John Hobbins and I have been discussing Habakkuk 3 a bit via email, and he encouraged me to bring the discussion to my blog.
I’m currently working on the grammar of Habakkuk 3 for a class this semester. Any chance to learn more about Hebrew grammar is well worth taking, and Habakkuk 3 just makes things that much more enjoyable. One of the first things that pops out about the grammar in Hab 3 is that scholars don’t particularly agree on how to render the verbs. Below, I outline the three ways I’ve noticed scholars rendering the verbs in Habakkuk 3:
1. Some scholars render the yiqtol forms as present-future and the qatal forms as past. (e.g., J.J.M. Roberts, Sinker). In Roberts’ case, at least, this is because he views the poem in Hab 3 as a visionary experience of the prophet. However, he does not elaborate on why he has chosen present-future and past. It could be that he is trying to bring out the aspect of the verbs by using these English tenses (understandable), it could also be that he views Hebrew as tense-prominent. I’d disagree, but an aspect-prominent view of the language could produce a nearly identical translation.
2. Other scholars analyze the yiqtol forms in Hab 3 as short-form preterits (e.g., Hiebert, Robertson, Andersen). That is okay, but I think it is far from certain that the context requires such an explanation. Basically, the scholars who take this view are following Robertson, and I’m just not convinced that his arguments are strong enough to support this understanding of the forms in Hab 3. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, however.
3. The final way in which scholars understand the verbs in Habakkuk 3 is disappointing, to say the least. Some scholars simply flatten all the forms (yiqtol, qatal and wayyiqtol) into English present tense forms (e.g., Smith, O. Palmer Robertson, Haak). Now, it may be that the scholars who do so feel that there is some interplay between aspect in Hebrew that simply cannot be brought into English. However, none of the authors mentioned above discuss their reasons for translating the forms in this way. My reaction is to say that this option really ought to be avoided, as it’s no option at all.
So, those are the three ways I’ve noticed scholars handling the forms in Habakkuk 3. Have I missed anything? Perhaps someone out there would like to argue for one of the above three? I don’t personally find any of them entirely convincing. I’d rather posit some kind of interplay between unbounded action (yiqtol) on the one hand and bounded action (qatal) on the other. How this would be represented in English is, of course, difficult. The idea is also still somewhat nebulous in my mind.
Basically, I’m proposing wildly speculating that there is some interplay between imperfective and perfective aspect in the Hebrew. Perhaps the imperfective action simply paints somewhat broader strokes and the perfective action views smaller, particular instances? Alternatively it may be that the poet intends an interplay between the qatal and yiqtol forms that, in English, would require a vast array of constructions to represent–thus they could not adequately be represented by a simple 1:1 correlation of verbal forms. In either case it may be that all the verbs have the same time reference, but the aspect is what differs.
I’m very interested to hear what thoughts others might have on this topic.
I’m of the opinion that, in the Psalms (i.e. poetic texts; whether this works in expository discourse), aktionsart + aspect + parallelism leads to translating fientive perfectives with English present tense. See B. Webster’s section on poetry in Cambridge Intro to BH.
Seems to me that the inherent or lexical aspect of the verbs has to be taken into account as well as the grammatically marked opposition between “imperfect” and “perfect.” Also here as elsewhere some seeming “perfects” have to be considered as “converted” (modal/ imperfective) even in the absence of a preceding waw.
Jay, I’ll have to check out Webster’s comments. Thanks.
Dr. Cook, I’m interested in what qatals you would consider “converted” in Hab 3. I’m not saying that couldn’t be the case, I’m just not sure I’ve noticed any instances in Hab 3 where I could say that one of the qatals would *have* to be considered “converted.”
I don’t want to shoot from the hip about this, not having spent enough time pondering this text. But at first glance 3:3 (kissah, mal’ah) seem like good candidates. It’s not a question of “have to,” but of what provides the best overall fit.
Just stumbled across this blog as I was doing a little bit of research for my masters thesis on Hab 3. I would speculate (hopefully not quite as wildly since graduation depends on it), that other factors shed much more light on topic than one may think. How much of the poem is borrowed, one section or two, ugaritic ties, and most importantly date of original composition are all questions that I think factor more into the discussion more than interplay between perfect and imperfect. I am however, in the very beginning stages or research and would love to know what you have found!
Jeff,
Certainly those other factors may shed light on this but ultimately we have painfully little evidence on which to build those theories. One might be able to tentatively date the poem, but to start building theories on that becomes tenuous, in my opinion. Of course, perhaps you have a new proposal for dating Hab 3 that I haven’t considered.
The other potential problem is that, even if large portions of the poem are borrowed from elsewhere (and I find that a feasible possibility), it still had to be understandable to whoever composed Habakkuk 3. In other words, the differing verbal forms needed to mean something–unless one argues that the verbal forms in classical Hebrew are undistinctive–to the original audience.
I’m in the midst of moving, but I hope to return to some posts on Habakkuk 3 in the near future. The grammar of the poem is very interesting, even apart from verbal forms. It is complex, but fits together in interesting ways.
Hey Calvin,
Sad to say I am still working on this (man how life can get in the way of school), and wondering if you had any luck with identifying reasons or just insights. I’d love to be able to take a look at some of your thoughts from the paper you were working on, or at least which authors you found most insightful.