An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

meaning of the suffix conjugation in this construction. Diethelm Michel, Bo Johnson,
and others think that it retains the same significance as in its unbound form, 11 while
S.R. Driver, Paul Joüon, Gotthelf Bergsträsser, Thomas O. Lambdin, Ernst Jenni, and
others think its value comes under the sway of the preceding verb to which it is
appended. 12 The second view reflects a modern understanding of the medieval notion
that prefixed waw “converts” the conjugations.
b A. O. Schulz laid the foundation for the view that relative waw does not alter the
function of the conjugations. 13 Johnson has recently restated it.
In narrative the pure perfect is used in most instances as a “Tempus of the past.” A perfect
with a prefixed wə- is not used in these instances, since wa + imperfect already dominated in
this sphere. Bobzin here draws the conclusion that w e + perfect seen diachronically, cannot be
derived from the meaning of the perfect but is rather totally dependent on its position in the
system. But are these two alternatives incompatible? The pure perfect has a greater sphere
than the wə + perfect. The wə + perfect is confined to the areas where wa + imperfect could
not be used, for example, with ‘and’ and events which stand in a final or consecutive relation
to the preceding. That does not mean, however, that the perfect here would have assumed a
new final or consecutive meaning—this meaning lies in the whole construction with ‘and’ +
the perfect and at the same time naturally also in the fact that wa + imperfect exists in the
system. Both the wə + perfect and the perfect have the character of completed, concluded
action, an action which is seen from without as something whole. At first glance that does not
comport well with the final or consecutive function of the perfect, where a wə + perfect
emphasizes the non-independence of the action and its dependence on the preceding. But
even here the character of the perfect comes to the surface: the final or consecutive action in
question is seen from without as a whole. The whole event is already there at one moment.
With ‘and’ + perfect the following happening is seen as[Page 524] a finished, complete
whole. One does not enter into the following action in order to picture the initiative or
intention of the acting subject, but one sees the happening as a finished moment, which is
pointed out from without in its connections. 14
c Driver expressed the second view, which is closer to the traditional view.
11 D. Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen (Bonn: Bouvier, 1960);
Johnson, Hebräisches Perfekt und Imperfekt. Scholars occasionally try to use the
problematic status of w e qtl forms as an entry into other, not strictly related spheres of
research; see, e.g., R. Bartelmus, “Ez 37, 1–14, die Verbform w e qatal und die
Anfänge der Auferstehungshoffnung,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft 97 (1985) 366–89.
Joüon Paul Joüon. 1923. Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique.
12 Driver, Tenses in Hebrew, 116–18; Joüon §115 / pp. 312–14; GB 2.39–45 (§9); T.
O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Scribner, 1971) 108–9;
LHS 96–98, 264.
13 A. O. Schulz, Über das Imperfekt und Perfekt mit וּ ( ְ
ו) im Hebräischen (Königsberg
Inaugural Dissertation, 1900).
14 Johnson, Hebräisches Perfekt und Imperfekt, 32.