² tn The verb אָשִׁית (ʾashit) is an imperfect form of a dynamic root in a past time setting. The previous verb, a preterite, is part of establishing the past time setting. Because this is a long prefixed form (spelled with the mater lectionis yod), it is not written as a preterite and should be understood as imperfective. Typically an imperfect in a narrative background clause is habitual (which could not work in this context) or past progressive. It may however be an abilitive modal expression “I was able to set my mind to it.” In either case this verb does not advance the timeline but expresses something happening while the sage scrutinized the field.

⁴ tn Heb “a rod is for the back of the one lacking heart.” The term שֵׁבֶט (shevet, “rod”) functions figuratively: synecdoche of specific (= rod of discipline) for general (= discipline in general). The term גֵּו (gev, “back”) is a synecdoche of part (= back) for the whole (= person as a whole). The back is emphasized because it was the object of physical corporeal discipline. This proverb is not limited in its application to physical corporeal punishment because the consequences of foolishness may come in many forms, physical corporeal discipline being only one form.

² tc The LXX reads “she exhorts saying” a present indicative plus a participle. This implies a verb missing in the Hebrew and reading the vav plus perfect verb וְאָמְרָה (v^eʾam^erah, “and has said”) as a participle וְאֹמְרָה (v^eʾom^erah, “and says”). The participle would be present time. The consonants are the same for both forms and the present tense could certainly fit the context. The loss of another verb might explain the presence of the conjunction vav beginning the form.

⁴ tn The verb נוּעַ (nuaʿ) means “to quiver; to waver; to roam around.” As the perfect form of a dynamic verb, it is past or perfective. Here it should be perfective to recognize the continuing results. Some translations treat the verb as stative and so present tense (cf. KJV “her ways are moveable”), but it is morphologically dynamic as revealed by its imperfect form. Others treat it as an imperfect, rendering it in future tense (NAB “her paths will ramble”) or general present (NLT “She staggers down a crooked trail.”).

⁴ tn The verb שָׁכַח (shakhakh) is often translated “forget” but can also mean to “ignore” or “neglect.” Rather than being unable to remember that she entered into a covenant, she has dismissed its relevance. The form is a Hebrew perfect and the perfect in English captures this well. She made a past decision to ignore the covenant, a condition which continues. The vowel pointing of pausal forms of the Qal perfect of this verb usually has an i-class vowel (tsere), suggesting the root may be stative, which would allow a past or present tense translation, “she ignores.”

⁵ tn The Hebrew verb (חָמַד, khamad) is often translated in the future tense to match the other verbs in the verse. But “will love” and “will hate” are both imperfect forms of stative verbs which must be future. In contrast, the verb “to take pleasure; to delight” (חָמַד, khamad) is in the perfect conjugation and is morphologically dynamic (as indicated by its imperfect form ‏יַחְמֹד, yakhmod). Therefore it is past or perfective. By switching the time frame, the rebuke embedded in the question looks forward and back, both at what should not continue and what should not have been done.

⁵ tn The noun מְזִמָּה (m^ezimmah) may mean (1) “plan” or (2) “discretion” (BDB 273 s.v.; HALOT 566 s.v.). It describes the ability to make plans or formulate the best course of action for gaining a goal (C. H. Toy, Proverbs [ICC], 7). The related verb זָמַם (zamam) means “to plan; to devise” (BDB 273 s.v.; HALOT 272 s.v. I זמם; e.g., Gen 11:6). Here the nouns “knowledge and plan” (דַּעַת וּמְזִמָּה, daʿat um^ezimmah) form a hendiadys: knowledge of how to form and carry out a morally wise plan for life.

² tn Heb “and it came like water into his inner being, and like oil into his bones.” This may refer to this individual’s appetite for cursing. For him cursing was as refreshing as drinking water or massaging oneself with oil. Another option is that the destructive effects of a curse are in view. In this case a destructive curse invades his very being, like water or oil. Some who interpret the verse this way prefer to repoint the verb from the preterite form וַתָּבֹא (vattavoʾ, “and it came”) to a jussive form וְתָבֹא (v^etavoʾ, “and may it come!”).

¹ tn The verbal form appears to be a preterite, which is most naturally taken as narrational. (The use of prefixed forms with vav [ו] consecutive in vv. 36-37 favor this.) The psalmist may return to the theme of God’s intervention for the exiles (see vv. 4-22, especially vv. 4-9). However, many regard vv. 33-41 as a hymnic description which generalizes about God’s activities among men. In this case it would be preferable to use the English present tense throughout (cf. NEB, NRSV).

¹ tn Heb “you bring them to an end [with] sleep.” The Hebrew verb זָרַם (zaram) has traditionally been taken to mean “flood” or “overwhelm” (note the Polel form of a root זרם in Ps 77:17, where the verb is used of the clouds pouring down rain). However, the verb form here is Qal, not Polel, and is better understood as a homonym meaning “to make an end [of life].” The term שֵׁנָה (shenah, “sleep”) can be taken as an adverbial accusative; it is a euphemism here for death (see Ps 76:5-6).

³ tn Heb “and from everlasting to everlasting you [are] God.” Instead of אֵל (ʾel, “God”) the LXX reads אַל (ʾal, “not”) and joins the negative particle to the following verse, making the verb תָּשֵׁב (tashev) a jussive. In this case v. 3a reads as a prayer, “do not turn man back to a low place.” However, taking תָּשֵׁב as a jussive is problematic in light of the following wayyiqtol form וַתֹּאמֶר (vatoʾmer, “and you said/say”), unless one reads the form as a simple vav plus imperfect as indicated by Aquila and Jerome.

