29 Chisholm makes one further comment about the use of
to introduce a parenthetical note:
Occasionally a wayyiqtol form, especially , introduces a parenthetical
note in the narrative. For example, 1 Kings 18:3 states that Ahab summoned his palace administrator Obadiah. Verse 5 then records Ahab’s
orders to Obadiah. But in between the narrator places a parenthetical note about Obadiah’s loyalty to the Lord v. 4. This parenthesis is introduced
by
. For another example see 1 Chronicles 11:6, which inserts parenthetical information about Joab’s role in the conquest of Jerusalem.
Chisholm 1998, 122-23 This comment is indicative of the broad range of functions that are attributed to
in the literature. This is not the place for detailed discussion of this comment, but it seems confusing to claim that
can have what appear to be quite contradictory functions. How can
both begin a new narrative as well as introduce a parenthetical note? These functions are discussed in Chapter 10, The Discourse-Pragmatic Uses of
.
3.3.7 Schertz and Yoder, Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of
Greek and Hebrew , 2001
Schertz and Yoder’s Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew is similar to Chisholm’s volume in both its purpose and perspective. The authors remark
regarding , that the “pattern of
followed by a subordinate clause is a very frequent boundary marker in Hebrew narrative” Schertz and Yoder 2001, 77. The
question that immediately arises is what type of boundary is marked in this way? Schertz and Yoder also describe
as an “example of a transition construction that signals the end of one region and the beginning of another” Schertz and Yoder 2001,
30 76. What is unclear from this description—as well as from the preceding discussion—is
whether is signaling the end of what precedes it, signaling the transition to what
follows, or both. Once again, without more precisely defining the textual regions in which
operates, the function of will continue to elude readers and analysts.
3.3.8 Ross, Introducing Biblical Hebrew, 2001
Introducing Biblical Hebrew by Ross is another in the series of recently published introductory grammars. Regarding
, Ross states that [t]emporal clauses are frequently introduced by a form of the verb to be
+ consecutive. Other temporal indicators like prepositions
often accompany this construction, and in the final analysis need not
be translated. Ross 2001, 139 Two noteworthy aspects of Ross’s statement require comment here. First of all, it
is true that other temporal indicators often accompany , but the specific reference to
prepositions is curious. The example Ross uses in this section has in the
morning, so presumably this is a reference to prepositions used with temporal expressions. Secondly, Ross states that
need not be translated. This recommendation is apparently in the interest of good English style, but needs closer
examination. There may indeed be contexts in which it is best to not retain close lexical equivalence for
, but this type of statement needs to be qualified. The implications and ramifications of a statement like this need to be carefully evaluated. This will be
discussed later in Chapter 10. Ross also discusses the occurrence of
with infinitive constructs. As seen in previous analyses,
is assigned the function of indicating past time:
31 Infinitive construct does not express time by itself. The time must be
determined from context. One way that the time of the clause is expressed is with forms of
+ consecutive:
indicating past time, and future time. Ross 2001, 163
In contrast to some previous grammars, Ross makes no mention in these comments about
’s connection to the preceding or following narrative. Of primary concern to Ross, it appears, is the function as temporal indicator. This actually goes hand
in hand with the recommendation to leave these forms of untranslated. If
and are doing nothing more than indicating past and future time respectively, why
should they be translated? It is interesting to notice that in the current analytical milieu which tends to favor analysis of the Hebrew verbal system in terms of aspectual
distinctions rather than tense, that the mere and
forms of are so
unambiguously assigned the function of indicating tense. It is true that infinitive constructs do not indicate tense on their own, but is indicating tense really the function
that and
perform when they occur with infinitive constructs? Further discussion of this question is found in Chapter 10.
3.3.9 Pratico and Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew, 2001
