An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

constructed imperfect indicative of the Ethiopic languages. 66 The Akkadian present
(iparras) and the Ethiopic indicative imperfect (yeparres) express imperfective
aspect; the form was eliminated in the other languages on account of its similarity to
the D stem (i.e., Piel). 67
[Page 468] e Bauer’s work, despite its defects, provides the crucial outline of a modern
view of the Hebrew tenses. It is, first of all, a theory grounded in comparative data.
Since we now have available vastly improved descriptions of Akkadian, as well as of
Egyptian, and new material from various sites, notably Amarna and Ugarit, we have a
much broader field of comparison against which to study Hebrew. Second, Bauer
recognized that Hebrew yqtl/wayyqtl was at base a mixed lot, and most scholars
accept his view that the Hebrew prefix conjugation is (or better, contains remnants of)
two older prefix conjugations, one denoting the present/future tense (as Bauer would
have it) or a cursive/curative aspect (as, e.g., Rudolf Meyer describes it), and the other
a past narrative form. Unquestionably, the Proto-Semitic language had at least two
prefix conjugations, including a “longer”(?) form signifying non-perfective aspect,
66 As Paul Haupt had argued in “The Oldest Semitic Verb-Form,” Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society 10 (1878) 244–52; cited in McFall, Hebrew Verbal System, 108.
67
So, e.g., Brockelmann, “ ‘Tempora’ des Semitischen”; and T. W. Thacker, The
Relationship of the Semitic and Egyptian Verbal System (Oxford: Oxford University,
1954) 189.
Otto Rössler and Rudolf Meyer have argued that Hebrew had a yeqattel durative
form, evidenced by remnants like ynṣrw (MT yinṣórû, Deut 33:9), for yenaṣṣerū or
the like, and by some Qumranic forms. See Rössler, “Eine bisher unbekannte
Tempusform im Althebräischen,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft 111 (1961) 445–51; and “Die Präfixkonjugation Qal der Verbae I ae Nûn
im Althebräischen und das Problem der sogennanten Tempora,” Zeitschrift für die
Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962) 125–41; and the following works by Meyer:
Hebräische Grammatik (3d ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969), 2. 134–35; “Probleme der
hebräischen Grammatik,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1951)
221–35, at 224–25; “Zur Geschichte des hebräischen Verbums,” Vetus Testamentum 3
(1953) 225–35, at 229; “Des hebräische Verbalsystem im Lichte der gegenwärtigen
Forschung,” Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (Vetus Testamentum Supplement 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1960) 309–17, at 311–12; “Aspekt und Tempus im althebräischen
Verbalsystem,” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 59 (1964) 117–26; “Zur Geschichte
des hebräischen Verbums,” Forschungen und Fortschritte 40 (1966) 241–43.
Although T. N. D. Mettinger is sympathetic to this view (“The Hebrew Verb System,”
Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 9 [1973] 64–84, at 69–73), most scholars
are not; see A. Bloch, “Zur Nachweisbarkeit einer hebräischen Entsprechung der
akkadischen Form iparras,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgeniändischen Gesellschaft
113 (1963) 41–50; T. L. Fenton, “The Absence of a Verbai Formation *yaqattal from
Ugaritic and North-west Semitic,” Journal of Semitic Studies 15 (1970) 31–41;
Revell, “Stress and Waw ‘Consecutive,’ ” 442.