Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Paul Zellmer <zellmer AT cag.pworld.net.ph>]

Rolf Furuli wrote:

> Given the principles behind your method your translation is systematic and
> sound. My question, however, is: Does the translation make sense, i.e. does
> it convey the true message to the reader?
>
> As far as I can see, you have translated all wayyiqtols and all qatals
> (except the one of v 14 which is rendered as perfect) by past tense. But do
> you think that "she" in v 10  refers to a particular woman? And do you
> think that the rest of the chapter refers to a particular woman? It seems
> to me that a hypothetical woman is portrayed - the good wife!  If this is
> true, will not your past tense mislead the readers to think that *a
> particular* woman is meant?

> Consider for instance vv 15,16: "And she *rose* (wayyiqtol) while it was
> yet night, And *provided* (wayyiqtol) food for her household and tasks for
> her maidens.  She *considered* (qatal) a field and *bought* (wayyiqtol) it,
> While with the fruit of her hands she *planted* (x-qatal) a vineyard". By
> using past tense in these verses the reader will definitely be led to
> believe that the author has particular past events in mind. The phrases
> "provide food", "consider a field", "buy a field" and "plant a vineyard"
> are all telic. And do not telic events described by simple past always
> refer to particular events in the past which where terminated?
>
> I took a look at the six first English translations on the Gramcord CD with
> the following results:
> Today's English Version, New International Version, New American Bible,
> Revised Standard Version,  New American Standard Bible, and  New Jerusalem
> Bible renders all the 15 qatals, 4 yiqtols, 9 wayyiqtols in vv 13-28 with
> present tense! An unanimous body of scholars thought this was the best way
> to describe a hypothetical good wife.
>

Rolf,

Are you not falling into a common translation fallacy here?  Just because 
common
English idiom uses the present tense to describe the hypothetical does not 
mean
that the Classical Hebrew language did it the same way.  Of course, if we are
attempting to come up with the "best" English translation, we must answer the
"hypothetical or literal" question, because English makes a surface
differentiation between the two.  But, if Hebrew does not, and if our attempt 
is
to try to come to the best understanding of the Hebrew form, then what is the
significance of the unanimity of the English translations?  If we can identify
why they translated this as present tense, and that reason lies in *English*
grammatical usage, it's of little value in understanding the *Hebrew* form.

Now, I personally *do* think that we are dealing with the hypothetic, but the
structure neither confirms or denies that.

Although we *do* have some verbal forms modified here by the poetic [acrostic]
structure, the poet here seems to be using many of the features of historical
narrative here.  Note, for example, the tendency to use the dreaded wayyiqtol
(vv 13, 15, 17, et. al.)  If that is the case, then the x-yiqtols and
participle, etc., should be viewed in the same light as they would be were we 
in
a story.  Whether the original readers actually placed these events in past 
time
is of little consequence here.  (Actually, I wonder if the original BH 
speakers
stayed consciously aware of the "pastness" in a well-told story.  Could it be
that they "got into the action" with the use of the (way)yiqtol, that the 
events
came to be "present time"?  I know that's what happens to me when I read a 
good
English story, which is normally written in present tense.)  The passage
actually is "timeless," but the structure must conform to the constraints of 
the
language.  So much of the information is presented using "background" forms,
forms which do not move along a storyline.

I am not attempting to address all, or even most, of the issues that you are
debating with this (and other) thread.  I wish to merely point out that the
discussion on "time and tenses" would probably be better served by trying to
limit the discussion to how these concepts are expressed (or not, as the case
may be) in the *Hebrew*.

Paul

--
Paul and Dee Zellmer, Jimmy Guingab, Geoffrey Beltran
Ibanag Translation Project
Cabagan, Philippines

zellmer AT faith.edu.ph