¹ tn The Hebrew verb (פָּתְחָה, pat^ekhah) is the perfect form of a dynamic verb and should be understood as past tense or perfective. Most of the Hebrew perfect verbs in this description of the wife have been translated as simple past tense because in this portrait her actions are examples that typify her character whether she did then often or rarely. For example, although this woman bought a field (vs 16), that does not mean that she regularly traded in real estate or even that she bought more than one field in her lifetime. However it would be outside the character developed in this portrait to think that she only once said something wise. The Hebrew verbal construction is not specifically modal (“would open her mouth with wisdom”). However the word picture of opening the mouth is one that pictures the start of an activity that continues. For example in Ps 109:2, when the Psalmist complains that the wicked have opened (Hebrew perfect of פָּתַח, patakh) their mouth with deceit, he does not mean that they told only one lie. The opened mouth pictures talking, in contrast to the closed mouth which pictures silence (cf. Isa 53:7).

² tn The imperfect verb (תִירָא, tiraʾ) is used in its past habitual sense. The verbs describing the woman from verses 12-29 include 19 perfects and 9 preterites which describe actions with past time references. Thus the four imperfect verbs that describe her (vv. 14, 18, 21, 27) should be understood as modal and operating in a past time frame.

³ tn The imperfect verb (תָּבִיא, taviʾ) is used in its past habitual sense. The verbs describing the woman from verses 12-29 include 19 perfects and 9 preterites which describe actions with past time references. Thus the four imperfect verbs that describe her (vv. 14, 18, 21, 27) should be understood as modal and operating in a past time frame.

¹ tn The passage begins a description of the woman given in the past tense, predominantly with perfect verbs (past tense or perfective for dynamic roots) and preterite verbs (past tense). The few participles and imperfect verbs (here past habitual) derive their time frame from context and are also past time. Most translations have rendered all the descriptions of the woman in the present tense, perhaps out of the habit of changing the Hebrew past tense verbs to present tense in English in the short proverbial sayings. (Most English proverbs are in the present tense, some in the future, the fewest in the past, e.g. “curiosity killed the cat.”) The Hebrew verb forms were considered to have a present tense in proverbial sayings, but proverbial sayings do not need to be in the present tense and the understanding of the Hebrew forms has been corrected (M. Rogland, Alleged Non-Past Uses of Qatal in Classical Hebrew [Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2003]; J. Cook, “Genericity, Tense, and Verbal Patterns in the Sentence Literature of Proverbs” in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients, ed. Ronald Troxel [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005]; B. Webster “The Perfect Verb and the Perfect Woman in Proverbs” in Windows to the Ancient World of the Hebrew Bible, ed. B. Arnold, N. Erickson, J. Walton [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014]).

¹ tn The form of the verb is a Niphal perfect tense with a vav consecutive from the root כָּזַב (kazav, “to lie”). In this stem it has the ideas of “been made deceptive,” or “shown to be false” or “proved to be a liar.” One who adds to or changes the word of the Lord will be seen as a liar.

² tn The verb אָמַר (ʾamar) can mean “to say” or “to think.” The proverb uses the Hebrew perfect form of the verb for the past tense, giving the reason the sluggard is still in the house rather than out working. It is an example of the sorts of excuses he has made.

¹ tn Most translations render the verse as a question (“Have you seen…?” so KJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman) while sometimes this construction is turned into a conditional sentence. But the Hebrew has a perfect verb form (רָאִיתָ; raʾita), expecting past time, without an interrogative or conditional marker. See the note at Prov 26:16.

¹ tn The verb אָמַר (ʾamar) can mean “to say” or “to think.” The proverb uses the Hebrew perfect form of the verb for the past tense, giving the reason the sluggard is still in the house rather than out working. It is an example of the sorts of excuses he has made.

