A Reconsideration of the Prophetic Perfect in Biblical Hebrew

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Daniel E. Carver

Washington, D.C.

2017 A Reconsideration of the Prophetic Perfect in Biblical Hebrew

Daniel E. Carver, Ph.D.

Director: Edward M. Cook, Ph.D.

The future time uses of the Suffix Conjugation (SC) in Biblical Hebrew (BH) have troubled interpreters for over a thousand years. A SC with future time reference was often labeled a praeteritum propheticum until the 19th century when Ewald developed a new approach to the BH verbal system (BHVS). Ewald argued that the SC expressed a complete (hence

Perfect) situation, rather than a past time situation as most of his contemporaries believed. Later in the same century Driver popularized Ewald’s theory and from that time on, these future time

SCs were known as Prophetic Perfects. Although this theory was dominant in the late 19th and

20th century literature, many alternative approaches have arisen. Rogland made an astute contribution arguing that the so-called Prophetic Perfect is not one category of use, but several.

He used relative tense and other contextual clues to explain some of the alleged Prophetic

Perfects. This dissertation explains the future time uses of the SC that have been inappropriately conflated with those identified by Rogland as expressing relative past time under the Prophetic

Perfect. After a selective review of the literature over the last thousand years, the stative uses of the SC are explained and described. A stative expresses a situation with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect and is unmarked for tense, viewpoint aspect, or mood. It is argued that the SC is used to express future stative situations. Similarly, it is argued that future stative situations are also expressed by the SC in the Niphal stem. The SC is also used to express future time situations with epistemic modality. This irrealis use is indicated by word order

(WO), typically clause-initial WO. It is argued that some are clause-initial while others are noninitial because the normal WO for irrealis verbs was disrupted by constituent preposing. ii

This Dissertation by Daniel E. Carver fulfills the dissertation requirements for the doctoral degree in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literatures approved by Edward M. Cook, Ph.D., as Director, and by Andrew D. Gross, Ph.D., and Aaron M. Butts, Ph.D., as Readers.

—————————————————— Edward M. Cook, Ph.D., Director

—————————————————— Andrew D. Gross, Ph.D., Reader

—————————————————— Aaron M. Butts, Ph.D., Reader

iii

For Sarah and our sons Ezra, Boaz, and Zimri

iii

Contents

Abbreviations ...... vii Acknowledgments ...... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 §1.0 Introductory Remarks ...... 1 §1.1 Tense ...... 4 §1.1.1 The Perfect ...... 6 §1.2 Aspect ...... 7 §1.3 Mood ...... 9 §1.4 Survey of the Literature on the Prophetic Perfect ...... 11 §1.4.1 Survey of the Literature on the Semantics and Pragmatics of the Prophetic Perfect 12 §1.4.1.1 Descriptions in Early Tense Theories: Grammarians from the Medieval Era to 1827 ...... 12 §1.4.1.2 Descriptions in Early Relative Tense Theories: Lee, Weir, and Murphy ...... 14 §1.4.1.3 Descriptions in Early Aspectual Theories: Ewald and Driver ...... 20 §1.4.1.4 Aoristic Approaches: Herder, Sperber, and Hughes ...... 29 §1.4.1.5 Revival of the Pragmatic Approach: Joüon, Dempsey, and Joosten ...... 31 §1.4.1.6 Recent Descriptions from Tense-Based Theories: Bauer, Blake, Blau, Andersen, Revell, and Rainey ...... 33 §1.4.1.7 Recent Descriptions from Aspectual Theories ...... 39 §1.4.1.7.1 stative VS cursive: Brockelmann, Meyer, Rundgren, and Gibson ...... 40 §1.4.1.7.2 fact VS relative: Michel, Kustar, Fensham, and Furuli ...... 41 §1.4.1.7.3 perfective VS imperfective: Waltke and O’Connor, Hendel, and Tropper ...... 43 §1.4.1.7.4 Summary ...... 45 §1.4.1.8 Studies on the Prophetic Perfect ...... 46 §1.4.1.8.1 Pullin ...... 46 §1.4.1.8.2 Rogland ...... 48 §1.4.2 Survey of the Literature on Identifying Prophetic Perfects ...... 52 §1.5 Comparative Evidence for the Prophetic Perfect ...... 56 §1.6 The State of the Issue ...... 60 §1.6.1 Previous Advances ...... 60 §1.6.2 Problems to be Resolved ...... 62

§1.7 Thesis and Methodology ...... 64 Chapter 2: The Future Stative Uses of the Suffix Conjugation ...... 68 §2.0 Introductory Remarks ...... 68 §2.1 The Suffix Conjugation in the Proto-Semitic Verbal System ...... 69 §2.1.1 The Morphology of the Suffix Conjugation in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic ...... 70 §2.1.2 The Semantics of the Suffix Conjugation in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic ...... 75 §2.2 The Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation ...... 78 §2.2.1 The Theme Vowels of the Suffix Conjugation ...... 79 §2.2.2 The Semantics of the Suffix Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew ...... 81 §2.2.2.1 The Anterior Path ...... 81 §2.2.2.2 Stativity and the Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation ...... 83 §2.2.2.3 Stativity and Future Time ...... 91 §2.2.2.4 Future Statives in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 94 §2.2.2.4.1 Examples Suggested by Rainey ...... 96 §2.2.2.4.2 Other Examples ...... 103 §2.2.3 The Niphal, Stativity, and Passivity ...... 108 §2.2.3.1 The Functions of the Niphal ...... 108 §2.2.3.2 The Semantics of the Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 112 §2.2.3.3 Resultative Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 115 §2.2.3.4 Future Time Uses of the Resultative Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 118 §2.2.3.5 Niphal Passives in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 128 §2.2.3.5.1 The Niphal and the Passive Voice ...... 128 §2.2.3.5.2 The Semantics of Niphal Passives in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 130 §2.2.3.5.3 Future Time Uses of the Passive Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation ...... 132 §2.3 Conclusions ...... 140 Chapter 3: The Irrealis Uses of the Suffix Conjugation ...... 142 §3.0 Introductory Remarks ...... 142 §3.1 The Suffix Conjugation, Modality, and the So-Called Weqatal ...... 142 §3.1.1 The Origins and Development of the Modal Use of the Suffix Conjugation ...... 147 §3.1.2 Word Order in Irrealis Verbal Clauses ...... 153 §3.1.2.1 Word Order in Verbal Clauses ...... 156 §3.1.2.2 Diachronic Development of System of Word Order ...... 161 §3.1.3 Conclusions Regarding the Irrealis Suffix Conjugation ...... 166 v

§3.2 The Irrealis Suffix Conjugation and the Prophetic Perfect ...... 166 §3.2.1 Clause-initial with Subject Following ...... 171 §3.2.2 Following a Clausal Adverb ...... 177 §3.2.3 Pragmatically Ordered Constituents ...... 188 §3.2.3.1 With Preposed Constituents ...... 189 §3.2.3.2 Preposing for Parallelism ...... 195 §3.2.4 Other Examples ...... 206 §3.2.4.1 Mixed Examples ...... 207 §3.2.4.2 Textually Uncertain Potential Examples ...... 222 §3.3 Conclusions ...... 225 Chapter 4: Conclusions and Implications ...... 227 Bibliography ...... 231

vii

Abbreviations

Grammatical and Syntactic Abbreviations E Event LPC Long prefix conjugation NP Noun phrase PP Prepositional phrase RT Reference time SC Suffix conjugation SOV Subject-object-verb SPC Short prefix conjugation ST Speech time SVO Subject-verb-object TAM Tense, aspect, and mood T/A/M Tense, aspect, or mood VS Verbal system VSO Verb-subject-object WO Word order

Dialect and Language Abbreviations BA Biblical Aramaic BH Biblical Hebrew CS Central Semitic ES East Semitic IA Imperial Aramaic NA Neo-Assyrian NWS Northwest Semitic OA Old Aramaic OAkk Old Akkadian OB Old Babylonian PS Proto-Semitic QH Qumran Hebrew WPA Western peripheral Akkadian WS West Semitic

Bible Translation Abbreviations ESV English Standard Version HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible KJV King James Version LXX Septuagint NAB New American Bible NASB New American Standard Bible NIV New International Version NKJV New King James Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version OTAT The Old Testament: An American Translation RSV Revised Standard Version

Other Abbreviations (see bibliography for full bibliographical information)

vii

viii

BDB Brown, Driver, & Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia DCH Clines, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew GKC Gesenius, Kautzsch, & Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar HALOT Koehler, Baumgartner, Richardson, & Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament TAD Porten & Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt

viii

Acknowledgments

It is my privilege and honor to recognize some of the many people who without their influence and encouragement this dissertation would never have come to fruition. Thanks be to

God that this has been possible! First, I must express my deep gratitude for my parents, Dale and

Dolores Carver. They have consistently given me the support, encouragement, and advice that I have needed to make it through my years of undergraduate and graduate studies. They have truly been an inspiration to me. It is an honor to have them as my parents and to consider each of them a mentor and a friend.

During my undergraduate and graduate studies at Lancaster Bible College, the faculty went immeasurably beyond the call the duty to foster in me a love for the Bible and for Biblical

Hebrew to which my father had first introduced me at the age of twelve. My Hebrew professors,

Bob Spender and John Soden, and my Greek professor, Harold Kime, are to be praised for not only bending over backwards to help me learn and grow, but also for doing it seemingly with joy. I am very thankful for them and their influence on me, as scholars and as men. I also thank

Daniel Spanjer for his friendship and for spurring me on to scholarship. It is now my honor, since my hire as Assistant Professor in the Bible and Theology department at Lancaster Bible

College, to know these men as colleagues.

The department of Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature at The Catholic

University of America has in many ways become like home to me. The faculty and staff have set a high bar for academic excellence yet with a welcoming spirit of comradery. I would like to express my gratitude to my advisor, Edward Cook, who, from his extensive knowledge of linguistics and Semitic philology, gave me a framework for analyzing and categorizing verb forms and their uses. Over the past five years, he has graciously guided me through the very

x complex matter of verbal semantics in and out of the classroom. I also want to thank him for the idea to reconsider the Prophetic Perfect for my dissertation and for the insights and encouragement he has given along the way. I would also like to thank Andrew Gross who has been a patient and gracious instructor. His resourcefulness and willingness to answer any and all questions has been a tremendous boost on the learning curve common to ancient languages and especially Akkadian. I also thank Aaron Butts who, although he came to CUA after my coursework was finished, has been eager to do what he can to foster and sharpen my scholarship.

One of the most exciting parts of being in the community of the Semitics department has been the Hyvernat lectures, which are made possible by the generosity of a gracious donor.

These lectures have enabled me to share research ideas with scholars such as Geoffrey Khan,

John Huehnergard, and Jan Joosten. Many thanks to the one who makes this possible!

Another wonderful part of being in the Semitics community is the friendships that are forged over long hours of study together. In particular, I wish to acknowledge Stephen Fix, who was with me in every single course I took. We spent innumerable hours studying and discussing

Semitics and linguistics together. I am thankful to have a friend like him: a good man and someone who shares my love of Semitic languages.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Sarah, who has somehow never run out of encouragement for me in the process of getting my doctorate. She is an incredible mother and the best companion and wife a man could have. She even listens to me when I decide to tell her about a research idea I have! I am forever thankful for my beautiful bride. Without her, none of this would have happened.

Chapter 1: Introduction §1.0 Introductory Remarks The Biblical Hebrew verbal system (BHVS) has presented numerous challenges for biblical exegetes and interpreters for millennia. One of the most fascinating and perplexing challenges is the Prophetic Perfect. It is an uncommon use (or group of uses) of the Suffix

Conjugation (SC) (i.e., qātal < *qatala). Typically the situation expressed by a SC is past time with active verbs and present or past time with stative verbs, but the Prophetic Perfect refers to a future situation. It has been recognized at least since the days of the medieval Jewish grammarians, as Chambers observed in 1883 that the “doctrine” of the praeteritum propheticum was “as old as Kimchi” (p. 162). But it has also been considered a part of a much larger issue, i.e., the patterns or methods of prophecy. For example, Girdlestone’s seminal work on The

Grammar of Prophecy has an entire chapter dedicated to “the future expressed in terms of the past” (1901: pp. 66-73). Part of the challenge presented by the Prophetic Perfect is that it has far reaching implications for the exegesis and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (HB), making it essential that we understand what it is. In order to bring us closer to the goal of understanding this/these use(s) of the form, this study will describe and explain the uses of the so-called

Prophetic Perfect.

Today, scholars use the term Prophetic Perfect, though historically it has been known by other terms. In the past three centuries, two terms for this/these use(s) have been prevelant, each tied to the two major approaches to the BHVS throughout this period. The first, which was a variation of the approach handed down by the medieval grammarians, was that the BHVS is marked for tense. According to this view, the SC was marked for past time and was thus a past tense, while the Long Prefix Conjugation (LPC) (i.e., yiqtol < *yaqtulu) denoted present-future situations. The second major view, proposed by Heinrich Ewald, took aspect as the defining

2 feature of opposition between the SC and the LPC. According to his theory, the SC was said to refer to a situation that was completed (hence Perfect) while the LPC denoted a situation that was incomplete (hence Imperfect). The future time use of the SC has been recognized since the medieval grammarians who had associated it with prophetic literature. Up to the mid-19th century, the standard term for the future time use of the SC was the praeteritum propheticum

(e.g., Rosenmüller, 1803: p. 558; Hoffmann, 1827: p. 333; Drechsler, 1851a: p. 200). But as

Ewald’s theory began to gain wide acceptance, the term perfectum propheticum (or Prophetic

Perfect) came to replace the tense-based term (e.g., Caspari, 1848: pp. 68, 195; Driver, 1892:

§14; Müller, 1888: p. 3). After Samuel Driver1 popularized Ewald’s theory in the late 19th century, the term praeteritum propheticum became virtually obsolete.

Yet, infrequent as it may be, the Prophetic Perfect has played an important role in scholarly efforts of the last two centuries to describe the semantics and pragmatics of the SC and the BHVS as a whole. It caused a very serious problem for the absolute tense theories, and the relative tense theories sought to relieve some of the tension brought about by the obvious discrepancy. On the other hand, the early aspectual theories used it to help argue the presumed aspectual opposition.

There is currently no consensus over the semantics or the pragmatics of this/these uses(s) of the SC. Even more controversial perhaps are the parameters that define what Prophetic

Perfects are and how one can identify them. The so-called Prophetic Perfect is one of the most misunderstood and poorly defined semantic categories in the BHVS. Although the BHVS has been the object of close study for centuries, few studies have been directed at this marginal function of the SC. The only full length study of the Prophetic Perfect was conducted in 1932 in

1 Throughout this dissertation, Driver refers to Samuel R. Driver. Others with the same surname will be distinguished with the initial of their first name.

3 an M.A. thesis at the University of Chicago, but this study left the topic far from resolved

(Pullin, 1932). Within the last century there has only been one article dedicated to the Prophetic

Perfect, but even that was primarily directed at identifying Prophetic Perfects rather than explaining or semantically describing their function (Klein, 1990). Two more recent studies have directly addressed the function’s explanation (Andrason, 2013) and description (Rogland,

2003a), and while each of these makes important contributions, neither has succeeded in giving a sound explanation for the development of the Prophetic Perfect or semantically describing its use(s). A full treatment of the so-called Prophetic Perfect is long overdue.

In the following sections, we will introduce the essential elements of verbal semantics

(tense, aspect and mood [TAM])2 in (§1.1-§1.3) as this will provide a foundation for later discussion of the semantics of the SC in BH. Then in (§1.4) we will survey the literature on the so-called Prophetic Perfect from the medieval grammarians to today. This survey will be done in two parts with the first (§1.4.1) focusing on semantic and pragmatic descriptions while the second (§1.4.2) surveys the various contextual factors that scholars have used to identify occurrences of the Prophetic Perfect. We will then consider the comparative evidence for the use of the SC referring to situations in future time (§1.5). After this we will lay out the state of the issue (§1.6), highlighting the advances made by previous studies, before explaining the thesis we intend to demonstrate and the methodology employed in this study (§1.7).

2 In this study, TAM will represent “tense, aspect, and mood,” while T/A/M will represent “tense, aspect, or mood.”

§1.1 Tense

Verbs have been associated with the expression of time by grammarians since the days of

Aristotle (Binnick, 1991: p. 3). The simplest and most universal way to describe the expression of time in language is through spatial metaphor (Pinker, 2007: pp. 191-195). Within the framework of a spatial metaphor, we can say that tense refers to the grammaticalized location of a situation in time. A verb form that is marked for tense locates a situation in the past, present, or future. There is no debate about the metaphorical location of a situation in past or present time, and while it might seem simple enough that a verb form could locate a situation in future time and thus be a future tense, there has been debate about whether future time situations would not be more appropriately viewed as expressing mood (see Lyons, 1977: pp. 677-690; Comrie,

1985: pp. 43-48; Palmer, 2001: pp. 104-106). The relationship between future time and modality is certainly intimate, and typological patterns of modal forms and auxiliaries becoming future tenses over time exist (Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca, 1994: pp. 253-266). Nevertheless, we follow

Comrie in his affirmation that there is a distinction between future and modal, at least in English; it will rain tomorrow “is a very definite statement” or prediction while it may rain tomorrow is modal expressing the possibility of rain (1985: p. 44).3

Tensed verb forms locate a situation or event (E) in time with regard to the time of utterance/authorship, i.e., the speech time (ST), as anterior, simultaneous, or posterior (Comrie,

1985: p. 11). Whenever a situation is located in time with regard to a time other than that of utterance/authorship, the tense indicates temporal location relative to a reference point.4 We will refer to this as the reference time (RT). When a tensed verb form locates a situation in time

3 However, compare below (§1.3).

4 The discussion of speech time and reference times was introduced by Reichenbach (see 1947: pp. 287- 298) and many have revised his initial work, most notably Comrie (1981; 1985) and Hornstein (1990).

5 relative to the ST, it is an absolute tense, but when it temporally locates a situation relative to an

R-point, it is a relative tense. The default RT in direct speech is the ST (ST = RT),5 but the speaker can change the RT to a time future (ST > RT) or past (RT > ST) from the ST. A RT that is distinct from the ST can be indicated by adverbial and prepositional phrases and by other contextual means, such as a change in verb form.

A few examples will illustrate temporal location with regard to a RT that is not the same as the ST.

1a. Isaac had completed the assigned reading before class.

1b. When Ezra finishes his homework, he will play ball.

1c. Michael will think the game is over.

In (1a) the prepositional phrase before class indicates that the RT of the main clause is past from the ST (RT > ST). The verbal phrase had completed indicates that the main clause refers to an E that is anterior not only to the ST, but also to the RT (E > RT > ST). In (1b) the RT has been pushed forward in time by the temporal clause when Ezra finishes his homework (ST > RT). The main clause he will play ball refers to a situation that will take place in the future time set by the temporal clause (ST > RT > E). In (1c) the verb tense of the main clause Michael will think shifts the RT away from the ST to time future from the ST. Consequently, the embedded clause the game is over is temporally located in the time set by the main clause. The stative situation of the embedded clause is simultaneous or “contemporaneous” (Hornstein, 1990: pp. 124-125) with the RT and posterior to the ST (ST > RT = E).

5 The sigla [=] and [>] represent “overlapping” and “precedence,” respectively (Rogland, 2003a: p. 5).

§1.1.1 The Perfect

The perfect is semantically complex and difficult to categorize as a tense or an aspect as both seem to be involved (Comrie, 1976: p. 6). A perfect “signals that the situation occurs prior to the reference time and is relevant to the situation at the reference time” (Bybee et al., 1994: p.

54). In other words, the time of a perfect is simultaneous with the RT, and the situation is complete in the past with implications for the RT. When put this way it might sound as if the perfect denoted present time and perfective aspect. However, it is not uncommon for perfects to refer to a situation in the undefined past. This phenomenon is related to the typologically known diachronic development called the Anterior Path (cf. Andrason, 2010: p. 615) which will be addressed in detail in Chapter 2 (see below §2.2.2.1).

It is traditionally considered a tense, but it does not truly or consistently locate a situation in time. It has also been considered an aspect (e.g., Payne, 1997: pp. 239-240) and even a viewpoint aspect (Cook, 2012a: pp. 67-68),6 but the various uses of perfects make this categorization difficult. Since Maslov’s study on resultatives, the perfect, and aspect (1988), several scholars have applied the category of taxis to the perfect in BH (Andrason, 2010: p. 615;

Lenzi, 2015; Andrason & Van der Merwe, 2015: pp. 81-82; cf. Penner, 2013: pp. 918-919).

Andrason describes taxis as making “reference to the phenomenon of relative tenses” which include “the notions of anteriority, simultaneity and prospectivity” (2010: p. 615 n. 5). Taxis may be the best way to categorize the perfect, but in this study, discussion of perfects will focus on the semantic expression of the situation and not on its categorization.

6 Cook suggested that the perfect is a viewpoint aspect in opposition to progressives.

§1.2 Aspect

The study of aspect is essential for verbal semantics but it has often been misunderstood or conflated with tense. There is a general consensus among linguists that there is one kind of aspect that defines the viewpoint of a situation (often called grammatical or external aspect) and another that deals with the semantics of the verbal idea (often called lexical or internal aspect)

(Binnick, 1991; Olsen, 1997; Michaelis, 1998),7 though not necessarily to the exclusion of a third category. In this study, we follow Michaelis’ divisions and labels for the three kinds of aspect.8

The first is viewpoint aspect which refers to the way a situation is viewed by the speaker.

The situation is either externally viewed as a whole “without distinction of the various separate phases that make up that situation” (perfective) or it is viewed from within the situation with

“essential attention to the internal structure of the situation” (imperfective) (Comrie, 1976: p.

16). Since the selection of a perfective or imperfective form depends on how the speaker desires to describe a situation, the speaker can refer to the same situation twice, once with a perfective form and once with an imperfective form, without self-contradiction (Comrie, 1976: p. 4). It is very important to recognize the subtle difference between complete and completed. The latter places an inappropriate amount of emphasis on the termination of a situation. Comrie has cogently argued that perfective verb forms can be used to highlight inception, termination, or that every stage of a situation is complete (1976: pp. 18-21).

The second is situation aspect which describes the situation type. There are four types, and each is unique in its markedness or unmarkedness for (1) stages and (2) telicity (see Table

7 And among recent works in Semitics, e.g., Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 347-349; Kouwenberg, 2010: pp. 54-66; Cook, 2012a: pp. 18-28.

8 Because the terminology has been applied idiosyncratically in the general linguistic and Semitic literature, it is important to offer a note of clarification. In this study, the terms Aktionsart, lexical aspect, and internal aspect will refer to situation aspect, while Aspekt, grammatical aspect, and external aspect will refer to viewpoint aspect.

1).9 These are cancelable features, however, as the same verb can have different situation types in different contexts. For example, Boaz ran is an activity, but Boaz ran a race is an accomplishment.

The third and final type is phasal aspect, which is mostly restricted to lexical items and

“auxiliary-headed constructions” that describe “relations between a background situation ... and a situation located relative to the reference situation” (Michaelis, 1997: p. xv). Cook has explained that phasal aspects “refer to alterations to one or another of the phases of development through which a situation progresses” (2012a: p. 25). These alterations can affect the initial, medial, or final phases of progression.

In this study, our discussion of aspect mostly involves viewpoint and situation aspects.10

While both of these are involved in verbal semantics, situation aspect is only relevant to categories of lexemes (e.g., stative verbs in Semitic) and verbal phrases. On the other hand, viewpoint aspect is the kind of aspect expressed by verb forms. Since our study is focused on the semantics of a verb form, viewpoint aspect is the most pertinent.

Table 1 Situation Aspect Situation Type [± Stages] [± Telicity] State – – Activity + – Accomplishment + + Achievement – +

9 The four types were first so termed by Vendler (1957: pp. 146-147). The following chart is slightly modified from Cook (2012a: p. 22).

10 Any discussion of phasal aspect will be restricted to discussion of specific lexemes and verbal phrases.

§1.3 Mood

Modality is expressed in two ways in the world’s languages: mood and modal systems.

Modal systems are based on lexical items that express modality (e.g., in English, would, might, etc.). Mood, on the other hand, is basically a binary system of realis : irrealis or indicative : subjunctive (Palmer, 2001: p. 4). For Proto-Semitic, Akkadian, and ancient WS languages, the terms realis and irrealis are the pertinent ones as this language family was, at least initially, aspectually and not tense-based (Huehnergard, 1995: p. 2130).11 Realis situations are actual or referential. In other words, they refer to an actual, specific situation. Irrealis situations, on the other hand, do not refer to an actual, specific situation. Irrealis situations can refer to a vast number of possible, potential, or alternative situations that may or may not ever exist in reality

(cf. Palmer, 2001: pp. 1-4). To briefly illustrate, we shall use past time situations. The sentence

Joseph ran to the store describes a situation that is actual (realis), while the sentence Joseph would run to the store does not. The latter refers to a habitual action that probably occurred many times, but no single event is referenced (irrealis). In addition to past habitual and hypothetical situations, irrealis situations often occur in interrogative sentences (Joosten, 2012: p.

209) and in negated clauses.

The kinds of modality expressed by irrealis grammatical constructions can be one of two types. Propositional modality deals with the “speaker’s attitude to the truth-value or factual status of the proposition” (Palmer, 2001: p. 8). There are two kinds of propositional modality, epistemic and evidential. The latter has only been recognized in BH by a few scholars (see especially Andrason, 2010) but most Hebraists acknowledge epistemic modality. Evidential

11 Palmer (2001: pp. 4-5) associates realis : irrealis with aspect prominent languages and indicative : subjunctive with tense prominent languages. Also related to modality but not specifically under the binary realis : irrealis are the Volitive, or Injunctive, forms which are often unmarked as irrealis or subjunctive in the world’s languages.

10 modality expresses situations that are inferred from sensory observation (e.g., visual or auditory) or reported speech. Epistemic modality expresses situations with varying levels of confidence based on inference. These include speculative, deductive, and assumptive propositions (see below, §3.2). The other type is event modality, which deals with “events that are not actualized,” but are potential. The two kinds of event modality are (1) deontic dealing with factors external to the relevant individual (permission, obligation, commission), and (2) dynamic dealing with factors internal to the relevant individual (ability, willingness) (Palmer, 2001: pp. 7-10). Related to these categories is contingent or subordinate modality, which can express either propositional or event modality, as the verb denotes an irrealis situation that is dependent on a prior situation(s) for its actualization (Cook, 2012a: pp. 249-271).

Some languages, such as English, use modal systems, that is, they use certain lexical items that indicate modality. Other languages, however, including the ancient Semitic languages, tend to express modality through mood, that is, with grammatical constructions rather than lexical items. In BH the use of grammatical constructions over lexical items is the most

which means that BH ,(יכל√ ,.regular, but some lexemes are used to express modal situations (e.g has a mixed system that is dominated by mood. BH has several verb forms that are irrealis.

First, it has a volitive system consisting of the Jussive, Imperative, and the so-called Cohortative all of which are irrealis, though they are semantically restricted (mostly to directive-volitive values; see Cook, 2012a: p. 255) not expressing a wide range of modal situations. The LPC and the SC are used to refer to a variety of realis and irrealis situations. They can indicate different kinds of propositional and event modalities.

§1.4 Survey of the Literature on the Prophetic Perfect

A great variety of explanations have been proposed for why and how the SC can refer to future events. But all of these boil down to two groups; those who attribute it to the semantics of the verb form (T/A/M) and those who consider it a pragmatic category, usually associated with rhetoric or genre. Some employ semantics and pragmatics in their descriptions, but nearly all suggest stylistic reasons which include emphasis, vividness, and a special sense of clarity.

In the following section (§1.4.1) we will survey the literature on the Prophetic Perfect, beginning with the medieval grammarians and ending with Semitists and Hebraists of the 21st century. We will draw from commentaries and other content based works in the other chapters of this study, but this survey mostly traces the history of the Prophetic Perfect’s description found in grammatical sketches and other linguistic focused works. This survey is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather representative of the descriptions of the Prophetic Perfect found in the literature. It is roughly chronological, but is also thematic. Rather than simply list the various descriptions of the Prophetic Perfect, we have arranged the following to contextualize the descriptions in the bigger picture of the various grammarians’ approaches to the BHVS. We hope to minimize the accidental misconstruing of the scholarly opinions on the matter by providing some context for them. Then we will analyze the two major works on the topic.

In §1.4.2 we will survey the various factors scholars have used to help identify occurrences of the Prophetic Perfect.

§1.4.1 Survey of the Literature on the Semantics and Pragmatics of the Prophetic Perfect

§1.4.1.1 Descriptions in Early Tense Theories: Grammarians from the Medieval Era to 1827

The Medieval Era saw the rise of study of Hebrew grammar and important advances were made in recovering the “lost” understanding of the VS. Yet throughout this time, the grammarians, probably under the influence of Arabic and the tense system of Indo-European languages, assumed that the BHVS was tensed (McFall, 1982: p. 16). They referred to the Suffix

future) respectively.12 But) עתיד past form) and) לשון עבר past) or) עבר and Prefix Conjugations as the occurrence of the SC with future meanings did not escape their notice. Abraham ibn Ezra

was sometimes used, especially by the (לשון עבר) ca. 1092-1167) noted that the past form)

as עבר He described the future use of 13.(עתיד) prophets, to refer to events that were future expressing something that was already firmly decided (Bacher, 1882: p. 127). The Karaites also noted uses of the past form with future meaning, “usually where the verse is interpreted as prophetic” (Khan, 2000: p. 92). In his Mikhlol, David Qimḥi (ca. 1160-1235) described the future use of the past form “in the prophetic style” saying that in such instances “the event or action is imminent beyond any doubt in the mind of the speaker or writer and is already regarded as accomplished” (Chomsky, 1952: §77b).

The descriptions of these medieval grammarians obviously push beyond the limits of what an absolute tense approach can explain. According to ibn Ezra and Qimḥi, the future situation depicted by the SC was so certain in the mind of the speaker that it was referred to in the past tense. Essentially, they viewed it as a pragmatic function, though they did not clearly

vocalized in the medieval manuscripts with qameṣ and“ ,עבר Khan (2000: p. 91) has suggested that 12 .(אלעברות) pataḥ,” was originally an “Aramaic active participle” based on the plural form of the word

.as quoted in Bacher, 1882: p. 127 n. 6 ”כמשפט הנביאים שידברו פעמים על עתיד בלשון עבר“ 13

13 distinguish pragmatics from semantics. But the discrepancy between reference to a situation that is actually past and reference to one that is so considered by the author’s certainty of its actualization did not lead them away from tensed based theories. Although the medieval grammarians maintained a tensed approach to the BHVS, their descriptions of the future use of the past form anticipated the attempts of grammarians in the following centuries to describe what came to be known as the Prophetic Perfect.

From the Medieval Era to the early 19th century, no remarkable advancement was made regarding the future use of the SC. For example, in 1773 Anselm Bayly reaffirmed that

as already done and effected, by reason of their ,עבר p]rophecies are spoken of in the tense]“ certain accomplishment” (p. 40). So again, the mind’s certainty of a situation’s actualization permitted the author to use the past tense. This ostensibly echoes the suggestions of ibn Ezra and

Qimḥi.

Indeed little was gained in the study of the VS in general until the middle of the 18th century. Grammarians continued to be hampered by their assumption that Hebrew verbs denoted absolute tense and their inability to adequately explain the VS, especially the syntax and semantics of the forms directly preceded by the conjunction waw and their relationship to the forms without waw. The waw-conversive theory had enjoyed dominance in the grammatical traditions of Jewish and Christian scholars alike,14 but in 1766 a new theory, pertinent to our concerns, was put forward (see McFall, 1982: pp. 17-21). N. W. Schröder introduced the concept of relative tense. He averred that

when a number of events are to be narrated that follow one another in some kind of continuous series,

the Hebrew writers consider the first action as past, the others, however, which follow it, on account of

14 As a result of the waw-conversive theory, many considered there to be only two tenses; e.g., Bate, 1751; Herder, 1833 (1st ed., 1783); Mitchell, 1785.

what has gone before are considered as future, since something is described which in relation to

another past action is itself later and future, so it may be called the Relative Future (1766: p. 261).15

This theory was specifically applied to the so-called waw-consecutive forms so that the time of the initial verb in a passage (either preterite or future) is continued by the relative forms (i.e., weqatal and wayyiqtol). Although Schröder’s relative tense theory was not specifically applied to the forms without the conjunction or what would later be called the Prophetic Perfect, it laid the foundation for others to do so.

§1.4.1.2 Descriptions in Early Relative Tense Theories: Lee, Weir, and Murphy

Although several important advances were made in the study of the BHVS between the medieval grammarians and 1827, no substantial advance was made specifically regarding the

Prophetic Perfect. In fact, because of the predominance of the waw-conversive theory during this time, future uses of the SC and weqatal were not clearly distinguished.16 But in 1827 two important Hebrew grammars were written that challenged the previous approaches to the BHVS and significantly influenced scholars for well over a century to follow. The authors, Samuel Lee and Georg Heinrich August von Ewald, shared a deep passion for BH, but the theories they developed for the BHVS were entirely different. Lee, greatly influenced by the Arabic grammarians, continued in the tense theories of earlier Hebrew grammarians, though his approach was remarkably modified. On the other hand, Ewald’s approach broke away from the tense-based system as he found the kind of action (something that would come to be known as aspect) to be the central semantic notion of the finite verb forms. We will discuss Ewald’s

15 As translated and quoted in McFall, 1982: p. 14.

and the , וָוחִ ּבּור ,According to this theory, there were syntactically two waws. One was a conjunction 16 .converted the tense. See McFall, 1982: pp. 11-12, 17-21 ,וָו הִ ּפּוְך ,other

15 theory below, but first let us turn to Lee’s approach and the Hebraists who were greatly impacted by him.

Similar to many grammarians before him, Lee developed a two tense theory.17 But his theory was clearly distinguished from the other theories of his day in that he did not affirm the existence of a future tense. Rather, the SC and the LPC denoted past and present time, respectively. Of major significance is his suggestion that these two tenses were able to refer to events in the past, present, or future “with respect to some other time or circumstance introduced into the context” (1832: p. xv). Lee modified the concept of relative tense so that he distinguished two kinds of tense (absolute and relative) that the two tense forms (the SC and the

LPC) could employ. “In the ﬁrst place then, any writer commencing his narrative will necessarily speak of past, present, or future time, with reference to the period in which his statement is made; and to this period he may adhere, as long as it suits his purpose to do so”

(Lee, 1832: p. 332). This he called “Absolute.” On the other hand, “a person may speak of past, present, or future events, with reference to some other period or event, already introduced into the context” (1832: p. 332). He labeled this “Relative” as the tense indicated by the verb was relative to some other point in time than when the author’s “statement is made.”

Lee suggested that the Hebrew authors were able to temporally transport not only themselves but also their audiences forward or back in time to the temporal location of their choosing and then proceed to describe events from that point in time. This temporal relocation of the author was a new development in the concept of relative tense. No longer was the time set or fixed by an initial basic verb form and then continued by a relative weqatal or wayyiqtol, as

17 Throughout the following paragraphs, we will refer to the second edition of Lee’s grammar, published in 1832.

16 with Schröder.18 Rather, according to Lee’s theory, the author could move himself in time to his desired temporal location near the events he would describe and then would use the past and present tense forms relative to his chosen location in time (Lee, 1851: p. 470).

Lee, referring to the future use of the SC, claimed that Hebrew “often represents events, of the future occurrence of which they have no doubt, as having already taken place” (1832: p.

348). As a man skilled in many ancient Near Eastern languages, Lee noted a similar function of the past tense in Persian. He pointed out that Matthew Lumsden in his two volume work, A

Grammar of the Persian Language, claimed that the use of the past tense for future events brings a level of certainty to the statement, whereas the future tense leaves it uncertain (Lumsden, 1810: pp. 326-328). According to Lumsden, when someone uses the past in Persian to refer to a future situation, “he means to apprise his auditor that ‘the occurrence of the event, though still future, is in his opinion not less certain than if it were past’” (1810: p. 328). Lee recognized that typically the present tense (i.e., the LPC) and the Participle were commonly used, even in prophetic contexts, to refer to future events, though at times, “the preterite and present tenses [were] used as prophetical futures; the former for the purpose of intimating certainty, and thence of affording assurance” (1832: p. 351).

Lee’s relative tense theory and comparative linguistic evidence made a very significant step forward in the descriptions of the Prophetic Perfect. Lee offered two potential explanations for the SC with future time reference. First, according to his relative tense theory, a SC could refer to a future situation if the author chose to temporally transport himself and his audience to a

18 Weir, in response to Lee’s accusations that Weir had adopted Lee’s views without acknowledging his source (Lee, 1850: p. 197), cites a Hebrew Grammar written by Professor Robertson of Edinburgh that states that tenses can be either absolute or relative (“vel absoluta vel relativa”) (Weir, 1850: p. 485). However, as Lee later demonstrated, the relative tense notion envisioned by Robertson, Koolhaus, and Schröder is not at all the same as his relative tense theory. The former refers specifically to the so-called waw-consecutive forms (Lee, 1851: p. 470). Unfortunately, it has not been possible to check this against the works of Roberston and Koolhaus (cf. McFall, 1982: p. 14 n. 1).

17 future point in time that is temporally beyond the situation described by the verb. In this way, the author is looking back in time from his reference point at the situation he describes, and thus he uses the SC (i.e., ST > E > RT). Second, for those examples that occur in prophetic contexts and would not be explained by relative tense, Lee appealed to a rhetorical description. He suggested that the SC was used in prophetic contexts to refer to future events “for the purpose of intimating certainty” and “affording assurance.” This description is clearly not semantic and neither is that of Lumsden in reference to the future use of the past tense in Persian. Lumsden and Lee described the pragmatic implicature of the respective past tense forms when they referred to future time situations.

For the next century, Hebraists were greatly impacted by the theory of Samuel Lee. Two of these entered into debate with Lee over his theory of the BHVS in the middle of the 19th century. D. H. Weir and James G. Murphy were significantly influenced by Lee, but they each developed their own modified versions of relative tense theory. Weir abandoned the standard tense approach because he found it could not account for the data. He pointed out that “[b]oth past and future tenses are set down” by the grammarians “as denoting also present time; and even the past has not unfrequently a future reference, and the future, a past” (Weir, 1849: p. 312).19

Weir also recognized that stative verbs in the SC regularly have a present time reference, and this led him to argue that the SC was a present tense and the LPC a future. He considered past action to be implied by the present state denoted by the SC, but he denied that the form denoted past

19 Weir was certainly not the first to recognize that the SC and the LPC can have present time reference. Medieval grammarians, such as David Qimḥi, noted that both can be used “to express action in the Present,” (Chomsky, 1952: §77b). Phillip Gell philosophically described the temporal overlap of the SC and the LPC saying, “There are, properly speaking, but two primary Tenses, according to the only primary division of Time into two parts; the Preter, touching a moment of division or reference in the mind a parte ante, and the Future, touching the moment of reference a parte post: whatever is denominated the present, partakes of both these, touching the moment of reference a parte ante, and a parte post also,” (1821: p. 15).

18 action.20 The key to Weir’s understanding of the BHVS is that the Hebrew writers regarded

“their present [to be] the period not at which but of which they wrote.” He explained that

The Hebrews were accustomed to regard and describe past events as present, because they transported

themselves, as it were, to the period when the events of which they speak took place, and thus viewed and

described as if they were spectators of them. This is a principle which is adopted to some extent by all

Hebrew grammarians; but is not, I think, carried out far enough by any of them (1849: p. 314).

Thus, according to his system, weqatal and other future uses of the SC were relative presents, i.e., they denoted present time in the future.

James G. Murphy critiqued Lee and Weir for the inevitable temporal overlap of only two tenses. He also critiqued Weir for claiming the SC was a present tense (especially as opposed to a present perfect), citing examples of direct speech wherein the SC refers to past actions and could not possible refer to present time.21 Murphy offered a different approach to the BHVS in which “[e]ach time-form has only one primary and proper meaning” (1851: p. 219). Unlike Lee and Weir, his version of a relative tense theory included the Participle. According to Murphy, the SC denoted anteriority to a reference time, the Participle expressed temporally “central” situations (i.e., present), and the LPC denoted situations posterior to the reference time. In his anterior-central-posterior theory, the author placed himself near the event or series of events he intended to describe and then described the various situations from a single point in time (1850: pp. 198-199). Murphy’s theory allowed each of the three tense forms to describe situations in the past, present, and future. “The tenses describe not the time, but the state of an event as

20 Though Weir claimed that he was unaware of any grammarian maintaining present time as the primary meaning of the SC (1849: p. 312), his view seems to have been anticipated by Bate nearly a century before. “There are two Tenses or Times; the Present including the Past, and the Future. The Present postfixes the Pronoun; The Future prefixes it,” (Bate, 1751: p. 16). But in the interest of economy and simplicity, Bate’s grammar is intentionally brief, being only 24 pages, and there are no examples nor are any explanations of his claim offered.

,cannot mean “Who tells thee?” but must mean “Who has told thee?” (Murphy מִי הִגִ יד לְָך E.g., Gen. 3:11 21 1851: p. 221).

19 completed or commencing. Time is determined by the context, or by an adverb or adverbial

בְּרֵאשִׁ ית בָּרָּ א ,phrase of time.” To illustrate, he notes that the SC can express situations in the “Past

a star will have דָּרַ ְך ּכֹוכָּב ,I have given... [and] Future נָּתַתִׁ י ,in the beginning had created... Present come” (1857: §81). According to his theory, SCs that refer to situations future from the speech time are all anterior (i.e., ST > E > RT). However, Murphy also made a contribution to the theory of relative tense by allowing for two RTs, which we will represent with RT1 and RT2. He claimed that a situation expressed by the SC could be (1) temporally prior to, (2) simultaneous with, (3) or still future from the point in time from which the author chose to describe the various surrounding situations. These can be illustrated as follows: (1) ST > E > RT1, (2) ST > E = RT1, and (3) ST > RT1 > E > RT2.

The relative tense theory of Samuel Lee marked a significant step forward for tensed theories regarding their ability to explain the future time uses of the SC. For Lee, the SC in future time was past from the location in time in which the author placed himself, and thus he spoke of the situation as if it had already happened. However, in application his theory was exceptionally complicated and rather clumsy as the biblical authors would jump from one temporal location to another rather quickly.22

Weir only increased this problem, since he felt that other grammarians, including Lee, did not carry out the notion of temporal jumping far enough.23 However, Weir made an important contribution with his focus on the semantics of stative verbs in the SC. As a result, his view differed from Lee in that a SC with a time reference future from the actual speech time was a

22 See, e.g., Lee’s approach as it is applied to Isa. 45:1-5 (1832: p. 350). For a recent critique, see McFall, 1982: pp. 35-36.

23 Murphy (1851: p. 222) criticized Weir for this.

20 present in the future as the author transported himself forward to that time and described the situations as if current with the time of speech.

Murphy attempted to provide a constraint on the temporal jumping assumed by Lee and

Weir, as his theory found a fixed point in the neighborhood of the events and related the events

(those prior to, simultaneous with, and posterior to that point) from that fixed point in time.

Although Murphy’s approach ultimately suffered from the same pitfalls of the other relative tense theories (McFall, 1982: p. 43), he called due attention to the problem of vantage point hopping that plagued the approaches of Lee and Weir.

§1.4.1.3 Descriptions in Early Aspectual Theories: Ewald and Driver

In 1827, the same year that Lee’s grammar first appeared, Georg Heinrich August von

Ewald published the first edition of his Hebrew grammar. He rejected the common terminology for the finite verb forms, following Johann Jahn who referred to the two forms as “zweyter

Aorist” in his grammar (1792: §36). Jahn preferred to call them Aorists because of the well- known problem that the so-called “præteritum und futurum” often refer to situations in other temporal spheres than these terms indicate. In the greatly expanded third edition of his grammar, written in Latin rather than German as the first two editions were, he employed the terms perfectam and infectam. Jahn averred that the first Aorist (the SC) “presents a perfect thing” in present, past or future time, while the second Aorist (the LPC) refers to “an imperfect thing” in any temporal sphere.24 In defense of his claim, Jahn amassed numerous examples of the SC in present time, though he barely gives any attention to the SC with future time reference. He did

24 “Aoristus primus sistit rem perfectam, jam præsentem, jam præteritam, jam futuram,” and “Aoristus secundus sistit rem infectam, jam futuram, jam præsentem, jam præteritam,” (1809: §63 and §64, respectively).

21 suggest, however, that the use of the SC for present time was extended into the future (1809:

§63).25

In the first edition of his grammar, Ewald adopted Jahn’s terminology referring to the SC and the LPC as Aorists, each of which were able to express action in the past, present, or future

(1827: §277). However, his semantic description of the verbs was very different from Jahn’s, and he later admitted that calling them first and second Aorists was “merely an imperfect attempt to find substitutes for the unsuitable names ‘Preterite’ and ‘Future’” (1879: p. 3 n. 1).

Ewald did not initially realize that he was breaking away from the concept of tense, as he stated: “Since the verb describes acting and happening, and these cannot be concieved [sic] without the idea of time, it is natural for the distinctions of time to have been at the same time determined in the verb in its developed state” (1836: §260). However, his description of the verb’s relationship to time as “either considered as already finished, done, and therefore as definite and certain, or, as not yet finished and done, as being done merely” shows that his theory actually divorced tense from the semantics of the SC and the LPC. Thus he preferred to call the tenses perfect and imperfect as they denote complete and incomplete action, respectively.26

Ewald claimed that “in whatever sphere of time the speaker can concieve [sic] the event, he can consider it in that sphere either as finished or unfinished” (1836: §261).

It seemed more natural to Ewald that primitive languages would initially have the most basic and primary opposition in the VS, which he presumed would be in two parts rather than the

25 This suggestion is not surprising in light of the modern expressions where the present tense is used to refer to future action; e.g., I am going to the auction next Saturday (cf. Gesenius, 1845: §124; and the comments of Rödiger in Gesenius, 1846: §124.4). Ewald also noted that the use of the “energetic and definite present instead of the future” prevails in modern languages (1879: p. 5).

26 McFall’s (1982: p. 44) reading of Ewald’s use of the terms complete and incomplete “in a general way” (1879: p. 3) as according to their etymological meanings rather than their traditional meanings in Greek and Latin grammar is no doubt correct. The criticisms of DeCaen (1996: pp. 137-138) do not stand as Cook (2012a: p. 88 n. 13) has cogently argued.

22 much more complex threefold division of time. Out of his experience, primitive humans recognized two kinds of action. “Man has first acted, passed through an experience, and sees before him something that is finished, or has taken place; but this very fact reminds him of that which does not yet exist, — that which lies behind, and is expected.” Although the SC and the

LPC do not indicate specific time reference, a Hebrew speaker was not limited in his ability to express action in the various temporal spheres. “Since... in virtue of the power and freedom accorded to the imagination, the ideas of completeness and incompleteness may also be used relatively, in such a way that the speaker, in whichever of the three simple divisions of time

(past, present, or future) he may conceive of an action, can represent it either as complete, or as going on and coming” (1879: §134b). In essence, Ewald’s theory was (semi-)aspectual and relative to the perspective chosen by the imagination of the speaker.27

DeCaen has suggested that the Stoic-Varronian tense-aspect theory applied to Latin grammar had an influential role (1996: p. 138). According to this theory there are two aspects, complete and incomplete, and three tenses, past, present, and future, allowing for six possible semantic pairs: past incomplete, past complete, present incomplete, present complete, future incomplete, and future complete.28 Specifically, the suggestion is that since the SC and the LPC do not have a specific tense value, Ewald applied only the aspectual side of the Stoic-Varronian theory to the BHVS (Cook, 2012a: p. 87). Although neither the terms perfect and imperfect nor the concept of complete and incomplete sematic opposition were original to Ewald, his application of them to BH certainly was.

27 Cook describes Ewald’s theory as “relative aspect” (2012a: p. 89).

28 For further discussion of the Stoic-Varronian schema for Latin, see Cook, 2012a: pp. 2-4 and the literature cited there.

Ewald also differed from his contemporaries in his explanation of the so-called waw- consecutive forms. In place of the waw-conversive and waw-relative theories, Ewald proposed

,אַ ז consisted of the conjunction and the particle (וַּי) that the conjunction affixed to the wayyiqtol making it a new tense form. He suggested the same for weqatal. Ewald argued that these new tense forms had a very strong sequential function, and as a result they came to be known as waw- consecutive forms. Because weqatal (i.e., weqataltí) was a new form, the uses of the SC and weqatal were no longer lumped into the same categories (1836: §296-§299). For the first time, future uses of the SC were systematically distinguished from the future uses of weqatal.

The SC was known to refer to future time in conditional propositions, which Ewald considered an “ordinary” use of the form (1879: §135c), but the future use of the SC apart from conditionals and the form weqatal required special discussion. He claimed that the Perfect could be used for “actions which in reality indeed are neither past nor present, but which the intention or the imagination of the speaker contemplates as being already as good as done, therefore as perfectly unconditional and certain.” Ewald explained that this use of the Perfect would occur

“when any one briefly states what he intends to do, as his settled determination,” which frequently occurred in “the declarations of God ... whose will is equivalent to the deed” (e.g.,

Gen. 15:18) and in legal language for sale of property (e.g., Rt. 4:3) (1879: §135c). Ewald suggested the brevity of the statement seemed to indicate vividness as the biblical poets and prophets would use “short rapid images” as they viewed “the future as lying distinctly before

[them] and as already experienced” (1836: §262). However, he also claimed that at times “a mental picture is also represented more fully, in quite unimpassioned discourse, as it hovered before the eye of the writer while in the ecstatic state, just as if it had been actually experienced and were quite certain.” Since brevity was not a consistent notion in this use, ultimately it does

24 not have a significant role in the future use of the SC. Nevertheless, this semantic category is based on “the intention” or “lively imagination”29 of the speaker as he describes a future situation as if it were already completed as a result of the speaker’s certainty of the situation’s

(future) actualization.

By the late 19th century, Ewald’s approach to the BHVS had gained wide acceptance.

Yet of all those who adopted Ewald’s Perfect-Imperfect opposition, none popularized it as much as Samuel R. Driver. Driver’s description of the BHVS is largely dependent on Ewald, though he did have some noteworthy differences, such as the assertion that the primary meaning of yiqtol was nascent (i.e., inceptive) rather than simply incomplete. Overall, his treatment of the

SC and the future uses of the form are mostly in line with Ewald. There was, however, one modification in that Driver, and many others in the mid-to-late 19th century, desiring to be more precise, took the single category of the unordinary future use of the SC put forward by Ewald and divided it into two. Ewald had offered two reasons for using the SC in reference to future situations, both rooted in the speaker’s certainty of the situation’s actualization: the speaker’s intention (or will) and his lively imagination. But scholars took Ewald’s two reasons for future use of the SC and divided the category along those line into two semantic categories. The first of which was centered on the speaker’s intention, which came to be known as the perfectum confindentiae (Perfect of Certainty or Confidence), and the other centered on the prophetic quality of the utterance, called the perfectum propheticum (Prophetic Perfect). However, fairly frequently in the grammars of the 19th century, as even with Ewald’s, the individual functions of the SC are not necessarily labeled. Nevertheless, the semantic distinction between future prophecies and asseverations made with the SC is regular.

29 In his 8th edition of his syntax, the word “lebendige” is added (1870: §135c).

As Rödiger (see Gesenius, 1846) explained the future uses of the SC, which were one category in the previous edition of Gesenius’ grammar (1845: §124), he made a split between those based on certainty and those that were of a prophetic nature. In the former case the Perfect appeared “in protestations and assurances, where the will or mind of the speaker regards an action as performed, or as good as accomplished.” But “[s]pecially in prophecy,” the Perfect depicted “things yet to come ... as already having taken place” (1846: §124.4). Other scholars, no doubt influenced by Rödiger and Driver, did similarly. Müller noted that the future use of the

Perfect is “not uncommon in promises,” as in Gen. 15:18, “the fulfillment of the promise being so certain that it is conceived as a completed act” (1888: §3a), and in a separate section noted that the more common future use of the Perfect is the perfectum propheticum (1888: §3b). He claimed that the latter are “chiefly employed when a fact expected in the future is conceived in a most vivid and impressive manner” citing Isa. 5:13 as an example. For Müller, saying “my people is gone into captivity” is to say “my people will go into captivity” more vividly.30 Strack followed the stock terminology mentioning both asseverative and prophetic uses: “The perf. accordingly serves for the most part to indicate the past; it is, besides, employed in prophecies particularly, and in asseverations, because in these the action is regarded as certain, i. e. practically as completed” (1886: §47).

While many scholars divided the Prophetic Perfect and the Perfect of Certainty (OR:

Certitude/Confidence), Driver envisioned these as one. He did, however, make a more precise distinction between two categories, though the categories were slightly different from those already referenced in the grammars. One he called the Prophetic Perfect, though it is clear that he considered this synonymous with the Perfect of Certainty (1874: §14), but the other he did not

30 This is explained in his 1878 German edition: “‘Deshalb ist mein Volk in die Verbannung gegangen’ (lebhaft für wird gehen)” (Müller, 1878: p. 179).

26 name. It might be called the Perfect of Resolution. He explained the latter as the Perfect that is

“employed to indicate actions the accomplishment of which lies indeed in the future, but is regarded as dependent upon such an unalterable determination of the will that it may be spoken of as having actually taken place: thus a resolution, promise, or decree, especially a divine one, is very frequently announced in the perfect tense” (1874: §13). Driver considered the Prophetic

Perfect to be an extension of the Perfect of Resolution, so that it likewise described a future situation as “having actually taken place,” yet it also “confers upon descriptions of the future a most forcible and expressive touch of reality, and imparts in the most vivid manner a sense of the certainty with which the occurrence of a yet future event is contemplated by the speaker” (1874:

§14).

Since the medieval grammarians, the notion of certainty has been repeatedly called upon as the explanation for the future use of the SC. Ewald did not offer a new reason for the future use of the SC but he did provide an explanation for how it might be used in the future without completely contradicting its primary semantic signification. Lee suggested, in his relative tense theory, that the speaker could transport himself and his audience to a future point in time and thence describe events still future from the ST with the past tense. But scholars in the 19th century, most notably Driver, began to merge the two, adopting Ewald’s Perfect-Imperfect opposition into their conception of the BHVS and exegetically applying Lee’s suggestion that the speaker can transport himself to a relative point in time. Caspari, for example, in his book

Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Buch Jesaia, used Ewald’s term for the SC and also made a distinction between the prophet’s real (wirklich) and the ideal (ideell) points of view (1848: pp.

68, 195).31 When the prophet positioned himself in the ideal temporal sphere, he could use the

31 Similarly, Hengstenberg, in his seminal work Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions, also took up the distinction between the real and the ideal reference times, though he

SC to describe the ideal present which stood in reality in the future. Caspari called this use of the SC the perfectum propheticum.

Driver recognized that Prophetic Perfects sometimes appeared after a conjunction (such

but never waw which amounted to a different verb form) and sometimes without a ,כי or על כן as conjunction (e.g., Num. 24:17). Sometimes they appeared in continuous succession and other times interspersed with Imperfects. When the verb forms shifted back and forth between the SC and the LPC, Driver explained, it was because the prophet was “at one moment contemplating the events he is describing from the real standpoint of the present, at another moment looking back upon them as accomplished and done, and so viewing them from an ideal position in the future” (1874: §14). Although Caspari used the term Perfect, his exegesis was committed to temporal location which put constraints on his semantic discussion of the future time use of the

SC, but Driver was committed to the aspectual meaning of the SC. He averred that whether there was only one or several in a passage, a Prophetic Perfect describes a situation with vividness and certainty.

Driver expanded Ewald’s description of the SC with future time reference, by separating semantic categories and elaborating on each. But he also wove Ewald’s aspectual explanation together with Lee’s relative time theory. He was the first to systematically bring these approaches together in a work directly aimed at the description and explanation of the BHVS.

The result of his effort defined the way scholars described the Prophetic Perfect for decades.

Ewald and Driver’s explanation of future time uses of the SC came to be the standard for the next generation of Semitists and Hebrew grammarians. Pioneering comparative Semitists,

uses the tense-terms Praeterite and Future. In reference to Isa. 1:5-9 he states that “[i]n the Spirit, the Prophet transfers himself into the time of the calamity impending upon the apostate people, and, stepping back upon the real Present, he, in the farther course of the prophecy, predicts this calamity as future” (1856: p. 171).

28 such as Carl Brockelmann and Marcel Cohen, adopted Ewald’s aspectual opposition and followed the explanations Ewald and Driver offered for the future use of the SC (Cohen, 1924: pp. 19, 243-244; Brockelmann, 1908: §256; 1913: §76bζ). Davidson’s Hebrew Syntax and the numerous editions of Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar also reflect the influence of Ewald, beginning in 1846 when Rödiger was editor, and GKC (§106n)32 also includes the notion of prophetic transportation in the imagination.33

Like the many grammarians before them, Ewald and Driver claimed that the Prophetic

Perfect indicated certainty and vividness. But the aspectual approach of Ewald and Driver offered an explanation for how the SC could refer to something in the future without directly contradicting the semantic signification of the form. Driver added a part of Lee’s relative time theory so that the speaker could transport himself to another point in time and describe future events as if they were already completed. As a result, they did not need to affirm the purely rhetorical function of the SC proposed by Lee and implied by the medieval grammarians.

The Ewald-Driver theory, as it came to be known, held sway through the mid-20th century. It is perhaps most clearly represented by Watts’ 1964 survey of Hebrew syntax.

However, Watts did modify some of the details regarding the semantics of the Perfect and his description of the Prophetic Perfect. For instance, he claimed that “[a]ll indicative perfects describe completed states. They are single, finished, and certain. In other words, a perfect looks at one thing, sees it as a whole, and thinks of it as certain” (1964: p. 35). Fascinatingly, Watts considered certainty to be a part of the semantic signification of the Perfect. Regarding the

“simple perfect in future time,” Watts claimed that each one emphasized the speaker’s certainty

32 GKC = Gesenius, 1910.

33 “The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him.”

29 of the realization of the described situation no matter the reason for this assurance. He then proceeded to divide the examples into two categories based on the speaker’s reason for assurance. When the speaker had self-assurance or mere confidence, Watts labeled it a Perfect of Confidence, while all those that were based on revelation from God and faith were considered

Prophetic Perfects (1964: pp. 40-42). His focus on certainty as the underlying assertion of these

Perfects afforded him another departure from Driver; namely, the rejection of viewpoint shifting, which he found “very confusing.” The apparent certainty of the Prophetic Perfect was understood by many biblical scholars, including Watts, as theological certainty (e.g., Freeman,

1968: pp. 122-123).

§1.4.1.4 Aoristic Approaches: Herder, Sperber, and Hughes

Not everyone, however, was satisfied by these tensed or aspectual approaches. In 1782, one scholar bemoaned that “[t]he Tenses are often used promiscuously especially in the poetic and prophetic books” (Bayly, 1782: p. 22 as quoted in McFall, 1982: p. 15). The following year,

Johann G. Herder asserted that “the two tenses of the Hebrew are after all essentially aorists, that is, undefined tenses, that fluctuate between the past, the present, and the future, and thus

[Hebrew] has in fact but one tense” (1833: p. 37).34 Herder went on to claim that “[a]mong the

Hebrews, history itself is properly poetry, that is the transmission of narratives, which are related in the present tense, and here too we may discover an advantage derived from the indefiniteness or fluctuation, of the tenses, especially in producing conviction, and rendering what is described, related or announced, more clearly and vividly present to the senses.” In his opinion the

34 The original work was published in German in 1783 and an English translation, here cited, was published in 1833.

Hebrews, “like children,” desired to express an entire picture suddenly and instantaneously, which was satisfied by the “single sound” expressing “person, number, tense, action, and still more” (1833: p. 37). Herder’s claims had some sway in certain circles for a time (e.g., Stuart,

1831: §501-§502), but for the most part that sway was lost by the late 19th century.

