Vanpelt iii h verbs

III-‫ ה‬VERBS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW: A STUDY OF SHORT AND LONG FORMS WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WAYYIQTOL CONJUGATION

_____________________

A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

_____________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

_____________________

by Miles Victor Van Pelt December 2005

APPROVAL SHEET

III-‫ ה‬VERBS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW: A STUDY OF SHORT AND LONG FORMS WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WAYYIQTOL CONJUGATION

Miles Victor Van Pelt

Read and Approved by:

__________________________________________ Peter J. Gentry (Chairperson)

__________________________________________ Joel F. Drinkard, Jr.

__________________________________________ Kenneth A. Mathews

Date ______________________________

To Laurie

‫עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְִדּי‬

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvi

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION, DATA, AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Corpus of Data for Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

Statistical Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

Scope of Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL 3MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3ms Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3ms Short Forms (‫ ) וַיְהִי‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3ms Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

Summary: III-H Wayyiqtol Short and Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

iv

Chapter

Page Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

3. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL 3FS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3fs Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3fs Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117

Summary: III-H Wayyiqtol 3fs Short and Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

137

4. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL 2MS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

138

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 2ms Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

139

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 2ms Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

152

Summary: III-H Wayyiqtol 2ms Short and Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

161

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

166

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

174

5. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL 1CS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

175

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cs Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

176

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cs Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

Summary: III-H Wayyiqtol 1cs Short and Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

194

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

218

v

Chapter

Page

6. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL 1CP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

219

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cp Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

220

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cp Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

Summary: III-H Wayyiqtol 1cp Short and Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

239

Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250

7. III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

251

Verbal Form, Position, and Mood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

252

Accent Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253

Alternative Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

273

Conclusions: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

295

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

306

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

456

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABH

Archaic Biblical Hebrew

BDB

F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.

BH

Biblical Hebrew

EBH

Early Biblical Hebrew

GKC

[Wilhelm Gesenius-]Emil Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley. 1910.

Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar.

HALOT

M. E. J. Richardson, ed., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament.

IH

Israelian Hebrew

JH

Judahite Hebrew

Joüon-Muraoka

Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew.

K

Kethib

LBH

Late Biblical Hebrew

NWS

Northwest Semitic

Q

Qere

QH

Qumran Hebrew

SBH

Standard Biblical Hebrew

Waltke-O’Connor

Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. Number of III-‫ ה‬Verbs Requiring Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

2. Comparison III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

3. III-‫ ה‬2ms Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol Compared . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

4. Summary of Non-III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

5. Comparison of Non-III-‫ ה‬First Person Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol Verbs . . . . .

19

6. Number of III-‫ ה‬and Non-III-‫ ה‬Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

7. Comparison of III-‫ ה‬and Non-III-‫ ה‬Imperative Long and Short Forms . . .

26

8. Penultimate Constituent Distances (3ms) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

9. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

10. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

11. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

12. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

13. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

14. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

viii

Table

Page

15. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

16. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

17. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

18. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

19. Summary Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

20. Ultima Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

21. Untimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

22. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

23. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

24. Proclitic Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

25. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

26. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

27. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

28. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

29. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

30. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

31. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

32. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

33. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

34. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

ix

Table

Page

35. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

36. Comparison of Long and Short Forms of the Same Verbal Root in 1 Kings 12 – 2 Kings 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

37. Penultimate Constituent Distances (3fs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

38. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106

39. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

40. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

41. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

42. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

43. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111

44. Proclitic Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

45. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113

46. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

47. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

116

48. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117

49. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

50. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119

51. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120

52. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

53. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

124

x

Table

Page

54. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

55. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128

56. Comparison of Long and Short Forms of the Same Verbal Root in the Former and Latter Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

57. Penultimate Constituent Distances (2ms) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

141

58. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

142

59. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143

60. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

144

61. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145

62. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

146

63. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

147

64. Proclitic Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148

65. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

149

66. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

150

67. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151

68. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

152

69. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154

70. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

155

71. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156

72. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

xi

Table

Page

73. Proclitic Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

74. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

158

75. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159

76. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

160

77. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

162

78. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

164

79. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

166

80. Comparison of 2ms Long and Short Forms of the Same Verbal Root in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

173

81. Penultimate Constituent Distances (1cs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179

82. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

180

83. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

181

84. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

182

85. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183

86. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

184

87. Proclitic Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

184

88. Proclitic Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185

89. Proclitic Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

186

90. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

187

91. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

188

xii

Table

Page

92. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

93. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

190

94. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191

95. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

192

96. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

194

97. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

196

98. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197

99. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

200

100. 1cs Short and Long Forms in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205

101. Comparison of Long and Short Forms by Verbal Root in the Latter Prophets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

211

102. Distribution of Long and Short Forms in the Latter Prophets . . . . . . . . . . .

212

103. Penultimate Constituent Distances (1cp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

221

104. Penultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

222

105. Penultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

223

106. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

224

107. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

108. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

226

109. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

227

110. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

228

xiii

Table

Page

111. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

229

112. Ultimate Constituent Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

230

113. Ultimate Constituents and Units (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

231

114. Ultimate Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

232

115. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

234

116. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

236

117. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

237

118. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

239

119. 1cp Short and Long Forms in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

245

120. Comparison of Long and Short Forms by Verbal Root in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

248

121. III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Accent Position Rates (Percent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

256

122. Summary of III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Constituent Distance Rates (Percent) . . . . . .

258

123. III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol: Average Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261

124. Summary of Constituents and Units for 3ms Short Penultimate Verbs (C/U) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

263

125. Summary of Constituent Distance Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

264

126. Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

267

127. Summary of Suprasegmental Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

270

128. Phonetic Context – Guttural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

274

xiv

Table

Page

129. Phonetic Context – Disjunctive Accent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275

130. III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Form Distribution by Verbal Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . .

277

131. III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Forms by Verbal Root . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

280

132. Wayyiqtol Long Form Distribution in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

283

133. Total IH Forms and Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

290

134. III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol Distribution of Long and Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

299

135. Non-III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Non-III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol Distribution of Long and Short Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

301

xv

PREFACE

The completion of this dissertation represents the final step in a journey that has spanned almost fourteen years, two countries, and four states. Though this dissertation bears my name, ultimately, it represents the hard word, sacrifice, and love of many different individuals.

I begin by thanking my supervising professor, Dr. Peter J. Gentry. His scholarship, humility, and faith have been a constant source of encouragement for me during these past five years. I would also like to recognize the administration, staff, and additional faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for their excellence and dedication to service.

I am similarly indebted to those institutions and faculty members who have contributed to my academic life and progress. I would especially like to mention Azusa Pacific University and Dr. John E. Hartley; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and Drs. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Richard Lints, and Gary D. Pratico; and now Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi with its faculty, administration, and students.

I could not have completed this degree without the support of my family. My parents, grandparents, parents-in-law, brothers, and sisters-in-law have helped to shape xvi

who I am from the very beginning. There has never been a moment of doubt or an end to the encouragement from this treasured part of my life. I regret with a heavy heart that my older brother can not celebrate the completion of this journey with me. He was perhaps my most vocal and obnoxious supporter.

I conclude with recognition of the contribution of my own family. To be certain, the pursuit of my calling and this degree has cost them what cannot be repaid in this lifetime. My four children are constant in their support, love, and affection. And as for my wife, Laurie, words could never adequately describe what she means to me or how much she has contributed to the completion of this degree. In all truth, there is no doubt in my mind that she has worked harder than I for the kingdom in this matter. I am ever yours!

Miles Victor Van Pelt Clinton, Mississippi December 2005

xvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION, DATA, AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction Recent studies have explained in various ways what conditions the lengthening of wayyiqtol (e.g., hDmy°IcDaÎw and ‹h∂rV;bVoRa`Dw in Judg 12:3), yiqtol (e.g., hDvy¢IjÎy in Isa 5:19), and Imperative (e.g., h∞DoVmIv in Ps 119:149) verbal forms in Biblical Hebrew.1 The

1

See, for example, F. R. Blake, “The Forms of Verbs after Waw,” Journal of Biblical Literature 65 (1946): 51-57; idem, “The Hebrew Waw-Conversive,” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944): 271-95; Hélène Dallaire, “The Syntax of Volitives in Northwest Semitic Prose” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 2002); Steven E. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994 [Hebrew]); idem, “The Lengthened Imperative hDlVfDq in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 7-13. Revised translation from Hebrew Through the Ages: In Memory of Shoshanna Bahat, ed. M. Bar-Asher, Studies in Language II (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 1997 [Hebrew]) 71-77; Peter J. Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 7-39; Richard L. Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992): 198-203; William L. Moran, “Early Canaanite yaqtula,” Orientalia 29 (1960): 1-19; Stephen A. Kaufman, “An Emphatic Plea for Please,” Maarav 7 (1991): 195-98; Elisha Qimron, “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986-1987): 149-61; E. J. Revell, “Stress and the Waw Consecutive in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984): 437-44; idem, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 277-300; idem, “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix,” JSS 32 (1987): 249-71; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” Vetus Testamentum 38.4 (1988): 419-426; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive – Addenda,” Vetus Testamentum 41.2 (1991): 127-28; Ahouva Shulman, “The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew 1

2 a observation that the -ah suffix is not restricted to volitional (modal) forms or to the first person has precipitated further investigation into their distribution and significance.2 For example, in terms of distribution, the presence of the -ah suffix on first person wayyiqtol forms is argued by some to be a feature of late biblical Hebrew (LBH).3 In terms of significance, some are suggesting that the -ah suffix, especially as it relates to the Imperative, may correspond in meaning to the Akkadian ventive.4 To date, studies of the type described above have generally excluded any detailed or formal analysis of III-‫ ה‬verbal forms due to the fact that such forms do not

Prose” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1996); idem, “Imperative and Second Person Indicative Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 271-78.

2

See especially Dallaire, “The Syntax of Volitives in Northwest Semitic Prose”; Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax; Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew”; Qimron, “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with Waw in Biblical Hebrew”; Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive”; and Shulman,“The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.”

3

Revell argues, for example, that the “use of the affix -ah on 1st person forms with waw consecutive is characteristic of a post-exilic form of literary (biblical) Hebrew which became standard at Qumran, and influenced the Samaritan Pentateuch much more strongly than it did that of the MT” (Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 421) See also Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986], 45-46 (§310.129).

4

Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” 23-30; Shulman, “The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” 65-84; Fassberg, “The Lengthened Imperative hDlVfDq in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 7-13. For example, Gentry states, “However obscure its origin may be, it is a morpheme functioning like the Akkadian ventive” and that “one can easily explain the distribution of the suffix both in Hebrew and in its Canaanite precursor: one would expect a higher coincidence with first person forms and also higher coincidence with projective forms than with assertive forms. This is precisely the distribution in classical biblical Hebrew” (Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” 29).

3 a appear with the -ah suffix characteristic of those lengthened forms not belonging to this weak verb class. It is to be observed, however, that III-‫ ה‬verbs belonging to these same conjugation patterns (wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative) also exhibit both long and short forms: (wayyiqtol) hªRnVbˆ¥yÅw in 1 Kgs 18:32 and ‹NRb‹ˆ¥yÅw in 1 Kings 16:24; (yiqtol) ‹hRa∂r´y in Exodus 34:23 and aä∂r´y in Exodus 34:3; (Imperative) ·h´…wAx in 1 Kings 5:20 and w∞Ax in 2 Kings 20:1.5 Thus, it is to be observed further that: (1) both III-‫ ה‬and non-III-‫ ה‬verbal forms may be rendered as either long or short; (2) the same verbal conjugations (wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative) exhibit both long and short forms; and (3) the lengthened feature of each form consists of a vowel letter written with ‫ה‬. Similar observations of this type have led others to suggest that the lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬verbal form may, in fact, correspond to the long (non-apocopated) III-‫ ה‬verbal form. For example, Revell states, “consequently the use of the long form of the 1st person imperfect with waw consecutive in roots IIIh can reasonably be regarded as representing the same development as does the use of the affixed form in other roots.”6 To this observation, Gentry replies,“This last supposition may well be right, but further

5

“The variations in the spelling, e.g., of the verb ßwy, ‘to order’, –– yßw and yßwh, <ßw and <ßwh, ßw and ßwh, –– gave rise to different Masoretic vocalizations, –– y#ßaw and y#ßawwe, <aßaw and <aßawwe, ßaw and ßawwe –– although the differences are purely graphic or dialectical. They reflect a spelling and a pronunciation either expressing a final short -e < -i (<•) and indicated it by the vowel letter -h, or dropping it altogether.”

Edward LipinŒski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd ed., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80 (Leuven: Peters, 2001), 365 (§39.15).

6

Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 423.

4 a investigation is necessary to prove it.”7 In addition to the fact that the -ah suffix does not appear with III-‫ ה‬verbal roots, the peculiar nature of this weak verb class presents certain other challenges as well. For example, with regard to the position of stress or accent (shifts), it has been observed that III-‫ ה‬verbs do not normally comply with standard rules.8 For these and certain other reasons discussed below, wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative III-‫ ה‬verbal forms that may be rendered as either short or long require independent study before any adequate comparison can be made with “regular” and “lengthened” non-III-‫ ה‬verbs of the same conjugations.

A full scale study of this type will endeavor to answer three primary questions.

(1) What conditions the distribution of long and short III-‫ ה‬verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible in the wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative verbal conjugations? (2) Does a difference in form, long versus short, indicate a difference in meaning or significance? (3) Do long III-‫ ה‬verbal forms correspond to lengthened (with -ah suffix) non-III-‫ ה‬verbal forms in either distribution or significance? The data for a study of this type must include all III-‫ה‬

7

Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” 25 n. 67. Earlier in this same footnote, Gentry states, “Final ‫ א‬and final ‫ ה‬roots may require separate treatment. The ‫ָה‬- suffix attached to final ‫ א‬roots occurs less frequently than in forms from other roots except those with final ‫ה‬.”

8

In a diachronic analysis of stress position in Jussive and Preterite verbs, Goerwitz states, “It is important to note that 3fs, 2ms and 1cs/p jussives and preterites of III-‫ ה‬roots did not participate in any of these stress shifts.” Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,” 200.

5 a verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible capable of being rendered as either long or short in each of the three conjugation patterns listed above.

Corpus of Data for Analysis The total corpus is divided into three categories: (1) wayyiqtol, (2) yiqtol, and (3) Imperative. In the first two categories, wayyiqtol and yiqtol, the data analyzed are limited by two criteria. First, those forms of the conjugations that take verbal sufformatives9 and so preclude the orthographic representation of the final vowel letter in question (2fs, 3mp, 3fp, 2mp, 2fp) are excluded. Second, excluded from the data are those forms of the conjugations that do not take sufformatives but appear with pronominal suffixes. The reason for this second exclusion is the same as the first: the addition of a pronominal suffix to III-‫ ה‬verbs of this type involves the removal of the final vowel letter before the addition of the pronominal suffix. Thus, the data analyzed in the categories of wayyiqtol and yiqtol include only those forms of the conjugations that do not take verbal sufformatives (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) and appear without the addition of a pronominal suffix. In the Imperative category, only the 2ms form lacks a sufformative in its basic construction and so the remaining members of the conjugation are excluded (2fs, 2mp, 2fp). In this category, however, and for reasons explained later, those forms of the Imperative 2ms that occur with a pronominal suffix are included.

9

In this study, the nomenclature “sufformative” and “preformative” refer only to the affixes that identify person, gender, and number in the prefix, suffix, and Imperative conjugations. The terms “prefix” and “suffix” are used, with appropriate qualifications, for any number of additional affixes employed in BH.

6 a Thus, analysis should proceed through each of the three conjugations (wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative), sorted by person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp). To this end, the number of forms requiring analysis in each category is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Number of III-‫ ה‬Verbs Requiring Analysis Wayyiqtol

Yiqtol

1,928

1,195

3fs

227

282

2ms

19

394

1cs

111

350

1cp

14

116

2,299

2,337

3ms

Total

Imperative

39210

392

According to the summary above, the number of verbs requiring analysis totals 5,028 forms. This number constitutes approximately 6.9 percent11 of all Hebrew verb

10

The 392 forms that constitute this category represent both those forms of the verb that occur with (53x) and without (339x) pronominal suffixes. As stated above, this calculation represents a departure from the method employed when calculating the number of forms analyzed in the wayyiqtol and yiqtol categories.

11

This percentage rate is calculated from a total of 72,983 verbs, the number of Hebrew verbs in the Hebrew Bible. These statistics exclude the Aramaic material in the Hebrew Bible. It should also be noted that this number is derived from the Gramcord database and is not to be credited with absolute accuracy. Whatever minor rate of error may obtain, however, the rate of accuracy is sufficient to provide a general impression of the total verbal corpus. In this study, only a few general statistics are derived from this

7 a forms in the Hebrew Bible and 33.4 percent12 of all III-‫ ה‬verbs in this same corpus.

Ultimately, however, this number constitutes 100.0 percent of III-‫ ה‬verbal forms capable of being rendered as either long or short, either with or without the final vowel letter. For example, the yiqtol 3ms form of a III- ‫ ה‬verbal root may be rendered either as ‫ יִבְנֶה‬or as

‫יִבֶן‬. Similarly, the wayyiqtol 3ms form of a III-‫ ה‬verbal root may be rendered either as ‫ וַיִּבְנֶה‬or, more commonly, as ‫וַיִּבֶן‬. Both long and short forms of the Imperative 2ms also occur in the Hebrew Bible, as, for example, ‫ צַוֵּה‬and ‫צַו‬. Before conducting any formal analysis of individual forms in each category, however, it is helpful to begin with preliminary summaries of long and short forms in the corpus of data under investigation.

database and these statistics will be identified as such in each case. In all other instances, the statistics are derived from a manual accounting of the data contained in the appendices of this work.

12

This percentage rate is calculated from a total of 15,034 verbs (a number derived from the Gramcord database). It includes all III-‫ ה‬verbal roots, whether originally III-‫ י‬or III-‫ו‬, that occur in the Hebrew Bible. These statistics exclude the Aramaic material in the Hebrew Bible. More specifically, it excludes the following 15 Aramaic III-‫ ה‬verbal roots (sorted by frequency and then alphabetically) that occur 232 total times: ‫( הוה‬to be, become, 71x), ‫( חזה‬to see, 31x), ‫( ענה‬to answer, 30x), 4 ‫( בּנה‬to build, 22x), ‫( אתה‬to come, bring, 16x), ‫( חוה‬to declare, 14x), ‫( גּלה‬to reveal, deport, 9x), ‫( עדה‬to pass away, 9x), ‫( מטה‬to reach, 8x), ‫( רבה‬to be great, 6x), ‫( מנה‬to appoint, 5x), ‫( שׁתה‬to drink, 5x), ‫( שׁוה‬to be like, 3x), ‫( דּמה‬to be like, destroy, silent, 2x), ‫תּוה‬ (to be astonished, 1x). These statistics also exclude the 6 verbal roots in the Hebrew Bible with consonantal ‫ הּ‬for the third root letter that occur 47 total times: ‫( גּבהּ‬to be high, 34x), ‫( מההּ‬to delay, wait, 9x), ‫( בּלהּ‬to frighten, 1x), ‫( ירהּ‬to be afraid, 1x), ‫לההּ‬ (to amaze, 1x), ‫( קלהּ‬kethib, to assemble, 1x). At this point, no distinction is made between prose and poetry, or between standard and late biblical Hebrew.

8 a Statistical Summary of III-‫ ה‬Long and Short Forms III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Conjugation In the wayyiqtol conjugation, the number of III-‫ ה‬verbal forms analyzed and their distribution into the categories of long and short are summarized, by person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp), in the following list.

1.

2.

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3ms Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)וַיִּבְנֶה‬13 Short Forms (‫)וַיִּבֶן‬14

2,075 147 1 1,928 37 1,891

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 3fs Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)וַתִּגָּלֶה‬15 Short Forms (‫)וַתְּגַל‬16

240 13 0 227 10 217

(0.7%) (1.9%) (98.1%)

(0.0%) (4.4%) (95.6%)

13

1 form is kethib at 1 Sam 7:9, and 2 forms are qere at 2 Kgs 16:15 and Job

42:16.

14

1 form is kethib at Job 42:16.

15

1 form is kethib at Jer 3:7.

16

1 form is kethib at Josh 7:21, and 2 forms are qere at Josh 24:3 and Jer 3:7.

9 a 3.

4.

5.

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 2ms Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)וַתַּעֲשֶׂה‬ Short Forms (‫)וַתַּעַשׂ‬

23 4 0 19 5 14

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cs Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)וָאְֶראֶה‬17 Short Forms (‫)וָאֵֶרא‬18

118 7 0 111 60 51

III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol 1cp Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)וַנַּעֲשֵׂה‬ Short Forms (‫)וַנַּעַשׂ‬

17 3 0 14 6 8

(0.0%) (26.3%) (73.7%)

(0.0%) (54.1%) (45.9%)

(0.0%) (42.9%) (57.1%)

Observations: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Conjugation First, there are a total of 118 long forms. In the wayyiqtol category, these 118 forms constitute 5.1 percent of all forms which may be rendered as either long or short.

There are a total of 2,181 short forms. These 2,181 forms constitute 94.9 percent of all

17

1 form is qere at Josh 7:21, and 1 form is kethib at Josh 24:3.

18

1 form is qere at Josh 24:3, and 1 form is kethib at Josh 7:21.

10 a forms capable of being rendered as either long or short in this category. In the wayyiqtol category of III-‫ ה‬verbs, therefore, the short form of the verb is preferred at an approximate ratio of 19:1 (short:long).

Next, in the third person, long forms occur at a rate of 1.9 percent (3ms) and 4.4 percent (3fs). In the second person (2fs), long forms occur at a rate of 26.3 percent. In the first person, long forms occur at a rate of 54.1 percent (1cs) and 42.4 percent (1cp). In the wayyiqtol category of III-‫ ה‬verbs, therefore, the long form is least common in the third person, more common in the second person, and most common in the first person.

Given that the total number of long forms constitutes 5.1 percent of the data corpus, the rate of occurrence in the third person is below the total average (1.9 percent and 4.4 percent). The rate of occurrence in the second person (26.3 percent) exhibits a substantial increase from the overall average of 5.1 percent. The rates of occurrence in the first person significantly exceed the 5.1 percent average. In the 1cs category, long forms occur at a rate over 10 times more often (54.1 percent) than the average rate of occurrences in the wayyiqtol conjugation. In the 1cp category, long forms occur at a rate over 8 times more often (42.4 percent) than average. It appears, therefore, that distribution of long forms in the wayyiqtol conjugation appears to be related, in some way, to the person of the verb. The rate of occurrence decreases the further one moves from first person forms.

Third, in wayyiqtol, the verb appears with a pronominal suffix 174 times, about 7 percent of the time. The N-suffix occurs 1 time (Lam 1:13) and constitutes only 0.6 percent of the total occurrences of pronominal suffixes in this category.

11 a III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol Conjugation In the yiqtol conjugation, the number of III-‫ ה‬verbal forms analyzed and their distribution into the categories of long and short are summarized, by person (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp), in the following list.

1.

2.

3.

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol 3ms Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)יִבְנֶה‬ Short Forms (‫) יִבֶן‬

1,293 98 35 1,195 1,039 156

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol 3fs Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)תִּגָּלֶה‬ Short Forms (‫)תִּגָּל‬

301 19 6 282 232 50

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol 2ms Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)תַּעֲשֶׂה‬ Short Forms (‫) תַּעַשׂ‬

446 52 12 394 344 50

(35.7%) (87.0%) (13.0%)

(31.6%, all 2ms ָ‫)ב ֶךּ‬ (82.3%) (17.7%)

(23.1%) (87.3%) (12.7%)

12 a 4.

5.

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol 1cs Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)אְֶראֶה‬ Short Forms (‫)אֵֶרא‬

442 92 45 350 346 4

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol 1cp Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms (‫)נְִראֶה‬19 Short Forms (‫) נֵֶרא‬20

123 7 4 116 115 1

(48.9%) (98.9%) (1.1%)

(57.1%) (99.1%) (0.9%)

Observations: III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol Conjugation First, in the yiqtol category (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp), the long form of the verb predominates at a ratio of almost 8:1 (2,079/261). Note that the distribution of long and short forms in the yiqtol conjugation also appears to be tied to the person of the verb. The short form is most common in the third person and occurs at a rate between 13.0 percent and 17.7 percent. The short form is less common in the second person and occurs at a rate of 12.7 percent. The short form is least common in the first person and occurs at a rate only between 0.9 percent and 1.1 percent. With regard to person, therefore, the first

19

1 form is qere at Isa 41:23.

20

1 form is kethib at Isa 41:23.

13 a person prefers long forms at a higher rate than second and third person forms. This is the same pattern of distribution observed with wayyiqtol verbs above.

Second, in the yiqtol conjugation, the verb appears with a pronominal suffix 268 times, approximately 10.2 percent of the time (268/2,608). The N-suffix, marking the originally long form with an imperfective aspect, appears 102 times and constitutes approximately 38.1 percent of the total pronominal suffixes (102/268).

Comparison of III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol In Table 2 below, wayyiqtol and yiqtol statistics have been placed in parallel columns for comparison. Preliminary observations are detailed below.

Table 2: Comparison III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol 3ms

Wayyiqtol Total Number of Forms 2,075 With Suffixes 147 With N-Suffix 1 (0.7%) Forms without Suffixes 1,928 Long Forms 37 (1.9%) Short Forms 1,891 (98.1%)

Yiqtol 1,293 98 35 (35.7%) 1,195 1,039 (87.0%) 156 (13.0%)

3fs Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms Short Forms

240 13 0 (0.0%) 227 10 (4.4%) 217 (95.6%)

301 19 6 (31.6%) 282 232 (82.3%) 50 (17.7%)

14 a 2ms Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms Short forms

23 4 0 (0.0%) 19 5 (26.3%) 14 (73.7%)

446 52 12 (23.1%) 395 345 (87.3%) 50 (12.7%)

Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms Short Forms

118 7 0 (0.0%) 111 60 (54.1%) 51 (45.9%)

442 92 45 (48.9%) 350 346 (98.9%) 4 (1.1%)

Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Long Forms Short Forms

17 3 0 (0.0%) 14 6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%)

123 7 4 (57.1%) 116 115 (99.1%) 1 (0.9%)

1cs

1cp

Observations: Comparison of III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol First, the number of verbal forms in each category that may be rendered as either long or short closely correspond. In other words, a significant disparity in the number of forms analyzed in each category does not exist. There are 2,299 verbs in the wayyiqtol category and 2,337 verbs in the yiqtol category –– a difference of only 38 forms.

15 a Second, in the wayyiqtol category, the N-suffix is rare, occurring only 1 time.21 In the yiqtol category, the N-suffix occurs at an average rate of 39.3 percent, with the highest concentrations in the first person, 1cs (48.9 percent) and 1cp (57.1 percent).

There appears to be a level of correspondence between the proliferation of long forms in the first person yiqtol conjugation and the rate at which the N-suffix appears in this same category.22 In other words, the first person yiqtol categories (1cs and 1cp) prefer the long form of the verb and the N-suffixes at rates higher than the third and second person categories. This correspondence may suggest that the factor(s) controlling their distribution is related.

Third, in general, the predominance of long forms in the Imperfect corresponds to the predominance of short forms in the wayyiqtol conjugation. For example, in the 2ms wayyiqtol category, short forms occur 73.7 percent of the time. In the 2ms yiqtol category, however, long forms predominate at a rate of 87.3 percent. Correspondingly, short forms are preferred in the wayyiqtol category (73.7 percent) and long forms in the yiqtol category (87.3 percent). This inverse relationship between long and short forms in these two categories is illustrated in Table 3 below.

21

Pronominal suffixes with the energic or epenthetic Nun (the so called n-suffixes), are rare in the wayyiqtol conjugation (cf. Joüon-Muraoka, §61). Outside of the III-‫ ה‬verbs analyzed in this study, only 9 occurrences exist in the Hebrew Bible.

There are 4 occurrences of ‫ א ֶנּוּ‬with wayyiqtol at Job 7:18; 20:15; 31:15; 33:24; 3 occurrences of ָ‫אךּ‬ ֶ at Isa 49:7; Pss 81:8; Prov 7:15; and 2 occurrences of ‫ אֶנָּה‬at Judg 15:2; 2 Kgs 9:33.

22

Cf. J. Joosten, “The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111 (1999): 423-26.

16 a Table 3: III-‫ ה‬2ms Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol Compared Wayyiqtol

Yiqtol

2ms Long Forms

26.3%

87.3%

2ms Short Forms

73.7%

12.7%

The only exception to this pattern occurs in the 1cs wayyiqtol conjugation, where the use of the long form (60 times) surprisingly exceeds the use of the short form (51 times).23 The unusually high rate in the first person of this category is, however, consistent with the generally high rate of occurrence in the first person in both the wayyiqtol and yiqtol categories.

Before moving on to a general summary of the Imperative category, it will be helpful to briefly summarize the appearance of so-called long forms (with ‫ָה‬- suffix) in wayyiqtol and yiqtol conjugations of verbal roots not III-‫ה‬. Table 4 below excludes III- ‫ה‬ and Aramaic verbal roots from the corpus of the Hebrew Bible. The verbs analyzed include only those forms capable of exhibiting both long and short forms, that is, only those forms without sufformatives (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp).

23

With regard to the existence of long forms in the wayyiqtol and yiqtol conjugations of III-‫ ה‬verbs, Joüon and Muraoka state that “the phenomenon is so frequent, especially in the 1st pers. sg., that it can hardly be considered erroneous” (Joüon-Muraoka, 208 [§79m]).

17 a Table 4: Summary of Non-III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol 3ms

Yiqtol Wayyiqtol Total Number of Forms 4,331 7,314 With Suffixes 478 500 With N-Suffix 173 (36.2%) 5 (1.0%) Forms without Suffixes 3,853 6,814 Regular Forms 3,851 (99.95%) 6,814 (100%) Lengthened Forms 2 (0.05%) 0 (0.0%)

3fs Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

883 101 33 (32.7%) 782 778 (99.5%) 4 (0.5%)

943 47 0 (0.0%) 896 894 (99.8%) 2 (0.2%)

Total Number of Forms 1,656 With Suffixes 237 With N-Suffix 74 (31.2%) Forms without Suffixes 1,419 Regular Forms 1,419 (100%) Lengthened forms 0 (0.0%)

136 34 1 (2.9%) 102 102 (100%) 0 (0.0%)

Total Number of Forms 1,801 With Suffixes 284 With N-Suffix 98 (34.5%) Forms without Suffixes 1,517 Regular Forms 1,166 (76.9%) Lengthened Forms 351 (23.1%)

510 56 3 (5.4%) 454 358 (78.9%) 96 (21.1%)

2ms

1cs

1cp Total Number of Forms With Suffixes With N-Suffix Forms without Suffixes Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

436 34 19 (55.9%) 402 228 (56.7%) 174 (43.3%)

65 4 0 (0.0%) 61 55 (90.2%) 6 (9.8%)

18 a Observations: Non-III-‫ה‬ Wayyiqtol and Yiqtol First, in the wayyiqtol category, forms with the ‫ָה‬- suffix occur 104 times at a rate of 1.2 percent (104/8,968).24 In the yiqtol category, forms with the ‫ָה‬- suffix occur 531 times at a rate of 5.8 percent (531/9,107). In the yiqtol category, therefore, long forms are approximately 5 times more common.

Second, appearance of the ‫ָה‬- suffix is rare among third person forms. It appears only 2 times in yiqtol 3ms (Isa 5:19; Ps 20:4?25), 4 times in yiqtol 3fs (Lev 21:5K; Deut 33:16; Isa 5:19; Job 11:17), and 2 times in wayyiqtol 3fs (Ezek 23:16Q, 20).

24

Gentry has provided, with the necessary precautions, a list of “99 instances of all wayyiqtol forms in the MT bearing the ah suffix” (Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” 24-25 n. 67). Two forms in this list are questionable (Pss 119:163 and Job 30:26), but rightly included in the total. To the 99 forms identified by Gentry, 2 3fs forms located at Ezek 23:16Q and Ezek 23:20 can be added. These references are cited in footnote 65 of Gentry, but not accounted in footnote 67. There are 3 additional forms that also occur in the Hebrew Bible. The first is located in Pss 73:16 (some manuscripts read Pathach, the regular conjunction). The second form occurs in Ezra 8:17 (first word following the Athnaq). In footnote 67, Gentry references only the first word of Ezra 8:17K. The third form occurs in Neh 13:19 (11th word unit in the verse). An identical form, appears just 3 words units prior to this form and it is referenced by Gentry. There are, therefore, 104 instances of wayyiqtol forms in the MT bearing the ah suffix. There are 2 3fs forms (Ezek 23:16Q, 20), 6 1cp forms (Gen 41:11; 43:21; Pss 90:10; Ezra 8:23 (2x), 31), and 96 1cs forms (Gen 32:6; Num 8:19; Josh 24:8K; Judg 6:9, 10; 10:12; 12:3 (2x); 1Sam 2:28; 28:15; 2 Sam 4:10; 7:9; 12:8 (2x); 22:24; Jer 11:18; 32:9; Ezek 3:3; 9:8; 16:11; Zech 11:13; Pss 3:6; 7:5; 69:12, 21; 73:16; 119:55, 59, 106, 131, 147, 158, 163 (?); Job 1:15, 16, 17, 19; 19:20; 29:17; 30:26 (?); Eccl 1:17; Dan 8:13, 15, 17; 9:3, 4 (2x); 10:16 (2x), 19; 12:8; Ezra 7:28; 8:15, 16, 17K, 17, 24, 25K, 25Q, 26, 28; 9:3 (2x), 5 (2x), 6; Neh 1:4; 2:1, 6, 9, 13; 5:7 (2x), 8, 13; 6:3, 8, 11, 12; 7:5; 12:31; 13:7, 8, 9 (2x), 10, 11 (2x), 13, 17 (2x), 19 (2x), 21 (2x), 22, 30.

But note also Gen 23:6 (‫ )יִכְלֶה‬and Job 8:21 ( ‫)יְמַלֵּה‬, where the ‫ א‬of the III‫ א‬verbal root is rendered with ‫ה‬.

25

19 a Third, the presence of the ‫ָה‬- suffix is unattested in the second person of either prefix conjugation of non-III-‫ ה‬verbal roots.

Fourth, the appearance of the ‫ָה‬- suffix is much more common among first person forms, both in the wayyiqtol and yiqtol categories as Table 5 below illustrates.

