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique. Rome: Institut biblique pontifical.

Joüon, P., and Muraoka, T. 2006. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (SubBi, 27). Rome: Editrice Pontificio Intituto Biblico.

Kautzsch, E. (ed). 1910. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (trans.

Cowley, A.E.). Oxford: Clarendon.

Kuryłowicz, J.K. 1973. Verbal Aspect in Semitic. Orientalia

42: 114–20.

Lambdin, T.O. 1971. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Lee, S. 1827. A Grammar of the Hebrew Language. London: Duncan.

Maslov, J. 1988. Resultative, Perfect and Aspect. In: Nedjalkov, V. (ed.). Typology of Resultative Constructions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 63–85.

McFall, L. 1982. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solu- tions from Ewald to the Present Day (Historic Texts and Inter- preters in Biblical Scholarship, 2). Sheffield: Almond Press.

Meyer, R. 1972. Hebräische Grammatik. Band III: Satzlehre. Ber- lin: De Gruyter.

Michel, D. 1960. Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Bonn: Bouvier.

SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 43

Niccacci, A. 1986. Sintassi del verbo ebraico nella prosa biblica classica (SBF Analecta, 23). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press.

Niccacci, A. 1991. Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica. Principi e applicazioni (SBF Analecta, 31). Jerusalem: Fran- ciscan Printing Press.

Niccacci, A. 2006. Biblical Hebrew Verbal System in Poetry. In: Fassberg, S., and Hurvitz, A. (eds.). Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. 247–68.

Qimron, E. 1998. בעברית העתיד צורות לפירוש חדשה הצעה הקדומה (A New Proposal for the Interpretation of Prefix Conjugation Forms in Ancient Hebrew). Lešonenu 61: 31– 43.

Rainey, A.F. 2003. The Yaqtul Preterite in Northwest Semitic. In: Baasten, M.F.J., and van Peursen, W.R. (eds.). Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor

T. Muraoka on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (OLA, 118). Leuven: Peeters. 395–407.

Rogland, M. 2003. Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Torres Fernández, A. 2013. ‘Tiempo’ y ‘aspecto’ en la conju- gación hebrea (Parte IV-1): Reflexiones de un octagenerio. Miscelánea de Estudios Árabes y Hebraicos. Sección Hebreo 63: 189–225.

Van de Sande, A. 2008. Nouvelle perspective sur le système verbal de l’hébreu ancien. Les formes *qatala, *yaqtul et *yaqtulu. Louvain- la-Neuve: Peeters.

Voitila, A. 2001. Présent et imparfait de l’indicatif dans le Penta- teuque grec. Une étude sur la syntaxe de traduction. Helsinki: Société d’Exégèse de Finlande, and Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht.

Wagner, A. 1997. Sprechakte und Sprechaktanalyse im Alten Tes- tament. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Warren, A. 2002. Modality, Reference and Speech Acts in the Psalms. Tyndale Bulletin 53: 149–52.

Waltke, B.K., and O’Connor, M. P. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Watson, W.G.E. 2007. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to Its Techniques. New York: T\&T Clark.

Zatelli, I. 2004. The Study of Ancient Hebrew Lexicon. Application of the Concepts of Lexical Field and Func- tional Language. KUSATU (Kleine Untersuchungen zur Spra- che des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt) 5: 129–59.

Syntax of verbal sequences in Biblical Hebrew

SC as the First Verb in Main Sentence in Direct Speech

SC as First Verb in a Secondary Clause

SC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Narration

SC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Poetry

SC + SC in a Main Sentence in Direct Speech

Parenthetical Remark

Parallelism

Negation

List

SC + SC in a Secondary Clause

Parallelism

Negation

SC + SC in a Main Sentence in Narration

Parenthetical remark

Parallelism

Negation

SC + SC in Poetry

Parallelism

Negation

List

. . . + PC in Direct Speech

. . . + PC in a Secondary Clause

. . . + PC in Narration

. . . + PC in Poetry

. . . PC + SC in Direct Speech

Parallelism

List

Generic Parallelism

. . . PC + SC in Narration

Parenthetical Remark

Parallelism

Negation

List

End of the Chain of Events

Generic Parallelism

Rhetoric

. . . PC + SC in Poetry

PC as the First Verb in Direct Speech

PC as First Verb in a Secondary Clause

PC as the First Verb in a Main Sentence in Poetry

PC + PC in Main Sentence in Direct Speech

Parenthetical Remark

Parallelism

List

PC + PC in a Secondary Clause

Parallelism

List

PC + PC in a Main Sentence in Poetry

Parallelism

Negation

List

. . . + SC in Direct Speech

4.4.2 . . . + SC in a Secondary Clause

4.5. . . . SC + PC

. . . SC + PC in Direct Speech

Parenthetical Remark

Parallelism

End of the Chain of Events

In order to Underline an Element in a Chain

. . . SC + PC in Poetry

Parallelism

End of the Chain of Events

Habitual and Iterative in the Past and Non-Past

Durative in the Past and Non-Past