But nearly two centuries after Herder, the aorist approach was revived. In 1966

Alexander Sperber amassed examples from the Pentateuch that, in his mind, completely contradicted the tensed and aspectual theories of his day. These counter-examples formed the basis for his rejection of tense and aspect as meaningful categories for the Hebrew verbal forms.

He observed that the “well-defined tempora” and the notion of “perfect” and “imperfect” always required grammarians “to invent new rules and list exceptions to these rules in order to account for the vast number of occurrences” that clearly contradicted the proposed theory (1966: p. 591).

He proposed morphological terms to replace the tensed and aspectual names for the SC and the

LPC, and claimed that these two forms do not indicate time, but rather represent “two possibilities of expressing one and the same time.” He went on to state that the “difference that existed between the suffix tense and the prefix tense was not of temporal, but rather of a dialectic character” (1966: p. 592).

A few years later, James Hughes attempted to affirm the aoristic approach (1970).

Hughes launched his argument from verbal constructions wherein a verb follows a particle or conjunction (other than waw), concluding that, even in prose, the BHVS employs the two basic forms for past, present, and future as well as completed and incomplete action. He also projected his aoristic approach to the BHVS onto the Proto-Semitic verbal system (PSVS).35

35 “According to our theory, the proto-Semitic yaqtul form might be termed the ‘active aorist’ and the qatil form the ‘stative aorist,’” 1970: p. 12.

Because the aoristic approaches suggest that the SC (with and without waw) and the LPC are essentially semantically equivalent, they offer no semantic or pragmatic insights into the

Prophetic Perfect.

§1.4.1.5 Revival of the Pragmatic Approach: Joüon, Dempsey, and Joosten

A pragmatic approach to the Prophetic Perfect, which had been around since the medieval grammarians and more recently suggested by Samuel Lee, saw a revival in the 20th century under the influence of Paul Joüon, a student of Mayer Lambert. In Lambert’s Hebrew grammar, the terms passé and futur appear for the verb tenses, and no mention is made of the future use of the SC (1900: p. 50). Interestingly, Joüon adopted Ewald’s term for the SC

(“parfait”) but preserved the tense term futur for the LPC, and, while he took the future use of the

SC into consideration, he made a significant departure from the standard descriptions of his day

(1947: §40b).36 He distinguished two categories of future time uses of the SC, one in reference to events in the imminent future, which he considered to be an extension of the present time use of the SC (Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §112f-g), and the other the Prophetic Perfect. The difference between the two is essentially that the imminent future was restricted to first person, while the term Prophetic Perfect was applied to nonfirst person examples. Joüon did not have a separate category for the Perfect of Certainty. He claimed that “[i]n prophecies a future event is sometimes regarded as having already been accomplished,” and this use “is not a special grammatical perfect, but a rhetorical device” (Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §112h).37 Joüon offered

36 Here citing the second edition. The first edition was published in 1923. Below we will cite the English translation and revision of Joüon’s grammar by Muraoka as Joüon & Muraoka, 1996.

37 “Ce parfait prophétique n’est pas un parfait grammatical spécial, mais relève de la rhétorique,” 1947: §112h.

Isa. 9:1, 5 and 10:28 as examples and Muraoka later added the mašal in Isa. 14:4-21, following a prophecy of the fall of Babylon, and the qinah in Ezek. 28:12-19 that follows prophecies against

Tyre.

Although it was not original to him, Joüon’s support of the rhetorical approach revitalized the concept and separated the semantics of the SC from this use. In doing so, he circumvented the perennial problem of explaining how the semantics of the form could be stretched to include future situations and simultaneously avoided the necessity of frequent reference point leaping.

Scholars such as Zuber (1986: p. 173) and Müller (1983: p. 51 n. 109; 1984: p. 122 n. 97) have followed his explanation, limiting this use of the SC to rhetoric and genre specific contexts.38

Joüon’s grammar has become something of a standard in the field, and recent reference works have reiterated his description of the Prophetic Perfect.39

In her 1989 dissertation, Deirdre Dempsey followed Joüon’s basic assertion that the SC referring to future situations is rhetorical, but with one key difference. She attempted to make the rhetorical approach consistent by leveling the rhetorical function from the nonfirst person uses into the first person uses. She critiqued Joüon’s approach claiming that “[t]he distinction is in fact without foundation” because “[t]he same rhetoric is involved” whether the verb is first person or nonfirst person. Thus, to Dempsey it was entirely inappropriate to make the nonfirst person examples a separate category, with a “special name, ‘parfait prophétique’ (prophetic perfect)” (1989: p. 232). For these reasons, she consistently refers to the “qatal of certitude” throughout her work for first and nonfirst person as well as for present and future time reference.

38 Zuber (1986: pp. 153-155) claimed that nearly 40% of the examples of future uses of the SC collected by McFall (see, 1982: p. 186) from the RSV should either not be taken into consideration (because of textual corruption, for example) or can be better explained in other ways (e.g., by reading the verb as a future perfect).

39 E.g., Van der Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze (1999: §19.2.5.2) describe it “As a rhetorical means of presenting future events as if they have already happened. This use of the perfect is often called the prophetic perfect.” Arnold and Choi (2003: p. 55) refer to this function of the SC as the “rhetorical future.”

In 2012, Jan Joosten employed a pragmatic description of the Prophetic Perfect in order to explain its use in his otherwise relative tense (and mood) approach to the BHVS. Though its use is “disconcerting” to Joosten, he reiterated Joüon’s comments that the SC can refer to future situations presented as if already taken place. Yet at the same time, attempting to reconcile the semantics of the form with this stylistic use, he also suggested shifting viewpoints and/or reference points in some prophetic passages, to explain why the “seer” might present “an event as already having come about” (2012: p. 208). He divided the “stylistic usages in reference to future actions” into four categories: the “emotional use,” promissory, the Perfect of Confidence, and the Prophetic Perfect. All of these uses are rooted in the notion of certainty. He claimed that the “intended effect” of the “non-literal, figurative, use of QATAL is generally to lend the statement a measure of certainty, urgency, or dramatic effect” (2012: p. 206).

For the scholars who take a pragmatic approach, the so-called Prophetic Perfect is the

Perfect of Certainty. Some would see the Prophetic Perfect as a sub-category of the Perfect of

Certainty (as Joüon), while others would say that the terms are essentially synonyms (as

Dempsey and Joosten), but ultimately in the pragmatic approach the two are inextricably intertwined.

§1.4.1.6 Recent Descriptions from Tense-Based Theories: Bauer, Blake, Blau, Andersen, Revell, and Rainey

Although the view that the basic forms in the BHVS demonstrated an aspectual opposition (completed versus incomplete) had quickly become the standard view in the early 20th century, tense theory was about to be revitalized. In his 1910 dissertation, Hans Bauer introduced an original explanation for the Semitic verbal forms that radically differed from the

34 explanations of his day. Bauer found the Ewald-Driver aspectual system unsatisfactory and problematic (1910: pp. 23-24). His own efforts in explaining the BHVS were based on a comparative-historical approach that encompassed the PS and East Semitic (ES) verbal systems.

His work was one of the first to commit significant attention to the Akkadian VS as it contributes to the broader study of Semitic verbs (McFall, 1982: p. 93).

Bauer argued that originally in PS the LPC was the only verb form (essentially an aorist as he called it), and that the SC entered the VS at a later point.40 According to Bauer, the SC was originally an active verbal noun with a suffixed pronominal subject. Thus the original participial form *qatal-ta, similar to the suffixed participles in Aramaic (e.g., in Targum

.I know), meant you are a killer implying that the subject has killed in the past ,יָדַ ע נָא ,Onkelos

Bauer suggested that in the PSVS the SC expressed present time (“in the temporal sphere of a participle”) but in the West Semitic verbal system (WSVS) it was mostly restricted to perfect meaning (1910: p. 35). It was only in certain instances that the SC in WS retained its earlier participial present time; for example, when following the conjunction waw, in stereotypical and formulaic expressions, generic statements, subordinate clauses, and in poetic contexts “for the realization of future events” (1910: p. 35).

He gave special attention to what his contemporaries called the Prophetic Perfect, critiquing the views of Ewald and Driver. He claimed “[t]hat the poet or prophet would have described the actual future as something seen or something heard by him already in the sense of past events, as is usually accepted, seems entirely too strange.”41 Bauer directly attacked the

40 In contrast to the Ewald-Driver aspectual theory, Bauer claimed that, in BH, the LPC did not express an incomplete situation. He claimed that a situation cannot be incomplete if it has not yet begun at all. Bauer argued that the LPC acquired its present-future value in BH in opposition to the SC (1910: pp. 15-16, 24).

41 “Dass der Dichter oder Prophet das Zukünftige wirklich als ein bereits von ihm Geschautes oder Gehörtes im Sinne eines vergangenen Ereignisses beschrieben habe, wie man gewöhnlich annimmt, erscheint doch gar zu seltsam,” 1910: p. 35.

35 shifting viewpoint explanation to the alternating use of the LPC and the SC supported by Driver since it gave the impression of instability as the author and audience were made to swing back and forth like a pendulum viewing the situations from different standpoints. Bauer preferred a more consistent approach in which the normal use of the SC was perfect or past and the “higher style” of poetry employed the archaic present-future meaning. When this higher style was used, the prophet raised “his audience into a higher sphere” wherein he used “the qatal form in its archaic meaning” to refer to present-future events.

In essence, Bauer’s tensed approach revitalized the present-in-the-future meaning of the

SC held previously by Jahn, Weir, and others, by offering a comparative-historical explanation for how the form could have this meaning and why its use was restricted to certain (poetic and prophetic) environments. His main critique of the Ewald-Driver description of the Prophetic

Perfect was similar to the critique Murphy put forward against Lee and Weir; temporally jumping from viewpoint to viewpoint with every clause as the verb forms shift back and forth between the SC and the LPC gives a chaotic and unstable impression. The originality of Bauer’s contribution to the discussion of the Prophetic Perfect was that he made a semantic division between the “alter” and “neuer” uses of the SC. The Prophetic Perfect was seen as a retention of the older use that appeared in an elevated style of poetry.

Godfrey R. Driver, the son of Samuel R. Driver, envisioned a completely different verbal development in Semitic than Bauer, but nonetheless, he took a similar stand on the Prophetic

Perfect. He claimed that the SC

retained enough of the old universal sense of the original qatil from which it had diverged to be also

employed not only for the description of facts which have formerly taken place but are still of constant

recurrence and hence are matters of common experience (namely, to perform the function of a gnomic

aorist) but also with reference to future events, although this use was in practice confined to poetic and the

kindred prophetic language and certain legal phrases. This usage however was rare and almost, if not quite,

died out at a relatively early date (1936: pp. 82-83).

According to G. Driver, the meaning of the SC was originally “universal,” and could be applied to past, present, or future time as well as to states or events. This “wide range of application” is

“in practice a cause of ambiguity, as the employment of it by the Hebrew prophets abundantly demonstrates” (1936: p. 112). G. Driver and Bauer held in common the view that the SC with future time reference was retained from an earlier stage in the verbal system and its use in BH was archaic.

The problem Bauer sought to resolve included the BHVS but it also extended well beyond. Consequently, his discussion of BH was limited in scope and largely theoretical.42

About forty years later, Frank Blake attempted to give a “detailed application of Bauer’s theory” to Biblical Hebrew in his A Resurvey of Hebrew Tenses (1951: p. 1). Bauer’s approach was attractive to Blake because it was rooted in historical-comparative (though Blake did not accept all of Bauer’s suggested diachronic explanations) and it held tense to be the primary semantic signification of the verbal forms. Blake admitted that it seemed unlikely to him that any language’s VS would not indicate tense. He affirmed the aspectual meaning of the SC and the

LPC, but only as secondary to tense (1951: p. 2). Blake stated that the SC was originally a predicate adjective denoting “a state or condition” and that in the WS languages the Perfect, mostly in the form qatal (as opposed to qatil and qatul), had developed a “generally preterite meaning,” while “the forms qatil and qatul and sometimes qatal retain[ed] for the most part their originally stative present meaning” (1951: p. 3).43 The present time meaning of the PS SC was

42 For example, only pages 23-39 deal specifically with the BHVS (Bauer, 1910).

43 He suggested the following development of the SC: (1) “archaic period” – “perfect a predicate adjective form with present meaning,” (2) “development of two tense system” – “perfect as the normal expression of past time, but with preservation of ancient present meaning in some constructions, especially in the case of stative

37 retained in BH in “stative verbs and in the prophetic perfect and perhaps in the converted perfect” (1951: p. 3). Although Blake also claimed that the Prophetic Perfect was simply an archaic, present-future time use of qatal,44 he emphasized prophetic context over elevated poetic style (1951: §62).

Other scholars who hold to tensed theories of the BHVS have described the Prophetic

Perfect similarly. For example, Blau averred that the finite VS denotes tense rather than aspect based on his understanding of the VS in prose, which he considers similar enough to the spoken language to warrant the claim that the spoken language was also tense-based (1971: pp. 24-25).45

Like Bauer and Blake, Blau considered the future uses of the SC and the past uses of the LPC in poetry to be “archaisms,” and claimed that as such, they have no bearing on the nature of the

BHVS.46 According to Andersen, who acknowledges his dependence on Bauer, the prophets’ tendency to use the Prophetic Perfect is not the result of the prophetic imagination, calling such explanations “overly psychological,” but rather the result of their tendency to use archaic language (2000: p. 55).

verbs,” (3) “development of converted verb forms” – “converted perfect, based perhaps on original present meaning of perfect...” weqatal “becomes the normal coordinate of the imperfect...” and retains rest of second stage, (4) “Retention of situation as in 3 with added feature of... [weqatal] as an independent present-progressive past-future modal used at the beginning of sentences and even of a whole discourse, without coordination to any preceding verb form,” (1951: §68).

as a present-future, which is chiefly found in prophetic texts, and the use of the קטל The use of the type“ 44 .(as past are doubtless reminiscences of more ancient meanings of these forms,” (1951: §66 יקטל type

45 This applies only to the Hebrew of the historical period, as Blau recognized the likelihood that the VS of PS and perhaps Proto-Hebrew were originally primarily aspectual.

46 In Blau’s opinion, the poets “tried, out of tradition, to utilize verbs in accordance with the bygone system of aspects. One will necessarily assume that they succeeded to some degree only. In many cases, no doubt, they accomplished the correct usage of the aspectual system, in others, however, they violated its rule, applying pseudo- archaic features (as qāṭal instead of yiqṭol, and vice versa, only because biblical prose demanded the other form). It is, therefore, for all practical purposes, impossible to reconstruct the Proto-Hebrew verbal system from these scattered pieces, often, no doubt, wrongly applied,” (1971: 26).

But not everyone who took a tensed approach to the basic verb forms considered the

Prophetic Perfect an archaism. Barnes, for example, accepted two tenses, past and present, which correspond with the SC and the LPC. He adopted the terminology complete and incomplete but specified that a situation described as complete must be past time or a present perfect. In order to maintain the integrity of the assumption, Barnes also adopted the concept of viewpoint shifting (1965: pp. 6-8). He claimed that the SC can refer to “[a]ctions or states anticipated as historically complete to the viewpoint (the Prophetic Perfect or Perfect of

Certainty) and therefore positionally present, though actually future” (1965: p. 10). The conclusions of Barnes’ approach are extremely similar to those of Jahn and Weir, but his theory was essentially a synchronic analysis and thus did not explain the verb functions in light of their presumed diachronic development.

Revell accepted a primarily tensed opposition (past and present-future) and claimed that the tense denoted was relative (1989: pp. 4-5). In light of this, he claimed that past forms in future time and future forms in past time do not negate tense value. Revell asserted that the SC, with verbs that express conditions, qualities, or states, can refer to events begun in the past that continue into the present. In reference to the “so-called ‘Perfect of Certainty,’” he thought that the SC, as a past tense, could refer to a decision in the past to do something still future from the

ST. This was also applied to performatives, as he considered them a subclass of the decision-in- the-past use of the SC. However, the LPC and the Participle could also be used to refer to future events over which a decision was made in the past (e.g., Judg. 1:12; 2 Sam. 5:19). Revell opined that “the choice of a verbless or verbal clause, or of a QTL or a YQTL form ... must reflect the perceptions of the speaker, or the implications which he wishes to convey” (1989: p. 7).

Rainey, whose research built on that of Moran, assumed that the SC in BH and WS in general typically had a preterite meaning apart from the following conditions: when following a waw conjunction, when in the protasis of a conditional sentence, and in certain optative uses

(1973: p. 242; 1987: pp. 397-399; 2003: pp. 3-42).47 He did, however, recognize the use of stative verbs in the SC that refer to future situations in BH. The examples he cited of such future statives (Isa. 11:9; 13:10) are interspersed with other typically future forms (the LPC and weqatal) (2003: p. 25).

The most significant contribution of this group of scholars to the issue at hand is the notion of semantic retention from earlier stages in the WSVS. For some, this was used to explain the (archaic) future use of active and stative verbs in the SC while others only noted the future use of stative verbs in the SC, but the common ground held by all (except Barnes for reasons stated above) is the concept of semantic retention. Another important suggestion should be highlighted; Revell’s proposition that the SC could refer back in time to a past decision to do something in the future. He was not the first to make this suggestion (see above §1.4.1.1) and he did not attempt to demonstrate that this was so in any particular passage, but the suggestion is echoed in the more recent literature.

§1.4.1.7 Recent Descriptions from Aspectual Theories

The more recent aspectual approaches to the Prophetic Perfect differ dramatically from those of Ewald and Driver. For one, the ever shifting viewpoint required by Driver’s theory has

47 Sivan (2001: pp. 96-98), a student of Rainey’s, followed his teacher offering a similar set of values for the Suffix Conjugation in his Ugaritic grammar.

40 been (mostly) rejected. But more importantly, the nature of the aspectual opposition between the SC and the LPC would be redefined in three completely different ways.

§1.4.1.7.1 stative v. cursive: Brockelmann, Meyer, Rundgren, and Gibson

Brockelmann had originally adopted the Ewald-Driver aspectual opposition (though combined with tense values) (1908: §256; 1913: §76bζ), but he later proposed a different kind of aspectual approach to the BHVS. His new approach saw the SC as referring to a “konstatierend” situation while the LPC was seen as describing a “kursive” one (1951: p. 146). Scholars such as

Meyer (1993) and Müller (1983) also used Brockelmann’s terminology. Gibson recently employed this approach in his 1994 update of Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar

Syntax. He asserted that the SC “identifies a situation or event as static or at rest” (stative), while the LPC identifies a situation or event “as fluid or in motion” (cursive) (1994: §55-§56). This left his approach to the Prophetic Perfect very similar to those of the prior section, though instead of a retention of an older use, the semantics of the SC are always stative and not just in certain

“archaic” uses. Accordingly, the Prophetic Perfect was viewed as “an ordinary QATAL” that “is transferred to the fut. by the context in which it occurs” (1994: §59b Rem. 1). Gibson stated that

or כִ י the Prophetic Perfect “preserves its stative nature by being found on its own, or following

.(or being suddenly interjected” among future time LPCs and weqatals (1994: §59b ,לָכֵן

The stative : cursive opposition approach views every use of the SC as expressing the original semantics of the SC. This approach does not accurately describe all the functions of the

SC in the HB nor does it have any typological support from the world’s languages. Ultimately, it makes no contribution to the problem of the Prophetic Perfect.

§1.4.1.7.2 fact v. relative: Michel, Kustar, Fensham, and Furuli

Another group of scholars have taken a different kind of approach to the opposition expressed by the SC and the LPC. Some of these have associated the respective meanings with aspect, while others have not, but the approaches of their studies to the BHVS are similar enough to discuss them together.

The first of these was Diethelm Michel. In his book, Tempora und Satzstellung in den

Psalmen, Michel rejected diachronic data and the standard explanations of the BHVS of his day because, in his estimation, they did not adequately explain the VS of Hebrew poetry (1960: pp.

11-13). He explained that if the VS of Hebrew prose was applied to poetry, then we have to add new categories of meaning to those known from prose. He claimed that suddenly “archaic narrative Imperfects with past time meaning” appear and we are forced to accept the Prophetic

Perfect for which one must “apply psychology in order to explain its existence” (1960: p. 11).48

Michel’s conclusion, based on his study of the Psalms, was that the SC expressed “ein Faktum” in any temporal sphere while the LPC described a situation that was relative to some other situation, regardless of the temporal sphere (1960: pp. 98-99).49 The semantic distinction exists in the way the situation is represented – either as an independent fact or as a situation relative to another. Regarding the SC with future time reference, Michel found little to comment on. It, like every other use of the SC, indicates an “independent, self-important fact” (1960: p. 92).50

48 The original German quotes are: “archaisches erzählendes Imperfekt mit Vergangenheitsbedeutung” and “die Psychologie bemühen, um seine Existenz zu erklären.”

49 The word “fact” was used by Moran (2003: p. 35 [orig. 1950]) to describe what the SC expresses. Moran noted that already in 1892, Knudtzon had used the word “Faktum” for the same. Michel, however, did not acknowledge either in his book.

50 Original quote: “unabhängige, selbstgewichtige Tatsache.”

Péter Kustár’s study differed from Michel’s in the terminology used to describe the SC and the LPC and in the fact that he explicitly called their opposition aspectual. He claimed that the difference between the two basic forms is that the SC is “determining” (determinierend) and the LPC is “determined” (determiniert) (1972: p. 55). But ultimately, and particularly as this study is concerned, there is not much difference between Kustár’s approach and that of Michel.

Another scholar who recently made a similar synchronic analysis of the BHVS is Rolf

Furuli. The goal of his book was to separate semantics from pragmatics and define the BHVS semantically (i.e., identify each form’s “uncancellable meaning”) (2006: p. 4). He claimed that there are really only two conjugations (the SC and the LPC) and that the Masoretes invented the changes in the waw-consecutive forms and applied them inconsistently (2006: pp. 4-5). The aspectual opposition he envisioned is not the same as that which is known in the world’s languages today, despite the fact that he calls them “perfective” and “imperfective.” This is limpid enough in that he found the idea of perfectivity contradictory to future time (2006: p.

336), while Comrie’s work on Aspect discusses the existence of this very phenomenon (1976: p.

18). He claimed that the SC “represents the perfective aspect” and yet “can signal both incomplete (unbounded) and complete(d) (bounded) situations” (2006: p. 6). Why he decided to call it “perfective” aspect but then define the term in this way is never explained.

On the one hand, Furuli disregarded the widely attested aspectual opposition with little explanation, but on the other, offered a reasoned rebuttal of the stative : cursive approach. He stated that “[i]f the qatal form has developed from a Proto-Semitic stative, and it still signals stativity in contrast with yiqtol, which signals fientive events, we should expect that qatals with present reference would signify states or resultative events, and that yiqtols would signify fientive events” (2006: p. 339). But he found that there are “2,505 qatals and 2,461 yiqtols with

43 present reference” in the HB and that “there is no static-fientive opposition between the two”

(2006: p. 6). Unfortunately, however, as he admits, most of his analysis concerning temporal reference was based on translation (2006: p. 417).

Furuli dealt at length with the SC with future time reference and the so-called Prophetic

Perfect. After studying every example known to him, he concluded that there is no Prophetic

Perfect as it is traditionally understood (such as the explanation of Driver). He claimed that

“[t]he only way to justify [the notion that Prophetic Perfects do exist] would be on the basis of the context, to show that the future actions expressed by the qatals were different in some respect compared with those expressed by other forms” (2006: p. 372). He then went on to point out that demonstrating any difference between the SCs and the LPCs in certain prophetic passages is very difficult, but he then contradicted himself suggesting that the SC in future time can have an

“emphatic force” (2006: p. 374). He offered no explanation for what makes it emphatic, or how it came to be emphatic.

The aspectual notions employed in these studies are so loosely defined that there is no reason for the SC not to regularly refer to future situations, but that is certainly not the case in

BH.

§1.4.1.7.3 perfective v. imperfective: Waltke and O’Connor, Hendel, and Tropper

Over the last several decades, modern linguistic studies have greatly impacted the understanding of verbal aspect. In his book on Aspect, published in 1976, Bernard Comrie explained that the oft assumed opposition completed v. incomplete is entirely inadequate (see above §1.2). The impact on Semitic and Hebrew language studies was that the very nature of the aspectual opposition of the SC and the LPC was redefined as complete v. incomplete, and the

44 terms perfective and imperfective came to replace the older, less accurate terms perfect and imperfect (see, e.g., Huehnergard, 1988: p. 22).

Waltke and O’Connor championed this “new” aspectual opposition in their 1990 work

An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.51 They described the various functions of the LPC and the SC accordingly and even applied the concept of perfectivity to what others had called the

Prophetic Perfect. They suggest that there are two future, realis uses of the SC with fientive verbs (apart from the future perfect), the persistent (future) perfective and the accidental perfective. The former “represents a single situation extending from the present into the future,” and the sole example cited is in a question (Exod. 10:3). With the latter “a speaker vividly and dramatically represents a future situation both as complete and as independent.” They stated that the use of the accidental perfective “is especially frequent in prophetic address (hence it is also called the ‘prophetic perfect’ or ‘perfective of confidence’)” (1990: pp. 489-490). So, although similar to the previous aspectual explanations in that the situation is described in a particular way as a result of the speaker’s desire to express that situation perfectively or imperfectively, Waltke and O’Connor did not find it necessary to rely on the speaker’s confidence as a reason for representing a future situation perfectively. They did, however, affirm the stylistic purposes noted by generations of scholars before them.

Like Waltke and O’Connor, Tropper saw no reason for why a perfective form could not describe a situation in the future.52 He noted the frequency of this use of the SC in prophetic contexts had led to the label Prophetic Perfect, and he suggested that even the use of the SC in

51 With one important caveat, namely, that the LPC is “non-perfective” rather than imperfective.

52 Not all who accept perfectivity as the primary semantic signification of the SC are so quick to do so. Cook (2012a: pp. 216-217), for example, is very tentative about the category of the Prophetic Perfect and does not describe alleged examples as future perfectives.

45 the apodosis of a conditional can be easily reconciled with the perfective aspect of the form

(1998: p. 183). Hendel (1996) and Gentry (1998) also endorsed the connection between the future perfective use of the SC and the so-called Prophetic Perfect (cf. de Regt, 2008: pp. 88, 92-

93).

There is, however, a divide among these scholars over stative verbs in the SC. Waltke and O’Connor did not address stative verbs in the SC referring to future time, and neither did

Tropper in his discussion of the Prophetic Perfect, who claimed that on the basis of the known diachronic development of the SC, statives and perfective fientives should be distinguished, because the functions of the former are ultimately nominal (1998: p. 182). Hendel, on the other hand, included “[t]he future perfective (“prophetic perfect”) of stative verbs” but specified that they are “found only in poetry” (1996: p. 168 n. 62). Tropper suggested a semantic reason not to include them (though he did not go on to explain it in any detail), while Hendel seems to have carried out Waltke and O’Connor’s explanation of statives in the SC to its natural conclusion; namely that (1) the SC is perfective even with stative verbs and (2) situations in the past, present, and future can be described perfectively (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 364-365, 483, 491-

493).

§1.4.1.7.4 Summary

The aspectual approaches of §1.4.1.7.1 and §1.4.1.7.2 have very little to contribute. The aspectual approach described in §1.4.1.7.3 defines the aspect of the SC in a manner compatible with the recent linguistic literature on aspect as the world’s languages attest perfective verb forms that can refer to future situations (Comrie, 1976: p. 18; Bybee et al., 1994: p. 278).

Although the scholars of this group have treated stative verbs variously, they have argued for a

46 linguistically possible use of the SC. According to this view, the Prophetic Perfect is the future time use of the SC which expresses situations with perfective aspect.

§1.4.1.8 Studies on the Prophetic Perfect

There have been three studies focused on the Prophetic Perfect within the last century.

The major concern of Klein’s 1990 article was identifying parameters for the Prophetic Perfect; in other words, what makes any given SC a Prophetic Perfect. Consequently we will discuss

Klein’s study below (§1.4.2). The other two examined passages with alleged examples of the

Prophetic Perfect in order to determine whether or not it is a valid verbal function.

§1.4.1.8.1 Pullin

Morris Henry Pullin wrote his M.A. dissertation at the University of Chicago in 1932 on the Prophetic Perfect in the book of Jeremiah. Pullin’s study was an attempt to investigate the evidence for or against the Prophetic Perfect as described in the grammars of his day, especially

Harper’s Elements of Hebrew Syntax (1890). His methodology for identifying examples to be examined was to compare the Hebrew text with the Old Greek, the King James Version (KJV), and The Old Testament: An American Translation (OTAT) (a version of the HB that had been edited by Pullin’s advisor J. M. P. Smith), looking for tense “violations,” i.e., instances where the expected tense value was not maintained in translation (1932: pp. 2-4). For the Perfect, he assumed that past and present meaning were regular and did not represent tense violations, so that only the future translation of the SC was a violation. The KJV was considered the

“traditional” translation value, but the Old Greek and the OTAT were used as the standard of meaning in the Hebrew text. Pullin explained that if the Old Greek or the OTAT did not

47 translate a Perfect with the future tense, he discarded the example as “linguistically indefensible.” The value of his study suffers dramatically from this decision. Because he took a translation based approach to the semantics of the Hebrew verb forms, the object of his study

(i.e., his collection of examples of the Prophetic Perfect) was dependent on how well the Greek and English translations mirrored the Hebrew.

Although Pullin was not very careful in his approach to identifying potential examples, he was very scrupulous in his discussion of the passages under consideration. He assumed that every SC would have the normal meanings of present or past “until it is unquestionably proven that the future was intended” (1932: p. 21). He also drew extensively from what scholars in that day thought were the historical backgrounds of the passages and he used them to aid in the endeavor of understanding the temporal relations of the events described therein.

He found there to be five passages in Jeremiah with SCs that matched his criteria of not being rendered “as other than future, or omitted” in the Old Greek or OTAT. Of these, there was only one that Pullin could not explain away as a “normal” past or present. The realization of the

SC in Jer. 32:36 was future from the ST, and the use is not future perfect. Pullin explained this use as past to the prophet, not future (1932: p. 34), in that he “was always speaking of the historical manifestations of Divine will and action rather than the will and action itself” (1932: p.

62). Thus the prophet referred back in time to the revelation of God’s will and action with a past time verb form. He stated that if this “may be described as a Prophetic Perfect” then he would be willing to accept the category. Pullin assumed that the Prophetic Perfect was specific to the genre of predictive prophecy (1932: p. 1), but, unfortunately, Pullin never did spell out exactly what he considered to be a Prophetic Perfect, and so it is not entirely certain what it was that he

48 had in mind.53 In the end, Pullin did not find there to be any Prophetic Perfects in the book of

Jeremiah and claimed that the prophet and his scribe Baruch knew nothing of this function

(1932: pp. 60-63).

§1.4.1.8.2 Rogland

The second, and much more recent, study was conducted by Max Rogland. His book,

Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, published in 2003, is a slightly modified version of his 2001 doctoral dissertation at Leiden University. Rogland’s basic premise is that the fientive SC is, under normal circumstances (to be defined below), “semantically marked as a past tense... but unmarked aspectually” (2003a: p. 10). He addressed three of the most problematic but commonly referenced uses of the SC that seem to directly counter his premise: the gnomic (or generic), prophetic, and performative functions. Portions of Rogland’s book have been endorsed by some scholars,54 while others have been seriously criticized,55 but our discussion will focus on his third chapter, the one on the Prophetic Perfect.

Rogland focused his study on fientive verbs in the SC, thereby excluding all statives. He followed Klein’s (1990: p. 48) parameters for identifying a Prophetic Perfect that the example must be (1) textually sound, (2) indicative, and (3) have clear future time reference (Rogland,

2003a: p. 57). The last of these, Rogland recognized, is the hardest to satisfy as one scholar may

53 Pullin stated that reading Harper’s syntax had stirred his interest in this topic (1932: p. ii). Harper’s description of the future time use of the SC was “[o]f actions or states that are yet to happen, but which, for the sake of effect, the writer or speaker describes as having actually taken place or existed” (1890: §16). One might tentatively accept Harper’s description as a rough equivalent of Pullin’s unstated description.

54 E.g., Cook (2005: pp. 130-131) generally approves of Rogland’s comments on the generic use of the Perfect, though Cook does present a more sophisticated approach.

55 E.g., Miller (2005: pp. 124-125) really takes Rogland to task on his analysis of the performative function of the SC, noting that in aspect-prominent languages, the performative usually appears in a perfective form. She also points out that there is no known tense-prominent language that uses the past tense for performatives.

49 think the context indicates future time, while another does not. But the other two allowed him to significantly narrow the corpus of study. In light of the indicative requirement, he excluded every SC in temporal and conditional clauses as well as those in interrogative statements (2003a: p. 57 n. 31). Rogland dismissed a total of 41 potential examples56 on the grounds of textual corruption (2003a: p. 57 n. 30), a number much higher than Klein who discarded only 1 example on this account (1990: p. 59). Additionally, there were 11 alleged examples of the Prophetic

Perfect with stative verbs that were excluded (Rogland, 2003a: p. 57 n. 32), making 52 the total number of indicative SCs excluded from Rogland’s study. The remaining examples, found in

108 passages, were then examined.

Ultimately, Rogland concluded that the Prophetic Perfect is really a collection of several

(at least five) functions of the SC: (1) as a relative past (i.e., future perfect) from a future reference point, (2) as a past in direct speech that will take place in the future in which the E is future from the author’s ST (Stext) but past from the ST of the quotation in the future (Squote), (3) in reference to a past decision and not the future realization of the event decided upon, (4) as a past when referring back to events in a vision or a dream (Evision) which is to be distinguished from the (often future) real event time (Ereal), and (5) in “idiomatic tense mismatches” in which

“exaggerated rhetoric” is employed to describe a future situation as good as done already, “best treated as exceptions” (2003a: p. 113). To these Rogland adds another group of passages, numbering 50 in all, which have an uncertain time reference. Beyond these, there were several passages in Isaiah that did not fit his categories and for which he confessed “I have no solution to propose for these” (2003a: p. 113).

56 Rogland cites 42 examples, but there is no SC in Isa. 17:11.

Regardless of whether or not all of the passages he cited are in fact examples of the functions he intended to demonstrate, some of these functions are undoubtedly employed by the

SC. Functions (1) future perfect and (5) the rhetorical uses are not new, easily demonstrable, and very likely from a typological perspective.57 The other three require further comment. Category

(2) can be divided into two kinds of examples: those that explicitly indicate direct speech and those that do not. Rogland’s analysis of E, as future from the author’s ST (Stext) but past from the future quotation (Squote), is excellent and clearly explains the examples where direct speech is used. But there is room for criticism in his explanation of the passages that do not clearly mark direct speech.

Rogland’s most significant contribution is found in his explanation of category (4) (cf.

Hatav, 2004: p. 303; Miller, 2005: p. 125; Cook, 2012b: p. 315). The idea that the biblical prophets used a past (or perfect[ive]) form to refer back to a situation or an event that occurred in a vision/dream or some kind of divine revelation was not original to Rogland. For example, it was suggested by Pullin (1932: p. 62), though it seems that Rogland was not aware of his study, and more recently by Dempsey (1989: pp. 130-131). But Rogland developed the idea far beyond anyone before him, providing a linguistically sound explanation for how it works. Rather than making the ST of speaker/author jump forward and backward in time between the real and ideal standpoints as Lee, Driver, and many others had done, Rogland’s theory maintains a single ST throughout a given passage, and the temporal shifting occurs as a result of the nature of the E referred to (2003a: pp. 64-75). So a prophet may describe events that are future (often with the

LPC and weqatal forms) and would do so by referring to Ereal, but may also describe events he

57 On the rhetorical use, see DeCaen (1995: pp. 9-12), though he mistakenly generalized this function to all Prophetic Perfects. Williamson (2007: p. 134) agrees “that there are also some examples of prophetic perfect which are ‘rhetorical,’” but notes that some of the examples Rogland cited may have a better explanation.

51 saw, heard, or experienced in a dream or vision he had in the past (often with the SC and wayyiqtol) and would do so by referring to Evision. Rogland points out that when a passage describes Evision, it is the “non-past forms that are often interspersed with the past tenses which require explanation” (2003a: p. 72). Some of Rogland’s examples are questionable, but the category is established.

In contrast, the category of decision-in-the-past, category (3), is not established at all.

What Rogland suggests as the reference of the SC in his examples is “some sort of mental activity such as a decision.” He claims that “[i]f E in fact refers to decision [sic] made in the past then we are simply dealing with a past tense, regardless of whether or not other (future) events will result from this decision” (2003a: p. 63). There is only one example of this in the HB, but it must be noted that it occurs in a verbal phrase that clearly indicates that a past decision was made

.for it was determined,” Dan. 11:36). Rogland, however, does not include Dan“ ,ּכִׁ ינֶחֱרָּ צָּה נֶעֱ שָּ תָּ ה)

11:36 in his discussion because he is suggesting that the SC form is enough to refer to a realis, past time decision. His explanation is very problematic. If a speaker verbally commits himself at the ST (typically in the first person)58 to doing something in the future, it is a commissive act, and commission is a kind of deontic modality (Palmer, 2001: pp. 10, 70). Thus the commissive examples are irrealis and present time, not past time events. Similarly, the nonfirst person examples are also irrealis, but they are epistemic, and not deontic, since they offer the speaker’s assessment or projection of the situation to which he refers (see below §3.2.1). Moreover, it is not certain that all of his examples do in fact refer to a decision of any kind.

Rogland’s goal regarding the Prophetic Perfect was to discredit the function. In some ways he succeeded. Especially noteworthy is his demolition of the shifting STs of Lee and

58 A speaker can deferentially commit himself to doing something in the third person, as the speech of Araunah attests (2 Sam. 24:23).

Driver, without which the traditional explanation of the Prophetic Perfect (here defined as that offered by Driver) cannot stand.

At the same time, he did not offer a complete picture of what has been considered the

Prophetic Perfect in a significant portion of the literature. For one, he dismissed the notion of confidence and certainty because that would be better treated as modal (2003a: p. 55 n. 20), but certainty is fundamental to most descriptions of the Prophetic Perfect as is amply demonstrated by the survey above. Another major problem is that he excluded stative verbs, in spite of the fact

.Isa. 11:9) are regularly cited in the literature (cf. Tropper, 2006: p) מָלְאָ ה that examples such as

418).59 Clearly, the major goal of his study and even his inclusion of the chapter on the

Prophetic Perfect was to buttress his assumption that the SC is a past tense, because if his intention was to fully deal with the issue of the Prophetic Perfect, these could not have been left out.

In the end, Rogland’s study excluded 52 passages, explained 58 in one of the five ways suggested, and found 50 to be of uncertain temporal reference. While statistically this is not very impressive, and his work has left a lot to be done, it is important that Rogland’s contributions are not downplayed. His explanations involving quoted speech and visions/dreams should be incorporated into any description of the SC or the BHVS as a whole in prophetic literature.

§1.4.2 Survey of the Literature on Identifying Prophetic Perfects

When attempting to analyze any semantic or syntactic construction of a language, it is of the utmost importance to establish a clear definition of what the construction is. But Hebraic

59 A matter related to the exclusion of stative verbs is that while Rogland included Niphals and other passive derived stems, they were handled rather poorly from a semantic point of view (cf. Williamson, 2007: p. 134).

53 studies have not yet been able to do so for the Prophetic Perfect. Part of the problem revolves around the numerous approaches to the BHVS, as was illustrated by the previous survey.

Another part is that there is no consensus on how even to identify when a Prophetic Perfect occurs. As Cook has pointed out, the Historical Present in Koine Greek might make a somewhat parallel phenomenon as the Present is used in past time to carry the narrative, but it is fairly obvious when a Present form is used for present time and when it is used as a Historical Present

(2012b: p. 315). Contrariwise, alleged examples of the Prophetic Perfect are often not widely agreed upon, though there are a few examples that are ubiquitously cited in the literature (e.g.,

Num. 24:17; Isa. 5:13; Isa. 11:9).

Scholars have suggested a variety of ways to identify a Prophetic Perfect. Some have closely associated it with the prophetic genre (Bayly, 1773: p. 40; Strack, 1886: §47; Blake,

1951: §62; Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §112; Zuber, 1986: p. 173; Müller, 1983: p. 51 n. 109;

Joosten, 2012: p. 207) or with an elevated or poetic style (Davidson, 1902: §41b; Jenni, 1978: p.

265; cf. Ewald, 1879: §135c; Driver, 1998: §14; Joosten, 2012: pp. 206-207). Others have

;Caspari, 1848: p. 68 n. 1) הנה suggested that it often appears after certain particles, such as

:Gibson, 1994) לכן or כי Pearson, 1885: p. 5; Ewald, 1879: §135c; Hughes, 1970: p. 21) and

§59b.1). Ewald suggested word order was significant, claiming that Perfects with future time reference often appeared in clause-initial position, or immediately following a clause-initial particle (1879: §135c). The occurrence of the SC interspersed with LPCs and weqatals has also been mentioned as an indication that the SC forms are Prophetic Perfects (Davidson, 1902:

§41.1; Gibson, 1994: §59b), and, on a related note, Prophetic Perfects are often followed by weqatal (Driver, 1998: §113.1; cf. Hughes, 1970: p. 21). But far and away the most often cited means for identifying a Prophetic Perfect is context (e.g., Bayly, 1773: p. 41; Glaire, 1832: §431-

§432; Murphy, 1857: §81; Ewald, 1879: §135c; Harper, 1890: §16; Gibson, 1994: §59b.1;

Hendel, 1996: p. 167; cf. Watts, 1964: p. 39). Most scholars look for a combination of these factors when attempting to identify a Prophetic Perfect, but there is no specific scientific formula for doing so described in the literature.

The only article dedicated to the Prophetic Perfect was published in 1990 by George L.

Klein. The goal of his article was to establish parameters for identifying Prophetic Perfects. The term Prophetic Perfect appears in quotes in the title of his article as he considered it something of a misnomer because it is a syntactic phenomenon not restricted to prophetic literature (1990: p.

45). Klein offered three criteria for properly identifying a Prophetic Perfect: (1) “the text must be sound,” (2) the mood must be indicative (or realis), and (3) there must be an “unmistakably”

“future meaning” (1990: p. 48). He also suggested that the appearance of “[p]arallel Imperfects and converted Perfects will provide helpful evidence” and he was favorable to Driver’s suggestion that Prophetic Perfects are often “followed by a converted Perfect” (1990: pp. 48-49).

Rogland followed Klein’s criteria, though neither Rogland nor Klein was under the impression that it would be easy to establish these three criteria, and especially the third, for a given example

(Rogland, 2003a: p. 57). Klein even admitted that “it is difficult indeed to cite incontrovertible examples of the ‘Prophetic Perfect’” (1990: p. 48).

Klein’s first criterion is solid, but the other two are open to criticism. As was mentioned in the prior section (§1.4.1.8.2), the Prophetic Perfect has often been closely connected to notions of certainty, which is better understood as a modal use (see below Chapter 3). So if one is trying to explain the phenomena described in the literature on the Prophetic Perfect, indicative or realis cannot be a criterion. The third criterion is the most important and also the most difficult to establish “unmistakably.” This is particularly problematic because not only is it the most

55 important among Klein’s parameters, but it is also the most frequently called upon means for identifying Prophetic Perfects in the literature. It is imperative that context is not discarded from consideration. Instead, very careful appraisal of the context and time indications must be made.

Cook has made some very helpful suggestions for doing just that when examining the SC in prophetic literature. He claims that “three issues need to be taken into account: (1) the temporal (deictic) shifts occasioned by quotations and visionary passages; (2) the means available to the prophets for expressly signaling future time; (3) the conditional nature of prophetic threats as over and against the caricatured interpretations of their pronouncement as

‘prediction’” (2012b: p. 315). The first of these affirms the use of Rogland’s contributions described above (2003a: pp. 59-62, 64-65) and eliminates SCs that refer to situations future from the ST but past from the RT (ST > E > RT). The second is crucial, but even so the interpretation of the verbs involved and following such signals is open to debate. The final suggestion is very helpful as many interpreters and exegetes (particularly in the older literature) have had a difficult time explaining future situations described in the SC that were never actualized.60

In the following chapters, we will suggest that the SC can and does refer to future situations in different ways, each with a unique semantic set. Because these uses are different, they have separate contextual features that help to identify them. These will be discussed in the respective chapters below.

60 On the conditional nature of prophecy, see Girdlestone, 1901: pp. 25ff. and more recently Chisholm, 2010.

§1.5 Comparative Evidence for the Prophetic Perfect

Future time uses of the SC are attested in many Semitic languages. Most often these appear in counterfactual, conditional, and interrogative statements, and several languages have a future perfect use as well. In most cases these uses do not pertain to this study, but some scholars have claimed that there are future uses of the SC in several languages that are relevant.

The discussion in the literature is mostly founded on examples in Classical Arabic and BH.

Alleged examples from other Semitic languages are very rare. It has been suggested that the future use of the SC in BH has influenced the future use of the Aorist in New Testament Greek and together they (and later with Classical Arabic) influenced the future use of the SC in

Ethiopic (Gzella, 2004: pp. 240-242). This kind of wave or spread is certainly possible given the cultural and religious connections of the native speakers that made language contact inevitable, but it may not be necessary to posit such a theory. In the following, we will survey the comparative Semitic evidence and also the relevant verb forms used in prophecy in the ancient

Near East (ANE).

Classical Arabic attests several future time functions of the SC (Reuschel, 1996: pp. 211-

217; Tropper, 1998: pp. 183-184; Thackston, 2000: p. 285). Tropper claimed that most of the examples of the SC with future time reference occur after fa-, but not all do, and those that do not follow fa- have the same function as those that do (1998: pp. 183-184). In spite of the label applied to some of these by Tropper,61 the attested categories do not fit the traditional description of the Prophetic Perfect.

61 Tropper refers to a variety of uses including the future perfective as Prophetic Perfects; see above §1.4.1.7.3.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, two Ethiopic grammars claimed the presence of the

Prophetic Perfect in Ge’ez. Both works were significantly influenced by the Ewald-Driver theory. Chaine described this function, claiming that the Perfect “représente le futur dans les sentences prophétiques; le fait est tellement certain, qu’il est représenté comme déjà réalisé”

(1907: §203). Similarly, Dillmann-Bezold posited that with the Prophetic Perfect the author, “by dint of a lively imagination,” transferred “himself to the future” describing the event as if it were already “experienced and accomplished” (1907: §88). However, since the examples appear in clauses that indicate a deictic shift (either in time or location), it seems that the traditional description of the Prophetic Perfect is not the best explanation.62 Undoubtedly, these descriptions were influenced by the, then recent, descriptions of the Prophetic Perfect in Hebrew grammars.

There is no Prophetic Perfect in Ugaritic, in the traditional sense, but examples of the SC with future time reference do occur. Most are in the construction w- + qtl, though others do exist; however, their exact function can be very difficult to nail down. For example, Pardee found the SC in lyrt . bnpš . bnỉlm . mt “Surely you will descend into Divine Mot’s throat” (KTU

1.5 1:6-7)63 to be a “completely convincing” example of the future use of qtl outside of the construction w- + qtl (2003/2004: pp. 357-358). But Sivan considered this an example of the

“optative” Perfect, suggesting that the proclitic particle l- appears here for emphasis (2001: p.

98).64 So while the morphology makes it clear that yrt is a SC form, its function is debatable.

62 Examples identified by Chaine and Dillman-Bezold include Enoch 48:8; 99:1; Mt. 8:12.

63 Translation by Smith (1997: p. 157).

64 Huehnergard (2012: p. 53) has also suggested an injunctive function for qtl citing a different example.

Simply not enough is known about Ugaritic at this point to use examples such as this as evidence for the present study.

The issue is more complicated in Akkadian as the form that corresponds to the WS SC is not the form that typically indicates past action. The Stative (parVs/pars-), the Akkadian SC, is semantically equivalent to a verbless clause, and as such it can describe a situation in the past, present, or future (see below §2.1.2). The Preterite (iprus), the form that is typically used for past time in Akkadian, can refer to future situations in a variety of subordinate clauses, including relative, conditional, and temporal (Streck, 1995: pp. 141-142). None of these, however, equate to the traditional Prophetic Perfect.

The Amarna letters, written in a Canaanized dialect of Western Peripheral Akkadian

(WPA), have offered tremendous insights into the WS VS in the 14th century BCE. Moran found that nearly every example of the SC with future time reference in the letters from Byblos was in the “protasis of a conditional clause” or followed the conjunction u- (2003: pp. 28-33), a conclusion that was later affirmed by Rainey for the Amarna letters in general (1973: p. 242).

There was only one example that did not fit either of these categories: u lā kašid irīšu u ušširtīšu

“as soon as the request arrives, then I will send him” (EA 82:16-17). Albright and Moran suggested that “the negative is used pleonastically ... and is best translated by ‘as soon as,’

‘scarcely,’ or the like” offering 2 Kgs. 20:4 and Isa. 40:24 as examples of this phenomenon in

BH (Moran, 2003: p. 132). The evidence from Amarna affirms the WS use of the future time use of the SC in the construction u- + SC and in conditional statements, and provides no analogue to the Prophetic Perfect.

It is also worth noting the verbal forms used in the prophetic texts of the ANE. In his study of the prophetic texts of Nineveh, in the Neo-Assyrian (NA) period, Parpola stated that the

“predicates of the passages containing promises are regularly in the indicative present” (1997: p. lxvi).65 The Durative (iparras), also known as the Present, is also used in the prophetic texts of

Mari, dating to the Old Babylonian (OB) period. Since the Durative is aspectually imperfective, it semantically corresponds to the LPC (*yaqtulu) in Central Semitic (CS). Similarly, the OA prophecy in the Zakkur inscription uses the LPC to refer to future situations. Thus the Akkadian prophecies and the prophecy of Zakkur offer no analogue to the Prophetic Perfect.

An intriguing but badly broken text from Deir ‘Allā, written in a curious dialect of

Aramaic, describes a prophetic dream of Balaam, son of Beor. The text states that he related the dream to the people, and throughout his description of the dream, the events of the dream are referred to by the SC (e.g., Combination 1:5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, etc.). Although not nearly enough is known about the dialect of this text, it does seem to demonstrate that the phenomenon of referring to Evision is not unique to the HB. It should also be noted that the New Testament also uses a typically past time form (the Aorist) to refer to Evision, for example, in the books of Jude

(v. 14; Mayor, 1970: p. 271) and Revelation (especially chapters 19-21) (Fanning, 1990: p. 274 n. 163). But apart from the report of dreams/visions, Greek grammars have cited alleged examples of the Aorist with future time reference. Most of these occur in conditional statements

(Fanning, 1990: pp. 269-270; Young, 1994: p. 125), while others are likely better explained as relative pasts (e.g., Rev. 10:7; 14:8, which is in quoted speech; 15:1).

The evidence from Aramaic, beyond what was mentioned above, is restricted to the corpus of Biblical Aramaic (BA).66 Because of this, scholars have suggested that the alleged

65 In an endnote (1997: n. 293), Parpola noted one possible variation – a precative – but the word is broken.

66 The correspondence of the SC with future time reference in BH to the Aramaic SC in the Targumim should be considered a Hebraism or “mechanical rendering.” A clear example of this phenomenon is the use of the Infinitive with a prefixed preposition to indicate a temporal clause. This is not at all typical of Aramaic but it appears regularly in the Targumim in translation of the same construction in the Hebrew text.

60 examples of the Prophetic Perfect in BA are Hebraisms. There are three potential examples, two in Dan. 5:28 (Dammron, 1961: §20c) and one in Dan. 7:27 (Kautzsch, 1884: §72; Marti, 1896:

§100b; Strack, 1921: §13a).67 However, recent scholarship has found that neither Dan. 5:28

(Rogland, 2003b: p. 425; Li, 2009: p. 25) nor Dan. 7:27 (Gzella, 2004: pp. 238-240; Li, 2009: p.

32; Rosenthal, 2006: §179) contains a SC that is used in an analogous way to the traditionally described Prophetic Perfect.

The ancient Semitic languages often use a variety of subordinate clauses or syntactic constructions (such as the conjunction w- or fa- + SC) when using the SC to refer to future situations. However, ultimately, there is no analogue in the Semitic languages to the Prophetic

Perfect in BH, according to the traditional explanation.

§1.6 The State of the Issue

§1.6.1 Previous Advances

The current state of research on the Prophetic Perfect is scattered and divided. Part of the issue revolves around the fact that there is no consensus over the meaning of the term “Prophetic

Perfect.” Some scholars have used this term to refer to the traditional description as given by

Ewald-Driver (e.g., Furuli, 2006: p. 372), while others offer a more general description (e.g.,

Gzella, 2004: p. 237), and still others redefine the category but continue to use the same term

(e.g., Tropper, 1998: p. 183). Rogland, however, rightly concluded that a number of functions have been categorized under the category of the Prophetic Perfect. Another reason for disunity is

in Dan. 6:6 [ET 6:5] is widely cited as an example of the Prophetic Perfect הׁשכחנה ,In the older literature 67 (e.g., Kautzsch, 1884: §71.3; Dammron, 1961: §20a; Bauer & Leander, 1962: §77a, §79n), but recent scholarship has moved away from that position because the verb occurs in a conditional clause (Segert, 1986: p. 376; Rogland, 2003b: p. 425; Li, 2009: p. 35).

61 the numerous approaches to the BHVS, which we have surveyed above. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made.

Lee suggested that BH at times rhetorically used the SC to refer to the future, citing the

Persian use of the past for future situations as comparative evidence. DeCaen recently collected examples from numerous modern languages (European and non-European) that exhibit the same phenomenon (1995: pp. 9-13). He called this an example of “idiomatic tense mismatches,” and explained that idiomatic uses like this do not mean that a language is tenseless. If that were the case, he argued, then every language would be tenseless (1995: p. 9). BH certainly exhibits the rhetorical use of the SC in which a future situation is referred to by the SC.

הֵ ן גָּוַ עְּ נּו אָּבַ דְּ נּו ּכֻּלָּ נּו אָּבַ דְּ נּו [Num. 17:27 [ET 17:12

We just died! We are dead! All of us are dead! 68

It is apparent from the people’s existence in the camp and their ability to speak that they are not dead and they have not died. But in their precarious position, expecting God’s judgment to fall at any moment, they exclaimed with rhetorical emphasis that they had already died and were now dead. This idiom is not entirely different from that employed in English, for example, in the case of the teenager who says “I am dead!” when he has crashed his father’s car. However, it must be certain that there is a pragmatic use that overrides the semantics of the form before a SC is said to be used in this way. The approach of Joüon was a step backward in that it generalized this function of the SC onto occurrences of the SC with future meaning that actually have different functions.

Lee also introduced the notion of relative tense to the “problem” of future time SCs.

Driver later applied this to the examples of the SC with future time reference that were not,

68 Here rendered idiomatically. A more wooden translation is “right now, we have expired! We are dead! All of us – we are dead!”

62 according to Ewald, “ordinary,” by which he meant that they were not weqatals or in conditional statements (Ewald, 1879: p. 6). Although the Ewald-Driver description of the Prophetic Perfect is the traditional meaning of the term, it was another step backwards. Rogland, however, used modern relative tense theory to offer tremendous insights into the use of the SC in the complex genre of prophecy without recourse to the pinball time shifting of Driver’s approach.

Particularly noteworthy are the relative uses of the SC in quoted speech and past visions/dreams.

A more subtle advance is found in the diachronic approach of Bauer and numerous others that have followed him or taken diachronic factors into consideration. These theories are consciously aware of semantic retention. The retention of stativity in the WS SC is, in our opinion, critical for the accurate description of the SC in BH. However, some scholars have taken diachronic factors to an extreme. They have gone so far as to claim that the original stative semantics of the SC was retained in every SC in BH (e.g., Gibson, 1994: §55-§56).69

§1.6.2 Problems to be Resolved

Yet significant problems still remain that must be addressed in order to provide a complete analysis of the so-called Prophetic Perfect. The fact that there is no comparative evidence for the traditional Prophetic Perfect is cause enough to reconsider the category, but there are also problems regarding the semantics of the functions of the SC. The first major problem concerns the semantics of stative verbs in the SC and their use with future time reference. In spite of the fact that some of the most well-known alleged examples of the

Isa. 11:9), no study has analyzed stative verbs in the SC מלאה ,.Prophetic Perfect are statives (e.g

69 The future time use of the perfective SC is linguistically possible, but, as far as we are aware, all of the examples where this could be suggested can also be explained in other ways. This potential explanation will not be developed in this dissertation.

63 with future time reference. Rogland (2003a: p. 10) and Andrason (2013: p. 7 n. 2) simply exclude statives from their studies of the SC with nonpast time reference. Rogland’s decision to only include SCs that do not occur in conditional and interrogative statements or in hypotheticals is justified in that many of these are irrealis (Joosten, 2012: pp. 208-209; Cook, 2012a: pp. 249-

250). But the decision to exclude statives is hardly justifiable, and he offered no explanation.70

Tropper did not include statives in his description of verbal aspect in ancient Hebrew and

Semitic on the basis of the known diachronic development of the SC. He claimed that statives and perfective fientives should be distinguished because they are not semantically the same

(1998: p. 182).

This brings us back to the other part of this problem, which is the semantics of stative verbs in the SC. Many scholars have recognized a semantic difference between stative and nonstative verbs in the SC. The most obvious is that stative verbs often have present time reference, while nonstative verbs usually have past time reference. But there is more to this issue semantically. The fact is that the semantics of stativity and perfectivity are irreconcilable; no token can have both. That is not to say that a stative verb cannot appear in a perfective form with perfective meaning, as that certainly does occur, both in the world’s languages and in BH, but they are not states. If a situation is truly a state, it cannot be perfective, and vice versa. The dilemma has not gone unrecognized in the literature as Waltke and O’Connor explained that

“statives present a special set of problems in the perfective form. A stative inherently denotes a situation with an extended internal structure, while a perfective form conceptualizes a situation from without, as a single whole” (1990: p. 491). Nevertheless, Waltke and O’Connor claimed

70 He pointed to Gropp (1991: p. 52) who also excluded statives from his study. But Gropp did not explain the reason beyond saying that his description of the BHVS only applies to fientive verbs.

64 that states expressed in the SC are perfective, perhaps with an ingressive nuance (1990: p. 483), even though that would ultimately mean that it is not in fact a state.

The current understanding of the irrealis use of the SC and its relationship to the

Prophetic Perfect is another problem that must be addressed. Gianto proposed that the Prophetic

Perfect and the Perfect of Certainty, along with the Epistolary Perfect, are modal (epistemic) uses of the SC (1998: p. 194). However, he maintained notions of the traditional view claiming that the “imagined event is presented as having occurred in the past, although the real time-reference is in the future” (1998: p. 194). He also failed to give any parameters for identifying the modal uses of the SC.

§1.7 Thesis and Methodology

This dissertation will apply a rigorous linguistic methodology to the uses of the SC in BH that the literature has commonly claimed to be, or to be associated with, the Prophetic Perfect.

