1In the Festschrift in honour of George Klein, The Unfolding of Your Words Gives Light (Jones 2018), Holger Gzella writes magisterially of the wayyiqṭol form as the “Archimedean point for any comprehensive examination of the still controversial principles” of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system.

In semantic terms this form, to put it bluntly, is strongly marked for punctual, or complete, events in the past; hence it combines perfective aspect with past tense. This insight may be taken as an established and uncontested point of departure. (Gzella 2018, 21)

2While many Western2 scholars have come to a similar conclusion from familiarity with the text, Gzella’s confidence in this semantic analysis is based on wayyiqṭol’s assumed historical development from the proto-Northwest Semitic short *yaqtul, a prefixed preterite form itself descending from the proto-Semitic prefixed preterite represented by iprus in Akkadian.3

3This view accounts for a vast number of the occurrences of wayyiqṭol and thus provides a useful point of departure for a broader analysis. The purpose of the present essay is to provide an inventory, first, of early uses of wayyiqṭol, to evaluate if they fit into a typology that would accord with the above statement; second, of some early expressions of past tense and perfective aspect; and, third, of unexpected uses of wayyiqṭol in Job.4

1.0. Archaic Biblical Hebrew

4Any dating of Biblical Hebrew is fraught with debate, as linguistic features once thought archaic may now be considered dialectal or stylistic (e.g., Aramaisms).5 Even so, for most scholars, intuition prevails in considering there to be a body of ABH, including such texts as Psalm 68, the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. 49), Balaam’s Oracles (Num. 23–24), the Songs of the Sea (Exod. 15), of Moses (Deut. 32–33), and of Deborah (Judg. 5), and the Prayer of Hannah (1 Sam. 2). In most of these texts, wayyiqṭol is sparse, if present at all.6

1.1. Wayyiqṭol Rare

5Scholars have long been convinced of the archaic nature of Psalm 68, thanks to its mention of Sinai, defective spelling, syntax, phraseology, motifs, and vocabulary (including strong parallels between vv. 12–19 and the Song of Deborah).7 Of note here is simply the presence of a narrative recital with mostly qaṭal forms and a few yiqṭol forms.8

6All verbal forms may be considered past tense, either preterite (perfective) or past habitual (imperfective) in aspect.10

1.1.1. Consecutive qaṭal Forms

7In the oracles of Balaam, which purport to be non-Israelite and non-Judahite, indeed foreign altogether, there are no wayyiqṭol forms. This is true for all of the poetic material in Num. 23–24 (23.7–10, 18–24; 24.3–9, 15–24, excluding narrative frames).11

8For instance, whereas one might expect, in typical classical prose, to have a qaṭal–wayyiqṭol sequence, such as כ ַָּ ער ו ַ י ִּ ש ְׁ כ ַ ב or even a wayyiqṭol sequence, e.g., ו ַ י ִּ כ ְַׁ ער ו ַ י ִּ ש ְׁ כ ַ ב , we instead read multiple consecutive qaṭal forms, as in:

9Notarius (2008, 74–75; 2013, 218) understands these as resultative perfects, which presumably would be reflected by a translation such as ‘He has crouched [and] lain down like a lion, like a lioness [in victory over its prey]; who [therefore] dares rouse him? ’ In other words, she does not read the text as a micro-narrative (with preterites) followed by a present tense comment, but rather she holds that the speech time remains the reference point for each verb (with resultatives/anteriors).12

10The context may be insufficient to determine which is likeliest for this isolated instance, but because this appears to be a culturally shared poetic trope, both syntactically and semantically,13 its other instances may therefore shed additional light.

11Identical syntax and semantics14 are also found in:

12Were the repeated text fully incorporated into Gen. 49, an anterior interpretation would be easiest: ‘on prey have you grown; you have crouched; you have lain down....’ The lack of incorporation (i.e., the qaṭal forms remain third person rather than according with the second person of the first line) and the nearly verbatim agreement with Num. 24.9 may indicate that this is, indeed, a trope which can be embedded, and which therefore need not flow grammatically (in terms of tense and aspect) with its context.

13Our third instance of כ ַָּ ער , in Judg. 5.27, might further induce us to see a literary trope,15 in which Sisera crouched, but, unlike the lion who rises again, lay down and did not rise again.

14Here in Judg. 5 the qaṭal forms serve as narratival forms with clear preterite semantics.16 Given that this is the only context in which the sequence fits naturally—i.e., semantically and grammatically—the strongest argument is to give this context the dominant role in determining the grammatical semantics of the qaṭal forms. If that is so, then even in the above cases (Num. 24.9 and Gen. 49.9), even if awkward in English, it may yet be more conservative to understand the qaṭal forms as providing a micro-narrative, followed by a cry of despair (as in the English translations provided).17

15After Gen. 49.9, Deut. 32.15 does not seem so strange with its interruption of a series of wayyiqṭol forms with a series of three asyndetic second-person qaṭal forms.18 The effect is that of an expostulation in the midst of a narrative, in which the narrator speaks of the addressee in third person, but, given the topic at hand, cannot restrain the outburst, “You grew fat, gross, and coarse!!” in the midst of his song.