Table 5: Comparison of Non-III-‫ ה‬First Person Yiqtol and Wayyiqtol Verbs 1cs

Yiqtol Total Number of Forms 1,517 Regular Forms 1,166 (76.9%) Lengthened Forms 351 (23.1%)

Wayyiqtol 454 358 (78.9%) 96 (21.1%)

1cp

Yiqtol Total Number of Forms 402 Regular Forms 228 (56.7%) Lengthened Forms 174 (43.3%)

Wayyiqtol 61 55 (90.2%) 6 (9.8%)

Table 5 above illustrates that lengthened verbal forms are most common among first person forms of the verb, in both wayyiqtol and yiqtol categories (of both III-

‫ ה‬and non-III-‫ ה‬verbal roots). The rates obtained in the first person are more than double all other categories.

Fifth, the most significant observation stems from a comparison of the rate of occurrence of the lengthened form among wayyiqtol and yiqtol 1cs forms. With yiqtol 1cs, the lengthened form occurs at a rate of 23.1 percent (351/1,517). With the wayyiqtol

20 a 1cs, the lengthened form occurs at a similar rate of 21.1 percent (96/454). Similar concentrations occur in the 1cp forms.

These statistics suggest that the ‫ָה‬- suffix is not necessarily a “Cohortative” suffix appearing only on first person volitional forms. First, this suffix is not restricted to the first person. Second, this suffix is not restricted to BH yiqtol but also occurs in BH wayyiqtol. Additionally, it is recognized that first person forms with the ‫ָה‬- suffix appear without “Cohortative” meaning (see for example Exod 14:4, 17; Isa 18:4; Jer 4:19; Hag 1:8Q; Pss 73:17; 119:163; Prov 7:7; Ruth 4:4Q) and verbs without this suffix appear with “Cohortative” meaning (see for example Gen 30:31, 32; 1 Sam 12:17; 20:21; Ezra 10:3; Neh 2:18). It appears, however, that the ‫ָה‬- suffix is more closely connected to the person of the verb, specifically the first person, than any volitional conjugation, whether the Hebrew Cohortative or the putative Canaanite yaqtula. A detailed analysis of III- ‫ ה‬verbal roots should provide an explanation for the appearance and distribution of long and short forms in both III-‫ ה‬and non-III-‫ ה‬verbal roots in the wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative verbal conjugations.

Imperative Conjugation In the Imperative conjugation, the number of forms analyzed and their distribution into the categories of long and short are summarized in the following lists. In this conjugation, only the 2ms form may be orthographically represented as either long or short. The other 3 forms (2fs, 2mp, 2fp) appear with inflectional sufformatives and so

21 a preclude the orthographic representation of the final vowel letter. So, while there are 679 Imperative verbal forms derived from III-‫ ה‬verbal roots, only the 392 2ms forms are formally analyzed in this study.

1.

Summary of Imperative III-‫ ה‬Verbal Forms Total Number of Forms 2ms 2fs 2mp 2fp

2.

Summary of Imperative 2ms III-‫ ה‬Verbal Forms Total Number of Forms Forms with Suffixes Forms without suffixes Long Forms Short Forms

3.

679 392 50 235 2

392 53 339 299 40

(88.2%) (11.8%)

Imperative 2ms III-‫ ה‬Verbal Forms with Pronominal Suffixes Total Forms 53 Forms with 1cs/1cp suffix: 49 (93%) (1cs) 44x ‫נִי‬ 3x ‫( נוּ‬1cp) Forms without 1cs/1cp suffix: 4 (7%) (3ms) 3x ‫הוּ‬ 1x ‫( ם‬3mp)

Observations: Imperative Conjugation of III-‫ ה‬Verbal Roots First, the Imperative 2ms of a III-‫ ה‬verbal root occurs 392 times in the Hebrew

22 a Bible. Out of this total number, 53 appear with a pronominal suffix and so 339 forms remain that may be represented as either long or short. The long form is more common and occurs 299 times (88.2 percent). The short form is less common and appears 40 times (11.8 percent).

Second, the ratio between long and short forms is approximately 7.5:1 (long:short). This ratio corresponds to the ratio of long and short forms in the Imperfect, 8:1 (long:short), and not the ratio in the wayyiqtol conjugation, 19:1 (long:short).

Third, in this second person Imperative, the long form occurs at a rate of 88.2 percent and the short form at a rate of 11.8 percent. These rates correspond closely with the rates for the second person of the yiqtol conjugation: 87.3 percent and 12.7 percent.

They do not correspond to the rates for the second person of the wayyiqtol conjugation: 26.3 percent and 73.7 percent .

Fourth, the observations in numbers 2 and 3 above may demonstrate that the Imperative conjugation is related to the originally long (yaqtulu) prefix conjugation and not the originally short prefix (yaqtul) conjugation.

Fifth, the Imperative 2ms of a III-‫ ה‬verbal root occurs 53 times with a pronominal (object) suffix. The suffix is first person 49 times or 92.4 percent. It is third person the remaining 4 times or 7.6 percent. Though an anecdotal impression at this point, the rate at which the 1cs suffix occurs in this particular environment (92.4 percent) appears to be unusually high. Below, in order to establish a standard rate for comparison, this rate will be compared with the rate of non-III-‫ ה‬Imperative verbs.

23 a Imperative Conjugation of Non-III-‫ ה‬Verbal Roots It will be helpful to enumerate the same statistics for the Imperative conjugation of non-III-‫ ה‬verbal roots. This larger data corpus will provide a measure of perspective on the issue of distribution and function as a point of comparison for the statistics of the III-‫ ה‬Imperatives. Once again, note that only the 2ms form may be orthographically represented as either long or short. The other 3 forms (2fs, 2mp, 2fp) appear with inflectional sufformatives and so prevent the orthographic representation of the final vowel letter.

1.

Summary of Imperative Verbal Forms (Non-III-‫)ה‬ Total Forms 2ms 2fs 2mp 2fp

2.

3,604 1,932 271 1,381 20

Summary of Imperative 2ms Verbal Forms (Non-III-‫)ה‬ Total Number of Forms

1,932

Forms with Suffixes Forms without suffixes Lengthened Forms Regular Forms

255 1,677 30926 1,368

26

(N-suffix (6; ‫ ֶנָּה‬3x, ‫ ֶנּוּ‬3x) (18.4%) (81.6%)

This number includes 3 qere forms (Num 23:13; Lam 5:1; 2 Chr 25:17) where kethib is short. It includes the lengthened kethib form in Dan 9:18 where qere is short. In 3 instances, both the qere and kethib are lengthened but each set is counted as only 1 (Judg 9:8; Pss 26:2; 71:12).

24 a 3.

Imperative 2ms Verbal Forms (Non-III-‫ )ה‬with Pronominal Suffixes Total Number of Forms

255

Forms with a first person pronominal suffix: 173 (67.9%) 1cs 148 (58.0%) 1cp 25 (9.8%) Forms with a second person pronominal suffix: 21 (8.2%) 2ms 1 (0.4%) 2fs 20 (7.8%) Forms with a third person pronominal suffix: 61 (23.9%) 3ms 35 (13.7%) 3mp 26 (10.2%)

Observations: Imperative Conjugation of Non-III-‫ ה‬Verbal Roots First, Imperative III-‫ ה‬verbal forms constitute 15.9 percent of the entire Hebrew Imperative corpus. All other Imperative forms constitute 84.1 percent of the total corpus. The distribution by gender and number is consistent in both III-‫ ה‬and non-III- ‫ה‬ categories. The 2ms category is the most common, followed by 2mp, 2fs, and then 2fp.

In fact, the rates of distribution are so close that they merit illustration in Table 6 below With regard to the feminine forms of the Imperative, the difference in the rates of occurrence is less than 1 percent. In the more common masculine forms, the difference in the rates of occurrence is less than 4 percent in each case. This similarity of distribution, in terms of person and number, should provide a solid base for the comparison of long and short form in the 2ms.

25 a Table 6: Number of III-‫ ה‬and Non-III-‫ ה‬Imperatives Non-III-‫ ה‬Imperative Total Forms

3,604

2ms

1,932

2fs 2mp 2fp

271 1,381 20

III-‫ ה‬Imperative 679

(53.6%)

392

(57.7%)

(7.5%)

50

(7.4%)

(38.3%)

235

(34.6%)

(0.6%)

2

(0.3%)

Second, out of 392 total III-‫ ה‬Imperative 2ms forms, 53 or 13.5 percent appear with pronominal (object) suffixes. Out of the remaining 3,604 Imperative 2ms forms, 255 or 13.2 percent appear with pronominal suffixes. It is remarkable to observe that the difference in the rate of occurrence between these two categories is less than one-half of 1 percent (comparing 13.5 percent with 13.2 percent). Once again, this type of similarity in distribution should provide a solid base for the comparison of long and short forms in the 2ms.

Third, with regard to the distribution of long and short forms in each category, verbs derived from III-‫ ה‬verbal roots appear with the final vowel letter 299 times (88.2 percent) and without the final vowel letter 40 times (11.8 percent). In this category, therefore, forms with a final vowel letter are much more common. Verbs not derived from III-‫ ה‬verbal roots total 309 lengthened (with

‫ָה‬- suffix) forms (18.4 percent) and

1,368 regular forms (81.6 percent). In this category, therefore, unmarked forms are much more common. This inverse relationship between long and short forms in these two categories is illustrated in Table 7 below.

26 a Table 7: Comparison of III-‫ ה‬and Non-III-‫ה‬ Imperative Long and Short Forms Impv III-‫ה‬

Impv Non-III-‫ה‬

2ms Long Forms

88.2%

18.4%

2ms Short Forms

11.8%

81.6%

This comparison demonstrates that, in this particular category, III-‫ ה‬and non-III-‫ ה‬verbal roots do not correspond except, perhaps, in an inverse or antithetical manner. Determination of the cause for this discrepancy in distribution will require a detailed analysis of individual forms.

Fourth, with regard to the distribution of pronominal suffixes occurring with the Imperative 2ms, it has already been observed in number 2 above that suffixes on III-‫ה‬ forms (13.5 percent) are just as common as suffixes on non-III-‫ ה‬forms (13.2 percent).

The distribution of suffixes sorted by person, however, exhibit a number of important distinctions.

In the III-‫ ה‬category, second person suffixes are unattested. In the non-III-‫ה‬ category, however, second person suffixes occur 21 times at a rate of 8.2 percent. Third person forms are attested in both categories. In the III-‫ ה‬category, third person suffixes appear only 4 times at a rate of 7.0 percent. In the non-III-‫ ה‬category, third person forms appear 61 times at a rate of 23.9 percent. First person suffixes are also attested in both categories. In the III-‫ ה‬category, first person suffixes occur 49 times at the surprisingly

27 a high rate of 92.4 percent. In the non-III-‫ ה‬category, first person suffixes occur 173 times at a rate of 67.9 percent. The difference in the rate of distribution for first person pronominal suffixes is significant, over 25 percent.

In both categories, the distribution of pronominal suffixes corresponds to the person of the suffix. Second person forms are least common, third person forms are more common, and first person forms are most common. A more detailed examination of the evidence may provide an explanation for these rates of distribution. It will be important to determine what factors are capable of explaining the frequency of first person suffixes in the III-‫ ה‬class of Imperative 2ms forms (92.4 percent).

Scope of Data Analysis Limitations of space in this present study preclude the full scale analysis of all 5,028 III-‫ ה‬verbs in each of the three conjugations detailed above. Only those selected and preliminary observations above can be made for all of the verbs in each of the conjugations. In this study, only the 2,299 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol verbs will receive a full analysis in order to determine what conditions the distribution and potential significance of the 118 long forms (e.g., hªRnVbˆ¥yÅw) in this category. Note, however, that the limitation of the following analysis to the wayyiqtol conjugation may impair the ability to determine the meaning or significance of the long forms in this category with certainty. It is recognized that the subsequent analysis of III-‫ ה‬yiqtol and Imperative conjugations would be required in order to formally complete this study.

28 a Method of Data Analysis In order to conduct the analysis for this study, it was first necessary to create a database to catalogue and measure the accent environment in which the 2,299 wayyiqtol III-H verbal forms appear (see Appendices 1-11). According to Revell, stress position (in 2ms and 1cs weqatal forms) is determined by the position of the verb within a clause and its relative proximity to the end of the speech unit –– normally clausal boundary is marked by a major disjunctive accent.27 Other contributing factors include: (1) the number of constituents following the verb; (2) the size of those constituents; and (3) the presence of a guttural consonant (especially ‫ )א‬beginning the word that follows the verb.

These issues are complicated by the fact that both Revell and others have observed that III-‫ ה‬verbs do not normally comply with the standard rules.28 Goerwitz, for example, in a diachronic analysis of stress position in Jussive and Preterite verbs states, “It is important to note that 3fs, 2ms and 1cs/p jussives and preterites of III-H roots did not participate in any of these stress shifts.”29 Such observations make it necessary to perform an analysis

27

E. J. Revell, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” 296.

28

Revell, “Stress and the Waw Consecutive in Biblical Hebrew,” 437-44; idem, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” 277-300; idem, “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix,” 249-71; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 419-26; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive – Addenda,” 127-28; Sheehan, “Conversive Waw and Accentual Shift,” 545-48; Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,” 198-203; Blake, “The Forms of Verbs after Waw,” 51-57. Qimron, “Consecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect,” 149-61.

29

Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,” 200.

29 a of stress position and the conditioning factors of III-‫ ה‬verbs in order to determine if these forms operate under a different set of governing principles. In this study, therefore, (1) the position of the stressed syllable in the verb and (2) the proximity of this verb to the major disjunctive accent (Athnaq, Silluq, Zaqef Qaton, Zaqef Gadol, etc.) is measured and analyzed. This second criterion will be measured by the number of constituents following the verb up to the suprasegmental boundary and the length of those constituents. At the end of each section, an average length between the verb and suprasegmental boundaries will be calculated and so characterize clauses as either longer or shorter than average. The following section entitled “Columns of Analysis” describes the construction of the databases located in the appendices of this study.

Columns of Analysis Column 1. This column identifies the text or verse reference in the Hebrew Bible where the verb form is located. The presentation of data follows the Hebrew canonical arrangement presented in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. All verse references, therefore, correspond with Hebrew versification.30 In the accounting of qere and kethib

30

With regard to the use of the Masoretic Text (Leningrad Codex) represented

by Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the dictums of Hurvitz and Rendsburg are followed in this study. Hurvitz (A Linguistic Study of the Relationship Between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel [Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982], 19, quoted by Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, SBLMS 43 [Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], 17) argues that “a linguistic study whose central purpose is to seek facts and avoid conjectures, should base itself on actual texts––difficult though they may be––rather than depend on reconstructed texts.” In addition, Rendsburg argues that “our text is the conflation of different texts, with variants noted in the Kethiv-Qere system.

Theoretically these differences within the MT are all valid textual witnesses” (ibid., 17).

30 a witnesses, where qere and kethib are both short or both long, the text is listed once. If, however, the qere and kethib witnesses are different, 1 short and 1 long, then the reference will appear twice, counting each witness separately. Note that verses including qere or kethib in the database will be marked with Q or K following the reference.

Column 2. This column includes the Hebrew text (from BHS) containing the verb under investigation. Given the limitations of the size of the data column, the amount of text included may not contain the entire clause, though this is rare. For the purpose of review and subsequent analysis, consonants, vowels, and accents are included.

Column 3. In this column, the III-‫ ה‬verbal form is marked as either long (l) with the final ‫ ה‬vowel letter or short (s) without final ‫ ה‬vowel letter. For the sake of convenience and review, the data in the appendices have been sorted by long and short forms.

Column 4. In this category, the position of the verb in the clause is catalogued.

There are only two possible descriptions: verb first (_v) or non-verb first (v_). In the wayyiqtol conjugation, the position of the verb is fixed in first position. With the regular yiqtol and Imperative conjugations, however, the position of the verb varies. Because the data in this study is part of a larger corpus requiring investigation, a column cataloging Accordingly, both qere and kethib readings may be cited in the evidence. In such instances, references will be marked with either “K” for kethib (Gen 1:1K) or “Q” for qere (Gen 1:1Q). See also (listed by Rendsburg) H. M. Orlinsky, “The Origins of the qere-kethib System: A New Approach,” Congress Volume 1959, SVT 7 (Leiden: E. J. Brill), 184-92.

31 a verbal position is included in spite of the fact that position is a fixed feature of this verbal conjugation.

Column 5. In this column, verbal mood is documented for each verb. In the wayyiqtol conjugation, the mood is indicative (assertive). In the Imperative conjugation, the mood is non-indicative or, more specifically, volitional (projective). In the yiqtol category, the verb may be either indicative or volitional (assertive or projective). Because the data in this study is part of a larger corpus requiring investigation, a column cataloging verbal mood is included in spite of the fact that the indicative (assertive) mood is a fixed feature of this verbal conjugation.

Column 6. In this column, the position of the accented syllable in the verbal form is catalogued. There are three possible positions: penultima (p), ultima (u) or proclitic (proclitic).

