20 agonizing process of selection, as the author seeks to explain the most pertinent
information in an efficient and pedagogically intuitive way. If the discussion of something like
does not receive extensive attention in an introductory grammar, that is to be understood. It is not, however, the presence or absence or even the length or
brevity of comments regarding that are of interest here; the intention here is to
review the comments to discern the analytical perspective employed by the authors. All of this is done with the singular intent of working toward a better understanding of
. Any omissions andor misrepresentations are the responsibility of the author of this study.
3.2 The Analysis of
in the Traditional Approach
3.2.1 Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 1813
The traditional understanding of is well represented by Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, in which he states that the …introduction of independent narratives, or of a new section of the
narrative, by means of an imperfect consecutive, likewise aims at a connexion, though again loose and external, with that which has been
narrated previously. Such a connexion is especially often established by means of
and it came to pass…. GKC 1910, 327 While this analysis recognizes the temporal and narrative function of
and its connection to the surrounding context, the descriptive parameters are not well defined.
This is exemplified in the following statement: “This loose connexion by means of is
especially common, when the narrative or a new section of it begins with any expression of time …” GKC 1910, 327. Unfortunately, “loose connections” by means of
and
21 narratives beginning with “any expression of time” are not specific enough to provide a
clear picture of what is doing.
3.2.2 Müller, Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, 1883
In Outlines of Hebrew Syntax, Müller describes as follows:
But very often, especially when a phrase specifying time occurs in the narrative, in order to preserve the favourite form of diction, there is
prefixed to the phrase in question a “And it came to pass”, and the
rest is then added on to this according as the connection requires. Müller 1883, 17
Müller’s description of is characteristic of the traditional era, with its
reference to as a “favourite form of diction.” This is typical of what Barr refers to in
The Semantics of Biblical Language as the “impression of Hebrew being quite extraordinarily unique in its structure” Barr 1983, 291. Müller’s analysis of
being merely prefixed to the phrase in question is very similar to GKC’s “loose connection.”
3.2.3 Harper, Elements of Hebrew Syntax, 1892
Harper’s Elements of Hebrew Syntax is also characteristic of the description of in this period:
Notice is to be taken of the frequent occurrence of the preparatory formula and it happened, and it was, to introduce adverbial and especially
temporal clauses. This usage, while not universal, prevails largely in the earlier books. The following verb may be either Imperfect with Waw
Consecutive, a Perfect, or, when the context demands, an Imperfect. Harper 1892, 73
Three things in particular are noteworthy: 1 the reference to as a
“preparatory formula” appears to indicate an understanding of as somewhat
disconnected from the adjacent elements with which it occurs; 2 the reference to the
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