As a result, we will not consider instances of the SC in conditional, interrogative, or hypothetical statements. The alleged Prophetic Perfects in many passages can be explained by relative time, but there are numerous other passages that require other explanations. The goal of this dissertation is to fill in the usage gaps that have not yet been adequately explained. We believe these gaps can be filled by the proper semantic description of the form’s functions. Our goal is not to explain how all of the functions of the SC in future time are truly one category (i.e., the

Prophetic Perfect), but rather to explain the various functions that have been mistakenly categorized as Prophetic Perfects and/or Perfects of Certainty. In other words, the goal is not to buttress the theoretical possibility of the Prophetic Perfect and then argue for it with examples from the text, but rather to explain how the SC is used in the passages where scholars have

65 claimed the Prophetic Perfect to have appeared. In order to accomplish this, not only is the analysis of actual usage in BH required but also an understanding of the diachronic development of the form from PS that is informed by theories of grammaticalization and linguistic typology.

In Chapter 2, we will trace the diachronic development of the SC from PS to BH in order to explain the semantics of the SC in BH (§2.1). This will be done in the light of recent linguistic studies and comparative Semitics, most notably the semantics of the Stative in

Akkadian and its temporal flexibility. Recent advances in tense, aspect, and mood will be applied in our analysis of the semantics of the form and the uses it has retained over time and acquired through innovation. This will provide the foundation for our subsequent analysis.

The first function that we will argue has been traditionally lumped into the category of the Prophetic Perfect is the future time use of stative verbs in the SC. We will describe the semantics of the stative use of the SC, which only occurs with stative verbs, and demonstrate that it occurs in the HB with future time reference (§2.2). We will also argue that the Niphal stem is also used in the SC to express a state that can be temporally located in the future by the context

(§2.3).

In Chapter 3, we will diachronically explain the irrealis uses of the SC and describe the semantics of the relevant irrealis uses (§3.1). This includes the irrealis uses of the SC with and without the conjunction waw (i.e., irrealis qatal and weqatal). The irrealis use of the SC without waw is the other use that has been traditionally lumped under the category of the Prophetic

Perfect. We will establish parameters for identifying irrealis SCs on the basis of recent studies in word order and the expression of modality in BH (§3.1.2). Then we will demonstrate that the vast majority of SCs previously thought to be Prophetic Perfects or Perfects of Certainty are actually irrealis SCs (§3.2).

Conclusions and implications of this dissertation will be gathered in Chapter 4.

A few further remarks on the methodology employed in this study are in order. First, alleged examples that may be textually corrupt will be dealt with in the respective chapters below. Because translational strategies vary among the ancient traditions (and even within each tradition), each suspected instance will be treated individually, i.e., on a case by case basis, with the general parameter that textual evidence of corruption is considered primary evidence, while modern reconstructions, though important, are secondary.71 It should also be noted that throughout this study the ancient versions are referred to for the value of the ancient interpretations and their understanding of the verbs and verb phrases in question. Their interpretations and translations are not in any way considered definitive and neither do they determine the linguistic analysis of the Hebrew.72

To summarize, this study will apply a rigorous linguistic methodology to parts of BH grammar that have been treated cursorily and incorrectly in the past. This study will distinguish two categories of future time uses of the SC that have often been conflated and misunderstood.

The accurate identification, explanation, and description of these uses have eluded scholars to date. Using recent advances in grammaticalization, diachronic typology and the study of verbal semantics (Tense/Aspect/Mood) this study will explain and describe both of these future uses.

This study will greatly improve the linguistic and philological understanding of the future uses of the SC in the HB which in turn will impact our understanding of what the authors were trying to

71 It should be recognized that some supposedly corrupt passages simply await proper elucidation. The past century of studies in other ancient Semitic languages has already provided much needed clarification on many grammatical and syntactical issues in BH that puzzled scholars of previous generations. Moran has provided a concise summary of many examples of this very thing (2003: pp. 197-218).

in Jeremiah 2:26 is translated with a Future Passive Indicative הביׁשו E.g., in the LXX the verb 72 (αἰσχυνθήσονται), but it would be very difficult to affirm from the surrounding context that the time reference of .(is future (see Pullin, 1932: p. 40; Bright, 1965: p. 12; Allen, 2008: p. 44 הביׁשו

67 communicate and how they were doing it. Furthermore, this study, if heeded, will provide parameters for future translators of the HB that will enable them to make more accurate translations of the Hebrew text into their target languages.

Chapter 2: The Future Stative Uses of the Suffix Conjugation

§2.0 Introductory Remarks

In the prior chapter, we introduced the challenges presented by the so-called Prophetic

Perfect and outlined the fundamental components of verbal semantics before surveying the pertinent literature. Scholars have put forward numerous suggestions for what the Prophetic

Perfect is and how it relates to semantics and/or pragmatics. We concluded that what has been traditionally called the Prophetic Perfect is not one function of the SC, but is rather a collection of functions. While some of these have been explained via relative time reference, many of the alleged examples cannot be satisfactorily explained in this way. As we suggested in the previous chapter, the use of the SC to express a state and its modal functions have not been fully brought to bear on the description and explanation of the Prophetic Perfect.

In the first part of this chapter we will outline and explain the SC diachronically from PS to BH. We will begin with the SC in PS, which is best represented by Akkadian more than any other attested Semitic language, examining the morphology and semantics of the form. Then we will trace the morphological and semantic developments of the SC in WS. In this way, we will be able to distinguish the semantics that have been retained from earlier linguistic strata from those that were innovated in WS and, most pertinently, in BH (§2.1). We will then describe and explain the semantics of the SC in BH (§2.2), paying special attention to the semantics of stative verbs in the SC. We will argue that the future time use of stative verbs in the SC is one part of what has been traditionally categorized under the Prophetic Perfect (§2.2.2).

Then another stative use of the SC, involving the Niphal stem (N), will be examined

(§2.2.3). We will consider the functions and semantics of the N diachronically and synchronically, before describing and explaining the uses of the N to express resultative and

69 passive states. After this has been accomplished, we will argue that the future, stative use of the

N in the SC is another part of the so-called Prophetic Perfect (§2.2.3.4 and §2.2.3.5.3).

§2.1 The Suffix Conjugation in the Proto-Semitic Verbal System

The PSVS primarily consisted of two prefixed conjugations, one with a simple base (- prVs) and the other with a geminated middle radical (-parrVs) (Huehnergard, 1995: p. 2130;

2004: pp. 151-152; 2006: p. 1). The first is attested in East Semitic (ES) as the Preterite (iprus) and in various WS languages in which it usually occurs in restricted environments.73 For example, in Classical Arabic it is restricted to following the negative particles lam and lammā in conditional statements. It occurs in a few Old Aramaic and Moabite inscriptions following the conjunction w-, which resembles the most well-known WS retention of this form, the wayyiqtol in BH. It does, however, occur in the Zakkur and Tel Dan inscriptions without w- (cf. Kaufman,

1997: p. 126). The second verb form is attested in Akkadian, as the Durative (iparras), and also in Ethiopian Semitic and Modern South Arabian (e.g., Ge’ez yəqattəl).74 In addition to these verbal forms there was a predicative construction that originated from the predicative use of the

Verbal Adjective. This form was distinguished from the others in that it had suffixes rather than prefixes. Although reflexes of this form appear in East and West Semitic, the semantics of the

PS predicative construction are best represented by the SC in Akkadian (Tropper, 1995: pp. 492-

498, 504-505; Huehnergard, 2006: p. 6; Kouwenberg, 2010: p. 181), called the Stative.

73 An exception to this would be the use of a prefixed preterite in Ugaritic, but its existence is highly debated. Pardee (1999) and Greenstein (2006) lead the group that is skeptical toward the preterite, while Rainey (2003), Huehnergard (1988; 2012), and Smith (1991: pp. 65-67) seem convinced of its existence.

74 Suggestions that the Classical Ethiopic and Akkadian geminated forms are independent innovations have been made; e.g., Lipinski, 1997: pp. 368-384; Kouwenberg, 2010: pp. 95-126, 228-231. However, as Huehnergard has pointed out (via personal communication), this does not account for certain features they hold in common, such as the consistent reduplication of the third radical in quadriradical roots.

In the following, we will examine the morphology and semantics of the Stative in

Akkadian, all the while paying careful attention to potential innovations, in order to reconstruct the morphology and semantics of the form in PS as accurately as possible.

§2.1.1 The Morphology of the Suffix Conjugation in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic

It is the intention of §2.1 to describe accurately the semantics of the PS SC, and a discussion of the morphology of form might initially seem superfluous. However, Voigt has recently claimed that the morphology of the SC in BH bears evidence of two semantically distinct SCs in PS that have different sets of suffixes (2002/2003).75 We are not convinced by

Voigt’s argument. We take a fairly standard approach to the morphology of the SC in PS and in

Akkadian, and it is briefly described in the following paragraphs.

The suffixed construction probably dates to Proto-Afro-Asiatic as there is a

“morphologically related form in early Egyptian” that has “the same meaning” as the SC in

Akkadian (Huehnergard, 1995: p. 2131).76 The base of the construction was that of the Verbal

Adjective, which is reflected in the base of the Stative in Akkadian (pars-) and the WS SC

(qatVl-). The suffixes attached to the base indicate person, gender, and number (PGN). In all of

75 Voigt’s argument that there were two distinct SCs in PS is largely based on scant, ambiguous evidence from BH. We will briefly discuss the first argument he made as illustration of the ambiguous nature of the evidence. The first piece of potential evidence is the morphological difference between transitive and intransitive verbs of .(I am old” (2002/2003: pp. 143-145“ זָקַנְתִ י I gave” but does not in“ נָתַתִ י roots III-n; e.g., the final nun assimilates in He claimed that the suffixes on stative verbs had an /a/ connecting vowel, as the Stative in Akkadian does, so that a developed from *zaqin-atā. This, however, does not explain why the nun of other transitive verbs זָקַנְתָ verb such as Blau’s explanation of assimilation and nonassimilation of .(ּבָחַנְתִ י and טָמַנְתִ י ,.of roots III-n does not assimilate (e.g the nun in verbs of roots III-n is preferred. He explained that most verbs III-n maintained the final root letter (e.g., does the nun assimilate (2010: p. 77). He נתן In fact, only in the verb .(ׁשָכְ נּו ,ׁשָכְ נָה ׁשָ כַן .by analogy (cf (הֶאֱמַנְתִ י ,ׁשָ כַנְתִ י .was so frequent that it was not affected by analogy with the forms that preserved the n” (2010: p נתן“ claimed that 242).

76 Cf. Diakonoff, 1988: p. 94; Castellino, 1962: p. 86; Tropper, 1999: pp. 181-183. For discussion of the Old Egyptian Pseudo-participle, see Schenkel, 1971, and especially Jansen-Winkeln, 1993.

71 the Semitic languages the first and second person endings are ostensibly related to their corresponding independent personal pronouns, making the reconstruction of the PS endings fairly certain. These can be reconstructed for PS as follows (see Table 2).77 The SC in PS would then have the form *parVskū̆ for the first common singular.

The first and second independent pronouns were probably cliticized before becoming affixes, following a typologically established pattern of grammaticalization (lexical item > clitic

> affix) (Hopper & Traugott, 2003: pp. 140-143; see Carver, 2016: pp. 9-11). Since these endings are affixes in the languages of ES and WS, it is very likely that this process can be projected back to the proto-language. The shape of these affixes varies in the languages, which is to be expected. The morphological variation is the result of the linguistic processes of grammaticalization and analogy. The first and second person endings regularly appear with innovations in the WS languages such as leveling (e.g., –k– throughout the paradigm in Ge’ez, but –t– throughout the paradigms of Ugaritic, Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic) and analogy

(compare, for example, –tī 1cs and ˀănī in BH, while Arabic maintained the original vowel –tu and Aramaic saw the syncopation of the final vowel [–tu > –t], and later the addition of an anaptyctic vowel [–it]).

Table 2 PS Subject Suffixed and Independent Personal Pronouns Singular Plural 1c -kū̆ ˀanā, ˀanākū̆ 1c -nū̆ niħnū̆ 2m -tā̆ ˀantā̆ 2m -tum ˀantum 2f -tī̆ ˀantī̆ 2f -tin ˀantin

77 This figure is a slightly modified version of one found in Huehnergard, 2004: p. 150.

However, in Akkadian, it seems that the original consonants were maintained, but the first and second person endings were modified in the process of grammaticalization (see below).

However, the origin of the third person suffixes is a more complicated matter. It is best to consider the Akkadian evidence initially. In Akkadian, the third person suffixes are not pronominal as they are completely distinct from the third person independent pronouns (e.g., šū ms, šī fs, šunu mp, and šina fp).78 On the one hand, the third person singular endings are nominal (–ø ms and –at fs) (Tropper, 1999: pp. 183-191), while the third plural endings were probably originally verbal (–ū mp and –ā fp) (Hasselbach, 2007: pp. 131-135).79 The third person plural endings in Akkadian were most likely retained from PS as was the third feminine singular. However, the masculine singular form in Akkadian (parVs, i.e., –ø) requires a closer look.

The evidence in WS leads to the conclusion that proto-WS SC form was *qatVla. The ending –a is only sparsely attested in Amarna Canaanite though it does appear with more consistency in Ugaritic (Rainey, 1996a: pp. 287-288; Sivan, 2001: pp. 110; Huehnergard, 2012: p. 52). Yet the evidence of Ge’ez nabara and wadqa, Classical Arabic qatala, and the III-yod

Biblical) בנה Imperial Aramaic) > benā) בנה verbs in Aramaic, *banáya (Proto-Aramaic) > banā

clearly ,בנה dialect of Targum Onkelos), and in BH, baníya > banā > bānā) בנא Aramaic) and suggests that there was an original final –a on the proto-WS third masculine singular suffixed form.

78 Nevertheless, corresponding independent pronouns have been reconstructed for PS by some, e.g., Diem, 1997: pp. 61-71.

79 Hasselbach’s comprehensive study of the external plural markers in Semitic (2007) strongly suggests that the third plural endings on the SC were not originally nominal as some, such as Tropper (1999: p. 179) and Haelewyck (2006: p. 125), have recently claimed.

On the other hand, the evidence in ES and Amorite is less clear. Lipinski has claimed that the PS form was unmarked (–ø) as it is in Akkadian (1997: pp. 359-361) in contrast to the majority of scholars who have taken –a as the original ending of 3ms SC. Onomastic evidence from Eblaite, Old Akkadian (OAkk), and Amorite shows that three endings appeared on nominal predicates: –um, –a, and –ø (Gelb, 1965: p. 79; Tropper, 1999: pp. 180-181; cf. Kouwenberg,

2010: pp. 187-189). The ending –um is known to be the nominative case ending and nouns so marked can function as predicate nominatives. Gelb suggested that since the predicative morpheme –a was not likely to be an innovation that only affected personal names, it must be an archaic element that was retained only in personal names (cf. Hasselbach, 2004: pp. 134-135).

Gelb noted that by the time of Neo-Assyrian, this morpheme has died out, with a few possible exceptions (1965: p. 75). If he was correct, the phasing out of the predicative morpheme –a in personal names would correlate to the final phase of language change along what is called an S- curve (Bailey, 1973: p. 77). The time when this was a productive morpheme, then, is beyond historical Akkadian, probably dating back to PS.

The reason for the innovation (–a > –ø) in the 3ms of the Akkadian Stative is debated.

Kouwenberg has recently questioned the existence of a predicative morpheme –a based on

Akkadian, Eblaite, and Amorite onomastica, and whether the PS SC had a final –a. But he was not able to propose any explanation for the –a endings on predicates in the onomastica or the origin of the –a morpheme on the 3ms SC forms in WS (2010: pp. 181-189). Tropper suggested the –a ending on the 3ms Stative in Akkadian syncopated for accentual reasons (1999: p. 183).

However, Huehnergard posited that an early sound rule (the loss of final short ă and ŭ) affected the form in Akkadian (–a > –ø) (2006: pp. 6-7, 7 n. 31). Hasselbach has argued that the alleged exceptions to the loss of final ă and ŭ are archaisms (e.g., the predicative marker –a in personal

74 names and the presence of an original short ă in a standard OAkk curse formula) or they are to be explained as dialectal variations (e.g., those in the Diyala region) (2004: pp. 134-137). The position of Huehnergard and Hasselbach offers the best explanation of the data. Yet, regardless of the reason for the change, the evidence from WS and the glimmers of an archaic grammatical morpheme that seems to have marked a predicate in the onomastica suggest that the form in PS also had the –a ending and that the Akkadian 3ms ending (–ø) is an innovation.

With the proto-form *parVsa for the third singular as his starting point, Tropper has offered an interesting reconstruction for the grammaticalization of the first and second person endings in Akkadian. He suggested that the predicative ending –a was originally attached to the base (parVs-) and that the pronominal elements were appended to the predicative ending (1999: pp. 182-187). Thus with the 2nd person masculine singular, for example, he posited the following: šalim-a + (ˀan)ta > šalmāta. According to Tropper, the theme vowel was syncopated for reasons of accentuation. He suggested the same analysis for the SC in WS, with the modification that, under different practices of accentuation, the theme vowels remained and the predicative ending was syncopated (1999: pp. 184-186) (see Table 3). It seems likely that syncopation in the first and second person forms of the SC in ES and WS did in fact develop along these lines (i.e., with the predicative marker –a), but whether or not the reason for syncopation involved accentuation remains a matter of debate (cf. Kouwenberg, 2010: p. 183).

Table 3 Akkadian Stative Endings and Independent Personal Pronouns Singular Plural 1c -āku anāku 1c -ānu nīnu 2m -āta atta 2m -ātunu attunu 2f -āti atti 2f -ātina attina

§2.1.2 The Semantics of the Suffix Conjugation in Akkadian and Proto-Semitic

The semantics of the suffixed construction in PS were probably very similar to the semantics of the Akkadian Stative and the Old Egyptian Pseudo-participle (Diakonoff, 1988: p.

94; Huehnergard, 1995: p. 2131). The functions of these two forms are not identical as the respective language environments fostered different innovations; nevertheless there is significant semantic overlap. For example, the earliest dialects attest that in both forms transitive verbs are passive, intransitive verbs are resultative, and stative verbs are stative (Huehnergard, 1987: p.

225; Jansen-Winkeln, 1993: p. 18). Although the uses of the Pseudo-participle are semantically similar to the Stative, and together they provide good evidence for the semantics of the SC in

Afro-Asiatic (cf. Tropper, 1995: pp. 491-492), our focus must be on the Stative as it provides the best evidence for the PS SC. It is essential, however, to recognize the semantic similarities between the Stative and the Pseudo-participle because this affirms the priority of the semantics of the Stative over those of the WS SC in the reconstruction of PS.

The Akkadian Stative is a nonfinite verb. Although the SC was originally (perhaps in

Proto-Afro-Asiatic) a nominal, predicative construction, by the time of historical (written)

Akkadian it had become a verb, and it was most likely already a verb in PS based on the additional evidence of WS. That the Stative was a verb is known by the following: the Stative always predicates, has actor affixes,80 (apart from poetry) is always clause-final, can take verbal morphemes (e.g., the subordinate marker and the ventive), and it is typologically a “verby” adjective that is to be treated “on a par” with verbs (Carver, 2016: pp. 11-13). The typological

80 The endings of the Stative are derived from pronouns as well as nominal and verbal endings, which strongly suggests that the endings should not be considered the subject of a nominal clause with a zero copula, as some have posited (Buccellati, 1968: pp. 5-6; Huehnergard, 1986: pp. 228). Because of this and the typological pattern of grammaticalization of lexical item > clitic > affix (see Hopper & Traugott, 2003: pp. 140-143), the endings of the Stative should be considered actor affixes; see Reiner, 1966: p. 97; Metzler, 2002: p. 897; Kouwenberg, 2000: pp. 26-27.

76 evidence is based on the recent work of Stassen whose language sample included 410 languages

(modern and ancient) (1997). Stassen categorized the four kinds of intransitive predication: event, class, locative, and property (see Table 4).81 Stassen has demonstrated that there are proto-typical strategies for intransitive predication for three of the four categories. The first category (event) has a verbal strategy, which means that it is “non-supported, and includes person agreement” (1997: p. 121). The class and locative categories have nominal strategies, meaning that these strategies are supported, usually by a zero copula or a pronominal copula.

However, the fourth category of intransitive predication (property), which is where predicate adjectives fall, does not have a proto-typical predication strategy. Whether property predication will overtake a nominal or verbal strategy is dependent on what Stassen calls the “Tensed

Parameter.” He has shown that “[i]f a language is tensed, it will have nouny adjectives” and “[i]f a language is non-tensed, it will have verby adjectives” (1997: p. 357). Because the VSs in

Akkadian and PS were primarily aspectual (Tropper, 1998; Huehnergard, 2004: pp. 151-152;

Haelewyck, 2006: p. 124) we would typologically expect the predication of adjectives (as part of the property) to “be treated on a par with verbs” (Stassen, 1997: p. 573). Since the SC in

Akkadian and PS was marked for PGN and were unsupported, we can typologically affirm that it was a verb in both.

Table 4 Intransitive Predication Categories Category English Event John walks Class John is a carpenter Locative John is in the kitchen Property John is tall

81 These examples are given by Stassen, 1997: p. 12, and the table is adapted from Cook, 2008b: p. 6.

The categorization of the Stative as a nonfinite verb is based on the fact that the form is unmarked for T/A/M (Carver, 2016: pp. 13-18). The T/A/M description of the Stative is identical to that of a verbless clause. It does not metaphorically locate a situation in time and it can be used in any temporal sphere, though its default time is present (Goetze, 1942: p. 4;

Buccellati, 1968: p. 7; Huehnergard, 1987: pp. 230-232; Leong, 1994: pp. 243-245, 252-253;

Kouwenberg, 2000: p. 31; Metzler 2002: pp. 595-644). The Stative is unmarked for mood as it is never irrealis, unless it is marked by the irrealis particle lū which is also used to mark verbless clauses as irrealis.82 There are three categories of aspect (see above §1.2), but only viewpoint aspect is relevant to the matter at hand, as situation and phasal aspects involve the semantics of individual verbs and verb phrases. Viewpoint aspect, on the other hand, can be denoted by a verb form. However, the Stative is unmarked for viewpoint aspect; i.e., it is not a form that expresses a situation with perfective or imperfective aspect. Rather, the Stative, exactly like a verbless clause, expresses situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect

(Carver, 2016: p. 19). Kouwenberg correctly noted that the form “has imperfective aspect”

(2010: pp. 163-164), but this statement requires clarification. The Stative is undoubtedly semantically distinguishable from the Durative (iparras), a form that truly denotes imperfectivity, in that it can only express nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect, while the Durative can express a variety of imperfective situations such as circumstantial, habitual, simple present, and simple future situations (Huehnergard, 2011: pp. 98-99; Carver, 2016: pp.

17-18).83

82 For discussion of the functions of lū + Stative, see Cohen’s extensive study on the expression of modality in OB (2005).

83 Because the verbal Stems can change the semantics of a given verb, we do not here include the N or – tan– Stems.

The SC of Akkadian and, most likely, PS was a nonfinite verb that grammaticalized nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect. In other words, the SC was a verb form that had grammaticalized the semantics of a verbless clause. This explains the semantics and functions of the form in light of the form’s historical development from a nominal construction. It is true that developments and innovations, including lexicalized meanings and other meanings arising by analogy, occurred in Akkadian changing the use and semantics of the Stative, but those are not relevant to the present study.84 Nevertheless, it should be noted that these innovations only affected the Statives of transitive and intransitive verbs and that the Statives of adjectival verbs semantically remained the same. In other words, the use of adjectival (or “stative”) verbs in the

Stative maintained the original semantic value of the form.

§2.2 The Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation

The early WSVS retained the PS imperfective with the base –qattVl (e.g., Ethiopic yəqattəl), but WS is distinguished from ES by an innovation in the VS. The older prefixed perfective form (*yVqtVl) was replaced by the SC. It continued to be used in a few restricted environments, but the SC acquired new semantic values, became a finite verb, and took over most of the functions of the prefixed perfective form (see below §2.2.2.1). Then in CS the old imperfective form was replaced by an imperfective (*yVqtVlu), so that while the VSs in PS and

CS each had a primarily aspectual opposition (perfective : imperfective), neither of the two main forms in CS were those of PS. In the following, we will discuss the morphology and semantics of the BH SC in its broader WS and CS contexts.

84 For more on these, see Huehnergard, 1987; Kouwenberg, 2010: pp. 174-176; cf. Loesov, 2012: pp. 83ff.

§2.2.1 The Theme Vowels of the Suffix Conjugation

As was argued in §2.1.1 above, the morphology of the third masculine singular SC in PS was *qatVla. It is widely recognized today that the base of the SC in PS, and even Proto-Afro-

Asiatic, was derived from a Verbal Adjective and that semantically the reflex that best reflects the form in PS is the Akkadian Stative. But this conclusion stands on decades of research in comparative Semitics and a plethora of theories for the nature of the PSVS and how it developed into the VSs of the attested languages. The following paragraphs pertain to the theme vowels of verbs in the G stem only, since the theme vowels of other verbs are influenced by the derived stems.

Late in the 19th century, Knudtzon suggested that the PS SC expressed the fact

(“Faktum”) that a situation existed (1892: p. 48).85 He postulated that qatal had developed from a nomen agentis while qati/ul developed from an adjective, and both originally served to express a present state (1892: p. 48). Bauer agreed with Knudtzon on the origins of the forms, but he argued that the active form (qatal) was not only the origin of the Perfect in WS, but also the

**iparas form in Akkadian (i.e., the Durative iparras) (1910: pp. 12-15, 35). G. Driver also claimed that there were two distinct forms in PS. In contrast to Bauer, who had suggested that the prefix form was the first Semitic verb, G. Driver averred that qatil was the first (1936: pp.

74-75). He claimed that the active qatal had developed from the stative qatil as a result of the loss of case vowels in WS. Since the nouns no longer indicated whether the verb was active or passive, he reasoned, the verb form changed to do so (1936: p. 81). More recently, Andersen took a similar approach reconstructing to PS an adjective or a stative verbal noun (*qati/ula) and

85 Moran independently concluded the same, even using the word fact to describe what the SC expresses (2003: p. 35 n. 87).

80 an active verbal noun (*qatala) (2000: p. 45). Such a reconstruction offers a clear explanation for the well-attested association of stative verbs with *qati/ula and fientive verbs with *qatala in

WS, yet even this correlation is not entirely consistent. As Andersen has pointed out, there is a

“one-way” correlation of theme vowel and stativity: statives are likely –i themed, but –i themed forms are just “as likely to be fientive as stative” (2000: p. 29; cf. Blau, 2010: p. 220). However, there are several problems with this reconstruction (cf. Cook, 2012a: p. 104). The most significant is that there is no unambiguous evidence supporting the existence of two semantically and morphologically distinct suffixed forms in PS.

Huehnergard’s explanation for the theme vowels of the SC in PS offers a much better solution. He suggested that in PS the verbal roots determined the theme vowels in the G stem, just as they do in Akkadian, and that they did not denote anything semantic (e.g., the stative verb

ħadaθ- “new,” the transitive verb *naθ’ur- “guarded,” and the intransitive verb *waθib- “having sat, seated”) (2004: p. 152; cf. Haelewyck, 2006: p. 125). He claimed that “[i]n West Semitic the construction evolved in nonstative verbs into an active, perfective verb...” and that “the development entailed a change of vocalism between the second and third radicals, to *a:

*naθ’arta(:) ‘you (have) guarded,’ *waθabnu(:) ‘we (have) sat’” (2004: p. 152). According to

Huehnergard, then, as the transitive and intransitive verbs acquired new semantic values in WS, a morphological distinction (a for fientive verbs and i/u for stative verbs) was innovated (cf.

Tropper, 1995: pp. 504-506; 2000: p. 462.). In WS the original form *qatVla became two forms,

*qatala and *qati/ula. In this way, the theme vowel indicated the newly innovated semantic distinction. This morphological disambiguation is also reflected in the prefix forms of Northwest

Semitic (NWS) via the Barth-Ginsberg Law.

§2.2.2 The Semantics of the Suffix Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew

The SC in BH has several functions and, despite claims to the contrary, not all of them can be explained by a single semantic value such as the expression of completedness (as GKC

§106a) or perfectivity (as Cook, 2012a: pp. 199-201). For one, the irrealis uses of the SC (see

Chapter 3) pose a problem for the single semantic approach, and for another the expression of a state certainly cannot be categorized as completed or perfective.86 In the following section we will describe the semantic innovations of the SC along a typological path of developement called the Anterior Path (§2.2.2.1). We will explain what the Anterior Path is, how it relates to the SC in BH, and the implications it has for the semantic innovation of the form. This will help to semantically distinguish the stative use of the SC, which will be the focus of the following section (§2.2.2.2). This will enable us to offer a diachronic explanation for the different semantic values of stative verbs in the SC.87 We will then discuss some evidence for stative situations with future time reference, before demonstrating that stative verbs with stative (i.e., nondynamic) meaning do occur with future time reference in the Hebrew Bible.

§2.2.2.1 The Anterior Path

Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca have identified a typical semantic development that begins with a completive or a resultative and ends with a perfective or past tense form, something they call the Anterior Path (1994: Chapter 3). They found that resultatives and completives consistently develop new semantic values that qualify them as anteriors or perfects. They distinguish between Young Anteriors and Old Anteriors, noting that Young Anteriors only have

86 Even Cook admitted that the argument he gave for the irrealis uses being connected to perfectivity (i.e., boundedness; 2012a: pp. 254-255) does not apply to “stative verbs” since they “are unbounded” (2012a: p. 211).

87 Cf. the synchronic approach of Dobbs-Allsopp, 2000.

82 the anterior function, while Old Anteriors show “a more advanced semantic development” which may include a variety of other functions (1994: p. 105). Old Anteriors then develop into perfective or past tense forms. Although they found no examples to demonstrate the point,

Bybee et al. suggested that, based on the fact that past tense forms “occur with a wider range of verbs, and their meaning has a broader scope,” perfectives can develop into past tense forms

(1994: pp. 92-95, 105).

As already noted above, the pertinent starting place for Semitic is the resultative. A resultative indicates a current state that is the result of a prior event. The Stative in Akkadian, for example, usually has a resultative meaning with transitive and intransitive verbs, as in the following examples from the Middle Assyrian Laws.88

(a) MAL §26 šumma sinniltu ina bēt abīša-ma usbat

“If a woman dwells (is-in-a-state-of-dwelling) in her father’s house...”

(b) MAL §30 šumma abu ana bēt eme ša mārīšu bibla ittabal izzibil sinniltu ana mārīšu

lā tadnat

“If a father has brought and presented the marriage gift to the house of his son’s

father-in-law (and) the woman is not given to his son...”

In the first example, the woman is currently in-a-state-of-dwelling as the result of a prior intransitive event. In the second, because the woman has not been given to the man’s son, she is in the resultant state-of-not-given. In PS every intransitive and transitive verb in the SC was resultative (Loesov, 2012: p. 83). But, as Bybee et al. have observed, adjectival verbs cannot occur in resultatives (1994: pp. 65-66). Therefore, in PS the SC could express a state in two ways. The intransitive and transitive verbs expressed a resultant state, while adjectival verbs

88 Text from Roth (1997: pp. 153-194). Translations are the author’s.

83 expressed a state without reference to any prior event. It is critical to note that only the resultatives were affected by the Anterior Path, as they developed into Anteriors (cf. Andersen,

2000: p. 29).

The correlation of the development of the SC from PS to BH with the Anterior Path has been directly addressed by several scholars, and it is not in the interest of this dissertation to repeat their discussions.89 It will suffice to make only a few notes. First, the traditionally recognized functions of the SC, such as perfect, perfective, and past time, are affirmed by this typological correlation. Second, the evidence suggests that the innovated semantics have not yet reached a fully tensed meaning. Although in later Hebrew dialects the SC developed into a past tense, in BH the SC is in the perfect-perfective-past range (Cook, 2012a: p. 207, 269). Many of the forms that were analyzed by Bybee et al. were able to function on a number of the stages at any given point in the form’s history. However, the development is unidirectional, meaning that a form always begins with resultative meaning and ends with perfective or past, but never develops in the opposite direction (**past/perfective > perfect > resultative) (1994: pp. 12-14).

In the following section, we will discuss the uses of stative verbs in the SC in light of the semantic innovations of transitive and intransitive verbs along the Anterior Path.

§2.2.2.2 Stativity and the Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation

Shortly after Ewald put forward his aspectual theory, with the SC as denoting a completed situation, Weir drew attention to the fact that Ewald’s theory did not adequately explain the use of stative verbs in the SC. He, however, generalized the stative use, by making the typical present time of statives the norm for every SC of any verb (1849). Others, such as

89 See especially Cook, 2012a: pp. 201-210. This is also discussed in Andersen, 2000; Andrason, 2010; 2013.

Gibson, have recently made a similar mistake, generalizing the original stative semantics of the

PS SC onto every SC form (1994: §55-§56). Nevertheless, the critique Weir leveled against

Ewald remains valid since there is a strong tension when trying to semantically describe the SC in stative and nonstative verbs with one umbrella description.

We will first discuss the functions of stative verbs in the SC. When a stative verb occurs in the SC, it can express a static or a dynamic situation and only context can determine which it is (Rubenstein, 1979: pp. 60-64; Dobbs-Allsopp, 2000; Joosten, 2012: pp. 194-202). As noted above, Cook has argued that by the time of BH the SC was in the perfect-perfective-past range

(2012a: pp. 207, 269). Comrie postulated that stative verbs are less likely to be found in perfective forms, and speculatively suggested that when they are, its use is often for entering into the state (1976: p. 20). The inchoative use is one kind of dynamic function that has been suggested by several scholars (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 483; Joosten, 2012: p. 198; Cook,

2012a: p. 195). Other dynamic functions have also been suggested, such as change of state

(Dobbs-Allsopp, 2000: p. 44) and certain passed phases (Joosten, 2012: p. 198).

When a stative verb in the SC has a dynamic meaning, it semantically aligns with the semantics of the form with nonstative verbs. However, when a stative verb in the SC has a static meaning, the semantics of the function stand in direct contrast with those of a perfect or perfective form. Waltke and O’Connor have described the problem this way: “statives present a special set of problems in the perfective form. A stative inherently denotes a situation with an extended internal structure, while a perfective form conceptualizes a situation from without, as a single whole” (1990: p. 491). Their solution was to view all stative verbs in the SC as dynamic, with the focus “on the inceptual moment (ingressive perfective) or on both inception and continuation (constative perfective)” (1990: p. 483). Joosten also attempted to explain all stative

85 verbs in the SC as dynamic. He claimed that “a prominent feature of stative verbs is their basic ambiguity vis-à-vis the phases of the situation implied” (2012: p. 198). These phases include “an initial phase, one or more medial phases, and a final phase” (2012: p. 198). Joosten’s approach to the BHVS is tensed (and modal) based, and so the crucial element for him is a specific phase that is temporally past. However, he acknowledged that numerous examples remain that he could not explain as referring to a passed phase of any kind (2012: pp. 201-202). Van der

Merwe, Naudé, and Kroeze claimed that a “stative verb cannot express a ‘once-off,’ completed action. It always carries a certain element of duration,” and yet they offered no semantic solution to the occurrence of stative verbs in the SC (1999: p. 145).

Dobbs-Allsopp took a purely synchronic approach and concluded that stative verbs can have three senses: “their default stative readings,” “varied senses of dynamicity” which are

“pragmatically implicated for them,” and “change-of-state readings” specifically expressing

“ingressivity or (less frequently) egressivity” (2000: p. 44). However, by neglecting the diachronic development of the form, he failed to recognize the importance of the original semantics of the form and to explain how stative verbs came to mean what they do in BH. It should also be noted that his study focused on stative verbs in every form, and he did not distinguish between the uses of stative verbs in the SC and other forms.

We believe that the semantics of the static function of stative verbs in the SC were retained from earlier stages in Semitic. The SC in Akkadian and in PS expressed situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect, and it was semantically identical to a nominal or verbless clause. The form was unmarked for T/A/M. Since development along the Anterior

Path begins with a resultative (or completive) form, the semantic innovation of the SC did not affect the use of stative verbs (Bybee et al., 1994: pp. 65-66). Once the SC became an Anterior

86 with nonstative verbs, it generalized to include stative verbs (cf. Bybee et al.,1994: p. 74). This stage is where the functions of the forms became semantically ambiguous. On the one hand, stative verbs could occur in the SC with the original semantic value while, on the other hand, they could express dynamic situations in line with the innovated semantic value(s).

As Rubenstein has pointed out, there is “quite a large number of adjectival sentences that cannot be interpreted as being at all dynamic in nature” (1979: p. 61). Here are a few examples of stative verbs in the SC with stative meaning.

צֶדֶק המָּלְּאָּ יְּמִׁ ינֶָך a) Ps. 48:11)

“Your right (hand) is full of righteousness...”

יְּהוָּ ה אֱ ֹלהַי גָּדַ לְּתָּ מְּ א ד הֹוד וְּהָּדָּ ר לָּבָּ שְּ תָּ b) Ps. 104:1)

“O LORD my God, You are very great! You are clothed with splendor and

majesty!”90

קָּטנְּתִׁ י מִׁ ּכ ל הַ חֲסָּדִׁ ים ּומִׁ ּכָּל הָּ אֱמֶ ת אֲשֶ ר עָּשִׁ יתָּ אֶ ת עַבְּדֶ ָך c) Gen. 32:11)

“I am unworthy of all the loyal love and all the faithfulness that you have shown

your servant...”

ל א אָּרַע לְָּך עֹודתַחַת אֲשֶ ר יָּקְּרָּ הנַפְּשִׁ י בְּ עֵינֶ יָך הַּיֹום הַזֶ ה d) 1 Sam. 26:21)

“I will not harm you again, because my soul was precious in your eyes today...”

Moreover, it is clear that a given verb can have a stative or a dynamic meaning, depending on the context as the following examples demonstrate.91

וְּהִׁ נֵה רּכַאֲשֶ גָּדְּלָּה נַפְּשְּ ָךהַּיֹום הַזֶהבְּ עֵינָּי e) 1 Sam. 26:24)

90 The second of these could be taken as an event (“You have donned splendor and majesty”), but the parallel with the prior line suggests a stative reading.

91 The semantic contrast in these examples has already been pointed out; examples (e-f) in Carver, 2016: p. 20, and examples (g-h) in Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 483.

“And behold, just as your soul was valuable (big) in my eyes today...”

ַו ִּׁי ָּּו ַעץ ֶאת הַיְּלָּדִׁ ים אֲשֶ ר גָּדְּ לּו אִׁ תֹו (f) 2 Chr. 10:8 (=1 Kgs. 12:8)

“And [Rehoboam] consulted with the young men who had grown up (became big)

with him...”

וְּהָּאָּרֶ ץהָּיְּתָּה ת הּו וָּב הּו וְּח שֶ ְך עַל פְּ נֵיתְּ הֹום g) Gen. 1:2)

“And the land was formless and void, and darkness (was) upon the face of the deep.”

וַּי אמֶ ר יְּהוָּה אֱֹלהִׁ ים הֵן הָּאָּדָּם הָּיָּה ּכְּאַחַדמִׁ מֶ נּו h) Gen. 3:22)

“And the LORD God said, ‘Behold, Man has become like one of Us!’”

Because morphology is not a consistent indicator of static meaning for stative verbs in the SC

(Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §111h), they are semantically ambiguous (i.e., only context can determine whether they are stative or dynamic). In examples (a-d), the static situation is temporally coterminous with the ST and is unspecified for any temporal location (Joüon &

Muraoka, 1996: §112a; Rubenstein, 1979: p. 62). Cook claimed that stative verbs in the SC have a default present time reference, and offered statistical analysis to support his assertion: 606 occurrences were analyzed and 54% have present time reference while 46% have past time reference, but when the examples are restricted to direct speech (290 occurrences), present time reference increases to 78% (2012a: pp. 198-199). These data suggest that, while the dynamic and past meanings will eventually dominate and the static meaning will eventually become obsolete, in BH the static meaning with no inherent time reference92 (exactly as a verbless clause)93 is dominant.

92 It has recently been observed that stative verbs in the SC in Ugaritic do not have any “specific tense value” (Huehnergard, 2012: p. 53). See also, Tropper (2000: p. 717), who said of stative verbs in the SC, “[i]t is temporally and modally neutral (temporal status and modal orientation arise from the context)...” (German original: “Sie ist in temporaler und modaler Hinsicht neutral (Zeitstellenwert und modale Ausrichtung ergeben sich aus dem Kontext)...”).

93 Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §112a.

An explanation that includes semantic retention and innovation is required to adequately describe the semantics of the SC in BH. It is important to clarify what we here suggest by contrasting our view with those of others. Most scholars today agree that the original SC in PS denoted a state, and some have argued that the original semantics were retained in certain functions in BH. But this view has often been coupled with the stative SC developing new functions that are not static, such as the Prophetic Perfect (G. Driver, 1936: pp. 82-83; Blake,

1951: p. 3). It has also been argued that the stative SC is the historical origin of the weqatal construction (Driver, 1936: p. 116; Blake, 1951: §58; Andersen, 2000: pp. 52-55; Pardee,

2003/2004: p. 358).94 However, the major problem with this kind of reconstruction is that nonresultative stative constructions, in contrast with completives and resultatives, do not typically acquire new semantic values. We are not aware of any typological evidence for the semantic innovation of nonresultative stative constructions and would suggest that they remain semantically static until the construction becomes obsolete.95 This is certainly the case for ancient Hebrew as the stative use of the SC did occur in BH but had become obsolete by the time of Mishnaic Hebrew. Koller pointed out that even though Mishnaic Hebrew “cannot be seen as a direct descendant of BH ... [it] continues a process from BH already evident in [Qumran

Hebrew], in which verbs that were once stative become ‘normal’ dynamic verbs” (2012: pp. 280-

282). Other scholars have attempted to describe all the stative verbs in the SC as dynamic, i.e., as under the innovated semantic values of the form (e.g., Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 483;

Joosten, 2012: pp. 194-198), but these fail to accurately describe the examples that truly are

94 Fenton (1973: pp. 36-37) connected the use of qatal following the conjunction w- to the old stative use of the SC, but suggested that the use of the SC for future situations, including those in conditional clauses and the Perfects of Certainty (of which the Prophetic Perfect is a special type), arose as an extension of the future perfect use.

95 This assertion is specifically referring to the Semitic languages, but there may be a broader linguistic application. Also, we will discuss the origins of the weqatal construction below (§3.1).

89 stative in the Hebrew Bible. Only a view that incorporates the retained static semantic value of stative verbs in the SC with the innovated dynamic semantic values is able to adequately explain the functions of the SC with stative verbs.

It should be noted that Bybee et al. have found that “in some languages, perfectives do not apply at all to stative predicates” but “when perfectives do apply to stative predicates, the effect is usually to signal a present state, not a past one, despite the fact that perfectives are usually past” (1994: p. 92). Initially this may seem like evidence that contradicts our view.

However, the problem with applying the typological patterns identified by Bybee et al. to the situation in BH, and even in Semitic more generally, is that, from the language sample they selected, the only anteriors that occur with stative predicates have one of two predication strategies. They either are associated with a verb meaning finish or auxiliaries meaning be or have (Bybee et al., 1994: pp. 74-76). But the adjectival verb in BH does not employ either of these strategies. Thus they are typologically incomparable. Ultimately, this indicates the insufficiency of the language sample employed by Bybee et al.

Because of the retention of stative semantics with stative verbs in the SC, there is a degree of semantic overlap with statives verbs in the LPC. The LPC is also able to express situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect. However, it can also denote

there may be ,ידע√ other kinds of imperfective aspect, and often does so. In verbal roots such as no discernible difference between the SC and the LPC (see Cook, 2012c: pp. 90-92), but in adjectival verbs, there is an ambiguity that is clarified by context, resembling the situation of stative verbs in the SC. In the following, example (i) has a dynamic meaning, while example (j) has a future, stative meaning.

עַד יִׁגְּדַלשֵ לָּהבְּ נִׁי i) Gen. 38:11)

“Until Shelah, my son, grows up (becomes big).”

רַ ק הַּכִׁסֵ א אֶגְּ דַ ל מִׁ מֶ ךָּ j) Gen. 40:41)

“Only (regarding) the throne will I be greater than you.”

There is also the possibility of semantic overlap with a state expressed in the SC (that is contextually) in the past, using the retained semantic value, and a state in the past denoted by the past time value of the form, using an acquired semantic value. However, it would be nigh impossible to differentiate between the two. As the VS was beginning to shift toward primarily expressing tense, the strategy for property intransitive predication became increasingly nominal

(Cook, 2008b; 2012c), so that the verbal strategy was no longer productive as is the case in

Qumran Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, and Modern Hebrew (Koller, 2012: pp. 280-282;

Rubenstein, 1979: pp. 60-62).

Cook has recently claimed that stative verbs should be categorized, along with

Participles, as adjectives (2012a: p. 224). His argument is based on his claim that BH distinguishes between stative and dynamic verbs, though morphologically only in the SC (2012a: p. 195). In his explanation of his view, Cook juxtaposed examples of stative verbs in the SC and the Participle to show their semantic overlap (2012a: pp. 224, 227). Problematically, however, he did not note that of all the forms only statives in the SC have a meaning (usually a present time state) that stands in contrast to the “one general meaning” of the form, that is, the perfect- perfective-past which is rooted in perfectivity (2012a: p. 207).96 The only way to explain this phenomenon is diachronically. In spite of his knowledge that only resultative and completives are typologically known to develop along the Anterior Path (2012a: pp. 204-205), Cook did not recognize that statives in the SC can have the retained static semantics. According to our

96 Quote from 2012a: p. 190.

91 diachronic view, the similar use of statives in the SC and the Participle reflects the slow shift from the verbal strategy for property intransitive (the SC) to a nominal strategy (the Participle).

To summarize, when a stative verb appears in the SC and its meaning is dynamic, its dynamicity is to be explained by the innovations that the form has acquired. But when a stative verb appears in the SC and it expresses a state, the form denotes nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect. In this regard, the form is polysemous since the semantics of the form can be stative or dynamic. Additionally, contrary to the claims of some (e.g., Joüon & Muraoka,

1996: §41b.), a SC form with stative meaning is still a verb. It has already been argued by

Aartun that syntactically and morphologically they are “genuine verb forms” (1975: p. 11), and we would add to this that, just as the SC in Akkadian and PS, stative verbs in the SC should be categorized as verbs on typological grounds of intransitive predication strategies (see above).97

The stative use of the SC has no inherent temporal restrictions and theoretically could occur in any temporal sphere, just as the SC in Akkadian.

§2.2.2.3 Stativity and Future Time

The SC in PS and the stative use of stative verbs in the SC in BH are semantically equivalent to a verbless clause, i.e., they both express situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect. The most significant difference between a verbless clause and the SC is that the latter grammaticalized the semantics of a verbless clause in a verb form. Because verbless

97 However, this function of the SC does not meet the finite requirement of being marked for T/A/M, meaning that it is essentially a nonfinite verb (cf. Carver, 2016: pp. 13, 19-20). Some might balk at this thinking that this would suggest a split paradigm and that when analyzing the semantics or syntax of finite verbs one should then exclude the stative use of the SC from study. However, to ignore the fact that the SC is used to express states and that the semantics of this use are different from the other uses of the form amounts to linguistic imprecision and the inappropriate lumping of distinct uses. Additionally, we would not suggest that stative situations in the SC should be excluded from a study of the verb forms because it is truly (and typologically) a verb. The problem is with the term “finite.” We would suggest the term “fully inflected verbs” be used in its stead.

92 clauses are unmarked for T/A/M (Miller, 1999: p. 3; cf. DeCaen, 1999: p. 125), their temporal location is determined by context. They default to the contextually determined RT which is most often present or past,98 but there are examples in BH of verbless clauses with future time reference.

ּובָּרָּ א יְּהוָּה עַלּכָּל מְּ כֹון הַר צִׁ ּיֹון וְּעַל מִׁקְּרָּ אֶהָּ עָּנָּןיֹומָּם וְּעָּשָּןוְּנ גַּה אֵ ש לֶהָּבָּ ה לָּ יְּלָּה ּכִׁ י עַל ּכָּל ּכָּבֹוד a) Isa. 4:5)

חֻּפָּ ה

“And the Lord shall create over every area of Mount Zion and over all its assemblies

a cloud and smoke by day and the brightness of a flaming fire by night, for (there

will be) a canopy over all the glory.”

וְּעֹורֵרעָּלָּיו יְּהוָּהצְּ בָּאֹותשֹוט ּכְּמַּכַת מִׁדְּ יָּןבְּ צּורעֹורֵ בּומַטֵ הּו עַל הַּיָּם ּונְּשָּ אֹו בְּדֶרֶ ְךמִׁצְּרָּ יִׁם b) Isa. 10:26)

“And the Lord of Hosts shall rouse a whip against him as the slaughter of Midian at

the rock of Oreb. And His staff (will be) over the sea, and He will lift it up in the

manner of Egypt.”

וְּנִׁבְּ הָּ לּו צִׁירִׁ ים וַחֲבָּלִׁים י אחֵזּון ּכַּיֹולֵדָּ ה יְּחִׁ ילּון אִׁ יש אֶ ל רֵ עֵהּו יִׁתְּ מָּ הּו פְּ נֵ י לְּהָּבִׁ ים פְּ נֵיהֶ ם c) Isa. 13:8)

“And they will be terrified. Pangs and contractions will seize (them); as the woman

labors, they will writhe. Each person will look at his neighbor astonished; their faces

(will be) faces aflame.”

וְּהָּיּו שָּתתֶיהָּ מְּ דֻּּכָּאִׁ ים ּכָּל ע שֵי שֶ כֶר אַגְּמֵ י נָּפֶש d) Isa. 19:10)

“And its foundations will be crushed; all those who do hired labor will be deeply

grieved.”

וְּ יָּצָּאעֹוד קָּוה הַמִׁ דָּ הנֶגְּ דֹו עַל גִׁבְּ עַת גָּרֵב וְּ נָּסַ ב ג עָּתָּהוְּכָּל הָּעֵמֶק הַפְּ גָּרִׁ ים וְּהַדֶשֶןוְּכָּל e) Jer. 31:39-40)

הַשְּרֵ מֹות עַד נַחַל קִׁדְּ רֹון עַד פִׁנַת שַעַר הַסּוסִׁ ים מִׁ זְּרָּ חָּה ק שדֶ לַיהוָּה ל א יִׁנָּתֵש וְּ ל א יֵהָּרֵ סעֹוד לְּעֹולָּם

98 For numerous examples, see Joüon and Muraoka 1993: §154.

(When the city will be rebuilt) “... then the measuring line will go out again straight

out from it to the hill of Gareb, and it will turn to Goah. And the entire valley of

corpses, and the fatty ashes, and all of the fields as far as the Wadi of Kidron

unto the corner of the Gate of Horses to the east (will be) holy to the Lord. It will

never again be uprooted or destroyed.”99

Similar to the verbless clause, the temporal reference of the SC in Akkadian is also dependent on the context (Leong, 1994: pp. 243-244; Metzler, 2002: p. 892; Huehnergard, 2005: p. 219). The Stative is also similar to a verbless clause in that it most commonly refers to a situation coterminous with the RT, which is usually present and sometimes past. Although it is rare, there is sufficient attestation to demonstrate that the Stative can refer to future situations.

Leong has collected several examples from Old Babylonian letters, including the following

(1994: p. 244).

(f) AbB 9 117:10-11 ištu inanna 5 ūmī ina GN wašbāku

“I will (still) be in GN five days from now” (author’s translation).

The temporal flexibility of the Stative in Akkadian is probably another way that it reflects the SC in PS. There is no evidence to suggest that the PS SC had grammaticalized temporal location, which makes it probable that it, like the Stative, could refer to a state in any sphere of time. If the stative use of the SC was retained in WS (even while the resultative developed into an anterior), as we have argued above, then there is every reason to suspect that the stative use of the SC in BH might also refer to future situations. Based on the relatively rare future use of verbless clauses in BH and the Stative in Akkadian, we might expect the future stative use of the

SC in BH likewise to be rare. Part of the reason we might expect for this to be the case is the

99 We have elected to translate the reading of the qere for these verses. However, the readings of the kethiv and the textual variants do not impact the issue at hand.

94 limited corpus of the Hebrew Bible, and another part is that the great majority of the Hebrew

Bible describes past or present (i.e., coterminous with the ST) events and situations. The prophetic literature describes situations in future time more than other genres and it comes as no surprise that the majority of alleged examples of the Prophetic Perfect are found in prophetic literature. We believe that the future stative use of the SC in prophetic literature is one of the uses of the SC that has contributed to what has been traditionally categorized as the Prophetic

Perfect, and we intend to demonstrate in the following sections that it does in fact occur in BH.

§2.2.2.4 Future Statives in the Suffix Conjugation

That some of the alleged examples of the Prophetic Perfect might be future statives was suggested by Andersen, though he did nothing more than mention the possibility (2000: p. 55), and Rainey noted two examples of future statives in the SC that appear without the conjunction and not in a conditional, interrogative, or hypothetical clause (2003: p. 25). He claimed that “[i]n some prophetic passages one must take note of stative verbs used in parallel with imperfects to express something, namely a state of being that is to come to pass in the future” (2003: p. 25).

But Rainey did not elaborate on this or give any parameters for identifying the future time reference of the stative verbs beyond being “used in parallel with imperfects.” This is not to say that his approach was too simplistic, but the lone parameter of being used alongside the LPC is certainly not enough to establish future time reference since verbs in the LPC can refer to past, present, or future situations.

Before any potential examples of future statives are examined, we must first briefly offer a few guidelines for establishing future time reference. As noted above, Cook has suggested that it is essential to consider “the temporal (deictic) shifts occasioned by quotations and visionary

95 passages,” which can shift the RT forward into the future or backward into the past (cf. Rogland,

2003a: pp. 59-62, 64-65), and “the means available to the prophets for expressly signaling future time” (Cook, 2012b: p. 315). These means are often formulaic markers such as the use of the

followed by a Participle, and certain phrasing that refers to a future time, day, or הנה interjection

Nogalski, 2015: pp. 22-23). Another common) (ביום ההוא and ,בעת ההיא ,ימים באים days (such as

.יהיו and והיה way the prophets unambiguously indicated future time reference was with

Additionally, LPC forms and weqatals, which often refer to situations in future time, can also be an indication of time frame, but they must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Ultimately, context (as determined by content, formulaic markers, and verb forms) is the primary criteria for identifying a SC with future time reference.

Because the stative use of the SC has no inherent temporal location it is able to be located by context in the present, past, or future. What we must to do in order to establish the future use of the stative SC is determine that the context of a given example is future time and that the form is not found in a quote or vision that temporally locates it in the past in relation to the ST or RT.

We will begin with an examination of the examples noted by Rainey (Isa. 13:10 and 11:9) before considering other potential examples (presented in canonical order). Because of the nature of prophetic literature, it is not uncommon for a single verb to be taken in a couple of ways in the literature. Ultimately, for some of the potential examples below, it may be impossible to prove beyond any shadow of doubt that it does express a future time stative situation. But we believe that in the examples below the best argument can be made for the future, stative use of the SC.

As we consider the potential examples below, we will note alternative interpretations and present evidence that suggests one interpretation over the others.100

§2.2.2.4.1 Examples Suggested by Rainey

Isaiah 13 is the .מׂשא בבל This first example we will discuss occurs in Isaiah 13:10 in a first in a series of oracles against the nations, and it is paired with a lengthy taunt against

,חׁשך Babylon to be raised by Jacob in the future (14:4-21). The operative word in this verse is the translation of which is in bold. The verse reads as follows:

ּכִׁ י כֹוכְּבֵ י הַשָּמַיִׁם ּוכְּסִׁ ילֵיהֶ ם ל א יָּהֵ לּו אֹורָּ ם חָּשַ ְך הַשֶמֶ ש בְּ צֵאתֹו וְּ יָּרֵ חַ ל א יַגִׁ יהַ אֹורֹו a) Isa. 13:10)

“For the stars of the heavens and their constellations101 will not shine their light; the

sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shine its light.”

of 13:2-22 into five separate prophecies in order that the first מׂשא בבל Clements broke up the might be dated to the 8th century with Isaiah, son of Amoz: 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-16, 17-22 (1980 : pp.

132-138). It is not necessary to consider them distinct prophecies, but Clements’ five

“prophecies” do follow the basic sections of the passage that one might identify based on content, formulaic markers, verbal forms, and temporal reference. The first section (vv. 2-3) has plural imperatives followed by SCs that describe the commands that the Lord has already issued.

Verses 4-5 describe the assembling of God’s forces as they gather and approach from a distant land. This section has several Participles that refer to activity coterminous with the RT; i.e., the preparatory activities are occurring in the present. The following section, verses 6-8, begins with

100 Some scholars and modern translations suggest some examples of stative roots in the SC with future time reference that in our estimation have another, better explanation (e.g., Isa. 47:14; 50:11; cf. Rogland 2003a: p. 57 n. 32). These will not be included in this study.

101 Some prefer Orions (e.g., Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 194), but we agree with Blenkinsopp that this is probably a more general use of the term (2000: p. 279).

before shifting to (כי קרוב יום יהוה) present time reference with an imperative and a verbless clause the future, which is indicated by six LPCs and one weqatal. Each of the last two sections begins

v. 17 ;הנה followed by a Participle, referring to the imminent future (v. 9 הנה with the particle

In each of these sections, the material following refers to future situations mostly with .(הנני

Imperfects and some weqatals.

The pertinent section is 13:9-16 and the time reference of this section is clearly future, as is the end of the prior section (vv. 6-8) and the section following (vv. 17-22). The opening

as a Prophetic בא is best taken as a Participle. Wildberger took בא and ,הנה יום יהוה בא phrase is

Perfect saying that the “events that will take place in the future are presented as events that have

and the הנה already taken place” (1997: p. 24), but given its syntactic environment, following comparison of the opening phrase of v. 17, it is much more likely that it is a Participle referring to the soon coming of the Day of the Lord (cf. Watts, 2005a: p. 248). The Day of the Lord is here described as a time when God’s wrath and judgment will be poured out on the wicked. This day will go as far as to “make the earth into desolation” and even make the celestials unable to shine their light. Young suggested that this represents a return to a chaoitic state, i.e., the undoing of God’s orderly work in the cosmos (1972: p. 423). Young claimed that the LPC in

10a “describes the failure of the stars to shine,” while the SC in 10bα “refers to the future, and views the matter objectively from an ideal standpoint. The sun is dark when it rises” (1972: p.

423 n. 30). He then stated that the LPC in 10bβ “subjectively indicates” the prophet’s “actual position and employs the [LPC] with reference to his own time of speaking” (1972: p. 423 n. 30).

Young’s explanation relies on Driver’s theory of viewpoint shifting in order to explain the

,.as a present state (i.e חׁשך changes in verb forms. This results in the problematic translation of coterminous with the “ideal standpoint”) in the future, “the sun is dark when it rises” (cf.

Alexander, 1878a: p. 275; Gray, 1912: p. 230; Wilderberger, 1997: p. 4; Kaiser, 1974: p. 7;

Watts, 2005a: p. 244) rather than a state with future time reference, “the sun will be dark when it rises.”

as a future perfect (“will have darkened”) or as expressing חׁשך There is no reason to take any kind of dynamic situation. The parallel images wherein the stars and the moon will not shine their light (10aβ and 10bβ) suggest that when the sun rises, it will be dark, rather than becoming dark or entering into a stage of darkness. The best understanding of this verb is that it expresses a future state. Some commentators (e.g., Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 274; Oswalt, 1986: p. 304;

Brueggemann, 1998a: p. 118; Childs, 2001: p. 118) and translations (e.g., ESV, NRSV, NASB,

NKJV, NIV, HCSB) have correctly translated the verb as a future state. Even the ancient translations used the means available to them to indicate that the verb expressed a future state.

the sun will be dark when it rises, and the Peshitta reads יקבל שמשא במיפקיה The Targum reads nearly the same with an Imperfect ܟܫܚܢ, while the LXX reads a Future Passive Indicative

in Isaiah 13:10 is a clear example of the future חׁשך ,σκοτισθήσεται will be dark. Ultimately stative use of the SC.

