An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

in philosophical terms: the “perfectum” and “imperfectum” have an “accidental” and
“substantial” character, respectively:
The typical actions expressed by the perfecta designate facts, which a person does but can
also theoretically not do. The actions could be called typical to the extent that the person who
does them manifests his belonging to a certain type of individual. If the person acted
otherwise, he would exhibit himself as belonging to another type of individual. Accordingly,
the actions are not reported under the point of view that they proceed from a definite kind of
person, but that they make this kind of being first manifest. In short: the actions designated by
the perfectum[Page 473] with regard to the acting person have an accidental character.
On the other hand, the kind of tree in [Ps 1:]3 is established from what precedes: it is a matter
of a tree planted by streams of water. That this tree brings fruit in its season, that its leaves do
not wither are not actions which it can or cannot do; rather they result with necessity from the
character [Wesen] of the tree. In short: the actions designated by the imperfectum with regard
to the acting subject have a substantial character. 81
Michel attempts to validate this provisional distinction through a comprehensive
study of the Psalter. He summarizes his conclusions thus: “The criteria for the choice
of the tempus do not lie in the action itself (period of time, Aktionsart, or the like), but
in the relationship which the speaker wishes to see expressed.” 82
f Michel now studies yqtl forms in isolation. He commences his research with the view
that if qtl designates an independent fact, then yqtl must designate dependent actions.
He validates his view by examining yqtl forms with respect to (1) negative
consequences, the so-called poetic aorist, (2) corresponding occurrences—”where a
second action interprets the first,” (3) the modal use, (4) iterative use, (5) expressions
of request, and (6) conjunctions. Some of his results deserve mention. In connection
with “the socalled poetic aorist” he denies, against Stade, Bauer, Bergsträsser,
Gunkel, and others, that an ancient use of yqtl for past actions has survived in the
Psalter. For Michel no significant difference exists between the yqtl and wayyqtl—
both express a consequence:
Between the imperfectum [yqtl] and imperfectum consecutivum [wayyqtl] no distinction
exists with regard to their meaning…The two tempora are distinguished only by the fact that
with the so-called imperfectum consecutivum a closer connection is effected by the prefixed
*ןו. 83
With regard to modal use he argues that if an action occurs as a consequence of
the essence of the acting person or from the givenness of the situation, yqtl designates
a modal notion and in effect is “substantial.” “The expression ‘he does this’ is
independently important, but the expressions ‘he can, wants to, may,…’are
81 Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung, 110.
82 Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung, 127.
83 Michel, Tempora und Satzstellung, 132.