BIBLICAL HEBREW VERBAL SYSTEM IN POETRY 1. A Verbal Theory for Prose and Poetry When I wrote the final chapter of my Syntax of the Verb as well as my paper “Analysing Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 1 I thought that verbal forms in BH poetry did not play precise func- tions, or rather that their functions were not the same as in prose. In addition, it was and still is fairly common opinion among scholars, although not always openly declared, that the verbal forms in poetry, more than in prose, can be taken to mean everything the interpreter thinks ap- propriate according to his understanding and the context. In recent years I changed my mind. I think now, first, that different verbal forms need play different functions in BH poetry as is the case in prose and, second, that the functions of the verbal forms in poetry are basically the same as in prose, more precisely in direct speech. 2 For convenience, here is a summary table of the functions of the verbal forms of direct speech in prose. TEMPORAL AXIS MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION (FOREGROUND) SECONDARY LEVEL OF COMMUN. (BACKGROUND) Past (X-) qatal → continuation wayyiqtol (coordinated, main level) cf. Deut 1:6 ff.; 5:2 ff. → x-qatal, non-verbal sentence, x-yiqtol, w e qatal (background) Present Non-verbal sentence with / without participle cf. Gen 42:10-11 → Non-verbal sentence with / without participle Future Indica- tive Non-verbal sentence (esp. with participle) → continuation w e qatal cf. Exod 7:17-18; 7:27-29 or: Initial x-yiqtol → continuation w e qatal (in a chain) → x-yiqtol (background) Future volitive Imperative → w e yiqtol (foreground) cf. Num 6:24-26 or: (x-) yiqtol cohortative/jussive → w e yiqtol (= foreground) → x-imperative (background) → x-yiqtol (background) Note: Imperative → w e yiqtol = purpose (‘in order to’) Imperative → w e qatal = consequence (‘thus, therefore’) cf. Exod 25:2 → 8
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
BIBLICAL HEBREW VERBAL SYSTEM IN POETRY
1. A Verbal Theory for Prose and Poetry
When I wrote the final chapter of my Syntax of the Verb as well as my paper “Analysing
Biblical Hebrew Poetry,”1 I thought that verbal forms in BH poetry did not play precise func-
tions, or rather that their functions were not the same as in prose. In addition, it was and still is
fairly common opinion among scholars, although not always openly declared, that the verbal
forms in poetry, more than in prose, can be taken to mean everything the interpreter thinks ap-
propriate according to his understanding and the context. In recent years I changed my mind. I
think now, first, that different verbal forms need play different functions in BH poetry as is the
case in prose and, second, that the functions of the verbal forms in poetry are basically the same
as in prose, more precisely in direct speech.2
For convenience, here is a summary table of the functions of the verbal forms of direct
speech in prose.
TEMPORALAXIS
MAIN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION(FOREGROUND)
SECONDARY LEVEL OF COMMUN.(BACKGROUND)
Past (X-) qatal → continuation wayyiqtol(coordinated, main level)cf. Deut 1:6 ff.; 5:2 ff.
quoted with the names of the authors/revisers only, i.e., Gesenius-Kautzsch, and Joüon-Muraoka. The se-
ries Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (ed. C.F. Keil - F. Delitzsch; Grand Rapids [MI],
repr. 1980-1981) is referred to as: Keil-Delitzsch.2 A first attempt in this direction is a short study on the poetic section in the Book of Jonah (2:3-
10; see “Syntactic Analysis of Jonah,” Liber Annuus 46 [1996] 26-31, pp. 26-31). Another of my essays
concerns Psalms 9-10 (together with E. Cortese, “L’attesa dei poveri non sarà vana: Il Sal 9/10 attualiz-
zato,” in Biblica et semitica. Studi in memoria di Francesco Vattioni [ed. L. Cagni; Napoli-Roma 1999]
129-149, pp. 139-149). Also see my analysis of Proverbs 22:17-24:22 published in three installments
“Proverbi 23,26-24,22,” ibid. 48 [1998] 49-104), and “Poetic Syntax and Interpretation of Malachi” (to
appear in the same review, vol. 51 [2001]).3 As I have tried to show by comparing Judg 4:19-21 and 5:25-27, two passages in which the
killing of Sisera at the hands of Jael is first narrated in prose, then celebrated in poetry (see “Analysing
Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” 78-80).4 U. Cassuto, The Goddess Anath. Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age – Texts, Hebrew
Translation, Commentary and Introduction (Jerusalem 1971; Hebr. orig. 1951), 46-48; M. Held, “The
Yqtl-Qtl (Qtl-Yqtl) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic,” in Studies and Es-
says in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman – President, Dropsie College for Hebrew and Cognate Learning,
Philadelphia (ed. A.A. Neuman - M. Ben-Horin - B.D. Weinryb - S. Zeitlin; Leiden 1962), 281-290; S.
