In
conclusion, the relationship between the use of w’th(h) in Epigraphic
Hebrew and in S[tandard]B[iblical]H[ebrew] warrants some reflection. To wit, is
its regular usage as a transitional particle, essentially a paragraph divider, reflected
at all in biblical literature? In addition to serving as a general lexical
device to mark transition in oral discourse, a few examples recall its more
formal use in letter writing. For example, we read in 1 Samuel 15:1, “Samuel said
to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; and now [w’th],
listen to the Words of the Lord.” Here the function of w’th is both transitional
and metapragmatic, as in Epigraphic Hebrew. Likewise, the common use of w’th
followed by the imperative šm’ “hear” seems to harken back to the
messenger formula utlizied in letters (Examples of the expression w’th šm’
[of variations thereof] include Gen. 27:8; Exod. 19:5; Deut. 4:1; 1 Sam. 8:9; 15:1;
25:7; 26:19; Isa. 44:1; 47:8; Jer. 37:20; 42:18; Amos 7:16; Prov. 5:7). For
example, the narrator subtly employs features of a formal messenger scene in 1
Samuel 28:21-22: “The woman came to Saul, and when she saw that he was terrified,
she said to him, ‘Your maidservant has listened to you; I have taken my life in
my hand, and have listened to what you have said to me. And now, you also listen
[w’th šm’-n’] to your maidservant: let me set a morsel of bread before
you.’” The role of w’th in letters is most explicit in 2 Kings 5:6: “He
brought the letter [hspr] to the king of Israel, which read [l’mr]:
And now [w’th], when this letter reaches you, know that I have sent to
you my servant Na’aman, that you may cure him of his leprosy.” Similarly, we
read in 2 Kings 10:1-2: “So Jehu wrote letters and sent them to Samaria, to the
rulers of Jezreel, to the elders, and to the guardians of the sons of Ahab,
saying [l’mr]: ‘and now [w’th], your master’s sons are with you.’”
In these last two examples, the use of w’th most closely reminds us of
Epigraphic Hebrew with regard to their context of written letters; it is worth
noting that w’th actually follows l’mr, which is traditionally
translated “saying” but is functionally a metapragmatic marker of a direct
quotation. These examples indicate the awareness and probable influence of the
metapragmatic use of w’t known from Epigraphic Hebrew.
It
is clear that the usage of w’th as a paragraph divider was widespread in
both Hebrew and Aramaic epistolary practice from the late Iron Age through the
Persian period. Moreover, letter writing was one of the foundational exercises
of a scribal apprentice; we find examples of scribal exercises in letter
writing in Akkadian, Ugaritic (KTU 5.9.; 5.10; 5.11), and Epigraphic
Hebrew (Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions 3.1 and 3.6). We may suppose that w’t(h)
originated, as Pardee suggested, as a marker in oral discourse. Indeed,
this suggestion is supported by the word’s prevalence in direct speech in
biblical literature. From this, it might have been borrowed for formal use in
the practice of writing letters—one of the main tasks of the scribal enterprise
and one of the foundations of early scribal education. This would have bred
scribal familiarity with the term. This may in turn explain why w’t(h) came
to be used commonly in biblical texts. It certainly was a textual device of
great familiarity to the scribes of biblical literature just as it was a
regular feature in letters written in Epigraphic Hebrew. (William M.
Schniedewind, “’And Now’ W’T(H): A Transition Particle in Ancient Hebrew,”
in “Like ‘Ilu Are You Wise”: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literature
in Honor of Dennis G. Pardee, ed. H. H. Hardy II, Joseph Lam, and Eric D.
Reymond [Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 73; Chicago: The University
of Chicago, 2022], 148-49)