Michel's Theory and Proverbs 1:22

Proverbs 1:22 provides a helpful example of Michel's theory at work at a spot in the text where the syntax is somewhat difficult at first glance and without the aid of Michel's theory. The verse opens with an interrogative addressed to the naive (How long, oh naive ones, must you love naivete?). The Yiqtol here is likely what Michel would call a substantial kind of modal where the action happens by necessity from the nature of the acting subject. Since the subjects are "naive" they naturally love naivete. Then a waw + X + Qatal with an inverted subject follows. At first this seems like an inexplicable switch of verbal forms. One would expect the action in 22b to continue with a modal/substantial Yiqtol, but not if one recalls Michel's theory on the reason for attaching a Qatal clause to a Yiqtol. He writes, "If a Qatal connects syndetically or asyndetically to a participle or a Yiqtol it does not continue these, but presents an explanatory fact beside it."

The Qatal in Proverbs 1:22b seems to be doing exactly that. "How long, Oh naive ones, must you love naivete, that is, how long will scoffers desire scoffing..." The "naive" and the "scoffers" are not two different groups, nor are "loving naivete" and "desiring scoffing" two separate actions. The second set of actors and actions explains more clearly what is meant by the first.

In 22c the author switches back to a substantial Yiqtol because a new action is added, namely, hating knowledge. Thus, Michel's theory helps make sense of a difficult piece of Hebrew syntax.

Michel's theory in action in prose

Michel's study of the verb in poetry was an attempt to describe the function of the tenses in prose as well by testing it in a genre, i.e. poetry, where the function of the tenses could not be obscured by the fact that they primarily refer to events in one time stage--like when in narrative mainly past events are in view. I want to show you two examples of how I think his theory does help explain the verb in narrative as well--at least narrative speech.

In Gen 43:9 Judah pledges himself as security for Benjamin with yiqtols then he switches to weqatals to explain exactly what he means by his pledge. There is no time reference difference between the forms. Both are future here. The weqatals do not add information. They explain the preceding yiqtols--just like Michel's theory teaches.

The same thing happens again in 43:14. Jacob expresses a desire that the man (Joseph) have mercy on the brothers with a yiqtol then he explains what having mercy would look like, i.e. may he set your other brother and Benjamin free. So the weqatal also expresses desire here. So the difference between these verbal forms is not one of tense or mood.

On the Biblical Hebrew Verbal System

For those of you following along with me in your Hebrew Bibles I offer my understanding of the verbal system which shall inform my reading of the text throughout. It is merely a summary of Diethelm Michel's fine work Tempora und Satzstellung in dem Psalmen.

1. The Qtl is selected for the rendering of an action, if it is considered as self-important, as absolute. Thus it stresses the factuality of an event. With reference to the acting subject, it describes an accidental action.

2. The Yqtl is selected for the rendering of an action, if this action receives its significance from something which lies outside the action itself. Thus it is dependent. Such things which lie outside the action itself can be.
a. an action progression in which the action describes a resulting link (result, purpose, iterative use, etc),
b. the general situation (modal use), or
c. the nature of the acting person (substantial use), and
d. the intention of the speaker (expression of desire).
e. In case "a", if an action is described explicitly as a "result" then the Wyyqtl is used.