Gevirtz, “Evidence of Conjugational Variation in the Parallelization of Selfsame Verbs in the Amarna
Letters,” JNES 32 (1973) 99-104.
5 A.F. Rainey, “The Prefix Conjugation Patterns of Early Northwest Semitic,” in Lingering over
Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (ed. T. Abusch - J.
Huehnergard - P. Steinkeller [Atlanta, GA, 1990] 407-420; more recently in Canaanite in the Amarna
Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from Canaan, vols. 1-4 [Leiden
1996]). For a discussion of Rainey’s position, particularly by J. Huehnergard and E.L. Greenstein, see
16
“Symposium: The yiqtol in Biblical Hebrew,” HS 29 (1988) 7-42 (with contributions by E.L Greenstein,
J. Huehnergard, Z. Zevit, and A.F. Rainey himself). See more recently P.J. Gentry, “The System of the
Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrew,” HS 39 (1998) 7-39; J. Joosten, “The Long Form of the Prefix
Conjugation Referring to the Past in Biblical Hebrew Prose,” HS 40 (1999) 15-26; T.D. Andersen, “The
Evolution of the Hebrew Verbal System,” ZAH 13 (2000) 1-66; J.A. Cook, “The Hebrew Verb: A Gram-
maticalization Approach,” ZAH 14 (2001) 117-143.
6 In his treatment of archaic BH poetic texts on the basis of Ugaritic, U. Cassuto maintained that
in Isa 60:16 “Wäw conversive [i.e. consecutive] (…) in effect does not alter the sense at all,” and that
“particularly from this passage in Amos [i.e., 7:4, AN] it can be seen that the Wäw does not ‘convert’
anything. This enables us to ascertain the origin of this Wäw, and to understand correctly the form of
verses like Genesis i 5…” (The Goddess Anath, 46, and no. 39). Now, in Isa 60:16 we find in parallel
lines weqatal and x-yiqtol, which are perfectly compatible verbal forms because the first is the usual main-
line verbal form for the future axis and the latter its usual off-line counterpart in the course of direct
speech (see § 1 above); in this case, therefore: “You shall suck the milk of nations (Mˆywø…g bElSj V;tVqÅnÎy◊w), / even
the breast of kings you shall suck (yIqÎnyI;t MyIkDlVm dOv◊w).” Things are more complicate in Am 7:4 because it
comprises wayyiqtol and weqatal that are not homogeneous verbal forms but the former signals main line
and single event in the past while the latter signals, when it refers to the axis of the past, off line and
repetition/habit/description/specification (see § 2.2 below); in this case: “and (the fire) devoured the great
deep (hD;bår MwøhV;t_tRa lAkaø;tÅw), / while it was eating up the land (qRlEjAh_tRa hDlVkDa◊w).” In any case, the waw does
convert the BH verbal forms, or better, weqatal and wayyiqtol are individual verbal forms as such because
they possess distinctive morphology and distinctive functions. Cassuto’s position regarding waw was
shared by M. Held, “The Yqtl-Qtl (Qtl-Yqtl).”
