תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

II.-Theory of the Hebrew Verb, No. III.

According to the order announced in the first number, it is now necessary to consider some of the errors into which grammarians and translators have fallen, through the want of definite and fixed ideas and rules concerning the Hebrew moods and tenses. In making remarks on what appears erroneous in predecessors and superiors, it becomes every one to manifest modesty and diffidence; yet no regard to men, however venerable or learned they may be, ought to prevent any one from exposing their defects when they write or act inconsistently with the truth, or inconsistently with themselves. Only let him do to others as he would wish they should do unto him, and so point out errors as he would wish any person to point out his, and then he will stand free from the charge of rashness and the want of candour.

The great error into which grammarians have fallen, through considering what have been termed the indicative and potential moods as past and future tenses, is the system denominated vaw conversive. Vaw is the Hebrew word for the conjunction and. The following is the rule upon which this system is based: Vaw, prefixed to future tenses, changes them to perfect tenses, and when prefixed to perfect tenses, regularly changes them into future tenses.

To this general rule four exceptions are stated-as,

1. When is prefixed to a verb which immediately follows another verb of the same tense, without a prefixed 1, and in the same sentence, the in that case is merely conjunctive.

2. If a future tense, put for a preter-perfect tense, (which must be by having a prefixed 1) precedes a preter-perfect tense (having also a prefixed 1), the latter is merely copulative.

3. A prefixed 1 does not affect or change any verb or verbs in the future tense which follow an imperative mood in the same

sentence.

4. After an interrogation either of the emphatical, or of the interrogatory relatives or 2, the prefixed does not influence any verb or verbs in the future tense.

The following are the reasons which have led to the rejection of this system, after many years labour to understand, practise and support it.

1. It proceeds upon the supposition that the indicative and potential moods are past and future tenses. This has been proved to be incorrect by numerous quotations which shew, that each has a present, past, and future signification; and from the fact that one tense cannot contain in itself three tenses, though a mood may.

2. It ascribes to a conjunction a power which is as unaccountable as it is unphilosophical. The only grammatical and philosophical power of a copulative conjunction is that of uniting or connect

ing words together. To give to it therefore the power of government and the changing of times and seasons, is to violate the dictates of reason, and submit to a condition which nothing but the most dire necessity should compel.

3. Such use of the conjunction vaw is entirely unknown in the Arabic language. So great is the similarity between the Hebrew and the Arabic in words, inflexions and constructions, that any one may feel perfectly satisfied, if the vaw had such a predominating power in the Hebrew, some vestige of its authority at least would be found in the Arabic. But since there is not the smallest vestige of such influence in the latter, little is hazarded in saying that it has no existence in the former. At least if any one should still maintain that it has, it will behove him to account for this extraordinary phenomenon.

4. To the general rule that vaw converts the past into the future and the future into the past, there are four sweeping exceptions, which taken together, will furnish as many negatives against the rule as there are positives in its favour. All must acknowledge that there is little dependence to be placed on a rule, the exceptions to which are as numerous as its applications. How sad too for a learner to have a rule for his guidance, as variable in its operation as the rules of the almanac relating to the future state of the weather.

5. The second exception involves in it such a contradiction of the general rule as almost entirely destroys its value. It allows that a perfect with vaw is not converted after a future that has been converted by vaw; only let it be allowed too that a future with vaw is not converted after a perfect without one, and then there is an end to the whole system for that is almost the only other case in which the general rule applies. And what can be more natural than to say, if vaw in this case does not convert the perfect, neither ought it to convert the future when it is placed in the same ture when it condition?

6. If vaw has the power of governing the tenses, then it can be shewn that other particles have the same power, and thus we shall be at a loss to define the bounds of this petty government. We could give many examples, one must here suffice, viz. Joshua, xxii. 1. Then Joshua called to the Reubenites and the Gadites.' Shall it be said that NP the future is here converted into the past by the particle IN.

7. In addition to the above objections there is one more, which is, that after the rules and exceptions have all been applied, there is a vast number of instances in which the student will be left in uncertainty. This might be proved by many examples; but it is thought better in this instance to defend the position by authority than by quotation. It has been said by a late learned author, that 'for the use of it (the future) as a past, the conjunction and, so,

&c. has most unaccountably been made to account, and then has taken the name of the conversive vaw! A considerable number of instances, however, occur, in which this tense is so used without any such conversive vaw: and what has been done in these cases? Why the instances have been said to present an enallage temporis, and there the matter has wisely ended!'

Dr. Lee, the Professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, the writer of the above remark, was the first person who ventured to question the accuracy of the vaw conversive system, and to denounce it in his grammar. He appears to have been convinced that it was erroneous, by finding that nothing of the kind existed in Arabic. He seems perfectly right in opposing the old system, but not so in the new one which he has substituted in its place. He considers what had hitherto been denominated past and future to be past and present tenses; this alters, but does not remove the diffi.. culty. It still remains for the learned professor to explain how three tenses can be included in one tense. Arguing against those who consider the potential mood as a future tense, he remarks: "Unfortunately, however, it appears that this future is occasionally used as a present tense and also a past." He maintains it is a present tense: to which we can only reply, in his own words, that unfortunately, however, it appears that this present tense is used very frequently as a future tense and also as a past. It is one thing to demolish an old fabric, and another to build a new one. The authority of Dr. Lee will do much for the overthrowing of the old system, but the establishing of a new and complete one will probably require much more labour and investigation, than has yet been bestowed on the subject.