The next example to be discussed is one of the most widely referenced in the literature on the Prophetic Perfect (e.g., Driver, 1998: §14β; GKC §106n; Watts, 1964: p. 44; Klein, 1990: p.

54; Fanning, 1990: p. 272; Cook, 2012a: pp. 216-217). Isaiah 11:1-9 is a prophetic passage referring to a future time in which an ideal messianic king, even a second David,102 led by the

Spirit of the Lord will rule. There are two parts to this passage: verses 1-5 describe the king’s

102 Rather than “downplaying the house of David,” as some have suggested (e.g., Oswalt, 1986: pp. 278- 279), the term “Jesse” in place of “David” suggests that the one to come is a second David (cf. Jer. 30:9; Hos. 3:5; Mic. 5:2) (Chisholm, 2002: p. 44).

99 divine endowment and his righteous and just ruling, while verses 6-9 describe the condition of the world.

ל א יָּרֵ עּו וְּ ל א יַשְּחִׁ יתּו בְּ כָּל הַ ר קָּדְּשִׁ י ּכִׁ י מָּלְּאָּ ה הָּאָּ רֶ ץ דֵעָּה אֶ ת יְּהוָּ ה ּכַמַ יִׁם לַּיָּ ם מְּ כַסִׁ ים b) Isa. 11:9)

“They will not harm, and they will not destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth

will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.”

,is a “future perfective (‘prophetic perfect’)” of a stative verb מלאה Hendel claimed that something that only occurs in poetry (1996: p. 168 n. 62). Similarly, Klein considered this a

“nice example of the ‘Prophetic Perfect’” (1990: p. 54; cf. Driver, 1998: §14β). Some commentators have taken it as future state (e.g., Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 262; Brueggemann,

1998a: pp. 99, 103; Childs, 2001: p. 98, 104; Smith, 2007: pp. 273-274), while other have viewed it as a future perfect (“will have become full”) (e.g., Gray, 1912: p. 222; Wildberger,

1997: p. 462; Watts, 2005a: p. 206), and Motyer suggested it might be a future perfect or a

Perfect of Certainty (1993: p. 125). Both options posited by Motyer might be influenced by

as מלאה and translates כי Driver, who mentions an element of certainty in Prophetic Perfects after

“is filled” and “has been filled” (emphasis original) (1998: §14β). One thing that everyone agrees on is the future time reference clearly indicated by the context.103 In the following, we will argue that the evidence suggests that a future stative reading is not only possible, but more

is a future perfect. We will מלאה likely, and that it is less likely (though not impossible) that consider three pieces of evidence: (1) the relationship of Isa. 11:9 to Hab. 2:14, (2) the meaning and relationship of the metaphor in Isa. 11:9bβ to 11:9bα, and (3) the argument of the prophetic vision in Isa. 11:1-9.

.in Isa. 11:8 in Chapter 3 הדה We will discuss 103

100

Many scholars have noted the similarities of 11:9a with 65:25b and also with Hab. 2:14.

Some have suggested that Isa. 11 is dependent on the other sources (e.g., Kaiser, 1983: p. 253;

Childs, 2001: p. 100, 104), while others have claimed the reverse is true (e.g., Gray, 1912: p.

224; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 265; Roberts, 1991: p. 123). Van Ruiten, however, has recently suggested that it is “safer to say that both texts are dependent on another (unknown) text or tradition” (1997: p. 410). The possibility of dependence one way or another does not concern the matter at hand, but the similarity of Isa. 11:9b and Hab. 2:14 is pertinent. Wildberger suggested

תמלאה that the text of Isaiah should be emended from a SC to a LPC in light of the mixed form found in 1QIsaa (1991: p. 462-463), but that is unnecessary.

The similarities of these passages are manifold. Van Ruiten has noted that both “texts have nine words and roots in common” (1997: p. 409). We will consider 11:9bβ and its relationship to Hab. 2:14b below, but for now we will examine and compare 11:9bα with Hab.

2:14a.

ּכִׁ י מָּלְּאָּה ץהָּאָּרֶ דֵעָּה אֶ ת יְּהוָּה c) Isa. 11:9bα)

“For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord”

ּכִׁי תִׁ מָּ לֵא ץהָּאָּרֶ לָּדַעַת אֶ ת ּכְּ בֹוד יְּהוָּה d) Hab. 2:14a)

“For the earth will be filled of the knowledge of the glory of the Lord”

While there are several interesting differences between these clauses, our discussion will focus on the verbal forms. In light of van Ruiten’s suggestion that these are both dependent on another text or tradition we might assume that the verbal expressions are semantically the same or nearly so. The question, then, that we must answer is what semantic overlap there might be between these verb forms. Benton has demonstrated that the N Stem often indicates a passive, stative situation, in contrast with the Dt Stem which often indicates a more “activity-oriented” passive

101

(2009: pp. 177-179). Benton’s conclusions will be discussed in greater detail in the following section, but at this point it suffices to note that the point of semantic overlap is twofold: (1) future time, which is made clear contextually in both passages, and (2) a stative situation. The N

semantically overlap in the ability to express future time מלא LPC and the Qal (G) SC of the verb stative situations. By contrast, the N LPC cannot express a future perfect situation. However,

even in these near מלאה and תמלא Benton’s study also shows that there is a difference between identical contexts. The N in the LPC expresses a “process culminating in a state” as opposed to

refers to the process of becoming full and תמלא ,a simple state (see below §2.2.3.2). Therefore

expresses a future state (“will be מלאה the culminating state of fullness (“will be filled”), while full”).

The second matter to consider is the metaphor, expressed slightly differently in Isa.

11:9bβ and Hab. 2:14b. In both cases, the metaphor that helps to explain the concept (i.e., the target domain) just mentioned in 11:9bα and Hab. 2:14a.

ּכַמַיִׁם לַּיָּםמְּ כַסִׁ ים e) Isa. 11:9bβ)

“As the waters cover the sea”

ּכַמַ יִׁם יְּכַסּו עַל יָּ ם f) Hab. 2:14b)

“As the waters cover the sea”

The syntax of Isa. 11:9bβ is more difficult than that of Hab. 2:14b, and scholars have made various suggestions for its interpretation. Dahood posited that 11:9b is an example of

plays the Janus role (1962: p. 671), a view that found support דעה את יהוה enjambment, in which in Haak (1992: p. 68). But this is highly unlikely and the syntax does not require or suggest enjambment. Driver considered the use of the Participle to be substantive (1998: §135.7), but it

Not only does .(מים ,.is probably a predicative complement to the object of the preposition (i.e

102 this best match the syntax of the phrase, but it also better corresponds to the LPC in Hab. 2:14b.

The LPC is generic, and the Participle refers to the constant covering of the sea by the waters.

Both of these refer to a situation coterminous with the ST in order to offer an explanation of the situation to come (future RT) described in the prior clauses.

These phrases depict the source domain used to elaborate on or emphasize a particular aspect or notion of the target domain. The point of comparison between the target and source domains is completeness to capacity. Just as the waters completely cover the sea (not just the basin of the sea, but the area or domain of the sea), so the land in a future time will be filled with the knowledge of God “to the extent of its capacity” (Alexander, 1878a: p. 255). Because the point of comparison is completeness to capacity and not the process of becoming complete to capacity, it is more likely that the future situation regarding the “knowledge (of the glory) of the

Lord” is a state indicating that completeness, and not an anterior that refers to the process leading to the point of fullness.

Finally, the argument of the passage suggests the situation in reference is a state. There

connecting 11:9a and כי are two things that must be considered: (1) the nature of the particle

11:9b, and (2) the relationship of verses 1-5 to 6-9, with regard to the argument of the unit. It is

could be taken as a temporal marker, warranting the English translation when,104 כי possible that but a causal connection is more likely in light of the context of verses 1-9.105 Oswalt commented on the relationship of verse 9 to verses 6-8, explaining that in the time described “[t]here will be

and the (והוה In 1 Chr. 17:11 there is such a construction. The context is clearly future (indicated by 104 .when your days are (ful)filled ּכִׁ י מָּלְּאּו יָּמֶ יָך :begins a temporal clause כי particle

105 If there is any insight in the ancient translations, a causal connection is suggested; cf. LXX ὅτι and .ארי Targum

103 safety and removal of anxiety because of a relationally based understanding of God and his ways” (emphasis original) (1986: p. 284; cf. Alexander, 1878a: p. 255).

The broader context of 11:1-9 and the relationship between the two sections further

Van Ruiten took the condition of the world being full .מלאה affirms the future stative reading of of the knowledge of God as the basis for the “righteous rule (Isa. 11:3-5) and the harmony in the animal world (Isa. 11:6-9).” He argued that the prophetic view of the future time here described hinges on the world being full of the knowledge of God (or the knowledge of the glory of God;

Hab. 2:14), and it is precisely that condition that marks this future age (1997: p. 410). Similarly,

Seitz has argued that 11:6-9 is best taken as symbolic of the age described in 11:1-5, in which case the “[t]he chief burden of the section [vv. 6-9] is that hostility directed at Israel will cease”

(emphasis original) (1993: p. 107; cf. Goldingay, 2001: p. 85). Seitz went on to conclude that in

“this state where international forces are no longer directed against Israel (11:6-9), the king can take up his charge to rule Israel and the nations with justice and righteousness (11:1-5)” (1993: p.

107). As these scholars have argued, the complete fulfillment of the prophetic vision for the future Davidic king (11:1-5) and the peaceful relationship of international powers indicative of that king’s rule (11:6-8) is contingent upon the condition or state of the world being full of the knowledge of God (11:9).

The relationship of Isa. 11:9 to Hab. 2:14, the meaning and relationship of the metaphor in Isa. 11:9bβ to 11:9bα, and the argument of the prophetic vision in Isa. 11:1-9, each

as expressing a future stative, and while none of מלאה individually make a case for understanding

.expresses a future state, together they strongly suggest that it does מלאה these alone proves that

§2.2.2.4.2 Other Examples

104

The next example of a future time stative in the SC occurs in Jer. 20:11. Chapter 20 of the book of Jeremiah, according to the version in the MT, begins with a narrative describing the imprisonment of the prophet at the hands of Pashhur (20:1-6). The following verses are poetry, most likely consisting of at least two juxtaposed laments, vv. 7-13 and vv. 14-18.106 Many scholars have further divided vv. 7-13 into two or more smaller sections (Craigie, Kelley, &

Drinkard, 1991: pp. 270-271), though some have suggested a unity for the section. Jones, for example, argued for the unity of vv. 7-13 based on the “free prophetic use of the lament form”

(1992: p. 271). But most scholars have viewed at least v. 13 to have been added by a later editor

(Carroll, 1986: pp. 397-398; Clements, 1988: p. 120; Brueggemann, 1998b: p. 184). In light of this, it would seem that v. 13, in the literary context of the final form of the book, has a Perfect

.that refers to a past event of deliverance, and thus it requires no further attention (הציל)

However, the qatal forms in 20:11 warrant a closer look.

וַ יהוָּ ה אֹותִׁ י ּכְּגִׁ בֹור עָּרִׁ יץ עַל ּכֵן ר דְּ פַ י יִּׁכָּשְּ לּו וְּ ל א יֻּכָּ לּו ב שּו מְּ אד ּכִׁ י ל א הִׁשְּ ּכִׁ ילּו ּכְּלִׁמַ ת עֹולָּ ם ל א a) Jer. 20:11)

תִׁשָּ כֵחַ

“But the Lord is with me like a fierce warrior! Therefore, my pursuers will stumble,

and they will not prevail! They will be very ashamed, because they will not have

succeeded! (Their) eternal disgrace will not be forgotten!”

Although translation values do not determine semantics, it is worth noting that many scholars

(e.g., Bright, 1965: p. 129; Carroll, 1986: p. 396; Craigie et al., 1991: p. 269) and translations

as a future stative. In this context בׁשו e.g., NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, HCSB) have translated) the time reference is clearly future as indicated by the use of the LPCs and the fact that the

106 Whether or not the narrative in 20:1-6 is the actual background for 20:7-18 is debated. For example, Clements accepts it as such (1988: p. 120), while McKane rejected it (1986: p. 467). However, this issue does not impact the matter at hand.

105 situations described are unrealized at the ST. The future time reference of this verb does not seem to be contested by anyone (cf. McFall, 1986: pp. 208, 215). Semantically the verb is

is a future בׁשו stative (to be ashamed), and there is nothing in the context that would suggest

expresses a בׁשו affirms that ,כי perfect. The syntax of 11bα, with a subordinate clause marked by state that will be in existence precisely because the prophet’s enemies “will not have succeeded.”

is modified by a subordinate clause with a future perfect that offers an בׁשו מאד ,In other words

came to be.107 Far too often in the literature, the T/A/M of בׁשו מאד explanation for how the state

are not (כי לא הׂשכילו and בׁשו מאד) are completely unspecified and the clauses הׂשכילו and בׁשו syntactically distinguished. Contrariwise, our approach accounts for the semantics of both uses

is a future הׂשכילו is a future stative, while בׁשו of the SC and the syntactic distinction. The verb perfect appearing in a marked subordinate clause.

The next example occurs in a judgment oracle against Egypt. Ezekiel 30 consists of two

ויהי/היה ) ”larger sections (vv. 1-19 and 20-26) each having an introductory “word-event formula

in the initial verse. The first section is further divided into four sections by the (דבר יהוה אלי

in vv. 1, 6, 10, and 13.108 The time ,כה אמר )אדני( יהוה messenger formula,” i.e., the phrase“ reference of the fourth section (vv. 13-19) is clearly established by the context of future judgment on Egypt and the verb forms (weqatals and LPCs).

ּובִׁתְּ חַפְּנְּחֵסחָּשַ ְך הַּיֹוםבְּשִׁבְּרִׁ י שָּם אֶ ת מטֹות מִׁצְּרַ יִׁם וְּנִׁשְּ בַת בָּּה גְּאֹוןעֻּזָּּה הִׁ יא עָּנָּןיְּכַסֶ נָּה b) Ezek. 30:18)

ּובְּנֹותֶיהָּ בַשְּבִׁי תֵ לַכְּ נָּה

107 This interpretation agrees with the comments of Hendel that the future perfect use of the SC is “indicated contextually, usually by subordination or by temporal adverbs” (1996: pp. 160-161).

108 For the terms “word-event formula” and “messenger formula,” see Nogalski, 2015: pp. 18-21.

106

“And in Tehaphnehes, the day will be dark. When I break there the yokes of Egypt,

then the pride of its strength will cease in it. It (the city) – a cloud will cover it, and

its daughter (villages) will go in captivity.”

to keep back, withhold), while the other) חׂשך√ The Cairo, Aleppo, and Leningrad codices read

to be dark). The ancient and modern versions uniformly take) חׁשך√ Masoretic manuscripts read

as an ,אֹורֹו would probably require an object, such as חׂשך√ The use of .חׁשך√ this verb as from additional constituent unless it is ellipsed (Greenberg, 1997: p. 627; Block, 1997: p. 164 n.

is to be accepted, and the best explanation of this verb is that חָׁשַ ך Ultimately, the reading 109.(75 it expresses a future, stative situation.

Another example in which a stative verb in the SC has future time reference is found in

Zephaniah 2:15. This is the final verse of the second chapter of the book and the final verse in the sub-section of judgment on Assyria and, more specifically, Nineveh (2:13-15). Although the unity of these verses has been questioned, it has recently been affirmed by literary and structural analysis (Ryou, 1995: p. 304; Motyer, 1998: p. 936; cf. Sweeney, 2003: p. 154). The temporal reference of 2:13-15 is undoubtedly future from the ST as indicated by the context and the LPCs and weqatals (Ryou, 1995: p. 304; Sweeney, 2003: p. 154; Smith, 1984: p. 136; Barker &

Bailey, 1999: p. 468). There are two SCs in vv. 13-15, and each requires comment. The first is a

for He will have laid bare ּכִׁ י אַרְּ זָּ ה עֵרָּ ה) future perfect occurring in a marked subordinate clause the cedar [woodwork]), and the second is a future stative.

זאתהָּעִׁיר הָּעַלִׁיזָּה הַּיֹושֶבֶתלָּבֶטַח הָּא המְּרָּ בִׁ לְּבָּבָּּהאֲנִׁי וְּאַפְּסִׁ יעֹוד אֵ יְך הָּיְּתָּה הלְּשַמָּ מַרְּ בֵץ c) Zeph. 2:15)

לַ חַּיָּהּכ ל עֹובֵ ר עָּלֶיהָּיִׁשְּ ר קיָּנִׁיעַ יָּדֹו

109 Greenberg speculated that the final syllable of the place name may have influenced the Masoretic reading (1997: p. 627).

107

“This is the jubilant city,110 the one dwelling in safety who says in her heart, ‘I (am),

and (there is none) apart from me.’ How she will be(come) a desolation, a lair for

animals. Everyone who passes by her will hiss and wave his hand.”

Idiomatic English prefers the translation become, but the situation described by the Hebrew is

express a type of locative intransitive הָיָה לְ nevertheless a state. Grammatically, sentences with predication (cf. Lambdin, 1971: p. 56). The explanations of the verb form in the commentaries often follow Driver’s description of the Prophetic Perfect. Ryou claimed that this verse refers to

“death and destruction to come, portrayed as having already occurred. In this way the prophet intensifies his threat of disaster: one can be so sure it will take place that its results can already be mourned” (1995: p. 304). Barker and Bailey agreed stating that “Zephaniah spoke about

Assyria’s future as if it had come to pass already (using the perfect ‘tense’)” (1999: p. 468), and

Sweeney added that “its temporal perspective aids in establishing the certainty that Nineveh will fall” (2003: p. 154).

There are several possible interpretations, but three deserve mention. It may be that the

SC was used rhetorically. Another possibility is that it is an irrealis use of the SC (see below

§3.1-§3.2). The third possible interpretation is to take it as a future stative. What is clear is that the contextual time reference is future and the semantics of the verb (even in a construction with

are stative. Thus we would prefer the third interpretation, though we recognize that the other (לְ two are possible.

We have argued that the SC retained the semantics of the proto-form with stative verbs in

BH which permits the temporal flexibility that has perplexed generations of Hebraists. The

110 As Berlin has noted, it is also possible to take this as an unmarked interrogative (is this the jubilant city...?) (1994: p. 117), and several translations have done so (e.g., NRSV, NAB).

108 examples above suggest that this is not just a theoretical possibility, but also that this is truly the case in BH.

§2.2.3 The Niphal, Stativity, and Passivity

We argued in §2.2.2 that stative verbs in the SC can express stative situations in any temporal sphere, and that this accounts for one of the future time uses of the SC in BH that have been traditionally categorized as the Prophetic Perfect. In this section we will argue that another, related future time use of the SC occurs in the Niphal (N). In the literature N verbs in the SC with future time reference are categorized as Prophetic Perfects without being distinguished from the alleged examples in other stems (e.g., Driver, 1998: §14α-β). We will begin with a discussion of the functions of the N in BH and the semantic origins of the Semitic N stem111

(§2.2.3.1). We will then describe the semantics of the N in the SC in contradistinction to the N in the LPC (§2.2.3.2), before considering the resultative use of the N in the SC (§2.2.3.3) and the examples of the resultative use that have future time reference (§2.2.3.4). We will then examine the passive use of the N (§2.2.3.5). We will begin by describing the passive voice (§2.2.3.5.1) and the semantics of passive situations expressed by the N in the SC (§2.2.3.5.2), before considering the future time use of passive N verbs in the SC (§2.2.3.5.3).

§2.2.3.1 The Functions of the Niphal

The meaning of the N has been variously described over the past two centuries. Most scholars have recognized that the N expresses reflexive and passive situations (Lambert, 1900:

111 In the following, N specifically denotes the Niphal of BH, whereas N stem is used more broadly referring to the stem prefixed with n(V)- that appears in many Semitic languages, including but not limited to Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Arabic. N stem will also be used in reference to the related stem that is reconstructed for PS.

109

§103), in addition to reciprocal (Blau, 1976: p. 51; Van der Merwe et al., 1999: p. 78; Jenni,

1978: p. 131) and middle situations (GKC §51.2; Lambdin, 1971: pp. 176-177; Seow, 1995: pp.

288-289). Waltke and O’Connor categorized the reciprocal and reflexive together under the title

“double-status” (1990: pp. 378-381; cf. Van der Merwe et al., 1999: p. 78).112 Scholars have also demonstrated that the N can be used as a denominative and to express resultative situations

(Lambdin, 1971: pp. 176-177; Klein, 1992: pp. 287-288; Seow, 1995: pp. 288-289; Benton,

2009: p. 68; cf. Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 380). Of these six values, the passive is used the most often, accounting for over half of the N forms in the Hebrew Bible (Klein, 1992: p. 286; cf.

Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 382-383).113

Scholars have attempted to explain the semantic flexibility of the N diachronically and synchronically.114 In the diachronic approaches, new meanings were innovated by semantic extension from the single, original semantic value of the stem. Traditionally, the N has been thought to have originated as a reflexive and to have retained this value as its primary meaning, an assumption greatly influenced by the function of the N stem in Arabic (e.g., GKC §51.2;

Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §51c).115 According to GKC, the passive use developed from the reflexive as a result of “looseness of thought” (§51.2). However, Boyd has strongly argued that the primary meaning of the N is not reflexive (1993: pp. 122-238).116 Recent diachronic

112 Waltke and O’Connor also included benefactive, tolerative, and causative-reflexive uses under double- status.

113 Klein found that 2194 of the “some 4100” examples of N forms are passive, comprising 53.5%.

114 For a recent survey of the pertinent literature, see Benton, 2009: pp. 45-67.

115 Not all of the older works considered the N to be primarily reflexive. Green, for example, described it as the passive of the G (1889: §76).

116 It should also be noted that in a recent study Baden suggested that the morphological similarity and overlap of the N and Dt stems led to the semantic spread of reflexivity from the Dt to the N. The overlap is evident ,which is always N in the SC, but always Dt in the LPC (Baden טמא in roots that have a split paradigm, such as

110 approaches have not started with the reflexive. Waltke and O’Connor, for example, argued that the original meaning was the middle and that the other meanings developed secondarily from it, since the middle is the most general value (1990: p. 379, 381).

Other scholars have taken synchronic approaches. A prominent synchronic approach is to categorize all the diverse meanings of the N under one abstract value (e.g., Lambdin, 1971: p.

177; Jenni, 1978: p. 131; Bicknell, 1984: p. 5; Benton, 2009: pp. 68-70). Such approaches argue that the N has a single semantic value in BH that usually does not translate exactly into the modern European languages. Another synchronic approach holds that there is no single semantic category, diachronically or synchronically, that explains the various values. In other words, the meanings are distinct and there is no clear link between them (e.g., Van der Merwe et al., 1999: p. 78). Klein’s lexical approach seems to straddle these synchronic approaches. He affirms the semantic values noted by other scholars and argued that each verb appears in the N with the same value nearly nine out of ten times without offering a reason for this phenomenon (1992: pp.

287-288).

It is important to recognize that the N is a reflex of a verbal stem that was retained from

PS in most of the ancient Semitic languages, Aramaic being a notable exception. Many scholars have found the N stem to have a passive, mediopassive, and/or reflexive meaning in Akkadian

(cf. Ungnad & Matouš, 1992: §66c; Von Soden, 1995: §90e; Kouwenberg, 2010: p. 294) and

Semitic in general (cf. Moscati, 1964: pp. 126-127). This might be taken as support of the mediopassive category as the historic root of the Semitic N stem. But Testen has convincingly argued that the original Semitic N stem had a different semantic value.

2010: pp. 38-39). In Baden’s view, the N thus became a productive reflexive stem in addition to its original semantic value (passive).

111

According to Testen’s reconstruction, the N stem was originally derived from the G

Stative, and not the more general G stem, which he supported with the pattern of theme vowels in verbs in the N stem that correlate to the G Stative of the same root in Akkadian (e.g., G Stative

3ms paris, N Preterite 3cs ipparis) (1998: pp. 132-135). The original function of the N stem in

“pre-Akkadian,” which he considers very similar to the situation in PS, was “the formation of ingressive verbs from adjectives” (1998: p. 138). Thus, originally N stem verbs described “the entry of the subject into the state denoted by a given adjective” (1998: p. 137). Testen claimed that with adjectival verbs the N stem originally denoted entry into a state, something reflected in historical Akkadian (Ungnad & Matouš, 1992: §66c), while transitive verbs denoted “the entry of the entity to which the adjective refers ... into this state” (Testen, 1998: p. 137). With this, he was able to explain instances of N stem verbs in Akkadian that are bivalent (e.g., nanšûm) as they denote entrance into a state and mirror the bivalence of the G Stative of the same root

(našûm).

Testen claimed that in WS, the counterpart of the N stem, from which its meaning was derived, was lost, resulting in the N stem taking “on a new, more direct relation to the G-stem”

(1998: pp. 139-140). In light of our argument in §2.2.2, we would modify this reconstruction slightly, noting that the original semantics of the N stem were retained with stative verbs, which did not develop along the Anterior Path. Thus, on the one hand, stative verbs in the N indicate a change of or entrance into a state (cf. Green, 1889: §77; Klein, 1992: pp. 315-316; Creason,

1995: pp. 369-371), such as

ּכִׁי ימֵאִׁתִׁ נִׁהְּ יָּההַדָּבָּר הַזֶה a) 2 Chr. 11:4)

“For from me this thing has come to be.”

112

On the other hand, nonstative verbs underwent the change proposed by Testen. When *qatala began to develop new meanings along the Anterior Path, the mediopassive meaning became primary for the N stem with nonstative verbs as the N stem was now semantically derived from the active G stem (cf. Lambdin, 1971: pp. 176-177). Although not every N in BH is directly derived from the G, the tendency for this to be the case (cf. Creason, 1995: pp. 368-369; Benton,

2009: pp. 69-70) is strong enough to suggest that the meaning of the N stem was derived from the G stem at an earlier stage in WS. The new derivational role of the N stem, most likely beginning with a mediopassive value, provided a means for semantic extension to the other attested values. In other words, the resultative, passive, reflexive, and other uses of the N developed from the mediopassive value.

§2.2.3.2 The Semantics of the Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation

In light of the semantic origins of the N stem, it is not surprising that the N would be used to express a state. Benton has rightly concluded from Testen’s study that “the sense of a Patient reflecting the state of the verb in the Niphal derives from an originally adjectival function”

(2009: p. 33). Scholars have demonstrated that the N is used to denote states (Lambdin, 1971: pp. 176-177; Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 382-383; Klein, 1992: pp. 287-288; Creason, 1995: p. 360; Seow, 1995: pp. 288-289).117 Most scholars list resultative or stative as one of several uses of the N, but some have concluded that the expression of a state is primary to the semantic signification of the N (Bicknell, 1984: pp. 129-132; Benton, 2009: pp. 186-187, 266-269;

Zwyghuizen, 2012: p. 167 n. 1). The matter most pertinent to this dissertation is that the N is

117 For examples, see below §2.2.3.5.2.

113 used to express stative situations, i.e., to express situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect.

It might be suspected that the expression of a state would be found in the LPC and not in the SC, but most of the literature makes no note of the semantic intersection of an N denoting a state and the verbal form in which it occurs. However, Benton, in his recent dissertation on the

N and Dt stems, addressed this very issue and concluded that both of these stems can be used to express states and that there is an aspectual distinction between the stems.118 He found that the N is state oriented and the Dt is more activity oriented (2009: pp. 177-178). He also observed that the semantics of the N and the Dt are affected by the verb forms in which they appear. Put in broader terms, the semantics of the verb forms and the semantics of the stems impact each other.

Benton found that when the N occurs in the SC, the verb denotes a state, while an N occurring in the LPC “points to the future realization of a culminating state, even if the activity has not reached that point with respect to the narrative reference point” (2009: p. 271). His conclusions are depicted below (Table 5).

Table 5 Benton’s Semantic Intersection of Stems and Forms (2009: pp. 266-271) SC LPC Niphal state process culminating in a state Hithpael completed (sic) activity activity

The following passages illustrate some of these semantic intersections.

אֵׁש לְפָנָ יו תֹּאכֵ ל ּוסְבִ יבָ יו נִׂשְ עֲרָ ה מְ אֹּ ד a) Ps. 50:3)

“Fire consumes before him, and around him it is very tempestuous.”

נִׁשְ ּפְַךלָאָרֶ ץכְבֵדִ י עַלׁשֶבֶר ּבַת עַמִ י b) Lam. 2:11)

118 One of Benton’s primary goals was to establish a semantic distinction between the N and the Dt.

114

“My liver is poured out on the ground over the brokenness of the daughter of my

people.”

וְּאִׁיש ּכִׁ י טיִׁמָּרֵ ר אשֹו קֵרֵ חַ הּוא טָּ הֹור הּוא c) Lev. 13:40)

“Now (concerning) a man, if his head becomes smooth, (and) he is bald, he is clean.”

In each of the first two (a-b), the N verb in the SC refers to a state. In (a) the area around God is in-a-state-of-tempestuousness, while in (b) the poet’s liver is figuratively in-a-state-of-having- been-poured-out. In the third example (c) the N verb refers to a process culminating in a state in the LPC, as becoming smooth includes the process of losing one’s hair in addition to the culminating state-of-having-become-smooth.119

It should also be noted that some scholars have suggested that the N in any verb form expresses a state. Bicknell proposed “that passive clauses in Hebrew,” including use of the N,

Gp, Dp, and Cp, “signify the result of an action or a resultative state” (1984: p. 5). Zwyghuizen offered a similar description of the N suggesting that “[n]early all Niphals are used with a focus on the resultant state, which may mean that even the reflexive forms should be treated as statives” (2012: p. 167 n. 1). But Benton has shown that some Ns express more than just a state

(2009: p. 270), such as the following example in the LPC:

וַּיַעַׂש יְהוָה כֵןוַּיָבֹּא עָרֹּב כָבֵד ּבֵיתָ הפַרְ עֹּה ּובֵית עֲבָדָ יו ּובְ כָל ץאֶרֶ מִצְרַ יִם תִשָחֵת ץהָאָרֶ מִּפְ נֵ י d) Exod. 8:20)

הֶעָרֹּב

“And the Lord did so, and a thick swarm came to the house of Pharaoh, and the house

of his servants, and in all the land of Egypt the land was being (OR: becoming)

ruined because of the swarm.”

119 These examples are given by Benton (2009: pp. 333, 185, and 222, respectively).

115

As the imperfective meaning of the form intersects with the “stative-oriented” nuance of the N, the verb expresses an ongoing process of destruction that resulted in a state of ruin for the land.120

We follow Benton’s conclusion that not every N expresses a state only and that in the

LPC the N tends to refer to a process culminating in a state, while Ns in the SC tend to express stative situations. We recognize that some Ns in the LPC indicate a state (see Exod. 23:15 and

Isa. 33:10) and some Ns in the SC refer to an activity (see Ps. 119:23), but we affirm the overall tendency observed by Benton. This understanding of the semantics of the N are justified on a synchronic level as shown by Benton, and buttressed diachronically by Testen’s conclusions regarding the semantic origins of the N stem. We will now turn our attention to the stative uses of the N in the SC.

§2.2.3.3 Resultative Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation

Scholars have recognized that the N in BH is sometimes resultative (Lambdin, 1971: pp.

176-177; Klein, 1992: pp. 287-288; Creason, 1995: p. 360; Seow, 1995: pp. 288-289; Benton,

2009: p. 68), meaning that the N is used to indicate a state. “A resultative denotes a state that was brought about by some action in the past” (Bybee et al., 1994: p. 63). Resultative states are semantically similar to other states and are always coterminous with the RT (see above §2.2.2.1).

Lambdin described the resultative use of the N as “[e]ssentially a stative verb.” He explained that “the resultative Niphal describes the state of its subject which has been produced by the verbal action named by the root” (1971: p. 177). Similarly, Klein stated that resultative uses of the N stress “the abiding results” and that the “common denominator among all resultative verbs

120 Benton translated the verb in a modal way (“would be destroyed”) to underscore “how we must keep viewpoint and situation aspects separate in our minds” (2009: p. 271).

116

... is their accentuation upon the results of the verbal action” (1992: pp. 300-301). The resultative use of the N expresses a resultative state, i.e., a situation resulting from prior action, with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect.

The following examples demonstrate the resultative use of the N in the SC.

נִׁשְּבְרָ הקִרְ יַתתֹּהּו a) Isa. 24:10)

“The city of chaos was broken.”

ַו ִּׁי ָּש א אַבְּרָּ הָּ ם אֶ ת עֵינָּ יו וַּיַרְּ א וְּהִׁ נֵה אַ יִׁל אַחַ ר נֶאֱחַ ז בַסְּ בַ ְך בְּ קַרְּ נָּ יו b) Gen. 22:13)

“And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold a ram behind (him) was

caught in the thicket by his horns.”

וְאִ ם ּבְ עֵינָיועָמַד הַנֶתֶק וְׂשֵעָרׁשָחֹּר צָמַ ח ּבֹו נִרְ ּפָאהַנֶתֶ קטָהֹור הּוא וְטִ הֲרֹו הַכֹּהֵן c) Lev. 13:37)

“But if the sore has remained and black hair has grown in it, the sore is healed. He is

clean, and the priest shall cleanse him.”

In each of these examples, the situation expressed by the N in the SC is a state that is coterminous with the RT. In the first, the verb denotes that the city was in-the-resultant-state-of-

in Genesis 22:13 refers to condition of the ram, that he נאחז having-been-broken, and the verb was in-the-resultant-state-of-having-been-caught. The third example also indicates a state that is clearly resultative in nature (cf. Klein, 1992: p. 252). It was translated above with present time, but it might be past time. However, the temporal location of the situation does not impact the fact that this verb expresses a resultative state. So whether the contextual reference time of the verb in question in Lev. 13:37 is present or past, the situation is a resultative state.121

121 If it did have past time reference, we would translate it was healed, though, given the ambiguity of the English phrase, it would be important to note that this is a resultative state and not a process.

117

There are also instances in which the N in the SC is used to indicate a state with verbs

122.נקה and אמן that are not attested in the G, such as

עֵדֹּתֶ יָך נֶאֶמְ נּו מְ אֹּ ד d) Ps. 93:5)

“Your statutes are very firm”

וַתֹּאמְרִ י יכִ נִקֵיתִ יאְַך ׁשָב אַ ּפֹו מִ מֶנִי e) Jer. 2:35)

“And you said, ‘Because I am innocent, surely His anger has turned away from

me.’”

Klein has claimed that both verbs in the N are resultative (1992: pp. 67-68, 193) but it is difficult to say for sure if they denote the result of a prior action. Creason posited that some verbs that occur in the N, but not the G, may have had a corresponding G while others may not have had one. He suggested that in cases of the latter “the Qal and the Niphal would have overlapped in meaning and so the Niphal has assumed the place in the system usually occupied by the Qal”

(1995: p. 386). It seems that this is one of the factors that led Creason to call this use of the N

“stative” rather than “resultative.” Yet, regardless of whether the situations in examples (d) and

(e) are resultative or not, it is clear that both verbs in question indicate a state that is coterminous with the RT, which in these examples is present time. In the first, the psalmist made a declaration about the statues of the Lord, while in the second the tribe of Judah claims its innocence in quoted speech. Both of these verbs denote states that (at least allegedly) exist in present time. We have already described the semantics of states in terms of nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect, and a state denoted by a SC form in the N is semantically no different.

נקה does occur as a Gp Participle (Lam. 4:5) and the lone example of אמן It should be noted that the root 122 in the G is an Infinitive Absolute in a paronomastic construction with a N Imperfect (Jer. 49:12).

118

§2.2.3.4 Future Time Uses of the Resultative Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation

Prior scholarship has demonstrated that the N in the SC can be used to express a state, and it is clear from the examples above that these states are not restricted to a certain temporal sphere. The temporal location of these states is dependent on the context (see §2.2.2.3). Some of the examples above show states that existed in time past from the RT ([a-b] and possibly [c]) while others denote present time states ([d-e] and possibly [c]). In the following paragraphs, we will consider a few examples of resultative states denoted by the N in the SC with contextually indicated future time reference.

After Aaron and his sons were consecrated as priests (Lev. 8), Moses gave Aaron instructions to pass along to the sons of Israel regarding the appropriate sacrifices that would prepare the people for the appearance of the glory of the Lord.

וְּאֶ ל בְּ נֵי יִׁשְּרָּ אֵ לתְּ דַבֵר לֵאמ ר קְּ חּו שְּעִׁ יר עִׁ זִׁים לְּחַטָּאת וְּעֵגֶלוָּכֶבֶש בְּ נֵי שָּ נָּה תְּמִׁ ימִׁ םלְּע לָּ ה a) Lev. 9:3-4)

וְּ שֹור וָּאַיִׁל לִׁשְּ לָּמִׁ ים לִׁזְּבחַ לִׁפְּ נֵ י יְּהוָּהּומִׁ נְּחָּה בְּ לּולָּה בַשָּמֶ ןּכִׁי הַּיֹום יְּהוָּה נִׁרְּ אָּ ה אֲלֵיכֶ ם

“And to the sons of Israel you shall speak, saying ‘Take a male goat for a sin offering

and a calf and a young ram, (both) one year old (and) perfect, for a burnt offering, and

an ox and a ram for peace offerings to sacrifice before the Lord, and a grain offering

mixed with oil. For today the Lord will be visible to you.”

.means to see in the G, but in the N, it refers to the resultant state-of-being-seen (cf ראה The verb

in this instance נראה Lambdin, 1971: p. 177; Benton, 2009: pp. 260-263). The sense of the verb is will be-in-a-state-of-being-seen, but idiomatic English prefers will appear or will be visible as translated above.

,is future time (Noth נראה The context clearly indicates that the situation referred to by

1965: p. 74; Wenham, 1979: p. 148 n. 2; Noordtzij, 1982: pp. 103-104; Gerstenberger, 1996: p.

119

98; Rooker, 2000: p. 151; Kiuchi, 2007: pp. 163-164). The verb occurs in the instructions for the day’s sacrifices and the same situation is referred to by a Jussive in 9:6. The realized situation is

:And the glory of the Lord became visible [OR וַּיֵרָּ א כְּ בֹוד יְּהוָּ ה אֶ ל ּכָּל הָּעָּ ם) referred to in 9:23 appeared] to all the people). As was noted above, states expressed by the N in the SC have temporal flexibility that mirrors the use of stative verbs in the SC. In order to accommodate the obviously future time reference, some scholars have suggested that the consonantal text should

Noth, 1965: p. 74 n.; Kiuchi, 2007: pp. 163-) (נִרְ אֶ ה) be revocalized in order to read a Participle

.נִרְ אֶ ה The BHS takes the LXX reading (ὀφθήσεται) as evidence that the text should read .(164

denotes a נִרְ אָ ה But does ὀφθήσεται really represent an alternative reading to that of the MT? If resultative state and the temporal reference is contextually determined to be future, as argued above, what better way would there be to translate the word into Greek than ὀφθήσεται?

It is known that the N in the SC can express a resultative state, and we have shown that such states are not restricted to a certain temporal sphere. Ultimately, the evidence suggests that

refers to a future state. The emendation of the verb to a Participle was suggested as a נִרְ אָ ה consequence of grammatical misunderstanding.

which ,נקה Another passage that we should examine involves two occurrences of the verb we have already discussed above (see discussion of example [e]). Zechariah 5:3 provides several challenges for interpreters, but of particular interest is the meaning of the verbs. In light of the controversy over various elements in this verse, we here offer the translation of the NRSV.

וַּי אמֶר אֵ לַי ז את הָּאָּ לָּההַּיֹוצֵאת עַל פְּ נֵי כָּל ץהָּאָּרֶ יּכִׁ כָּל הַגנֵב מִׁ זֶהּכָּמֹוהָּ נִׁקָּהוְּכָּל הַנִׁשְּ בָּע מִׁ זֶה b) Zech. 5:3)

ּכָּמֹוהָּ נִׁקָּ ה

“Then he said to me, ‘This is the curse that goes out over the face of the whole land;

for everyone who steals shall be cut off according to the writing on one side, and

120

everyone who swears falsely shall be cut off according to the writing on the other

side.’”

Already in 1912, Mitchell noted that these verbs had “usually been regarded as” Prophetic

Perfects and were often “translated will be punished, cut off, swept away, purged out, etc.,” yet he claimed to the contrary that there is “no warrant for such a rendering” (Mitchell, Smith, &

Bewer, 1912: p. 171). Some more recent scholars have held that these are Prophetic Perfects

(e.g., Unger, 1963: p. 88; Barker, 2008: p. 765), but most modern commentators take other approaches (e.g., Petersen, 1984: p. 245; Boda, 2004: p. 294; Meyers & Meyers, 1987: p. 286).

There are essentially three issues that drive the various interpretations of this verse in the

The second is the stem of the .מזה כמוה literature. The first is the meaning of the repeated phrase

since the N and Piel (D) stems of the 3ms in the SC of this root are identical, and ,נקה verb consequently, the meaning of the verb. The third is the temporal reference implied by the context. These three issues must be treated as factors in a larger equation, i.e., the argument of the passage (Zech. 5:1-4).

as מזה The commentators who do not emend the text and most translations take the phrase

& e.g., Keil) (האלה) reference to one side of the flying scroll which is equated with the curse

Delitzsch, 1996e: p. 542; Barker, 2008: p. 763; NASB, NRSV, ESV, NIV, HCSB). There is also

means according to (the writing on) it (i.e., the כמוה a general consensus among the same that scroll). Meyers and Meyers, however, suggested that the 3fs pronominal suffix on the preposition refers to “the oath,” in which case the translation would be according to it (i.e., the

would simply mean on the one hand... on the other hand מזה curse) and the repeated phrase

(1987: p. 286). The NAB reflects this understanding of the phrase. Mitchell preferred to read

which he translated as ,זה כַמֶ ה or מזה כַמֶ ה as an interrogative, emending the text to מזה כמוה

121

is מִ י זֶה already how long (Mitchell, Smith, & Bewer, 1912: p. 171). Similarly, the reading suggested by the BHS. However, these emendations have been posited because of the difficulty

in this context is ungrammatical or nonsensical. In מזה כמוה presented by the verb(s), not because contrast to the interpretation of Meyers and Meyers, there are two things that strongly suggest

does in fact refer to the curse on one side of the scroll and then the other. The first מזה כמוה that is the repetition of the phrase which, as noted by Keil and Delitzsch, indicates a hinc et illinc reading (1996e: p. 543; cf. Merrill, 1994: p. 168). The second involves the widely recognized thematic link between this passage and the Decalogue. As Klein has explained the “two crimes

Zechariah mentioned represent all of the commandments in each of the two tables of the Ten

Commandments” (2008: p. 172). Specifically, the thief represents everyone who sins against others (the second table of the Decalogue), while the swearer represents everyone who sins

.in Zech מזה directly against God (the first table of the Decalogue). The similarity of the use of

5:3 to its use in Exod. 32:15, describing the writing on both sides of the stone tablets, has also been noted by scholars (e.g., Merrill, 1994: p. 168).

ַו ִּׁי ֶפן ַו ֵּי ֶרד מ ֶשה ִׁמן הָּהָּר ּושְּ נֵי לֻּח ת הָּעֵדֻּת בְּ יָּדֹו לֻּחת ּכְּתֻּבִׁ ים מִׁשְּ נֵיעֶבְּרֵ יהֶם מִׁ זֶהּומִׁ זֶה הֵם c) Exod. 32:15)

ּכְּתֻּבִׁ ים

“And he turned, and Moses went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of the

testimony (were) in his hand; tablets written on both sides, from this (side) and from

this (side) they (were) written on.”

We have translated this rather woodenly, but most versions offer a more idiomatic translation.

in Zech. 5:3 and מזה The thematic link to the Decalogue and the similar use of the repetition of

refers to the מזה כמוה Exod. 32:15 support the argument that the twice occurring phrase inscription on two sides of the flying scroll.

122

The second issue concerns the stem of the verb. As noted above, the N and D stems of

ambiguous in most contexts. But how נִקָה the 3ms in the SC of this root are identical, making one determines whether the verbs in Zechariah 5:3b are Ns or Ds is directly impacted by the argument of the passage and the third interpretive issue, temporal reference. In the literature there are three categories of approach to the convergence of these issues in this passage.

The traditional approach considers the verb an N and the time reference future based on the context (e.g., Keil & Delitzsch, 1996e: pp. 543-544; Unger, 1963: p. 88; Smith, 1984: p. 207;

usually means to be נקה Merrill, 1994: pp. 167-169; Barker, 2008: p. 763). In the N, the verb clean or innocent, or free, exempt from some form of punishment or obligation. Yet it can also mean to be cleaned out, purged as in Isaiah 3:26 (cf. HALOT; BDB). The traditional view takes

in Zechariah 5:3 as two other examples of this latter meaning. The נקה the occurrences of argument of the passage seems to support this view since the flying scroll brings judgment as verse 4 unambiguously indicates. This view also has the support of the ancient versions; the

to be smitten) and the LXX has a Future Passive – לקי > G Participle ms) לָקֵי Targum reads

Indicative 3s (ἐκδικηθήσεται, he will be punished).

Another approach is to take the verbs as Ns with past time reference. Mitchell emended the text so that the verbs are in interrogative sentences (Mitchell, Smith, & Bewer, 1912: pp.

169-171). His emendation was suggested in spite of his admittance that “there is no reason for supposing that” the ancient versions “had a text different from” the MT (1912: p. 171).

Mitchell’s reasons for emending the text were that the meaning of the verb is to be clear and the form is a SC. Petersen’s commentary reflects a similar position. He claimed that the verbs in question are “not to be translated in the future tense” because they are in the SC (1984: p. 245).

123

His understanding of the passage’s argument was that the curse was “sent out because people” up till now “remain unpunished” (1984: p. 245).

is a D with past time reference. Meyers and Meyers took נקה The third approach is that the verbs in question this way and translated them has been acquitted (1987: pp. 277; cf. Boda,

2004: p. 294). This, of course, changes the argument of the passage; the violators of the covenant stipulations have been acquitted by “the oath,” though they will be judged later (v. 4)

(Meyers & Meyers, 1987: p. 286).

The second and third categories of approach have been criticized on a number of points.

First, Mitchell’s emendations are unfounded and unnecessary, as are the other suggested emendations (such as in the BHS, for example). Mitchell and Petersen’s position on the meaning of the verb as to be clear, unpunished is dogmatic as the meaning to clean out, purge is attested

in our נקה in BH (e.g., Isa. 3:26) and many scholars have affirmed that this is the meaning of passage (e.g., Fisher & Waltke, 1999: p. 597 in addition to those cited above). Moreover, Merrill has questioned how it could be true “to say that up till now thieves and blasphemers have gone unpunished?” (1994: p. 169). Regarding the third approach, the close connections between this passage and the covenant stipulations strongly suggests that the violators are not being acquitted

the curse). Finally, the temporal reference of these categories of approach does not fit) האלה by the context as “the whole thrust of the interpretation section (vv. 3-4) is present and future”

(Merrill, 1994: p. 169).

The traditional approach is correct in that the verbs are Ns and the temporal reference of each is future. The problem with the traditional approach is that these verbs have been considered Prophetic Perfects. Alternative readings have been suggested in the attempt to circumvent the dilemma of future time reference with a verb in the SC, but they have not proven

124

in the SC denotes a state (example [e]), and we have נקה satisfactory. As noted above, the N of

in נקה already shown that states are temporally located by context. In our view, the meaning of this passage is in-the-state-of-purged or in-the-state-of-expelled, and this state is contextually

as נקה located in the future time. Scholars have suggested emendations to the text and reading

Ds in Zechariah 5:3, but ultimately these serve as examples of the consequences of misunderstanding the grammar.

in the N occurs in Judges 15:3, where it appears in the SC with נקה Another example of what seems to be future time reference.

וַּיאמֶר לָּהֶםשִׁמְּ שֹון נִׁקֵיתִׁ יהַפַעַם מִׁפְּלִׁשְּתִׁ ים ּכִׁ י עשֶ ה אֲנִׁי עִׁמָּ םרָּ עָּ ה d) Judg. 15:3)

“And Samson said to them, ‘This time I will be innocent relative to the Philistines,

since I am about to make disaster on them.’”

The situation is undoubtedly a state, but the temporal reference has been debated. Many scholars

;as future (e.g., NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV נקיתי and translations take the time reference of

Driver, 1998: §13; Soggin, 1989: p. 244; Block, 1999: p. 440), but some have rendered it in present time (e.g., NET; Moore, 1895: p. 340; Boling, 1964: p. 234; Crenshaw, 1978: p. 122;

is נקיתי Niditch, 2008: p. 149; Webb, 2012: p. 375). The time reference of the state denoted by contextually dependent, and the only contextual indication of time reference is in the following clause (3b).

,clause (3b) has a participial phrase as its predicate and it has future time reference כי The something that is widely recognized (Moore, 1895: p. 340; Boling, 1964: p. 234; Soggin, 1989: p. 244; Block, 1999: p. 440; Schneider, 2000: p. 213; Webb, 2012: p. 375). In spite of the so-

as I am doing (Butler, 2009: p. 314), the predicative Participle עׂשה אני called literal translation of is a “progressive gram” and does not denote present time (Cook, 2012a: pp. 230-233). Rather,

125 the context determines the time reference of the participial predicate. As such, the predicative

Participle can have past (e.g., Judg. 14:4), present (e.g., Gen. 24:30), or future (e.g., Gen. 19:14) time reference.123 In the context of the narrative, the participial construction refers to the act of

”,refers “to an imminent event עׂשה אני vengeance that is described in the following verses. Thus that is one in the near future (Joosten, 2012: pp. 252-253).

Aejmelaus found that most of the uses of the particle, apart ,כי In her study on the particle from those indicating object clauses, are causal, which she defined as denoting “cause, reason,

indicates a כי motivation,” or “explanation” (1986: p. 202). She suggested that in Judges 15:3b

clause is dependent on כי causal connection between 3aβ and 3b with the additional note that the the “temporal correlate in the main clause” (1986: p. 207). This temporal correlation is usually

as when followed by I and a nonprogressive finite verb כי expressed in English translations of

(harm, do harm, do evil, bring trouble, do mischief, etc.) (NASB; NRSV; ESV; HCSB; Boling,

1964: p. 234; Crenshaw, 1978: p. 122; Block, 1999: p. 440; Webb, 2012: p. 375; cf. O’Connell,

1996: p. 208; Branson, 2009: p 136). It is clear, then, that the two situations are causally and temporally linked.124 Close attention to the syntax and connections of 3aβ and 3b reveals that the temporal reference of the state of Samson’s innocence is dependent upon his bringing disaster on the Philistines. Since the vengeful event is future, so is his state of innocence.

It is possible that Samson’s claim was that he was in a state of innocence at the ST, in which case this state would have to continue on into the future for the duration of his revenge

would refer to a state phase that נקיתי since 3b is causally linked to 3aβ. Taken this way, the verb began at the ST and persisted throughout the period of time it took to carry out his vengeance.

123 The first two examples are from Cook, 2012a: p. 231, and the final one is from Joosten, 2012: p. 252.

124 Our translation above expresses the causal and temporal connections in a way that highlights the future state of innocence and the imminence of the situation expressed by the Participle.

126

But if this is what was intended, we fail to see why the author(s) would not have used a phrase

כי עׂשה אני It is in no way clear that .כי עׂשה אני until I have done, in place of ,עַד עָׂשִיתִ י such as

עד refers to a state phase lasting the time span of the coming revenge, but נקיתי suggests that

would unambiguously indicate a state phase. It is possible that the use of the SC is עׂשיתי

would be a D since the נקיתי performative (I hereby declare to be innocent...), in which case performative use of the N would be counter-intuitive. Yet we would expect an object or pronoun with reflexive function if Samson was declaring his own innocence. The text as it stands does

in נקה not lend itself easily to either of these interpretations. Rather, the evidence suggests that

Judges 15:3 is an example of the future time, stative use of the N in the SC.

There is also a potential example in 2 Samuel 17:12.

ּובָאנּו אֵ לָיו ּבְ אַחַת הַמְ קֹומֹּת אֲׁשֶ ר נִמְ צָא ׁשָ ם וְנַחְ נּו עָלָיוכַאֲׁשֶ ריִּפֹּל הַטַ ל עַל הָאֲדָמָ ה e) 2 Sam. 17:12)

“And we will come upon him in one of the places in which he will be, and we (will

be) upon him like dew falls on the ground!”

Although Klein considered this N passive (1992: p. 297), it is more likely resultative. Lambdin

,which originally meant “to be found,” came to mean “to be extant ,נמצא suggested that the verb to exist,” presumably by virtue of the logical connection between “being found” and “existing”; that is, if something “is found” it must thereby “exist” (1971: p. 177). He also noted a similar

in Psalms indicates that it did נמצא semantic extension in French (se trouver). A use of the verb

.Ps) איננו is found in synonymous parallelism with לא נמצא have this meaning, as the construction

37:36). The verb, therefore, can express a resultative state and may do so in 2 Sam. 17:12. The referent cannot be to a real present (**“one of the places where he is there”), though it could be

127 present time if the situation is irrealis (“where he might be”). In this context, it is possible that

refers to a future state, but it might better be taken as referring to an irrealis situation.125 נמצא

The future time use of the N in the SC also appears in Proverbs, though with a verb that

This verb, occurring as an N in the SC, was probably .(מלט√) does not occur in the G stem originally resultative, expressing a state; i.e., in-the-state-of-having-fled (cf. Benton, 2009: p.

314). But its use here is probably a semantic extension of that resultative state: to be in-the- state-of-having-fled > to escape. The extended sense is no longer stative, but it seems that its use in future time was, at least in poetic contexts, retained.

יָּדלְּיָּד ל א יִׁנָּקֶה ערָּ וְּ זֶרַ ע צַדִׁ יקִׁ יםנִׁמְּ לָּט f) Prov. 11:21)

“Assuredly, the evil one will not go unpunished, but the seed of the righteous will

escape.”

It is fascinating that the comparison is made between the person who does evil and the descendants of the righteous, and not between those who are evil and those who are righteous or between their respective posterity. Although the proverbial and theological import of this comparison is beyond the scope of this dissertation, the fact that it is the descendants of the

is of great significance. A temporal gap exists between the ST and situation נמלט righteous who referenced in 21a as the verb indicates. So how could it be said that the situation referred to in

21b is not future, when that situation refers to the descendants of the righteous? The temporal reference is undoubtedly future and the translations and commentaries affirm that it is so (Scott,

1965: p. 86; McKane, 1970: p. 437; Murphy, 1998: p. 79; Waltke, 2004: pp. 502-503; Longman,

2006: pp. 260-261).

125 The irrealis use of the SC will be discussed in Chapter 3.

128

§2.2.3.5 Niphal Passives in the Suffix Conjugation

As noted above, the passive use of the N is statistically the most common. In the following sections we will describe the passive voice and the use of the N to express passive situations (§2.2.3.5.1) as well as the semantics of N passives in the SC (§2.2.3.5.2) and, finally, their future time uses (§2.2.3.5.3).

§2.2.3.5.1 The Niphal and the Passive Voice

The term voice refers to the relationship between the argument(s) of a sentence and the verbal (or predicative) notion. In the active voice, there is an agent (or initiator) which is the grammatical subject of the sentence. When the verb is transitive, there is also a second argument, the patient (or receptor), which is the grammatical direct object. Thus in the sentence the boy kicked the ball, “the boy” is the agent while “the ball” is the patient. When other voices are expressed, the relationship between the arguments and their grammatical functions in the sentence change. In a passive sentence, the grammatical subject is the semantic patient. Thus in the sentence the ball was kicked by the boy, “the ball” is the semantic patient but appears as the grammatical subject. One difference between an active and passive sentence is the perspective.

The argument that is the grammatical subject is thought to be what “the sentence is about” (Foley

& van Valin, 1985: p. 299).126 In the examples the boy kicked the ball and the ball was kicked by the boy, “The same information is expressed... but it is ‘packaged’ in different ways” (Foley & van Valin, 1985: p. 282).127

126 Of course, other factors must be considered in the context of a discourse, such as topicalization and the so-called left-dislocation.

127 However, not every passive sentence is the semantic equivalent of a corresponding active sentence (see Keenan, 1985: pp. 265-266).

129

Not every language has a passive construction, but those that do often have more than one (Keenan, 1985: pp. 247-251). If a language has a passive construction, it will have what

Keenan has called a “basic passive,” which is “the most widespread across the world’s languages” (1985: p. 247). John was slapped is an example of a basic passive. Some factors that distinguish basic passives from other kinds of passives are (1) there is no agent phrase and

(2) “the main verb (in its nonpassive form) is transitive” (1985: p. 247). Keenan noted that passives can also be constructed from intransitive and stative verbs, and there are also other constructions used for passives such as impersonal passives (common in the Semitic languages), and periphrastic passives that employ an auxiliary verb. All passives have a common semantic thread which Benton has recently described as the “demotion of [the agent’s] topicality” (2009: p. 124). He argued that the promotion of the patient is optional, whereas the demotion of the agent is required in a passive construction (2009: pp. 124-126). The semantics of passive voice do not determine or influence the temporal location of a situation. Passives may occur in any temporal sphere, e.g., John was slapped, John is being slapped, and John will be slapped. In each of these, the “demotion of [the agent’s] topicality” is maintained.

According to Foley and van Valin, the passive is always marked “in the core, usually on the predicate” (1985: p. 303). In BH the passive voice is signaled through a variety of constructions including the passive Participles, Qal passives (GP), and several derived stems:

Niphal (N), Pual (Dp), Hophal (Cp), and Hithpael (Dt). The passive use of N is the most pertinent to this dissertation, as all of the future time uses of passive stems in the SC in BH occur in the N.

In his dissertation on the N in BH, Boyd concluded that there are three kinds of passive phrases in BH: the “personal agentive passive” (in which the patient is the subject, and the agent

130 is mentioned), the “personal deagentive passive” (in which the patient is the subject, and the agent is not mentioned), and the impersonal passive (in which there is no mention of the agent and the patient is the direct object) (1993: p. 109).128 We will follow Keenan’s terminology referring to these respectively as agentive, nonagentive, and impersonal. The following examples illustrate these categories in the N stem.

ׁשֹּפְֵך דַם םהָאָדָ ּבָאָדָ םדָ מֹו יִשָ פְֵך a) (Agentive) Gen. 9:6)

“The one who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed.”

עֹוד יִקָנּו בָתִ ים וְׂשָ דֹות ּוכְרָמִ ים ץּבָאָרֶ הַזֹּאת b) (Nonagentive) Jer. 32:15)

“Houses and fields and vineyards will be acquired again in this land.”

ַו ִּי ָּו ֵלד ַל ֲחנֹוְך ֶאת־ ִעי ָרד c) (Impersonal) Gen. 4:18)

“And he was born to Enoch – Irad”

Distinguishing these three kinds of passive sentences is important for analyzing the discourse and the syntax and semantics of the sentence, but the intersection of the passive voice with the semantics of the verb forms is not affected by the kind of passive that is expressed. Accordingly, in the following, the kind of passive expressed will not play a central role in our analysis.

§2.2.3.5.2 The Semantics of Niphal Passives in the Suffix Conjugation

It is widely recognized that passive constructions can be used to express states and that there is often a large degree of overlap between a passive state and a resultative state. Bybee et al. noted this phenomenon, but distinguished passives from resultatives on the grounds that

128 This kind of impersonal passive is not to be confused with the impersonal passive use of active constructions such as idukkūšu in OB Akkadian (e.g., Codex Hammurabi §21) which literally means they shall וְּחַּיַי execute him, while the pragmatic implicature is he shall be executed. BH also has this function, e.g., Ps. 88:4 ,And my life was brought near to Sheol (lit. they brought my life near to Sheol). Passages like Ezek. 15:2 לִׁשְּ אֹול הִׁגִׁ יעּו which has a Gp (or Dp) and an impersonal passive 3mp in the same verse, make it clear this is pragmatically a passive construction.

131 passives can indicate a state coterminous with the RT, but do not always do so, in contrast to resultatives which always indicate a state coterminous with the RT (1994: p. 63). Several scholars have also made close connections between the passive use of the N and the expression of a state in BH. Waltke and O’Connor, for example, described the passive use of the N in this way: “By ‘passive’ we mean that the subject is in the state of being acted upon or of suffering the effects of an action by an implicit or explicit agent” (emphasis original) (1990: p. 382). It should be noted that, as Benton has pointed out, it is not true cross-linguistically that every passive is “an indicator of state” (2009: p. 163). Some passives refer to state while others refer to a process.

In many languages, passive constructions can be vague or ambiguous as to whether the construction refers to a process or a state, as the English sentence the bottle was broken amply demonstrates.129 Keenan claimed that cross-linguistically this is especially true of “periphrastic passives of the ‘be’ sort” (1985: p. 258). Although the N is not a periphrastic construction, the passive use of the N is, overall, ambiguous; that is, this stem can be used to express passive states and passive processes. We agree with the conclusions of Benton that the verb forms impact the semantics of the stem, and that the N in the SC tends to express a state (see above,

§2.2.3.2). However, we also recognize that there is ambiguity in some instances regarding whether an N in the SC expresses a state or a process culminating in a state, such as in a grammatical perfect. In the following examples, the Ns in the LPC (a) and the wayyiqtol (b) forms express a process culminating in a state, while in the SC (c-d) the N is used to denote a state. The final example (e) is in the SC but is ambiguous, since it could be a state or process culminating in one.

129 Example from Benton, 2009: p. 159.

132

ׁשֹּפְֵךדַם הָאָדָ םּבָאָדָם דָ מֹו יִשָ פְֵך a) Gen. 9:6)

“The one who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed.”

ַו ִּי ָּו ֵלד ַל ֲחנֹוְך ֶאת עִירָ ד b) Gen. 4:18)

“And he was born to Enoch – Irad”

ינֶחְּשַבְּתִׁ עִׁ ם יֹורְּדֵ י בֹורהָּיִׁיתִׁ יּכְּ גֶבֶר אֵ ין אֱיָּל c) Ps. 88:5)

“I am considered among those going down to the Pit; I am as a man without

strength.”

וְּאָּדָּ םבִׁ יקָּר בַל יָּלִׁין נִׁמְּשַ לּכַבְּ הֵמֹות נִׁדְּ מּו [d) Ps. 49:13 [ET 12)

“And man will not endure in (his) honor; he is like the beasts (that) perish.”

הַּכ ל סָּ ר יַחְּדָּ ונֶאֱלָּחּו e) Ps. 14:3)

“The whole (lot) has turned aside; together they are corrupt (OR: have become

corrupt).”

In examples (c-d) the N in the SC denotes a passive state that is coterminous with the RT, which in both of these is present time.130

§2.2.3.5.3 Future Time Uses of the Passive Niphal in the Suffix Conjugation

We have already shown that verbless clauses and stative uses of the SC can occur with future time reference (see above, §2.2.2.3-§2.2.2.4). The temporal flexibility of these constructions stems from their lack of T/A/M. In these constructions the T/A/M is derived from the context. In this section we will argue that passive states in the N can also have future time reference in the SC.

130 For these verbs as passive in the N, see Klein, 1992: pp. 89, 97, 119, 176, 268-269.

133

Before examining the passages below, it should be noted that there are some common pitfalls found in the literature. One is the suggestion of emendations that have no textual support and are unneeded if the grammar is properly understood. Another is dogmatically wooden translations based on assumed tense values, something that is usually coupled with comments about the passage that betray a different temporal understanding based on the context. We hope the following discussion helps to resolve some of these problems.

The first potential example comes from Isaiah 19. This chapter is divided into two sections, vv. 1-15 and 16-25, the first of which consists of three strophes: vv. 1-4, 5-10, and 11-

15 (Blenkinsopp, 2000: pp. 312-317; Kaiser, 1974: p. 99). The temporal reference of the first two strophes (vv. 1-10) is future. It begins with a declaration that the Lord will soon enter into

Egypt riding on a swift cloud (v. 1), and Egypt and their gods will panic before Him (vv. 2-3).

Most of the verb forms in the first and second strophes, even those in the Lord’s speech (vv. 2-

4), indicate future time reference, being mostly LPC or weqatal forms. Gray described the second strophe in this way: “Between vv. 1-4 and 11-15, which prophesy political disaster, comes this prediction that the Nile and the Nile streams will run dry; that all vegetation dependent on them will wither away; and that all classes of people directly or indirectly dependent on the Nile or the vegetation promoted by it will be distressed” (1912: p. 325).

עָרֹות עַל יְאֹור עַל ּפִי יְאֹור וְכֹּלמִ עזְרַ יְאֹור יִיבַׁש נִדַף וְאֵ ינֶנּו a) Isa. 19:7)

“The bulrushes along the Nile, along the mouth of the Nile, and all the seeded fields

of the Nile will be dried out, be blown away, and no longer exist.”

has future time reference נִדַ ף The modern translations, along with most commentators, agree that

(e.g., NRSV, NAB, NASB, NKJV, NIV; Wildberger, 1997: p. 228; Kaiser, 1974: p. 98;

Clements, 1980: p. 168; Oswalt, 1986: pp. 369-370; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 312). None of these,

134

,could have future time reference.131 Our theory נִדַ ף however, has offered an explanation for how

and ייבׁש on the other hand, can account for this, as well as the significance of the juxtaposition of

is a stative verb in the LPC that denotes a process culminating in a (ייבׁש) The first of these .נִדַ ף state. The bulrushes and all the seeded fields along the Nile will dry until they are dried out.

This leads them to the state-of-being-wind-blown and no longer existing with their former capacities.132

The next two examples to be considered come from Isaiah 34-35. It is widely recognized that these chapters describe eschatological times as the circumstances are undoubtedly future judgment (Isa. 34) and future restoration (Isa. 35). These chapters “form a coherent unit that juxtaposes the fate of hostile powers,” notably Edom in chapter 34, “with the ultimate salvation of Zion” in chapter 35 (Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 450). They are thematically linked in several regards and “there is a long-standing consensus for treating them as a single tradition complex”

(Seitz, 1993: p. 236).

The first of these, which has been considered a Prophetic Perfect (e.g., Young, 1972b: p.

442), occurs in chapter 34. This chapter has three major sections: v. 1, vv. 2-15, vv. 16-17

(Beuken, 2000: pp. 290-291). The SC of interest appears in vv. 16-17, the final subunit of the chapter (Sweeney, 1996: p. 438).

דִׁרְּ שּו מֵ עַל סֵפֶר יְּהוָּהּוקְּרָּ אּו אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה לא נֶעְּדָּרָּה אִׁשָּה רְּ עּותָּ ּה ל א פָּקָּדּו b) Isa. 34:16a)

“Seek from upon the scroll of the Lord, and read! Not one from them will be

missing, not one will miss its companion!”133

131 The explanation of Driver (1998: §14γ) and Klein (1990: p. 54) was that it is a Prophetic Perfect.

132 Alternatively, this may be an irrealis use of the SC (see below Chapter 3).

does not לא פקדו could be irrealis (see Chapter 3), it should be noted that פקדו Although it is possible that 133 .(is likely corrupt (see BHS (אִׁשָּה רְּ עּותָּ ּה ל א פָּקָּדּו) appear in 1QIsaa, and the entire clause

135

This N verb clearly refers to a state since the issue is whether or not the content of the scroll of the Lord is all there, but the future time reference of the prior sections is cut off by the

Imperatives. “Quite out of the blue, the reader is addressed directly and urged to consult a book of Yahveh” (Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 454). The identity of this book of the Lord has been the subject of much debate. Suggestions in the literature include this prophecy, one of Isaiah’s earlier prophecies (often Isa. 13), the entire book of Isaiah, and a heavenly document. Yet, no matter what the scroll this is, there is a temporal relation between the Imperatives and the following clauses. It is highly likely that the situations described in these clauses will be in the future, for it can only be future from the time of the commands (i.e., the RT) that people will have opportunity to read this prophecy “and by reading will be able to verify the truthfulness of what Isaiah has predicted” (Young, 1972b: p. 442). As Kaiser has noted “the poet anticipates the future, in which it will be possible to read through the [scroll of the Lord] and confirm that everything has been fulfilled” (1974: p. 359).

.in present time (e.g., Kaiser, 1974: p נעדרה Although some commentators have translated

353; Childs, 2001: p. 251), the contextual indication of future time reference is not lost on others

(e.g., Oswalt, 1986: p. 613; Beuken, 2000: p. 280) 134 or the modern translations (e.g., NRSV,

NASB, NAB, NKJV, NIV). It is probably because these clauses in context clearly have future time reference that Rogland offered no solution for the SC forms in this passage (2003a: p. 113).

,in this context is that it expresses a future נעדרה We propose that the best understanding of passive state.

The next example we will consider occurs in the following passage:

(in present time, his discussion of the situation (quoted above נעדרה Note that while Kaiser translated 134 unambiguously indicates that the situation is future.

136

פָּרחַ תִׁפְּרַ חוְּתָּ גֵל ףאַ גִׁילַת וְּרַ נֵן ּכְּבֹודהַלְּבָּנֹון נִׁתַ ן לָּּההֲדַר הַּכַרְּ מֶל וְּהַשָּ רֹון הֵמָּ ה יִׁרְּ אּו כְּ בֹוד c) Isa. 35:2)

יְּהוָּה הֲדַר אֱֹלהֵינּו

“(The desert) will blossom lavishly and it shall rejoice with rejoicing and shouting;

the glory of Lebanon will be given to it, the majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They

will see the glory of the Lord, the majesty of our God.”

Because this is not a future action, but a future state, the clause might be rendered the “glory of

Lebanon will-be-in-the-state-of-given” to the desert. The great majority of translations and

,future (e.g., NRSV, NASB, NAB, NIV נִתַ ן commentators considered the temporal reference of

NKJV; Young, 1972b: p. 445; Brueggemann, 1989: pp. 274-275; Wildberger, 2002: p. 340-341;

Blenkinsopp, 2000: pp. 454-455; Childs, 2001: p. 251; Kaiser, 1974: pp. 360-361; Oswalt, 1986: p. 619; Seitz, 1993: p. 239; Clements, 1980: p. 275; Beuken, 2000: p. 305). Alexander, however,

is not future. He averred that “the future translation נִתַ ן suggested that the temporal reference of

by Calvin and the English Version is gratuitous and arbitrary. The preterite form points נִתַ ן of out the true relation of the cause to its effect. It shall rejoice because the glory of Lebanon has been given to it” (emphasis original) (1878b: p. 35). Yet, while not impossible, the apparent

is lacking. Not ,כי difficulty with his suggestion is that a syntactic indication of causality, such as only have most scholars recognized that this verb has future time reference, there may also be a

is understood as a future state. The argument of נִתַ ן rhetorical and theological significance when chapter 35 is built on a “before” and “after” contrast. “The ‘before’ is voiced” by a triad of death, “wilderness-dry land-desert,” which is “immediately answered by a triad of fertility:

Lebanon-Carmel-Sharon” (Brueggemann, 1989: p. 275). The change is a process that includes sprouting and rejoicing, but these processes lead to the state; that the glory of Lebanon will-be- in-the-state-of-given to the desert, as well as the majesty of Carmel and Sharon. It is only of this

137 state of restoration that it might be said that “the main point” of this prophecy “is not that the

הדר majesty) and) כבוד ,desert will be clothed in majesty, but that Yahweh’s, our God’s

(splendor) will be seen” (Wildberger, 2002: p. 349).

Another example in the book of Isaiah occurs in 51:6. This chapter is part of a larger discourse that continues into verse 12 of chapter 52. The first section, vv. 1-8, divides into three stanzas (vv. 1-3, 4-6, 7-8) each begun with an Imperative calling for the audience to be attentive

The first stanza encourages the people (i.e., those who seek .(הקׁשיבו אלי v. 4 ;ׁשמעו אלי vv. 1, 7) the Lord, v. 1), even recalling the promises of God to Abraham and Sarah. The second stanza affirms that God will execute justice and righteousness in a way that people long for. Verse 6 concludes this stanza.

שְּאּו לַשָּמַיִׁם עֵינֵיכֶם וְּהַבִׁ יטּו אֶ ל הָּאָּרֶ ץ מִׁתַחַתּכִׁ י שָּמַיִׁם ּכֶעָּשָּ ןנִׁמְּ לָּחּו ץוְּהָּאָּרֶ ּכַבֶגֶדתִׁבְּ לֶה d) Isa. 51:6)

וְּי שְּ בֶיהָּ ּכְּמו כֵן יְּמּותּון וִׁ ישּועָּתִׁי לְּעֹולָּם תִׁהְּ יֶהוְּצִׁדְּ יקָּתִׁ ל א תֵחָּת

“Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look to the earth beneath, for (the) heavens will

be torn to pieces, and the earth will be worn out like clothing; and its inhabitants will

die like thus, but my salvation will be forever, and my righteousness will not be

broken.”

The people are called to look to the heavens and the earth to see that they – “the most permenant of visible realities” – are ephemeral compared to the salvation of the Lord (McKenzie, 1968: p.

125). They will fade away, but God’s salvation is forever (Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p. 231; cf.

Paul, 2012: pp. 364-365). The verb is a hapax legomenon but based on the possible senses of the

has נמלחו verb, it is more likely a passive than a resultative (Klein, 1992: p. 166).135 The verb been considered a Prophetic Perfect (e.g., Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p. 230) and, as the

135 For discussion of the root, see Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p. 231; Oswalt, 1998: p. 332 n. 15.

138 commentators and translations have recognized, the time reference of this situation is clearly future, like that of the following LPCs (McKenzie, 1968: p. 119; Oswalt, 1998: p. 331;

Blenkinsopp, 2002: p. 324; Smith, 2009: p. 397; Paul, 2012: p. 364; NRSV, NASB, NKJV,

NIV).

expresses a future process culminating in state, much the נמלחו It might be thought that

surely does. However, it should be noted that the verbal parallel is not a תבלה same way that strong as one might initially think. According to Goldingay and Payne, v. 6aβ consists of three cola that are “exactly parallel ... comprising noun, k-clause, and verb” (2006: p. 230). They explained the parallels of these cola as follows: the first two cola are held together by the merism heaven and earth, the second and third cola are held together by the LPCs, and the first and third by the plural verbs and nouns. Their observations are certainly correct, which leaves one to

does not also occur in the LPC. It would seem that the author intended to נמלחו wonder why describe a future state (i.e., that the heavens will be in-the-state-of-torn-to-pieces) that is followed by two cola that escalate the severity of the image.136 Ultimately, we would suggest that this situation is best understood as expressing a future, passive state.

Commentators and grammarians have suggested that the book of Psalms has many

Prophetic Perfects, but for many psalms the temporal reference of the verb forms can be very difficult to nail down making it challenging to identify SC forms with future time reference

(Driver, 1998: §14β n. 1; Rogland, 2003a: p. 114; Cook, 2012a: p. 184). Although it could be argued that several psalms have Ns in the SC with future time reference, the context is often too

136 This might be an irrealis use of the SC (see below, Chapter 3), but the word order of the clause makes that very unlikely (see below, §3.1.2).

139 ambiguous to yield a significant result. One psalm, however, uses the N in the SC to refer to a situation that is clearly temporally future, based on the context and meaning of the verbs.137

ּכִׁ י יְּהוָּה אהֵ ב מִׁשְּ פָּ ט וְּ ל א יַעֲז ב אֶ ת חֲ סִׁידָּ יו לְּעֹולָּ ם נִׁשְּ מָּ רּו וְּ זֶ רַ ע רְּ שָּעִׁ ים נִׁכְּרָּ ת e) Ps. 37:28)

“For the Lord loves justice and he will not abandon his faithful ones; forever they

will be preserved, but the seed of the wicked will be cut off.”

ּופ שְּעִׁ ים נִׁשְּמְּ דּו יַחְּדָּ ו אַ חֲרִׁ ית רְּ שָּעִׁ ים נִׁכְּרָּ תָּ ה f) Ps. 37:38)

“But the rebellious will be destroyed together; the posterity of the wicked will be cut

off.”

The prosperity of the wicked is a theme found in several wisdom psalms, and in Psalm 37 the psalmist encourages the audience not to fret over it because, though they may have their day in the sun, the wicked will wither like the grass. Rather, says the psalmist, one should trust in the

Lord and do good things because the reward of the righteous is to possess the land. Verse 28 contains the third contrast in this psalm between the future of the wicked and that of the

(v. 22 יִכָרֵ תּו v. 9 and יִכָרֵ תּון) ”righteous. Already it has been said that the wicked “will be cut off

vv. 9 and 22). These thoughts are יירׁשו ארץ) ”while the righteous “will possess the land developed in v. 28 as their respective futures are held in contrast. While the righteous “will be preserved,” the wicked “will be cut off.”

,refers to a present situation (NASB, NKJV, ESV נׁשמרו Some translations suggest that

NAB; Briggs, 1906: p. 324; Kraus, 1993: pp. 402-403; Bratcher & Reyburn, 1991: p. 359;

as a לעולם נׁשמרו Goldingay, 2006: p. 529), in which case we would understand the phrase reference to a state phase that is coterminous with the ST but also extends long into the future.

Despite the present tense translation of some commentators .נכרת But the same cannot be said of

137 Rogland noted that 37:38 might be a Prophetic Perfect (2003a: p. 24), but he did not include it in his chapter on the Prophetic Perfect for reasons unstated.

140

(Briggs, 1906: p. 324; Kraus, 1993: pp. 402-403; Goldingay, 2006: p. 529), the wicked are not

“cut off” at the ST. The fact that the wicked are “alive and well” at the ST is the occasion for the

;must refer to a future situation (NRSV, NASB, ESV, NIV, NKJV נכרת ,psalm! Therefore

Dahood, 1964: p. 227; Broyles, 1999: p. 182; VanGemeren, 2008: p. 348). In a similar vein, the

Ns in v. 38 must also refer to future situations as the content requires (NRSV, NASB, NAB,

ESV, NIV, NKJV; Dahood, 1964: pp. 227, 232; Broyles, 1999: p. 182; VanGemeren, 2008: p.

351; Longman, 2014: p. 181).

These four verbs have proven difficult for many commentators. Craigie translated the verbs in v. 28 in present time and those in v. 38 in future time (2004: pp. 294-295), while Tanner did the opposite, rendering v. 28 in future time and v. 38 in present (DeClaissé-Walford,

Jacobson, & Tanner, 2014: pp. 351-352). Other commentators have preferred to translate each of the four verbs in present time, but then discuss the situations they refer to in a way that reveals their futurity (Briggs, 1906: p. 325, 330, 332; cf. Goldingay, 2006: pp. 529, 532). But there is no way around the fact that the very nature of the content demands future time reference.

§2.3 Conclusions

In this chapter we have argued that the stative semantics of the SC in PS were retained with stative verbs in WS, and specifically BH. The use of stative verbs was not affected by the semantic innovations of the form along the Anterior Path because the first stage, or perfage, of this developmental trajectory is a completive or a resultative, and an adjectival stative is neither.

We have further argued that stative situations are not marked for T/A/M, which is why stative situations have temporal flexibility, meaning that their time reference must be contextually indicated.

141

We have also argued, building on the diachronic work of Testen and synchronic analysis of Benton, that the N in the SC is used to express resultative and passive states. The semantic origins of the stem and its use and interaction with the verbal forms in BH strongly affirm that the N was used to express a state in the SC.

We have not only asserted that, based on the contextual time reference, statives in the SC and resultative and passive states expressed by the N in the SC can occur in any temporal sphere, but also shown that they do with examples (see Table 6). We believe that the diachronic and synchronic evidence strongly suggests that the future time uses of stative verbs and of the N in the SC are two of the uses that have been traditionally, and wrongly, categorized under the

Prophetic Perfect.

It should also be noted that these future stative uses of the SC were no longer used after the biblical period. Based on the typologically expected trajectory (i.e., the Anterior Path), we would anticipate the loss of all nonpast uses of the SC as it continued to develop, and that is exactly what we find. The evidence from the HB suggests that the transition away from nonpast uses of the SC had already begun, but there are still many examples of nonpast uses of the SC in

BH (Cook, 2012b: pp. 86-93). Additionally, the future stative uses of the SC are also evidence that the Hebrew VS was not (yet) primarily tensed.

Table 6 Statistics of Future Stative Uses of the Suffix Conjugations in Chapter 2 Stative Category Number of Examples (+ potential examples) Qal stative 4 (+1) Niphal resultative 5 (+1) Niphal passive 8 Total 17 (+2)

142

Chapter 3: The Irrealis Uses of the Suffix Conjugation

§3.0 Introductory Remarks

In the previous chapter we argued that some of the alleged Prophetic Perfects are actually future, stative uses of the SC. In this chapter we will address other future uses of the SC that have traditionally been described as Prophetic Perfects and cannot be satisfactorily explained as part of quoted speech, past visions or dreams, or as the expression of a future perfect or future stative. In the following sections we will argue that they are irrealis uses of the SC.138 The irrealis uses of the SC account for the vast majority of alleged Prophetic Perfects.

We will begin this chapter by discussing the origins of the irrealis use of the SC and the development of the so-called weqatal (§3.1-§3.1.1). Then, we will discuss the use of word order

(WO) as a disambiguation strategy between realis and irrealis uses of the SC and the LPC

(§3.1.2). Then the expression of epistemic situations with the irrealis SC will be illustrated with many examples that will be divided into categories (§3.2). A few concluding remarks will close the chapter (§3.3).

§3.1 The Suffix Conjugation, Modality, and the So-Called Weqatal

Despite the fact that the typical uses of the so-called weqatal are so different from the typical uses of the SC (i.e., future time and irrealis contra past time and realis), there is, from a comparative Semitic viewpoint, no compelling reason to deduce that the weqatal is a verb form distinct from the SC.139 One might argue that weqatal can “loosely” be considered a gram

138 For discussion of the realis : irrealis opposition and its expression in BH, see above §1.3. It should be noted that throughout this chapter we will use the terms irrealis and modal interchangeably.

139 For other reasons to reject weqatal as a distinct form, see DeCaen, 1995: pp. 122-126.

142

143

(Isaksson, 2015b: p. 10; see, Isaksson, 2015a: p. 113). In this discussion, we will make a distinction between qatal as a verb form, or conjugation, and weqatal as a construction, or verb phrase (Kawashima, 2010: p. 33) or gram (i.e., a grammatical structure; Cook, 2012a: p. 182 n.

13; Isaksson, 2015a: p. 113; see Bybee et al., 1994: p. 2). We will refer to the so-called weqatal as a construction (or gram), though not as a form (cf. Cook, 2012a: pp. 210, 249), because it is not a true morphosyntactic form, though the construction can have syntactic and semantic signification.

Through the middle of the 18th century, grammarians explained the uses of weqatal by the waw-conversive theory, whereby the waw was used to convert the tense. This was thought to explain how weqatal and the LPC could be semantically approximate. The semantic overlap of weqatal and the LPC is, to a degree, apparent, and while they are not identical (Cook, 2012a: pp.

244-256) the two are still described in the literature as essentially semantically equivalent (e.g.,

Joosten, 2012: pp. 261-265). The theory of conversion induced by the conjunction, however, fails to adequately explain weqatal as a grammatical construction (Van de Sande, 2008: p. 54) and over the past two centuries various alternative theories have replaced it.140

Schröder’s waw-relative theory, published in 1766, was the first alternative to the model promulgated in the medieval period. He proposed that the initial verb in a passage set the temporal frame and that the subsequent forms with the prefixed waw were located in time relative to the time of the initial verb (see above, §1.4.1.1). Several decades later scholars began to combine elements from the conversive and relative theories into a mutated form called the waw-inductive theory.141 Ewald developed a form of the waw-relative theory that focused on the

140 For specific critiques of the waw-conversive theory, see McFall, 1982: pp. 18-21.

141 For description and critique of this theory, see McFall, 1982: pp. 24-26.

144 consecutive nature of the situations referenced by the waw-prefixed forms. He claimed that

and a verb form ,אָ ז the temporal particle ,ו these forms originally consisted of the conjunction

(either the SC or the LPC), which gave the forms their sequential or consecutive value (see above, §1.4.1.3). Although explanations of the development of the so-called waw-consecutive forms have changed since then, the consecutive or sequential nature of these forms has been repeatedly affirmed by the textlinguistic literature on the BHVS (e.g., Gropp, 1991; Buth, 1992;

Gentry, 1998).

These theories are not only reflected in the older literature (e.g., GKC §111, §112) but continue to be called upon today. Specifically, scholars have relied on the waw-relative and waw-consecutive theories to describe the uses of weqatal. This is true not only of teaching grammars (e.g., Lambdin, 1971: pp. 107-109; Futato, 2003: pp. 162-164),142 but also of standard reference works. For example, Waltke and O’Connor maintained a modified version of the relative theory that incorporated the consecutive, or subordinate, nature of the gram. They

-and the SC (waw-copulative) and weqatal (waw (ו) considered the simple use of the conjunction relative) “two semantically distinct constructions” (1990: pp. 519-520). The relative weqatal

“has the values of the prefix conjugation and represents a situation relative (that is subordinate) to the leading verb (or equivalent)” (1990: p. 525). Van der Merwe et al. (1999: pp. 163-170) followed suit, describing the functions of weqatal in a way that is essentially identical to the description of Waltke and O’Connor (also cf. Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: p. 396).

The conversive, relative, and consecutive theories were developed in order to explain the apparent functional overlap of the SC and wayyiqtol as well as that of the LPC and weqatal.

While each of them has to varying degrees succeeded and failed to describe weqatal, none has

142 For an extensive survey of the so-called waw-consecutive forms in elementary Hebrew grammars, see Cook, 2008a.

145 successfully explained how the gram came to mean what it apparently does. Until the decipherment of Akkadian, explanations of wayyiqtol and weqatal were seemingly inseparable, but it is now widely recognized, based on the comparative evidence, that the original verb form of the wayyiqtol construction was the SPC. This forced scholars to develop other explanations of weqatal. As a result, some argued that since wayyiqtol was developed to disambiguate the SPC from the LPC and since there is nothing in the conjunction that “converts” the time reference of the SC, the form weqatal must have developed on analogy of wayyiqtol.143

Another line of argumentation was that early on two distinct uses of the SC were developed. For example, Bauer argued that there were two developmental paths of the PS SC

(1910: p. 35). The weqatal retained the original participial function while the other (the SC without the conjunction) developed into a perfect (see above §1.4.1.6). Bauer’s theory has recently been supported by Andersen, who argued that there was an original semantic distinction between the “imperfective continuative” form *qatila (the first SC in PS) and its active, progressive counterpart *qatala (2000: pp. 28-34). Andersen suggested that the progressive

*qatala developed into an imperfective form, which according to him explains the habitual past and future uses of weqatal (2000: pp. 35, 40).144 Van de Sande has also cited the habitual or iterative past, the performative, and future time uses of weqatal to support his claim that the SC refers to situations with imperfective (as well as perfective) aspect (2008: p. 276).

Nevertheless, Joosten strongly asserted that the theories of Bauer, G. Driver, and

Andersen – and we might here add Van de Sande (2008) and Moomo (2005) – are “based on the perception of an ‘imperfective’ nuance in WEQATAL. The impression is illusory, however. None

143 Although the analogical explanation was more popular in the older literature, it has been supported in some more recent studies (e.g., Fenton, 1973: pp. 38-39; Smith, 1991: pp. 6-8; Buth, 1992: p. 101).

144 For certain of the insufficiencies of this theory, see above §2.2.1.

146 of the uses of WEQATAL are imperfective” (Joosten, 2012: p. 289). In his argument against the alleged imperfective uses of weqatal, Joosten pointed out that the “iterative use can be explained from the modal meaning” and that many of the world’s languages, including English, “use irrealis forms to express repetition” in past time contexts (2012: pp. 289 and 286 respectively; see also Joosten, 1997: p. 81-82; Cook, 2012a: p. 248). As Palmer has explained, while “past time reference is usually treated as realis, what is relevant here is that the habitual past does not relate to specific actions in the past, but to a tendency to act” (2001: p. 179).145 The alleged simple future use of weqatal (that is, future specifically in temporal location without any notion of contingency or subordination) may also be questioned on two accounts. First, it should be noted that the recent proponents of this use, most notably Andersen and Van de Sande, have provided no examples that unquestionably demonstrate the simple future use of weqatal.

Second, “in languages in which mood is described in terms of realis/irrealis,” such as BH,146

“[f]uturity is often marked as irrealis” (Palmer, 2001: p. 124; see also Lyons, 1977: pp. 809-823).

Essentially, this means that the past habitual and future uses of weqatal are not necessarily tantamount to imperfective uses of the gram. They may also be explained as irrealis uses (see

Joosten, 2002: pp. 60-64).147

Over the greater part of the past century, another theory that supposes two distinct uses of the SC has been developing. It appeared initially in the early part of the 20th century. Regarding the origins of the weqatal Ginsberg rejected the analogical explanation and suggested instead, in light of comparative evidence from Ugarit, “that one of the original functions of the perfect” is

145 Bybee et al. (1994: pp. 238-239) do not accept that the past habitual is modal, but see Palmer (2001: pp. 188-191) who refutes their objections.

146 Cook, 2012a: pp. 234-235.

147 Cook originally argued against Joosten’s explanation of the past habitual and iterative use of the LPC as modal (2006: p. 28), but later adopted the possibility (2012a: pp. 221-222).

147 what developed into the gram. Specifically, it was the “optative and precative” functions (1936: p. 177). In other words, he posited that an irrealis use of the SC underlay the gram. Although it would be difficult to explain how the “optative and precative” functions could have developed the full spectrum of the weqatal’s uses (Cook, 2012a: p. 120), this was the start of a new trajectory of research. In the following section we will discuss the development of our understanding of the origins of the irrealis use of the SC and its connection to weqatal.

§3.1.1 The Origins and Development of the Modal Use of the Suffix Conjugation

Moran’s groundbreaking study of the Byblian letters found in Tel El Amarna has shaped the grammatical landscape of NWS studies since its completion in 1950. In his analysis of the verbal forms, he found that the SC was used with past, present, and future time reference (2003: pp. 28-33). In his text sample, there were thirty-three examples of the SC with future time reference. Of these, twenty-four followed the conjunction (u) and eight appeared in the protasis of a conditional clause (2003: p. 31).148 His work on the Amarna letters was furthered by Rainey who analyzed the letters from all of the Canaanite cities. Rainey claimed that all of the future uses of the SC were “in the protasis of a conditional sentence” or “dependent on a ‘conversive’ conjunction (u)” (1973: p. 242). He went on to explain that the SCs following the conjunction

“have a clear subordination to what precedes; most are the predicate of an apodosis while four of them follow an imperative” (1973: p. 242). He later affirmed and summarized his view stating that, apart from the rare optative use of the SC, all future time uses of the SC in the Canaanite

148 The only other example is u lā kašid irīšu u ušširtīšu “as soon as the request arrives, I will send him” (EA 82:16-17). For discussion of this use, see Moran, 2003: p. 137.

148

Amarna letters were in the protases or apodoses of conditional propositions or in a purpose clause (1996a: pp. 355-365).

The use of the SC in conditional propositions is found in many WS languages. In

Ugaritic, the SC can refer to irrealis situations in protases and apodoses.

(a) RS 16.379: 16-20 w . hm . ḫt . ˁl . w . lỉkt . ˁmk . w . hm . l . ˁl . w . lảkm . ỉlảk

“And if the Hittite comes up, I will send you a message. And (even) if (the Hittite)

does not come up, I will certainly send a message” (translation by Huehnergard,

2012: p. 194).

The SC and the LPC occur in the protases of conditional propositions in Imperial Aramaic (IA), while the LPC and the Imperative appear in the apodoses (see Folmer, 1995: pp. 394-421).

הן כן עבדו עד זי אגורא זך יתבנה וצדקה יהוה לך קדם יהו אלה שמיא מן גבר זי b) TAD A4.7: 27-28)

יקרב לה עלוה ודבחן דמן כדמי כסף כנכרין 1לף

“If thus they do so that temple will be built, (then) it will be righteousness to you

before Yahu, God of Heaven, more than the man who brings to him burnt offerings

and sacrifices whose worth is like a thousand talents of silver.”149

In BH, the SC most often occurs in the apodosis, directly following the conjunction waw.

However, it can appear in the protasis or the apodosis without the conjunction.150 In the examples below, the SC occurs with and without the conjunction in the protasis (c-d) and without the conjunction waw in the apodosis (e-f).

,עבדו G Impf. 2ms) in place of) תעבד The “second draft” of this letter (TAD A4.8: 26) reads 149 demonstrating the point that in IA protases can have the SC or the LPC.

150 This is very similar to what is found in Phoenician. The SC in Phoenician occurs with future time reference in apodoses, and while in most cases the SC follows the conjunction w-, there are cases without w- (Krahmalkov, 1986: pp. 9-10).

149

ּכִׁ י יִׁתֵן אִׁ יש אֶ ל רֵ עֵהּו חֲמֹור או שֹור או שֶהוְּכָּל בְּ הֵמָּה מלִׁשְּ ר ּומֵת או נִׁשְּ בַר או נִׁשְּ בָּה אֵ ין c) Exod. 22:9)

ראֶ ה

“If a man should give a donkey, ox, lamb, or any animal for (safe-)keeping, and it

dies, or is injured or captured without anyone seeing (it)...”

כִ י הִ נֵה הָלְכּו מִ שֹּד מִצְרַ יִם תְ קַּבְ צֵם מֹּף תְ קַּבְרֵ ם d) Hos. 9:6)

“For behold, should they go away from destruction, (then) Egypt would gather them,

Memphis would bury them.”

אָּבִׁ יו ּכִׁ י עָּשַ קע שֶ קגָּזַל גֵזֶל אָּ ח וַ אֲשֶ ר ל א טֹוב עָּשָּ ה בְּ תֹוְך עַמָּ יו וְּ הִׁ נֵה תמֵ בַעֲֹונֹו e) Ezek. 18:18)

“As for his father, because he practiced extortion, he robbed (his) brother, and did

what was not good amidst his people, behold he will die in his iniquity!”

כְהִתְ חַּבֶרְ ָך עִ ם אֲחַזְיָהּו ּפָרַ ץ יְהוָה אֶ ת מַ עֲׂשֶ יָך f) 2 Chr. 20:37)

“Because you are in alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord shall breach your works.”

The SC appears more commonly in protases in Qumran Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew than it does in BH, perhaps under Aramaic influence (Qimron, 2008: p. 84).

The occurrence of the SC in conditional propositions has also been found in Syriac,

Classical Arabic, Ge’ez, and Phoenician (see Cook, 2008a: p. 7; Cook, 2012a: pp. 251-252 and the literature cited there). The consistency of the comparative evidence strongly suggests these phenomena are related. However, it is necessary to make a clear and linguistically sound connection between the irrealis use of the SC in BH (and weqatal) and comparative data.

Smith considered the comparative evidence and concluded that “the BH converted perfect may be traced to the future uses of *qatala in apodoses of BH conditional sentences as in

Amarna and Ugaritic” (1991: p. 13). Isaksson has recently leveled a critique against such a view. He claimed that the “suggestion that we-qatal originated in ‘conditional clauses’” is far

150 from satisfactory because “the correlation between we-qatal and the coding of apodosis clauses is conspicuously weak when examining all cases of conditional clause combining, since we-qatal clauses occur within a protasis complex as well as within an apodosis complex” (2015a: p. 73).

In other words, Isaksson claimed that since weqatals are found in protases as well as apodoses, it is unlikely that the weqatal construction developed specifically in conditional apodoses.151

Isaksson’s critique renders Smith’s suggestion less than convincing. It should be noted, however, that Isaksson aimed this critique at Cook (2012a), even though Cook did not advocate the same theory as Smith (see below).

Andrason, in a two part study (2011; 2012), analyzed the so-called weqatal and concluded that it developed from qatal(a) but branched off of the Anterior Path as the result of

“modal contamination” that “originated in conditional apodoses” (2012: p. 26). He concluded that in BH “the weqatal is without doubt an independent and fully grammaticalized form, i.e. a new conjugation with a particular and stable shape, and with its own functional load distinct from those of qatal and yiqtol” (2012: p. 25). This “functional load” was an amalgam of values including future tense, contingent mood, and imperfective aspect (2012: p. 25). Yet, for all its genius, his study is hampered by his assumptions regarding the alleged values of weqatal and that weqatal is a form that grammaticalized from its use in conditional apodoses. He did not demonstrate that the apparent future tense and imperfective values are realis (cf. above §3.1) and, as Isaksson (2015a: p. 73; see above) has pointed out, it is very unlikely that weqatal is a “form” that originated in conditional apodoses. It is these basic assumptions that misguided his otherwise linguistically sound study.

151 Part of the trouble for Smith was that he was attempting to explain the origins of weqatal, as if it had become an independent form.

151

To date, the best account for the origins of the modal use of the SC has been suggested by

Cook. He did not start with weqatal as a form and then attempt to explain how it developed as many scholars have, including Smith and Andrason. Rather he set out to explain how the SC acquired modal uses. Cook noted that the comparative data demonstrated the use of the SC in conditional protases and apodoses. He posited that “irrealis qatal derives from a context-induced reinterpretation” of the SC “from its use in conditional constructions” (Cook, 2012a: p. 251).

His argument is based on the principles of context-induced reinterpretation set out by Heine,

Claudi, and Hünnemeyer (1991: pp. 71-72):

“Stage I: In addition to its focal or core sense A, a given linguistic form F acquires an additional sense B

when occurring in a specific context C. This can result in semantic ambiguity since either of the senses A

or B may be implied in context C. Which of the two senses is implied usually is, but need not be,

dependent on the relevant communication situation. It is equally possible that the speaker means A and the

hearer interprets him or her as implying B or that the hearer understands B whereas the speaker intends to

convey A.

Stage II: The existence of sense B now makes it possible for the relevant form to be used in new contexts

that are compatible with B but rule out sense A.

Stage III: B is conventionalized; it may be said to form a secondary focus characterized by properties

containing elements not present in A ... with the effect that F now has two ‘polysemes,’ A and B, which

may develop eventually into ‘homophones.’”

Cook applied these stages of reanalysis to the modal use of the SC, suggesting that the

“additional sense” was irrealis when the form occurred in the “specific context” of a conditional protasis (2012a: p. 252). He also suggested that “the final (purpose/result) and directive meanings of the form might also be attributed to this context-induced reinterpretation on the basis of the appearance of the form in conditional apodoses, especially in conditional legal

152 formulations” (2012a: p. 252). This not only offers a possible explain for how the SC acquired a modal sense, but also for the various modal values of the form.

Andersen challenged the notion that modal senses arose from perfective situations in conditional clauses asking “how frequently would one refer to past concrete examples when attempting to convey conditional meaning?” (2000: p. 38). But that is not the right question to ask since it would misconstrue the process of reinterpretation. It is important to be clear that the original form was not modal. As Andrason has explained, “the input expression was not inherently modal: neither the PS *qatal(a) nor the ancestor of the element we- provided values explicitly related to the concept of modality” (2012: p. 4). Furthermore, it is not necessary to posit that the speakers used the perfective form when attempting “to convey conditional meaning,” since the process of semantic change in context-induced reinterpretation is very similar to that of reanalysis.

Reanalysis is a grammaticalization process that refers to the “re-bracketing” of the constituents of an expression or construction that does not change the form of the expression or construction (Hopper & Traugott, 2008: pp. 50-52). According to Hopper and Traugott, this occurs when “the hearer understands a form to have a structure and a meaning that are different from those of the speaker, as when [Hamburg] + [er] ‘item (of food) from Hamburg’ is heard as

[ham] + [burger]” (2008: p. 50). When reanalysis occurs, there is “potential for ambiguity” as the original analysis and the innovated reanalysis coexist (2008: p. 52). The same potential exists when context-induced reinterpretation occurs. Thus, when a conditional clause in a legal context refers to a situation perfectively in the protasis as the situation that began the legally pertinent circumstances, the hearers, who understand the function of the utterance as not only descriptive but also prescriptive, may reinterpret the perfective situation as irrealis (= Heine et al.

153 stage 1). Likewise, a perfective situation in a descriptive apodosis may also be reinterpreted by the hearers who understood the contextual function of the verb phrase to be prescriptive (= stage

1). Once those meanings have taken root, the innovated irrealis senses were then used in other contexts (= stage 2) (Cook, 2012a: p. 252).

§3.1.2 Word Order in Irrealis Verbal Clauses

In the previous section we have endeavored to explain the innovation of the modal use of the SC. In this section, we will explore word order (WO) as a potential strategy for indicating this use (in contrast to the realis use of the same form) and its common appearance as weqatal in

BH.

In the older literature, WO was commonly considered to be at the whim of the author

(Muraoka, 1985: pp. 2-3, 30; Bandstra, 1992: p. 109). However, that perspective has dramatically changed over the past few decades, as scholars have come to recognize the import of WO in verbal and non-verbal clauses. This was partly due to a growing dissatisfaction with the traditional explanation of WO and the extremely vague and ubiquitously invoked notion of emphasis (Muraoka, 1985; Van der Merwe, 1999; Moshavi, 2010). Another important factor was that WO has a dominant role in the analysis of the BHVS for discourse-focused approaches.

As scholars carefully analyzed WO in verbal clauses, a pattern in irrealis expressions was recognized. Several detailed studies made a connection between clause-initial WO and the expression of modality. In his study titled “A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and

Position in the Sentence,” Niccacci argued that, apart from a few syntactical environments, a yiqtol in clause-initial position is Jussive, while yiqtol in noninitial position is indicative (1987: pp. 7-19; see also Joosten, 2011: pp. 213-219). This study was followed up two years later by

154

Revell who found that “an imperfect form in the corpus, which begins its clause has modal

or followed by אל value; an imperfect form which stands within its clause (and is not preceded by

has indicative value” (1989: p. 21). He concluded that a verb “can be marked as modal in the (נא corpus by its form (imperative, or short or affixed imperfect), by its position (initial in its clause)

:p. 32). Shulman’s study (1996 :1989) ”(אל or preceding נא or by co-occurrence (with following pp. 241-248) showed that “the directive-volitive forms in Genesis through Kings” are clause- initial “between 94 and 97 percent of the time.”152 When these “directive-volitives” are not clause-initial, the cause is the pragmatic fronting, or preposing, of a constituent. In the examples below, the fronted constituents (in bold) are pragmatically emphasized.

וְאֶ ת מֵתְ ָך קְבֹּר a) Gen. 23:15)

“So bury your dead!”

קָּחֶנּו וְּעֵינֶיָך שִׁ ים עָּלָּיו b) Jer. 39:12)

“Take him and look after (lit. set your eyes on) him!”

וְּכָּלָּה אַ ל תַ עֲשּו c) Jer. 5:10)

“But do not make a complete end!”

וְּאַתֶם אַ ל תִׁשְּמְּ עּו אֶ ל נְּבִׁיאֵ יכֶם d) Jer. 27:9)

“But you – do not listen to your prophets!”

In the first three examples, the object of each clause has been fronted, while in example (d) a pronominal subject has been fronted. The evidence from Canaanite dialects attested in the

Amarna letters also supports the connection between verb initial position and modality. Rainey stated that contrary to the normal practices of Akkadian, the injunctives (i.e., Imperatives,

152 As in Cook (2012a: p. 236).

155

Jussives, and Volitives) in these Canaanite influenced texts are almost always clause-initial

(1996b: p. 272; cf. Dallaire, 2014: p. 215).

In the light of the consistent tendency for modal clauses to have verb initial WO, Cook has argued that the so-called weqatal is a modal use of the SC that occurs in clause-initial position (2006: p. 7; 2012a: pp. 235-237). Cook’s approach is not only in line with the evidence of WO in modal clauses but also with the semantics of the uses of weqatal (cf. Joosten, 2012: pp.

288-308).

However, the correlation of verb initial WO and the irrealis semantics of the SC in the construction weqatal has implications that extend beyond the shape and uses of weqatal.

Particularly relevant to this dissertation is that the irrealis SC can occur without the conjunction and it can be syntactically identified by verb-subject (V-S) WO. Of course, various particles often occur in pre-verbal position even in clauses that are V-S. Kawashima has shown that irrealis SCs occur without the conjunction waw (what he calls an “‘orphaned’ converted tense”)

pp. 31-34). In this light, Kawashima has cogently :2010) אם and ,אם לא ,גם ,או when following argued that weqatal was synchronically viewed as a construction (we– and an irrealis SC) and not a verb form (2010: p. 33). Although WO was not a part of Kawashima’s argument, none of his examples of “orphaned” irrealis SCs have S-V WO.153

Importantly, the observations of many scholars regarding WO and the so-called Prophetic

Perfect coincide with the insights made by Cook and Kawashima. Ewald claimed that the SC with future time reference often occurred with verb initial clause position (1879: §135c; cf.

Driver, 1998: §14β-γ), and as was noted in §1.4.2 above, it has often been suggested that

,Caspari, 1848: p. 68 n.; Pearson) הנה Prophetic Perfects occur after certain particles, such as

153 Most of them do not have an explicit, lexical subject at all.

156

Gibson, 1994: §59b.1). It) לכן or כי p. 5; Ewald, 1879: §135c; Hughes, 1970: p. 21) and :1885 should also be recalled (see §1.4.2) that weqatals were often thought to follow Prophetic Perfects

(Driver, 1998: §113.1) or to be interspersed with LPCs and weqatals (Davidson, 1902: §41.1;

Gibson, 1994: §59b). Of course, if some instances of the Prophetic Perfect and weqatal are actually irrealis uses of the SC, the close association of the two, and also the LPC, would be expected.

§3.1.2.1 Word Order in Verbal Clauses

A statistical analysis shows that directive-volitive irrealis verbs almost always occur in

V-S WO. However, in order to substantiate the broader claim that WO is used strategically to indicate modality, we must frame our argument with a discussion of the normal patterns of WO in BH. Ideally, the data would show that a specific WO is used for marking semantic signification by a contrast with the basic, unmarked WO. However, unfortunately, the issue of basic WO in BH is not yet settled. In the following paragraphs, we will briefly survey the research on basic WO in BH and make suggestions that we hope will bring the issue of WO in clauses with fully inflected verb forms closer into focus.

The pertinent grammatical constituents for identifying a basic WO are the subject (S), verb (V), and direct object (O) (Greenberg, 1963: p. 76). The three most common basic WOs in the world’s languages are S-V-O, V-S-O, and S-O-V, though rarely a language has an object initial basic WO (Greenberg, 1963: p. 76). Discussions of WO in BH often only involve the S and V since it is clearly not S-O-V or an object initial language, and in the case of S-V-O and V-

S-O the O (if present) follows the S and the V. In languages that allow multiple WOs, there is typically one that can be identified as the basic one. A basic WO is one that is “pragmatically

157 neutral” (Payne, 1997: p. 77) or “unmarked” (Moshavi, 2010: p. 7). For example, English allows multiple WOs, but the basic WO is S-V-O. Interrogative clauses are verb initial, but they are not pragmatically neutral. The verb initial order of interrogative clauses (will John go to the store?) is marked, while a statement (John will go to the store) shows the unmarked, basic WO (see

DeCaen, 1995: p. 135).

According to Huehnergard, “Proto-Semitic was probably a VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) language” (2004: p. 154). While the WO of Akkadian was greatly impacted by Sumerian, the evidence of “early Akkadian personal names” (e.g., early Ishme-Dagan and Iddin-Dagan contrasted with later Sin-iddinam and Nabu-kudurri-uṣur) and the WS languages generally suggest that VSO was the original basic WO (Huehnergard, 2004: p. 154). The two early West

Semitic dialects that do not have V-S-O as their basic WO are Ugaritic (Sivan, 2001: p. 210;

Huehnergard, 2012: p. 82) and IA (Kaufman, 1974: pp. 132-133; 1997: p. 127), both of which were influenced by Akkadian. In most of the Old Aramaic (OA) inscriptions and in most other

Aramaic dialects the “standard order is VSO” (Creason, 2004: p. 422). This is also true of the

NWS dialects studied by Garr, who found that V-S-O was the dominant WO in Phoenician, OA dialects in the north and west, Samalian, Moabite, and Epigraphic Hebrew (2004: pp. 181-191).

In the light of the comparative Semitic backgrounds, one can safely assume that (Proto-)Hebrew began with V-S-O as its basic WO.

The most common approach scholars have taken to the basic WO of BH is based on frequency (DeCaen, 1995: p. 137). The statistics unquestionably show that V-S-O is overwhelmingly dominant, and most scholars accept V-S-O as the basic WO (e.g., GKC §142.f;

Muraoka, 1985: p. 30; Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 129; Bandstra, 1992: p. 115; Van der

Merwe et al., 1999: p. 336; Van der Merwe, 1999: p. 294; Shimasaki, 2002: pp. 22, 30; Moshavi,

158

2010: pp. 10-17; Shepherd, 2012: p. 186; Fassberg, 2013: p. 57). Although very important, frequency is not the only criterion linguists use for establishing the basic WO of a language. As was noted above, the basic WO is one that is unmarked (Hawkins, 1983: p. 13). According to

Siewierska, the basic WO “is typically identified with the order that occurs in stylistically neutral, independent, indicative clauses with full noun phrase (NP) participants, where the subject is definite, agentive and human, the object is a definite semantic patient, and the verb represents an action, not a state or an event” (1988: p. 8; cf. Payne, 1997: pp. 76-77; Bickford,

1998: pp. 214-215). Another indication that a given WO is the basic one in a language is that it is “less restricted [in] distribution” (Dryer, 2007: pp. 74-75).

Applying these criteria to BH, all clauses that are not “stylistically neutral,” i.e., all sentences whose WO has been affected by pragmatic concerns (e.g., clauses showing one kind or another of constituent preposing; see Bandstra, 1992: pp. 120-123; Moshavi, 2010: pp. 64-166;

Holmstedt, 2011: pp. 20-25) must be excluded. Of course, there are limits to what can be identified as pragmatic preposing without knowing what WO is the basic. However, in light of the known fact that BH does not have an object initial basic WO, all object initial clauses are not stylistically neutral (see above examples [a-c] in §3.1.2). All dependent clauses, such as relatives, must be excluded (cf. DeCaen, 1995: p. 137) as well as clauses with wayyiqtol because the form does not meet the distribution requirement. Holmstedt has shown that wayyiqtol “has a more constrained distribution than the other verbal forms” and as a result its clause position should be considered “fixed” and therefore not a reliable indication of basic WO (2011: p. 13).154

Modal clauses, including those with a Jussive, Imperative, the so-called Cohortative, or an irrealis use of the LPC and SC, are also to be excluded.

154 The data are laid out on pp. 9-13.

159

No one has more carefully applied these linguistic criteria to the issue of basic WO in BH than Holmstedt. Based on his analyses of the books of Genesis, Proverbs, Ruth, and Jonah,

Holmstedt has leveled a linguistically supported attack against the widely assumed verb initial

WO of BH (2002; 2005; 2009; 2011). It should be acknowledged that in the course of weeding out all the clauses that do not meet the requirements for basic WO, the amount of clauses that one has to work with in the end are very few. In her discussion of Holmstedt’s dissertation

(2002), Moshavi pointed out that “[o]ut of the thousands of finite nonsubordinate clauses with overt subjects in Genesis (including wayyiqtol), only 175 remain” for analysis after the removal of those that do not meet the criteria (2010: p. 15). She concluded that “[d]etermining the word order of a language on the basis of such a small sample seems somewhat precarious” (2010: p.

15). Her concern is shared by many philologists, including the present author, but the criteria for identifying basic WO in the linguistic literature must not be simply swept under the rug.

Holmstedt found that “VS order is strongly preferred when a third element (including

‘modality’) is in a position higher than the S and V,” and that otherwise, “SV order outnumbers

VS order by roughly two-to-one” (2011: p. 28, emphasis original). While he believes that the final word on the matter must wait until every book of the HB has been analyzed, his studies thus far have led him to conclude “that the most accurate description of Hebrew word order is SV / X-

VS—that is, SV is basic but the inversion to VS order is triggered by a third constituent ‘X’

(subordinator, fronted constituent, or modality)” (2011: p. 28). Although Holmstedt’s methodology is clear and his findings consistent, it is apparently counter-intuitive to the student of Hebrew.155

155 It should be noted that Holmstedt takes a generative approach which, as he admits, assumes that, on some level, the basic universal WO is S-V (2009: pp. 120-121).

160

One of the reasons that it is so difficult to nail down the basic WO in BH is that the different verb forms statistically favor different WOs. For example, in clauses that have an explicit, lexical subject the realis SPC (*yaqtul) is always found in clause-initial position (i.e., V-

S) in the construction wayyiqtol, while the realis LPC (*yaqtulu) usually follows the subject (cf.

Revell, 1989: p. 21).156 Like the realis LPC, the realis SC also usually follows the subject, while the irrealis SC precedes the subject.157 In fact, the consistency of these WO tendencies has been repeated cited as support for a textlinguistic approach to the verbal system (e.g., Gropp, 1991;

Buth, 1992; Gentry, 1998). It is often claimed that, in prose, clauses with V-S order (i.e., clauses with wayyiqtol or weqatal) are foreground (or mainline) while S-V clauses (i.e., those with a

LPC [x + yiqtol] or SC [x + qatal]) are background (or offline). Yet regardless of whether or not the verb forms and constructions mark any textlinguistic functions, the WO tendencies clearly vary from form to form (or construction to construction).

It is important to bear in mind that Holmstedt’s (2002; 2011) conclusions are drawn from a very small percent of the extant nonsubordinate realis clauses “with overt subjects in Genesis”

(Moshavi, 2010: p. 15). His conclusions from that small percent of the examples are important, but may not offer a clear perspective of the basic WO in BH. Moreover, since each of the different verb forms and constructions strongly tend to be either V-S or S-V, it may not be very helpful even to attempt to determine the basic WO in BH in the way that Holmstedt has. For example, V-S order is uncommon for clauses with realis SCs, but it is (virtually) mandatory in

156 Holmstedt’s statistics of verbal clauses without pre-verbal adjuncts, compliments, or subordinators in Genesis show that wayyiqtol is completely V-S (occurring 866x), while the realis LPC occurs 5x in V-S order and 32x in S-V order (2011: pp. 9-12).

157 The verbal clauses without pre-verbal adjuncts, compliments, or subordinators in Genesis show that a realis SC with a subject that is a lexical NP occurs much more frequently with S-V order (127x versus the 22 instances showing V-S order) (Holmstedt, 2011: p. 10). Meanwhile, the statistics show that the irrealis SC, which Holmstedt wholey equated with those occurring in the construction weqatal, has V-S WO (Holmstedt, 2011: p. 10).

161 clauses with a wayyiqtol. It is not a goal of this dissertation to determine the basic WO, but knowledge of the synchronic system of WO, as revealed by the statistics, is of vital importance.

§3.1.2.2 Diachronic Development in the System of Word Order

In the following paragraphs, we will propose a diachronic development that aims to explain how the synchronic system of WO came to be. Specifically, we will focus on the clause- initial verb constructions, such as wayyiqtol and weqatálti,158 and the WO distinction between realis and irrealis LPCs and SCs.

The wayyiqtol is a construction consisting of, at least, a conjunction (wa-) and a SPC

(*yaqtul) with a doubled initial consonant. To account for the patach and the doubled initial consonant of the verb (waC-), some scholars have suggested that there was originally a function

Ewald, 1879: p. 19), while others view it as a secondary development in the) אז word, such as

Masoretic traditions intended to disambiguate the form from the LPC and the Jussive when following the conjunction (e.g., Smith, 1991: p. 6). If there ever was such a function word, it is semantically unidentifiable.159

οὐθεθθεν) and the Samaritan וַתִתֶ ן The evidence from Origen’s Hexapla (e.g., Ps. 18:36

wyāˀūmər/) indicate that the patach and doubled consonant were not/ ויאמר ,.reading tradition (e.g a part of either of these traditions (see Janssen, 1982: pp. 173-175; Sperber, 1966: p. 192). This suggests, though it does not prove, that the waC- was developed in the tradition that was preserved by the Masoretes for strategic disambiguation (Blau, 2010: p. 190; also see Lambdin,

158 Following the common convention, I use this term to refer to a “simple” conjunction and the SC, without regard for the actual place of accentuation according to the Masoretic reading tradition. By way of contrast, the term weqataltí below refers to the irrealis use of the SC when following the conjunction.

159 As Cook has stated, “[w]e must conclude either that the semantic value of the waC- prefix eludes us or that the function word has become semantically bleached” (2012a: p. 259).

162

1971: p. 324 n. 16; Khan, 2012: p. 43 n. 31). In other words, originally wayyiqtol was a “simple” conjunction (wa-) and a SPC (*yaqtul). This helps to explain the existence of the preterite SPC in Moabite, certain OA texts, such as in the Zakkur and Tel Dan inscriptions, and possibly the

Balaam text from Deir ‘Allā (cf. Kaufman, 1997: p. 126). The instances in the Tel Dan stela are

,ln. 3) (Muraoka יהך ln. 2 and יסק) particularly instructive, as two occur without the conjunction

1995: pp. 19-20; Muraoka & Rogland, 1998: pp. 99-101). It would be very difficult to explain how BH and these Aramaic dialects all made the same innovation, and because the preterite SPC is almost unattested without the conjunction in these inscriptions, wave theory is not a likely solution since the entire grammaticalized construction would have to be borrowed. It is much more likely that the preterite SPC is a retention in each of these dialects and possibly an areal feature.

Many scholars today take a historical-comparative approach to the SPC in the wayyiqtol form viewing it as a retention of the early WS perfective (*yaqtul; cf. ES iprus). However,

DeCaen preferred to view it as a Jussive,160 which allowed the consistent clause-initial WO of the form to fit his view of the basic WO in BH (1995: p. 111-113). Citing the works of Niccacci and Revell, he noted that modal clauses have verbs in the initial position (1995: p. 24).

However, apart from modal clauses DeCaen claimed that BH is a verb second (or V2) language

(1995: p. 24), in which the verb was preceded by an initial constituent, such as a subject, a relative pronoun, or some other particle. Most scholars cannot accept that the Jussive underlies the wayyiqtol (Holmstedt, 2002: p. 152), but they must nevertheless explain why the form

160 This approach was also taken by Hatav (2004: pp. 495, 523).

163 consistently161 has clause-initial position. Holmstedt (2002: pp. 150-155; cf. 2011: p. 28 n. 57) suggested that the waC- represents the original existence of a function word that triggered the inversion of the normal order (i.e., from SV to X-VS). This theory is followed by Cook who stated that such a theory “is preferable syntactically to the other sorts of explanations because it can account for the obligatory VS order” (2012a: p. 258, emphasis added). Yet in the light of the evidence referenced above, it seems unlikely that there ever was a distinct function word that was grammaticalized along with the conjunction and the SPC into the wayyiqtol. Adopting such a theory simply because it can explain the consistent WO of the form is extremely unsatisfying

(cf. Isaksson, 2015a: p. 73 n. 1).

