Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Bryan Rocine wrote:

<I would appreciate, if you have the time,  that you would name a "curious"
<passage or two to the list for discussion even if you don't have time to
<participate in the discussion yourself.  Thanks!

One "curious" passage is  PSALM 107

The Psalm starts with the exhortation "give thanks to YHWH". A similar
exhortation is found in verses 8,15,21(22), and 31(32). So the Psalm
consists of five parts: vv 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, 23-30, and 33-43. The most
important  problem is the time perspective of each part, and to find that
is not easy, a fact which is seen in the different choices of the following
10 translations:



NWT     past  2-20,  present 23-42, fut  43
NRSV    past  2-30,  present 33-42
NAB     past 1-42,   present 43
ASV     past 1-16,   present 17-42, fut 43
NASB    past 1-30,   present 33-43
NIV     past 1-41,  present  42-43
NJB     past 1-36,  present  37-43
NKJV    past 1-20       , present  23-43, fut 43
RSV     past 1-30,  present  33-43
TEV          past 1-41,  present  42-43


The most natural thing would be for all the verbs in each part to have the
same time setting (past, present or future), and this is the way most of
the above translations take the text. This, however, is at odds with
traditional grammar. We find the following verb forms in each part:

PART 1,  v 2-7:     QATAL 4, WAYYIQTOL 2, YIQTOL  3
PART 2.  v 9-14 :  QATAL 5, WAYYIQTOL 2, YIQTOL 3
PART 3.  v 16-20: QATAL 2, WAYYIQTOL 2, YIQTOL 4, WEYIQTOL 2
PART 4.  v 23-30: QATAL 1, WAYYIQTOL 7, YIQTOL 8, WEYIQTOL 1
PART 5.  v 33-43: QATAL 1, WAYYIQTOL 12,YIQTOL 4, WEYIQTOL 3

COMMENTS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF STANDARD GRAMMAR:

The verbs of part 1 and 2 create little problem. The 9 QATALS and 4
WAYYIQTOLS suggest that the setting is past. At least the five last
occurrences of the 6 YIQTALS are somewhat anomalous in a past context, but
they do not constitute a great problem. All the versions use a past setting
for these two parts.

Coming to part 3, the picture is more complicated. There are 2 QATALS and 2
WAYYIQTOLS which clearly suggest past time, but at the same time are there
4 YIQTOLS and 2 WEYIQTOLS , which just as strongly suggest present or
future time. 9 of the 10 translations,  uses a past setting for this part.
Regarding the two WEYIQTOLS of verse 20 ("heal" and "deliver/escape) all
translations save ASV use past tense.

Three translations takes part 4 as present, NWT, ASV, and NKJV, while the
rest keep on the past setting. The 1 QATAL and 7 WAYYIQTOLS of this section
would suggest past time, while the 8 YIQTOLS and the one WEYIQTOL suggest
present or future time.

Seven versions use a present setting for part 5, NWT, NRSV,ASV, NASB,NKJ,
and RSV, one version, NJB, takes vv 37-43 as present, and two versions, NIV
and TEV takes vv 42 and 43 as present, and only NAB views the whole Psalm
as having a past setting. The 1 QATAL and the 12 WAYYIQTOLS would suggest
past time, and the 4 YIQTOLS and the 3 WEYIQTOLS would suggest present or
future time.
It is quite interesting that the WAYYIQTOLS "dwell" and "establish" of v
36, "plant", "sow", and "make fruit" of v 37, "bless" and "become many" of
v 38, "wander" of v 40, and "set" and "place of v 41 by the 7 versions
using a present setting are translated by present tense. This flies in the
face of both the leading views of the traditional grammar, that wayyiqtol
is a preterite, or that it is the perfective aspect! It is also strange
that the same seven versions, save NWT, translates the two WAYYIQTOLS
"become few" and "bring low" of v 39 by past or perfect tense.

 There can be no doubt that this Psalm is very difficult, if not impossible
to reconcile with the traditional four-component model . Using a past tense
setting for the whole Psalm as does NAB, implies that 22 YIQTOLS and 6
WEYIQTOLS must be translated by past tense, and this is inconsistent, to
say the least. Using the present tense setting for part 4 and 5, or just
part 5, implies the translation of 19 and 12 WAYYIQTOLS  respectively with
present tense, and this is even more inconsistent. Taken at face value,
this psalm suggests that there is no difference as to tense and aspect
between YIQTOL and WAYYIQTOL.


Regards
Rolf

Rolf Furuli
Lecturer in Semitic languages
Univeristy of Oslo