**Dov Yarden Hebrew and Arabic linguistic Seminar at the École Normale**
Workshops on Semitic Syntax and Morphology
# Syntax of verbal sequences in Biblical Hebrew
1. **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).
2. ***DIFFERENT APPROACHES***
In scholarly research there have been at least seven approaches to the
verbal system:
1. 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,”
העתידיוו. Dunash ben
Labrat (also from the 10th century) referred to it as “*waw*
oblique,” עוטפתוו.
David Kimchi (12th century) called it “*waw* of service,”
השרותוו; and Elias
Levita (15th century) termed it “*waw* conversive”
הפוךוו (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).
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
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).
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
2. **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*.*
3. ***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:
1. This approach allows us to explain some sentences that up to now
have remained obscure, especially in poetic texts;
2. it can help explain more precisely some sentences that we understand
now in a generic way only;
3. it can help us better understand the evolution of BH.
4. ***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.
5. ***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.
6. ***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*
(ֶהשׂﬠֲַי ), short *yiqtol*
(שַׂﬠַי ) and
*wayyiqtol* (שַׂﬠיַַּו ) 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
7. ***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:
1. SC
2. SC + SC . . . ; SC + *waw* + SC . . .
3. SC + PC . . . ; SC + *waw* + PC
4. x + *waw* + PC . . .
5. SC + PC + SC . . . ; SC + *waw* + PC + *waw +* SC . . .
6. 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:
1. PC
2. PC + PC + . . . ; PC + *waw* + PC . . .
3. PC + SC; PC + *waw* + SC . . .
4. x + *waw* + SC . . .
5. PC + SC + PC . . . ; PC + *waw* + SC + *waw +* PC . . .
6. 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?
8. ***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).
9. ***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*)*.*
10. ***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:
7. Beginning: to initiate a new sequence.
8. Epexegesis: to repeat the same action/state using dif- ferent words.
9. Parenthetical remark: to add some particularity to the previous
action/state/event.
10. Parallelism: to describe an action/state/event which is contemporary
to/parallel with/opposite to the first.
11. Negation: to negate an action/state/event which is contemporary
to/parallel with/opposite to the first.
12. Lists: to present a series of parallel actions/states/ events.
13. End: to stop the chain of events.
14. Generic parallelism: to describe an action paral- lel/opposite to a
previous section.
15. 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.
12. ***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*).
3. **THE VERBAL FUNCTIONS IN A *PAST/ANTERIOR***
**SEQUENCE**
13. ***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
יתִַּמרְָארוֹאָמ
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
טﬠְַמ כּ
וּנלּ
ָתישִׂ 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).
See also Gen 26:15; Josh 24:32.
## 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
יתשִׁרֵאבּ 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
יתשִׁרֵאis 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
יתשִׁרֵאבּ
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*)
. . . יתִַּמרְא
I **waited** patiently for the LORD (NRSV).
ק ִוּיִית ְיהוָה
קַ ֹוּה
2. ***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
. . . השֶׁמ
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
רשֲֶׁא כּ
ו ְיהִי
As he interpreted to us, so it turned out (NRSV).
3. ***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
1. ***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
1. ***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).
See also in poetry Ps 102:4 (x-*qatal*)
# *Parallelism*
2 Sam 7:1
ָכּל־א ְי ָביו׃ מ
ָסּ ִביב מ
ה ִני�ַ־לוֹ
ֵביתוֹ ַויה ָוה בּ
�ֶל מֶּה
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
. . .תְּלַָאָשְׁו . . .
תְָּלַאָשׁ
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
1. ***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
�ָלָשׁוּירבּ
ַ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.
1. 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*
2. 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
1. ***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.
4. ***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
פַּתְִתַּו . . .
She **prayed** to the LORD, and **wept** bitterly. She **made**
this vow (NRSV).
18 JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
I consider הכְֶּבתִ 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:
1. 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).
2. Sam 2:28 (*yiqtol*)
ֲח ֵרי א
ָה ָﬠם ְול ֹא־ ִירְ ְדּפוּ עוֹד כּל־
וְּמד ﬠַ
יַַּוָפר 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).
See also 1 Sam 1:7.
In some instances, the logical subordination of PC is clear even when
there is no succession:
Gen 32:25–26
ָשּׁ ַחר׃ ה
תוֹלﬠ
דﬠ
וֹמּﬠ
אישׁ
ַבוֹדּ ַו ֵיּאָ ֵבק ל
קֹבﬠֲַיֵתרוָּ
יִַּו . . .
בּ ַכף־ ְירֵכוֹ
ל ֹא ָיכֹל לוֹ ַו ִגּיַּע כּי
ו ַיּרְא
Jacob **was left alone**; and a man **wrestled** with him until
daybreak. When the man **saw** that he did not prevail against Jacob,
he **struck** him on the hip socket (NRSV).
In this example no succession is involved: the action of wrest- ling
was not over when the man struck Jacob, but it is clear that
רְאיַַּו and
ַעגּיִַּו are sub-ordinate to
ֵבקאָיֵַּו . See also Gen 37:34–35.
