B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

אֱ֭מֶת מֵאֶ֣רֶץ תִּצְמָ֑ח וְ֝צֶ֗דֶק מִשָּׁמַ֥יִם נִשְׁקָֽף

Why is נִשְׁקָֽף usually translated as an imperfect rather than the perfect I think it is?

Thanks, Andrew

‎ נָשָֽׁקוּ is perfect and is translated as past or past perfect by many: Dby, YLT, LXX, KJV, NKJV, NAS, CJB, JPS, Berkeley, Goldingay, Stone Tanach.
Leupold, ESV, CSB, NET, NIV, LEE translate it as present or future.

I think vv11 (10) is what is sometimes called prophetic past. v10 (9) prays that in our land may dwell glory, and then the following verses, vv11-14 (10-13) describe what glory in our land looks like, some of it in perfect as though it were already accomplished, or referring back to past revivals in vv 2-4 (1-3).

It is interesting that some of vv11-14 is perfect, and some imperfect.

Thanks, Steve, but I was asking about נִשְׁקָֽף in the following verse, which I now remember - sorry my fault - is verse 12 in the Hebrew text.

Thanks Andrew. I should have checked the next verse.

I see, very few translate it as perfect: LXX, JPS 1917, Goldingay and Psalms Targum are the only ones that I see.
Even the very literal Stone Tanach translates it as future.

The verb could be taken as the masculine singular niphal participle, and thus translated as present as done by YLT, ESV, NAS, CJB, NIV, JPS 1985, Berkely.

A few that translated the perfect ‎ נָשָֽׁקוּ in v11 (10) as past, translate the perfect ‎ נִשְׁקָֽף in v12 (11) as future: Dby, KJV, NKJV, Stone Tanach.
Why the inconsistency? My guess is that they took the imperfect verb in 12a to override the perfect verb in 12b.
I don't agree with that, but I have no other explanation of why they did what they did.

Dear Andrew:

Welcome to the fog of our Biblical Hebrew knowledge. It is not as well known as many professors claim to know.

One of the professors on this list, Dr. Furuli, demonstrated in his PhD dissertation that Biblical Hebrew verbs don’t conjugate for tense. However, by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Hebrew used in the non-Biblical texts had basically the same tense system used in modern Israeli Hebrew. Hence, when you ask why a verb is translated as an imperfect, that is actually a wrong question. Biblical Hebrew didn’t have a perfect nor imperfect. Rather it has a Qatal and Yiqtol.

That the verbs didn’t conjugate for tense means that a Qatal can be used for past, present or future actions. Likewise, a Yiqtol can be used for past, present or future actions. The Wayyiqtol is just a Yiqtol preceded by a Waw. The Weqatal likewise is merely a Qatal preceded by a Waw.

Do the Qatal and Yiqtol conjugate for aspect? Well, using the definition of aspect that I was taught at the university, which is the same definition for aspect given at the SIL web site, the answer is “No”. Others have different definitions of aspect than what I was taught, so I won’t argue the point further.

According to a survey of recorded conversations in the narrative sections of the Bible dealing with actions that took place at the same time as the person spoke, the majority of present action utterances consist of subject-verb in Qatal-object.

To get back to your question, I read נשקף as an indicative, present action verb. Context tells us what tense to use when translating.

Karl W. Randolph.

Namely, in Ps. 85:12(11)
אֱמֶת מֵאֶרֶץ תִּצְמָח וְצֶדֶק מִשָּׁמַיִם נִשְׁקָף
KJV: "Truth shall spring out of the earth; and righteousness shall look down from heaven"
NIV: "Faithfulness springs forth from the earth, and righteousness looks down from heaven"
both תִּצְמָח = אתי-צמח and נִשְׁקָף = אני-שקף are perpetual.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

Thanks all. Karl and Isaac, what does the change from Yiqtol to Qatal signify, as you see it?

Andrew

As I see it the נִשְׁקָף = אני-שקף of ps. 85:11 is put in the apparently "נִפְעָל" form since it actually (physically, realistically) means נִזְקָף = אני-זקף, 'stretch itself up', to be clearly discerned.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

The verbal form employed is often a function of the specific nature of the Hebrew verb. There appears to be no נִצְמָח, a niphal form, of צמח, 'grow', in Hebrew, but נִשְׁקָף (so close to נִזְקָף, 'be in an upright position') may be but incidental to "see, watch", as in
Nu. 21:20
וּמִבָּמוֹת הַגַּיְא אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב רֹאשׁ הַפִּסְגָּה וְנִשְׁקָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן
NIV: "and from Bamoth to the valley in Moab where the top of Pisgah overlooks the wasteland"
KJV: " And from Bamoth in the valley, that is in the country of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looketh toward Jeshimon"
actually, "towering over the Yeshimon."

Isaac Fried, Boston University

A close relative of זקף and שקף is תקף, 'attack, assault, prevail, overpower', as in Koheleth 4:12
וְאִם יִתְקְפוֹ הָאֶחָד הַשְּׁנַיִם יַעַמְדוּ נֶגְדּ
KJV: "And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him"
NIV: "Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves"
of which also תַּקִּיף = תק-היא-ף, with the internal PP היא referring to the person having this property תקף as in Koheleth 6:10
לֹא יוּכַל לָדִין עִם שֶׁתַּקִּיף מִמֶּנּוּ
NIV: "no one can contend with someone who is stronger"
KJV: "neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he"
Here, שֶׁתַּקִּיף = זֶה-תקיף.

Isaac Fried, Boston University