Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Here's my take on the wayyiqtol:

Theories that talk about it as a preterite or past-reference are overly influenced by European languages, which tend to talk about things that occur in the past with past-reference verbs. However, the wayyiqtol is, I believe, doing something else.

First, the morphology of the wayyiqtol is related to the jussive ('may he kill'). In fact, the verb form of the wayyiqtol itself is simply the jussive. The jussive is not past referring, but rather optative or something close to that.

This leads to the question: What does the addition of waw + gemination do to this? If the jussive is wishing for an action to occur, the addition of waw + gemination serves to take the reader to that action and, as such, watch it happen. The action therefore goes from being portrayed as something possible, to something occurring. I would, therefore, define the wayyiqtol as something of a 'live action' verb. This is why it predominates in narrative, where a story is portrayed for the benefit of the reader to 'watch it happen'.

The best way to get this sense in English is to translate the wayyiqtol (at least initially) as an English present tense (he kills). This gives the sense of immediacy in the wayyiqtol. We can now draw the comparison with the jussive more clearly: I can say, for example, "God bless you", and this would be a jussive. When I add the waw + gemination, I now make it a narrative event that is occurring in the narrative 'now': "God blesses you". In our translations, though, we tend to tell narratives in past tense, and so we end up saying, "God blessed you". The problem with this, however, is it obscures the connection to the jussive and leads us to mistakenly conclude that the verb is actually a past tense. It isn't. This also helps to distinguish it clearly from the qatal.

There is no consecutivity implied in the verb. Take, for example, 2 Kgs 17, where the narrator lists the sins of Israel in explanation of the fall of Samaria. There is no consecutivity involved as though one sin occurred after the next. However, the actions are portrayed for us as readers to watch them happen as the explanation is given to us. Similarly, compare 1 Sam 28.5. Does Saul fear before his heart trembles? It doesn't make sense. It's just that the author wants us to see the actions and sequences them in a meaningful way, but does not thereby imply that one necessarily came after the other.

To summarise: the wayyiqtol is a live action verb that presents an action as definite and immediate. There is no consecutive quality to the verb. It derives from the jussive.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia