Ezekiel 36:26 tenses

[Michael W Abernathy]

וְנָתַתִּ֤י לָכֶם֙ לֵ֣ב חָדָ֔שׁ וְר֥וּחַ חֲדָשָׁ֖ה אֶתֵּ֣ן בְּקִרְבְּכֶ֑ם וַהֲסִ֨רֹתִ֜י אֶת־לֵ֤ב הָאֶ֨בֶן֙ מִבְּשַׂרְכֶ֔ם וְנָתַתִּ֥י לָכֶ֖ם לֵ֥ב בָּשָֽׂר׃
I was looking at Ezekiel 36:26 and I noted that most translations give the same meaning to וְנָתַתִּ֤י and אֶתֵּ֣ן. While I understand why they are both translated “I will give,” אֶתֵּ֣ן stands out as the only imperfect in the passage. Was this just a stylistic choice or is there a different connotation?

[Jason Hare]

This form is extremely common. It's vav-consecutive with perfect (what Cook and Holmstedt would term the irreal perfect). It has to do with the word order in the phrases.

וְנָתַתִּ֤י לָכֶם֙ לֵ֣ב חָדָ֔שׁ - vav+verb i.o. d.o.
וְר֥וּחַ חֲדָשָׁ֖ה אֶתֵּ֣ן בְּקִרְבְּכֶ֑ם - d.o. verb p.p.
וַהֲסִ֨רֹתִ֜י אֶת־לֵ֤ב הָאֶ֨בֶן֙ מִבְּשַׂרְכֶ֔ם - vav+verb d.o. p.p.
וְנָתַתִּ֥י לָכֶ֖ם לֵ֥ב בָּשָֽׂר׃ - vav+verb i.o. d.o.

Since the passage is speaking of the future, when the verb appears in first position connected to vav, it is in the perfect. If the direct object is fronted (for chiasm or for topic/focus), the verb is imperfect. These are the only two cases we have here in this passage, and the verbs are doing exactly what we would expect them to do.

[Michael W Abernathy]

Thanks. I did not realize that the word order would change what tense would be used.

[Jonathan Beck]

This form is extremely common. It's vav-consecutive with perfect (what Cook and Holmstedt would term the irreal perfect). It has to do with the word order in the phrases.

Hey, Jason's stealing my gimmick! LOL.

[Jonathan Beck]

Thanks. I did not realize that the word order would change what tense would be used.

Technically, what they call the irreal perfect isn't a tense, it's a mood. The idea that the vav converts the tense from past to future is antiquated and, arguably, wrong.

Jonathan

[Jason Hare]

Thanks. I did not realize that the word order would change what tense would be used.

Technically, what they call the irreal perfect isn't a tense, it's a mood. The idea that the vav converts the tense from past to future is antiquated and, arguably, wrong.

Jonathan

So, you'd argue that it represents a shift in mood, not in tense?

[Jonathan Beck]

So, you'd argue that it represents a shift in mood, not in tense?

Correct.

[Isaac Fried]

Ezekiel 36:26-27
וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם לֵב חָדָשׁ וְרוּחַ חֲדָשָׁה אֶתֵּן בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת לֵב הָאֶבֶן מִבְּשַׂרְכֶם וְנָתַתִּי לָכֶם לֵב בָּשָׂר וְאֶת רוּחִי אֶתֵּן בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וְעָשִׂיתִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר בְּחֻקַּי תֵּלֵכוּ וּמִשְׁפָּטַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם
KJV: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them"
All still waiting to transpire.

Isaac Fried, Boston University
www.hebrewetymology.com