7 It is commonly held that the so-called “inverted” verbal forms do not exist in Ugaritic poetic
texts while they exist in later prose texts. Thus already C.H. Gordon, who however noted that “Ug[aritic]
poetry has one clear case of qtl with w conversive… (67 : I : 24)…” (Ugaritic Textbook – Grammar,
Texts in Transliteration, Cuneiform Selections, Glossary, Indices [Roma 1965] 115, § 13.29). More re-
cent grammars like that of S. Segert (A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, With Selected Texts
and Glossary [Berkeley - Los Angeles - London 1984]), E. Verreet (Modi ugaritici: Eine morpho-
syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen [Leuven 1988]), and D. Sivan (A
Grammar of the Ugaritic Language [Leiden - Boston - Köln 1997]), do not address the issue of inverted
verbal forms. J. Tropper, on the one side, mentions a few cases of verbal formations that “typologically”
resemble the Perfectum consecutivum of BH grammar (Ugaritische Grammatik [Münster 2000] 716, §
76.541); on the other side, he states: “Geht der PKKi [i.e., the indicative short-form yqtl] die Konjunktion
w (‘und’) voraus, ändert sich ihre aspektuell-temporale Funktion nicht. Eine Differenzierung zwischen
PKKi einerseits und w-PKKi anderseits ist im Ug. nicht notwendig und sachlich nicht sinnvoll” (pp. 695-
17
696). However, in his review of Segert’s grammar A.F. Rainey suggested that “The ubiquitous examples
of the short form *„ny in poetic contexts after the w conjunction remind one of the narrative preterite con-
tinuative of biblical Hebrew…” (“A New Grammar of Ugaritic,” Or 56 [1987] 391-402, p. 398).
8 S.R. Driver wrote what is until today one of the most accurate treatment on “the use of the jus-
sive form” (A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions [Ox-
ford 1892] §§ 170-175; see esp. § 170, p. 212). Driver stressed the need of not disregarding the morphol-
ogy of the jussive. Some clear cases of jussive vs. indicative yiqtol forms have been discussed recently by
A. Shulman (“The Function of the ‘Jussive’ and ‘Indicative’ Imperfect Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose,”
ZAH 13 [2000] 168-180). Like Driver, Shulman only considers the verbal forms that are morphologically
identified as jussive; she does not seem to consider the initial position of yiqtol to be a mark of the jussive
character of the verb although she mentions E. Qimron and P. Gentry (pp. 168-169) who emphasize the
importance of the initial position of yiqtol in the sentence. E. Qimron also stresses the importance of the
initial position of yiqtol although his approach to syntax is different from mine (“A New Approach to-
ward Interpreting the Imperfect Verbal Forms in Early Hebrew,” L≤åonénu 41 [1998] 31-43).
9 Consult, e.g., Joüon-Muraoka § 114gN, and my Syntax of the Verb, § 55.
10 On these issues, see my Syntax of the Verb, § 55, and my paper, “A Neglected Point of Hebrew
Syntax: Yiqtol and Position in the Sentence,” Liber Annuus 37 (1987) 7-19.
11 According E.L. Greenstein, poetry is direct discourse (“Direct Discourse and Parallelism,” in
Studies in Bible and Exegesis, vol 5 [Ramat-Gan 2000; Hebr.] 33-40; Engl. abstract on p. VII; and “Be-
tween Ugaritic Epic and Biblical Narrative: The Role of Direct Discourse,” in Annual Meeting of the So-
ciety of Biblical Literature [Atlanta, GA, 1993]). For my part, I will suggest that BH poetry, as maybe
poetry as such, shows a “dramatic” character in the use of the verbal forms (§ 3 below), i.e., it describes
or celebrates an event rather than simply narrating it as does prose (§ 1 and no. 3).12 Unless explicitly indicated, the English translations are taken from the RSV with modifications.13 Contrast M. Dahood, who translates both verbal forms with the future: “Yahweh will work
wonders… Yahweh will hear me…” and notes: “Perfect hipläh is balanced by imperfect yiåmä„, a very
common sequence in Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry” (Psalms I, 1-50 – Introduction, Translation and Notes
[New York 1966] 24). Among “good examples” of this phenomenon Dahood lists Psa 6:10, 9:8, and 93:3,
but I will propose a different analysis (see §§ 2.1 and 2.5 below).14 On this phenomenon in poetry, consult W.G.E. Watson (Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to
Its Techniques [Sheffield 1984] 321-324). F. Rundgren called merismus the shift from wayyiqtol to waw-
x-qatal found in Gen 1:5 (Das althebräische Verbum [Stockholm-Göteborg-Uppsala 1961] 103; see no. 6
above). I would rather reserve this designation to cases in which the same item is referred to with both
past and future verbal forms in parallelism. A similar case of merismus is when a given item is referred to
in parallel lines as punctual information with qatal/wayyiqtol and as repeated/habitual/explicatory/de-
scriptive information with yiqtol/weqatal (see §§ 2.2 and 3 below).