¹ tn Heb “and he fed him from the best of the wheat.” The Hebrew text has a third person form of the preterite with a vav (ו) consecutive attached. However, it is preferable, in light of the use of the first person in v. 14 and in the next line, to emend the verb to a first person form and understand the vav as conjunctive, continuing the apodosis of the conditional sentence of vv. 13-14. The third masculine singular pronominal suffix refers to Israel, as in v. 6.

² tn Heb “before the sun may his name increase.” The Kethib (consonantal text) assumes יָנִין (yanin; a Hiphil of the verbal root נִין, nin) or יְנַיֵן (y^enayen; a Piel form), while the Qere (marginal reading) assumes יִנּוֹן (yinnon; a Niphal form). The verb נִין occurs only here, though a derived noun, meaning “offspring,” appears elsewhere (see Isa 14:22). The verb appears to mean “propagate, increase” (BDB 630 s.v. נוּן, נִין) or “produce shoots, get descendants” (HALOT 696 s.v. נין). In this context this appears to be a prayer for a lasting dynasty that will keep the king’s name and memory alive.

³ tn The verb form appears to be a Hiphil jussive from שָׁלַג (shalag), which is usually understood as a denominative verb from שֶׁלֶג (sheleg, “snow”) with an indefinite subject. The form could be taken as a preterite, in which case one might translate, “when the sovereign judge scattered kings, it snowed on Zalmon” (cf. NIV, NRSV). The point of the image is unclear. Perhaps “snow” suggests fertility and blessing (see v. 9 and Isa 55:10), or the image of a snow-capped mountain suggests grandeur.

² tn Heb “in the heart unjust deeds you do.” The phrase “in the heart” (i.e., “mind”) seems to refer to their plans and motives. The Hebrew noun עַוְלָה (ʿavlah, “injustice”) is collocated with פָּעַל (paʿal, “do”) here and in Job 36:23 and Ps 119:3. Some emend the plural form עוֹלֹת (ʿolot, “unjust deeds”; see Ps 64:6) to the singular עָוֶל (ʿavel, “injustice”; see Job 34:32), taking the final tav (ת) as dittographic (note that the following verbal form begins with tav). Some then understand עָוֶל (ʿavel, “injustice”) as a genitive modifying “heart” and translate, “with a heart of injustice you act.”

⁵ tc The verb form in the MT appears to be a Hiphil imperfect from the root מוֹט (mot, “to sway”), but the Hiphil occurs only here and in the Kethib (consonantal text) of Ps 140:10, where the form יַמְטֵר (yamter, “let him rain down”) should probably be read. Here in Ps 55:3 it is preferable to read יַמְטִירוּ (yamtiru, “they rain down”). It is odd for “rain down” to be used with an abstract object like “wickedness,” but in Job 20:23 God “rains down” anger (unless one emends the text there; see BHS).

² tn Heb “he was strong in his destruction.” “Destruction” must refer back to the destructive plans mentioned in v. 2. The verb (derived from the root עָזַז, ʿazaz, “be strong”) as it stands is either an imperfect (if so, probably used in a customary sense) or a preterite (without vav [ו] consecutive). However the form should probably be emended to וַיָּעָז (vayyaʿaz), a Qal preterite (with vav [ו] consecutive) from עָזַז. Note the preterite form without vav (ו) consecutive in the preceding line (וַיִּבְטַח, vayyivtakh, “and he trusted”). The prefixed vav (ו) was likely omitted by haplography (note the suffixed vav [ו] on the preceding עָשְׁרוֹ, ʿoshro, “his wealth”).

¹ tn Heb “virgins after her, her companions, are led to you.” Some emend לָךְ (lakh, “to you”) to לָהּ (lah, “to her,” i.e., the princess) because the princess is now being spoken of in the third person (vv. 13-14a), rather than being addressed directly (as in vv. 10-12). However, the ambiguous suffixed form לָךְ need not be taken as second feminine singular. The suffix can be understood as a pausal second masculine singular form, addressed to the king. The translation assumes this to be the case; note that the king is addressed once more in vv. 16-17, where the second person pronouns are masculine.

³ tc The precise meaning of the MT is uncertain. The form עַנְוָה (ʿanvah) occurs only here. One could emend the text to עֲנָוָה וְצֶדֶק (ʿanavah v^etsedeq, “[for the sake of truth], humility, and justice”). In this case “humility” would perhaps allude to the king’s responsibility to “serve” his people by promoting justice (cf. NIV “in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness”). The present translation assumes an emendation to יַעַן (yaʿan, “because; on account of”) which would form a suitable parallel to עַל־דְּבַר (ʿal d^evar, “because; for the sake of”) in the preceding line.

² tn Heb “being exposed [?] like a native, luxuriant.” The Hebrew form מִתְעָרֶה (mitʿareh) appears to be a Hitpael participle from עָרָה (ʿarah, “be exposed”), but this makes no sense in this context. Perhaps the form is a dialectal variant of מִתְעָלָה (“giving oneself an air of importance”; see Jer 51:3), from עָלָה (ʿalah, “go up”; see P. C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50 [WBC], 296). The noun אֶזְרָח (ʾezrakh, “native, full citizen”) refers elsewhere to people, but here, where it is collocated with “luxuriant, green,” it probably refers to a tree growing in native soil.