SPECIAL TOPIC: HEBREW GRAMMAR
I.
Brief Historical Development of Hebrew
Hebrew is part of the Shemitic (Semitic) family of southwest Asian languages. The
name (given by modern scholars) comes from Noah’s son, Shem (cf. Gen. 5:32;
6:10). Shem’s descendants are listed in Gen. 10:21-31 as Arabs, Hebrews,
Syrians, Arameans, and Assyrians. In reality some Semitic languages are used by
nations listed in Ham’s line (cf. Gen. 10:6-14), Canaan, Phoenicia, and
Ethiopia.
Hebrew is part of the northwest group of these Semitic languages. Modern
scholars have samples of this ancient language group from
A. Amorite (Mari Tablets from 18th century b.c. in Akkadian)
B. Canaanite (Ras Shamra Tablets from 15th century
b.c. in Ugaritic)
C. Canaanite (Amarna Letters from 14th century
b.c. in Canaanite Akkadian)
D. Phoenician (Hebrew uses Phoenician alphabet)
E. Moabite (Mesha stone, 840 b.c.)
F. Aramaic (official language of the Persian Empire used in Gen.
31:47 [2 words]; Jer. 10:11; Dan. 2:4b-6; 7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26 and
spoken by Jews in the first century a.d. in Palestine)
The Hebrew language is called “the lip of Canaan” in Isa. 19:18. It was first
called “Hebrew” in the prologue of Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Ben Sirach) about
180 b.c. (and some other early places, cf.
Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 4, pp.
205ff). It is most closely related to Moabite and the language used at Ugarit.
Examples of ancient Hebrew found outside the Bible are
1. the Gezer calendar, 925 b.c. (a school boy’s writing)
2. the Siloam Inscription, 705 b.c. (tunnel writings)
3. Samaritan Ostraca, 770 b.c. (tax records on broken
pottery)
4. Lachish letters, 587 b.c. (war communications)
5. Maccabean coins and seals
6. some Dead Sea Scroll texts
7. numerous inscriptions (cf. “Languages [Hebrew],” ABD
4:203ff)
It, like all Semitic languages, is characterized by words made up of three
consonants (tri-consonantal root). It is an inflexed language. The three-root
consonants carry the basic word meaning, while prefixed, suffixed, or internal
additions show the syntactical function (later vowels, cf. Sue Groom,
Linguistic
Analysis of Biblical Hebrew, pp. 46-49).
Hebrew vocabulary demonstrates a difference between prose and poetry. Word
meanings are connected to folk etymologies (not linguistic origins). Word plays
and sound plays are very common (paronomasia).
II. Aspects of Predication
A. VERBS
The normal expected word order is verb, pronoun, subject (with modifiers),
object (with modifiers). The basic non-flagged
verb is the Qal
perfect,
masculine, singular form. It is how Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons are arranged.
verbs are inflected to show
1. number — singular, plural, dual
2. gender — masculine and feminine (no
neuter)
3. mood — indicative, subjunctive, imperative (relation of the
action to reality)
4. tense (aspect)
a. Perfect, which denotes completion, in the sense
of the beginning, continuing, and concluding of an action. Usually this form was
used of past action, the thing has occurred. J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax
in the Hebrew Old Testament, says
“The single whole described by a perfect is also considered as certain. An
imperfect may picture a state as possible or desired or expected, but a perfect
sees it as actual, real, and sure” (p. 36).
S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the
Tenses in Hebrew, describes it this
way:
“The perfect is employed to indicate actions the accomplishment of which lies
indeed in the future, but is regarded as dependent upon such an unalterable
determination of the will that it may be spoken of as having actually taken
place: thus a resolution, promise, or decree, especially a Divine one, is
frequently announced in the perfect tense” (p. 17, e.g., the prophetic perfect).
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. From Exegesis to Exposition, defines this
verbal form as
one which
“views a situation from the outside, as a whole. As such it expresses a simple
fact, whether it be an action or state (including state of being or mind). When
used of actions, it often views the action as complete from the rhetorical
standpoint of the speaker or narrator (whether it is or is not complete in fact
or reality is not the point). The perfect can pertain to an action/state in the
past, present or future. As noted above, time frame, which influences how one
translates the perfect into a tense-oriented language like English, must be
determined from the context” (p. 86).
b. imperfect, which denotes an action in progress (incomplete, repetitive,
continual, or contingent), often movement toward a goal. Usually this form was
used of present and future action.
J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew
Old Testament, says
“All imperfects represent incomplete states. They are either repeated or
developing or contingent. In other words, partially developed, or partially
assured. In all cases they are partial in some sense, i.e., incomplete” (p. 55).
Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., From Exegesis to
Exposition, says
“It is difficult to reduce the essence of the imperfect to a single concept, for
it encompasses both aspect and mood. Sometimes the imperfect is used in an
indicative manner and makes an objective statement. At other times it views an
action more subjectively, as hypothetical, contingent, possible, and so on” (p.
89).
c. The added waw, which links the verb
to the
action of the previous verb(s)
d. imperative, which is based on the
volition of the speaker and potential action by the hearer
e. in ancient Hebrew only the larger context can determine the
authorial-intended time orientations
B. The seven major inflected forms and their basic meaning. In
reality these forms work in conjunction with each other in a context and must
not be isolated.
1. Qal (Kal), the most common and basic of all the forms. It
denotes simple action or a state of being. There is no causation or
specification implied.
2. Niphal, the second most common form. It is usually
passive, but this form also functions as reciprocal and reflexive. It also has
no causation or specification implied.
3. Piel, this form is active and expresses the bringing
about of an action into a state of being. The basic meaning of the
Qal stem is
developed or extended into a state of being.
4. Pual, this is the passive counterpart to the
Piel. It is
often expressed by a participle.
5. Hithpael, which is the reflexive or reciprocal stem. It
expresses iterative or durative action to the Piel stem. The rare
passive form
is called Hothpael.
6. Hiphil, the active form of the causative stem in contrast
to Piel. It can have a permissive aspect, but usually refers to the cause of an
event. Ernst Jenni, a German Hebrew grammarian, believed that the
Piel denoted
something coming into a state of being, while Hiphil showed how it happened.
7. Hophal, the passive counterpart to the
Hiphil. These last
two stems are the least used of the seven stems.
Much of this information comes from An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax,
by Bruce K. Walke and M. O’Connor, pp. 343-452.
Agency and causation chart. One key in understanding the Hebrew
verb system is
to see it as a pattern of voice relationships. Some stems are in contrast to
other stems (i.e., Qal – Niphal; Piel – Hiphil)
The chart below tries to visualize the basic function of the verb stems as to
causation.
| Voice or Subject Agency | No Secondary Agency | An Active Secondary Agency | A Passive Secondary Agency |
| Active | Qal | Hiphil | Piel |
| Middle Passive | Niphal | Hophal | Pual |
| Reflexive/Reciprocal | Niphal | Hiphil | Hithpael |
This chart is taken from the excellent discussion of the verbal
system
in light of new Akkadian research (cf. Bruce K. Waltke, M. O’Conner,
An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 354-359.
R. H. Kennett, A Short Account of the Hebrew Tenses, has provided a needed
warning.
“I have commonly found in teaching, that a student’s chief difficulty in the
Hebrew verbs is to grasp the meaning which they conveyed to the minds of the
Hebrews themselves; that is to say, there is a tendency to assign as equivalents
to each of the Hebrew Tenses a certain number of Latin or English forms by which
that particular Tense may commonly be translated. The result is a failure to
perceive many of these fine shades of meaning, which give such life and vigor to
the language of the Old Testament.
The difficulty in the use of the Hebrew verbs lies solely in the point of view,
so absolutely different from our own, from which the Hebrews regarded an action;
the time, which with us is the first consideration, as the very word, ‘tense’
shows, being to them a matter of secondary importance. It is, therefore,
essential that a student should clearly grasp, not so much the Latin or English
forms which may be used in translating each of the Hebrew Tenses, but rather the
aspect of each action, as it presented itself to a Hebrew’s mind.
The name ‘tenses’ as applied to Hebrew verbs is misleading. The so-called Hebrew
‘tenses’ do not express the time but merely the state of an action. Indeed were
it not for the confusion that would arise through the application of the term
‘state’ to both nouns and verbs, ‘states’ would be a far better designation than
‘tenses.’ It must always be borne in mind that it is impossible to translate a
Hebrew verb into English without employing a limitation (of time), which is
entirely absent in the Hebrew. The ancient Hebrews never thought of an action as
past, present, or future, but simply as perfect, i.e., complete, or imperfect,
i.e., as in course of development. When we say that a certain Hebrew tense
corresponds to a Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future in English,
we do not mean that the Hebrews thought of it as Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future,
but merely that it must be so translated in English. The time of an action the
Hebrews did not attempt to express by any verbal form” (preface and p. 1).
For a second good warning, Sue Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew,
reminds us,
“There is no way of knowing whether modern scholars’ reconstruction of semantic
fields and sense relations in an ancient dead language are merely a reflection
of their own intuition, or their own native language, or whether those fields
existed in Classical Hebrew” (p. 128).
C. moods (Modes)
1. It happened, is happening (indicative), usually uses
perfect tense or participles (all
participles are indicative).
2. It will happen, could happen (subjunctive)
a. uses a marked imperfect tense
(1) cohortative (added h), first person
imperfect form which normally expresses a wish, a request, or self-encouragement
(i.e., actions willed by the speaker)
(2) jussive (internal changes),
third person
imperfect (can be second person in negated sentences) which normally expresses a
request, a permission, an admonition, or advice
b. uses a perfect tense with
lu or lule
These constructions are similar to second class conditional sentences in Koine
Greek. A false statement (protasis) results in a false conclusion (apodosis).
c. uses an imperfect tense and lu
Context and lu, as well as a future orientation, mark this
subjunctive usage. Some examples from J. Wash Watts,
A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament are Gen. 13:16; Deut. 1:12;
1 Kgs. 13:8; Ps. 24:3; Isa. 1:18 (cf. pp. 76-77).
D. Waw – Conversive/consecutive/relative. This uniquely Hebrew
(Canaanite) syntactical feature has caused great confusion through the years. It
is used in a variety of ways often based on genre. The reason for the confusion
is that early scholars were European and tried to interpret in light of their
own native languages. When this proved difficult they blamed the problem on
Hebrew being a “supposed” ancient, archaic language. European languages are
tense (time) based verbs. Some of the variety and grammatical implications were
specified by the letter waw being added to the
perfect or imperfect verb stems.
This altered the way the action was viewed.
1. In historical narrative the verbs are linked together in
a chain with a standard pattern.
2. The waw prefix showed a specific relationship with the
previous verb(s).
3. The larger context is always the key to understanding the
verb chain. Semitic verbs cannot be analyzed in isolation.
J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old Testament, notes the
distinctive of Hebrew in its use of the waw before
perfects and imperfects (pp.
52-53). As the basic idea of the perfect is past, the addition of
waw often
projects it into a future time aspect. This is also true of the imperfect whose
basic idea is present or future; the addition of waw places it into the past. It
is this unusual time shift which explains the waw’s addition, not a change in
the basic meaning
of the tense itself. The waw
perfects work well with prophecy, while the
waw imperfects work well with narratives (pp. 54, 68).
Watts continues his definition
“As a fundamental distinction between waw conjunctive and waw consecutive, the
following interpretations are offered:
1. Waw conjunctive appears always to indicate a
parallel.
2. Waw consecutive appears always to indicate a
sequence. It is the only form of waw used with consecutive imperfects. The
relation between the imperfects linked by it may be temporal sequence, logical
consequence, logical cause, or logical contrast. In all cases there is a
sequence” (p. 103).
E. Infinitive – There are two kinds of infinitives
1. infinitive absolutes, which are “strong, independent,
striking expressions used for dramatic effect. . .as a subject, it often has no
written verb, the verb ‘to be’ being understood, of course, but the word
standing dramatically alone” J. Wash Watts, A Survey of Syntax in the Hebrew Old
Testament” (p. 92).
2. infinitive construct, which are “related grammatically to
the sentence by prepositions, possessive pronouns, and the construct
relationship” (p. 91).
J. Weingreen, A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew, describes the construct
state as:
“When two (or more) words are so closely united that together they constitute
one compound idea, the dependent word (or words) is (are) said to be in the
construct state” (p. 44).
F. interrogatives
1. They always appear first in the sentence.
2. Interpretive significance
a. ha – does not expect a response
b. halo’ – the author expects a “yes” answer
negatives
1. They always appear before the words they negate.
2. Most common negation is lo’.
3. The term ‘al has a contingent connotation and is used
with cohortatives and jussives.
4. The term lebhilti, meaning “in order that. . .not,” is
used with infinitives.
5. The term ‘en is used with
participles.
G. conditional sentences
1. There are four kinds of conditional sentences which
basically are paralleled in Koine Greek.
a. something assumed to be happening or thought of
as fulfilled (first class in Greek)
b. something contrary to fact whose fulfillment is
impossible (second class)
c. something which is possible or even probable
(third class)
d. something which is less probable; therefore, the
fulfillment is dubious (fourth class)
2. grammatical markers
a. the “assumed to be true” or “real” condition always
uses an indicative perfect or participle and usually the
protasis is introduced
by
(1) ‘im
(2) ki (or ‘asher)
(3) hin or hinneh
b. the “contrary to fact” condition always uses a
perfect aspect verb or a participle with the introductory participle lu or lule
c. the “more probable” condition always used
imperfect verb or participles in the
protasis, usually ‘im or ki are used as
introductory particles
d. the “less probable” condition uses imperfect
subjunctives in the protasis and always uses
‘im as an introductory particle
Copyright © 2013 Bible Lessons International