An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

ise of modern linguistic thinking, the verbal system of Hebrew was measured against
European languages, and it was the discrepancies that seemed to require explanation.
A special form of this view is based on the concerns of translation, but no absolutely
consistent equivalence system exists for rendering the Hebrew verbs into another
language. 10 Modern scholars seek to explain Hebrew as much as possible on its own
terms.
g Every phase of the modern study of comparative Semitics has stimulated new
theories of the Biblical Hebrew verb, although some of these theories have been
unacceptable as ideas about one language. As we shall see, comparative Semitic
information can be used both to clarify and to create a major muddle in Hebrew
grammar. It is impossible to explain Hebrew by alleging that it is a mongrel or
monster among its Semitic cousins, for, although Hebrew is different from them, it is
not different in kind. 11
h Two differences about Hebrew are relevant. The first involves what is in the Bible:
because there are certain types of writing in Biblical Hebrew which are not well
represented in extrabiblical Semitic, especially Northwest Semitic, texts, we must be
careful about comparisons. The preponderance of continuous narrative prose in the
Bible is unparalleled in the ancient Near East; even the Akkadian annals of the Neo-
Assyrian kings present major differences. As we shall see, there are distinctive
features of narrative[Page 458] prose as well as of prophetic speech, and these “genre
effects” need to be borne in mind in evaluating the verb system. 12 A second difference
involves the way in which Hebrew is preserved. Any notion of major distortion in the
MT can play no serious role in explaining the verbs. 13 This should be clear from the
separation of לטקיּו ַ and לטקיו ְ forms, cited earlier, and from the variation in
accentuation of the weəqatal combination in certain persons (e.g., תָּ רְ מ֑ ָ֫
אָ ו, ְ Isa 14:4,
but תָּ ֫ רְ ַמ אָ ו, ְ Ezek 29:3; cf. יתִּ רְ ַמ ֫ אָ ו, ְ Deut 32:40). 14
i The chief, indeed only, idea behind the earliest views on the Hebrew verb was tense
(29.2); the nineteenth century added the idea (though not the vocabulary) of aspect
(29.3). The decipherment of cuneiform and the recovery of other ancient Semitic
10 See McFall, Hebrew Verbal System, 17–21, 53.
11 See 29.4 on Hans Bauer and G. R. Driver.
12 On genre effects, see, e.g., McFall, Hebrew Verbal System, 58, 72, 82–83, 125, 185,
193, 201. On the peculiarities of narrative in general, see Bernard Comrie, Tense
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985) 61–62, 67, 104. Note that the opposition of
discursive and narrative use found in W. Schneider is not generic—the two patterns
are intertwined in various genres (cf. Gell’s views); see E. Talstra, “Text Grammar
and Hebrew Bible. I. Elements of a Theory,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 35 (1978) 169–
74. For a further reference to Schneider’s work, see n. 91.
MT Masoretic Text
13 See 1.6 and McFall, Hebrew Verbal System, 125–26.
14 Cf. McFall, Hebrew Verbal System, 145–46, 189–210.