Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 1939 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1991

22 usage of in the earlier books indicates an awareness of possible diachronic factors in its pattern of usage; and 3 the remarks about the form of the following verb mention the context around , but there is no further delineation of the parameters of usage for these verb forms. The syntactic connection of , certain diachronic considerations, and verb form patterns with are all issues that are discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters.

3.2.4 Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, 1939

Weingreen, in apparent disagreement with GKC, reduces the force of to little more than an unusual connection. GKC stated that established a connection “with that which has been narrated previously,” but Weingreen describes as follows: Often a verse or even a chapter opens with a verb which has the Waw Consecutive, as ‘and it came to pass’; this, rather than implying a continuation with what has preceded, has little more force than ‘now it happened’. In the same way = ‘and it shall come to pass’. Weingreen 1939, 92 It is certainly the case that is found, as Weingreen states, opening “a verse or even a chapter,” but it is unclear why Weingreen dismisses the connection with what has preceded. This matter of ’s connection to what precedes it or to what follows it is a recurring theme throughout the history of its study.

3.2.5 Joüon-Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 1991

The 1991 publication date of Muraoka’s translation and revision of Joüon’s 1923 Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique is somewhat misleading if it is assumed that a late twentieth-century grammar of biblical Hebrew would employ methods and perspectives 23 contemporary with that time period. Close reading of Joüon-Muraoka reveals many characteristics that place it within the Traditional approach. The retention of Latin translations in the following discussion of is telling: Stative verbs present no particular difficulty; thus , used in the stative sense, is equivalent to and means et erat “it was”, et fuit “it has been”. Used in the active sense, it is equivalent to of action and usually means et ev nit “it happened”, et factum est “it came to pass”; sometimes, by misuse, both eveniebat “it would happen” and fiebat “it would come to pass”. Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 390 The clearest indication of the perspective employed by Joüon and retained by Muraoka is the evaluative term “misuse,” which betrays a more prescriptive view typical of the Traditional era rather than a fully descriptive view of Hebrew as a language on its own terms. In the discussion of the uses of the WAYYIQTOL form, Joüon-Muraoka states that it is sometimes used “with the force of the French imparfait, i.e. frequentative action in the past,” but this “use is irregular and improper” Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 393. With specific reference to , Joüon-Muraoka states that this “improper use is mainly found with ” Joüon-Muraoka 1991, 394. The correct form according to Joüon-Muraoka, for example in Num 10:35 and 2 Sam 15:2, would be . These examples will be discussed later; the point here is that Joüon-Muraoka’s description of as an introductory formula is within a traditional evaluative framework.

3.2.6 Analytical Summary of the Traditional Approach