Although Isaksson’s postulations on WO in BH are mostly focused on clause linking, he has made some observations that are helpful to this discussion. First, the SPC, whether Jussive or Preterite, was distinguished from the LPC by WO: the SPC took clause-initial position, while the LPC took noninitial position (2015b: pp. 3-7). The Jussive and Preterite were then distinguished by a variation of the conjunction. “The role of the variant wa + gemination is to mark the following short yiqtol as indicative” (Isaksson, 2015b: p. 5). He suggested that since this disambiguation strategy was already used in the earliest poetry of the HB, it must have been in place in Proto-Hebrew (2015b: p. 3).

Presumably in the early stages of the language, all verbs would usually occur in clause- initial position, unless there was constituent preposing for one reason or another. But in order to distinguish between the SPCs and the LPC, the realis use of LPC was pushed out into noninitial position. What this means is that the wayyiqtol and the modal forms retained their original verb initial WO. Therefore, the WO of wayyiqtol should be understood as an archaic feature that

161 According to Holmstedt, the “only constituent that can stand in front of the wayyiqtol is a fronted temporal Prepositional Phrase Adjunct ... although that even this is allowed may be considered a controversial claim,” (2011: p. 12).

164 persisted in the language (cf. Cook, 1986: pp. 15-16). It seems likely that the realis SC was also pushed out to noninitial position, on analogy of the indicative LPC, to distinguish it from the irrealis SC. It is possible that one mechanism behind the “pushing out” of the realis LPC and SC is that preposed subjects were reanalyzed as nonpreposed subjects (Holmstedt, 2011: pp. 26-

27).162

It might be suggested that the V-S order found in clauses with weqatálti is also a relic of older syntax, but the suggestion is not completely necessary since there are synchronic reasons for its use. Revell suggested that weqatálti of the 1cs and 2ms only occurred in “a rather restricted set of circumstances” (1989: p. 279). Waltke and O’Connor explained that the defining factor in identifying a weqatálti is “semantic pertinence” (1990: pp. 540-542), and listed two additional uses for the form. Yet all of these have one thing in common; they all occur in environments that very often do not require explicit subjects.163 When the context implies a nonmodal situation with past time reference for a weqatal, and especially when it does not have a subject in the clause, the reader is clued into the likelihood that the weqatal is a weqatálti. For example, in (a) below there is a SC with the conjunction that is, in light of the factors just identified, clearly a weqatálti.

וְהֶעֱבִירַ נִי עֲלֵיהֶם סָבִ יב סָבִ יב a) Ezek. 37:2)

“And he (the Lord) brought me over them all round.”

162 It is possible that the patterns of WO attested in the HB testify to its transitional nature. Some scholars have suggested that a change occurred in Hebrew as it drifted from an original V-S-O language to a S-V-O language (Givón, 1977; Holmstedt, 2011: pp. 26-27; Fassberg, 2013: pp. 58, 69-71). Cf. Kaufman (1997: p. 127) who wrote of “the normal Semitic drift from VSO to SVO.” In support of this possibility is the fact that in Qumran Hebrew there are an “inordinate number of clauses” with a S-V order (Holst, 2008: p. 144) that is not the result of constituent fronting (cf. Fassberg, 2013: pp. 57-59). Fassberg (2013: pp. 58-71) suggested that the shift from V-S to S-V is one of several syntactic changes made from Classical BH to QH involving the postponing of emphasized verbal and non-verbal constituents. According to Givón, the irrealis forms maintained the original V-S order as they resisted the grammaticalization of S-V order longer than the realis forms (1977: p. 184).

163 E.g., of Waltke and O’Connor’s fifteen examples, only one has an explicit subject (Jer. 4:10).

165

Context is the critical factor for identifying a weqatálti, but the regular lack of an explicit subject helps to explain its use from a WO perspective. Another verse shows that this is the case with weqatálti and with the SC without the conjunction.

הִ רְ ּבֵיתֶ ם חַלְלֵיכֶם ּבָעִ יר הַזֹּאת ּומִ לֵאתֶ ם חּוצֹּתֶיהָ חָלָל b) Ezek. 11:6)

“You have multiplied your slain in this city, and you have filled its streets

(with) slain.”

Neither of these has an explicit subject, and the context (God’s correction of the people’s wrong thinking expressed in a proverbial saying) clearly indicates that the situations are past time. The statistics provided by McFall, despite the fact that they are based on the RSV translation, strongly suggest that weqatálti is, overall, of relatively marginal use.164

The post-biblical Hebrew dialects represent two different trajectories, each away from the co-occurrence of weqataltí and weqatálti. In Qumran Hebrew (QH), there are no so-called

“unconverted perfects” with the conjunction (Smith, 1991: p. 59).165 Furthermore, it has been suggested that, in at least one case, what may have appeared to the scribe as an “unconverted

when it was quoted in 1QM (קם) was intentionally changed to a SC (וקם) perfect” in Num. 24:17

11:6 (Holst, 2008: pp. 101, 105). But whether the reading in 1QM 11:6 represents an intentional change or an alternative reading tradition, it is clear that the construction weqatálti was obsolete in QH. However, in Mishnaic Hebrew, one finds the opposite scenario, in which weqatálti is common (Segal, 1980: §308) and the construction weqataltí is obsolete (Segal, 1980: §306).

This was already anticipated in the language of Qoheleth. There it may be the result of Aramaic

164 McFall (1982: p. 188) claims that of all the occurrences of the SC following the conjunction, 484 are nonmodal past time (i.e., weqatálti) and 5,117 are volitive, modal, or future time. For the sake of making as clear a contrast as possible, the examples translated in present time or with a nonverbal clause were here excluded.

165 The lone example in the Damascus Document occurs in one of the environments observed by Revell (see Smith, 1991: p. 37).

166 influence (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 541) or perhaps “an element of diachronic change” away from wayyiqtol (Cook, 2013: p. 341).

§3.1.3 Conclusions Regarding the Irrealis Suffix Conjugation

Ultimately, while the issue of basic WO in BH is not yet settled, the evidence strongly supports a WO disambiguation strategy for the irrealis and realis SC (and LPC). The other constructions with verb-initial order can be accounted for. Wayyiqtol is an archaic feature that is syntactically restricted. This not only affirms its exclusion from studies on basic WO, but also alleviates the struggle to find in it a function word that probably never existed. Weqatálti was permitted in certain environments out of necessity, particularly when there is no explicit subject, but also when closely connected situations are described (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 540-

542). Reasons that an irrealis verb may occur in another position include the use of adjuncts

(especially clausal adverbs) and the fronting of other constituents for pragmatic purposes.

We also conclude that the irrealis SC typically occurs in clause-initial position resulting in its close association with the conjunction waw in the shape of weqatal. The vast majority of irrealis SCs appear following the conjunction, but not all. In the following section we will discuss those that do not as they relate to the so-called Prophetic Perfect.

§3.2 The Irrealis Suffix Conjugation and the Prophetic Perfect

The various uses of the SC have, for the most part, been adequately described in the literature, though typically the irrealis uses are discussed in relation to weqatal as a distinct form with a consecutive sense that continues the sense of the prior verb or clause. These uses include the expression of a variety of event (deontic and epistemic) and propositional (dynamic)

167 modalities (Joosten, 2012: pp. 208-212, 290-301; Cook, 2012a: pp. 249-256; cf. Gianto, 1998: p.

196). What is most significant for this dissertation is that the irrealis use of the SC occurs both with and without the conjunction (cf. Kawashima, 2010: pp. 31-34). It occurs much less often without waw, and when it does, it is usually in the prophetic literature or in quoted speech in a narrative. It is much more common, however, to find the irrealis SC with waw even in prophetic literature. For example, in Isaiah 19:16-25 there are numerous irrealis SCs, and every one of them appears in the weqatal construction. Although the irrealis use of the SC is not completely restricted to these genres, we will focus on the prophetic literature and direct speech in narrative in the following pages.

The traditional explanation of the Prophetic Perfect has so often been intimately connected the use of the SC called, inter alia, the Perfect of Certainty that many scholars either viewed the Prophetic Perfect and the Perfect of Certainty as one and the same (e.g., GKC §106n) or separated them into two categories that can be very hard to distinguish clearly.166 The notion of certainty, or confidence, has been ubiquitously invoked in the discussions of future time uses of the SC since the medieval Jewish grammarians (see above, §1.4). A few scholars, however, have recognized that when the SC is used to express certainty, the use is modal (Gianto, 1998: p.

194; also Garr in Driver, 1998: p. xliii; cf. Rogland, 2003a: p. 55 n. 20). Gianto, for example, proposed that the Prophetic Perfect and the Perfect of Certainty express situations with epistemic modality, though he considered them “imagined” in past time even though the referenced

166 For example, Davidson described the Perfect of Certainty, on the one hand, as expressing “[a]ctions depending on a resolution of the will of the speaker (or of others whose mind is known), or which appear inevitable from circumstances, or which are confidently expected, are conceived and described as having taken place” (1902: §41a). On the other hand, he described the Prophetic Perfect in this way: “[i]t often happens, esp. in the higher style, that in the midst of descriptions of the fut. the imagination suddenly conceives the act as accomplished, and interjects a perf. amidst a number of imperfs.” (1902: §41b). Unless the difference is purely stylistic, it is difficult to say exactly what the difference is between being “conceived and described as having taken place” and being suddenly conceived in the imagination “as accomplished.”

168 situations were future from the ST (1998: p. 194). Although we affirm Gianto’s categorization of these uses of the SC as irrealis, his description of the irrealis SC without waw was problematic for several reasons: (1) he failed to recognize that weqatal (i.e., weqataltí) is an irrealis gram, (2) he did not view the Prophetic Perfects or Perfects of Certainty as maintaining the contextual time reference, and (3) he offered no parameters for identifying these uses of the SC. In the following paragraphs we will discuss the epistemic uses of the SC as they relate to the Prophetic Perfect or

Perfect of Certainty and the parameters we will use for identifying these uses of the SC, namely contextual time reference and WO.

The examples in the sections below (§3.2.1-§3.2.4), most of which have been considered either Prophetic Perfects or Perfects of Certainty, express deductive or assumptive modality, both of which are kinds of epistemic modality (see above, §1.3). Unlike speculative modality, which is inherently uncertain, both of these have a degree of confidence in the proposition based on inference (cf. Bybee, et al, 1994: pp. 179-180; Cantarini, Abraham, & Leiss, 2014: pp. 4-5). One difference between deductive and assumptive modalities is that the former infers from

“observable evidence,” while the latter infers from “generally known evidence” (Palmer, 2001: p. 24). Another difference is that deductive modality has a higher degree of certainty than assumptive (Bybee et al., 1994: p. 179; Palmer, 2001: p. 25).167 These epistemic modalities are expressed in BH by the LPC and the SC with and without the conjunction waw (cf. Gianto, 1998: pp. 188-191, 194-195). BH does not make distinctions between the kinds of epistemic modality with the use of different forms, as for example English does. English often uses may for

167 Although English tends “to limit the notion of certainty to the truth assertion” of a given proposition, not all languages do (e.g., German and Dutch) (Cantarini et al., 2014: p. 5). Thus we can distinguish between speaker certainty and truth assertion. As Cantarini, Abraham, and Leiss have observed, “certainty (and uncertainty) is not identical to truth in that it may be said that what is true can only be affirmed for facts and events or observation of objects. Certainty, by contrast, is someone’s state of mind with respect to the truth” of the proposition (2014: p. 5).

169 speculative, must for deductive, and will for assumptive (Palmer, 2001: p. 25). Palmer warned that in English it can be hard to differentiate assumptive modality and future tense since they both use will (2001: p. 28). In the examples below we will, as often as we are able, identify the specific kind of epistemic modality expressed by the irrealis SCs. However, it should be noted that in prophetic literature it can be difficult to determine whether a given example expresses deductive or assumptive modality because we are not privy to the exact conditions, circumstances, information, or revelation that he had or those had by the later redactors.

Nevertheless, all of the examples below express one kind or another of epistemic modality.168

The most significant point of semantic overlap between the traditionally described

Prophetic Perfect and the irrealis use of the SC is that the situation is future from the ST.169

Although the traditional view of the Prophetic Perfect suggests the speaker transported himself into the future, beyond the situation so that he might look back upon the situation as if it had already happened, the fact remains that the situation described is future from the ST. Apart from a very few uses of the SC, including the Prophetic Perfect and the Perfect of Certainty, the SC without waw is not typically recognized as having future time reference apart from modal

,Therefore .(לּולֵא ,.contexts, such as in conditional propositions or following certain particles (e.g establishing the time reference of the SCs in the examples below will be critical.

In light of our discussion above on the irrealis use of the SC and the role of WO as a disambiguation strategy for indicating realis or irrealis situations, an irrealis SC would be

168 Cf. Joosten’s comments on the gram weqatal: “Predictions expressed with WEQATAL may be reliable or hypothetical, depending on the speaker and the speech situation. They may have a promissory or minatory character” (2012: p. 295). Similarly, Cook has recently cited evidence of weqatals that occurs in prophecies (particularly in contexts that are unambiguously located in the future) to the effect that the word of the Lord comes “as a statement of intended action that is contingent upon the people’s response” (2012b: p. 317).

169 Of course, not every irrealis use of the SC is future time (e.g., there is a past time deductive, epistemic use of the SC in Gen. 37:33; see below) but the occurrences with future time reference are the relevant ones.

170 expected to occur in clause-initial position and if there is a subject, that it would occur in postverbal position. But since irrealis verbs can and do occur in other clause positions also, we will explain the relevant syntactic environments that allow for irrealis verbs to occur in noninitial position.

First, there are certain constituents that occur in preverbal position that are syntactically detached, rather than preposed. This means that when these constituents occur before a verb

(realis or irrealis), they should not be syntactically considered the first element in the clause.

et al., and negative ,על כן ,הנה ,לכן ,כי These include conjunctions, clausal adverbs, such as particles (Moshavi, 2010: pp. 68-76).170 Clausal adverbs are syntactically required to occur at the beginning of the clause so that even if there is preposing, the preposed constituent(s) occur(s) after the clausal adverb (Moshavi, 2010: pp. 73-75). Therefore, when an Imperative follows a

Kgs. 22:19), the Imperative should be 1 , לָּכֵןשְּ מַע דְּ בַר יְּהוָּה ,.e.g) לכן clausal adverb, such as

.Josh ,אַ ל תָּ סּור מִׁ מֶ נּו ,.considered to be in clause-initial position. Similarly, negated Jussives (e.g

-Exod. 20:17) should also be considered clause ,ל א תַחְּ מד בֵית רֵ עֶ ָך ,.and irrealis LPCs (e.g (1:7 initial. Likewise, an irrealis SC that follows a clausal adverb or the like should be considered clause-initial.

Second, as noted above, the pragmatic preposing of constituents can affect the WO of clauses with realis or irrealis verbs. The commonly recognized kinds of pragmatic preposing include focusing and topicalization. But pragmatic preposing is also used in BH to create parallelism. Because parallelism often affects the order of constituents, verbs that normally require clause-initial position may occur in clause-final or other positions.

170 Moshavi also discusses adjunct clauses which also occur in preverbal position (2010: pp. 76-77), but, perhaps due to the small corpus of BH, this is not relevant to this dissertation.

171

Accordingly, examples of the irrealis SC without waw are divided into categories: (1) those that are clause-initial with S following (§3.2.1), (2) those following clausal adverbs or negative particles (§3.2.2), and (3) those whose order has been pragmatically altered (§3.2.3).

This third section will be further divided into two sub-sections; those clauses that have pragmatically fronted constitutents for reasons other than parallelism (§3.2.3.1) and those clauses that have pragmatically fronted constitutents for the purpose of creating parallelism (§3.2.3.2).

There will also be a section for additional examples (§3.2.4). This final section will also be further divided into two sub-sections; one for “mixed examples” (i.e., when two or more irrealis

SCs that two or more of the categories outlined above occur in close proximity to one another;

§3.2.4.1) and a second for potential examples that are textually uncertain (§3.2.4.2).

§3.2.1 Clause-initial with Subject Following

In this section, we will illustrate the irrealis use of the SC that occurs without the conjunction waw, syntactical adjuncts, and pragmatically altered WOs. Ewald considered clause-initial position a feature that sometimes indicated the future time use of the SC (1879:

§135c; cf. Driver, 1998: §14β-γ). In each of the following examples, the verb is first in its clause and it is followed by the subject.

The first is one of the most commonly cited examples of the so-called Prophetic Perfect

(e.g., Murphy, 1857: §81; Driver, 1998: §14α; Blake, 1951: §10; Klein, 1990: p. 50; Joosten,

2012: p. 207; cf. Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 490; Andrason, 2013: p. 20).

17 אֶרְ אֶ נּו וְ לֹּא עַתָ ה אֲׁשּורֶ נּו ְולֹּא ָקרֹוב ָד ַרְך כֹו ָכב ִִֽמ ַּי ֲע ֹּקב ְו ָקם ֵׁש ֶבט ִמ ִּי ְׂש ָר ֵא ל ּומָחַץ a) Num. 24:17-19)

יּפַאֲתֵ מֹואָב וְקַרְ קַר כָל ּבְ נֵי ׁשֵ ת׃ 18 וְהָיָה אֱדֹוםיְרֵ ׁשָה וְהָיָה יְרֵ ׁשָהׂשֵעִיר אֹּיְבָ יו וְיִׂשְ רָ אֵ לעֹּׂשֶ ה חָ יִל׃ 19 וְ יֵרְ דְ

מִ ּיַעֲקֹּב וְהֶאֱבִיד ׂשָרִ יד מֵעִ יר׃

172

“(17) I see it, but not now; I behold it, but not near! A star will go out (OR: march)

from Jacob, and a scepter will rise from Israel. It shall smite the corners of Moab,

and destroy all the sons of Seth” (author’s translation).

(18) “Edom will become a possession, Seir a possession of its enemies, while Israel

does valiantly.

(19) One out of Jacob shall rule, and destroy the survivors of Ir” (NRSV).171

This text is not entirely without difficulties, but the modern versions (NRSV, NAB, ESV, NKJV,

NASB, NIV, HCSB, etc.), the ancient versions (LXX, Future; Targum Onkelos, Imperfect;

Vulgate, Future), and modern scholars (e.g., Klein, 1990: p. 50; Cole, 2000: p. 426) agree that

is future from the ST. The content of the prophecy begins with a דרך the time reference of

and it continues with others in the weqatal ,(כוכב) followed by the S (דרך) clause-initial irrealis SC gram (cf. Driver, 1998: §113.1; Klein, 1990: p. 50).

Rogland argued that vv. 17-19 refer back to Evision rather than to future situations (2003a:

meets Revell’s criteria for וקם p. 92). His argument rests on two points. First, he claimed that

a “preterite” since it is a short וְ יֵרְ דְ being a weqatálti (1985: p. 279), and second, he considered yiqtol and a Jussive meaning is “unlikely.”172 However, neither of these is sound. First,

is simply inaccurate since Revell is clearly discussing 1st and 2nd וקם Rogland’s comment about

as evidence of the temporal reference of vv. 17-19 וְ יֵרְ דְ person forms only. Second, his use of comes as a shock because of the tremendous textual instability of 24:19a. Many commentators acknowledge that the text is corrupt and emend it (e.g., see Milgrom, 1990: p. 208; Levine, 2000:

171 Because v. 17 is our present focus and vv. 18-19 have numerous textual problems, the translation of the (in 1QM 11:6, see Holst (2008: pp. 101, 105 קם NRSV is given for vv. 18-19. Also, for discussion of the reading and above (§3.1.2.2).

172 Rogland’s conclusion has been accepted by Van de Sande (2008: pp. 344-345).

173 p. 203; Cole, 2000: p. 428), but there is also a question about the root of the verb. Some of the

Only the .(ܘܢܚܘܬ ,Peshitta ;יֵיחֹות ,Targum Onkelos) וְ יָרַ ד ancient versions suggest the reading

in which case the form ,רדה√ traditions of the MT and the Vulgate suggest the word is from would be apocopated.173 But this leads us to another problem for Rogland’s view. There is no junctural doubling or preserved original vowel of the conjunction, meaning that it has been preserved in the Tiberian vocalization as a Jussive and not a Preterite (cf. Ashley, 1993: p. 502).

The reading of the MT in 24:19a is uncertain and why Rogland would use this is as evidence seems a mystery since he cast many potential examples out of his study of the Prophetic Perfect that are by comparison on much firmer ground textually (see 2003a: p. 57 n. 30). Ultimately,

Rogland has suggested that vv. 17-19 refer back to a vision because he cannot otherwise explain

is an דרך the uses of the verb forms therein. The evidence, however, strongly suggests that irrealis SC with future time reference.

Our next example comes from Isaiah 28 and has been considered a Prophetic Perfect

(Driver, 1998: §14α; Caspari, 1848: p. 68 n.; Young, 1972b: p. 266 n. 5). The first verse in this chapter is a woe statement directed at Ephraim, and vv. 2-4 explain the basis for the woe

(Sweeney, 1996: pp. 359, 362). The coming Assyrians are metaphorically described as a flood, reminiscent of their description in Isa. 8:7-8.

הִׁנֵהחָּזָּקוְּאַמִׁץ לַאד נָּי ּכְּ זֶרֶ םבָּרָּ ד שַעַר קָּטֶ ב ּכְּ זֶרֶ ם מַיִׁםּכַבִׁ ירִׁ ים שטְּפִׁים הִׁ נִׁיחַלָּאָּרֶ ץבְּ יָּד b) Isa. 28:2)

cf. Milgrom, 1990: p. 203). It should also be noted that a prefix) רדד or רדה Even so, the root could be 173 and seems from context to be semantically a LPC, but morphologically (יַרְ דְ ) occurs in Isa. 41:2 רדד√ form of the apocopated. Is this just a morphological oddity of this(these) root(s)?

174

“Behold, a strong and mighty one belongs to the Lord; like a storm of hail, a gale of

destruction; like a storm of strong, flooding waters; he will hurl (them) to the earth

with power!”174

Some commentators have interpreted the SC as referring to a past situation (Watts, 2005a: p.

358; cf. Smith, 2007: p. 476 n. 23). But contextually, such an interpretation makes no sense.

The LPC in v. 3 and the weqatal in v. 4 each have future time reference (see e.g., Oswalt, 1986: p. 502; Sweeney, 1996: p. 362; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 385; Beuken, 2000: p. 11; Wildberger,

2002: p. 2) and, as Wildberger has pointed out, v. 2 has future time reference “since [it] is describing a threat” (2002: p. 3). Many modern translations (e.g., NRSV, NKJV, NIV, NET) and ancient versions (LXX; Targum; Peshitta),175 as well as most commentators (Kaiser, 1974: pp. 236, 240; Wolf, 1985: p. 148; Oswalt, 1986: p. 502; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 385; Beuken,

2000: p. 11; Childs, 2001: p. 201), interpret the SC in v. 2 with future time reference.

The four lines in verse 2 are chiastically patterned: a-b-b1-a1 (a = v. 2aα; b = v. 2aβ; b1 = v. 2bα; a1 = v. 2bβ). The SC occurs in clause-initial position in line a1. We propose that the

is best interpreted as an irrealis SC expressing a situation with epistemic modality and הניח verb future time reference.

A pair of examples occurs in Isaiah 34:2. We have already discussed the literary context of Isaiah 34-35 (see above §2.2.3.5.3). This verse gives a compelling reason to heed the command in v. 1 for the nations to “listen” and “pay attention.”

ּכִׁ י קֶצֶף לַ יהוָּה עַל ּכָּל הַגֹויִׁם וְּחֵמָּ ה עַל ּכָּל צְּ בָּאָּ ם הֶחֱרִׁ םימָּ נְּתָּ נָּם לַטָּבַח c) Isa. 34:2)

174 This might woodenly be rendered “he will set (them) to the earth with power,” which does not make for a good English translation. Cf. NRSV, NIV, ESV, NASB, et al.

is a linguistic change reflecting an interpretation of the tradition reflected (והניח) The reading of 1QIsaa 175 in the MT (cf. Tov, 2012: p. 256). This change is, therefore, similar to the ancient versions’ future time translation of the SC.

175

“For the Lord has wrath against all the nations, and anger against all their host. He

will utterly destroy them, he will give them to the slaughter.”

Some scholars have claimed that these refer to a divine decision that was made in the past, i.e., past relative to the RT (e.g., Rogland, 2003a: p. 63; cf. Kaiser, 1974: p. 356; Childs, 2001: p.

250), while others have understood them as Prophetic Perfects (e.g., Young, 1972b: pp. 429-

430). Clearly the realization of the situations is future from the RT (Oswalt, 1986: p. 619;

Wildberger, 2002: p. 341), but the question is whether the verbs refer to the realization of the situations or the “mental activity” that decided that these situations would occur. Rogland, following Revell’s suggestion about past decisions expressed by the SC (1989: pp. 5-6), claimed that it was the latter and that the E referenced is the decision to do these things that lies in past time and it is therefore realis (2003a: p. 63). We would argue, however, that what occurs in an

is the speaker, who in this case is not the one who has הֶחֱרִׁ םימָּ נְּתָּ נָּם לַטָּבַח utterance such as allegedly made the decision, perceives that the Lord’s will is to utterly destroy and give them to the slaughter. In other words, the speaker is describing the Lord’s will or intention from his own vantage point, meaning that he is not referring to realis past decisions, but rather to irrealis situations, i.e., what he has come to believe is the will of the Lord. The best explanation of these verbs is, in our opinion, that they express future situations with epistemic modality.

Another example from Isaiah occurs in chapter 51. After a brief review of the people’s past failures, forgetting the Lord and unduly fearing Man (perhaps a Babylonian or Persian despot, see Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p. 243), the prophet metaphorically compares the people to an oppressed man who notices a lapse in his oppressor’s anger. Whatever the threat was, it is no more. Verse 14 describes what follows this realization.

מִ הַ ר צֹּעֶ ה לְהִ ּפָתֵ חַ וְ לֹּא יָמּות לַשַ חַת וְ לֹּא יֶחְסַ ר לַחְ מֹו d) Isa. 51:14)

176

“The one in chains will hasten to be released, so that he will not die in the pit, or lack

his bread.”

The verb of interest is clause-initial and the S follows. There are some interpretive challenges in

is a SC with future time reference as the modern מהר this verse, but there is no doubt that commentators (e.g., Dreschler, 1857: p. 180; McKenzie, 1968: p. 120; Dempsey, 1989: p. 190;

Blenkinsopp, 2002: p. 329; Smith, 2009: p. 408) and translations (NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB,

NAB, HCSB, etc.) affirm.176 In light of the syntax and time reference, the verb is clearly an irrealis SC.

Our next example occurs alongside a weqatal and a LPC, a contextual circumstance often associated with Prophetic Perfects (Davidson, 1902: §41.1; Gibson, 1994: §59b; Klein, 1990: p.

48).

וְעָנָ ה גְאֹון יִׂשְרָ אֵ ל ּבְ פָנָ יו וְיִׂשְרָ אֵ ל וְאֶפְרַ יִם יִכָׁשְ לּו ּבַעֲֹונָ ם כָׁשַ ל גַם יְהּודָ ה עִמָ ם e) Hos. 5:5)

“And the pride of Israel will answer against him, and Israel and Ephraim will stumble

in their guilt; even Judah will stumble with them!”

is seemingly out of place as it appears in the (כׁשל גם יהודה עמם) The third colon of this verse middle of a long string of bicola, and the BHS suggests deleting it for metrical reasons. Garrett recognized that the third colon was “artificially added on” but he also noted the rhetorical value such an out of place statement as this can have. “It is as though Hosea composed an elegant poem and then added his own gloss: ‘by the way, Judah is going the same route as Israel’”

(Garrett, 1997: p. 145; cf. Harper, 1905: p. 270). Macintosh suggested that this phrase was added by a later redactor who used the Prophetic Perfect (1997: p. 186). Yet regardless of exactly who added the phrase and when, there is no textual reason to reject this colon as part of

176 For discussion, see Blenkinsopp, 2002: p. 330. Cf. Goldingay & Payne, 2006: pp. 243-244.

177 the canonical form of the text of Hosea since it is a part of the Masoretic traditions and is also found in the ancient versions (LXX, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate; all with future time reference).177

Additionally there is nothing that suggests that the text is unsound, so it must not be thrown out

is an irrealis SC is supported by the syntax כׁשל contra Rogland, 2003a: p. 57 n. 30). That)

(clause-initial with S following) and by the temporal reference which is undoubtedly future from the ST (e.g., Harper, 1905: p. 270; Andersen & Freedman, 1980: pp. 380, 393; Macintosh, 1997: pp. 185-186).

§3.2.2 Following a Clausal Adverb

The literature on the Prophetic Perfect suggests that it often occurred after clausal

:Caspari, 1848: p. 68 n.; Pearson, 1885: p. 5; Ewald, 1879) הנה and ,לכן ,כי adverbs, such as

§135c; Hughes, 1970: p. 21; Gibson, 1994: §59b.1). This coincides with what was noted above; namely that clausal adverbs are syntactically detached leaving the verb in clause-initial position.178

Our first example of an irrealis SC following a clausal adverb has long been recognized as a Prophetic Perfect (Driver, 1998: §14β; GKC §106n).

וַתאמֶרלֵאָּה יבְּאָּשְּרִׁ ּכִׁי אִׁשְּ רּונִׁי בָּנֹות וַתִׁ קְּרָּ א אֶ ת שְּ מֹו אָּשֵ ר a) Gen. 30:13)

“And Leah said, ‘Happy am I! For women will call me blessed!’ And she called his

name Asher.”

It is widely accepted that the time reference of this situation is future from the ST (Von Rad,

1961: p. 288; Speiser, 1964: p. 229; Sarna, 1989: p. 208; Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: §30.5.1e;

177 It should also be noted that the LXX and Peshitta have a conjunction before the verb.

178 The only example that follows a negative particle is discussed below (§3.2.4).

178

Westermann, 1995: pp. 470-471; Hamilton, 1995: p. 273; Mathews, 2005: 485 n. 292). Klein’s suggestion that the situation may be present since “the women could be calling Leah ‘blessed’ as she was speaking” is very unlikely (1990: p. 49). The context makes it clear that the situation expresses assumptive modality. Leah had another son and, based on her knowledge of the culture, she knew what that meant. We would further point out that since this is simply an irrealis use of the SC, there is no reason to posit that this situation is vividly or dramatically referring to a future situation any more or less than a weqatal would, and neither is there reason to call upon viewpoint shifting, as the traditional approach, or rhetorical device in explanation of this verb.

The next set of examples includes another one that is widely considered a Prophetic

Perfect (Driver, 1998: §14α; Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 111; Gray, 1912: p. 92; Young, 1965a: p. 211 n. 14; Klein, 1990: p. 52).179 Isaiah 5:1-7 is the memorable Song of the Vineyard and the following verses (vv. 8-24) describe the song’s metaphorical significance for Israel in a series of woe oracles (Wildberger, 1991: pp. 194-197). There are several temporal shifts in vv. 8-24 as the text goes back and forth between descriptions of the people’s sins (generally present time; vv.

8, 11-12, and 18-23) and the coming, consequent judgments (future; vv. 9-10, 13-17, and 24a)

(cf. Van de Sande, 2008: pp. 332-334). These temporal shifts are clearly marked in the text.

Verses 9-10 are the quoted speech of the Lord declaring the coming hardships, while vv. 13, 14, which functions as a transitional marker (cf. Nogalski, 2015: pp. 59- לכן and 24a all begin with

63) indicating a shift from current sin to coming judgment (Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 111;

Smith, 2007: pp. 174-175).

לָּכֵן גָּלָּה יעַמִׁ מִׁבְּ לִׁי דָּעַת b) Isa. 5:13)

179 Oddly, Rogland did not engage this text directly, only mentioning it in passing (2003a: p. 97 n. 114).

179

“Therefore, my people will go into exile for lack of knowledge.”

The time reference is clearly future,180 and this example is best explained as an irrealis use of the

SC. The following verse also has a SC with future time reference that follows the very same adjunct. This example is followed by two weqatals.

לָּכֵ ן הִׁרְּ חִׁ יבָּהשְּ אֹול נַפְּשָּ ּה ּופָּעֲרָּ ה פִׁ יהָּ לִׁבְּ לִׁי ח ק וְּ יָּרַ ד הֲדָּרָּ ּה וַהֲמֹונָּ ּה ּושְּ אֹונָּ ּה וְּעָּלֵ ז בָּ ּה c) Isa. 5:14)

“Therefore, Sheol will enlarge its throat, and open wide its mouth beyond measure;

and its nobility and its multitude shall go down, and its din and (the) jubilant in it.”

Those scholars who do not recognize the future time reference of these verbs have a very difficult time explaining the temporal reference of the passage (e.g., Kaiser, 1983: pp. 94-97).

Some might object to the future time reference of these SCs, however, since vv. 13-17 form one section and there are three wayyiqtols in vv. 15-16. Yet there is good reason to believe that these were LPCs incorrectly read as wayyiqtols in the Masoretic traditions (cf. NAB, NASB,

NKJV, NIV).

ַו ִּי ַשח ָא ָדם ַו ִּי ְׁש ַּפל אִ יׁשוְעֵינֵי גְבֹּהִ ים תִׁשְ ּפַלְנָה ַו ִּי ְג ַּבה ְיה ָוה ְצ ָבאֹות ַּב ִמ ְׁש ָּפט ְו ָה ֵאל ַה ָקדֹוׁש d) Isa. 5:15-16)

נִקְדָ ׁש ּבִצְדָקָ ה

“Man will bow down, and a (noble) man will be low; the eyes of the proud will be

low. But the Lord of hosts will be high in justice; the holy God, setting himself apart

in righteousness.”

in v. 15. The LPC (ׁשפל√) First, it is odd that there is a LPC and a wayyiqtol from the same root can, of course, have a past time meaning, but the verbal nuance is different from that of the wayyiqtol and their co-occurrence here would be strange. But much more importantly, 1QIsaa

and ויׁשפל which is unambiguously a LPC. This suggests that in 1QIsaa ישח begins v. 15 with

180 In addition to those cited above, see also Wildberger, 1991: p. 189; Andrason, 2013: p. 21.

180

are also LPCs (cf. Wildberger, 1991: p. 191). Furthermore, the future ,תׁשפלנה along with ,ויגבה time reference of these alleged wayyiqtols is supported by the versional evidence. The LXX and

Peshitta have future time forms, and the Targum does also in v. 15.181 Altogether, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of the original reading being conjunctions with LPCs in vv. 15-16. It

.( ַו ִּי ַשח ָא ָדם ַו ִּי ְׁש ַּפל אִ יׁש) seems to us that the MT’s reading might be influenced by Isa. 2:9

Emending the MT of 5:15 to read LPCs instead of wayyiqtols is, as Wildberger concluded, necessary “since the text as it now stands is within a threat” (1991: p. 191).

Another example of an irrealis SC following a clausal adverb occurs in Isaiah 14.

in Isa. 14:24 as a Prophetic Perfect or the like since the days of Qimḥi היתה Scholars have taken

(Alexander, 1878a: p. 304). Most of Isaiah 14 concerns the fall and destruction of Babylon. In this chapter, vv. 4-23 are part of a song that will be sung in the future. There are many SC forms that refer to events future from the ST (Stext) but past from the RT (Squote) in this section. But verse 24 begins a new section, a “summary-appraisal” (Childs, 2001: p. 127), in which the RT is the ST. The focus shifts from Babylon to Assyria, and vv. 24-27 describe Assyria’s downfall. It begins with an oath in v. 24 that affirms the “certainty that the prophecy will be fulfilled”

(Kaiser, 1974: p. 46).

נִׁשְּבַעיְּהוָּהצְּ בָּאֹות לֵאמ ר אִׁ ם־ל א ּכַאֲשֶרדִׁמִׁיתִׁ יּכֵן הָּיָּתָּה וְּכַאֲשֶ ריָּעַצְּתִׁי הִׁיא תָּ קּום e) Isa. 14:24)

“The Lord of Hosts has sworn saying, ‘Surely, just as I have intended, thus it will be;

and just as I have planned, it will stand!’”

as having past time. According to such a view, the things that היתה Some scholars have taken

refers to the things that will תקום while ,(היתה) then came to be in past time (דמיתי) God intended

;e.g, Alexander, 1878a: pp. 304-306) (יעצתי) come to be as a result of God’s having planned them

.(תקיף יוי צבאות בדינא) Verse 16 in the Targum is idiomatic, reading in v. 16a a nominal clause 181

181

in the present182 or as present perfects תקום and היתה NASB). Other scholars have translated

is a היתה might be a pluperfect while דמיתי e.g., Wildberger, 1997: pp. 78-79). It is possible that) past or perfect which together offer a reason for the audience to believe the claim of the second line; “Just as I had intended, thus it was (or has come to be); just as I planned, it will stand.”

However, these explanations do not account for the contextual time reference of the prophetic setting and the synonymous parallelism of the two lines183 in the oath.

;are synonymously parallel (Drechsler, 1851b: p. 41 כאׁשר The two cola begun with

Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 289; Wildberger, 1997: pp. 78-79), and each is a comparative proposition.

to introduce the situations the ,כן and כאׁשר Comparative propositions often use particles, such as speaker wishes to compare (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 641). “The most common pairing is

apodosis” (Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: p. 641). The protasis is usually a + כֵן–protasis + כַאֲׁשֶ ר past (e.g., Gen. 41:13) or gnomic (e.g., Isa. 31:4) situation that provides the comparison for the new situation described in the apodosis. The situation in the apodosis can be past, present, or future.184 The comparative propositions begin with similar protases. Both are introduced with

and are followed by a verb in the SC with verbs of similar meaning. There is, however, a כאׁשר

and כן difference in the apodoses. The first apodosis is introduced by the clausal adverb

which we propose is an irrealis SC without an explicit subject. The second ,היתה followed by apodosis is unmarked, and the verb occurs in the LPC following the pronominal subject.

182 E.g., Gesenius and De Wette according to Alexander, 1878a: p. 304.

183 We use the term “line” to refer to a colon, and not a bicolon. So the terms “line” and “colon” are used interchangeably.

184 Examples of apodoses with past time reference occur in Gen. 41:13; Exod. 1:12; Hos. 4:7. Apodoses with future time reference occur in Gen. 18:5; Isa. 31:4. A gnomic present protasis and apodosis can be found in Ps. 123:2. These examples are from Waltke & O’Connor, 1990: pp. 641-642.

182

,תקום is the same as that of היתה The parallelism suggests that the temporal reference of but the context does so even more since the function of this oath is to affirm the future fulfillment of the prophecy (Kaiser, 1974: p. 46; cf. Oswalt, 1986: p. 327). The ancient versions

Vulgate ;ܢܗܘܐ LXX ἔσται; Peshitta ;תהי as having future time reference (Targum היתה translate

which should be considered a “linguistic-stylistic” change as תהיה erit). Similarly, 1QIsaa reads opposed to a witness to an alternative Vorlage (Tov, 2012: p. 256). Most of the modern

.has future time reference (Blenkinsopp, 2000: p היתה translations and commentators affirm that

289; Kaiser, 1974: p. 45; Smith, 2005: pp. 319-321; Oswalt, 1986: p. 326-328; cf. McFall, 1986: pp. 215-216; NRSV, ESV, NAB, NKJV, NIV). Ultimately, the syntax, parallelism, and context

is an epistemic, irrealis SC referring to a situation היתה strongly support our proposition that future from the ST.185

The next example occurs in prophetic discourse following an adjunct phrase that transitions from the present (and past) problem of sin (Jer. 5:1-5) to future, consequent judgment

(5:6a). Then 6b returns to the current (= ST) problem with an explanatory clause.

עַל ּכֵןהִּׁכָּם אַרְּ יֵהמִׁ ּיַעַר בזְּאֵ עֲרָּ בֹות םיְּשָּדְּדֵ נָּמֵר שקֵד עַל עָּרֵ יהֶםּכָּל הַּיֹוצֵא מֵהֵנָּהיִׁטָּרֵ ף ּכִׁ י רַ בּו f) Jer. 5:6)

פִׁשְּ עֵיהֶ ם עָּצְּ מּו מְּ שֻּבֹותֵ יהֶם

“Therefore, a lion from the forest will slay them; a wolf of the deserts will destroy

them; a leopard is about to watch over their cities, (so that) everyone who goes out

from them will be torn apart, because their rebellions are numerous, their backslidings

manifold.”

Rogland suggested in passing that all the verbs in this verse might be past, describing something that has already taken place (2003a: p. 96 n. 113), but that is highly unlikely in this context.

.could be considered a future stative, the syntactic environment suggests it is irrealis היתה Although 185

183

.(is used to introduce “established facts” (1986: p. 179 על כן Holladay, citing BDB, claimed that

He averred that “it is not that the determination has been made to send wild animals upon Judah, but rather that the animals are already on their way simply as a consequence of breaking the covenant” (1986: p. 176). But Holladay’s explanation is problematic. BDB did in fact

upon ground“) על כן according to such conditions, that being so, therefore”) from“) לכן distingush of such conditions, therefore”), and it was said of the latter that it introduces “the statement of a

pp. 486-487; entries 3d and 3f). But it seems that :1906) (לכן fact, rather than a declaration” (as

Holladay did not take into consideration that Driver was the author of this entry (1906: p. ix), and he believed that the SC in Jer. 5:6 referred to a future situation that the prophet viewed from an ideal position as if it were already accomplished (1998: §14). Of course, from Driver’s

here introduced a fact, but the “facts” of Driver and Holladay על כן perspective, it was true that are not the same. Moreover, Holladay offered no explanation of the semantics of the SC in such a context as he proposed.

The vast majority of scholars recognized that the time reference of the SC is future

(Driver, 1998: §14α; Bright, 1965: p. 36; Harrison, 1973: p. 75; Carroll, 1986: p. 174; Allen,

2008: p. 71; also cf. NRSV, NASB, NAB, NIV, ESV, NKJV).186 This example of an irrealis SC

just as the irrealis ,(יׁשדדם) occurs in parallel lines with a LPC that also has future time reference

SC in the weqatal construction often appears in parallel lines with a LPC.

Jeremiah 31 also provides an example of an irrealis SC following a clausal adverb. The relevant verb occurs in a subunit consisting of vv. 10-14 (Carroll, 1986: p. 593; Holladay, 1989: p. 152). This subunit begins in v. 10a with “a rhetorical address to the nations ... that announces

על כין מלך במשריתיה יסק עליהון :The Targum’s idiomatic reading of 6aα also indicates future time reference 186 therefore a king shall go up against them with his armies like a lion from the“ ,כאריא מחורשא ויקטילינון עממיא דתקיפין forest and he shall kill the strong peoples.”

184

Yahweh’s imminent work” on Israel’s behalf (Allen, 2008: p. 347). Verse 10b describes the

Lord’s future work for his people saying he will gather (LPC) and keep (weqatal) them.

ּכִׁ י פָּדָּ היְּהוָּה אֶ ת יַעֲקב ּוגְּאָּ לֹו מִׁ ּיַד חָּזָּקמִׁ מֶ נּו g) Jer. 31:11)

“For the Lord will ransom Jacob, and he will redeem him from the hand of the one

stronger than him.”

It is clear from the context that these verbs have future time reference (cf. Keil & Delitzsch,

1996c: p. 272; Allen, 2008: p. 341, 347; NIV, NAB). Many commentators and translations have made the mistake of translating vv. 10b and 12-14 with future time reference while rendering v.

11 with past time reference (Bright, 1965: p. 274; Carroll, 1986: p. 593; Holladay, 1989: p. 152;

NRSV, NASB, NKJV, ESV; cf. LXX, Targum, Peshitta), but this does not make sense. For

ובאו ) instance, what suggests that the weqatal in v. 11b and the weqatals in the beginning of v. 12

do not have the same time reference? It seems to us that a time shift has been imagined in (ורננו v. 11a because the use of the SC was not understood.

.הנה The book of Ezekiel provides an example of an irrealis SC that follows the particle

,e.g., Ewald) הנה Several scholars have suggested that the Prophetic Perfect was known to follow

1879: §135c; Hughes, 1970: p. 21) and it has been asserted that this occurrence of the SC is a

Prophetic Perfect (e.g., Hummel, 2005: p. 108).

וְּאַתָּ ה בֶ ן־אָּדָּ ם הִׁ נֵ ה נָּתְּ נּו עָּלֶיָך עֲבֹותִׁ ים וַאֲסָּ רּוָך בָּהֶ ם וְּ ל א תֵצֵ א בְּ תֹוכָּ ם h) Ezek. 3:25)

“And you, O son of man – behold, they will set187 cords on you, and they shall bind

you with them, so that you cannot go out among them.”

should be taken actively or as an impersonal נתנו Many commentators debate over whether passive use of the third person, active construction, but whether it is taken one way or the other

Zimmerli has explained that the reading of the MT ,נתנו Although the versions offer varied readings for 187 is most likely the original (see 1979: pp. 147-148). See also Allen (1994: p. 50).

185 does not impact the issue at hand. The SC and the subsequent weqatal clearly have future time reference since Ezekiel was out in the valley when he saw this vision (3:22-24) and not yet back in his house. Past time reference (as Greenberg, 1983: p. 98; cf. Rogland, 2003a: p. 101 n. 119) does not make contextual sense. Most commentators and translations agree that the time reference is future (e.g., Hölscher, 1924: p. 55; Keil & Delitzsch, 1996d: p. 38; Zimmerli, 1979: p. 147; Allen, 1994: p. 50; Block, 1997: p. 154; NRSV, ESV, NASB, NAB, NIV, NKJV).

”is a “perfect consecutive נתנו Interestingly, in his commentary on Ezekiel, Hölscher claimed that

.(p. 55 n. 1 :1924) ו in addition to הנה and אז which can immediately follow particles such as

Although his understanding of weqatal and that of our own are very different, both approaches recognize that, in this case, the SC and the weqatal are semantically similar.

The next example has often been interpreted as referring to a past situation (e.g., NRSV,

NASB, NAB, NKJV, ESV). But we believe that there is good reason to consider it an irrealis

SC.

לְעֶגְלֹות ּבֵ ית אָ וֶן יָגּורּו ׁשְ כַ ן ׁשֹּ מְ רֹון כִ י אָבַ ל עָלָ יו עַמֹו ּוכְמָרָ יו עָלָ יו יָגִ ילּו עַל כְ בֹודֹו כִ י גָלָ ה מִ מֶ נּו i) Hos. 10:5)

“The inhabitants of Samaria fear the calf of Beth Aven.188 Because its people would

mourn over it, and its nonlevitical priests would rejoice over it – over its glory – it

will go into exile from them.”

In chapters 8-10, the prophet often emphasizes that the security the Northern Kingdom of Israel has found in their military and their fertility cults is about to prove hollow (Garrett, 1997: p.

178). We understand the situations described in 10:5 as referring to activities of the fertility cult

(see Garrett, 1997: pp. 205, 209-210). In other words, the mourning of the people and the

,(as a singular (cf. LXX and the modern versions עגלות 5a has several textual difficulties. We have taken 188 is, thereby, considered the ׁשכן .(Jer. 47:2 ,וזעקו האדם .is thought, by synecdoche, to have a plural referent (cf ׁשכן and .יגורו subject of the plural verb

186 rejoicing of the priests were habitually repeated in the past, and it is because of their continued worship, or fear (here taken as a generic use of the LPC), of their idol(s), that exile will come.

is connective (“because”), marking the protasis, and the second is כי Taken this way, the first

is used to mark the apodosis “in כי ,asservative, marking the apodosis. Although not common correlation with a conditional conjunction” (Aejmelaeus, 1986: p. 208) (e.g., Isa. 7:9), and it would be natural to have an irrealis SC in an apodosis. Alternatively, Garrett suggested that the

is “deictic and ‘emphatic’” (1997: p. 210 n. 92), but an irrealis SC would also be the כי second best explanation for the future time reference of the form in this case as well.

The next example, from Mic. 1:16, has been considered a Prophetic Perfect (e.g., Allen,

1976: p. 283; Barker & Bailey, 1999: p. 61; cf. Waltke, 2007: p. 86) because of its apparent future time reference. The unit in which it appears (vv. 2-16) may date to the decade between the invasions of Tiglath-Pileser III and Shalmaneser V with Sargon II (733-723 BCE; as Wolff,

1990: p. 54) or to the time between destruction of Samaria and Sennacherib’s third campaign

(722-701 BCE; as Allen, 1976: p. 283). This unit describes the idolatry of Israel and Judah and

in לכן the consequent judgment via an enemy who will enter the land (v. 15). The clausal adverb v. 14 marks a shift away from accusations of past and present idolatry to future judgment, a shift that is also indicated by the LPCs in vv. 14-15.

קָּרְּ חִׁ יוָּג זִׁי עַל בְּנֵיתַ עֲנּוגָּיְִׁךהַרְּ יחִׁבִׁ קָּרְּ חָּתֵ ְך ּכַנֶשֶ רּכִׁ י גָּלּו מִׁ מֵ ְך h) Mic. 1:16)

“Shave and cut off (your hair) over the sons of your delight! Broaden your baldness

like a vulture! Because they shall go into exile from you!”

This verse consists of two parallel lines. The first and third semicola (v. 16aα and 16bα) begin with Imperatives, commanding the audience to shave their heads as an act of mourning. The place names in vv. 14-15 refer to cities in Judah, and the feminine singular verb forms in vv. 14

187 and 16 suggest that the addressee is Jerusalem (Allen, 1976: p. 283; Waltke, 2007: p. 85; cf.

Wolff, 1990: p. 64; Barker & Bailey, 1999: p. 61). These Imperatives mark another temporal shift back to the ST. The second and fourth semicola (v. 16aβ and 16bβ) give the reasons for mourning. The inhabitants are told to shave themselves on account of the “sons of (their) delight” (v. 16aβ), “because they shall go into exile from you” (v. 16bβ) (cf. Wolff, 1990: p. 64).

The addressee is the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and perhaps Judah more broadly, and since this prophecy probably predates Sennacherib’s invasion, Jersualem had not yet experienced exile.

The people, then, were told to mourn over something that has not happened. It may seem odd that the prophet would tell the people to mourn over the consequences of an exile that is yet to come, but we must remember the purpose of such a command is not to get the people to mourn over the coming exile as much as it is to motivate them to repentance!189 This device not only

.refers to a future, irrealis situation גלו rhetorically heightens the oracle, but also indicates that

Our final example of an irrealis SC following a clausal adverb is from Zech. 10:3.

עַל הָּר עִׁ ים חָּרָּ האַפִׁי וְּעַל הָּעַ תּודִׁים אֶפְּ קֹוד ּכִׁ י פָּקַד יְּהוָּה צְּ בָּאֹות אֶ ת עֶדְּרֹו אֶ ת בֵית יְּהּודָּהוְּשָּ ם i) Zech. 10:3)

אֹותָּם ּכְּ סּוס הֹודֹו בַמִׁ לְּחָּמָּ ה

“My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I shall visit (judgment) upon the leaders.

For the Lord of Hosts will care for his flock, the house of Judah, and he shall make

them like his glorious horse in battle.”

This verse begins with a stative clause that sets the stage for the following judgment. This is a common technique in prophetic literature. For example,

ּכ ה אָּמַ ר יְּהוָּההִׁ נְּנִׁי אֵ לַיְִׁךוְּהֹוצֵאתִׁ י חַרְּ בִׁ ימִׁתַעְּרָּ ּה j) Ezek. 21:8)

189 Other judgment oracles of Micah (and the Prophets more generally) have the same function; see, e.g., Mic. 3:12 and cf. Jer. 26:18-19.

188

“Thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, I am against you! And I shall take out my sword from

its sheath.”

The LPC in Zech. 10:3aβ clearly refers to the future consequence of God’s anger, that he will

“visit (judgment) upon the leaders.” Verse 3a begins a speech of the Lord (given in 1st person) that is interrupted by vv. 3b-5, but continued in v. 6 with weqatals and a LPC. The intervening verses are explanatory and all of vv. 3-6 has future time reference apart from a pair of marked

:in this context has future time reference (Unger, 1963 פקד subordinate clauses in v. 6. The verb p. 176; Klein, 2008: p. 291; Hill, 2012: p. 220; NAB, NIV, NKJV; LXX), is followed by a weqatal with future time reference, and occurs in a clause following a clausal adverb. The best interpretation of the verb is that it is irrealis.

§3.2.3 Pragmatically Ordered Constituents

In this section, we will illustrate the occurrence of the irrealis SC in clauses with preposed constituents. In our discussion below, we will mostly focus on the syntactic classes of the preposed constituents rather than on their pragmatic functions. Most of the pragmatic functions of preposed constituents can be categorized as focusing or topicalization,190 but which of these applies to a given example can be debatable and arguing for one or the other is not altogether helpful for this dissertation. Rather, it is enough to observe that fronted constituents do occur in preverbal position in clauses with irrealis SCs (§3.2.3.1). The only cases in which pragmatic functions become relevant to our discussion concern constituent fronting that occurs for reasons of parallelism (§3.2.3.2).

190 For discussion on the pragmatic functions, see Holmstedt (2009: pp. 126-129) and especially Moshavi (2010: pp. 90-166).

189

§3.2.3.1 With Preposed Constituents

The first example occurs at the end of a judgment oracle in Ezekiel 16. In this chapter the prophet metaphorically described Jerusalem as a harlot and an adulteress. Jerusalem and

Samaria are later depicted via the same metaphor in chapter 23. The most significant difference between these chapters is that chapter 16 ends with a salvation oracle that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future (16:59-63), while 23 offers no such hope. The final verse in chapter 23 and the

(נׂשא√) last verse of the judgment oracle in chapter 16 (v. 58) both affirm that Jerusalem will bear

in נׂשא√ the consequences of their sins. Contextually, the situations expressed by a verb from each of these verses seem to refer to the same future event. However, in 23:49 the LPC appears whereas an irrealis SC is used in 16:58.

וְּ נָּתְּנּו זִׁמַתְּ כֶנָּה עֲלֵיכֶןוַחֲטָּאֵ י גִׁלּולֵיכֶןתִׁשֶ אינָּה a) Ezek. 23:49)

“And they will set your vileness upon you, and you will bear the guilt of your

idolatry.”

אֶת זִמָתְֵך וְאֶ תתֹועֲבֹותַיְִך אַתְ נְׂשָאתִ ים נְאֻם יְהוָה b) Ezek. 16:58)

“Your vileness and your abominations – you must bear them, declares the Lord.”

In (b) there are two phrases that occur preverbally. The first phrase is an example of front dislocation.191 Syntactically, a dislocated phrase is not a required component in a clause and is not to be considered a preposed constituent in the clause (Moshavi, 2010: pp. 81-83). The pronominal object (“them”), often called resumptive in cases like this, is the direct object. The

191 This is otherwise known as left dislocation and extraposition. We will refer to this phenomenon as front dislocation, since “left dislocation” is clearly inaccurate for BH and most ancient Semitic languages. We will describe a constituent displaying this phenomenon in an abbreviated fashion, simply as dislocated.

190 grammatical subject, however, is a preposed constituent. The preposing of personal pronouns is, as Moshavi noted, “quite common” (2010: p. 65 n. 1).

;has been considered a Perfect of Certainty (Cooke, 1936: p. 178 נׂשאתי The verb

Hummel, 2005: p. 457) and a Prophetic Perfect (Allen, 1994: p. 232). But not only have scholars recognized the future temporal reference, many have even translated it modally. The NRSV, for example, renders it “you must bear,” which reflects the translations of Zimmerli (1979: p. 333) and Eichrodt (1970: p. 198) (see also NAB; cf. NIV). We affirm this modal reading and propose that, since the situtation expresses “what is epistemically necessary” (Palmer, 2001: p. 89), this is an irrealis SC denoting deductive modality. In light of everything Jerusalem has done, there is no other way. They must bear the consequences.

in Isaiah 2:11 has been considered a Prophetic Perfect in the commentaries ׁשפל The verb

(e.g., Drechsler, 1851a: p. 124; Knobel, 1854: p. 20) and by Driver (1998: §113.1, §132). Young stated that “the prophet uses a verb in the perfect to express the certainty that it will take place”

(1965a: p. 122), and that this particular use “expresses the certain and inevitable future” (1965a: p. 122 n. 44). Isaiah 2:11 occurs in a series of judgment speeches that collectively describe the

Day of the Lord (2:6-4:1). The future time reference of the passage is not disputed, though the form of the verb has been a point of debate.

עֵינֵיגַבְּהּות אָּדָּם שָּ פֵל חוְּשַ רּוםאֲנָּשִׁ ים וְּנִׁשְּ גַב יְּהוָּה לְּבַדֹובַּיֹום הַהּוא c) Isa. 2:11)

“The haughty eyes of man will be low, and the arrogance of men will bend low. And

the Lord alone will be inaccessibly high on that day.”

The difficulty presented by the grammar and syntax of the first clause is that the verb is singular

The Qumran scroll Isaa has the .(עיני) but the subject is plural and feminine (ׁשפל) and masculine

which the Targum and Vulgate also reflect. This not only matches ,תׁשפלנה grammatically easier

191 the subject in number, but it is also clearly future time reference. Some scholars have suggested

is the correct reading (e.g., Kaiser, 1983: p. 57; cf. Watts, 2005a: p. 53). Others have תׁשפלנה that posited that this was originally an Infinitive Absolute (e.g., Wildberger, 1991: pp. 100-101), but this is neither likely (Watts, 2005a: p. 53) nor necessary. It is preferable in this instance to maintain the reading of the MT which demonstrates attraction. The number and gender of the predicate matches the nomen rectum which appears juxtaposed to the predicate rather than the nomen regens, which is the grammatical subject (see GKC §146a). The question that needs to be

The versions, especially the LXX, translated .תׁשפלנה answered, then, is how 1QIsaa came to read

idiomatically192 and we would suggest that the scribe(s) responsible עיני גבהות אדם ׁשפל the phrase for 1QIsaa and the traditions reflected there did likewise. It is known that the text of 1QIsaa was updated from the older traditions, which is evident in the replacement of “some rare words with more common ones” (Tov, 2012: p. 256). On analogy of rare word replacement, the textual variation in 1QIsaa should be classified as one of the “linguistic-stylistic changes” rather than a witness to a different reading in the Hebrew Vorlage to which 1QIsaa testifies. Moreover, the passage itself offers additional evidence. Isaiah 2:17 reads very similarly to 2:11, having a few differences in the first four or five words.

וְּשַחגַבְּהּות הָּאָּדָּ םוְּשָּ פֵל רּוםאֲנָּשִׁ ים וְּנִׁשְּ גַב יְּהוָּה לְּבַדֹובַּיֹום הַהּוא d) Isa. 2:17)

“And the haughtiness of man will bow down, and the arrogance of men will be low.

The Lord alone will be inaccessibly high on that day.”

is articular in v. 17 and אדם (does not appear in v. 17, (2 עיני The differences include (1) the word

.appears in v ׁשחח√ ,.anarthrous in v. 11, (3) the verbs of the first two clauses are switched (i.e

192 The versions also translated the initial clause in Isa. 1:28 idiomatically. The MT has a singular nominal predicate for two plural subjects which is translated by the LXX as a Future Passive Indicative 3p and the Targum as a Gt Imperfect 3mp.

192

appears in v. 11aα and v. 17aβ), and (4), which is the most ׁשפל√ 11aβ and v. 17aα while

occurs in the weqatal gram in v. 17 and without waw in v. 11. Not only ׁשפל significant, the verb does the textual evidence ultimately support the reading of the MT in 2:11, but it also strongly

.in v. 11 is an irrealis SC. The normal WO for irrealis verbs was disrupted in v ׁשפל suggests that

.עיני גבהות אדם by the preposing of the NP 11

.may now be resolved עיני גבהות אדם ׁשפל The challenges scholars have met in the phrase

The number and gender of the verb is the result of attraction and the SC expresses the situation with epistemic modality.