18
15 In my paper, “L’attesa dei poveri non sarà delusa,” 139-140.16 I would insist on this point: if we do not care to take the verbal forms seriously, we run the risk
of missing the dynamic and precise intention of many Psalms and other poetic materials. E.g., the alter-
nation qatal/jussive yiqtol and weyiqtol is a characteristic structuring device of Psa 85. Indeed, we find
qatal in vv. 2-4; prayer with imperative, then indicative x-yiqtol, and again imperative in vv. 5-8; prayer
with jussive yiqtol, then a non-verbal sentence (present tense), qatal, and again jussive yiqtol in vv. 9-14.
Note that the constructions x-yiqtol in vv. 13-14 are jussive because they are followed by MEcÎy◊w, which is a
jussive weyiqtol formation with distinctive morphology. See on this my paper, “A Neglected Point of He-
brew Syntax,” 9-10.17 Rainey quoted Judg 21:25 as an example of yiqtol expressing “continuous action in the past,”
which is one of the function of imperfect yaqtulu of the el-Amarna letters from Byblos (“The Prefix
Conjugation Patterns,” 411-412). This is certainly correct; note, however, that this is a descriptive rather
than a narrative function of yiqtol. In other words, this yiqtol—expressing background, or secondary line
of communication—is not interchangeable with narrative wayyiqtol—expressing foreground, or main
line. See table of verbal forms in § 1 above.18 On ellipsis and various double-duty modifiers, consult Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 303-
306. A large list of passages that in the author’s opinion show this phenomenon in its various forms has
been drawn by M. Dahood, Psalms III, 101-150. Introduction, Translation and Notes (New York 1970)
428-444. Also see C.L. Miller, “Patterns of Verbal Ellipsis in Ugaritic Poetry,” UF 31 (1999) 333-372.
19 In Job 40:15-32 is also a good example. It can be subdivided into grammatical units on the ba-
sis of the particles that are used in the description of Behemoth: the presentative particle h´…nIh “behold” in
vv. 15 and 16, its variant NEh in v. 23, and the interrogative particle _Sh in vv. 26-29 and 31. The particle h´…nIh
of v. 16 also affects the first-place yiqtol in vv. 17 and 22 as well as the intervening lines (vv. 19-21); the
particle NEh also governs the following x-yiqtol (v. 24) and first-place yiqtol (v. 25); and finally the particle
_Sh also governs the first-place yiqtol of v. 30, which is the only one without that particle in vv. 26-31. For
his part, A. Gianto quotes Job 40:25-26 and then 40:26-28a without mentioning the governing particles
nor caring about the position of yiqtol in the sentence—first or second. He assigns to the “imperfect”
forms in 40:25-26 an “epistemic” value and to those of 40:26-28a a “deontic” value (“Mood and Modality
in Classical Hebrew,” Israel Oriental Studies 18 [1998] 183-198, pp. 185-186). However, such semantic
specifications can hardly be the basis for syntactic analysis without the support of more objective criteria.20 Cf. Hab 1:2: AoyIvwøt aøl◊w / sDmDj ÔKyRlEa qAo◊zRa / oDmVvIt aøl◊w / yI;tVoÅ…wIv hÎwh◊y hÎnDa_dAo “How long, o Lord, I
have cried for help, / and you will not hear? / <How long> shall I cry to you ‘Violence!’ / and you will
not save?”; 1:13: …w…nR;mIm qyî;dAx oDv∂r oA;lAbV;b / vyîrSjA;t Myîd◊gwø;b fyI;bAt hD;mDl “Why will you look on faithless men,
<why> will you be silent / when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he?”21 Similar cases of double-duty modifiers are Psa 4:3 (Engl. 4:2), 88:15 (Engl. 88:14), and 139:13.