16In semantic terms, these could be simple pasts, as above, or they might be stative perfects, ‘You are become fat, thick, gorged!’ (Notarius 2013, 81–82); both are plausible and defensible and thus must for the present be left as possibilities.19

1.1.2. Lone Past Tense yiqṭol Form

17The absence of wayyiqṭol forms does not coincide with an equal absence of short yiqṭol forms with past time reference; Balaam opens his oracles with a prefixed verb with preterite semantics (the sole instance in his speeches; all other past tense verbs are qaṭal).20 As an opening verb, it is possible it had a formulaic role.

18‘From Aram Balak brought me.’ (Num. 23.7)

19Apart from this one instance, however, Balaam exclusively uses qaṭal (and weqaṭal) for past tense.21

20Although Balaam22 uses yiqṭol for standard future tense, he uses qaṭal for the peculiar prophetic passage about the star to arise from Jacob. In this case, the past tense presumably refers to Balaam’s vision (recounting what happened in his vision or was revealed to him) and is not applicable to the events themselves.23

1.1.3. Wayyiqṭol in Non-prophetic Dialogue

21Though there are no wayyiqṭol forms in Balaam’s prophetic monologues, there is one in his direct dialogue with God in ch. 23.

22On the one hand, the striking syntactic sequence of object-qaṭal followed by wayyiqṭol-object is nearly poetic, suggesting that it may hark back to an earlier poetic memory (toward archaic times). On the other hand, the absence of wayyiqṭol forms in the prophecies makes this form seem foreign in Balaam’s mouth and possibly from a different dialect or time period.

23Psalm 68 and Balaam’s oracles thus provide little evidence for use of a prefixed preterite, whether alone or in the bound wayyiqṭol form: only one (possible) short prefixed preterite each.24 Qaṭal largely bears the burden of preterite past tense.

1.1.4. Possibly Archaic wayyiqṭol

24In the Song of the Sea we find a single wayyiqṭol form ( ו ַ י ְׁ ה ִּ י ), followed soon thereafter by two wǝyiqṭol forms (ְׁ נאַו ְׁ ו ֵ וּה and ו ַ א ֲ ר ֹ מ ְׁ מ ֶ נ ְׁ וּה ).

25Given the narrative nature of the song, one might have expected a series of wayyiqṭol forms (as in, for instance, Ps. 18). What we do find is nearly the exact text of Exod. 15.2 in both Isaiah and Psalms, raising two possibilities: either the latter texts are drawing on an earlier, archaic tradition (with the rare form י ָּּ ה ) or the earlier text has been adapted to a later tradition (with a possibly anachronistic wayyiqṭol form). (Or, of course, a combination of the two.) We have already seen, above in Gen. 49.9, portions of text that plausibly seem embedded tropes. The rare י ָּּ ה might indicate the same phenomenon here.

26If these are embedded tropes, then it becomes more difficult to identify the original context, so we must be cautious about adopting any conclusions. The wayyiqṭol in Exod. 15 may not be original to its context.

1.1.5. Certainly Archaic wayyiqṭol

27We have a clear wayyiqṭol in the Song of Deborah, but it is not a fully independent form introducing a clause detached from surrounding clauses. In Judg. 5.28 we have ellipsis of the subject (Sisera’s mother) in the first clause (with qaṭal), with the subject provided in the second clause (with wayyiqṭol). The first clause is thus semantically dependent on the second clause for providing the subject.25

28The wayyiqṭol is not a common verb ( י ִ ב ֵ ב ), and there is no indication that it might have been inserted later, as possibly is the case in Exod. 15.26

1.2. Wayyiqṭol Becomes Common, but Not Standard

29In Genesis 4927 and Habakkuk 3, wayyiqṭol is more common, even if not a common, expected form. Jacob’s blessing on Issachar includes multiple wayyiqṭol forms close together in v. 15.

30Wayyiqṭol does not have a monopoly on consecutive past tense verbs, however, as is evident in the blessing on Reuben in v. 4, which, instead of wayyiqṭol, has א ָ ז with qaṭal.

31In prose, the default sequence would have been ע ָּ ל ִּ תי ָּ ו ְַׁ חת ַ ל ֵ ל (cf. Exod. 20.25). The two verbs refer to the same action, but the presentation of א ָּ ז with qaṭal separates the disgrace as a distinct idea (as indeed the third verb, ע ָּ ל ָּ ה , again referring to the same action, is presented in third person as a linguistic distancing that parallels the distancing of Jacob from his firstborn-but-no-longerheir).