Column 7. In this column, the measurement of the distance from the verb to the suprasegmental boundary or major disjunctive accent (Athnaq, Silluq, Zaqef Qaton, Zaqef Gadol, etc.) is recorded. This distance will be measured in two ways. First, the number of constituents (accented word-units) following the verb up to the suprasegmental boundary will be counted. Second, the total number of units constituting the number of constituents will be recorded. For example, the clause in Deuteronomy 2:33, :wáø;mAo_lD;k_tRa◊w

[wy™DnD;b] wønV;b_tRa◊w wöøtOa JK¶A…nÅw, represents a clause with the verb (short

form) in first position, followed by 3 constituents before the termination of that clause at

32 a a major disjunction –– Silluq with Sof Pasuq. The first constituent consists of 1 unit (wöøtOa ), the second constituent consists of 2 units ([wy™DnD;b]

wønV;b_tRa), and the third

constituent consists of 3 units (wáø;mAo_lD;k_tRa◊w ). Therefore, the distance from the verb to the clausal boundary is 3 constituents consisting of 6 total units or 3/6. Note, if the verb is proclitic, the counting of the constituent/unit distance commences with the accented unit and not the proclitic verb form. The information obtained from this category will aid in identifying if the distance from the verb to the suprasegmental boundary determines accent position or verb form (long or short).

Column 8. This category records the type of major disjunctive accent marking the suprasegmental boundary following the verb under investigation (Athnaq, Silluq, Zaqef Qaton, Zaqef Gadol, etc.). Note that the suprasegmental boundary and the clausal boundary will normally correspond. There are exceptions, however. In order to avoid any measure of inconsistency, the suprasegmental boundary marked by the accent is preferred to the simple clausal boundary when the two do not correspond.

Column 9. This category may contain any additional data pertinent to the investigation, including the presence of contiguous long or short forms or prepositional phrases with first or second person pronominal suffixes. At times, it may also become important to identify the significance of clause sequencing in this category.

33 a Additional Categories for Analysis In addition to an analysis of long and short III-‫( ה‬wayyiqtol) verbs based upon the information collected in the database described above, a number of important alternative explanations will be considered. These alternative explanations will include, when appropriate, issues related to phonetic context, genre, the lexical or semantic field of the verbal root, diachronic environments, and dialectical environments.

CHAPTER 7 III-‫ ה‬WAYYIQTOL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction In this final wayyiqtol chapter, the evidence accumulated in the preceding six chapters will be compared in order to determine if any patterns exist that can adequately account for the presence of the 118 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible. In addition to verbal form, position, and mood, the criteria for analysis includes: (1) accent environment (accent position and suprasegmental boundary distance); (2) phonetic context; (3) lexical and semantic usage; (4) diachronic environment; and (5) dialectical environment. The following conclusions are based upon the evidence derived from the data presented, and the issue of significance is briefly addressed. What is intended by the use of the long form in selected environments? Can the significance or meaning of these long forms be determined? Does the long form constitute a simple variant in spelling, a mistake based upon confusion, or does some other significance obtain?

The wayyiqtol data submitted to analysis in this study includes all III-‫ ה‬verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible that may be rendered as either long or short, either with or without the final vowel letter. There are 3,214 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible. From this number, forms with verbal sufformatives to indicate person, 251

252 a gender, and number (2fs, 3mp, 3fs, 2mp, 2fs) and forms with pronominal suffixes have been excluded because they are incapable of appearing with the final Seghol-He vowel letter. From the 3,214 total forms, 2,299 forms meet these criteria and are analyzed below. For a more detailed discussion concerning the corpus of data analyzed in this study, see Chapter 1: Introduction, Data, and Methodology.

Verbal Form, Position, and Mood In the data analyzed, there are two basic categories based upon the form of the verb: short and long. The short form is the standard or conventional form set forth in standard Hebrew grammars.1 The short form of the verb represents 94.9 percent of the total data analyzed. The 118 long forms constitute 5.1 percent of the total data analyzed.

Long forms have resisted the retraction of the accent characteristic of the wayyiqtol conjugation and so represent something other than the standard or conventional pattern.

Ultimately, it is the long or non-conventional III-‫ ה‬form that represents the focus of this final chapter.

Verbal mood and position are determined by the wayyiqtol conjugation. In this case, all verbs are indicative and in first position. In the Imperative conjugation, all verbs

1

“Waw-relative with the short prefix conjugation (wayyqtl) . . . exhibits five formal characteristics: (1) the waw is vocalized with pathach and the prefix consonant is doubled; (2) the waw is normally prefixed to the short prefix-conjugation form, where available (e.g., ;JKVbZ´¥yÅw and not h;RkVb¥ˆyÅw); (3) the stress is thrown back toward the waw as much as possible (e.g., M∂qZÎ¥yÅw and not MDZq¥ÎyÅw); (4) the construction normally begins its clause; and (5) it does not take an energic ending” (31.1.1d, 31.7.2). Waltke-O’Connor, 543 (§33.1.1a).

253 a are volitional and either in first or non-first position. In the yiqtol conjugation, verbs may be either volitional and indicative and either in first or non-first position. In the wayyiqtol conjugation, therefore, verbal mood and position are fixed.

Accent Environments The analysis conducted in this section measures (1) the position of the accent on the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol form and (2) the distance of this form to the next major suprasegmental boundary in the clause (Athnaq, Silluq, Zaqef, etc.).

According to Revell, stress position (in 2ms and 1cs weqatal forms) is determined by the position of the verb within a clause and its relative proximity to the end of the speech unit.2 Other contributing factors include: (1) the number of constituents following the verb; (2) the size of those constituents; and (3) the presence of a guttural consonant (especially ‫ )א‬beginning the word that follows the verb. These issues are complicated by the fact that both Revell and others have observed that III-‫ ה‬verbs do not normally comply with the standard rules.3 For this reason, it was necessary to perform a

2

E. J. Revell, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 296.

3

Revell, “Stress and the Waw ‘Consecutive’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984): 437-44; idem, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” 277-300; idem, “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix.” Journal of Semitic Studies 32 (1987): 249-71; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive.” Vetus Testamentum 38.4 (1988): 419-26; idem,“First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive – Addenda.” Vetus Testamentum 41.2 (1991): 127-28; Sheehan, “Conversive Waw and Accentual Shift,” 545-48; Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,” 198-203; Blake, “The Forms of Verbs after Waw,” 51-57.

254 a similar analysis of III-‫ ה‬verbs in order to determine if any conditioning factors exist. In this study, therefore, (1) the position of the stressed syllable in the verb and (2) the proximity of this verb to the major disjunctive accent (Athnaq, Silluq, Zaqef, etc.) is measured and analyzed. This second criterion is measured by the number of constituents following the verb up to the suprasegmental boundary and the length of those constituents.

Accent Position In this category, the position of the accent on the verbal form under investigation is described, catalogued, and then compared. The verbal forms in this study are accented on the penultima and ultima, or they may be proclitic.

Penultimate verbs. As the accent on the verb is “thrown back toward the waw as much as possible,”4 penultimate stress is standard in the wayyiqtol conjugation.

Among short forms of the verb in this category, penultimate stress is, therefore, the most common position of the accent. Among long forms, however, penultimate stress never occurs.

Ultimate verbs. The accent falls on the ultima among short forms with (1) certain derived stems; (2) certain doubly weak verbs; and (3) verbs following the doubly

Elisha Qimron, “Consecutive and Injunctive Imperfect: The Forms of the Imperfect with Waw in Bibical Hebrew,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986-87): 149-61.

4

Waltke-O’Connor, 543 (§33.1.1a).

255 a closed pattern (cvcc). Verbs accented on the ultima appear in each short form category (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) and, when the evidence is sufficient in quantity, for each of the three reasons stated above.

The position of the accent on the ultima is standard with long forms of the verb. Of the 118 total long forms, the accent falls on the ultima 116 times (98.3 percent).

It appears that the accent on the long form of the verb resists retraction with the prefixing of the Waw Conversive.

Proclitic verbs. Proclisis may occur when the syllable following the verb is accented. This phenomenon usually obtains when the word following the verb is monosyllabic or belonging to the Segholate word class. It also occurs with constructions consisting of an inseparable preposition and a pronominal suffix. Long forms of the verb appear to resist proclisis except on 2 occasions (2ms) in a rare phonetic context (1 Kgs 14:9; Jer 32:20). In each case, the verb is joined to a prepositional phrase with Maqqef and Conjunctive Daghesh.5 The 2 proclitic long forms is this category represent the only wayyiqtol long forms (out of 118 total) not accented on the ultima.

Table 121 below catalogues the rates (percent) at which the position of the accent obtains on all of the verbal forms analyzed in this study. This table is arranged by form (short, long) on the horizontal axis and by person, gender, and number on the vertical axis.

5

In these 2 cases, the Conjunctive Daghesh is the result of d˙iq and not mõra˙iq. See Joüon-Muraoka, 80 (§18i).

256 a Table 121: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Accent Position Rates (Percent) Short

Short ‫היה‬

Long

Penultima Ultima Proclitic

60.5 34.3 5.2

0.0 90.9 9.1

0.0 100.0 0.0

Penultima Ultima Proclitic

Short 50.2 40.1 9.7

Long 0.0 100.0 0.0

Penultima Ultima Proclitic

Short 50.0 28.6 21.4

Long 0.0 60.0 40.0

Penultima Ultima Proclitic

Short 60.8 35.3 3.9

Long 0.0 100.0 0.0

Penultima Ultima Proclitic

Short 62.5 37.5 0.0

Long 0.0 100.0 0.0

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

The above table demonstrates that, among short forms, accent on the penultima is most common, accent on the ultima is the next most common, and that proclitic forms are least common. The relatively high rate of proclitic forms in the 2ms category is likely due to the limited amount of data in that category. There are only 14 total forms, 2 (21.4 percent) of which are proclitic.

257 a Among long forms, accent on the ultima is the standard with 116 out of 118 verbs accented on the ultima. Penultimate stress with long forms does not occur. Two proclitic forms appear in the 2ms category. Because of the limited amount of data in the this category (5 total forms), the high rate of occurrence (40.0 percent) is not to be considered significant.

Conclusion: Accent position. The position of the accent on short and long forms is different. The standard position for the short form is the penultima, while the standard position for the long form is the ultima. Among short forms, there is a greater diversity of accent positions for the number of different reasons described above. Among long forms, however, there appears to be a resistance to both retraction (penultima) and proclisis. In the next section, the accent environment in which short and long forms occurs is summarized in order to determine if one or more factors in this category can account for the difference between short and long III-â&#x20AC;Ť ×&#x201D;â&#x20AC;Źwayyiqtol verbal forms.

Suprasegmental Boundary Distance The measuring of a verbs suprasegmental boundary distance includes the following three measurements: (1) the distance between the verbal form and the major suprasegmental boundary; normally, but not always, corresponding to the clausal boundary; (2) the relationship between constituents and the number of units making up each constituent; and (3) the type of disjunctive accent appearing at each suprasegmental boundary.

258 a Constituent distance. Table 122 below presents the distances in constituents (accented units) between the verbs under investigation and the suprasegmental boundary marked by one of the major disjunctive accents. This summary represents all 2,299 verbs analyzed in this study. Each section is arranged by the person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) of the verb. The type of verb (short, long) and the position of the accent on the verb (penultima = PN; ultima = UL; proclitic = PR) is represented on the vertical axis. The distance in constituents appears on the vertical axis (0–11). The numbers that appear in each line represent the rate (percent) at which that distance obtains in each category.

Table 122: Summary of III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Constituent Distance Rates (Percent) 3ms Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

PR

Short UL

PN

PR

20.7 13.8 51.7 8.6 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7.4 31.6 32.9 19.5 5.5 1.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0

6.3 24.8 35.5 20.8 7.8 2.8 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0

31.0 16.9 33.8 15.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

‫וַיְהִי‬

UL

Long UL

19.8 23.7 26.1 18.3 6.9 2.5 1.6 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1

8.1 35.2 18.9 18.9 8.1 8.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

259 a 3fs Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2ms Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5

1cs Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

PR

Short UL

PN

Long UL

0.0 9.5 38.1 23.8 19.0 4.8 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.1 25.4 42.5 18.4 4.6 5.8 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.0

4.6 24.8 34.9 19.3 19.3 4.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.9

10.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PR

Short UL

PN

Long UL

PR

0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0

25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

14.3 14.3 42.8 14.3 14.3 0.0

0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0

PR

Short UL

PN

Long UL

0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

22.2 5.6 44.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

25.8 42.0 12.9 12.9 3.2 0.0 3.2

25.0 36.7 18.3 13.3 1.7 1.7 3.3

260 a 1cp Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5

PR

Short UL

PN

Long UL

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0

40.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0

Table 122 above demonstrates that the distance between the verbs under investigation and the next suprasegmental boundary marked by a major disjunctive accent range between 0 and 11. A range of 0 obtains when the major disjunctive accent fall on the verbal form itself. Categories with larger amounts of data exhibit wider ranges (3ms, 3fs) and categories containing smaller amounts of data exhibit narrower ranges (2ms, 1cs, 1cp). It is assumed, therefore, that if each of the five categories above contained similar amounts of data, then the ranges in each case would likewise correspond. In spite of a discrepancy in the amount of data, a range between 0 and 5 is preferred in each category and subcategory, for both short and long forms. In the 2ms and 1cp categories, each containing the smallest databases, distances above 4 do not occur.

When comparing distances obtained in short versus long forms of the verb, there is no recognizable pattern that distinguishes the appearance of one form from the other. For example, the 3ms long form exhibits distribution rates that are generally in accord with short form rates. Additionally, there are greater differences, in general, between 3ms short proclitic forms and non-proclitic forms than between 3ms long forms and short non-proclitic forms. Where the long form data is limited (3fs, 2ms, 1cp),

261 a unusually high rates may appear in a given subcategory but such a rate constitutes only 1 or 2 forms. However, where the amount of short and long form data correspond (1cs), long form rates appear within rates obtained by short forms of the same category.

Because of the amount of data in each category, the 3ms and 1cs categories are to be considered better representatives of standard constituent distance rates. In these two categories, there is no evidence to suggest that the factor of constituent distance controls the distribution of short and long forms in the Hebrew Bible. Finally, observe below that average rates of distribution for short ultima, short penultima, and long ultima have been calculated and displayed for comparison in Table 123 below.

Table 123: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol: Average Constituent Distance Rates Short Ultima Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

Avrg

7.4 31.6 32.9 19.5 5.5 1.3

1.1 25.4 42.5 18.4 4.6 5.8

25.0 50.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

22.2 5.6 44.4 27.8 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 0.0

11.1 22.5 42.3 19.8 2.0 1.4

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

Avrg

6.3 24.8 35.5 20.8 7.8 2.8

4.6 24.8 34.9 19.3 19.3 4.6

14.3 14.3 42.8 14.3 14.3 0.0

25.8 42.0 12.9 12.9 3.2 0.0

40.0 40.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

18.2 29.2 31.5 17.5 8.9 1.5

Short Penultima Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5

262 a Long Ultima Distance 0 1 2 3 4 5

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

Avrg

8.1 35.2 18.9 18.9 8.1 8.1

10.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

25.0 36.7 18.3 13.3 1.7 1.7

0.0 50.0 33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0

8.6 39.0 31.4 13.8 2.0 2.0

Observe that the average rates obtained for distances of 4 or more are much less common, never achieving the double-digit rates that are common with distances of 0 through 3. Additionally, note that in each of the three summary charts above, the average rates of distribution for distances of 0 and 4 and substantially lower than rates obtained in distances 1 and 2. The rates at distances 0 through 4 charted on a graph would produce a bell curve in each case. The calculation of average rates for these selected forms (short ultima, short penultima, and long ultima) provides further evidence that the constituent distance environment does not trigger the appearance of long forms in the Hebrew Bible.

Constituent and unit relationship. In this area of analysis, the relationship between constituents and units are measured to determine if together these two criteria control the environment in which long forms of the verb appear in the Hebrew Bible.6 A

6

See E. J. Revell, “Stress and the Waw Consecutive in Biblical Hebrew,” 437-44; idem, “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew,” 277-300; idem, “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix,” 249-71; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 419-26; idem, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive – Addenda,” 127-28; John F. X. Sheehan, “Conversive Waw and Accentual Shift,” Biblica 51 (1970): 545-48; Richard L. Goerwitz, “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite,”

263 a constituent represents an accented unit, either a single word or a group of words in construct or joined by Maqqef. A unit represents a single word (group) capable of taking an accent.

In each of the preceding five chapters, the relationships between constituents and units have been meticulously catalogued. For example, Table 124 below illustrates the distribution patterns of constituents (horizontal axis) and units (vertical axis) among the 670 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 3ms short penultima forms.

Table 124: Summary of Constituents and Units for 3ms Short Penultimate Verbs (C/U) 0 0 1

1

2

4

5

6

3

12 106

49

17

5

8

24

17

5

6

1

5

10

4

2

2

6

6

2

8

1

1

1

9

1

2

1

11

9

10

3

59

17

10

8

117 34 106

7

7

42

2

4

3

1

1 2

3 1

Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992): 198-203; F. R. Blake, “The Forms of Verbs after Waw,” Journal of Biblical Literature 65 (1946): 51-57. Qimron, “Consecutive and Injunctive Imperfect,” 149-61.