This phenomenon is more rarely attested in prose, e.g., Gen 15:15: “As for yourself, you shall go
19
(awøbD;t hD;tAa◊w) to your fathers in peace; <and as for yourself> you shall be buried (rEb∂;qI;t <hD;tAa◊w>) in a good
old age.”22 A waw-x-yiqtol construction in the previous line ( …waøbÎy qwøj∂rEm wyDv∂rDp…w) breaks the sequence of
three indicative future weqatal. Its function is to describe the previous information (note the repetition of
the same subject, “their horsemen,” respectively at the end and the beginning of the two lines). I have
rendered this function with “indeed.” A <x-> yiqtol construction ( …wpUoÎy) parallel to the preceding waw-x-
yiqtol speeds up the description. The hypothesis of ellipsis is supported here by the close sequence of two
parallel verbal forms belonging to the same subject at the end and the beginning of the respective lines
both here (…waøbÎy and …wpUoÎy) and in the next example, Psa 91:13 (JKOr√dI;t and sOm√rI;t).
23 Driver, Treatise §§ 172-174.
24 Rainey quoted Deut 32:8 and 32:10 to prove that “Biblical Hebrew poetry still employs yaqtul
as a Preterite” (“The Prefix Conjugation Patterns,” 410). Actually, while bE…xÅy (32:8) is morphologically
marked as jussive yiqtol, …whEaDxVmˆy (32:10) is not. Further, a look at the text will show that other yiqtol
forms occur in 32:8-13 side by side with the two quoted by Rainey, and that one of them is morphologi-
cally marked as non jussive form, i.e., ryIoÎy in 32:11. In my view, this is a good case to show that the mor-
phology of yiqtol is not fully in agreement with the syntactic function; and this is the reason why I think
that morphology is not a sufficient criterion to distinguish jussive from indicative yiqtol, but the principle
of the initial position in the sentence is to be invoked as a more basic criterion (see no. 8 above). Further,
bE…xÅy (32:8) is preceded by two circumstantial phrases in the same verse that can not be disregarded, i.e.,
Mˆywø…g NwøyVlRo lEj◊nAhV;b and M∂dDa y´nV;b wødyîrVpAhV;b. This fact suggests, in my opinion, the correct analysis. The two cir-
cumstantial phrases function as an extraposed element, or protasis, and bE…xÅy as the main sentence, or
apodosis (see similar constructions in my Syntax of the Verb , § 102, esp. Exod 40:36 on p. 134). In other
words, the two prepositional phrases govern all the series of yiqtol forms in 32:8-13 and as such they act
as a kind of “double- (or rather multi-) duty modifier.” As a consequence, these yiqtol are not jussive in
function since they are not actually initial. They are not narrative, either. Indeed, they describe (§ 2.3) or
represent the events “graphically” (§ 3), rather than narrating them (see no. 11 above). Therefore, I would
translate Deut 32:8 and 10 as follows: “(8) When the Most High portioned out the inheritance to the na-
tions, / when he separated the children of men, / he would fix (bE…xÅy, apodosis) the boundaries of the nations
/ according to the number of the sons of Israel… / (10) Should he find him/When he would find him
( …whEaDxVmˆy, protasis, cf. § 2.5 below) in the land of the desert, / and in the wilderness, the howling of the
steppe, / would surround him ( …wh◊nRbVbOs◊y, apodosis), take care of him ( …wh´n◊nwøb◊y, coordinate), / protect him
(…wh◊n®rV…xˆy, coordinate) as the apple of His eye.”
25 Psa 72, a prayer for the king, consists almost entirely of volitive forms.26 See examples in Driver, Treatise §§ 62-64, and 174.