32Similarly, in v. 6 one might have expected a wayyiqṭol followed by the prepositional phrase ב ְִּׁ צר ֹ נ ָּ ם , but instead the prepositional phrase is fronted, followed by another qaṭal form.

33The blessing on Judah in v. 9 is the most obvious opportunity for wayyiqṭol forms (repeated from above).

34These cases demonstrate the availability of wayyiqṭol for consecutive past tense, and the simultaneous availability of qaṭal to convey the same semantics (but with other poetic or pragmatic effect).

1.2.1. Not Yet Classical: Habakkuk 3.6

35Habakkuk 3.6 demonstrates the familiar qaṭal–wayyiqṭol pattern, e.g., ע ָּ מ ַַ֣ ד ׀ ו ַ י ְׁ מ ַֹ֣ ד ֶ ד and ָּ האָר ֙ ו ַ י ַ ת ֵַ֣ ר , but then an unexpected (poetic) wayyiqṭol–qaṭal sequence (ַ יו ְִּׁ פּת ֹ צ ְׁ וּצ ֙ ה ְַׁ ר ֵ ע־יר ַ ד ש ַ וּח גּ ִּ ב ְׁ ע ַֹ֣ תו ע ֹ ו ָּ ל ָ֑ ם ). This is not quite yet classical (prose) style.

1.2.2. Archaic Biblical Hebrew Together with wayyiqṭol

36In Deut. 32–33, Ps. 18, and 2 Sam. 2228 the wayyiqṭol form begins to function in more familiar fashion, but with no hegemony. First, there continue to be narrative recitals without wayyiqṭol. Ps. 18 begins with qaṭal–yiqṭol and qaṭal–qaṭal sequences in vv. 5–6.

37Immediately afterward, in v. 7, a series of yiqṭol forms carries the narratival action.29

38As if to display the variety of forms capable of carrying on a narrative recital, v. 8 gives an entirely different series: many sequential wayyiqṭol forms (interspersed with a few qaṭal and yiqṭol30 forms), describing a breath-taking storm theophany.

39The recital weaves in and out of the various forms, with another round of wayyiqṭol forms in vv. 14–16, but returning to mostly yiqṭol forms31 for the climax.

40The significance of these various means of fashioning a narrative recital indicates precisely that there was not one standard: there was no expectation that past sequences be encoded in wayyiqṭol forms (or even short yiqṭol with or without the way-). The translational semantics (English simple past) are the same for all these verbs, suggesting that simple tense and aspect are not the factors motivating the different verbal choice.32 As in Deut. 32.15, verbal form and even the person of the verb appear very much in the service of poetic effect, perhaps even to the obscuring of verbal semantics.33 As the JPS translation of Hab. 3.6 suggests (presented here because it demonstrates well what I consider the best reading), past tense might not be inherent in the Hebrew verbal forms, which in some contexts might be better translated as English present forms.

1.3. Compared to Classical Biblical Hebrew

41The texts most commonly classified as ABH are listed below (Table 1), with the number of wayyiqṭol forms present in each (and sorted accordingly). Although the very classification of ABH is a matter for debate (based on diachrony? dialect? theology of Yhwh from the east? Yhwh at Sinai?), the persisting consensus on these texts has an empirical basis, which the following table helps to clarify.

Table 1: Texts traditionally considered Archaic Biblical Hebrew, with totals of wayyiqṭol forms

42Within this corpus of ABH, we can readily arrange the texts in order of wayyiqṭol frequency. There are many past perfective verbs other than wayyiqṭol (notably qaṭal and a few yiqṭol forms). When wayyiqṭol does appear, it is often past perfective, but the verbal semantics are subordinated to poetic function. In 1 Sam. 2.6, for instance, the wayyiqṭol form is only with some contortion past perfective; it depicts action characteristic of Yhwh, continuing the semantics of the participles earlier in the verse.36

43The above tabulation does not pretend to be a chronological ordering of the texts, but it may have significance for a typological ordering of the texts, if the distribution of wayyiqṭol is to be correlated with its evolution within Biblical Hebrew.37

2.0. Job

44Having established that ABH (if we have properly identified it) is not homogeneous in its use of wayyiqṭol, we now turn to Job, whose book and language remain mysterious in many ways and thus represent a different stream of Biblical Hebrew.38 In contrast to the situation in ABH texts, the use of wayyiqṭol is highly developed in the poetry of Job. Below are various examples of uses atypical within Classical Biblical Hebrew.