264 a From charts of this type, four different measurements were taken: (1) the rates at which both constituents and units occurred between 0 and 5 (C/U Range); (2) the rates at which the number of constituents equalled the number of units (C=U); (3) the rates at which the number of units exceed the number of constituents by 1 (C+1=U); and (4) the most common constituent unit patterns (C/U Pattern) and the rates at which they occur in the data measured. This analysis was conducted for all forms (short, long) on the horizontal axis, subdivided by all accent positions (penultima, ultima, proclitic) on the vertical axis and arranged by person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp).

These measurements are now presented all together, in Table 125 below, for comparison.

Table 125: Summary of Constituent Distance Rates 3ms

Description

Short

Penultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

91.9 51.9 31.6 (1/1) 17.5

Ultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

93.2 45.8 33.9 (1/1) 20.3

Proclitic

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

94.8 74.1 22.4 (2/2) 39.7

Long

‫וַיְהִי‬

86.5 45.9 35.1 (1/1) 18.9

91.7 53.2 34.0 (0/0) 19.8 100.0 67.6 31.0 (0/0) 31.0

265 a 3fs

Description

Short

Penultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

90.8 59.6 23.9 (2/2) 21.1

Ultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

92.0 48.3 40.2 (2/3) 20.7

Proclitic

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

90.5 71.4 23.8 (2/2) 38.1

Description

Short

Penultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 71.4 14.3 0.0

Ultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 100.0 0.0 (1/1) 50.0

100.0 33.3 33.3 0.0

Proclitic

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 100.0 0.0 (4/4) 66.7

100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

2ms

Long

90.0 70.0 30.0 (1/2) 30.0

Long

266 a 1cs

Description

Short

Penultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

93.5 48.4 12.9 (1/1) 29.0

Ultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 72.2 22.2 (2/2) 33.3

Proclitic

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Description

Short

Penultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

80.0 80.0 0.0 0.0

Ultima

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

100.0 66.7 0.0 (2/2) 66.7

1cp

Long

95.0 63.3 20.0 (0/0) 25.0

Long

100.0 33.3 33.3 (1/2) 33.3

Table 125 above constitutes the results from the analysis conducted in the five previous chapters covering all 2,299 verbs in the wayyiqtol category. In those individual chapters, it was concluded that no significant patterns obtained that could explain the presence of the 118 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible. A comparison of all of the data in the above summary charts appears to confirm this observation.

267 a First, the C/U Range between 0 and 5 constituents exhibits a range of rates from 86.5 percent to 100.0 percent. Excluding categories that exhibit rates of 100.0 percent due to limited data (2ms, 1cp), the range narrows to 86.5 percent (3ms long ultima) to 95.0 percent (1cs long ultima). In this case, the long form data represents the low and high boundaries within which all other short forms occur.

Second, the most common C/U Pattern among long forms include the following relationships: 1/1 (3ms), 1/2 (3fs), and 0/0 (1cs). Similar patterns exist in various other short form environments: 1/1 (3ms, 2ms, 1cs) and 0/0 (3ms) as well as a variety of other short forms patterns: 2/2 (3ms, 3fs, 1cs), 2/3 (3fs), and 4/4 (2ms). In other words, the long form data appear within the short form data generated in this study.

Additionally, there is greater diversity among short forms and less diversity among long forms, likely due to the relative limited size of the long form data.

Third, in categories with sufficient data, there is measurable consistency among the rates obtained in all four measured areas. Table 126 below presents a selection of data from the above summaries in categories with the three largest databases: 3ms, 3fs, and 1cs.

Table 126: Summary of Constituent Unit Relationships 3ms

Description

Short PN

Short UL

Long UL

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

91.9 51.9 31.6 (1/1) 17.5

93.2 45.8 33.9 (1/1) 20.3

86.5 45.9 35.1 (1/1) 18.9

268 a 3fs

1cs

Description

Short PN

Short UL

Long UL

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

90.8 59.6 23.9 (2/2) 21.1

92.0 48.3 40.2 (2/3) 20.7

90.0 70.0 30.0 (1/2) 30.0

Description

Short PN

Short UL

Long UL

C/U Range (0-5) C=U C+1=U C/U Pattern

93.5 48.4 12.9 (1/1) 29.0

100.0 72.2 22.2 (2/2) 33.3

95.0 63.3 20.0 (0/0) 25.0

The levels of correspondence among the 9 forms in the above table illustrate a consistency of constituent and unit environment. The levels of correspondence obtain both horizontally and vertically. For a horizontal example, the 3ms C/U Ranges of 91.9 percent (short penultima), 93.2 percent (short ultima), and 86.5 percent (long ultima) exhibit a total difference of only 6.7 percent. For a vertical example, the short penultimate forms in the 3ms (91.9 percent), 3fs (90.8 percent), and 1cs (93.5 percent) categories exhibit a total difference of only 2.7 percent in the C/U Range category.

Additionally, at times, there are greater differences between short ultima and short penultima forms than between long forms and one of the short forms in the same category. For example, in the 3ms C=U category, the short ultima rate is 45.8 percent and the long ultima rate is 45.9 percent, a difference of only one tenth of 1 percent! However, the 3ms short penultima rate is 51.9 percent, a difference of approximately 6.0 percent.

Even this difference is not significant, but it does demonstrate that the differences

269 a between long and short forms in this category are not greater that those differences that appear among closely related short forms (see also 3ms C+1=U, 3ms C/U Pattern, 3fs C/U Range, 3fs C+1=U, 1cs C/U Range (0-5), 1cs C=U, and 1cs C+1=U).

The constituent and unit evidence collected in the preceding five chapters and summarized above does not provide any evidence to suggest that long forms appear in environments controlled by these factors. In fact, the evidence presented above illustrates a measurably consistent environment in which short and long forms appear.

Suprasegmental accent type. In this final category, measuring suprasegmental boundary distances, the type of disjunctive accents that appear at the suprasegmental boundary and the rates (percent) at which they appear are catalogued and measured. The horizontal axis includes all forms (short, long) subdivided by the position of the accent (proclitic, ultima, penultima). The vertical axis is arranged by accent position (Athnaq, Silluq, etc.). The data in Table 127 below appears in order by person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp). At the conclusion of each individual analysis of this type in the preceding five chapters, it was observed that the distribution of constituents and units corresponding to the accent is varied and no significant patterns are discernible. Will a total comparison of these features for all 2,299 verbs analyzed in this study present any different evidence?

270 a Table 127: Summary of Suprasegmental Accent Short

‫וַיְהִי‬

Long

3ms

PR

UL

PN

UL

PR

UL

Athnaq

31.1

24.2

27.8

13.1

7.1

13.1

Silluq

15.5

14.7

17.8

13.7

45.1

13.7

Zaqef Qatan

20.7

37.4

33.0

31.9

18.3

31.9

Zaqef Gadol

6.9

0.8

1.3

4.8

5.6

4.8

Rebia

22.4

20.0

18.8

35.2

23.9

35.2

Segholta

3.4

2.9

1.3

1.3

0.0

1.3

Short

Long

3fs

PR

UL

PN

UL

Athnaq

38.1

27.6

33.9

20.0

Silluq

33.3

27.6

17.4

40.0

Zaqef Qatan

23.8

39.1

39.5

40.0

Zaqef Gadol

4.8

0.0

0.9

0.0

Rebia

0.0

4.6

6.4

0.0

Segholta

0.0

1.1

1.9

0.0

Short

Long

2ms

PR

UL

PN

PR

UL

Athnaq

33.3

25.0

42.9

0.0

66.7

Silluq

66.7

25.0

57.1

50.0

25.0

Zaqef Qatan

0.0

50.0

0.0

50.0

33.3

Zaqef Gadol

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rebia

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Segholta

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

271 a Short

Long

1cs

PR

UL

PN

UL

Athnaq

0.0

27.7

25.8

31.7

Silluq

100.0

16.7

9.7

15.0

Zaqef Qatan

0.0

38.9

25.8

30.0

Zaqef Gadol

0.0

5.6

3.2

3.3

Rebia

0.0

11.1

32.3

16.7

Segholta

0.0

0.0

3.2

3.3

Short

Long

1cp

PR

UL

PN

UL

Athnaq

0.0

0.0

0.0

16.7

Silluq

0.0

33.3

0.0

33.3

Zaqef Qatan

0.0

66.7

100.0

50.0

Zaqef Gadol

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Rebia

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Segholta

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

In the 3ms analysis, the long form obtains the highest rate at Athnaq and the lowest rate at Silluq. All other long form accent rates appear within those rates obtained by short forms. In the 3fs category, the long form obtains the lowest rate at Athnaq and the highest rate at Silluq (opposite of 3ms above). The long form rate at Zaqef Qatan is highest but very close to the others (less than 1 percent difference in 2 cases). All other long form accent rates appear within those rates obtained by short forms. In the 2ms category, the long form obtains the highest rate at Athnaq. All other long form accent rates appear within those rates obtained by short forms. In the 1cs analysis, the long form

272 a obtains the highest rates at Athnaq and Segholta. All other long form accent rates appear within those rates obtained by short forms. Finally, in the analysis of 1cp forms, the long form achieves the highest rate at Athnaq. All other long form accent rates appear within those rates obtained by short forms. Thus, it is observed that long forms prefer a suprasegmental boundary marker of Athnaq at higher rates than short forms in four out of five categories. Only in the analysis of 3fs verbs does this reality not obtain. In this case, long forms exhibit the lowest rate at Athnaq. This difference, therefore, precludes any firm conclusions based upon the prevalence of Athnaq with long forms in the remaining categories. Additionally, in the vast majority of cases, rates obtained in long form categories appear within related short form rates. There are, therefore, higher rates of correspondence than difference between short and long forms in this category of analysis.

Finally, there are, in certain categories, greater differences between subcategories of short forms than between short and long forms in general.

Conclusion: Suprasegmental boundary distance. There were three areas measured under the category of suprasegmental boundary distance: (1) the distance between the verbal form and the major suprasegmental boundary; normally, but not always, corresponding to the clausal boundary; (2) the relationship between constituents and the number of units making up each constituent; and (3) the type of disjunctive accent appearing at each suprasegmental boundary. In each case, no pattern emerged that could explain the appearance of the 118 III-â&#x20AC;Ť ×&#x201D;â&#x20AC;Źwayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible.

273 a On the contrary, this analysis has demonstrated significant levels of correspondence between short and long forms of the verb in this category.

Conclusion: Accent Environments The analysis conducted in this section measured (1) the position of the accent on the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol form and (2) the distance of this form, in constituents and units, to the next major suprasegmental boundary and the accent that marked that boundary. In the first case, it was demonstrated that the position of the accent on short and long forms are different. The standard position for the short form is the penultima while the standard position for the long form in the ultima. Among short forms, there is a greater diversity of accent positions for reasons described above. Among long forms, however, there appears to be a resistance to both retraction and proclisis. In the second case (suprasegmental boundary analysis), no consistent pattern emerged that could explain the appearance of the 118 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible. On the contrary, in each case, the analysis demonstrated higher levels of correspondence than difference.

Alternative Explanations The preceding analysis has failed to identify what (environment) may trigger the appearance of short and long forms in the Hebrew Bible. At this point, it is known that long forms resist the retraction of the accent typical of the wayyiqtol conjugation. It has also been determined that the suprasegmental environments in which short and long form appear exhibit higher levels of correspondence than difference. Because of this, it is

274 a necessary to pursue other possible explanations. These explanations include: (1) phonetic context; (2) genre (poetry/prose); (3) semantics (verbal root and stem); (4) diachronic; and (5) dialectical environments.

Phonetic Context It has been observed that long forms frequently appear before a guttural, especially ‫א‬, or with a disjunctive accent. In this section, the evidence for these two potential explanations are considered.

Table 128 below presents the rates (percent) at which long forms appear before words beginning with a guttural consonant (Guttural Consonant) and before words not beginning with a guttural consonant (Non-Guttural Consonant). This data is sorted by the person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) of the verbal form under investigation.

Table 128: Phonetic Context – Guttural Guttural Consonant

Non-Guttural Consonant

3ms

64.9

35.1

3fs

50.0

50.0

2ms

40.0

60.0

1cs

46.7

53.3

1cp

50.0

50.0

275 a As the above table demonstrates, only the 3ms verbal form appears before a guttural consonant more often than before a non-guttural consonant. Additionally, as the analysis in the preceding five chapters has demonstrated, the vast majority of words beginning with a guttural consists of the accusative particle, the definite article, and prepositions beginning with a guttural. This explanation does not account for the high rate of long forms preceding words beginning with non-guttural consonants. Nor does it account for the numerous short forms that precede words beginning with guttural consonants. For more specific details, see the sections entitles â&#x20AC;&#x153;Phonetic Contextâ&#x20AC;? in Chapters 2 through 6 of this study.

Table 129 below presents the rates (percent) at which long forms appear with disjunctive (Disjunctive Accent) or conjunctive (Conjunctive Accent) accents. This data is sorted by the person, gender, and number (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) of the verbal form under investigation.

Table 129: Phonetic Context â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Disjunctive Accent Disjunctive Accent

Conjunctive Accent

3ms

24.3

75.7

3fs

60.0

40.0

2ms

20.0

80.0

1cs

65.0

35.0

1cp

33.3

66.7

276 a As the above table demonstrates, long forms appear more commonly only with 3ms and 1cs long verbal forms. In the remaining three categories, conjunctive accents are more common. Additionally, this theory does not account for the numerous short forms that appear with disjunctive accents in identical environments. For more specific details, see the sections entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Phonetic Contextâ&#x20AC;? in chapters 2 through 6 of this study.

Genre (Poetry/Prose) The issue of genre distribution, in this case, is controlled by the verbal conjugation. The wayyiqtol verbal form is much more common in narrative than in poetry. In the poetical books of the Hebrew Bible, Psalms through Lamentations, only 11 (9.3 percent) long forms appear out of the 118 total long forms. In this case, therefore, it is certain that genre does not control the appearance of long and short forms.

Semantics (Verbal Root and Stem) In this category, the type of verb (transitive, intransitive, stative) and the verbal stems in which they occur (Qal, Niphal, Piel, etc.) are analyzed in order to determine what patterns may emerge. In Table 130 below, the distribution of verbal stem is presented on the vertical axis, sorted by person, gender, and number on the horizontal axis.

277 a Table 130: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Form Distribution by Verbal Stem

Qal

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

Total

17

8

4

44

6

79

Niphal

1

Piel

1

6

8

14

Pual

0

Hithpael

1

Hiphil

12

1

1

1

2

6

20

Hophal

0

Hishtaphel

1

Total

37

1 10

5

60

2 6

118

Table 130 above demonstrates that long forms prefer the Qal (79 times, 66.9 percent), Hiphil (20 times, 17.0 percent), and Piel (14 times, 11.9 percent) verbal stems at a total rate of 95.8 percent. These rates, in general, correspond to the distribution of these stems in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, the Qal, Hiphil, and Piel stems are the most common verbal stems in the Hebrew Bible, in this very order. It is interesting to note, however, the almost total absence of long forms in the so-called passive stems: Niphal, Pual, and Hophal. There is only 1 long form that appears in a passive stem, the Niphal in the 3fs category (JK$EtÎw√rRo

h∞RlÎ…gI;tÅw in Ezek 16:36). For now, all that can be concluded is

278 a that long verb forms prefer non-passive verbal stems.7 There is no evidence to suggest that the verbal stem controls the distribution of long verbal forms since the Qal, Hiphil, and Piel stems are also common among short forms of the verb.8 However, the long form preference for non-passive verbal stems may contribute to the discussion of meaning and significance below.

7

In the 3ms short category, for example, there are 22 verbal forms inflected in the Niphal stem.

8

The following table summarizes the distribution of verbal conjugation (vertical axis) and verbal stem (horizontal axis) in the Hebrew Bible. This table is adapted from Miles V. Van Pelt and Gary D. Pratico, The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 278. Note that Qal, Hiphil, and Piel stems are most common.

Basic Statistics of the Hebrew Verb: Stem and Conjugation Qal Qal Passive Niphal Piel Pual Hiphil Hophal Hithpael Pilpel Polel Poel Hithpolel Hishtaphel Other Total

Perfect 13994 58 1426 2120 146 2684 109 137 14 40 15 13 19 54 20829

Yiqtol 10407 20 1098 1470 79 2301 132 262 13 56 29 53 36 10 15966

Wayyiq Impv 11535 2896 5 0 446 118 973 436 6 0 1761 740 31 2 158 64 5 1 13 9 4 1 11 11 82 7 4 3 15034 4288

Cstr 4586 0 205 709 1 951 8 95 7 8 2 5 18 4 6599

Abs 517 0 37 84 1 223 6 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 876

Ptc 6513 3 808 679 190 835 108 123 9 52 30 21 11 10 9392

Total 50448 86 4138 6471 423 9495 396 842 50 178 84 114 173 86 72984

279 a In addition to verbal stem, the verbal root and type of verb (transitive, intransitive, stative) was catalogued. Table 131 below summarizes all III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible, sorted first alphabetically and then by verbal root. In addition to the verbal root on the vertical axis, the forms in which the roots appear (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) and the number of times each form occurs (listed on the right side of the verb) are recorded on the horizontal axis. Note that the scheme for identifying identical verbal roots by Roman numerals is derived from HALOT. The 118 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible appear in 27 different verbal roots. Six of the verbal roots (‫היה‬, ‫נכה‬, ‫עלה‬, ‫עשׂה‬, ‫צוה‬, and

‫ )ראה‬appear 10 or

more times and constitute 69.5 percent of the total wayyiqtol long form data. The verbal root ‫ ראה‬appears 28 times and constitutes almost one quarter (23.7 percent) of the total wayyiqtol long form data.

