Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Mohler <jonathan.mohler AT gmail.com>]

I have a few points of disagreement with Karl, Ruth and Rolf. I will treat the disagreements as they come up in my argument.  I do want to start by saying that I lean toward a tenseless position, at least, in this passage.

1. Prov. 31:1-31, as a whole, is gnomic.  the evidence here seems to indicate that the Qatal verb forms carry the mainline, and thus are the principal carriers of gnomicity.  In other words, the gnomicity is the overriding feature of each of these Qatal verb forms.  If these Qatals were coded to Tense, it would be irrelevant.  In fact, I see them, at least in this passage, as tenseless.  

2. The other verb forms then are off-line, in the sense that their role is not to carry the Aspect of gnomicity; instead, they seem to be mostly modal, again, tenseless.  To use Karl's language, when I read a passage of BH, I tend to feel a yiqtol and wayyiqtol as conveying mood, not tense.

Example: the first yiqtol is modal.  It is properly translated as "can find" not as "finds" or "will find."

3. Let me make a distinction.  The PASSAGE is tenseless.  I think this is where I depart from Rolf, maybe only in respect to how I see this passage.  Rolf, I don't see qatals and yiqtols as exchanging tenses at will (how I interpret you, please correct me if I'm off.)

Karl, I do not believe this particular passage is in the present tense.  The passage is aspective, not tensed (as in Ruth's "the early bird catches the worm."  

A native English speaker, slots the gnomic aspect with the Present form; in my judgment, that doesn't mean it is in the present tense.  It is simply CHARACTERISTIC or HABITUAL.  I think, Karl, I believe I am letting the text speak, as you suggest, and am not imposing an outside model, although I am influenced by Robert Longacre's Text-Linguistic/tagmemic approach.

4. It seems to me that the native BH speaker felt the sequential verb forms as modal, even though English versions flatten both verb forms to gnomic. Why? maybe the translators thought it seemed lighter and more accessible to the English ear.

Example:  "She looks (qatal) for wool and flax; and works (wayyiqtol) with her hands in delight." NASB v13

More in line with what a BH writer/speaker probably felt:

"She rises (aspect) also . . . that she may give (mood) food to her household"

5. The fronted wayyiqtol in verse 15 tells us that v14 and v15 are a unit

14  She is like merchant ships: she brings food from afar

15  She rises also while it is night 

And gives food to her household; 

And portions to her maidens

NASB

better:

she is like merchant ships: 

she brings (qatal/gnomic) food from afar

that she may rise (wayyiqtol/modal) while it is night

and give(wayyiqtol/modal) food to her household,

and portions to her maidens

6. Exegetically this model seems to be much more fruitful

Jonathan E Mohler

Graduate Student

Baptist Bible Theological Seminary

Springfield, MO