Each of the next several examples has a preposed prepositional phrase (PP). The first of these has been considered a Prophetic Perfect (Driver, 1998: §14γ) and a Perfect of Certainty

(Dempsey, 1989: p. 141).

וְתָ בֹּאנָה לָ ְך ׁשְ תֵ י אֵ לֶה רֶ גַע ּבְ יֹום אֶחָ ד ׁשְ כֹול וְאַלְמֹּ ן כְ תֻמָ ם ּבָ אּו עָלַ יְִך ּבְ רֹּ ב כְׁשָ פַ יְִך ּבְ עָצְמַ ת חֲבָרַ יְִך e) Isa. 47:9)

מְ אֹּ ד

“And the two of these will come upon you suddenly, in one day – bereavement and

widowhood. In full measure they will come upon you, in spite of your numerous

witchcrafts, in spite of the power of your many spells.”

two text critical matters must be ,באו Before we discuss the time reference and semantics of addressed. First, in light of some versional evidence (LXX, Targum, and Peshitta), the BHS

but most scholars do not share that opinion ,(ּבָאּו) over that of the MT יָבֹּאּו prefers the reading

(e.g., Dempsey, 1989: p. 141; Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p. 104). Blenkinsopp pointed to the fact that 1QIsaa and the Vulgate support the reading of the MT as versional evidence against reading a LPC (2002: p. 277). It is likely that the LXX, Targum, and Peshitta communicated the apparent future time reference of the verb with the forms that appropriately indicate future time.

193

is, in some versions (e.g., LXX and Peshitta), read “suddenly” as if the כתמם Second, the PP

Oswalt, 1998: p. 244 n. 21). The MT is clearly the lectio difficilior and) ּפִתְ אֹּם Hebrew was scholars have offered probable explanations for the versional variants. The variants may be interpretative “rather than indicating that they read this word here” (Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p.

104) or could be “explained by the synonym for ‘suddenly’ appearing in the previous line”

(Oswalt, 1998: p. 244 n. 21).

Contextually, the time reference of the verb is indisputably future (McKenzie, 1968: p.

90; Oswalt, 1998: p. 244; Korpel & de Moor, 1998: p. 350; Blenkinsopp, 2002: p. 276; Smith,

2009: p. 306; Paul, 2012: p. 297; NRSV, NASB, ESV, NAB, NKJV, NIV, etc.) and the modality is probably deductive. In other words, the prophet claimed that it was epistemically necessary for Babylon, in spite of its pride and alleged magical protection, to experience bereavement and widowhood, the very things they said would not happen to them (v. 8).

The next set of examples comes from Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations. Jeremiah 49 is a collection of oracles against the sons of Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, and Elam. The verses of interest appear in the oracle against Edom (vv. 7-21).

מִׁ קֹול נִׁפְּ לָּ ם רָּ עֲשָּ ה הָּאָּ רֶ ץ צְּ עָּקָּ ה בְּ יַם סּוף נִׁשְּ מַ ע קֹולָּ ּה f) Jer. 49:21)

“From the sound of their fall the earth will shake; a cry – its sound will be heard at

the Reed Sea.”

In his discussion of the Edom oracle (vv. 7-21), Rogland correctly stated that vv. 12-20 “are easily understood as Ereal,” but then went on to claim that “[i]t appears that we are dealing with rapid shifting between Evision in v. 21 and Ereal in v. 22; this is admittedly somewhat peculiar”

(2003a: p. 103). The only reason he suggested that v. 21 refers to a past vision in the midst of a section (vv. 12-22) that otherwise refers to future Ereal is his assumption that the SC denotes past

194 time (2003a: p. 10). Some commentators have fallen into a similar trap, apparently balking over the verb forms and their obvious contextual time reference (e.g., Bright, 1965: p. 330; Holladay,

1989: p. 371). Many scholars have recognized the future time reference of the verbs without offering an explanation (e.g., Carroll, 1986: pp. 804-805; Huey, 1993: p. 403; Brueggemann,

1998b: p. 458; Parke-Taylor, 2000: p. 155; Bracke, 2000: pp. 137-138; Haney, 2007: p. 109;

Allen, 2008: pp. 490, 493). We propose that these are irrealis SCs expressing situations with future time reference and epistemic modality. According to our explanation, this verse continues the reference to Ereal from the prior context and on into the posterior context.

.in 21b בים סוף in 21a and מקול נפלם ;Regarding WO, both clauses have a preposed PP

which is syntactically dislocated from צעקה ,However, 21b begins with an additional constituent the clause and resumptively referenced by the 3fs pronominal suffix. Thus, putting the dislocated constituent aside, there are two parallel lines with the same WO: PP-V-S.

Another example, which has been considered a Perfect of Certainty (Hartley, 1988: p.

123 n. 4) and Prophetic (Keil & Delitzsch, 1996a: p. 299; cf. Rogland, 2003a: p. 24),193 occurs in

Eliphaz’s first speech in the book of Job. The relevant stanza begins in 5:17 (Van der Lugt,

1995: p. 72) and continues through v. 22 (Longman, 2012: pp. 127-129). Eliphaz encouraged

Job to accept God’s correction (v. 17) because he is the one who injures and heals (v. 18). In the next verse, a common numerical expression (x, x+1) is used as a rhetorical device. Eliphaz then claimed that “in six hardships, he will deliver (LPC) you, and in seven, calamity will not touch

(LPC) you” (v. 19). Although the situations expressed by the LPCs in v. 18 are gnomic, the 2ms

suggests that the LPCs in v. 19 are not. Rather (יצילך) pronomial suffix on the first LPC in v. 19 they have future time reference and probably express assumptive, epistemic modality. The

193 Rogland merely noted that it may be a Prophetic Perfect without further discussion.

195 modern versions reflect the semantic difference between the LPCs in v. 18 and those in v. 19

(e.g., NRSV, NAB, ESV, NKJV, NIV, NASB). In vv. 20-22, Eliphaz offers a list of six ways that the Lord will save (Longman, 2012: p. 129). LPCs with future time reference occur in vv.

21-22, and v. 20 has a SC in the first clause and a second clause in which the verb is gapped.

ּבְ רָ עָב ּפָדְ ָך מִמָ וֶת ּובְמִ לְחָמָ ה מִ ידֵ י חָ רֶ ב g) Job 5:20)

“In famine, he will redeem you from death, and in battle from the power of the

sword.”

Each of the clauses in v. 20 consists of two PPs. The first PP in each clause indicates the circumstance and the second indicates the thing from which “he will redeem.” In the first clause,

:is preposed. The time reference of the SC is future (Peake, 1905: p. 90; Pope, 1979 ברעב the PP p. 41; Habel, 1985: p. 114; Hartley, 1988: p. 123; Reyburn, 1992: p. 118; Longman, 2012: p.

127; Seow, 2013: p. 413; NRSV, ESV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc.), and it probably, like the

LPCs in the verse before it, expresses assumptive, epistemic modality.

§3.2.3.2 Preposing for Parallelism

The essence of parallelism is the “correspondence of one thing to another” (emphasis original) (Berlin, 2008: p. 2). This correspondence is often manifested in the patterned order of constituents (Berlin, 2008: pp. 83-88). This means that the unmarked order of constituents can be disrupted for the pragmatic purpose of creating a pattern, but that is not the case every time.

Sometimes the pattern maintains the unmarked WO. In light of the studies of Revell, Shulman, and others (see above, §3.1.2), the unmarked WO for Imperatives and other forms expressing directive, deontic modality is clause-initial position.

196

The following example (a) shows two Imperatives occuring in clause-initial position in parallel lines.194

שִׁמְּ עּו ז את הַזְּקֵנִׁים וְּהַאֲזִׁינּוּכ ל יֹושְּ בֵיהָּאָּרֶ ץ a) Joel 1:2)

“Hear this, elders! And give ear, all (you) inhabitants of the land.”

This example has the pattern abab, where a represents an Imperative and b a vocative NP.195

Another pattern that typically uses the unmarked WO is aabb. However, chiastic patterns (e.g., abba) tend to disrupt the unmarked WO. This is illustrated by examples (b) and (c) in which

Imperatives occur in clause-initial position in the first lines, and in clause-final position in the second lines.

קִׁרְּ בּו גֹויִׁםלִׁשְּ מעַ ּולְּאֻּמִׁ יםהַקְּשִׁ יבּו b) Isa. 34:1)

“Draw near, O nations, to hear! O peoples, listen!”

הַקְּשִׁ יבּו אֵ לַי עַמִׁ י ּולְּאּומִׁ י אֵ לַ י הַאֲזִׁ ינּו c) Isa. 51:4)

“Listen to me, my people! O my people, give ear to me!”

Similar to the WO of clauses with Imperatives in parallel lines, the irrealis SC can also occur in parallel lines while maintaining the normal WO. In example (d), the SC occurs in the gram weqatal in clause-initial position in parallel with a LPC. The pattern is abcbca (a = V; b =

NP; c = PP).

וְּהִׁ יּכֵיתִׁ קַשְּתְּ ָך מִׁ ּיַד משְּ אולֶָך וְּחִׁ צֶיָךמִׁ ּיַד יְּמִׁ ינְָּך אַפִׁ יל d) Ezek. 39:3)

“And I shall strike your bow from your left hand; and I shall cause your arrows fall

from your right hand!”

194 In all of the examples in this section we will put extra space between the cola to highlight our understanding of the lineation.

.appears here as a ballast variant זאת The word 195

197

The irrealis SC also occurs without waw in parallel with the LPC. We have already discussed the irrealis SC in Jer. 5:6 (§3.2.2) and now elaborate on the parallelism of the relevant lines.

עַל ּכֵן הִׁ ּכָּם אַרְּ יֵהמִׁ ּיַעַר זְּאֵ ב עֲרָּ בֹות יְּשָּדְּדֵ ם e) Jer. 5:6)

“Therefore, a lion from the forest will slay them; a wolf of the deserts will destroy

them.”

After the conjunction, which should not be counted as a poetic unit (cf. Garrett, 2008: p. 9), the pattern is abcb(c)a (a = VP; b = NP; c = modifying phrase).196 In examples (d) and (e) the irrealis SCs and the LPCs occur in clause positions that are unmarked; that is, initial for the irrealis SCs and noninitial for the LPCs. However, the unmarked order of constituents is at times disrupted. The examples below illustrate the occurrence of irrealis SCs in clause-final position for the pragmatic purpose of parallelism. In examples (f-h), the irrealis SCs appear in parallel with weqatals, and in (i-k) they occur in parallel with other irrealis SCs without waw.

The first example comes from Isaiah 11:8 (cf. Driver, 1998: §14γ). We have already discussed the context of vv. 6-9 in chapter 11 and noted that these verses describe the condition of the world during the future Davidic king’s reign (see above §2.2.2.4).

וְּ שִׁ עעֲשַ יֹונֵק עַל חֻּר פָּתֶן וְּעַל מְּאּורַתצִׁפְּ עֹונִׁי גָּמּוליָּדֹו הָּדָּ ה f) Isa. 11:8)

“And a nursing (child) will play over the hole of serpent, and over the nest hole of a

viper a weaned (child) will reach out his hand.”

,must be emended (e.g., Gray הדה Some scholars have claimed that the text is corrupt and that

,as one word ידו הדה pp. 220-221; Rogland, 2003a: p. 57 n. 30). Reider preferred to read :1912

.from the Arabic word dahdah meaning “throw stones” or perhaps “play pebbles” (1952: p יְדַהְדֶ ה

115). But the vast majority of scholars support the reading of the MT, which is also supported

is parenthetical because technically it is part of the NP, though it (ערבות The second “c” (representing 196 .מיער has a similar function to the PP

198 by 1QIsaa and 4QIsab, which they gloss as “put,” “reach out,” or something similar based on cognates in Arabic and a few Aramaic dialects (see especially HALOT p. 239; BDB p. 213; Keil

& Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 185; Wildberger, 1991: p. 462; Watts, 2005a: p. 169; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 263).

The pattern of parallelism is abccba (a = V; b = NP; c = PP) with the only difference that

.(ידו) does הדה being intransitive, does not have an object, while the transitive verb ,ׁשעׁשע the verb

both have הדה and וׁשעׁשע In keeping with the time reference of the passage (11:1-9), the verbs future time reference (Wildberger, 1991: p. 461; Watts, 2005a: p. 168; Oswalt, 1986: p. 277;

Bartelt, 1996: p. 165; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 262; Childs, 2001: p. 98; NRSV, NASB, ESV,

NJKV, NIV). This is supported by the ancient versions (LXX, Future; Targum, LPC; Vulgate,

”which should be considered a “linguistic-stylistic (יהדה) Future) and the reading of 4QIsac change that was intended to clarify the meaning of the text (cf. Tov, 2012: p. 256). Several

”claiming that the SC is “unusual ,הדה scholars have expressed their confusion over the form of

(Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 262) or that it “does not fit very well into the context” (Wildberger, 1991: p. 462; cf. Gray, 1912: p. 221). But according to our approach, there is no difficulty. The SC in v. 8a is irrealis expressing a situation in future time with epistemic modality, exactly like the weqatal in v. 8a.

Our next example also comes from the book of Isaiah. Isaiah 18 is a short chapter that consists of a woe oracle (18:1-6), which is thematically linked to the prior woe oracle (17:12-14)

(Oswalt, 1986: pp. 355-356), and an eschatological vision of Zion (18:7). The oracle describes the coming changes in the world scene. With metaphorical Ethiopian messengers, the word is to

199 be spread that the Lord is looking down on the world and that he will cut short the nations’ time of glory.197

ּכִׁ י לִׁפְּ נֵי קָּצִׁ ירּכְּתָּ ם פֶרַ ח ּוב סֶ ר גמֵ ליִׁהְּ יֶהנִׁצָּה g) Isa. 18:5)

וְּכָּרַ תהַזַלְּזַלִׁים בַמַ זְּמֵ רֹות וְּאֶ ת הַנְּטִׁ ישֹות הֵסִׁ יר הֵתַ ז

“For before harvest, when the bud is completed, and the blossom becomes a ripening

fruit, then he will cut off the shoots with pruning shears, and the tendrils he will

completely tear away (OR: he will remove, he will tear away).”

Verse 5a describes the setting in which the following actions will take place (i.e., when the fruit is ripening), and v. 5b describes the future actions (Gray, 1912: p. 307; Kaiser, 1974: p. 90;

Oswalt, 1986: p. 358; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 308; Childs, 2001: p. 134; Smith, 2007: p. 351;

NRSV, NASB, NIV, NKJV). After the shoots and tendrils have been torn away, they will then

.(for carrion fowl and animals (v. 6 (יֵעָזְבּו) be left

The lines in v. 5b are synonymously parallel, loosely bearing the pattern abba. The first line names the tool with which the shoots will be cut off whereas the second line has the object

;and has two verbs that could be taken as a hendiadys (Oswalt, 1986: p. 358 את marked with

Childs, 2001: p. 134; NRSV). The weqatal and the SCs in v. 5b are semantically identical. They have future time reference and probably express assumptive, epistemic modality.

Another example of parallelism affecting the WO of a clause with an irrealis SC is found in Isaiah 19. We have already discussed the future time reference of the first (vv. 1-4) and second (vv. 5-10) stanzas (see above, §2.2.3.5.3).

וְּאָּבְּ לּו ּכָּל־מַשְּ לִׁיכֵי בַיְּאֹור חַּכָּה ּופרְּשֵ י מִׁכְּמ רֶ תעַל־פְּ נֵי־מַיִׁםאֻּמְּ לָּלּו h) Isa. 19:8)

197 Driver considered the SCs in 18:5 Prophetic Perfects (1998: §14γ) and Rogland had no explanation to offer for them (2003a: p. 113).

200

“And all those who cast a hook in the Nile will mourn; and those who spread out a net

on the face of the water will languish.”

& e.g., Keil) אמללו The majority of commentators recognize the future time reference of

Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 232; Oswalt, 1986: p. 364; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 312; Smith, 2007: p. 357), though, to our knowledge, no explanation has been given for this (cf. Rogland, 2003a: p. 113).

In our view, the pattern of parallelism overrides the unmarked WO resulting in the clause-final position of an irrealis SC in the second line to parallel the weqatal in the first. The pattern is a modified form of abcbca (a = V; b = NP; c = PP). The modification comes in the first line, where the PP intrudes in the construct chain making a “broken construct chain” (Waltke &

.is epistemic and probably deductive אמללו O’Connor, 1990: p. 140). The situation expressed by

The book of Jeremiah also provides several examples of irrealis SCs appearing in clause- final position for reasons of parallelism. The first of which comes from Jeremiah 31, a chapter

,נאם יהוה and כה אמר יהוה describing the future deliverance of Israel. Literary markers, such as divide the chapter into sections. The relevant sections are vv. 10-14 and vv. 23-26 (Bright, 1965: pp. 274, 276; Carroll, 1986: pp. 593-595, 605-607). The example occurs in v. 25.

ּכִׁ י הִׁרְּ וֵ יתִׁ י נֶ פֶש עֲיֵפָּ ה וְּכָּל נֶ פֶש דָּאֲבָּ ה מִׁ לֵ אתִׁ י i) Jer. 31:25)

“For I will give (the) soul of the weary (its) fill, and every soul (that) has languished I

will fill up.”

Jones noted that these lines have “both parallelism and chiasmus” (1992: p. 397), though we would note that the pattern, abcbca (a = V; b = NP; c = modifying phrase), is a modified chiasm.

The modifying phrase of the first is an adjective, while the second, without emendation, is a SC in an asyndetic relative clause (Bright, 1965: p. 276; Thompson, 1980: p. 576), though some

.(to an adjective (BHS; see Carroll, 1986: p. 605; McKane, 1996: p. 810 דאבה emend

201

Future time reference is clearly established in vv. 23-24, and most scholars have recognized the future time reference of the SCs in v. 25 (Driver, 1998: §14β; Thompson, 1980: p.

576; Carroll, 1986: p. 605; Holladay, 1989: p. 154; Keown, Scalise, & Smothers, 1995: p. 124;

McKane, 1996: p. 808; NRSV, NAB, ESV, NIV). Bright offered a future time translation, but then in his attempt to be “more accurate,” suggested a future perfect translation (1965: p. 282).

should be considered temporal. This interpretation, however, is not כי Accordingly, the use of likely. It is much more likely that this verse generally refers to the same or similar situations as those referenced in v. 14. Scholars have noted the similar diction of vv. 14 and 25 (Holladay,

1989: p. 166), and it is also significant that both of these verses are the last in their respective oracles, as they offer final remarks on the future hope of Israel.198

וְּרִׁ ּוֵיתִׁ י נֶפֶש הַּכהֲנִׁים דָּשֶ ן וְּעַמִׁי אֶ ת טּובִׁ י יִׁשְּ בָּעּו j) Jer. 31:14)

“And I will satisfy the appetite of the priests with fat, and my people will be satisfied

with my goodness.”

The time reference of these situations is undoubtedly future and this verse also has the pattern abcbca. An important difference between this verse and v. 25 is that here there is an irrealis SC in the weqatal construction and a LPC, both of which are probably epistemic. Based on the context, both vv. 23-25 and chapter 31 as a whole, and the similar content and verbal semantics of v. 14, we propose that the SCs in v. 25 are irrealis and that they express situations with epistemic modality.

The next set of examples appears in a chapter that has proved challenging to many scholars, Jeremiah 48. Rogland, for example, claimed that “[o]nly a very tentative analysis can be given of this extremely difficult chapter” (2003a: p. 89; cf. Clements, 1988: p. 252). The SC

198 The interpretation and significance of Jer. 31:26 is notoriously difficult (see the literature). But it is widely recognized as a verse of prose that is not a continuation of the oracle in vv. 23-25.

202 forms in 48:41 have long been thought to be Prophetic Perfects (e.g., Driver, 1998: §14γ), but even more recently it has been reaffirmed that these forms “function here as ‘prophetic perfects’ that seal the inevitability of Moabite defeat” (Allen, 2008: p. 478). Rogland’s tentative suggestion for interpreting the time reference of this chapter was that it rapidly shifted back and forth between past (Evision) and future (Ereal). Accordingly, vv. 1-5, 15, 17-25, and 45-46 refer to

Evision, while vv. 7-14, 16, 26-39, 40-44 and 47 refer to Ereal (2003a: pp. 89-90).199 Yet, by his own confession, this suggestion has many difficulties, particularly with the numerous phrases and verb forms that are “extremely difficult” to explain.

We would suggest that there is some shifting in the time reference of certain sections, but our approach is not nearly as unstable as Rogland’s. Some temporal shifting seems to be a permitted feature of Hebrew prophecy, though in this particular case it may be attributed, at least in part, to the composite nature of the text.200 We propose that there are two major sections to

vv. 1-39 and 40-47. The second of these has :כה אמר יהוה this chapter, both of which begin with the kind of temporal shifts that Rogland has suggested. Specifically, the RT shifts from Ereal (vv.

40-44 with future time reference) to Evision (vv. 45-46 with past time reference) and back to Ereal

(v. 47). The first section seems to refer to Evision almost completely, but the unique feature of this section is that it is described in present time, as if the prophet was reliving the events he saw in the vision. This description often comes in the form of stative clauses, with stative verbs (some of which have been thought to be Prophetic Perfects, such as the SC forms in v. 1) or verbless clauses. The majority of the LPC and weqatal forms advance the RT as the destruction spreads across all of Moab, but the present RT is maintained throughout. This is discernible in the

199 Verse 6 is not included in his analysis without explanation.

200 See, e.g., Holladay (1989: pp. 353-355) who finds three oracles dating to 605, 599/5, and 594 BCE, respectively, in addition to the undoubted use of earlier prophecies (e.g., Isa. 15-16).

203 frequent Imperatives (vv. 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 28) and the sections of direct speech (vv. 14-

15, 30-39). Verses 11-13 and 29, however, break from the otherwise consistent present RT.

The first describes Moab’s life of ease in the past, which will be soon turned over (vv. 11-13), and the second is a brief description of Moab’s past arrogance and pride (v. 29). Nevertheless, each of these has an important role in the development of the passage, offering reasons for the coming judgment revealed in the vision.

The section of greatest interest to this dissertation is vv. 40-44. The verbs in question occur in v. 41.

ּכִׁ י כ ה אָּמַ ריְּהוָּה k) Jer. 48:40-41)

הִׁ נֵה כַנֶשֶ ריִׁדְּאֶ ה ּופָּרַ שּכְּ נָּפָּיו אֶ ל מֹואָּ ב

נִׁלְּּכְּדָּההַקְּרִׁ ּיֹות וְּהַמְּ צָּדֹותנִׁתְּ פָּשָּ ה

וְּהָּיָּה לֵבגִׁבֹורֵ ימֹואָּ ב בַּיֹום הַהּוא ּכְּ לֵבאִׁשָּ המְּ צֵרָּ ה

“For thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, he will fly like an eagle, and spread his wings

toward Moab. The towns201 will be captured and the fortresses seized. And the

heart of the mighty men of Moab will be on that day as the heart of a woman in

labor.’”

It is clear from the context prior and following that these verbs refer to a future situation, and many commentaries and translations recognize this (e.g., NRSV, ESV, NIV; Huey, 1993: p. 369;

Lundbom, 1997: p. 85; Brueggemann, 1998b: p. 450; Bracke, 2000: pp. 131-132; Allen, 2008: p.

483). Not only do the LPC and the weqatal forms prior indicate future time, but the following

are two of the most unambiguous future time signifiers at the ,ביום ההוא and והוה ,indicators disposal of the Hebrew prophets (cf. Nogalski, 2015: pp. 22-23; Cook, 2012b: p. 315).

201 Although many modern translations take this word as a proper noun, the definite article and the parallel articular plural noun suggest otherwise. See Rogland, 2003a: p. 90; Bright, 1965: p. 318.

204

The apparent future time reference is part of the reason that Rogland suggested to repoint the verbs to G Cohortatives (2003a: p. 90). But he also thought this would help to resolve the numerical incongruence between the nouns (plural) and the verbs (singular). His suggestion, however, causes other interpretive and grammatical problems. The reader is left to wonder who the plural subject is since the contextual referent would be singular. It has also been suggested

might be a third, feminine, plural (-ā#), which would be vocalized the same way as נתפׂשה that the singular in the Tiberian tradition (Meyer, 1992: pp. 104-105). Finding unique feminine forms would not be surprising in the book of Jeremiah since a distinct second feminine singular

and the ,נתפׂשו ending is well-attested.202 Such a reading may be hinted at by the Babylonian qere kethiv in Jer. 22:6 may also suggest a third, feminine, plural in the SC. However, the best explanation for the number incongruence is that sometimes “[p]lural (especially fem.) nouns of things or of animals may be regarded as equivalent to collectives; the verb then takes the fem. sing.” (Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §150g, emphasis original). This particular verse is noted as one of the examples of this phenomenon in Joüon and Muraoka, as well as in GKC (§145k). Allen has recently advocated this position (2008: p. 484), and it makes the most sense of the data without repointing the text or postulating an otherwise unproven dialectal variation in BH.

Lundbom has pointed out that v. 41a has a chiastic pattern (1997: p. 85), abba (a = V; b =

-the WO attests the unmarked order for irrealis verbs (V ,(נלכדה הקריות) NP). In the first clause

S), while the second clause has the inverted order to create a chiastically parallel line (S-V). In light of the evidence, it seems to us that the best explanation of these SCs is that they are irrealis, expressing situations with epistemic modality and future time reference.

202 The orthographic evidence of the original final long –ī in the 2fs of the SC (cf. Aramaic) and the 2fs independent pronoun is not uncommon in the book of Jeremiah (the SC in 2:33, 34; 3:4; 4:19; 31:21; 46:11; and the pronoun in 4:30; also cf. feminine singular Participles in 22:23; 51:13). In Jeremiah the 2fs endings on the SC are treated as kethiv/qeres (except in 2:34). They likely represent dialectal variation.

205

and נלכדה It should also be observed that some scholars might question our analysis of

because of tertiary text-critical issues. For example, Holladay noted that vv. 40b and 41b נתפׂשה are not in the Greek text, which, in his mind, changes the way that we should understand 40a, which he rendered with past time reference (1989: p. 344). We, however, disagree on two counts. First, his explanation does not in any way account for or engage with the WO of v. 41a.

Second, we find his approach to the text of Jeremiah wanting. Despite the (rather significant) textual variation between the texts of Jeremiah in the Masoretic and Greek traditions,203 our goal is to understand the Hebrew text of Jeremiah – its grammar, syntax, and meaning – as it stands in the MT (Allen, 2008: p. 2; cf. Nogalski, 2015: pp. 84-90). Holladay’s approach, while diachronically and textually informed, leaves the MT hardly comprehensible. It is possible that his reconstructed path of composition is accurate, but it does not account for the meaning of the text or the semantics of the verbs in the form extant in the MT.

Our final example comes from Jer. 50:46, a verse that is very similar to Jer. 49:21, which we have discussed above (§3.2.3.1). There are, however, a few significant differences between these verses (see Parke-Taylor, 2000: p. 156).

מִׁ קֹול הנִׁתְּפְּשָּ בָּבֶל נִׁרְּ עֲשָּההָּאָּרֶ ץ ּוזְּעָּקָּה בַגֹויִׁם נִׁשְּ מָּ ע l) Jer. 50:46)

“From the sound ‘Babylon is seized,’ the earth will be shaken and a cry will be

heard among the nations.”

The first difference between 49:21 and 50:46 is that in the latter, the sound is not of “their fall”

.but of quoted speech that “Babylon is seized” (Bright, 1965: p. 345; Thompson, 1980: p ,(נפלם)

203 The Greek text of Jeremiah is approximately one-seventh shorter than the MT and is arranged differently, having the tripartite division common to the prophetic books. Neither the Masoretic nor the Greek versions has the complete support of the Dead Sea Scrolls since of the five manuscripts of Jeremiah found, two (4QJera and 4QJerc) are very close to the MT, while 4QJerb and 4QJerd contain something very similar to what we would expect to find in a Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX.

206

appears her בגוים Holladay, 1989: p. 395; Allen, 2008: p. 507). Another difference is that ;745

Huey described the relationship of 50:45-46 to 49:21-22 in this way: “[s]ince .בים סוף instead of

[the sins of Edom and Babylon] were similar, it was appropriate that their punishment be alike.

The cries of Edom would be heard as far away as the Red Sea (49:21), but because of its greater importance, the cry of Babylon would be heard among all the nations when it fell” (1993: p. 417;

,appears here in the N רעׁש√ cf. Keil & Delitzsch, 1996c: p. 436). Another difference is that

in 49:21 is intransitive – “from the sound of their fall, the earth shall shake.” The רעׁשה while final difference of note is that 49:21 is a bicolon while 50:46 is a tricolon (cf. BHS). In 49:21 there are two parallel lines with the pattern abcabc (a = PP; b = V; c = NP), while in 50:46 the parallelism, which only exists in the last two cola, is a modified chiasm, abb(c)a (a = V; b = NP; c = PP).

According to Bright, chapters 50-51 were “clearly composed prior to the fall of Babylon to the Persians in 539, as is evident from the fact that Babylon’s overthrow is an event that lies still in the future and is eagerly expected” (1965: p. 360). Most scholars recognize that the time

.is future (Carroll, 1986: p. 833; Reimer, 1993: p. 62; Huey, 1993: p נׁשמע and נרעׁשה reference of

417; Parke-Taylor, 2000: p. 155; Allen, 2008: p. 507; NRSV, ESV, NIV) and we would add that both situations are irrealis (epistemic).

§3.2.4 Other Examples

In this section we will discuss many other examples and potential examples of irrealis

SCs. These are divided below into subsections. In the sections above we discussed and illustrated the unmarked WO of irrealis SCs and the various circumstances in which that WO is disrupted. The categories include clause-initial position (§3.2.1), clause-initial position

207 following a clausal adverb (§3.2.2), and other positions occurring as the result of pragmatic preposing (§3.2.3). In §3.2.4.1, we will discuss passages with two or more irrealis SCs that would fit into different categories outlined above. We will then discuss potential examples that are textually uncertain (§3.2.4.2).

§3.2.4.1 Mixed Examples

Our first set of “mixed” examples comes from Isaiah 25. This chapter consists of three stanzas: vv. 1-5, 6-8, and 9-12 (Oswalt, 1986: p. 459; Childs, 2001: pp. 183-186; Smith, 2007: p.

427). The first stanza is a song of thanksgiving and the second describes the blessed future of

God’s people as they enjoy his feast, and death, tears, and disgrace are done away with. The

v. 9). The verses following the) ביום ההוא third stanza begins with quoted speech that will be said quote (vv. 10-12) are explanatory describing the situations that will come about that result in the praise of God in the quoted speech. There is one LPC and three weqatals with future time reference describing the presence of God on “this mountain” and the destruction of Moab. The final verse in this stanza is v. 12.

ּומִׁבְּ צַר מִׁשְּ גַב חֹומתֶיָך הֵשַח הִׁשְּ פִׁ ילהִׁ גִׁ יעַ לָּאָּרֶ ץ עַד עָּפָּ ר a) Isa. 25:12)

“And your high fortified walls he will lay low, bring low, (and) make (them) touch

the earth, (even) to the dust.”

Some scholars have proposed reducing the number of nouns and verbs from three to two (see

BHS). However, such suggestions are to be rejected because not only do they lack evidence

(Wildberger, 1997: pp. 537-538),204 but they also miss the rhetorical strength of the prophecy that is gained by having “[t]hree nouns of height matched by three verbs of bringing down”

as a הׁשח הׁשפיל The LXX only has two finite verbs, but the first (ταπεινώσει) may be the translation of 204 hendiadys.

208

(Motyer, 1999: p. 173; cf. Young, 1972b: p. 202; Brueggemann, 1998a: p. 201; Oswalt, 1986: p.

458 n. 16).

Wildberger (1997: p. 536), Blenkinsopp (2000: p. 361), and Watts (2005a: p. 334) translate these SCs with past time reference. That interpretation, however, makes no sense in context. They were, of course, not unaware of this and they each offered a different way of explaining the verse. Wildberger suggested it was a “later addition, providing information which stated that Moab’s downfall had actually occurred now” (1997: p. 538). Blenkinsopp considered it a reason to praise God similar to v. 2 (2000: p. 361), and Watts began his translation of the verse with “when,” suggesting that “the syntax puts the temporal factor of all the verbs under the dominant impf. of v. 10” (2005a: p. 334). In their attempt to strictly follow their understanding of the semantics of the SC, they have failed to allow the context to illuminate the syntax and the semantics of these SCs.

Contextually, the time reference is clearly future, something that is recognized by most commentators (Young, 1972b: p. 202; Kaiser, 1974: p. 204; Oswalt, 1986: p. 458; Brueggemann,

1998a: p. 201; Childs, 2001: p. 182; Smith, 2007: p. 436), the modern translations (e.g., NRSV,

NASB, ESV, NAB, NKJV, NIV), and the ancient versions (LXX, Targum, Peshitta, Vulgate).205

We propose that these are irrealis SCs expressing epistemic modality. The first SC occurs in a

והׁשפיל .clause with a preposed NP that is the grammatical object of the verb, while the second (cf in v. 11) and third SCs are clause-initial.

A mere five verses into the next chapter we find the same verbs describing a very similar

in the land of Judah. Some ביום ההוא situation. Isaiah 26:1 introduces a song that will be sung

205 There are two readings among the Dead Sea Scrolls. One (4QIsac) matches the MT, and the other which should be considered a linguistic-stylistic change. It seems to reflect יגיע 1QIsaa) has two SCs followed by) the scribe’s understanding of the time reference (cf. Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 362).

209 scholars consider the song to be vv. 1-6, but it is contextually better to view the song as vv. 1b-4

could be כי while vv. 5-6 are explanatory (Motyer, 1999: p. 174; cf. 25:10-12). Although asseverative (Wildberger, 1997: p. 544; Watts, 2005a: p. 336; Smith, 2007: p. 442) it seems to us that it is more likely causal (Gray, 1912: p. 439; Kaiser, 1974: p. 205; Motyer, 1999: p. 174).

ּכִׁיהֵשַחי שְּ בֵי מָּ רֹום קִׁרְּ יָּה נִׁשְּ גָּבָּה יַשְּ פִׁ ילֶנָּה יַשְּ פִׁ ילָּּה עַד ץאֶרֶ יַגִׁ יעֶ נָּה עַד עָּפָּ ר b) Isa. 26:5)

“For he will lay low the inhabitants of the height, the inaccessible city – he will bring

it low.206 He will bring it low to the earth, he will make it touch the dust.”

On the one hand, some scholars have claimed that vv. 5-6 describe past situations and that calling upon these past events at this time offers a “concrete reason for the praise of God”

(Wildberger, 1997: p. 544; cf. Gray, 1912: p. 439; Kaiser, 1974: p. 205). However, when interpreted this way, the LPCs in vv. 5-6 can only be translated dubiously with regard to time reference. For example, Blenkinsopp translated the SC as a past situation, the LPCs in v. 5 as present, and the LPC in v. 6 as future (2000: p. 361; cf. Gray, 1912: p. 439; Kaiser, 1974: p. 205;

Watts, 2005a: p. 336). If, on the other hand, vv. 5-6 are explanatory and the SC is irrealis

(following a clausal adverb), as we propose, then not only do these verses give cause for the song in the previous verses, but also the time reference of all the verbs in vv. 5-6 is the same.

In our view, v. 5a, apart from the clausal adverb, consists of two parallel lines with the pattern abba (a = V; b = NP), with the irrealis SC standing in parallel with a LPC (cf. Jer. 5:6).

The NP in the second line is dislocated. Meanwhile, v. 5b has a different pattern of parallelism between its cola: abab (a = V; b = PP).

,should be maintained as they are in two different clauses ׁשפל√ The two occurrences of LPCs from 206 contra the Masoretic pointing and lineation of BHS (see Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 290; Oswalt, 1986: p. 469; .יׁשפילה in v. 5a, and begin v. 5b with יׁשפילנה Wildberger, 1997: p. 543). In our discussion of this verse, we include

210

Our next set of examples occurs in Isaiah 33:1-6. Although some scholars have found identifying the time reference of the SCs in these verses challenging (e.g., Rogland, 2003a: p.

113), close attention to the literary context is illuminating. These verses consist of three subunits: vv. 1, 2-4, 5-6 (Sweeney, 1996: pp. 421-423). The first subunit is a “woe oracle directed against the unnamed oppressor” (Sweeney, 1996: p. 422). The second addresses the

Lord directly (vv. 2-3), appealing to him to be “our salvation in time of trouble” (v. 2), before turning to the nations (who are referenced in the third person in v. 3) and giving them a “warning threat” in v. 4 (Beuken, 2000: p. 248). This subunit is divided differently, however, when the functions are in view (see Sweeney, pp. 422-423; Beuken, 2000: p. 248). The Imperatives in v. 2 make evident that the verse is a plea.207 Meanwhile, vv. 3-4 elaborate “on the results of

YHWH’s intervention by describing the defeat of the enemies” (Sweeney, 1996: p. 423). The third subunit addresses the audience “concerning the exultation of YHWH” (Sweeney, 1996: p.

423). The relevant SCs occur in vv. 3 and 5.

מִׁקֹול הָּמֹוןנָּדְּ דּו עַמִׁ ים מֵרֹומְּ מֻּתֶ ָך נָּפְּ צּו גֹויִׁ ם c) Isa. 33:3)

“From the sound of tumult, peoples will flee; from your rising up, nations will

scatter.”

The description of the future defeat of the peoples/nations begins here and continues in v. 4 with a weqatal (Sweeney, 1996: p. 423). Many scholars who have recognized the future time reference of these verbs have explained them as Prophetic Perfects. Brueggemann commented that the “rhetoric is presented as a characterization of what has already happened. In light of the

‘wait’ of verse 2, we may conclude that the past tense is in fact anticipation of what Yahweh will yet do” (1998a: p. 260; cf. Driver, 1998: §14α; Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 337; Young, 1972b:

207 All but verse 2aβ which is an explanatory clause (“we have waited for you”).

211 p. 406 n. 5; cf. Motyer, 1999: p. 209; Smith, 2007: pp. 553-554). We propose that they are irrealis SCs with preposed PPs.208 The SCs in v. 3 and the weqatal in v. 4 refer to future time situations with epistemic modality.

The next subunit (vv. 5-6) addresses the audience in the second person (v. 6) and refers to the Lord in the third person.

נִׁשְּגָּביְּהוָּה ּכִׁי ש כֵןמָּ רֹום מִׁ לֵא צִׁ ּיֹוןמִׁשְּ פָּטּוצְּדָּקָּ ה d) Isa. 33:5)

“The Lord is exalted, for he dwells on high! He will fill Zion with justice and

righteousness!”

This verse is a proclamation “about who God is” (v. 5a) and “what he will do” (v. 5b) that expresses “the prophet’s confidence in God’s care to fulfill his plans for his people” (Smith,

2007: p. 554). Literarily, the redemption of Zion by justice and rightousness has already been

(contingently) promised (e.g., 1:27) and the city certainly cannot be described presently as full of justice and rightouesness (5:7). This verse speaks of a future time in which the Lord will fill

מלא Zion with justice and righteousness. Many commentators and translations have translated with future time (e.g., Kaiser, 1974: p. 337; Childs, 2001: p. 242; Beuken, 2000: p. 239; cf.

Motyer, 1999: p. 209; RSV, ESV, NIV), and some have considered it a Prophetic Perfect (Smith,

2007: p. 554 n. 236; cf. Keil & Delitzsch, 1996b: p. 338). The following verse is an

“enumeration of the benefits that will result from YHWH’s exultation” that is “connected” to v.

,Sweeney, 1996: p. 423). The context, the verb’s clause-initial position) (והיה) by the weqatal 5

is an irrealis SC expressing a future time מלא and the weqatal in v. 6 support our suggestion that situation with epistemic modality.

208 The lines are parallel with the pattern abcabc (a = PP; b = V; c = S), but it is the preposing of the PPs that disrupts the WO, not the parallelism.

212

The following chapter provides other examples. The relevant verses occur in vv. 8-15, a subunit that makes up the fourth basis for the call to the nations to “hear” and “pay attention” issued in the first verse (Sweeney, 1996: pp. 437-440). Verse 8 declares that a day of vengeance belongs to the Lord, and vv. 9-15 elaborate on the destruction of Edom to occur. Edom will be completely destroyed, overthrown, and burned, and a variety of unclean and unwholesome creatures and demons will inhabit the land (Wildberger, 2002: pp. 333-338).

14 ּופָגְׁשּו ִצ ִּיים ֶאת ִא ִּיים ְו ָׂש ִע יר עַל רֵ עֵהּו איִקְרָ אַ ְך ׁשָםהִרְ גִ יעָהלִילִית הּומָצְאָ לָּה מָ נֹוחַ׃ e) Isa. 34:14-15)

15 ׁשָמָ ה קִנְנָהקִ ּפֹוז וַתְ מַ לֵט ּובָקְעָה וְדָגְרָ ה בְצִ לָּה אַ ְך ׁשָ ם נִקְּבְצּודַּיֹות אִשָה רְ עּותָ ּה

“(14) And desert creatures will meet jackals, and (the) goat-demon will bleat to his

companion. Surely there Lilith will settle in, and she will find a resting place for

herself.

“(15) There the darting snake will make a nest, and deliver,209 and hatch, and care for

(the young) in her shadow. Surely there the birds of prey will be gathered, each one

with its companion.” 210

The SCs in vv. 14-15 have been considered Prophetic Perfects (e.g., Joosten, 2012: p. 208).

However, it should be noted that there is nothing in the chapter to indicate that this is a vision or dream that the prophet experienced and is referring back to. In fact, nothing in vv. 9-15 suggests a temporal shift forward or backward. All seven verses have the same time reference. Watts has rendered vv. 9-15 in past time, though without offering an explanation (2005b: pp. 528-529).

,in vv. 14-15. However ותמלט One can only speculate that this was done because of the SCs and a significant problem with Watts’ view is that the eight LPC forms in vv. 9-15, including two III-

.as a vav + LPC. See below ותמלט Translating 209

210 See Wildberger (2002: pp. 315-316) for discussion on the many difficult lexemes in this passage.

213 y verbs that are not apocopated (v. 10), would have past time reference, along with the nine weqatals. Also significant is the evidence from the ancient versions, which not only suggest that

has future time reference (LXX, Future; Targum, LPC; cf. 1QIsaa, LPC), but also that הרגיעה

is a waw + LPC (Targum; cf. 1QIsaa).211 Ultimately, Watts’ position is highly unlikely and ותמלט not defensible. The vast majority of commentators and translations recognize the future time reference of vv. 9-15 (e.g., Young, 1972b: p. 437; Kaiser, 1974: pp. 352-353; Stacey, 1993: p.

210; Beuken, 2000: p. 280; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 449; Childs, 2001: p. 251; Smith, 2007: pp.

573-575; NRSV, NASB, NAB, NKJV).

We propose that the SCs in vv. 14-15 are irrealis (epistemic) and that they occur in clauses with preposed constituents. All three SCs in these verses occur in clauses with a preposed adverb, “there,” while the first and third occur in clauses with an additional constituent,

“surely,” a clausal adverb. The repeated preposing of the adverb highlights the location in which these creatures will take up residence and “completes the picture of destruction” (Sweeney,

1996: p. 440).

Isaiah 45 provides our next set of examples. This chapter is part of a literary unit beginning in 44:24 and ending in 45:25. There are four strophes in chapter 45 (vv. 1-8, 9-13, 14-

17, and 18-24; see Smith, 2009: pp. 253-268), and the verbs of our present interest occur in the

and the speech of the Lord ,כה אמר יהוה third. Verse 14 begins with the oracular introduction describes the future submission of three African nations to Israel in direct address to the nation of

Israel (“you” fs) (v. 14a-bα). Within the Lord’s speech is a quoted speech of the nations in that future time. The modern translations consider only v. 14bβ to be the nations’ speech, but it is unlikely that this speech would stop there (Goldingay, 2001: p. 265). The next verse directly

211 On the confusion of the LPC and the SPC regarding the wayyiqtol construction in the MT, see above §3.1.2.2.

214 addresses God and refers to him as the God of Israel, suggesting that this verse is also a part of the nations’ future speech confessing belief in the God of Israel (vv. 14bβ-15). Then come the final verses of the strophe.

16 בֹושּו וְּ גַ ם נִׁכְּלְּמּו ּכֻּלָּם ויַחְּדָּ הָּלְּכּו בַּכְּלִׁמָּ החָּרָּ שֵ יצִׁירִׁ ים 17 יִׁשְּרָּ לאֵ נֹושַ ע בַיהוָּהתְּ שּועַת f) Isa. 45:16-17)

עֹולָּמִׁ ים ל א תֵב שּו וְּ ל א תִׁ ּכָּלְּמּו עַד עֹולְּמֵ י עַד

“(16) They will be ashamed, and moreover, all of them will be disgraced. Together

the idol makers will go in disgrace.

“(17) Israel will be saved by the Lord, an eternal salvation. You shall not be

ashamed or disgraced for eternity to come.”

Verses 16-17 have no indications that the direct speech of the nations or God has continued.

Since the speaker addresses the children of Israel directly (v. 17b), the Lord is referred to indirectly (v. 17a), and the third person plural referent in v. 16 is the idolaters, the implied speaker of these verses must be the prophet summarizing and commenting on the oracle given in vv. 14-15 (cf. Motyer, 1993: p. 364; Oswalt, 1998: p. 217; Smith, 2009: p. 271). As such, the prophet described not present circumstances, but future situations as he summarized and expounded on the oracle of God. He prophesied that in this future time the status of the idolaters and Israel will be reversed from what they are at the ST. While the nations were in the place of honor and Israel defeated and low on the day the prophet spoke, there will be a day, he declared, in which the idolatrous nations will be disgraced and Israel will be saved forever. The phrase

to borrow from Jacobson and Jacobson (2013: p. 19), echoes and expands on the ,תׁשועת עולמים salvation of Israel. This future salvation of Israel will be enjoyed eternally.

It occurs in a .הלכו ,We suggest that one of the four SCs in these verses is clearly irrealis

,נכלמו ,בוׁשו) clause with a preposed adverb. The other three SCs in these verses may be irrealis

215

in which case it should be noted that the first occurs in clause-initial position, while 212,(נוׁשע and

follows the grammatical subject. However, they may be נוׁשע follows a clausal adverb, and נכלמו

.is a future stative נוׁשע are irrealis, while נכלמו and בוׁשו future statives. It is also possible that

Our next pair of examples comes from Isaiah 51:3. For the literary context of this chapter, see above (§2.2.3.5.3). The first stanza (vv. 1-3) is “a prophecy of consolation addressed to Zion” that recalls the blessings of God on Abraham and Sarah (Paul, 2012: p. 358).

ּכִׁ י נִׁחַם יְּהוָּהצִׁ ּיֹון נִׁחַם ּכָּל בחָּרְּ תֶיהָּ וַּיָּ שֶ םמִׁדְּ בָּרָּ ּה ּכְּעֵדֶןוְּעַרְּ בָּתָּ ּה ּכְּ גַן יְּהוָּה שָּ שֹון וְּשִׁמְּ חָּהיִׁמָּצֵא g) Isa. 51:3)

בָּּה תֹודָּה וְּ קֹול זִׁמְּרָּ ה

“For the Lord will comfort Zion, he will comfort all her ruins. And he will make213

her desert like Eden, and her wasteland as the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness

will be found in her, thanksgiving and (the) sound of song.”

Some scholars have considered the SCs Prophetic Perfects (Oswalt, 1998: p. 331 n. 6; Goldingay

& Payne, 2006: p. 225; Smith, 2009: p. 392 n. 177; cf. Koole, 1998: p. 145). We propose that v.

is explanatory, offering a reason for the audience to “listen” and “pay ,כי introduced by ,3 attention” (vv. 1-2). Both of the SCs are irrealis, though the second is clause-initial while the first follows a clausal adverb. This explanation fits the contextual time reference recognized by commentators (Koole, 1998: p. 145; Oswalt, 1998: p. 331 n. 6; Goldingay & Payne, 2006: p.

225; Smith, 2009: p. 392), modern translations (NRSV, NAB, NASB, NKJV, NIV), and ancient versions (LXX, Future; Targum, LPC; Vulgate, Future). As Goldingay and Payne pointed out,

,in Isa. 45:16, see McFall בוׁשו For quick reference on the generally accepted future time reference of 212 1986: pp. 208, 215.

213 See previous note, along with Blenkinsopp, 2002: p. 324; Smith, 2009: p. 392 n. 177; cf. Paul, 2012: p. 361; Koole, 1998: p. 145.

216 the future time reference “draws attention to the fact that here ‘comfort’ refers to action rather than mere words” (2006: p. 225).

The book of Jeremiah also attests several instances of irrealis SCs used in close proximity and in different positions in their respective clauses. Our first set comes from Jeremiah 13 in the oracles following the sign act narrative (vv. 1-11) and the following disputation (vv. 12-14). The rest of the chapter consists of three units: vv. 15-17, vv. 18-19, vv. 20-27 (Carroll, 1986: pp. 299-

305). Our present interest is with the middle unit.

18 אֱמֹּר לַמֶ לְֶך וְ לַגְבִירָ ה הַׁשְ ּפִ ילּו ׁשֵ בּו כִ ייָרַ דמַרְ אֲׁשֹותֵ יכֶם עֲטֶרֶת תִפְאַרְ תְ כֶ ם׃ 19 עָרֵ י h) Jer. 13:18-19)

הַנֶגֶב סֻגְרּו וְאֵ ין ּפֹּתֵחַ הָגְלָתיְהּודָ ה כֻלָּה הָגְלָתׁשְ לֹומִ ים׃

“(18) Say to the king and the queen mother, ‘Sit down low214 because your beautiful

crown will come down from your heads.215

“(19) The cities of the Negev are (OR: have been) shut up, and there is none to open

(them). Judah will go into exile – all of it! It will completely go into exile!

These verses are particularly interesting because they show the disambiguation of the realis and

following a ירד :irrealis uses of the SC by WO. The irrealis uses occur in the expected positions

follows סגרו are clause-initial. Meanwhile the realis הגלת clausal adverb and both occurrences of the subject NP. Jones has pointed out that “[t]o say this to Jehoiachin before it happens is prophecy. To say it afterwards is beating the man when he is down. At one point only does

Jeremiah refer to what has already happened – the cities of the Negeb are shut up, with none to open them (v. 19)” (1992: p. 201). The irrealis SCs, on the other hand, refer to future situations

214 Taking the Imperatives as a hendiadys (cf. NRSV, NASB, ESV, NIV).

.(p. 408) (cf. NRSV, NASB, NIV :1986) מֵרָ אׁשֹותֵ יכֶם to מַרְ אֲׁשֹותֵ יכֶם We follow Holladay’s emendation of 215

217

(Keil & Delitzsch, 1996c: p. 148; Jones, 1992: p. 201; NKJV, NIV; cf. Huey, 1993: p. 147;

Allen, 2008: p. 161).

The next pair of examples occur in Jeremiah 25. This chapter consists of three units: vv.

1-14, 15-29, 30-38 (Allen, 2008: p. 282). The first two are prose, but the third is “a series of poetic sayings grouped together” (Carroll, 1986: p. 506). But it is important to note that this collection of sayings is “presented as a prophetic statement” as is clearly stated in v. 30 (“and you shall prophesy to them all these words”) (Carroll, 1986: p. 506). This unit describes the judgment of the nations and particularly their leaders. The day of judgment is in the future (v.

33), but it is coming very soon (v. 34aγ). The future events are referenced by mostly LPCs and

the metaphorical pasturage of (ׁשֹּדֵ ד) ”weqatals. Verse 36b says that “the Lord is about to destroy

saying, “the peaceful pastures will be (ונדמו) the leaders. Verse 37 begins with a weqatal devastated.”

עָזַב כַכְפִ יר סֻכֹו כִ י הָיְתָ ה אַרְ צָם לְׁשַמָ ה i) Jer. 25:38)

“He will, like a lion, leave his thicket, for their land will become a desolation.”

is the Lord, who was referenced in v. 37b. Most scholars translate vv. 36-38 עזב The subject of with mostly present and some past time reference (e.g., Bright, 1965: p. 160; Holladay, 1986: p.

678; Allen, 2008: p. 280; cf. the ancient versions). But this interpretation unnecessarily separates the clearly future situations in vv. 33-35 (see Bright, 1965: pp. 159-160; Holladay, 1986: p. 677;

Allen, 2008: p. 280) from vv. 36-38, even though the latter undoubtedly continue the argument of the former. It seems to us much more likely that the SCs in v. 38 are irrealis. The time reference (cf. NIV), the WO, and the proximity of the weqatal (v. 37) affirm this analysis.

The next few examples come from a judgment oracle against the Philistine in Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (47:1-7). The MT’s historical reference in the introduction to Pharaoh

218 attacking Gaza (v. 1) may be late since it does not appear in the LXX, so the date of this oracle is uncertain. Scholars have suggested various dates (see Holladay, 1989: pp. 336-337; Jones, 1992: pp. 496-497), but regardless of the time between the oracle’s composition and the event (or vice versa), the judgment is described in the oracle (vv. 2-7) as still anticipated, and not in the past

(cf. Clements, 1988: p. 251). The oracle divides into two parts (vv. 2-5a and 5b-7; Holladay,

1989: p. 335). The first part will be further divided for the sake of convenience in this discussion.

2 כֹּה אָמַ ר יְהוָה הִ נֵה מַיִםעֹּלִים מִ צָפֹוןוְהָיּו לְנַחַל ׁשֹוטֵ ףוְיִׁשְטְ פּואֶרֶ ץ ּומְלֹואָ ּה עִ ירוְיֹּׁשְ בֵי בָּה j) Jer. 47:2-4a)

וְ זָעֲקּוהָאָדָם וְהֵילִל כֹּליֹוׁשֵב הָאָרֶ ץ׃ 3 מִ קֹול ׁשַ עֲטַתּפַרְ סֹות אַּבִירָ יו מֵרַ עַׁש לְרִ כְ ּבֹו הֲמֹון גַלְגִלָיו לֹּא הִפְ נּו

אָבֹות אֶ ל ּבָנִים מֵרִ פְ יֹון יָדָיִם׃ 4 עַל הַּיֹום הַּבָאלִׁשְ דֹוד אֶ ת כָל ּפְלִׁשְתִ יםלְהַכְרִ יתלְצֹּר ּולְצִ ידֹון כֹּלׂשָרִ יד עֹּזֵר

“(2) Thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, waters are about to rise from the north, and they

will become a flooding river. And they will flood the land and its fullness – a city

and the inhabitants in it! And the people will cry out, and every inhabitant of the land

will wail! (3) From the sound of the stomping hoofs of his steeds, from the

earthquake of his chariotry – the tumult of his wheels – fathers will not turn (back)

to (their) sons from slackness of hands (4a) because of the coming day for the

destruction of all the Philistines; to cut off every remaining helper for Tyre and

Sidon.’”

The oracle issues judgment that is described as a future event in v. 2. The first clause is begun

and followed by a clause with a Participle indicating an imminent future situation. The הנה with future time reference continues with three weqatals and a LPC. 3a consists of two prepositional phrases and an appositional NP providing the terrifying image that explains the fathers’ neglect of their children in 3b (cf. Holladay, 1989: p. 335). Yet there is nothing in vv. 3-4a that would

219 indicate a temporal shift, so it is only natural to conclude that they also refer to future situations

(cf. Harrison, 1973: p. 173; Allen, 2008: p. 469). We would suggest that the phrases in 3a are fronted before the main clause for purposes of dramatic emphasis, and that in the main clause,

does not take clause-initial position because of the negative particle, similar (הפנו) the irrealis SC to the clausal position of a negated Jussive or irrealis LPC.

The oracle continues:

4b כִ י ׁשֹּדֵ ד יְהוָה אֶ ת ּפְלִׁשְתִים ׁשְ אֵרִ ית אִ י כַפְ תֹור׃ 5a ּבָאָ ה קָרְ חָה אֶ ל עַזָה נִדְמְתָהאַׁשְ קְ לֹון k) Jer. 47:4b-5a)

ׁשְ אֵרִ ית עִמְ קָ ם

“(4b) For the Lord is about to destroy the Philistines, the remnant of the coastland of

Caphtor. (5a) Baldness will come to Gaza, Ashkelon will be silenced, the remnant of

their plain.”216

Most translations (e.g., NRSV, ESV, NASB, NAB, NKJV) and commentators (Bright, 1965: p.

309; Carroll, 1986: p. 775; Holladay, 1989: p. 334; Allen, 2008: p. 469) render the SCs in v. 5 as present perfects. But the time reference of vv. 2-4a was future, and 4b certainly continues that time reference with an explanatory clause describing the imminent destruction of the Philistines.

There are no transitional or temporal markers in 5a to indicate a time reference shift. The situations referred to by the SCs denote mourning (Holladay, 1989: p. 338; Jones, 1992: p. 498;

Allen, 2008: p. 492) suggesting that these are future, post-destruction situations (cf. NIV), but it must be kept in mind that nothing in the text suggests a leap forward in time to look upon these situations as if they were prior to or coterminous with the RT. All the indications from the text

216 The reading “their plain” seems strange, and many commentators have elected to read a different noun of the same consonants (“their strength”) based on Ugaritic uses (e.g., Bright, 1965: pp. 309-310) or to emend the text after a reading suggested by the LXX’s idiomatic translation (cf. BHS; Holladay, 1989: p. 334; Allen, 2008: p. 470), though it should be noted that the LXX’s reading could be, as Harrison said, “pure conjecture” (1973: p. 173).

220 suggest that the ST is the RT. Since the SCs have future time reference and are clause-initial with their respective subjects following, we suggest that they are irrealis.

Another of Jeremiah’s oracles againt the nations contains a few examples. There are two

(possibly three) examples in the following verses.

כִ י ׁשֹּדֵ ד יְהוָה אֶ ת ּבָבֶל וְאִ ּבַד מִ מֶ נָה קֹול גָדֹול וְהָמּו גַלֵיהֶם כְמַיִם רַּבִ ים נִתַ ן ׁשְ אֹון קֹולָ ם׃ l) Jer. 51:55-56)

כִ י בָא עָלֶיהָ עַל ּבָבֶל ׁשֹודֵדוְנִלְכְ דּו גִ ּבֹורֶ יהָ חִתְתָ הקַשְ תֹותָ ם כִ י אֵ ל גְמֻלֹות יְהוָהׁשַ לֵם יְׁשַ לֵ ם

“For the Lord is about to destroy Babylon. And he will make (its) loud noise vanish

from it, and its waves shall roar like many waters. The roar of their voice will be

given. For a destroyer will come (OR: is about to come) upon it – upon Babylon!

And its mighty men will be captured, their bows shall be shattered.217 For the Lord

is a God of recompense – He will certainly repay!”

The contextual time reference for these verses is future. This is known not only by the weqatals and the use of the Participle for the imminent future but also from the content of the prophecy.

As Bright noted, the entire chapter “was clearly composed prior to the fall of Babylon to the

Persians in 539, as is evident from the fact that Babylon’s overthrow is an event that lies still in

are clause-initial and חתתה and נתן the future and is eagerly expected” (1965: p. 360). The verbs

is a Participle בא are respectively followed by their subjects. It is difficult to say for sure whether or a SC, but if it were the latter, its position (after a clausal adverb with its subject following) would be expected.218

217 On the number incongruence, see Joüon & Muraoka, 1996: §150g. Holladay (1989: p. 400) emended the text here being unsatisfied with an intransitive use of the D here that contrasted with the transitive use of the same root and stem in Job 7:14. But see GKC §52k; cf. DCH.