¹ tn This proverb uses the perfect verb form in the first colon and the preterite form in the second colon. These are past time references. The proverb portrays something which has happened as prototypical, as in the English proverb “curiosity killed the cat.” That wisdom can prevail over brute strength or difficult odds is not an abstract concept but a proven fact.

⁴ tc The Kethib is the imperfect יָבֹא (yavoʾ), “his opponent comes and….” The Qere is the conjunction with the participle/perfect tense form וּבָא (uvaʾ), “[but] then his opponent comes and….” The latter is reflected in most of the ancient versions. There is not an appreciable difference in the translation.

¹ tn Or “have taken possession of.” The verb נָחֲלוּ (nakhalu) is a Qal perfect form of נָחַל (nakhal) “to inherit, to take possession, to maintain as a possession.” The tense of the translation depends on whether the verb is stative or dynamic. Morphologically it is ambiguous. Based on its lexical meaning, it appears to be a dynamic verb, though it does not occur enough times in the Qal to be certain based on its usage. (All other perfect forms are past and all its imperfect forms could be future. However, Ps 82:8 and Prov 3:35; 11:29; 28:10 could be cases of the present and these all use the imperfect, as dynamic verbs can for present tense.) As a dynamic verb, its perfect form should be understood as past time or perfective. As such the antithetic parallelism of the verse contrasts the verb tenses as well as the subjects and results. The naive have gotten folly and continue in it (unless they change). But the prudent are in a process of putting on knowledge in which they will be crowned with it. If the root is stative it could be understood as present, “The naive inherit folly.”

² tn The perfect tense verb in the first colon and the imperfect verb in the second colon accent the antithetic parallelism. The verse contrasts Lady Wisdom and Lady Folly by painting the picture of what Wisdom has done (and by implication still benefits from) in contrast to what Folly keeps doing (to her own detriment).

³ tc The form is a Kethib/Qere reading. The Qere, יְשָׁדֵּם (y^eshoddem), is a Qal imperfect of שָׁדַד (shadad, “to devastate”) and is supported by the versions. The syntactically difficult Kethib, וְשַׁדָּם (v^eshaddam), is a Qal perfect consecutive prefixed with the conjunction vav.

³ tn The Hebrew switches to the perfect verb form to introduce the speech in the following verses. It lets us know what her message has been. It is possible that the imperfect verb in the previous verse should be understood as a past habitual, “she would call” or as a preterite (without the vav consecutive), “she called.”

³ tc The LXX supports the reading of the verb as a perfect. But at the similar construction in 9:16, the LXX reads a participle, which would be present time. The consonants are the same for both forms. It is possible that the verb should be read as a participle in both verses. The present tense could certainly fit the context.

² tn Heb “is found out.” The perfect tense with the vav (ו) consecutive may continue or advance from a previous verb’s framework. Here it advances from “steals” in 6:30 and serves as the condition for the following imperfect verb.

³ tn The verb is an imperfect, either present or future, saying what they do or forecasting what they will do. Being paired with a perfect verb in the beginning of the verse, the description combines their past pattern with what they continue to do.

² tn Heb “in the tracks of uprightness”; cf. NAB “on straightforward paths.” Both the verb and the object of the preposition make use of the idiom—the verb is the Hiphil perfect from דֶּרֶךְ (derekh, related to “road; way”) and the object is “wagon tracks, paths.”

³ tn The verb is a prefixed form and follows three perfect verbs describing past time events. The form may be understood as an archaic preterite (which normally begins with a waw consecutive). In that case it is simple past time. Or it may be taken as an imperfect to show result, “so that the clouds drip down dew.”

¹ tn Heb “to you I cover,” which makes no sense. The translation assumes an emendation to נַסְתִּי (nasti, “I flee,” a Qal perfect, first singular form from נוּס, nos). Confusion of כ (kaf) and נ (nun) is attested elsewhere (see P. K. McCarter, Textual Criticism [GBS], 48). The collocation of נוּס (“flee”) with אֶל (ʾel, “to”) is well-attested.