This is a fine book that every teacher of Biblical Hebrew should own. In a clear and well organized manner, Roy L. Heller succeeds in giving us a good manual to assist us understand better the Hebrew verbal system in prose.
Heller’s analysis is based upon the more intuitive work of Thomas Lambdin, and takes its methodological bearings from the work of discourse analysis (especially the work of R. E. Longacre). Like Lambdin before him, Heller provides a functional/pragmatic treatment of the various clause types within Biblical Hebrew prose (p. 3). The extended narratives examined for this work are the Novella of Joseph (Genesis 37, 39–47), and the Court Narrative of David (2 Samuel 9–20; 1 Kings 1–2). However, for his final conclusions he uses examples from other prose passages from the Bible as well.
In the first chapter, the author introduces the problem with a brief survey of the approaches taken so far for the analysis of the Hebrew verb and clause types in the history of biblical scholarship. This is a fine and useful introduction in which he outlines the following four approaches to the Hebrew verb in prose: tense-based, historical-comparative, aspect-based, and discourse-linguistic. The existence of so many views (which are in no way mutually exclusive) show that no clear consensus on the function of the verb in Biblical Hebrew currently exists.
Next, Heller discusses his methodology. His study is based on the methodological differentiation between two primary types of material found in prose: narrative and direct discourse. Expanding on the work of R. E. Longacre (who accepts only the first four of the following text-types), his analysis of direct discourse is based on five discourse text-types: Narrative Discourse (ND), Predictive Discourse (PD), Expository Discourse (PD), Hortatory Discourse (HD), and Interrogative Discourse (ID).
In the two extended narratives mentioned above, Heller analyzes “each independent, main clause within the texts in order to determine the significance and function of each clause within itself and within its wider immediate context” (p. 27). This analysis takes place in the second chapter for the Joseph Novella, and in the third chapter for the Court Narrative of David.
The following useful conclusions (many of them already well known) are the result of Heller’s functional approach, an approach which takes into account each individual clause, and which is indeed based on objective criteria and rigorous analysis:
Primary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
QATAL |
Basic Past |
WAYYIQTOL |
Continuative Past |
|
Secondary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
Verbless |
Off-line status |
היה Verbal |
Off-line status |
|
Participial |
Off-line action |
|
YIQTOL |
Off-line ongoing action |
Primary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
YIQTOL |
Basic Future |
WeQATAL |
Continuative Future |
|
Secondary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
Verbless |
Off-line status |
היה Verbal |
Off-line status |
|
Incomplete |
Off-line status |
|
Participial |
Off-line action |
Primary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
Verbless |
Primary Present Status |
היה Verbal |
Primary Present Status |
|
Incomplete |
Interj./Oath/Voc./Answer |
|
Participial |
Primary Present Action |
|
Secondary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
Obj. + QATAL/YIQTOL |
Secondary Present Action |
Primary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
Imperative |
Second Person Volitional |
Cohortative |
First Person Volitional |
|
Jussive |
Third Person Volitional |
|
‘al-YIQTOL |
Negative Volitional |
|
(We)YIQTOL-nā’ |
Precatory Volitional |
|
Secondary Verbal/Clausal Forms |
QATAL |
Performative Utterance |
WeQATAL |
Continuative Volitional |
|
YIQTOL |
Continuative Volitional |
|
WeYIQTOL |
Consequential/Purpose |
I wish that the rare cases under most categories listed above were analyzed and explained more thoroughly, though it is certainly true that in many cases there is not enough data to do that (we are “working with no data”). However, I am convinced that the expansion of this approach to larger blocks of narrative would bring additional insights on the more unusual verbal forms and clauses (e.g., the use of the WeQatal clauses for terminal boundary clauses may be to indicate simultaneity), and would also help to further support Heller’s conclusions.