27 The fact that I propose here a functional equivalence between volitive “nude” yiqtol and we-
yiqtol does not oblige to accept the ellipsis of <way-> proposed by previous scholars for yiqtol in narra-
20
tive (see § 2.3, no. 23 above). In fact, while yiqtol and weyiqtol are homogeneous verbal forms, both be-
ing volitive, yiqtol and wayyiqtol are not because a narrative yiqtol does not exist in BH (§ 1.1 above).28 Translation adapted from Keil-Delitzsch, III/1, 450-452.29 After x-qatal in v. 24a we find weqatal, a verbal form that according to rule is not coordinate to
x-qatal but rather expresses a non-volitive consequence (rendered here with “so that I could…”) or a cir-
cumstance as in v. 22: D ;tVpå;dˆg◊w D;tVpårEj yIm_tRa “Whom have despised while you were blaspheming?” This
function of weqatal contrasts that of weyiqtol which expresses a volitive purpose (rendered here with “that
I may…”). See table in § 1, last row.30 Given the fact that our knowledge of BH is basically dependent on the Masoretic redaction of
the Hebrew Bible, this problem can hardly be ignored. Even if we may prefer a different vocalization, the
task remains of trying to understand what the Masoretes meant by their reading. Further, we have to take
into account the fact that 2 Kgs 19:23-25 is not the only text in which we find qatal/wayyiqtol along with
yiqtol/weyiqtol; see, e.g., Psa 104:14, 15, 20 (no. 38 below).31 See, e.g., Gesenius-Kautzsch § 108e-f; Joüon-Muraoka § 167a.32 Translation adapted from Keil-Delitzsch, V, 342, 347.33 A difference between the conditional sentences in v. 8 and those in vv. 9-10 is that both the
apodoses in v. 8 are non verbal clauses while those of v. 10 have volitive forms as the protases. The x-
yiqtol in v. 10a is also most probably a volitive construction because it is parallel with and coordinate to
an explicit volitive weyiqtol in v. 10b; lit. “Let me raise the wings of the morning, / let me settle at the
extremity of the sea; / even there, let your hand guide me, / and let your right hand lay hold of me” (cf.
Joüon-Muraoka § 167a/2).34 The function of the two volitive yiqtol in Psa 46:4 is similar to that of …waVcˆy in 93:3c (see next
note). The only difference is that in 46:3-4 the order of the clauses is reversed since the apodosis
(a∂ryˆn_aøl NE;k_lAo) precedes the protasis. Indeed, the protasis comprises four clauses—two with beth + in-
finitive (X®rDa ryImDhV;b / MyîrDh fwømVb…w) and two with sentence-initial yiqtol in v. 4 (lit. “let its waters roar… let
the mountains tremble…”).35 Translation from Keil-Delitzsch, V/3, 72, 75-76 with modifications. Psa 93:3 is one of the main
texts quoted by both Cassuto and Held in order to show the equivalence of the “perfect” and the “imper-
fect” forms of the same verbs in parallel lines. However, Cassuto translated as present (“the floods lift up
their roaring”: The Goddess Anath, 46) while Held translated as past (“The floods lifted up, O Lord, the
floods lifted up their voices, the floods lifted up their…”: “The Yqtl-Qtl,” 281). In my opinion, the analy-
sis above is not only defendable but also makes better sense in the context of the Psalm. The “many wa-
ters” of chaos have roared in the past and may roar at their wish in the future; still, God the Almighty sits
enthroned and is in total control of the universe.36 Lit. “Let his breath depart, let he return to his earth,” with sentence-initial yiqtol both as prota-
sis and as apodosis (see no. 33 above). Another good example is Psa 91:15-16: “(15) When he will call to
21
me, will I answer him ( …wh´nToRa◊w yˆnEa∂rVqˆy, both volitive forms; lit. ‘Let him call me and I will answer him’); / I
will be with him in trouble, / I will rescue him and honor him ( …whédV;bAkSaÅw …whExV;lAjSa, both volitive). / (16)
With long life I will satisfy him ( …whEoyI;bVcAa, volitive x-yiqtol because it is linked to a series of clearly vo-
litive verbal forms) / and show him ( …whEa√rAa◊w, volitive) my salvation.”
37 Similar cases are, e.g., Deut 32:11; Psa 18:26-28 // 2 Sam 22:26-28, and Psa 115:5-7.38 E.g., on the basis of the verbal forms used, Psa 104 comprises three sections: vv. 1-23, 24-30,
and 31-35, and three motives: first, blessing and praise to God, with imperatives, exclamatory phrases, or
jussives; second, God’s epithets, with participles and qatal forms describing God’s works of creation; and
third, purpose of creation, with first-place yiqtol or x-yiqtol, sometimes with lamed + infinitive. Psa 107
also shows an alternating sequence of three motives: praise of the Lord, description of a critical situation