‫‪280‬‬ ‫‪a‬‬ ‫‪ Wayyiqtol Long‬ה‪Table 131: III-‬‬ ‫‪Forms by Verbal Root‬‬ ‫‪Total‬‬

‫‪1cp‬‬

‫‪1cs‬‬

‫‪2ms‬‬

‫‪3fs‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַנִּבְנֶה‬

‫‪ 3‬וָאֶבְכֶּה‬ ‫‪ 2‬וָאֶבְנֶה‬

‫‪ 1‬וַתִּבְכֶּה‬

‫‪ 1‬וַתִּגָּלֶה‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬

‫‪ 2‬וַנִּהְיֶה‬

‫‪ 10‬וָאֶהְיֶה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַתַּזְנֶה‬

‫‪3‬‬

‫‪ 2‬וַתִּזְנֶה‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַנַּחֲנֶה‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וָאַכֶּה‬ ‫‪ 3‬וָאַעֲלֶה‬

‫‪11‬‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַנַּעֲשֵׂה‬

‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪5.‬‬ ‫‪6.‬‬ ‫‪7.‬‬ ‫‪8.‬‬ ‫‪9.‬‬ ‫‪10.‬‬

‫‪ 3‬וַתַּעֲלֶה‬

‫‪11.‬‬ ‫‪12.‬‬ ‫‪III‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַנְִּראֶה‬

‫‪ 1‬וַאעַנֶּה‬ ‫‪ 2‬וָאֶעֱשֶׂה‬ ‫‪ 5‬וָאֲצַוֶּה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאֲַקוֶּה‬ ‫‪ 2‬וָאְֶקנֶה‬ ‫‪ 21‬וָאְֶראֶה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאְַרבֶּה‬ ‫‪ 2‬אְֶרעֶה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאֶשְׁגֶּה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאַשְֶׁקה‬

‫‪15.‬‬ ‫‪16.‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪ 3‬וַתַּעֲשֶׂה ‪ 1‬וַתַּעֲשֶׂה‬

‫‪17.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪18.‬‬ ‫‪19.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַתֵֶּראה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַתְַּרבֶּה‬

‫‪13.‬‬ ‫‪14.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪4.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וָאֶתְוֶַדּה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאֲכַסֶּה‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪2‬‬

‫‪3.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪28‬‬

‫‪2.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַיִּתְאַוֶּה אוה‬ ‫בכה‬ ‫בנה‬ ‫‪ 3‬וַיִּבְנֶה‬ ‫גלה‬ ‫היה‬ ‫זנה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה חוה‬ ‫חזה‬ ‫חנה‬ ‫יגה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַיַּגֶּה‬ ‫ידה‬ ‫כסה‬ ‫כרה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַ ִיּכְֶרה‬ ‫נכה‬ ‫‪ 10‬וַ ַיּכֶּה‬ ‫עלה‬ ‫‪ַ 4‬ויַּעֲלֶה‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫‪ַ 1‬ויַּעֲנֶה‬ ‫ענה‬ ‫עשׂה‬ ‫‪ 4‬וַיַּעֲשֶׂה‬ ‫צוה‬ ‫‪ַ 5‬ויְצַוֶּה‬ ‫קוה‬ ‫קנה‬ ‫ראה‬ ‫‪ 5‬וַיְִּראֶה‬ ‫רבה‬ ‫רעה‬ ‫שׁגה‬ ‫שׁקה‬ ‫שׁתה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַיִּשְׁתֶּה‬

‫‪1.‬‬

‫‪II‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וָאֶשְׁתַּחֲוֶה‬ ‫‪ 1‬וָאֶחֱזֶה‬

‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬

‫‪ 1‬וַתִּבְכֶּה‬

‫‪3ms‬‬

‫‪Root‬‬

‫‪20.‬‬ ‫‪21.‬‬ ‫‪22.‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬

‫‪23.‬‬

‫‪I‬‬

‫‪24.‬‬ ‫‪25.‬‬ ‫‪26.‬‬ ‫‪27.‬‬

281 a Most of the verbal roots are transitive action verbs, with one major exception, the verbal root ‫( היה‬to be). Those roots that are intransitive (stative) in the Qal are inflected in a verbal stem that makes them transitive (factitive). For example, the verbal root

I

‫( רבה‬to be great) appears in the Hiphil stem (Josh 24:3; Ezek 23:19) with the

meaning “to make great, increase.” In each of these 2 cases, the verb is followed by a direct object marked by the accusative particle.

The verbal root ‫ היה‬stands out from the remaining action verbs. The use of this root, inflected only in the first person, may be divided into three categories.

1.

On 7 occasions (58.3 percent), the long form of the verbal root ‫ היה‬is used to describe the divine presence (2 Sam 7:6 [=1 Chr 17:5]; 2 Sam 7:9 [=1 Chr 17:8]; Hos 11:4; Prov 8:30 [2x]).

D;tVk$AlDh r∞RvSa ‹ lOkV;b #ÔKV;mIo h∞RyVhRaÎw

(2 Sam 7:9)

NwñømQDa w#ølVxRa h¶RyVhRa `Dw (Prov 8:30) 2.

On 3 occasions (25.0 percent), the long form of the verbal root ‫ היה‬is used to describe a human activity in which the subject was personally involved (2 Sam 11:23; 22:24; Jer 44:17).

:rAo`DÚvAh jAt¶RÚp_dAo M™RhyElSo h¶RyVhˆ…nÅw

(2 Sam 11:23)

:y`InOwSoEm hä∂rV;mA;tVvRaÎw wóøl My™ImDt h¶RyVhRa Îw (2 Sam 22:24)

282 a 3.

On 2 occasions (16.7 percent), the long form of the verbal root ‫ היה‬is used to describe the enduring state of the subject (Ps 102:8; Job 7:20).

:g`D…g_lAo dñédwø;b rw#øÚpIxV;kŒ h¡RyVh`RaÎw (Ps 102:8) :a`DÚcAmVl y∞AlDo h™RyVhRaÎw (Job 7:20) From the above analysis, two significant observations obtain regarding the verbal roots in which III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms appear . First, there is a preference for transitive action verbs. Second, with regard to the use of ‫היה‬, there is an emphasis on the personal presence, activity, or state of the verbal subject. In other words, the long form of this verbal root may have been employed in contexts where the personal involvement of the subject appears to be emphasized or highlighted.

Diachronic Environment In this section, the data from each category (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) was analyzed in order to determine if the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long form of the verb was a feature characteristic of or unique to early (EBH), late (LBH), or standard (SBH) biblical Hebrew. The criteria for analysis was derived from the work of Avi Hurvitz in the following three categories: (1) biblical distribution; (2) extra-biblical sources; and (3) linguistic opposition.9

9

Avi Hurvitz, “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew,” Congress Volume: Oslo, 1998, ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, SVT 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 143-60.

283 a Biblical distribution. This criterion worked to identify a pattern of distribution for a linguistic element in the literature of the Hebrew Bible, especially in acknowledged late compositions such as Esther through Chronicles.10 Table 132 below provides a comprehensive accounting for all III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible. The data is sorted by person, gender and number on the horizontal axis and biblical book on the vertical axis. Note that lines calculating the total number of forms appear on both the horizontal axis and the vertical axis.

Table 132: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Form Distribution in the Hebrew Bible 3ms

3fs

2ms

Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings

10

2 2 1 8 10

1 1 3

1 1

1cs

1cp

Total

1

1

2

2

2 1 2 4 2

1 1 1

5 2 6 6 14 11

Avi Hurvitz, “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts.”

Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 75.

284 a

Isaiah Jeremiah Ezekiel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habbakuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachai Psalms Job Proverbs Ruth Song of Songs Qoheleth Lamentations Esther Daniel Ezra Nehemiah Chronicles Total

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1 7 3

1 2 2

1

1 5 11 1

1cp

1

1

1

4

4

3 1 3

3 2 3

2

2 1

1 1

1

6 1 4 3

6 2 5 5

5

60

6

118

1

1

37

10

4 15 16 1 1

1

1

Total

It is to be observed that long forms in the 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms categories appear predominantly in the second major division of the Hebrew Bible, the Prophets. Out of the 52 total long forms in these three categories, not 1 form appears in the Pentateuch and

285 a only 4 or 7.7 percent appear in the Writings. Of the 4 long forms in the Writings, 1 appears in Job (3ms in Job 42:16Q), 1 appears in Lamentations (3ms in Lam 3:33) and 2 appear in Chronicles (3ms in 2 Chr 26:6; 2ms in 2 Chr 21:13). Note, however, that the 2 long forms in Chronicles are not necessarily to be considered the product of LBH. The 3ms long form in 2 Chronicles 26:6 rehearses the reign of Uzziah (Amaziah in 2 Kings) the king of Judah, recorded in 2 Kings 14:21-22 and 2 Kings 15:1-6. In both of these texts, however, the information recorded in 2 Chronicles 26:6 is absent. It appears that the Chronicler, in this case, obtained his information from another source, perhaps the annals of the kings of Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 15:6). Additionally, the appearance of this long form is better understood to be the result of its appearance in a Philistine context (see Dialectical Environment below).

The 2ms long form in 2 Chronicles 21:13 is located in a letter composed by Elijah to Jehoram, a northern, pre-exilic prophet. Thus, the appearance of this form in Chronicles is not necessarily late. It may be said, however, that the long form was at least a recognizable (if not productive) linguistic feature during this period since the Chronicler is known to have â&#x20AC;&#x153;updated,â&#x20AC;? when necessary, the Hebrew text in light of the LBH linguistic environment of that day.

First person long forms are both more common and enjoy a wider range of distribution than third and second person forms. There are 3 1cs forms in the Pentateuch and these 3 forms constitute the only long forms in this portion of the Hebrew Bible (Gen 24:48; Deut 1:16, 18). There are 25 first person long forms in the Writings. These 25 forms constitute 37.9 percent of all first person long forms in the Hebrew Bible and this

286 a rate is almost five times the rate obtained by non-first person forms. Of these 25 first person forms, 16 appear in Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. These patterns and rates of distribution demonstrate that the first person long form was a productive linguistic element in LBH, though not originating in or restricted to this environment as Table 132 above clearly demonstrates.

By way of summary, therefore, the distribution of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible does not support their identification as a linguistic feature peculiar to LBH.11 Long forms of this type are much more common in SBH texts. The evidence does suggest, however, that long forms were recognizable in LBH, though perhaps only productive in the first person category.

Extra-biblical sources. In the sectarian manuscripts of Qumran, there are as many as 11 instances of the wayyiqtol 1cs long form (1QHa 10:8, 10, 14, 15; 11:7; 14:24; 16:27; 4Q364 f21a; 4Q364 f26bi:5; 4Q364 f26bii; 4Q429 f4ii:5) while there is only 1 questionable short form (4Q364 f26bi:6). There is, therefore, a preference for the 1cs long form over the 1cs short form in this body of literature. With regard to verbs of this

11

The summary of the data at this point may refine the observations set forth

by Qimron and Revell that the wayyiqtol 1cs long form was a linguistic element best described as characteristic of LBH. Revell argues, for example, that the “use of the affix -ah on 1st person forms with waw consecutive is characteristic of a post-exilic form of literary (biblical) Hebrew which became standard at Qumran, and influenced the Samaritan Pentateuch much more strongly than it did that of the MT” (Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 421) Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Harvard Semitic Studies 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 45-46 (§310.129).

287 a type in Qumran Hebrew (QH), Qimron states, “In the 1st person, the form has final he in all conjugations, strong and weak verbs alike [310.122]. In ‫ ל"ה‬verbs the form is ‫ואהיה‬ etc. (10 times).”12 Thus, in both BH and QH, first person III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms outnumber short forms. Additionally, there are 2 possible wayyiqtol 1cp long forms, the first of which is conjectural (4Q364 f24a_c:7; 4Q364 f24a_c:15).13 While 2 examples of this type may not be convincing, recall that wayyiqtol 1cp forms are also relatively rare in BH, occurring only 82 total times, of which only 17 are III-‫ה‬. There is, therefore, enough evidence in this case, together with what obtains in 1cs verbs, to suggest that the long form was at least available in, though not unique to, LBH.

Linguistic opposition. This criterion worked to contrast the potential LBH feature with a SBH feature. In this case, the linguistic feature in opposition to the III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long form is the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol short form. In the 3ms, 3fs, and 2ms, the long form is either rare or does not exist in LBH texts and so the standard form is the short form. For example, in Esther through Chronicles, the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 3ms short form occurs 234 times but the long form appears only 1 time. The III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 3fs short form occurs 21 times but the long form is unattested in this corpus. The III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol

12

Ibid., 45 (§310.129c).

13

Only 1 conjectural short forms exists in 4Q364 f23a_bi:6: bawm rbdm Kr«d r[wbonw Npnw, translated “we turned and passed by the way of the wilderness of Moab.”

288 a 2ms short form occurs 3 times but the long form occurs only 1 time. Now contrast this level of distribution with first person forms. In Esther through Chronicles, the III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol 1cs short form occurs only 6 times but the long form appears 14 times; more than twice as much. In this same corpus, the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cp short form is unattested while the long form appear 2 times. In terms of linguistic opposition, therefore, both long and short forms exist in LBH, though in the first person, the long form appears to represent the linguistic preference during this stage of the language.

Conclusion: Diachronic environment. In terms of biblical distribution, III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long forms appear in, but are not restricted to, LBH. The evidence from extra-biblical sources confirms the use of LBH long forms in the first person; as well as the preference for short forms in non-first person verbs. The evidence generated from the criterion of linguistic opposition demonstrates that both long and short forms appear in SBH and LBH. However, in LBH there is a preference for long first person verbs that does not obtain elsewhere in the biblical corpus. Therefore, whatever the origin or original significance of the long form in SBH may be, the use of the first person long form appears to represent the emerging standard in LBH.

Dialectical Environment In each of the preceding five chapters, the analysis of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verb forms have yielded consistent and productive evidence under the category of dialectical environment. In this category, the distribution of the long verb form was studied with

289 a attention to the possible dialectical environments in which they appeared – Judahite or Israelian. It has been argued that Judahite Hebrew (JH) represents the standard biblical dialect and that Israelian Hebrew (IH) is best understood as an umbrella term for a non-JH dialectical cluster consisting of (1) western Philistine regions, (2) northern Israelian regions including the border dialect of Benjamin in the south as well as Aram to the north, and (3) the Transjordanian tribes, also including Edom and Moab. The methodology employed in this study is derived from the dialectical studies of Gary Rendsburg who, in turn, adapted the methodology of Avi Hurvitz from his study of LBH linguistic features. This criterion consists of three basic categories for the analysis of a linguistic element: (1) biblical distribution; (2) extra-biblical sources; and (3) linguistic opposition or contrast.

Biblical distribution. In the category, it has been demonstrated that a significant majority of the 118 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verb forms appear in environments suitable for non-JH dialectical features. Studies have shown that these environments include, but are not limited to, the accounts of northern judges (Deborah, Gideon, Jepthah, etc.) in the book of Judges, the accounts of the northern kingdom in 1 Kings 12 – 2 Kings 17, the northern prophets Hosea and Amos, selected Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Qoheleth, Genesis 49, Deuteronomy 32 and 33, 2 Samuel 23:1-7, and Nehemiah 9. Other possible locations include, with certain precautions, the account of Balaam, the accounts of Saul and Jonathan of Benjamin or the prophecy of Jeremiah from the same tribe in Anathoth, and Samuel the Ephraimite. Finally, we may also

290 a include the prophecy of Ezekiel based upon the theory of C. H. Gordon and Gary Rendsburg that IH features influenced later BH under the influence of the reunion of the tribes in exile. Employing the above methodology and beginning with the non-JH environments described above, Table 133 below summarizes the data collected in the preceding five chapters. The data is sorted by person, gender, and number on the vertical axis. On the horizontal axis, there is displayed the total number of long forms, the number of IH forms identified, and the rate of occurrence (percent) obtained by these IH forms when compared to the total number of long forms in each category.

Table 133: Total IH Forms and Rates Total Long Forms

Total IH Forms

Rate (Percent)

3ms

37

35

94.6

3fs

10

8

80.0

2ms

5

3

60.0

1cs

60

47

76.7

1cp

6

5

83.3

The evidence presented in Table 133 above demonstrates that III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verbal forms appear consistently, in each category, with significant concentrations in environments influenced by a non-JH dialect. The rates obtained range from 60.0 percent in the 2ms category to 94.6 percent in the 3ms category. Out of the 118 total long forms, therefore, 98 or 83.1 percent appear in IH contexts or are the result of IH

291 a influence. The significance of the IH rate exceeding eighty percent is increased when it is remembered that non-JH dialectical environments account for only about 20 percent of the total BH corpus.14 Therefore, based upon the pattern of distribution in the Hebrew Bible, it is safe to conclude that III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verbal forms represent a non-JH, or IH linguistic element that appears primarily in IH contexts and only occasionally in JH environments. The limited number of appearances in JH contexts does not discredit the IH theory. The dialectical peculiarities of the north certainly would have been known in the south, especially to educated individuals or people associated with the cult or royal administration. This particular feature simply represents a linguistic element that was much more common in the north than it was in the south.

