Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Bryan Rocine" <brocine AT earthlink.net>]

Dear Rolf,

Of course, to produce an intelligible translation of the psalm in English we
will have to choose an Eng tense, and we will have to use it somewhat
consistently in our translation to maintain the coherence of the psalm.
Clearly, this will render impossible a correlation of one BH form with one
English tense.  In choosing a tense for translation I would prefer the Eng
present since the thrust of the psalm is expositotry rather than predictive,
but I would not insist on present for the translation.  I would say that
expository defaults for present.  The question then remains, what is the
distinction, if any, between the BH forms?  Preferring to see the prefixed
forms as expressing emerging action and the suffixed forms as expressing
attributions, I would explain their use in the verses you cite as follows:

I interpret v. 20 as a tri-colon, and although there is a progression from
colon to colon, I will call the cola essentially synonomous.  So the same
fact is presented first using the yiqtol and twice using the qatal.  All
three cola state the same truth, that the wicked perish.  The first colon,
using the yiqtol, expresses the fact vividly as a happening: "for the wicked
perish."  The second and third cola express the same truth as attributions,
and I would express the adjectival nature of the verb form in this case,
"they are consumed."  In using the two forms in reference to the one
proposition the writer uses what I call a verbal merismus.  He presents the
proposition from all viewpoints, so to speak, to creatively express the the
verity of the proposition.

v. 28  I am not sure whether to label this verse as one quatrain or two
bi-cola.  The second two cola develop an idea closely related to the first
two.  There is a sort of causal chain in the four cola, suggesting that
because YHVH loves judgment, He does not forsake His saints; and in turn,
they are kept, but the seed of the wicked are cut off.  Again, I am opting
for the present tense in translation.  The yiqtol is used to approriately
represent the happening which emerges from YHVH's loving judgment.  The
qatals appropriately represent the resultant condition of the saints and the
seed of the wicked respectively.

v. 38  verbal merismus again.  I would say that the existence of verbal
merismus is indeed evidence that we cannot view the BH verb forms as
referring to time in the same sense that we usually apply to tenses.

v. 40  I generally attribute wayyiqtols that show up in a non-past context
as making sequence explicit by virtue of their inherently perfective
meaning.  There is no doubt that inherently perfective forms do show up in
imperfective contexts in other languages to affirm sequence in the
situation.  So I would translate "Then YHVH helps them and delivers them..."
I cannot prove that the BH wayyiqtol is used to lend sequence to a
imperfective context using this verse.  I have to prove it elsewhere and
bring the understanding to this verse.

HTH and Shalom,
Bryan


B. M. Rocine
Associate Pastor
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206

(office) 315.437.6744
(home) 315.479.8267
----- Original Message -----
From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: Psalm 37

> To all:  Today we read from Psalm 37 in class. How will you explain the
two
> qatals of v 20, the two qatals of v 28, the two qatals of v 38, and the
two
> wayyiqtols of v 40, all with future or present/future meaning?
>
>
> Regards