It is very rare that PC is not the continuation of a single verbal
form. However, it can be considered the continuation of the previous
narrative: see, e.g., 1 Sam 15:1. This is the explanation for many of
the so-called “initial *wayyiqtol.*”
When SC represents an antefact, the following PC can indicate an
action/state/event that continues the antefact, or an
action/state/event that occurs later (GKC § 111n-x).
Exod 12:35
ִמּצְ ַר ִים כְּ ֵלי־כֶ ֶסף מ
מ ֶשׁה ַו ִיְּ ֲשׁאלוּ
ְד ַבר כּ
וּשָׂﬠ
וּ ְב ֵני־ ִי ְשׂרָ ֵאל
וּ ְכ ֵלי ָז ָהב וּ ְשׂ ָמ�ת׃
The Israelites **had done** as Moses told them; they **had asked** the
Egyptians for jewelry of silver and gold, and for clothing (NRSV).
SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 19
See also Josh 2:6.
Josh 13:12
משֶׁה ַויֹּרִ ֵשׁם׃
ְר ָפ ִאים ַו ַכּיֵּם ה
ֶיּ ֶתר מ
הוּא ִנשְׁ ַאר
He alone **was left** of the survivors of the Rephaim and
*later* Moses **defeated** them and **driven** them **out**. Deut 2:12
(subject-verb, *yiqtol*)
ִיירָוּשׁם שׂﬠָו
ִנים וּבְ ֵני לפָ
ִרים החֹ
וּ ְבשֵׂ ִﬠיר ָישְׁבוּ
Moreover, the Horim **had** formerly **inhabited** Seir, but the
descendants of Esau **dispossessed** them (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
וּנּנתְִֶּתּ
ְ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
עקַַּבְי . . .
ֵ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
דוּדּמיופָּ 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).
5. ***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
1. ***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).
See also Deut 3:8–13 (without *waw*).
# *Generic Parallelism*
1 Sam 19:5 (verb as first word; without *waw*)
ָכל־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאלרָ ִאי ָת ַו ִשׂתְּ ָמח ל
ָלה וְֹגדהﬠָ 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
1. ***Epexegesis***
Josh 11:12 (verb-subject, without *waw*)
ה ֱחרִים אוֹתם
ִפי־ ֶח ֶרב ל
םכֵּ
יַּו
He struck them with the edge of the sword, he utterly
**destroyed** them.
See also 1 Sam 14:35.
# *Parenthetical Remark*
Num 7:6–8
אל־
את־ ָה ֲﬠ ָג�ת ְו ֶאת־ ַה ָבּ ָקר ַו ִיּ ֵתּן אוֹ ָתם
ֶשׁה מ
ַחקּיִַּו . . .
ְ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).
See also Josh 6:15; 6:23; 1 Sam 6:12.
# *Parallelism*
Gen 19:36–38
. . . ןבּ
ְבּ ִכי ָרה ה
ֲא ִבי ֶהן׃ ַו ֵתּ ֶלד מ
בנוֹת־לוֹט
יתֵּ שׁ
ֶריןֲָה
תַַּו . . .
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
הּבָּר־שֶׁא
ַה ֶנּ ֶפשׁ את־כּל־
וּכּיַּו
ְנשָׁ ָמה
And they put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them;
there **was** no one **left** who breathed (NRSV).
See also Josh 13:14.
# *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
יםתְֵּשׁוּ
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.
4. **THE VERBAL FUNCTIONS IN A *NON-PAST/NON- ANTERIOR* SEQUENCE**
14. ***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
2. ***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*)
. . . וּנּכֶַּיר־שֶׁא
The man who kills him . . . (NRSV).
3. ***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
1. ***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�־
׃�דְֶּב ﬠַל
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 ﬠֱא
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).
See also Josh 18:5b; 2 Sam 7:14.
# *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 כֶַּמרְ
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
1. ***Epexegesis***
Josh 1:8 (with אז)
ילכּשְִׂתּ
אֶת־ ְדּ ָר ֶכ� ְואָז
כּי־ ָאז
For then you **shall make** your way prosperous, and then you **shall
be** successful (NRSV).
See also 2 Sam 16:18.
# *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
1. ***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*).
4. ***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).
See also 1 Sam 2:16.
## *4.4.2* . . . + SC in a Secondary Clause
Deut 4:19
. . . שֶׁמֶשַּׁהאת־
ַ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
תשֶׁק
ָשׁ ִﬠים ִי ְד ְרכוּן ה ְר
הנֵּהיכּ
For look, the wicked bend the bow, they **fit** their arrow to the
string.
See also Ps 73:27.
***4.4.3.* . . . + SC in Poetry**
Ps 110:6 (*qatal* without *waw*)
ֶא ֶרץ ַר ָבּה׃ ﬠל־
מַחץ ר ֹאשׁ
ֵלא ְג ִווֹיּת מָ
יִםוֹגּבּ
יָ ִדין
He will execute judgment among the nations; he **will fill** them with
corpses; he **will shatter** heads over the wide earth (NRSV).
Ps 132:17 (*qatal* without *waw*)
ל ְמ ִשׁי ִחי׃
ﬠרַ ְכ ִתּי ֵנר
ָד ִוד ל
ֶרן ק
שׁם א ְצ ִמי ַ�
There I will cause a horn to sprout up for David; I **will prepare** a
lamp for my anointed one.
