Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Hi Karl!

Sorry if I misread you there — my apologies for that.

I disagree that all the verbal conjugations state simple fact, though I know 
what it is you're getting at. Using an aspectual approach, I'd argue Qatal 
presents an action as an accomplished fact, and view it simply and 
concretely. This is quite different to Yiqtol, which has a more complex view 
and, therefore, a wider range of possible translations into English. The 
Yiqtol has no specific occurrence of an action in view. It either looks at 
things generally (e.g. gnomic present), as occurring many times (e.g. 
habitual past), or as not having occurred yet (e.g. future, subjunctive). The 
distinction I'm drawing here is not just that the verbs state something (of 
course they do!), but how they present the action (an aspectual question). 
Yiqtol verbs do not present an action as simple, concrete fact. Furthermore, 
Wayyiqtol is aspectually different to Qatal, in presenting an action as 
though it were happening 'live', thus producing a sense of momentum.

The continuation idea you raise is interesting. My instinct is to say that 
Weqatal should be used, since it's the continuation verb in Hebrew. However, 
how would we achieve that in this case without a wholesale rearrangement of 
the syntax and, therefore, a very different poetic structure? Yiqtol can 
often be used to indicate potential result or purpose, so that could provide 
some sense of logical continuation. But I don't think that makes much sense 
here in Ps 1.1. So how exactly are you seeing continuation with the Yiqtol 
happening in 1.2?


GEORGE ATHAS
Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia