An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

Schneider lists the following macrosyntactic signs as introductory and transitional
ו. He cites the following as signals for
signals in dialogue: ןה, ֵ ה ֵנּה, ִ ה ֵנּהִ ו, ְ and התָּ ַע ְ
breaking up narrative: יהְי ִ ו ַ as introductory and transitional and ה ֵנּ הִ וְ
as transitional.
As Schneider cautions, his study is only an initial step in identifying and
systematizing macrosyntactic signs. Like the Masoretic accent system, this method of
analyzing textual organization requires independent study (cf. 3.3.4).
f A simpler approach may be offered. Sometimes a sign may serve on more than one
level. Consider, for example, ו ְ in these two sentences:
1a. . . . שׁיאִ ְב ה ִ שׁאֵ ְבהַ דבֶ ֶע֫ ְל י ִל הָיהָ ו ְ
1b. ןנָ ָע ינִ ְנ ַע ְבּ הָיהָ וְ
ץרֶ א֑ ָ֫
ה־ל ָ ַע
He has made himself so odious [elsewhere]…that he will
be my servant.
1 Sam 27:12
And it will be, whenever I bring clouds over the earth…
Gen 9:14
In the first sentence ו is an interclausal conjunction, introducing a logically
dependent clause within a sentence; in the second it adds another, separate provision
to the Noahic covenant, and joins it to what precedes, on a macrosyntactic or
intersentential level. 11 Strictly speaking, relative waw with the short prefix
conjugation is a macrosyntactic conjunction, binding together sentences within a
larger span of discourse, whereas relative[Page 635] waw with the suffix conjugation
is often a interclausal conjunction, binding together clauses within a sentence. 12 A
rough distinction between the intersentential and interclausal conjunctions enables us
to discuss the latter more discretely.
g Even if we limit our focus to interclausal connections, complexities abound. Two
types of conjunctions bind clauses together: the coordinating conjunction waw ‘and’
and the subordinating conjunctions. 13 The latter class includes רשׁא and the š and z
11 The combination wəhāyâ is the most common particle or particle combination
found on both the interclausal and macrosyntactic levels, but others are also so used,
e.g., raq.
12 We must assume that authors or editors of biblical books, though they may have
used sources with differing macrosyntactic features, created a final text that was
intelligible to their audiences. Contrast the views expressed in the influential study of
W. Richter, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Richterbuch (Bonn: Peter
Hanstein, 1963), early, we add, in the astonishing range of that scholar’s work.
13
Two common particles found in the clauses discussed here (and found elsewhere) are
ky (used 4,470 times) and gm (767 times; SA/THAT). On ky in general, see A.
Schoors, “The Particle י ִכּ,” Oudtestamentische Studiën 21 (1981) 240–76.
Unlike many languages, Hebrew does not use a different word order for main and
subordinate clauses; the general preference for verb-subject-object obtains in both
groups, with many exceptions.