Extra-biblical sources. This criterion worked to identify a cognate in those languages to the north of Israel in the hope of substantiating the existence of a particular IH linguistic element in related and geographically proximate languages. The unfortunate state of the limited evidence in this category, however, has been rehearsed above. By way of summary, note that the “consecutive imperfect was a common NWS verb form” with evidence in “Old Aramaic (Zkr), the Deir Alla dialect, Moabite, and Hebrew.”15 The evidence for 3ms III-‫ ה‬verbal forms is, however, limited. This issue is further

14

This is an estimate provided by Gary A. Rendsburg in Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, SBLMS 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 15. Note that Rendsburg is making the same basic point with this estimated rate.

15

W. Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000–586 B.C.E. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, 1985), 186.

292 a complicated by the relative infrequent use of final vowel letters in NWS Semitic inscriptions. The most productive extra-biblical evidence comes from Qumran in support of long first person forms in LBH. The evidence from Qumran is important for this study in that it may testify, in a secondary fashion, to the existence of long forms in IH based upon the documented influence of IH on LBH. Additional evidence in this category simply does not yet exist.

Linguistic opposition. As stated above, this criterion works to identify or contrast the IH linguistic element with a different, but corresponding, JH linguistic element. In this case, the linguistic feature in contrast with the IH III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long form is the JH III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol short form. However, it was also observed that, in addition to the long form, IH also employed the short form of the verb. It is not argued, therefore, that the IH long form is equivalent to the JH short form (an equipollent opposition).

Rather, the long form in IH appears to represent an additional linguistic feature that was not commonly employed in the more standard JH dialect (a privative opposition). For example, in the accounts of the Northern Kingdom in the book of Kings (1 Kgs 12 – 2 Kgs 17), there are 103 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 3ms verbal forms (excluding ‫ וַיְהִי‬and forms appearing with pronominal [object] suffixes). There are 16 (15.5 percent) long forms and 87 short forms (84.5 percent). Note that the rate at which the long form appears in this context (15.5 percent) greatly exceeds the more global rate of distribution identified above (1.9 percent). This demonstrates that, in IH, short forms were more common, but an alternative long form also existed for use in selected contexts.

293 a In addition to the criterion of linguistic opposition, first person forms were submitted to an analysis of what was called linguistic correspondence. In this analysis, it was observed that a significant number of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long first person forms appeared together with non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol verbal forms to which had been added the so-called paragogic ‫ ה‬or -ah affix.16 For example, out of the 60 III- ‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cs long forms in the Hebrew Bible, 23 or 38.3 percent appear in contexts with 40 out of the 104 or 41.7 percent of total non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cs forms lengthened with paragogic ‫ה‬. It was stated that the rates at which these forms appear together suggest a measure of intent.

The relationship between these forms may imply also that the meaning or significance of III-‫ ה‬long forms corresponds in some way to the meaning or significance of non-III-‫ה‬ lengthened forms. The formal evidence collected in this study, especially the first person evidence, consequently affirms the observation of Revell that “the use of the long form of the 1st person imperfect with waw consecutive in roots IIIh can reasonably be regarded as representing the same development as does the use of the affixed form in other roots.”17

For example, note the presence of the III-‫ ה‬long form with the 2 non-III-‫ה‬ lengthened forms in the following 3 clauses located at Judg 12:3: (1) Aoy#Ivwøm ∞ÔK◊nyEa_y`I;k hfiRa√rRa`Dw; (2) ‹yIÚpAkVb y§IvVpÅn hDmy°IcDaÎw; and (3) Nw$ø;mAo y∞EnV;b_lRa ‹h∂rV;bVoRa`Dw. 16

17

Revell, “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive,” 423.

294 a Conclusion: Dialectical environment. In terms of biblical distribution, III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long verbal forms appear at a rate of 83.1 percent (98 out of 118 times) in IH contexts or may be interpreted as the result of IH influence. This rate is significant given the limited size of IH material in the BH corpus.

The extra-biblical evidence is limited and inconclusive for dialectical analysis.

In a secondary fashion, however, the attestation of, and preference for, long forms in Qumran Hebrew may be the result of the influence of IH on LBH. The evidence from the analysis of linguistic opposition demonstrated that both long and short forms constitute valid linguistic options in IH. While the short form is still generally more common in IH (excluding the first person), the rates at which the long form appear are substantially higher in IH contexts. This evidence suggests that the long form of the verb represents an additional linguistic option not common in JH for which the original significance is yet to be identified. In other words, it is not an “either/or” linguistic environment (equipollent opposition), but rather a “both/and” (privative opposition) linguistic environment.

Finally, the analysis of linguistic correspondence among first person forms permits the following two observations. First, the rate at which long III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol first person forms appears with non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol first person forms lengthened with the paragogic ‫ ה‬or -ah affix suggests that both their usage and their distribution are intentional and not accidental or anecdotal. Second, this correspondence between III-‫ה‬

295 a and non-III-‫ ה‬forms may aid in the identification of the significance of the III- ‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long form in the Hebrew Bible.

Conclusions: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol Long Forms Based upon the evidence in the above analysis, what, if anything, best explains the 118 long forms that appear in the Hebrew Bible? The answer to this question is that these long forms appear to be the result of a non-Judahite dialectical influence, generally labelled Israelian Hebrew (IH). Additionally, the appearance of these forms in LBH, particularly in the first person, represents the potential influence of IH on LBH. More specifically, it is to be observed, that during the period of SBH, IH employed the use of long forms on third, second, and first person verbal forms in ascending degrees of concentration. In LBH, however, only the more common first person form continued to be used and even preferred over the short form of the verb.

It is also worth mentioning that studies conducted by both Rendsburg and Burney have identified additional instances where IH retains a final ‫ ה‬when normally dropped in JH. These cases include: (1) the non-elision of the definite article after a uniconsonantal prefixed preposition; (2) the non-elision of ‫ ה‬in the Imperfect and Participle of Hiphil and Hophal Verbs; and (3) the retention of ‫ ה‬in the Imperfect, Infinitive Construct, and Imperative forms of ‫הָלְַך‬. Perhaps the spelling of the interrogative pronoun as ‫( מֶה‬instead of ‫ ) מָה‬before non-gutturals is also related to this

296 a 18 phenomenon. Additional analysis would be required in order to determine if all of these phenomena were related one to another or based upon a yet undetermined phonological principle characteristic of non-Judahite dialects.

Finally, it is to be observed that, to date, the secondary literature has not yet identified the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long form as a dialectical feature of IH. Note, however, that the identification of an additional IH literary (narration as opposed to direct discourse) element would strengthen the argument of Rendsburg against Young and Schniedewind and Sivan who maintain that there is a greater tendency for IH elements to occur in direct discourse.19

Meaning and Significance Since IH employed both short and long forms, the question of significance arises. What is intended by the use of the long form, as opposed to the more common short form, in the environments in which they appear? Does the long form constitute a simple variant in spelling or does some other significance obtain? For example, does the use of the long form h¡R;tVvˆ¥yÅw in 1 Kings 19:8 communicate something different than the

18

Gary A. Rendsburg, Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings (Maryland: CDL Press, 2002), 151-54; idem, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, 105-07; C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 208-09.

19

Rendsburg, Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings, 22-23, 142-50; Ian Young, “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8 (1995): 63-70; William Schniedewind and Daniel Sivan, “The ElijahElisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect of Hebrew,” Jewish Quartery Review 87 (1997): 303-37.

297 a use of the corresponding short form V;tVvY´¥yÅw two verses earlier, in 1 Kings 19:6? Both forms appear with major disjunctive accents at the suprasegmental (clausal) boundary (C/U = 0/0) in virtually identical syntactical environments. In the final section of this study, therefore, the issue of meaning and significance is to be addressed in a preliminary fashion. Does the evidence collected above point to, or provide clues for, the identification of the significance of the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verbal form appearing 118 times in the Hebrew Bible? Before beginning, however, it must remembered that the above analysis of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol represents only a portion of III-‫ ה‬verbs requiring study.

Both yiqtol (2,337 verbs) and Imperative (391 verbs) forms remain to be studied.

Because of this, the following discussion of meaning and significance is necessarily incomplete until the other two conjugation patterns are studied.

Dialectical and diachronic distribution It was demonstrated above that III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long verbal forms cluster or concentrate in two different but related environments. In SBH, there is a concentration of third, second, and first person forms (in ascending order of frequency) in non-JH dialectical environments, otherwise generally labelled IH. In LBH, there is an increase in the use of first person long forms and a corresponding decrease in third and second person long forms. The attestation of long forms in both IH and LBH appears to correspond with, and perhaps corroborate, the proposed relationship between IH and LBH suggested by C. H. Gordon. Note that linguistic evidence of the same type presented here appears in the dialectical work of

298 a Rendsburg. The linguistic evidence of Rendsburg, therefore, provides a dialectical and diachronic framework into which the evidence from this study neatly fits. It terms of meaning and significance, therefore, the concentration of first person forms in both IH and LBH may provide a clue to the intended use of the long form. In IH, the long form appears in all persons but is much more common in the first person, both in terms of the total number of occurrences (66 times) and the rate at which it occurs in connection with short forms of the same person (54.1 percent in the singular and 42.9 percent in the plural). In LBH, the preference for the first person in IH escalates in two important ways.

First, second and third person long forms measurably decrease in appearance in LBH. Second, in LBH, first person long forms are preferred over the short form, a situation which did not obtain in IH. These patterns of distribution in IH and LBH suggest that the meaning or significance of the long form may be connected to the first person in a way that does not obtain with third and second person forms.

Distribution by verbal person. In addition to diachronic and dialectical distribution, there is additional evidence that connects the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long form of the verb with verbal first person. First, the distribution of the long form in III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol inversely corresponds to the distribution of the long form in III-‫ ה‬yiqtol. Table 134 below displays the rates at which long forms appear in III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol and III-‫ ה‬yiqtol. The data is sorted by verbal conjugation (wayyiqtol, yiqtol) on the horizontal axis and by verbal person (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) on the vertical axis.

299 a Table 134: III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol Distribution of Long and Short Forms III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol

III-‫ ה‬Yiqtol

Long Forms Short Forms

37 (1.9%) 1,891 (98.1%)

1,039 (87.0%) 156 (13.0%)

Long Forms Short Forms

10 (4.4%) 217 (95.6%)

232 (82.3%) 50 (17.7%)

Long Forms Short forms

5 (26.3%) 14 (73.7%)

345 (87.3%) 50 (12.7%)

Long Forms Short Forms

60 (54.1%) 51 (45.9%)

346 (98.9%) 4 (1.1%)

Long Forms Short Forms

6 (42.9%) 8 (57.1%)

115 (99.1%) 1 (0.9%)

3ms

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

In the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol category, long forms are least common in the third (1.4 – 4.4 percent) person, more common in the second person (26.3 percent), and most common in the first person (42.9 – 54.1 percent). In the III-‫ ה‬yiqtol category, a similar reality obtains. Long forms are least common in the third person (13.0 – 17.7 percent), more common in the second person (87.3 percent), and most common in the first person (98.9 – 99.1 percent). The difference between the two categories is that, in general, short forms represent the convention in III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol (except for 1cs) and long forms

300 a represent the more standard convention in III-‫ ה‬yiqtol. In each case, however, the distribution of long and short forms appears to be affected, in some measure, by the person of the verb; wherein long forms obtain their highest rates in the first person of each category. The size of the database in each case and the correspondence in each category precludes any notion of accidental or uncontrolled distribution. The controlled distribution of this phenomena is strengthened by the distribution of the III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in IH and LBH environments mentioned above.

Distribution with lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬verbs. Above, it was observed that long forms are connected to the first person in a manner not obtained by third and second person verbal forms. The evidence for this is the ascending order of frequency with which the long form appears in the first person of both III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol and III-‫ ה‬yiqtol verbal forms. Yet another connection to the first person is the observation that III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long forms frequently appear with non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol forms lengthened with the paragogic ‫ ה‬or -ah affix (e.g., ‫ ; וָאֹמְָרה‬see Chapter 5 – Dialectical distribution, Linguistic correspondence). Identified were 16 groups of forms where both long III-‫ה‬ and lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬forms appear together in the same chapter and oftentimes in the same verse. This data appears to demonstrate that III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cs long forms do not appear at random or in unexpected environments. Out of the 60 III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cs long forms in the Hebrew Bible, 23 (38.3 percent) appear in contexts with 40 (41.7 percent)

301 a other non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol 1cs forms lengthened with paragogic ‫ה‬. The rates at which these forms appear together in the first person suggest a measure of intent. Additionally, the relationship between these forms suggests that the meaning or significance of III-‫ה‬ long forms may correspond in some way to the meaning or significance of non-III-‫ה‬ lengthened forms, both of which exhibit their highest concentrations in the first person.

There are 104 non-III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol forms lengthened with the -ah affix. The distribution of these lengthened forms, along with non-III-‫ ה‬yiqtol forms, are summarized in Table 135 below. The following data is sorted by verbal conjugation (wayyiqtol, yiqtol) on the horizontal axis and by verbal person (3ms, 3fs, 2ms, 1cs, 1cp) on the vertical axis.

Table 135: Non-III-‫ ה‬Wayyiqtol and Non-III- ‫ ה‬Yiqtol Distribution of Long and Short Forms 3ms

Wayyiqtol

Yiqtol

Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

6,814 (100%) 0 (0.0%)

3,851(99.95%) 2 (0.05%)

Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

894 (99.8%) 2 (0.2%)

778 (99.5%) 4 (0.5%)

Regular Forms Lengthened forms

102 (100%) 0 (0.0%)

1,419 (100%) 0 (0.0%)

Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

358 (78.9%) 96 (21.1%)

1,166 (76.9%) 351 (23.1%)

Regular Forms Lengthened Forms

55 (90.2%) 6 (9.8%)

228 (56.7%) 174 (43.3%)

3fs

2ms

1cs

1cp

302 a First, it is to be observed that lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬verbs do not appear in ascending rates of frequency from third, to second, to first person. In the third person, both wayyiqtol and yiqtol, there are only 8 lengthened forms; appearing at a rate of less than 1 percent in each category. Lengthened forms are unattested in the wayyiqtol 3ms category. Lengthened forms are also unattested in the second person of both wayyiqtol and yiqtol.

We may also observe, however, that lengthened forms are most common in the first person, both singular and plural, and that this level of concentration exhibits measurable correspondence with III-‫ ה‬verbs, both wayyiqtol and yiqtol. To be certain, an additional study of the type conducted herein would be required to determine what factors condition the use of lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬verbal forms of this type. In spite of this current desideratum, however, (1) the rates at which lengthened forms appear in the first person and (2) the co-occurrence of long and lengthened forms at an average rate of just over forty percent, suggest that long and lengthened forms are related in meaning or significance and that such significance is strongly tied to verbal first person.

In what direction, therefore, is the evidence pointing? Thus far, it has been determined that the accent environment, phonetic context, genre, and semantics of the verbal root and stem do not condition the use of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long forms in the Hebrew Bible. It has been demonstrated, however, that these long forms appear with conspicuous frequency in non-Judahite (or IH) and LBH dialectical environments.

Additionally, in IH, long forms appear more commonly in all persons but in LBH long

303 a forms are more limited to the first person. This type of shift from IH to LBH may suggest that the original significance in IH was lost in LBH and that the LBH long form became the stereotypical first person form apart from any semantic significance. The potential loss of productive significance in LBH, however, does not preclude the existence of significance in IH and it may be argued that the maintenance of the first person long form in LBH is further evidence of the significance of the meaning of the long form in relationship to verbal first person.

Distribution of stem and root. The analysis of the distribution of the stem and verbal root among long III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol verbal forms may provide two additional pieces of evidence for understanding the significance of the long form. First, it was observed that out of the 118 long forms in this category, only 1 form appeared in a passive verbal stem –– the Niphal stem in Ezekiel 16:32. The preference for non-passive verbal stems may point to its original significance. If, for example, the long form of the verb signals ventive20 or agent-focused action, then the use of the passive stem would be precluded as redundant. In other words, since passive verbs are agent-focused, the expected distribution among stems of this type would have been rare. As such, if the long form is

20

In Akkadian, for example, “The Ventive is essentially a directional element that denotes motion or activity in the direction of, or to a point near, the speaker (or a person being addressed, when the speaker places herself in the location of the person being addressed).” John A. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 133-34 (§15.2).

304 a ventive or agent-focused in its original significance, then such forms would have represented the ability to signal agent-focused action with transitive verbs.

Secondly, it was observed that, in general, long forms prefer transitive action verbs. The only major exception to this was the appearance of the 12 long forms with the verbal root ‫( היה‬to be). In these cases, however, it was demonstrated that there was an emphasis on the personal presence, activity, or state of the verbal subject. In other words, the long form of this verbal root is employed in contexts where the personal involvement of the subject appears to be emphasized or highlighted. As such, a preference for the use of the first person is to be expected in this environment.