2.1. Wayyiqṭol Not Independent

45In Job 3.10, the negative ל ֹ א can apply to both its own clause and the following wayyiqṭol clause.

46This is the inverse of Judg. 5.28, in ex. (13) above, in which the qaṭal clause depended on the wayyiqṭol clause. Ellipsis of the ל ֹ א means that wayyiqṭol is semantically dependent on the previous (qaṭal) clause for its negation. (Cf. Job 7.21, with the same phenomenon involving yiqṭol and weyiqṭol.)

2.2. The Chained ‘Paragraph’

47The reason wayyiqṭol does not function as an independent verb may be, simply put, that it is not an independent verb. Rather than introducing an independent clause with past tense and perfective aspect, it may function to ‘chain’ clauses together into a paragraph quite apart from verbal semantics. Oakes (2018, 178) describes a crosslinguistic form of clause chaining, which he also perceives within Biblical Hebrew:39

A chain of clauses that are neither coordinated nor subordinated, but are governed in a different way by a controlling (head) clause either at the beginning or the end of the paragraph (or larger unit). This head verb is fully inflected, while the other verbs of the paragraph lack inflection in some significant way. That is, these other verbs that make up the bulk of the paragraph rely on the head verb for their tense, aspect, or mood, and often for their subject. Linguists refer to these dependent verbs as medial verbs, and to the languages that use them as (verb- or clause-) chaining languages.40

48In other words, if wayyiqṭol is understood as a medial verb, its function is to bind together a paragraph whose basic verbal semantics (e.g., tense, aspect, mood) are often determined by a head verb or clause (or, in other languages, a tail verb or clause).

49If wayyiqṭol is thus understood, it becomes simple to see how it can continue even participial function, as above in 1 Sam. 2.6 or with the nominal participle ה ַ מ ְׁ ח ַ כ ִּ םי (passing over the nominal clause ְׁ או ֵ ני ֶ וּנ ) in Job 3.21:

50Similarly, wayyiqṭol can continue a relative clause with its resumptive pronoun:

51Two verses later, the wayyiqṭol resumes a relative clause semantically, but transforms the object of the relative clause (the fear that was feared) into a subject (the fear that came upon him). This is indeed neither co-ordination nor subordination, but nonetheless involves connected clauses.

52Alternatively, one might translate this as ‘For a fear I feared comes upon me; what I dread befalls me.’ Whether both the wayyiqṭol and yiqṭol are understood as past or as general present, they would seem to share tense and aspect here. What is relevant for this argument is that the wayyiqṭol continues the semantics of the preceding qaṭal.

2.3. Yiqṭol–wayyiqṭol Sequences

53As in several cases above in ABH, so in Job, wayyiqṭol is used with unexpected senses. At least, Eliphaz seems to have been under no constraints regarding its syntax or semantics. (Nor was he instructed that clause-initial yiqṭol is reserved for jussive semantics.) In both Job 4.5 and 12 we have yiqṭol as the head for wayyiqṭol clauses (including one clearly long yiqṭol).

2.4. Semantic Freedom

54The syntactic freedom of wayyiqṭol extends equally to the semantic domain. Just as when continuing a participle syntactically it also continued the general present semantics, so also in Job 7.9 it continues a general present qaṭal with the same semantics.41

55Immediately afterward we have the statement that a tree cut down may yet have hope in its stump, for with the scent of water it might yet sprout anew. As for man, however:

56Much more can be said about the syntax, semantics, and discourse functions of wayyiqṭol in Job, but these examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that neither in ABH, nor in Job, have we fully understood the function of wayyiqṭol if we restrict it to past tense and perfective aspect. It behaves with far more freedom than some of our scholarly pronouncements permit.

3.0. Conclusion

57In much ABH, there are few wayyiqṭol forms or none at all (rare in the Songs of Deborah and Moses, Prayer of Hannah; none in Ps. 68 and Num. 23–24). In some, wayyiqṭol is common in form, but with varying function. If this aligns with their typological development (which has not been argued, but is considered plausible), this could reflect the development of a new form,42 possibly prompted by its close connection between two actions (the opposite of the distancing seen with א ָּ ז + qaṭal in Gen. 49 in ex. (15) above).

58In Job, we have another linguistic stream, in which wayyiqṭol is common as a freely chaining verb, that is, following other verbs (even participles) and taking up their prominent tense, mood, and aspect. It seems to behave more as a medial verb in a clause-chaining language, rather than an independent form with a morphologically encoded tense and aspect.

59If so, describing wayyiqṭol as combining perfective aspect with past tense does not reflect its first appearances within Biblical Hebrew. This essay provides evidence pointing in a different direction: perhaps syntax, rather than semantics, would be a more helpful motivation to explain the rise of wayyiqṭol.