It must be granted, in favour of the professor's hypothesis, that historians do often turn in their narrations from the past to the present tense; and in the New Testament the Apostles do, when writing in the Greek language, sometimes use the present tense in an historical account, when we should have expected the past to be uniformly employed: but it is surely incorrect to make exceptions into a general rule, and that rule at perfect variance with the idiom of the English language. For, did it admit of demonstration that the potential is a present tense, yet it must still be acknowledged, when translated into English in historical pieces, that it must be rendered by a past.

It is now time to notice some errors of a more important nature than those made by grammarians-the errors of translators. The observations under this head will be confined to the English version. It may seem hypercritical to some to find fault with a version so excellent, which has secured the approbation of the learned, and the veneration of the illiterate. There are however spots even in the sun, and all our admiration of its glory should not lead us to deny their existence. It is a pleasure to know that the rules which have

been laid down are those which the translators of the English Bible have followed, though they perhaps never knew them in the form of rules. It is astonishing how far their penetrating judgment and sound sense, have saved them from the errors into which they would have fallen, had they translated according to the rules which have hitherto prevailed respecting the Hebrew verb. But though they have not in general regarded those corrupt rules, yet it is evident that they have been occasionally warped by them, and though not to one-thousandth part of what might have been expected, yet to such an extent as to render them now and then inconsistent with themselves. The remarks here made are not therefore directed against their system, but against their occasional departures from it.

Keeping the order already observed, these variations with regard to the present tense of the moods first demand attention. The verb, whether in the indicative or potential mood, is to be rendered in the present tense, in the delivery of maxims or general truths, and the relation of events which transpired at the time of the writer. In the Proverbs it will be seen in many verses, that sometimes the present and sometimes the future tenses are used, whereas by rule they should have been alike. Take any chapter, say the xii. of Proverbs, and compare the following verses with the English: A good man obtaineth favour of the Lord; but a man of wicked devices doth he condemn. A man is not established by wickedness, and the root of the righteous is not moved. The words of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood, but the mouth of the upright delivereth them. The wicked are overthrown and are not; but the house of the righteous doth stand. man is commended according to his wisdom; but he that is of a perverse heart is despised. He that tilleth his land is satisfied with bread, but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding. The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips, but the just cometh out of trouble. A man is satisfied with the fruit of his mouth, and the recompense of a man's hand is rendered unto him. The lip of truth is established for ever; but a lying tongue is but for a moment. No evil happens to the just, but the wicked is filled with mischief. The hand of the diligent beareth rule, but the slothful is under tribute.'

A

Had all the verbs marked in italics been rendered as here, in the present tense, the chapter would have been uniform and the translators consistent throughout. In the first two verses there are y the indicative mood or preterite as it is called, and p the potential or future, and both of them rendered by the translators in the present tense, is brutish and obtaineth. Here then, and in the greater part of the chapter, the rule we have laid down has been exemplified; but in the verses which we have quoted in italics it has been violated, and the like violations will be found in every chapter of the Proverbs.

6

The above remarks, which apply to the Proverbs, apply also to many of the Psalms. Take for instance the cxii. which rendered uniformly will stand thus: Praise ye the Lord. Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments. His seed is mighty on the earth; the generation of the upright is blessed. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endureth for ever: unto the upright there ariseth light in darkness. He is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous. A good man sheweth favour and lendeth; he guideth his affairs with discretion. He is not moved for ever; the righteous is had in everlasting remembrance. He is not afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord. His heart is established, he is not afraid, until he sees his desire upon his enemies. He disperseth, he giveth to the poor, his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn is exalted with honour. The wicked see it, and are grieved: he gnasheth with his teeth, and melteth away; the desire of the wicked doth perish."

זי

In the first verse N, the potential, and the indicative are both rendered by the translators in the present tense feareth and delighteth: there cannot therefore, if this is acknowledged to be correct, be any objection against rendering all the following VERBS in the same manner; but by comparing the above translation with the English version, it will be seen that they have not all been so rendered.

In the book of Job, when his friends advance their moral maxims to describe the character of the wicked and the hypocrite, and when he describes his actual condition, all the verbs ought to be rendered in the present tense. In very many instances the passages are so translated; but in others the rule is neglected, as in chapter xviii. from the 5th verse. "The light of the wicked goeth out, and the spark of his fire shineth not. The light is dark in his tabernacle, and his candle is put out with him. The steps of his strength are straitened, and his own counsel casteth him down. He is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walketh upon a snare,' &c.

This last line is rendered correctly in the present tense, and the same rule, by which the indicative and the potential are here rendered in the present by is sent, and he walketh, requires all the succeeding parts of the chapter to be rendered in the like

manner.

Again, in the third chapter of the Lamentations, the prophet Jeremiah describes his own condition at the time he was writing, which by rule should be rendered in the present tense. In one part of this chapter the rule is regarded in the following verses it is violated. They are here so rendered as to make the whole which relates to his then present condition uniform.

"I am the man that seeth affliction by the rod of his wrath; He leadeth me, and bringeth me into darkness and not into light;

[ocr errors]
« הקודםהמשך »