B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Looking at Exodus 33:19, I’m trying to decide what the relative importance to give to the perfect and imperfect tenses.
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֲנִ֨י אַעֲבִ֤יר כָּל־טוּבִי֙ עַל־פָּנֶ֔יךָ וְקָרָ֧אתִֽי בְשֵׁ֛ם יְהוָ֖ה לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְחַנֹּתִי֙ אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָחֹ֔ן וְרִחַמְתִּ֖י אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲרַחֵֽם׃
It looks like most of the translators interpret the perfect verbs as waw consecutive something like:
And He said, “I Myself will cause all my goodness to pass over before your face and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before your face and I will show grace to whomever I will show grace and I will show compassion to whomever I will show compassion.
The English translation does not demonstrate any difference in the force of the two verb forms. However the translators of the Septuagint did make a distinction by translating the future as a present subjunctive.
19 καὶ εἶπεν Ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου καὶ καλέσω ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου Κύριος ἐναντίον σου, καὶ ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω.
And He said, “I Myself will pass my glory before you and I will call my name LORD before you, and I will show mercy to whomever I may be showing mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I may be showing compassion.”
I think Rashi was trying to convey the same feeling as the subjunctive in his translation:
He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."
My feeling is that the use of both the perfect and the imperfect carries two ideas: first, God chooses who will receive his favor and second, God will continually show mercy and compassion.
Am I on track? Or am I trying to pull too much out of the text?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Michael W Abernathy wrote:Looking at Exodus 33:19, I’m trying to decide what the relative importance to give to the perfect and imperfect tenses.

First of all, Biblical Hebrew had no tenses. The Piel and Pual may have indicated the imperfective aspect, other than that, Biblical Hebrew had no aspect either. Where time is important, it is indicated by other means.

Michael W Abernathy wrote: וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֲנִ֨י אַעֲבִ֤יר כָּל־טוּבִי֙ עַל־פָּנֶ֔יךָ וְקָרָ֧אתִֽי בְשֵׁ֛ם יְהוָ֖ה לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְחַנֹּתִי֙ אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָחֹ֔ן וְרִחַמְתִּ֖י אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲרַחֵֽם׃
It looks like most of the translators interpret the perfect verbs as waw consecutive something like:
And He said, “I Myself will cause all my goodness to pass over before your face and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before your face and I will show grace to whomever I will show grace and I will show compassion to whomever I will show compassion.
The English translation does not demonstrate any difference in the force of the two verb forms.

I can only speculate as to why the translators didn’t make any difference, but with the tradition that Biblical Hebrew conjugated for time, connected with the “waw-con-messup” made all verbs “future”.

That’s what I was taught when I studied Biblical Hebrew, and my understanding is that that’s what many professors still think, so for translators to translate it that way makes sense — except it’s wrong.

Michael W Abernathy wrote: However the translators of the Septuagint did make a distinction by translating the future as a present subjunctive.
19 καὶ εἶπεν Ἐγὼ παρελεύσομαι πρότερός σου τῇ δόξῃ μου καὶ καλέσω ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου Κύριος ἐναντίον σου, καὶ ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω.
And He said, “I Myself will pass my glory before you and I will call my name LORD before you, and I will show mercy to whomever I may be showing mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I may be showing compassion.”

Well, that’s closer.

Michael W Abernathy wrote:I think Rashi was trying to convey the same feeling as the subjunctive in his translation:
He said: "I will let all My goodness pass before you; I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you, and I will favor when I wish to favor, and I will have compassion when I wish to have compassion."
My feeling is that the use of both the perfect and the imperfect carries two ideas: first, God chooses who will receive his favor and second, God will continually show mercy and compassion.
Am I on track? Or am I trying to pull too much out of the text?
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

No, I don’t think you’re trying to pull too much out of the text. We need to look at the grammar, just what are the uses of the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations?

I still have some questions concerning the Qatal conjugation, though most often it seems to indicate the indicative use.

The Yiqtol, on the other hand, has several uses that I’ve recognized—when it has the indicative use, it is used as a secondary role or as a continuation of what went on before. Other times it stands as the primary verb in a sentence, in which case it indicates the subjunctive, sometimes taken as a strong subjunctive (“You really should do that, or else….”), tending towards (where things are headed), possibility, expectation, and, in the context of this question, intent.

With the exception of the first Yiqtol “and he said”, all the others seem to have the force of intent “I plan to…”

Well, so far for my 2¢. Does anyone have anything to add?

Karl W. Randolph.

kwrandolph wrote: Well, so far for my 2¢. Does anyone have anything to add?

Michael W Abernathy wrote:Looking at Exodus 33:19, I’m trying to decide what the relative importance to give to the perfect and imperfect tenses.
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר אֲנִ֨י אַעֲבִ֤יר כָּל־טוּבִי֙ עַל־פָּנֶ֔יךָ וְקָרָ֧אתִֽי בְשֵׁ֛ם יְהוָ֖ה לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְחַנֹּתִי֙ אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָחֹ֔ן וְרִחַמְתִּ֖י אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲרַחֵֽם׃
...My feeling is that the use of both the perfect and the imperfect carries two ideas: first, God chooses who will receive his favor and second, God will continually show mercy and compassion.
Am I on track? Or am I trying to pull too much out of the text?

Just my two cents, since you asked. You are indeed pulling too much out. I don't see anything in the conjugations to suggest that the mercy will be (or will not be) continual. Just my two cents.

Mark,
I interpreted the display of grace and compassion as continual for two reasons. First, the imperfect often conveys repeated or habitual action. Second, in this passage God is declaring His name. I understand this to mean that it is God’s nature to show grace and compassion. To me that implies continual action. Having said that I would not argue with you. I am also comfortable with the idea that the imperfect should be read as a simple future.
Sincerely,
Michael Abernathy

Mark Lightman wrote: Just my two cents, since you asked. You are indeed pulling too much out. I don't see anything in the conjugations to suggest that the mercy will be (or will not be) continual. Just my two cents.

Michael W Abernathy wrote:First, the imperfect often conveys repeated or habitual action.

Look at the verse—in the first half, the verbs are all perfective aspect, in that they recount a one time event. In the second half, the verbs are all imperfective aspect in that they describe God’s continual or repeated actions. In both halves, there’s a mixture of Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations. Both Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations refer to both perfective aspect (one time events) and imperfective aspect (continuous and/or repeated actions). This is one more example of how the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugations don’t indicate aspect.

Therefore, calling these conjugations “perfect” and “imperfect” aspects is wrong. They’re also not future and past tenses. That’s why I call these conjugations “Qatal“ and “Yiqtol”.

My first message on this topic gives uses I’ve found for the Yiqtol conjugation.

Another 2¢.

Karl W. Randolph.