Conclusion. The significance of III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol long verbal forms in the Hebrew Bible may have been to highlight or emphasize the participation of the subject in the verbal action. This is why stative and passive verbs do not appear with significant frequency among the verbal roots rendered as long in this category. This also accounts for the distribution of long forms concentrated in the first person and for the correspondence of long III-‫ ה‬verbal forms with lengthened non-III-‫ ה‬verbal forms. The long form was a linguistic feature characteristic of IH, appearing in third, second, and first persons. The preference for the first person in IH is carried over into LBH, though perhaps as a semantically bleached marker of the first person prefix form –– a case of inner Hebrew development. Though incomplete in its totality, the evidence from III-‫ה‬

305 a wayyiqtol does not contradict the Semitic ventive theory suggested by Gentry for nonIII-‫ ה‬lengthened verbal forms in the wayyiqtol, yiqtol, and Imperative conjugations.21

21

Fassberg begins by suggesting that the function of the -ah affix on the Hebrew Imperative is equivalent to the function of the ventive -am in Akkadian (Steven E. Fassberg, Studies in Biblical Syntax, [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994], 32-35 [Hebrew]; idem, “The Lengthened Imperative ‫ קָטְלָה‬in Biblical Hebrew,” Hebrew Studies 40 [1999]: 7-13). Gentry expands this theory to account for the lengthened forms of the BH prefix conjugations and explains the philological correspondence between Hebrew -ah and Akkadian -am based upon similar correspondences in Indo-European philology (Peter J. Gentry, “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 29 n. 83-84). The work of LipinŒski appears to strengthen the case for the ventive and eliminates any confusion regarding the correspondence between Hebrew -ah and Akkadian -am. He states, “The subjunctive in -a is used in Old Canaanite and in Hebrew after the conjunction wa- to express finality or consequence, but it is called ‘indirect cohortative’ in the grammars of Hebrew . . . . This subjunctive in -a alternates in the Amarna Correspondence with the East Semitic ventive, and its particular use with expressions of wish or expectation, especially in the first person singular, leaves little doubt that the West Semitic subjunctive in -a is but a ventive or allative, with some distinctive syntactical features. The directive a-morpheme is attested in Palaeosyrian (e.g., the Ur-III name Tu-ra-dDa-dan /T¥r-a-Dagån/, ‘Return, Dagan!’) and there is no need, therefore, to have recourse to an East Semitic borrowing to explain the -a suffix” (Edward LipinŒski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, 2nd ed., Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80 (Leuven: Peters, 2001), 360-61 (§39.6).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books Abegg, Martin G. Unpublished Transcriptions Prepared for Use in the Concordance of the Non-Biblical Texts from Qumran. Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003.

Allan, James P. Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Bergsträsser, G. Hebräische Grammatik. Mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten 28. Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius’ Hebräischer Grammatik. Leipzig: Vogel, 1918.

Blake, Frank R. A Resurvey of Hebrew Tenses. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1951.

Blau, Joshua. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orientalium 12.

Weisbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976.

Burney, C. F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Kings. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.

Dahood, M. Proverbs and Northwest Semitic Philology. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Davidson, A. B. Hebrew Syntax. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901.

Driver, G. R. Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System. Edinburg: T. & T. Clark, 1936.

Ewald, H. Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des Alten Bundes 8.

Göttingen: Dieterich, 1870.

Fassberg, Steven E. Studies in Biblical Syntax (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994.

Fraenkel, Meïr. Zur Theorie der Lamed-He-Stämme: Gleichzeitig ein Beitrag zur semitisch-indogermanischen Sprachverwandtschaft. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1970.

Garr, Randall. Dialect-Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 B.C.E. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985.

456

457 Gianto, Agustinus. Word Order Variation in the Akkadian of Byblos. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instuto Biblico, 1990.

Gogel, Sandra Landis. A Grammar of Epigraphic Hebrew. SBL Resources for Biblical Study 23. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.

Gordis, Robert. The Biblical Text in the Making: A Study of the Kethib-Qere.

Philadelphia: Press of the Jewish Publication Society, 1937.

Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook. Analecta Orientalia 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965.

Harris, Zellig S. Development of the Canaanite Dialects: An Investigation in Linguistic History. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1939. _________. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1936 Hoftijzer, J. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1985.

Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000.

Hurvitz, A. Beyn Lashon le-Lashon. Jerusalem: Bialik, 1972. _________. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982.

Joüon, S. J., and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1993.

Krahmalkov, C. R. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.

Kutscher, E. Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1982.

Lambert, M. Traité de grammaire hébraïque. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1946.

LipinŒski, Edward. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 2nd ed.

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80. Leuven: Peters, 2001.

Marcus, David. A Manual of Akkadian. New York: University Press of America, 1978.

McFall, Leslie. The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day. Sheffied: JSOT Press, 1982.

458 a Meyer, R. Hebräische Grammatik. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969.

Moran, William L. Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. Harvard Semitic Studies 54.

Edited by John Huehnergard and Shlomo Izre’el. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.

Niccacci, Alviero. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. JSOT Supp Series 86. Translated by W. G. E. Watson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.

Polzin, Robert. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Hebrew Prose. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976.

Price, James D. The Syntax of the Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, vol. 27. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990.

Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies 29.

Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

Rendsburg, Gary A. Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Kings. Occasional Publications of the Department of Near Eastern Studies and the Program of Jewish Studies Cornell University 5. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2002. _________. Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 43. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1990.

Rosenbaum, S. N. Amos of Israel. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1990.

Smith, Mark S. The Origins and Development of the Waw-Consecutive. Harvard Semitic Studies 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

Tropper, Josef. Ugaritisch: kurzgefasste Grammatik mit Übungstexten und Glossar.

Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002. _________. Ugaritische Grammatik. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. A Study of the Language of the Psalms. Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, vol. 9. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature, 1955. van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Van Pelt, Miles V., and Gary D. Pratico, The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

459 a Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898.

Articles Andersen, T. D. “The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13.1 (2000): 1-66.

Blake, F. R. “The Forms of Verbs after Waw.” Journal of Biblical Literature 65 (1946): 51-57. _________. “The Hebrew Waw-Conversive.” Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944): 271-95.

Blau, Joshua. “Studies in Hebrew Verb Formation.” Hebrew University College Annual 42 (1971): 133-58.

Cogan, M., and H. Tadmor. II Kings. Anchor Bible, vol. 11. New York: Doubleday, 1988 Cook, J. A. “The Hebrew Verb – A Grammaticalization Approach.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 14.2 (2001): 117-43.

Dahood, M. “Canaanite-Phoenician Influence in Qoheleth.” Biblica 33 (1952): 30-52, 191-221; Davila, James R. “Qoheleth and Northern Hebrew.” MAARAV 5-6 (1990): 69-87.

Emerton, John A. “New Evidence for the Use of the Waw Consecutive in Aramaic.”

Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 255-58.

Fassberg, Steven E. “The Lengthened Imperative ‫ קָטְלָה‬in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 7-13. Revised translation of Hebrew through the Ages: In Memory of Shoshanna Bahat (pp. 71-77), ed. M. Bar-Asher. Studies in Language II. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Langauge, 1997.

Fensham, F. C. “The Use of the Suffix Conjugation and the Prefix Conjugation in a Few Old Hebrew Poems.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 6 (1978): 9-18.

Fenton, Terry L. “The Hebrew ‘Tenses’ in the Light of Ugaritic.” In Proceedings of the Fifth Word Congress of Jewish Studies (1969), 4: 31-39. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969.

460 a Finley, Thomas J. “The Waw Consecutive with ‘Imperfect’ in Biblical Hebrew: Theoretical Studies and its Use in Amos.” In Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg, ed. John. S Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, 241-64.

Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Freedman, D. N. “Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job.” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 35-44.

Gentry, Peter J. “The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 39 (1998): 7-39.

Goerwitz, Richard L. “The Accentuation of the Hebrew Jussive and Preterite.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 112 (1992): 198-203.

Gordon, C. H. “North Israelite Influence on Postexilic Hebrew.” Israel Exploration Journal 5 (1995): 85-88.

Gottlieb, H. “The Hebrew Particle nâ.” Acta Orientalia (Danica) 33 (1971): 47-54.

Greenstein, Edward L. “On the Prefixed Preterite in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Studies 29 (1988): 7-17.

Gropp, D. “The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 13 (1991): 45-62.

Halpern, Baruch. “Dialect Distribution in Canaan and the Deir Alla Inscriptions.” In “Working with No Data”: Semitic and Egyptian Studies Presented to Thomas O. Lambdin, ed. David M. Golomb with the assistance of Susam T. Hollis, 119-39.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987.

Held, Moshe. “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic.” In Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman. ed. M. Ben Horin, 281-90. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.

Hetzron, R. “The Evidence for Perfect *yáqtul and Jussive *yaqtúl in Proto Semitic.”

Journal for Semitic Studies 14 (1969): 1-21.

Huehnergard, J. “The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations.” Hebrew Studies 29 (1988): 19-23.

Hurvitz, A. “Can Biblical Texts Be Dated Linguistically? Chronological Perspectives in the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew.” In Congress Volume Oslo 1998, ed. A. Lemaire and M. Sæbø, 143-60. Supplement for Vetus Testamentum 80. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.

461 a _________. “Ha-Lashon ha-’Ivrit ba-Tequfa ha Parsit.” In Shivat Íiyyon––Yeme Shilton Paras. Ha-Historiya shel ‘Am Yisra’el, 210-23, 306-09. Jerusalem: Alexander Peli, 1983. _________. “Linguistic Criteria for Dating Problematic Biblical Texts.” Hebrew Abstracts 14 (1973): 74-79.

Jenni, Ernst. “Höffliche bitte im Alten Testament.” In Congress Volume: Basel, 2001, ed.

A. Lemaire. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003.

Joosten, J. “The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew.”

Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111 (1999): 423-26.

Kaufman, Stephen A. “An Emphatic Plea for Please.” Maarav 7 (1991): 195-98. _________. “Of beginnings, Ends, and Computers in Targumic Studies. In To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski, 52-66. New York: Crossroads Publishers, 1989.

Krahmalkov, C. R. “The Qatal with Future Tense Reference in Phoenician.” Journal of Semitic Studies 31 (1986): 5-10.

Lambdin, Thomas O. “The Junctural Origin of the West Semitic Definite Article.” In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. Hans Goedicke, 315-33. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.

Mann, Y. “On the Use of Verbs of Exhortation.” Lé¡onénu 19 (1954): 3-12 (Hebrew).

Miller, Patrick D. Jr. “Syntax and Theology in Genesis XII 3a.” Vetus Testamentum 34 (1984): 472-75.

Moran, William L. “Early Canaanite yaqtula.” Orientalia 29 (1960): 1-19. _________. “The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background.” In The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright, ed. G. E. Wright, 59-84. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961. _________. “The Nun Energicum and the Prefix Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew.”

Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1 (1975): 63-71.

Muraoka, Takamitsu, and M. Roland. “The Waw-Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson.” Vetus Testamentum 48 (1988): 99-104.

Niccacci, Alviero. “A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence.” Liber Annuus 37 (1987): 7-19.

462 a Orlinsky, Harry M. “On the Cohortative and Jussive after an Imperative or Interjection in Biblical Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly Review 31 (1940-41): 371-82; Jewish Quarterly Review 32 (1941-42): 191-204, 272-77. _________. “The Origins of the Qere-Kethib System: A New Approach.” In Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959. Supplement for Vetus Testamentum 7, 184-92. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960.

Qimron, Elisha. “Consecutive and Injunctive Imperfect: The Forms of the Imperfect with Waw in Bibical Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986-87): 149-61.

Rainey, A. F. “The Ammonite Phoneme /‰/.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269 (1988): 73-79. _________. “The Ancient Hebrew Prefix Conjugation in the Light of Amarnah Canaanite.” Hebrew Studies 27 (1986): 4-19. _________. “Further Remarks on the Hebrew Verbal System.” Hebrew Studies 29 (1988): 35-42.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “The Ammonite Phoneme /‰/.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 269 (1988): 73-79. _________. “Additional Notes on ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam 23, 1-7).” Biblica 70 (1989): 403-08. _________. “The Dialect of the Dier ‘Alla Inscription.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993): 309-29. _________. “The Galilean Background of Mishnaic Hebrew.” In The Galilee in Late Antiquity, 225-40. ed. L. I. Levine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. _________. “Israelian Hebrew Features in Geneis 49.” MAARAV 8 (1992): 161-70. _________. “Linguistic Variation and the ‘Foreign Factor’ in the Hebrew Bible.” Israel Oriental Society 15 (1996): 177-90. _________. “More on Hebrew ⁄hibbølet.” Journal of Semitic Studies 33 (1988): 255-58. _________. “Morphological Evidence for Regional Dialects in Ancient Hebrew.” In Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine, 65-88. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. _________. “The Northern Origin of Nehemiah 9.” Biblica 72 (1991): 348-66. _________. “The Northern Origin of ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam 23:1-7).”

463 a Biblica 69 (1988): 113-21. _________. “Notes on Israelian Hebrew (II).” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 26 (2000): 33-45. _________. “The Strata of Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 17 (1991): 81-99.

Revell, E. J. “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive – Addenda.” Vetus Testamentum 41.2 (1991): 127-28. _________. “First Person Imperfect Forms with Waw Consecutive.” Vetus Testamentum 38.4 (1988): 419-26. _________. “Stress and the Waw ‘Consecutive’ in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 104 (1984): 437-44. _________. “Stress Position in Hebrew Verb Forms with Vocalic Affix.” Journal of Semitic Studies 32 (1987): 249-71. _________. “The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew.” Hebrew Annual Review 9 (1985): 277-300. _________. “The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose.” Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989): 1-37.

Sasson, Victor. “Some Observations on the Use and Original Purpose of the Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic and Biblical Hebrew.” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 111-27.

Schniedewind, William, and Daniel Sivan. “The Elijah-Elisha Narratives: A Test Case for the Northern Dialect of Hebrew.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 303-37.

Sheehan, John F. X. “Conversive Waw and Accentual Shift.” Biblica 51 (1970): 545-48. _________. “Egypto-Semitic Elucidation of the Waw Conversive.” Biblica 52 (1971): 39-43.

Shulman, Ahouva. “The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 13 (2000): 168-80. _________. “Imperative and Second Person Indicative Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.”

Hebrew Studies 42 (2001): 271-78. _________. “The Particle ‫ נָא‬in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Hebrew Studies 40 (1999): 57-82.

464 a Sivan, Daniel. “The Verbal Forms IIIw/y in Ugaritic.” Leshonenu 50 (1985/1986): 51-73 (Hebrew).

Smith, Mark S. “Converted and Unconverted Perfect and Imperfect Forms in the Literature of Qumran.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 284 (1991): 1-15.

Stipp, H-J. “Narrativ-Langformen 2. und 3. Person von zweiradikaligen Basen nach qalY im biblischen Hebräisch.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 13 (1987): 109-49.

Tropper, Josef. “Das Verbalsystem der Amarnabriefe aus Jerusalem.” UgaritForschungen 30 (1999): 665-78. van der Merwe, C. H. J. “The Vague Term ‘Emphasis’.” Journal of Semitics 1 (1989): 118-32.

Young, G. Douglas. “Origin of the Waw Conversive.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12 (1953): 248-52.

Young, Ian. “The ‘Northernisms’ of the Israelite Narratives in Kings.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 8 (1995): 63-70.

Dissertations Chen, Y. “Israelian Hebrew in the Book of Proverbs.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 2000.

Dallaire, Hélène. “The Syntax of Volatives in Northwest Semitic Prose.” Ph.D. diss., Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, 2002.

Dempster, S. G. “Linguistic Features of Hebrew Narrative: A Discourse Analysis of Narrative from the Classical Period.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1985.

Shulman, Ahouva. “The Use of Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1996.

ABSTRACT III-‫ ה‬VERBS IN BIBLICAL HEBREW: A STUDY OF SHORT AND LONG FORMS WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE WAYYIQTOL CONJUGATION

Miles Victor Van Pelt, Ph.D. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005 Chairperson: Dr. Peter J. Gentry This dissertation studies III-‫ ה‬verbs in Biblical Hebrew that may be rendered as either short or long in the Hebrew Masoretic text (wayyiqtol, yiqtol, Imperative). In chapter 1, a general examination of all 5,028 possible verbal forms is conducted and preliminary observations are set forth. In chapter 2 through chapter 6, the 2,299 wayyiqtol verbal forms are submitted to a detailed formal analysis in the following six categories: (1) accent environment; (2) phonetic context; (3) genre; (4) verbal and lexical semantics; (5) diachronic environment; and (6) dialectical environment. In chapter 7, the data is summarized. The analysis of the data in this study suggests that the 118 III-‫ה‬ wayyiqtol long verbal forms that appear in the Hebrew Bible represent a northern dialectical feature (Israelian Hebrew) that was less commonly employed in the south (Judahite Hebrew). The prevalence of the use of the long first person form and the supposed influence of Israelian Hebrew on late biblical Hebrew may explain the increased usage of the long first person form in late biblical Hebrew (especially Daniel,

Ezra, Nehemiah). Additionally, the data suggests that the long III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol form corresponds in usage with the non III-‫ ה‬wayyiqtol forms lengthened with the ‫ָה‬- suffix (paragogic ‫)ה‬. Before any firm conclusions can be set forth with regard to the meaning or significance of the long III-‫ ה‬form in biblical Hebrew, the data for the yiqtol and Imperative conjugations must be analyzed. However, the dialectically shaped distribution, the preference for the first person, and the correspondence between long III-‫ ה‬and lengthened non III-‫ ה‬verbal forms appears to support a meaning that would correspond to the Semitic ventive or allative.