נִשְׁקָֽף in Psalm 85.11: why translated as imperfect?

[kwrandolph]

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

Andrew

We need to look at the different uses of the Yiqtol and Qatal, then choose from these what fits the context best. What follows below deals only with the Qatal and Yiqtol as verbs, not participles/nouns.

Qatal: indicative action. In sentences with more than one verb, it’s found as the opening verb, leading off the section, or as an indicator of change in subject. It is sometimes used as a reason for, or conclusion of another idea.

Yiqtol has a few uses:
• possibly the most common, indicative action. But this use indicates a continuation of an indicative idea expressed by a Qatal verb.
• Next most common use is as a subjunctive—“should”. This is the most common when starting off with a Yiqtol.
• Express intent
• Express hoped for
• Express expectation

But is נשקף a verb? “‎נשקף (place that’s) overlooking (another place) Nu 21:20, 23:28, 1S 13:18”

Karl W. Randolph.

[Isaac Fried]

We read in 1Sam. 13:18
הַגְּבוּל הַנִּשְׁקָף עַל גֵּי הַצְּבֹעִים הַמִּדְבָּרָה
KJV: "the border that looketh to the valley of Zeboim toward the wilderness"
NIV: "the borderland overlooking the Valley of Zeboyim facing the wilderness"
and there are two words in this verse that draws our attention. The first being הַנִּשְׁקָף = היא-נשקף where הַנִּשְׁקָף is in my opinion but הַנִּזְקָף, 'the rising, the jutting out, the erect'. Whatever towers over the surrounding area is also distinctly seen from the area around it, and, one standing on top of this high cliff is provided, in return, with a good view of its surroundings.
The second word being הַגְּבוּל = היא-גבוּל from the root גבל, also meaning a high ground, that marks a border.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[Jason Hare]

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

This remains a question to be answered sensibly. I would love for someone who has looked into Hebrew form versus semantic force to give some response here.

Anyone?

[Jason Hare]

I will add, though, that the choice between qatal and yiqtol isn't really a "beginner" question.
This befuddles even the most experienced in reading the Hebrew Bible.

[Jason Hare]

Also, be aware that the form נִשְׁקָף could be either a perfect (in pause, as opposed to נִשְׁקַף) or a participle. It isn't necessarily a perfect form.

[Andrew Chapman]

Thanks all, just found the further responses (have now ticked some extra boxes in notification preferences which hopefully will do it).

Psalm 111.5:

טֶ֭רֶף נָתַ֣ן לִֽירֵאָ֑יו יִזְכֹּ֖ר לְעֹולָ֣ם בְּרִיתֹֽו

He has given food to those who fear Him, He remembers/will remember His covenant for ever.

But ESV, RSV, NIV etc translate both נָתַ֣ן and יִזְכֹּ֖ר with a present continuous.

I just wonder whether it could possibly be a failure of imagination on the part of the translators, feeling that both parts of the verse need to have the same tense and aspect?

Surely the author could well be looking back and drawing conclusions for the future? For myself I like the contrast, with the second clause as a kind of response to the first.

[Schubert]

If one focuses on the verb morphology as strictly a temporal issue in Psalm 111:5, would a very literal translation be "he feeds those who fear him and will remember his covenant forever."?

I'm one of those who is not at home with the sometimes diverse understandings of verbal aspect but wonder whether aspect has any relevance here?

[Jason Hare]

I'd just say that the text is not talking about a specific instance of provision of sustenance to those who fear God, but it's a gnomic statement. The author is saying that this is a characteristic, or attribute, of God as a provider to those who have the right attitude toward him. It is for that reason, it seems to me, that it is rendered in the present, which is what we use for such gnomic statements in English.

Greek often utilizes the present, the future, or even the aorist for gnomics, and it certainly isn't placing them within a given time. It's the nature of the type of statement, not the action in view. We shouldn't be surprised to find the perfect and imperfect used interchangeably with gnomic statements. I remember such a case where שָׁפַט and יִשְׁפֹּט are used back-to-back speaking of God's judgment of the earth, but I can't seem to locate them just yet. I'll keep looking and get back to you.

[Jonathan Beck]

I actually think there is a definitive answer for this one. From Waltke's reference grammar:

"Hebrew may use its perfective (perfect) form with the same, present/habitual significance ("the gnomic perfective"):

וְתֹ֤ר וְסִו֯ס֮ וְעָג֗וּר שָׁמְר֖וּ אֶת־עֵ֣ת בֹּאָ֑נָה(Jer 8:7)

"The dove and the bull observe the time of their migration.

So, it's not a continuuous action. However, there is this...

"Hebrew may use its perfective (perfect) form for a present situation in which a speaker resolves on a future action (hence, "perfective of resolve") (Waltke et. al 485 s. 30.4).

Hope this helps a little. So, in short, there is a "gnomic perfect" where a perfect can be translated with a future sense.

Also, the perfect/imperfect can be translated the other way around if it's within dialogue.

Hope this helps a little.

Jonathan

[Andrew Chapman]

Thanks all, that brings me back to the question I asked (now reversed) about Psalm 85.11 - what does the change from Qatal to Yiqtol signify (here in 111.5) - or are they just used 'interchangeably' as Jason puts it?

ASV 'He hath given'; HCSB 'He has provided'; NASB 'He has given'; NKJV 'He has given' etc. Why the change? Does the current generation of scholars understand something that their predecessors did not?