218 There are many other potential examples of irrealis SCs that are morphologically identical to Participles: e.g., Isa. 21:1; Jer. 25:31; 50:31; Ezek. 7:2 (and passim); 39:8. This list is not exhaustive.

221

Hosea 10 also provides a pair of examples of irrealis SCs that have been considered

Prophetic Perfects (Macintosh, 1997: pp. 431, 433; cf. Dearman, 2010: p. 270). This chapter mostly describes judgment on the Northern Kingdom, because of the sins they have committed.

The final section of the chapter (vv. 13-15) has a pattern of A1, B1, A2, B2 in which A represents a section with past time reference and B a section with future time reference. The content shifts from past sins (A1 = 13a) to coming judgment (B1 = 14aα), and then from a past example of judgment (A2 = 14aβ-14b) to future judgment on Israel (B2 = 15). Specifically, A2 recalls the destruction of Beth-Arbel brought on by Shalman,219 while B2 foretells the destruction of Beth-El and the king of Israel.

ּכָּכָּה העָּשָּ לָּכֶם בֵית אֵלמִׁפְּנֵי רָּ עַת רָּ עַתְּ כֶם בַשַחַר מנִׁדְּ ה נִׁדְּמָּ המֶ לְֶך יִׁשְּרָּ אֵ ל m) Hos. 10:15)

“Just so he will do to you, O Beth-El, because of your great evil; at dawn, the king of

Israel will be certainly destroyed.”

among the traditions. Some עׂשה First, we must address the matter of variant readings for

and the LXX reads ποιήσω. Some scholars consider these יֵעָׂשֶ ה Masoretic manuscripts read variants better readings (Wolff, 1974: p. 181; Stuart, 1987: p. 166). But it is important to consider how these different readings may have arisen in order to determine which of the three

is the lectio difficilior, and it is possible to explain the עׂשה ,readings is the original. Undoubtedly other readings as later emendations attempting to resolve the perceived difficulty. Since the irrealis use of the SC outside the gram weqatal became obsolete late in the first millennium BCE,

as in ;יֵעָׂשֶ ה <) could bring about a considerably easier reading (י) the addition of a single letter some Mss). Similarly, the reading reflected in the LXX (ποιήσω) may also be the result of an

<) א effort to resolve the difficult reading via a different emendation; i.e., the addition of

219 Although the exact historical referent of the name Shalman is debated (Garrett, 1997: p. 217), what is most important for our discussion is that this event has already occurred at the ST.

222

might be עׂשה If the versions suggested the same reconstruction, the argument against 220.(אֶ עֱׂשֶ ה more convincing. But since it seems that a difficult reading was simplified in two different

,is most likely the original reading. The best semantic explanation עׂשה ways, we can affirm that then, is that it is an irrealis use of the SC following a clausal adverb.

It is clear from the context that the time reference of these SCs is future and many translations and commentators have recognized this (e.g., NRSV, NAB, NKJV, NASB, NIV;

Mays, 1969: p. 148; Wolff, 1974: p. 181; Stuart, 1987: p. 166; Garrett, 1997: p. 217; Macintosh,

1997: p. 433; Dearman, 2010: p. 270). Some scholars, however, have chosen to translate the paronomastic construction in past time (e.g., Andersen & Freedman, 1980: p. 561). But a past

does not make sense in context. Andersen and Freedman even נדמה or עׂשה time situation for admit that the situation is in fact future from the ST in their discussion of the passage. They said that the “comparison with what Shalman did at Beth Arbel suggests that a similar event will occur at Bethel” (1980: p. 571). As a result, one must conclude that “[h]ere Yahweh announces that Israel’s king – the key prize in the war of conquest – will be taken captive and deposed

,on that day of conquest” (Stuart (בשחר) right away, at dawn (נדמה נדמה ’,silenced for good‘)

following a preposed PP, refers to a future situation with epistemic ,נדמה p. 172). The verb :1987 modality.

§3.2.4.2 Textually Uncertain Potential Examples

There are numerous potential examples of irrealis SCs that are textually unsound or highly questionable. Some of the examples in prior sections were deemed questionable by some scholars, but we have argued that there is sufficiently good reason to maintain the MT’s reading.

220 Alternatively, the reading of the LXX may simply be a translation that communicates the perceived time reference of the verb.

223

The readings of the texts below, however, are less certain. Many of the potenial examples of irrealis SCs are textually questionable because ancient versions, other Hebrew traditions, or medieval Hebrew manuscripts record a waw preceding the verb. It is possible that the waw was added in some Hebrew texts and from there was passed on to other versions, particularly the

Peshitta. We will briefly discuss the examples that are irrealis SCs and have the conjunction in some traditions or manuscripts. Other textually unsound potential examples will simply be listed.

Our first potential example comes from Isaiah 8.

וְחָלַף ּבִיהּודָ ה ׁשָטַ ף וְעָבַר עַד־צַּוָאר יַגִ יעַ a) Isa. 8:8)

“And (the flood) will pass by into Judah, it will flood and cross over; it will reach up

to the neck.”

As is typical for irrealis SCs, the pertinent form is clause-initial. Scholars have long recognized

refers to a future situation (cf. NASB, ESV, NAB, NIV) and that it semantically ׁשטף that matches the surrounding weqatals. Their explanations are varied, however. Joosten (2012: p.

208) affirmed Driver’s explanation (1998: §14γ) labelling it as a Prophetic Perfect. Oswalt

should be considered a weqatal that lacks the waw because it “modifies ׁשטף suggested that weḥālap” (1986: p. 224 n. 3), which is hard to assess since he offers no further explanation for how it modifies. However, the ancient versions attest a variety of readings. The Vulgate has

was read as two Infinitives ׁשטף ועבר participles rather than finite verbs, perhaps suggesting that

Absolute (cf. Wildberger, 1991: p. 341), though it probably is idiomatic. The LXX’s reading is

as a noun. The Peshitta and some ׁשטף very idiomatic, and the Targum seems to have read

Wildberger claimed that the waw .(וׁשטף) Masoretic manuscripts attest to a waw before the verb

“is essential if one wants to read the perfect” (1991: p. 341), but as we have argued above, that

224 simply is not true. Since most of the versions have idiomatic readings, the important variants occur in the Peshitta and the Masoretic manuscripts. In our view, the sense of both of these

is virtually identical since both have an irrealis SC. The only (וׁשטף and ׁשטף ,.traditions (i.e difference is, of course, that one has the conjunction while the other does not.

A pair of potential examples occur in Isaiah 19:6 (see above, §2.2.3.5.3 and §3.2.3.2).

וְּהֶאֶ זְּנִׁ יחּו נְּהָּרֹות דָּ לֲלּו וְּחָּרְּ בּו יְּארֵ י מָּ צֹור קָּנֶ ה וָּסּוף קָּמֵ לּו b) Isa. 19:6)

“And the canals will stink, they will be low; and the rivers of Egypt will dry up, cane

and reed will rot away.”

;clearly has future time reference (Kaiser, 1974: p. 98; Blenkinsopp, 2000: p. 312 דללו The verb

NRSV, NASB, ESV, NAB, NKJV, NIV), and is semantically similar to the weqatals

making it (ודללו <) surrounding it. The Peshitta and 1QIsaa have the conjunction before the verb

however, is textually sound and undoubtedly has future ,קמלו textually questionable. The verb

is clause-final, which, in our view, is the result קמלו ,is clause-initial דללו time reference. While of pragmatic ordering influenced by parallelism.221

in Isa. 25:8, is clearly future בלע ,The contextual time reference of the next example

(Driver, 1998: §14γ; Young, 1972b: p. 196 n. 27; Kaiser, 1974: pp. 199, 201; Watts, 2005a: p.

328; Oswalt, 1986: p. 458; Brueggemann, 1998a: p. 199; Childs, 2001: p. 182; NRSV, NASB,

NAB, ESV, NIV, NKJV).

בִׁ לַע הַמָּ וֶת לָּנֶצַח ּומָּחָּה אֲדנָּי יְּהוִׁה דִׁמְּ עָּה מֵעַל ּכָּל פָּנִׁים וְּחֶרְּ פַ ת עַמֹו יָּסִׁ יר מֵעַלּכָּל הָּאָּרֶ ץּכִׁ ייְּהוָּה c) Isa. 25:8)

דִׁ בֵ ר

221 We would analyze the poetic lines of vv. 6-8 as three tricola. The first colon in the tricola in vv. 6 and 8 is elaborated on by two cola, the first of which begins with a weqatal and the second of which ends with an irrealis SC without the conjunction (cf. above, §3.2.3.2).

225

“He will swallow death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away (every) tear from

every face. And the disgrace of his people he will put away from upon all the earth,

for the Lord has spoken.”

The versions offer many varied readings (see BHS; see especially Wildberger, 1997: pp. 524-

525). The most relevant readings come from other Masoretic manuscripts and the Peshitta, both

.which is exactly how v. 7 begins ,(ובלע <) of which attest to the conjunction before the verb

.the verb is undoubtedly irrealis ,ובלע or בלע Yet, regardless of whether the best reading is

Other potential examples that are textually unsound include Jer. 25:14; 31:5; 50:31; 51:2;

Ezek. 11:7; Hos. 13:9 (see BHS and the relevant secondary literature).

§3.3 Conclusions

In this chapter we have argued that the vast majority of the alleged examples of the

Prophetic Perfect are actually irrealis uses of the SC. Our criteria for identifying these irrealis uses of the SC include contextually indicated future time reference and WO. Recent studies have shown that irrealis verbs are overwhelmingly clause-initial, indicating that WO was used as a disambiguation strategy for realis and irrealis verbs. We have argued that the SC without the conjunction waw is used to express irrealis situations and that their use fits the expected WO patterns for irrealis verbs. Accordingly, the irrealis SC occurs (1) in clause-initial position, (2) following a clausal adverb, and (3) in other positions in pragmatically ordered clauses, whether for reasons of parallelism (3b) or otherwise (3a) (see Table 7).

Table 7 Statistics of Irrealis Suffix Conjugations in Chapter 3 Category Number of Examples (+ potential examples) Clause-initial 19 (+4)

226

Clausal adverb 19 (+2) Preposed constituent 12 (+1) Parallelism 8 Total 58 (+7)

Prior scholarly efforts to describe the syntactic parameters for the Prophetic Perfect included clause-initial position and following certain particles. We have argued that these syntactic features can be indications of irrealis situations and that many examples of the so-called

Prophetic Perfect are actually irrealis SCs.

227

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Implications

Since the days of the medieval Jewish grammarians, biblical philologists have wrestled with the future time uses of the Suffix Conjugation (SC). A SC with future time reference was often labeled a praeteritum propheticum until Ewald developed a new approach to the BHVS and Driver popularized it. From that time on, these SCs were known as Prophetic Perfects. The

Ewald-Driver theory offered an explanation of the Prophetic Perfect that stood from the 19th century until the recent birth of modern linguistics. Over the last few decades scholars have questioned the validity of Ewald-Driver category of the Prophetic Perfect, but have failed to provide a satisfying explanation for all of the future time uses of the SC.

Rogland (2003a) recently argued that the alleged examples of the Prophetic Perfect are actually not representative of one single category of use. He used relative tense to cogently argue that quoted speech and reports of visions or dreams are at times described in past time.

The primary goal of this dissertation has been to explain other uses of the SC in BH that have traditionally been categorized under the Prophetic Perfect.

In Chapter 2, we argued that the stative semantics of the Proto-Semitic SC was retained with stative verbs in WS and specifically in BH. Stative verbs in the SC have several points of similarity with verbless clauses in BH. They both express situations with nonprogressive, continuous imperfective aspect and both are unmarked for tense, viewpoint aspect, or mood

(T/A/M). Additionally, the time reference of stative verbs in the SC and of verbless clauses is determined by context. The criteria we have used for identifying future, stative uses of the SC were (1) future time reference and (2) stative semantics. We have argued that the future, stative use of the SC is one of the uses that have been lumped together with other uses under the

227

228 category called the Prophetic Perfect, and that there are four, and possibly six, examples of future, stative SCs in the Hebrew Bible (see Table 8).

Also in Chapter 2, we built on previous scholarship that has argued that some SC verbs in the Niphal (N) express stative situations. We further argued that these stative verbs also have the temporal flexibility that other stative verbs do. These stative situations can be resultative or passive. The future time use of the SC in the N is a second kind of future, stative use of the SC, and so the criteria for identification remained the same. Together the examples of future resultative and passive uses total thirteen with three other, possible examples (see Table 8).

We argued in Chapter 3 that the vast majority of alleged examples of the Prophetic

Perfect are actually irrealis uses of the SC. We built on the recent advances in the analysis of word order (WO) as it relates to irrealis verbs in BH (see Cook, 2012a: pp. 235-256) and established three criteria for identifying an irrealis SC. Each example expressed (1) contextual future time reference and (2) irrealis semantics, and additionally, each example had to meet the

WO requirements. We argued that the irrealis SC occurs without waw (1) in clause-initial position, (2) after a clausal adverb, (3) after a preposed constituent, and (4) in clause-final position as a result of (often chiastic) parallelism. Altogether, we have argued for fifty-eight

(and possibly sixty-five) future time, irrealis uses of the SC (see Table 8). All of these examples expressed future situations with epistemic modality.

Table 8 Future Time Uses of the Suffix Conjugation Category Number of Examples (+ potential examples) Qal stative 4 (+2) Niphal stative 13 (+3) Irrealis 58 (+7) Total 75 (+12)

229

In the older literature, scholars cite numerous examples of Prophetic Perfects that today are universally interpreted in other ways. But some occurrences have been persistently challenging, and those have been the focus of the few recent works on the Prophetic Perfect.

However, as of now, there are, to our knowledge, no remaining alleged examples of the

Prophetic Perfect that cannot be explained by either Rogland’s relative tense approach to quoted speech and visions/dreams or the categories we have proposed. Consequently, the term

Prophetic Perfect no longer has any substantive value in the description of the language. We propose that it only be used with reference to Driver’s category of use. The term, even if redefined, should not be applied to the future time uses of the SC described in this dissertation.

Thereby potential confusion will be eliminated.

One important implication of this dissertation is that future grammars of BH need to clearly describe the polysemous nature of the SC; i.e., that the SC can be realis or irrealis, and stative or active. To start, grammars should describe the semantics and temporal flexibility of the stative uses of the SC on a synchronic level (cf. Carver, 2016: p. 20). Some grammars rightly point out that verbless clauses do not have an inherent time reference and that only context indicates the time reference (e.g., Lambdin, 1971: pp. 55-56). However, verbless clauses are only one kind of stative situation. Grammars should also explain that G and N stative verbs in the SC also have the same temporal flexibility that verbless clauses do. Additionally, G and N stative verbs should be noted as such in vocabulary lists.

Future grammatical descriptions of BH should also discuss the irrealis uses of the SC without waw. This could be done effectively in a number of ways, but in order to prevent potential confusion for students over how to tell whether a SC is irrealis or realis, a brief

230 explanation of the strong connection between irrealis verbs and clause-initial position should be given.

But perhaps the most profound implications of this dissertation relate to the processes of interpretation and translation. This dissertation gives future students and translators of the HB semantic categories and syntactic parameters to help them accurately interpret the scriptures and to create better translations in their respective target languages. Although biblical scholars have known for centuries that various passages in the HB have SCs that refer to future time situations,

they have not been able to explain ,(נִתַ ן) and Isa. 51:6 ,(מלאה) Isa. 11:9 ,(דרך) such as Num. 24:17 these phenomena in linguistically sound ways. This dissertation has provided synchronic and diachronic analyses of the relevant uses of the SC and applied recent linguistic advances with a consistent methodology. The result is that we have offered sound linguistic explanations and descriptions for the irrealis SC without waw, the future stative use of the SC, and the future stative use of the SC in the N. If this dissertation is heeded, future interpretation and translation of the passages with alleged Prophetic Perfects will be done with greater linguistic accuracy which will foster more nuanced readings of these passages.

The work that is begun in this dissertation should be continued by interpreters and translators as they work with prophetic texts, but also with other text and speech types. As we have indicated with only a handful of examples, the semantic categories we have identified and argued in the chapters above also occur in nonprophetic poetic contexts (e.g., Ps. 37:28, 38; Job

5:20; Prov. 11:21) as well as in direct speech (e.g., Gen. 30:13; Lev. 9:4; Judg. 15:3). It is our hope that this dissertation will foster not only the perceived importance of linguistic accuracy in the study of Biblical Hebrew, but that it would also improve exegesis of the Hebrew Bible.

231

Bibliography

Aartun, K. (1975). Zur morphologisch-grammatischen Interpretation der sogenannten neutrischen Verben im Semitischen. Ugarit-Forschungen, 7, pp. 1-12. in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Biblical כי Aejmelaeus, A. (1986). Function and Interpretation of Literature, 105(2), pp. 193-209. Alexander, J. A. (1878a). Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah: New and Revised Edition (Vol. 1). J. Eadie (Ed.). New York, NY: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co. Alexander, J. A. (1878b). Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah: New and Revised Edition (Vol. 2). J. Eadie (Ed.). New York, NY: Scribner, Armstrong, & Co. Allen, L. C. (1976). The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. K. Harrison (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Allen, L. C. (1994). Ezekiel 1-19. Word Biblical Commentary, 28. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Allen, L. C. (2008). Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Andersen, F. I. & Freedman, D. N. (1980). Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 24. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Andersen, T. D. (2000). The Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik, 13, pp. 1-66. Andrason, A. (2010). The “Guessing” Qatal. The Biblical Hebrew Suffix Conjugation as a Manifestation of the Evidential Trajectory. Journal for Semitics, 19(2), pp. 612-636. Andrason, A. (2011). The BH Weqatal A Homogenous Form with No Haphazard Functions (Part One). Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 37(2), pp. 1-26. Andrason, A. (2012). The BH Weqatal A Homogenous Form with No Haphazard Functions (Part Two). Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 38(1), pp. 1-30. Andrason, A. (2013). Future Values of the Qatal and Their Conceptual and Diachronic Logic: How to Chain Future Senses of the Qatal to the Core of Its Semantic Network. Hebrew Studies, 54, pp. 7-38. Andrason, A. & Van der Merwe C. H. J. (2015). The Semantic Potential of Verbal Conjugations as a Set of Polysemous Senses: The Qatal in Genesis. Hebrew Studies, 56, pp. 71-88. Arnold, B. T. & Choi, J. H. (2003). A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ashley, T. R. (1993). The Book of Numbers. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Bacher, W. (1882). Abraham ibn Esra als Grammatiker, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der hebräischen Sprachwissenschaft. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. Baden, J. (2010). Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew: Semantic and Morphological Overlap. Vetus Testamentum, 60, pp. 33-44.

231

232

Bandstra, B. (1992). Word Order and Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Syntactic Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective. In W. Bodine (Ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Bate, J. (1751). An Hebrew Grammar. London: J. Hodges. Bauer, H. (1910). Die Tempora im Semitischen. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 81, pp. 1-53. Bauer, H. & Leander, P. (1962). Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Hildesheim: G. Olms. Barker, K. L. (2008). Zechariah. In T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Daniel ~ Malachi (Revised Edition) (Vol. 8) (pp. 721-833). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Barker, K. L. & Bailey, D. W. (1999). Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. The New American Commentary, 20. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Barnes, O. L. (1965). A New Approach to the Problem of the Hebrew Tenses and Its Solution Without Recourse to waw-consecutive. Oxford: J. Thornton and Son. Bayly, A. (1773). A Plain and Complete Grammar of the Hebrew Language. London: J. Ridley. Bayly, C. (1782). An Entrance into the Sacred Language Containing the Necessary Rules of Hebrew Grammar in English. London: Hindmarsh. Benton, R. C. Jr. (2009). Aspect and the Biblical Hebrew Niphal and Hitpael (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The University of Wisconsi- Madison, Madison, WI. Beuken, W. A. M. (2000). Isaiah II: Isaiah 28-39 (Vol. 2). Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Bickford, J. A. (1998). Tools for Analyzing the World’s Languages: Morphology and Syntax. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Bicknell, B. J. (1984). Passives in Biblical Hebrew (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Binnick, R. I. (1991). Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blake, F. R. (1951). A Resurvey of Hebrew Tenses. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 103. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Blau, J. (1971). Marginalia Semitica I. Israel Oriental Studies, 1, pp. 1-35. Blau, J. (1976). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 12. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Blau, J. (2010). Phonology and Morphology of Biblical Hebrew: An Introduction. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Blenkinsopp, J. (2000). Isaiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Vols. 3). Anchor Bible, 19. New York, NY: Doubleday. Block, D. I. (1997). The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

232

233

Block, D. I. (1999). Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary, 6. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Boling, R. G. (1964). Judges: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 6a. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Boyd, S. W. (1993). A Synchronic Analysis of the Medio-Passive-Reflexive in Biblical Hebrew (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Hebrew Union College – Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, OH. Bracke, J. M. (2000). Jeremiah 30-52 and Lamentations. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Branson, R. D. (2009). Judges: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. New Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press. Bratcher, R. G., & Reyburn, W. D. (1991). A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Psalms. New York, NY: United Bible Societies. Briggs, C. A. (1906). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Vol. 1). The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Bright, J. (1965). Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed.). The Anchor Bible, 21, W. F. Albright & D. N. Freedman (Eds.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Brockelmann, C. (1908-1913). Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen (Vols. 1-2). Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Brockelmann, C. (1951). Die “Tempora” des Semitischen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 3(4), pp. 133-154. Brown, F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (1906). A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Broyles, C. C. (1999). Psalms. New International Biblical Commentary. Old Testament Series, 11. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Brueggemann, W. (1998a). Isaiah (Vols. 2). Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Brueggemann, W. (1998b). A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Buccellati, G. (1968). An Interpretation of the Akkadian Stative as a Nominal Sentence. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 27, pp. 1-12. Butler, T. C. (2009). Judges. Word Biblical Commentary, 8. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R. D. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cantarini, S. Abraham, W. & E. Leiss (2014). Introduction. In Cantarini, S. Abraham, W. & E. Leiss (Eds.), Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between, pp. 1-25. Studies in Language Companion Series, 165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

233

234

Carroll, R. P. (1986). Jeremiah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Carver, D. E. (2016). The Akkadian Stative: A Non-Finite Verb Form. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 53, pp. 1-24. Caspari, C. P. (1848). Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Buch Jesaia und zur Geschichte der jesaianischen Zeit. Berlin: Gebauersche Buchhandlung. Castellino, G. (1962). The Akkadian Personal Pronouns and Verbal System in the Light of Semitic and Hamitic. Leiden: Brill. Chaine, M. (1907). Grammaire Éthiopienne. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique. Chambers, T. W. (1883). The World-wide Pure Offering. The Presbyterian Review, 4, pp. 160- 164. Childs, B. S. (2001). Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Chisholm, R. B. Jr. (2002). Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Chisholm, R. B. Jr. (2010). When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check Your Hermeneutic. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 53(3), pp. 561-577. Chomsky, W. (1952). David Kimhi's Hebrew Grammar (Mikhlol): Systematically Presented and Critically Annotated. New York, NY: Bloch. Clements, R. E. (1980). Isaiah 1-39. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Clements, R. E. (1988). Jeremiah. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1993-2011). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Vols. 1-8). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Cohen, E. (2005). The Modal System of Old Babylonian. Harvard Semitic Studies, 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cohen, M. (1924). Le système verbal sémitique et l’expression du temps. Publications de l’Ecole des langues orientales vivantes, 11. Paris: Imprimerie nationale. Cole, R. D. (2000). Numbers. The New American Commentary, 3b. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1981). On Reichenbach's Approach to Tense. In R. A. Hendrick (Ed.), Papers from the Seventeenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: April 30-May 1 1981 (pp. 24-30). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

234

235

Cook, E. M. (1986). Word Order in the Aramaic of Daniel. Afroasiatic Linguistics, 9(3), pp. 1- 16. Cook, J. A. (2005). Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns in the Sentence Literature of Proverbs. In K. G. Friebel, R. L. Troxel, & D. R. Magary (Eds.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (pp. 117-133). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cook, J. A. (2008a). The Vav-prefixed Verb Forms in Elementary Hebrew Grammar. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 8, pp. 2-16. Cook, J. A. (2008b). The Hebrew Participle and Stative in Typological Perspective. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 34(1), pp. 1-19. Cook, J. A. (2012a). Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb: The Expression of Tense, Aspect, and Modality in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 7, C. L. Miller- Naudé & J. Naudé (Eds.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cook, J. A. (2012b). Hebrew Language. In J. G. McConville & M. J. Boda (Eds.), Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets, pp. 307-318. Downers Grove, IN: IVP Academic. Cook, J. A. (2012c). Detecting Development in Biblical Hebrew Using Diachronic Typology. In C. L. Miller-Naudé & Z. Zevit (Eds.), Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (pp. 83-96). Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 8, C. L. Miller-Naudé & J. Naudé (Eds.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cook, J. A. (2013). The Verb in Qohelet. In M. J. Boda, T. Longman III, & C. G. Rata (Eds.), The Words of the Wise are like Goads: Engaging Qohelet in the 21st Century (pp. 309- 342). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Cooke, G. A. (1936). The Book of Ezekiel. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Craigie, P. C., Kelley, P. H., & Drinkard J. F. (1991). Jeremiah 1-25. Word Biblical Commentary, 26. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Creason, S. A. (1995). Semantic Classes of Verbs: A Study of Aktionsart in the Hebrew Verbal System (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Creason, S. A. (2004). Aramaic. In R. D. Woodard (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Languages (pp. 391-426). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crenshaw, J. L. (1978). Samson: A Secret Betrayed, A Vow Ignored. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press. Dahood, M. (1962). Poetry, Hebrew. In K. Crim, L. R. Bailey Sr, V. P. Furnish, & E. S. Bucke (Eds.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume (pp. 669-672). Nashville, TN: Abingdon. Dahood, M. (1966). Psalms I, 1-50: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Dammron, A. (1961). Grammaire de l’araméen biblique. Strasbourg: Editions P. H. Heitz. Davidson, A. B. (1902). Introductory Hebrew Grammar; Hebrew Syntax (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 235

236

De Regt, L. (2008). Hebrew Verb Forms in Prose and in Some Poetic and Prophetic Passages: Aspect, Sequentiality, Mood and Cognitive Proximity. Journal of Northwest Semitic Langauges, 34(1), pp. 75-103. Dearman, J. A. (2010). The Book of Hosea. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. DeCaen, V. J. J. (1995). On the Placement and Interpretation of the Verb in Standard Biblical Hebrew Prose (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto. DeCaen, V. (1996). Ewald and Driver on Biblical Hebrew ‘Aspect.’ Zeitschrift für Althebräistik, 9, pp. 129-150. DeCaen, V. (1999). A Unified Analysis of Verbal and Verbless Clauses within Government- Binding Theory. In M. O’Connor & C. L. Miller (Eds.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 109-132). Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Dempsey, D. A. (1989). The Verb Syntax of Second Isaiah and Deuteronomy Compared (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. Diakonoff, I. M. (1988). Afrasian Languages. Moscow: Nauka. Diem, W. (1997). Suffixkonjugation und Subjecktspronomina: Ein Beitrag zur Rekonstruktion des Ursemitischen und zur Geschichte der Semitistik. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 147, pp. 10-76. Dillman, A. (1907). Ethiopic Grammar (2nd ed.). C. Bezold (Ed.), J. A. Crichton (trans.). London: Williams & Norgate. Drechsler, D. M. (1851a). Der Prophet Jesaja. Übersetzt und Erklärt (Vol. 1). Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz. Drechsler, D. M. (1851b). Der Prophet Jesaja. Übersetzt und Erklärt (Vol. 2). Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz. Driver, G. R. (1936). Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Driver, S. A. (1874). A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew (1st ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Driver, S. A. (1892). A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, and some other syntactical questions (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Driver, S. A. (1998). A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, and some other syntactical questions (3rd ed.), with an Introductory Essay by W. R. Garr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Dryer, M. S. (2007). Word Order. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume I: Clause Structure (2nd ed.) (pp. 61-131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. (2000). Biblical Hebrew Statives and Situation Aspect. Journal of Semitic Studies, 45(1), pp. 21-53.

236

237

Eichrodt, W. (1970). Ezekiel: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Ewald, G. H. (1827). Kritische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache ausführlich bearbeitet (1st ed.). Leipzig: Hanschen. Ewald, G. H. (1836). A Grammar of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament (2nd ed.). J. Nicholson (trans.) London: Whittaker and Co. Ewald, G. H. (1870). Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des alten Bundes (8th ed.). Göttingen: Dieterichschen. Ewald, G. H. (1879). Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament. J. Kennedy (trans.). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Fanning, B. M. (1990). Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fassberg, S. E. (2013). Shifts in Word Order in the Hebrew of the Second Temple Period. In S. E. Fassberg, M. Bar-Asher, & R. A. Clements (Eds.), Hebrew in the Second Temple Period: The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and of Other Contemporary Sources (pp. 57-71). Leiden: Brill. Fenton, T. L. (1973). The Hebrew “Tenses” in the Light of Ugaritic. Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Vol. 4): Hebrew and Semitic Language, Folklore, Art and Music, pp. 31-39. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr, & B. K. Waltke .נָקָה Fisher, M. C. & Waltke, B. K. (1999). 1412 (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (pp. 596-598). Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Foley, W. A. & van Valin, R. D. Jr. (1985). Information Packaging in the Clause. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 1: Clause Structure (pp. 282-364). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folmer, M. L. (1995). The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 68. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Freeman, H. E. (1968). An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophets. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Furuli, R. J. (2006). A New Understanding of the Verbal System of Classical Hebrew: An Attempt to Distinguish between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. Oslo: Awatu. Garr, W. R. (2004). Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine 1000-586 B.C.E. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Garrett, D. A. (1997). Hosea, Joel. The New American Commentary, 19a. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Gell, P. (1821). Observations on the Idiom of the Hebrew Language (2nd ed.). London: Richard Watts. Gelb, I. J. (1965). The Origin of the West Semitic Qatala Morpheme. In W. Taszycki (Ed.), Symbolae Linguisticae in honorem Georgii Kuryłowicz (pp. 72-80). Warsaw: Polska Akademia Nauk. 237

238

Gentry, P. J. (1998). The System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Studies, 39, pp. 7-39. Gerstenberger, E. S. (1996). Leviticus: A Commentary. D. Stott (trans.) Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Gesenius, F. W. (1845). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (11th ed.). T. J. Conant (trans.). Boston, MA: Gould, Kendall, and Lincoln. Gesenius, F. W. (1846). Hebrew Grammar of Gesenius (12th ed.) E. Rödiger (Ed.), M. Stuart (trans.). Andover: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell. Gesenius, F. W. (1852). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (16th ed.). E. Rödiger (Ed.), B. Davies (trans.). London: Samuel Baster and Sons. Gesenius, F. W. (1910). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (2nd English ed.). E. Kautzsch & A. E. Cowley (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Gianto, A. (1998). Mood and Modality in Classical Hebrew. Israel Oriental Studies, 18, pp. 183- 198. Gibson, J. C. L. (1994). Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax (4th ed.). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Ginsberg, H. L. (1936). The Rebellion and Death of Ba‘lu. Orientalia, 5, pp. 161-198. Girdlestone, R. B. (1901). The Grammar of Prophecy: An Attempt to Discover the Method Underlying the Prophetic Scriptures. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. Glaire, J. B. (1832). Principes de Grammaire Hébraïque et Chaldaïque. Paris: J. J. Blaise. Goetze, A. (1942). The So-called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 62, pp. 1-8. Goldingay, J. (2001). Isaiah. New International Biblical Commentary. Old Testament Series, 13. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. Goldingay, J. (2006). Psalms: Volume 2: Psalms 1-41. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Goldingay, J. & Payne, D. F. (2006). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (Vol. 2). The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. London: T. & T. Clark. Gray, G. B. (1912). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah, I-XXVII: Introduction and Commentary on I-XXVII. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Green, W. H. (1889). A Grammar of the Hebrew Language (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Publishers. Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 73-113). Cambridge, MA: M. I. T. Press. Greenberg, M. (1983). Ezekiel, 1-20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 22-22A. New York, NY: Doubleday.

238

239

Greenberg, M. (1997). Ezekiel, 21-37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 22A. New York, NY: Doubleday. Greenstein, E. L. (2006). Forms and Functions of the Finite Verb in Ugaritic Narrative Verse. In S. E. Fassberg & A. Hurvitz (Eds.), Biblical Hebrew in Its Northwest Semitic Setting: Typological and Historical Perspectives (pp. 75-102). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Gropp, D. M. (1990). The Function of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review, 13, pp. 45-62. Gzella, H. (2004). Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reicharamäischen. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur – Mainz, 48. W. W. Müller (Ed.). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Haak, R. D. (1992). Habakkuk. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 44. Leiden: Brill. Habel, N. C. (1985). The Book of Job: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Haelewyck, J.-C. (2006). Grammaire comparée des langues sémitiques: éléments de phonétique, de morphologie et de syntaxe. Langues et cultures anciennes, 7. Brussels: Éditions Safran. Hamilton, V. P. (1995). The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Haney, L. (2007). YHWH, the God of Israel...and of Edom? The Relationships in the Oracle to Edom in Jeremiah 49:7-22. In J. Goldingay (Ed.), Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen (pp. 78-115). Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. New York, NY: T. & T. Clark. Harper, W. R. (1890). Elements of Hebrew Syntax. New York, NY: Charles Schribner’s Sons. Harper, W. R. (1905). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Harrison, R. K. (1973). Jeremiah and Lamentations: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Hartley, J. E. (1988). The Book of Job. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. K. Harrison (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Hasselbach, R. (2004). A Historical and Comparative Study of Sargonic Akkadian (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Hasselbach, R. (2007). External Plural Markers in Semitic: A New Assessment. In C. L. Miller (Ed.), Studies in Semitic and Afroasiatic Linguistics Presented to Gene B. Gragg (pp. 123–138). Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 60. Chicago, IL: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Hatav, G. (2004). [Review of Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, by M. Rogland]. Hebrew Studies, 45, pp. 302-304. Hawkins, J. A. (1983). Word Order Universals. New York, NY: Academic Press.

239

240

Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hendel, R. (1996). In the Margins of the Hebrew Verbal System. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik, 9(2), pp. 152-181. Hengstenberg, E. W. (1856). Christology of the Old Testament and a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions (Vol. 2) (2nd ed.). T. Meyer (trans.). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Herder, J. G. (1833). The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry (Vols. 1-2). J. Marsh (trans.). Burlington: Edward Smith. Hill, A. E. (2012). Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, 28. D. G. Firth (Ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Hoffman, A. T. (1827). Grammaticae Syriacae: Libri III. Halle: Orphanotrophel. Holladay, W. L. (1986). Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25. P. D. Hanson (Ed.). Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Holladay, W. L. (1989). Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 26-52. P. D. Hanson (Ed.). Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Holmstedt, R. D. (2002). The Relative Clause in Biblical Hebrew: A Linguistic Analysis (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Wisconsin – Madison, Madison, WI. Holmstedt, R. D. (2005). Word Order in the Book of Proverbs. In R. L. Troxel, K. G. Friebel, & D. R. Magary (Eds.), Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (pp. 135-154). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Holmstedt, R. D. (2009). Word Order and Information Structure in Ruth and Jonah: A Generative-Typological Analysis. Journal of Semitic Studies, 54(1), pp. 111-139. Holmstedt, R. D. (2011). The Typological Classification of the Hebrew of Genesis: Subject-Verb or Verb-Subject. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 11, pp. 2-39. Hölscher, G. (1924). Hesekiel, der Dichter und das Buch: eine Literarkritische Untersuchung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 39. Giessen: A Töpelmann. Holst, S. (2008). Verbs and War Scroll: Studies in the Hebrew Verbal System and the Qumran War Scroll. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia, 25. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornstein, N. (1990). As Time Goes By: Tense and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Huehnergard, J. (1986). On Verbless Clauses in Akkadian. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 76, pp. 218-249.

240

241

Huehnergard, J. (1987). “Stative,” Predicative Form, Pseudo-verb. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 46, pp. 215-232. Huehnergard, J. (1988). The Early Hebrew Prefix-Conjugations. Hebrew Studies, 29, pp. 19-23. Huehnergard, J. (1995). Semitic Languages. In J. M. Sasson, J. Baines, G. Beckman, & K. S. Rubinson (Eds.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (Vol. 4) (pp. 2117-2134). New York, NY: Charles Schribner’s Sons. Huehnergard, J. (2004). Afro-Asiatic. In R. D. Woodard (Ed.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (pp. 138-159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huehnergard, J. (2006). Proto-Semitic and Proto-Akkadian. In G. Deutscher & N. J. C. Kouwenberg (Eds.), The Akkadian Language in Its Semitic Context: Studies in the Akkadian of the Third and Second Millennium BC (pp. 1-18). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabije Oosten. Huehnergard, J. (2011). A Grammar of Akkadian (3rd ed.). Harvard Semitic Studies, 45. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Huehnergard, J. (2012). An Introduction to Ugaritic. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Huey, F. B. (1993). Jeremiah, Lamentations. The New American Commentary, 16. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Hughes, J. A. (1970). Another Look at the Hebrew Tenses. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 29(1), pp. 12-24. Hummel, H. D. (2005). Ezekiel 1-20. Concordia Commentary. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia. Isaksson, B. (2015a). The So-Called We-Qatal Conjugation in Biblical Hebrew Once Again. In R. G. Lehmann & K. C. Park (Eds.), Papers Read at the 11 Mainz International Colloquium on Ancient Hebrew (MICAH) University of Mainz, 1–3 November 2013 (pp. 71-117). Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und seiner Umwelt, 19. Isaksson, B. (2015b, Nov.). The Importance of Word Order for the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA. Jahn, J. (1792). Hebräische Sprachlehre für Unfänger (1st ed.). Wien: Christian Friedrich Wappler. Jahn, J. (1809). Grammatica Linguæ Hebraicæ (3rd ed.). Viennæ: Carol Ferdinand Beck. Jansen-Winkeln, K. (1993). Das ägyptische Pseudopartizip. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 24, pp. 5-28. Janssen, G. (1982). Studies in Hebrew Historical Linguistics Based on Origen’s Secunda. Orientalia Gandensia, 9. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Jenni, E. (1978). Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache des alten Testaments. Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn. Jones, D. R. (1992). Jeremiah: Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

241

242

Joosten, J. (1997). The Lengthened Imperative with Accusative Suffix in Biblical Hebrew. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 111, pp. 423-426. Joosten, J. (2011). A Neglected Rule and Its Exceptions: On Non-Volitive yiqtol in Clause-Initial Position. In G. Geiger (Ed.), ʼΕν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ: En pāsē grammatikē kai sopiā: Saggi di linguistica ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, ofm (pp. 213-219). Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press. Joosten, J. (2012). The Verbal System of Biblical Hebrew. A New Synthesis Elaborated on the Basis of Classical Prose. Jerusalem Biblical Studies, 10. Jerusalem: Simor LTD. Joüon, P. (1947). Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique (2nd ed.). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Joüon, P. (1996). A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Vols. 1-2). T Muraoka (Ed. and trans.). Subsidia biblica, 14. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Kaiser, O. (1974). Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Kaiser, O. (1983). Isaiah 1-12: A Commentary (2nd ed.). The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Kaufman, S. A. (1974). The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological Studies, 19. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kaufman, S. A. (1997). Aramaic. In R. Hetzron (Ed.), The Semitic Languages (pp. 114-130). London: Routledge. Kautzsch, E. (1884). Grammatik des biblisch-Aramäischen. Leipzig: Vogel. Kawashima, R. S. (2010). ‘Orphaned’ Converted Tense Forms in Classical Biblical Hebrew Prose. Journal of Semitic Studies, 55(1), pp. 11-35. Keenan, E. L. (1985). Passive in the World’s Languages. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Volume 1: Clause Structure (pp. 243-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keil, C. F. & Delitzsch, F. (1996a). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 4). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Keil, C. F. & Delitzsch, F. (1996b). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 7). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Keil, C. F. & Delitzsch, F. (1996c). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 8). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Keil, C. F. & Delitzsch, F. (1996d). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 9). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Keil, C. F. & Delitzsch, F. (1996e). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 10). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Keown, G. L., Scalise, P. J. & Smothers, T. G. (1995). Jeremiah 26-52. Word Biblical Commentary, 27. Waco, TX: Word Books. Khan, G. (2000). The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought: Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of ˀAbū Yaˁqūb Yūsuf ibn Nūḥ

242

243

on the Hagiographa. Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics, 32, T. Muraoka & C. H. M. Versteegh (Eds.). Leiden: Brill. Khan, G. (2012). A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Tradition. Gorgias Handbooks, 25. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Kiuchi, N. (2007). Leviticus. Apollos Old Testament Commentary. D. W. Baker & G. J. Wenham (Eds.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Klein, G. L. (1990). The “Prophetic Perfect.” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 16, pp. 45-60. Klein, G. L. (1992). The Meaning of the Niphal in Biblical Hebrew (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Annenberg Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA. Klein, G. L. (2008). Zechariah. The New American Commentary, 21b. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Knobel, A. (1854). Der Prophet Jesaia (2nd ed.). Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Hirzel. Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994-2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vols. 1-5). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Koller, A. (2012). Diachronic Change and Synchronic Readings: Midrashim on Stative Verbs and Participles. Journal of Semitic Studies, 57(2), pp. 265-294. Koole, J. L. (1998). Isaiah, Part 3 (Vol. 2). A. P. Runia (trans.). Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Leuven: Peeters. Korpel, M. C. A. & de Moor, J. C. (1998). The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40- 55. Leiden: Brill. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. (2000). Nouns as Verbs: The Verbal Nature of the Akkadian Stative. Orientalia, 69(1), pp. 21-71. Kouwenberg, N. J. C. (2010). The Akkadian Verb and its Semitic Background. Languages of the ancient Near East, 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Krahmalkov, C. R. (1986). The Qatal with Future Tense Reference in Phoenician. Journal of Semitic Studies, 31, pp. 5-10. Kraus, H.-J. (1993). Psalms 1-59: A Continental Commentary. H. C. Oswald (trans.). Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Kustár, P. (1972). Aspekt in Hebräischen. Basel: Reinhardt. Lambdin, T. O. (1971). Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons. Lambert, M. (1900). Premiers éléments de grammaire hébraïque. Paris: A. Durlacher. Lee, S. (1832). A Grammar of Hebrew Language (2nd ed.). London: James Duncan. Lee, S. (1850). Correspondence (Dr. Samuel Lee on the Tenses of the Hebrew Verb). Journal of Sacred Literature, 6, pp. 193-207.

243

244

Lee, S. (1851). Correspondence (Tenses of Hebrew Verbs). Journal of Sacred Literature, 7, pp. 469-484. Li, T. (2009). The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel: An Explanation in the Context of Grammaticalization. Leiden: Brill. Leong, T. F. (1994). Tense, Aspect, and Mood in Old Babylonian. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of California, Los Angelos, CA. Lenzi, G. (2015). Sequences of Verbal Forms and Taxis in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 15, pp. 1-43. Levine, B. (2000). Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 4a. New York, NY: Doubleday. Lipinski, E. (1997). Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 80. Leuven: Peeters. Loesov, S. (2012). The Suffixing Conjugation of Akkadian: In Search of Its Meaning. In L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, & S. Tishchenko (Eds.), Babel und Bibel, 6: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament, and Semitic Studies (pp. 75-147). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Longman III, T. (2006). Proverbs. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Longman III, T. (2012). Job. Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Lumsden, M. (1810). A Grammar of the Persian Language (Vol. 2). Calcutta: T. Watley. Lundbom, J. R. (1997). Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric (2nd ed.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vols. 1-2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Macintosh, A. A. (1997). Hosea. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Marti, K. (1896). Kurzgefasste Grammatik der biblisch-Aramäischen Sprache. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Maslov, J. (1988). Resultative, Perfect and Aspect. In V. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Mathews, K. A. (2005). Genesis 11:27–50:26. The New American Commentary, 1b. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman. Mayor, J. B. (1970). Jude. In W. R. Nicoll (Ed.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Vol. 5) (pp. 209-278). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Mays, J. L. (1969). Hosea. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. McFall, L. (1982). The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day. Sheffield: Almond Press.

244

245

McKane, W. (1970). Proverbs: A New Approach. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. McKane, W. (1986). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 1-25. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. McKane, W. (1996). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 26-52. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. McKenzie, J. L. (1968). Second Isaiah. The Anchor Bible, 20. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Merrill, E. H. (1994). An Exegetical Commentary: Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Chicago, IL: Moody Press. Metzler, K. A. (2002). Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 279. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Meyer, R. (1992). Hebräische Grammatik: mit einem bibliographischen Nachwort von Udo Rüterswörden. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Meyer, R. (1993). Das hebräische Verbalsystem im Lichte der gegenwärtigen Forschung. In W. Bernhardt (Ed.), Beiträge zur Geschichte von Text und Sprache des Alten Testaments. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 209 (pp. 114-122). Berlin: de Gruyter. (Reprinted from Congress Volume: Oxford, 1959, Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, 7, pp. 309-317, 1960, Leiden: Brill). Meyers, C. L. & Meyers E. M. (1987). Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. The Anchor Bible, 25c. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Michaelis, L. A. (1998). Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics. London: Routledge. Michel, D. (1960). Tempora und Satzstellung in den Psalmen. Bonn: Bouvier. Milgrom, J. (1990). Numbers. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society. Miller, C. L. (1999). Pivotal Issues in Analyzing the Verbless Clause. In M. O’Connor & C. L. Miller (Eds.), The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches (pp. 3-18). Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Miller, C. L. (2005). [Review of Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, by M. Rogland]. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 67(1), pp. 123-125. Mitchell, H. G. T., Smith, J. M. P., & Bewer J. A. (1912). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Mitchell, M. (1785). A Short, Plain, and Comprehensive Hebrew Grammar. London: Rivington. Moomo, D. O. (2005). The Imperfective Meaning of Weqatal in Biblical Hebrew. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 31(1), pp. 89-106. Moore, G. F. (1895). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

245

246

Moran, W. L. (2003). Amarna Studies: Collected Writings. J. Huehnergard & S. Izre’el (Eds.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Moscati, S. (Ed.). (1964). An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 6. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Moshavi, A. (2012). Word Order in the Biblical Hebrew Finite Clause: A Syntactic and Pragmatic Analysis of Preposing. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, 4. M. O’Connor & C. L. Miller (Eds.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Motyer, J. A. (1993). The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Müller, A. (1878). Hebräische Schulgrammatik. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Müller, A. (1888). Outlines of Hebrew Syntax. J. Robertson (Ed. & trans.). Glasgow: James Maclehose. Müller, H.-P. (1983). Zur Geschichte des hebräischen Verbs: Diachronie der Konjugationsthemen. Biblische Zeitschrift, 27(1), pp. 34-57. Müller, H.-P. (1984). Assertorische und kreatorische Funktion im althebräischen und semitischen Verbalsystem. Aula Orientalis, 2, pp. 113-125. Muraoka, T. (1985). Emphatic Words and Structures in Biblical Hebrew. Leiden: Brill. Muraoka, T. (1995). Linguistic Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan. Israel Exploration Journal, 45(1), pp. 19-21. Muraoka, T. & Rogland, M. (1998). The Waw Consecutive in Old Aramaic? A Rejoinder to Victor Sasson. Vetus Testamentum, 48(1), pp. 99-104. Murphy, J. G. (1850). Correspondence (On Hebrew Tenses). Journal of Sacred Literature, 6, pp. 194-202. Murphy, J. G. (1851). Correspondence (Tenses of Hebrew Verbs). Journal of Sacred Literature, 7, pp. 216-223. Murphy, J. G. (1857). The Elements of Hebrew Grammar; Together with an Appendix on Chaldee Grammar. London: David Nutt. Murphy, R. (1998). Proverbs. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Niccacci, A. (1987). A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence. Liber Annuus, 37, pp. 7-15. Niditch, S. (2008). Judges: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Nogalski, J. D. (2015). Interpreting Prophetic Literature: Historical and Exegetical Tools for Reading the Prophets. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Noordtzij, A. (1982). Leviticus. R. Togtman (trans). Bible Student’s Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

246

247

Noth, M. (1965). Leviticus: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. O’Connell, R. H. (1996). The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 63. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Olsen, M. B. (1997). A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Oswalt, J. N. (1986). The Book of Isaiah, Chapters 1–39. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pardee, D. (1999). [Review of Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by Scribes from Canaan, by A. F. Rainey]. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 58(4), pp. 313-317. Pardee, D. (2003/2004). [Review of Ugaritische Grammatik, by J. Tropper]. Archiv für Orientforschung, 50, pp. 1-404. Parke-Taylor, G. H. (2000). The Formation of the Book of Jeremiah: Doublets and Recurring Phrases. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Parpola, S. (1997). Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria Studies, 9. Helsinka: Helsinka University Press. Paul, S. M. (2012). Isaiah 40-66: Translation and Commentary. The Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Payne, T. E. (1997). Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peake, A. S. (1905). Job: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes and Index. New York, NY: H. Frowde. Pearson, W. E. (1885). The Prophecy of Joel: Its Unity, Its Aim and the Age of Its Composition. Leipzig: Theodor Stauffer. Penner, K. M. (2013). Verbal System, History of the Research. In G. Khan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics (Vols. 1-3) (pp. 918-921). Leiden: Brill. Petersen, D. L. (1984). Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Pinker, S. (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York, NY: Viking. Pope, M. H. (1979). Job: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible, 15. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Porten, B. & Yardeni, A. (Eds.). (1986-1999). Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Pullin, M. H. (1932). The Prophetic Perfect in Jeremiah 1-52 (unpublished M.A. thesis). The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 247

248

Qimron, E. (2008). The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Harvard Semitic Studies, 29. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Rainey, A. F. (1973). Reflections on the Suffix Conjugations in West Semitized Amarna Tablets. Ugarit-Forschungen, 5, pp. 235-262. Rainey, A. F. (1987). A New Grammar of Ugaritic. Orientalia, 56, pp. 397-399. Rainey, A. F. (1996a). Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Verbal System (Vol. 2). Leiden: Brill. Rainey, A. F. (1996b). Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan. Morphosyntactic Analysis of the Particles and Adverbs (Vol. 3). Leiden: Brill. Rainey, A. F. (2003). The Suffix Conjugation Pattern in Ancient Hebrew Tense and Modal Functions. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 40, pp. 3-42. Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc. Reimer, D. J. (1993). The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50-51: A Horror Among the Nations. San Francisco, CA: Mellen Research University Press. Reiner, E. (1966). A Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian. Janua Linguarum, Series Practica, 21. The Hague: Mouton. Reuschel, W. (1996). Aspekt und Tempus in der Sprache des Korans. Leipziger Beiträge zur Orientforschung, 6. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Reyburn, W. D. (1992). A Handbook on the Book of Job. New York, NY: United Bible Societies. Revell, E. J. (1985). The Conditioning of Stress Position in Waw Consecutive Perfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review, 9, pp. 277-300. Revell, E. J. (1989). The System of the Verb in Standard Biblical Prose. Hebrew Union College Annual, 60, pp. 1-37. Roberts, J. J. M. (1991). Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press. Rogland, M. F. (2003a). Alleged Non-past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew. Studia Semitica Neerlandica. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2003. Rogland, M. F. (2003b). Remarks on the Aramaic Verbal System. In Baasten, M. F. J. & Van Peursen, W. Th., Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 118. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. Rooker, M. F. (2000). Leviticus. The New American Commentary, 3a. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. Rosenmüller, I. G. (1803). Scholia in Novum Testament. Tomus II: Editio Quinta. London: Felseckeriana. Rosenthal, F. (2006). A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (7th ed.). Porta Linguarum Orientalium. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. 248

249

Roth, M. T. (1997). Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (2nd ed.). Society of Biblical Literature: Writings from the Ancient World Series, P. Michalowski (Ed.). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Rubenstein, E. (1979). Adjectival Verbs in Biblical Hebrew. Israel Oriental Studies, 9, pp. 55- 76. Ryou, D. H. (1995). Zephaniah's Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1-3:8. Biblical Interpretation Series, 13. Leiden: Brill. Sarna, N. M. (1989). Genesis, Be-reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society. Schenkel, W. (1971). Das altägyptische Pseudopartizip und das indogermanische Medium/Perfekt. Orientalia, 40(3), pp. 301-306. Schneider, T. J. (2000). Judges. Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry. D. W. Cotter (Ed.). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Schröder, N. W. (1766). Institutiones ad fundamenta linguae Hebraicae in usum studiosae juventutis. Groningae. Scott, R. B. Y. (1965). Proverbs, Ecclesiastes: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Bible, 18. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Segal, M. H. (1980). A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Seitz, C. R. (1993). Isaiah 1-39. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press. Seow, C. L. (1995). A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Rev. ed.). Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Seow, C. L. (2013). Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary. Illuminations. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Shepherd, M. B. (2012). So-Called Emphasis and the Lack Thereof in Biblical Hebrew. MAARAV, 19(1-2), pp. 181-195. Shimasaki, K. (2002). Focus Structure in Biblical Hebrew: A Study of Word Order and Information Structure. Bethesda, MD: CDL. Shulman, A. (1996). The Use of the Modal Verb Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto. Siewierska, A. (1988). Word Order Rules. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm. Sivan, D. (2001). A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language. Handbook of Oriental Studies, 28. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature. Smith, G. V. (2007). Isaiah 1-39. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group. Smith, G. V. (2009). Isaiah 40-66. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group.

249

250

Smith, M. S. (1991). The Origins and Development of the Waw-consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran. Harvard Semitic Studies, 39. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Smith, M. S. (1997). The Baal Cycle. In S. B. Parker (Ed.), Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series, pp. 87-180. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Smith, R. L. (1984). Micah-Malachi. Word Biblical Commentary, 32. Waco, TX: Word Books. Soggin, J. A. (1989). Judges: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Speiser, E. A. (1964). Genesis: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible, 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Sperber, A. (1966). A Historical Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. A presentation of problems with suggestions to their solution. Leiden: Brill. Stassen, L. (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Strack, H. L. (1886). Hebrew Grammar with Exercises, Literature and Vocabulary (2nd ed.). R. S. Kennedy (trans.). Karlsruhe: H. Reuther. Strack, H. L. (1921). Grammatik des biblisch-Aramäischen (6th ed.). München: C. H. Becksche. Streck, M. P. (1995). Zahl und Zeit: Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. Cuneiform Monographs, 5. Groningen: STYX Publications. Stuart, D. (1987). Hosea-Jonah. Word Biblical Commentary, 31. Waco, TX: Word Books. Stuart, M. (1831). A Grammar of Hebrew Language (4th ed.). Andover: Flagg & Gould. Sweeney, M. A. (1996). Isaiah 1-39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature. Forms of the Old Testament Literature, 16. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Sweeney, M. A. (2003). Zephaniah: A Commentary. P. D. Hanson (Ed.). Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press. Testen, D. (1998). The Derivational Role of the Semitic N-stem. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 88, pp. 127-145. Thackston, W. M. (2000). An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic: An Elementary Grammar of the Language. Bethesda, MD: Ibex. Thompson, J. A. (1980). The Book of Jeremiah. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Tov, E. (2012). Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd ed., revised and expanded). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Tropper, J. (1995). Die semitische ‘Suffixkonjugation’ im Wandel: Von der Prädikativform zum Perfekt. In M. Dietrich & O. Loretz (Eds.), Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift Wolfram von Soden zum 85. Geburstag. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 240 (pp. 491-516). Kevelaer: Butzon and Bercker.

250

251

Tropper, J. (1998). Althebraisches und semitisches Aspektsystem. Zeitschrift für Althebräistik, 11, pp. 153-190. Tropper, J. (1999). Die Endungen der Semitischen Suffixkonjugation und der Absolutivkasus. Journal of Semitic Studies, 44, pp. 175-193. Tropper, J. (2000). Ugaritische Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Tropper, J. (2006). [Review of Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, by M. Rogland]. Journal of Semitic Studies, 51(2), pp. 417-419. Unger, M. F. (1963). Zechariah: Prophet of Messiah’s Glory. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Ungnad, A. & Matouš, L. (1992). Akkadian Grammar. H. Hoffner Jr. (trans.). Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Van de Sande, A. (2008). Nouvelle perspective sur le système verbal de l’hébreu ancien: Les formes *qatala, *yaqtul et *yaqtulu. Publications de l’institut orientaliste de Louvain, 57. Louvain: Institut Orientaliste. Van der Lugt, P. (1995). Rhetorical Criticism & the Poetry of the Book of Job. Oudtestamentische Studien, 32. A. S. van der Woude (Ed.). Leiden: Brill. Van der Merwe, C. H. J. (1999). Towards a Better Understanding of Biblical Hebrew Word Order. Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages, 25(1), pp. 277-300. Van der Merwe, C., Naudé, J., & Kroeze, J. (1999). A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Van Reuiten, J. (1997). “His Master’s Voice”? The Supposed Influence of the Book of Isaiah in the Book of Habakkuk. In J. Van Ruiten & M. Vervenne (Eds.), Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (pp. 397-411). Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 132. Leuven: Leuven University Press. VanGemeren, W. A. (2008). Psalms. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 5. T. Longman III & D. E. Garland (Eds.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and Times. Philosophical Review, 66(2), pp. 143-160. Voigt, R. (2002/2003). Die beiden Suffixkonjugationen des Semitischen (und Ägyptischen). Zeitschrift für Althebraistik, 15/16, pp. 138-165. Von Rad, G. (1961). Genesis: A Commentary. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Von Soden, W. (1995). Grundriss der Akkadischen Grammatik (3rd ed.). Rome: Pontificio Instituto Biblico. Waltke, B. K. (2004). The Book of Proverbs, 1-15. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Waltke, B. K. (2007). A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Waltke, B. K. & O’Connor, M. (1990). An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

251

252

Watts, J. D. W. (2005a). Isaiah 1-33 (2nd ed.). Word Biblical Commentary, 24. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Watts, J. D. W. (2005b). Isaiah 34-66 (2nd ed.). Word Biblical Commentary, 25. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Watts, J. W. (1964). A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Webb, B. G. (2012). The Book of Judges. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. L. Hubbard, Jr. (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Weir, D. H. (1849). Observations on the Tenses of the Hebrew Verb. Journal of Sacred Literature, 4, pp. 308-334. Weir, D. H. (1850). Correspondence (Prof. Weir’s reply to Dr. S. Lee). Journal of Sacred Literature, 6, pp. 484-497. Wenham, G. J. (1979). The Book of Leviticus. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. R. K. Harrison (Ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Westermann, C. (1995). Genesis 12-36: A Continental Commentary. J. J. Scullion (trans.). Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Wildberger, H. (1991). Isaiah 1-12: A Continental Commentary. T. H. Trapp (trans.). Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Wildberger, H. (1997). Isaiah 13-27: A Continental Commentary. T. H. Trapp (trans.). Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Wildberger, H. (2002). Isaiah 28-39: A Continental Commentary. T. H. Trapp (trans.). Continental Commentaries. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Williamson, (2007). [Review of Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew, by M. Rogland]. Vetus Testamentum, 57(1), p. 134. Wolff, H. W. (1974). Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea. G. Stansell (trans.), P. D. Hanson (Ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Wolff, H. W. (1990). Micah: A Commentary. G. Stansell (trans.). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg. Young, E. J. (1972a). The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Chapters 1-18 (Vol. 1). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Young, E. J. (1972b). The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Chapters 19-39 (Vol. 2). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Young, E. J. (1972c). The Book of Isaiah: The English Text, with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes; Chapters 40-66 (Vol. 3). The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

252

253

Zimmerli, W. (1979). Ezekiel 1. R. E. Clements (trans.), F. M. Cross & K. Baltzer (Eds.). Hermeneia, A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Zuber, B. (1986). Das Tempussystem des biblischen Hebräisch: eine Untersuchung am Text. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 164. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zwyghuizen, J. E. (2012). Time Reference of Verbs in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation). Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX.

253