An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

Judg 2:1
(5) After the adverbials זא, םרט and םרטבּ it seems that some prefix forms
must be taken as preterites. 6 This is a conditioned use, however, as will be seen. (6) In
poetic texts recounting history the unbound prefix conjugation seems sometimes to
signify preterite situations. David Robertson argues that in such poetic texts (e.g.,
Exodus 15, Amos 2:9–12) unbound yqtl is used of the past where no habitual or
frequentative notion is relevant. 7 Walter Gross finds a similar pattern in such material;
he also finds that short yqtl (< yaqtul) forms tend to occur clause initially (e.g., yṣb in
Deut 32:8) and long yqtl (< yaqtulu) forms tend to occur clause internally (e.g., tšth in
Deut 32:14). The clause-initial forms Gross associates with wayyiqtol, a form with
perfective meaning; the non-clause-initial forms he assigns a “historical imperfect
aspect.” 8 (7) A comparison of the synoptic psalms Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 reveals
that the remains of the historically short prefix conjugation apparently alternate
between the free and bound forms. If the bound form of yqtl signifies preterite action,
then we have strong evidence that the free form can also signify preterite action.
Compare, for example:
2a. . . . ךְ ֶשׁ ֹח ֫ ת ֶשׁ ָיּ֫ וַ
תוֹ ֑כּס ֻ
2b. וֹת֑ ָכּ ֻ ךְ ֶשׁ ֫
And he made(?) darkness…his covering.
2 Sam 22:12
ס ... ֹח ת ֶשׁ֫ ָי He made(?) darkness…his covering.
Ps 18:12
The same phenomenon occurs in vv 7, 39, 44, and the opposite is found in v 14.
This is an impressive range of arguments from morphological development and from
usage that the Hebrew prefix conjugation contains at least two paradigms, the long (<
yaqtulu) signifying imperfective and dependent situations and the short (< yaqtul)
signifying a jussive when unbound and a preterite, especially when bound with
relative waw.
[Page 499] e On the other side of the ledger, however, the following arguments (which
we present with some critical appraisal) convince some scholars that an alleged
6 R. Meyer, Hebräische Grammatik (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972), 3. 43–44.
7 D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 3; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) 17–55; he
does not distinguish long and short yqtl forms.
8 W. Gross, Verkform und Funktion: Wayyiqṭol für die Gegenwart? (St. Ottilien: EOS,
1976) 143–46. Another morphological pattern may be relevant: M. Lambert argued
that the energic suffixes occur on non-perfective forms (e.g., lō˒ yišmərénnû ‘he has
not been keeping it in,’ Exod 21:29), while suffixes without nun are attached to
jussive/ preterite forms (e.g., ˒ōhăbēhû loved it,’ Hos 11:1). See further 31.7.2; M.
Lambert, “De l’emploi des suffixes pronominaux avec noun et sans noun,” Revue des
études juives 46 (1903) 178–83, cited by Rainey, “Ancient Hebrew Prefix
Conjugation,” 10–12.