Ps 73:18 (*qatal* without *waw*)
ל ַמוּשּׁאוֹת׃
ַפּ ְלָתּם ה
לָמוֹ
יתשִׁ תּ
א� בּ ֲח ָלקוֹת
Truly you set them in slippery places; you **make** them **fall**
to ruin (NRSV).
Isa 11:8 (*waw*-x-*qatal*)
הדָה׃
ְפעוֹ ִני ָגּמוּל ָידוֹ צ
ַרת מאוּ
ֶתן ְו ַﬠל פּ
ֻחר ﬠל־
ֵנק וֹיעשַׁ
ﬠֲ שִׁו
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned
child **shall put** its hand on the adder’s den (NRSV).
Isa 19:7 (*qatal* without *waw*)
ֹוְכל מ ְזרַע יְאוֹר ִייבַשׁ ִנדַּף
And all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, **be driven away**
(NRSV).
Isa 51:11 (*qatal* without *waw*)
שָׂוֹשׂן ְושִׂ ְמ ָחה ַי ִשּׂיגוּן ָנסוּ יָגוֹן ַו ֲא ָנחָה׃
They shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing
**shall flee** away (NRSV).
# *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
1. ***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
ﬠְַמ 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
1. ***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*)
. . . וָֹנתֲחצ
ְ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).
See also Isa 49:22.
# *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).
5. **COROLLARIES**
15. ***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.
See also Ps 4:2; Isa 43:9.
16. ***PH ASAL ASPECTS***
As I have stated above, the opposition between the two groups of
sequences can be used in some contexts to distinguish between
different phasal or quantificational aspects (for the dif- ferent
kinds of aspects compare Dick 1987: 63; Bhat 1999: 53–
54; Cook 2012: 25–26).
It is a common view that *yiqtol* is used in BH to express repeated
action. Such a function is usually associated with an aspect
(imperfective, cursive, frequentative, habitual, iterative, etc.) or
with a mood (Ḥatav 1997: 145–46; Voitila 2001: 197 n. 90; Joosten
2002: 62). This is not completely correct, however: PC expresses
repeated action only in a past context, while the examples usually
offered of its use in a non-past context (see for instance GKC § 107g;
Joosten 2002: 63) can be understood as expressing general present or
future. Instead, a repeated action is expressed in a non-past context
by SC.
In order to express habitual or iterative aspects (for a more detailed
discussion on the difference between the two, see Dahl 1985: 97), as
well as the durative aspect, BH uses the second group of sequences in
a past context and the first group in a non-past context.
To complicate matters, this implies full homonymy between this use and
that which we examined in the first part of our inquiry:
1. In a past context the second group of sequences can denote relative
tense (future in the past) or aspect (habit- ual/iterative or
durative).
2. In a non-past context the first group of sequences can denote
anteriority or aspect (habitual/iterative or durative).
Finally, the relationship between aspects and sequences in a past
context has been recognized by several authors (see for instance
Lambdin 1971: 108; Waltke and O’Connor 1990: 527– 29). However, it
must be added that—as always with sequences—the introductory dominant
verb can be omitted.
SEQUENCES OF VERBAL FORMS AND TAXIS 33
## 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
שַׂﬠיַּו
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*)
הנָּרֶשְׁ
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
דוּמּﬠְַבּ
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.
3. ***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
וּנּנתְִֶּתּ
ְו ָיתָן ל
אתָּה ִר ַצּ ְצתָּ ָרא ֵשׁי
מ ְﬠ ָין ָו ָנחַל
בָ ַקְﬠָתּ
אתָּה
Both וּנֶּנְתִּתּ and
ָתּﬠְבקַ continue the verbal form
תַָּצְצִּר . 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׃
שְׁל
ִ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
םﬠָהםשׁ
.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.
1. 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?”
2. (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.
6. **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:
1. 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 ).
2. Twelve books in the Bible begin with PC.
3. The use of SC at the beginning of a sequence in narra- tion is
considered background information.
4. There are several examples of *wayyiqtol* in narration which become
*qatal* in direct speech (Niccacci 1986: 27–30), for
instance Gen 40:2 (narration) ִריסיוס
שׁ ֵני
פּ ְרעֹה ﬠל
ו ִיּ ְקצֹף
becomes (direct speech): ָדיוָב ﬠֲַל־ﬠ ַצףק
ְרעֹה פּ
in Gen 41:10.
Instead, based on the results of my research I can state the
following:
1. 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).
2. 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).
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.
4. The *wayyiqtol*s 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 *qatal*s 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.
2. ***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.
3. ***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
וּשׁבֹיֵּוַ 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
תﬠֵָבּ
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.
4. ***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.
7. **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
1. Hypothetical constructions.
2. Sequences introduced by a particle such as
הנה.
3. Sequences introduced by an infinitive.
4. Purpose clauses.
5. Participle.
6. 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
ֹלְקטיִזאָ 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. בעבריתהעתידצורותלפירושחדשההצעההקדומה (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.