THE BATTLE OF THE HEBREW TENSES.
THE uncertain state of Hebrew criticism in reference to the Tenses is so fully exhibited in the following extracts from one of the latest, and in some respects one of the best, grammatical Commentaries (by the Rev. J. A. Alexander, of Princeton, New Jersey), on the Book of Isaiah, that the reader's attention to them is specially requested.
On Isa. 5. 13, Prof. A. remarks:—'Luther, Gesenius, and Hendewerk take [the verb] as a future, which is not to be assumed without necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering it in the present tense. The only natural construction is the old one (Septuagint, Vulgate, Vitringa, Barnes), which gives the preterite its proper meaning, and either supposes the future to be here, as often elsewhere, spoken of as already past,' &c.
[This principle, though admitted and maintained by Gesenius, Lee, &c., has never been acted upon, to any extent, by any Translator till the present. It is the only principle, however, that can carry us through every difficulty in the Sacred Scriptures.]
On chap. 5. 25, 'The future form given to the verbs by Clericus is altogether arbitrary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in translating them as presents. But, if this verse is not descriptive of the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew language is incapable or making any such distinction.'
[Let this principle be carried out, as it ought to be, and nine-tenths of the common critical works on the Bible are rendered perfectly useless, and positively injurious.]
On chap. 5. 26, 'Here, as in v. 25, the older writers understand the verbs as future, but the later ones as present. The verbs in the last clause have waw prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here.'
[And so it is in dozens of places where Prof. A. follows in the usual wake of critics.]
On chap. 5. 27, 'The English Version follows Calvin in translating as the verbs as future. The Vulgate supplies the present in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is evidently one description, the translation should be uniform, and as the preterite and future forms are intermingled, both seem to be here used for the present, which is given by Luther, and most of the late writers.'
[Here, leaving all certainty and settled principles behind him, Prof. A. tells us how he thinks the inspired writer ought to have written, not what he did write.]
On chap. 8. 2, 'The Vulgate takes the verb as a preterite, and Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel read accordingly with waw conversive. The Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it imperative, and Hitzig accordingly. Gesenius formerly preferred an indirect or subjunctive construction, which is still retained by Henderson.' [Here are four ancient versions and five modern critics at fives and sixes regarding what is as simple as can well be imagined!]
On chap. 9. 7, 'Another false antithesis is that between the verbs, referring one to past time, and the other to the future. This is adopted even by Ewald, but according to the usage of the language [rather of modern Hebrew grammar], Waw is conversive of the preterite only when preceded by a future, expressed or implied.'
[By this very extraordinary rule the critic can never have any difficulty, for it is very easy to consider a verbal form implied when it suits his convenience! Yet this egregious absurdity is very commonly adopted in all existing translations, including the Common English Version; e. g., Gen, 9. 12-14, where the Hebrew Text has four verbs all in the past tense, yet the first is translated as a present ('I do set'), and the remaining three as futures! The first verb is undoubtedly in the past, 'I have set,' the other three as undoubtedly, seeing the Waw by which they are preceded cannot be conversive, except when preceded by a future or an imperative, neither of which occur in this place. The solution of the supposed difficulty is only to be found in the principle stated above by Prof. A., and which is the basis of the New Translation, and maintained by Gesenius and Lee, that the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past to denote the certainty of an event taking place.]
On chap. 9. 19, 'Ewald refers the first clause to the past, and the second to the present, Umbreit the first to the present, and the second to the future. But the very intermingling of the past and the future forms shows that the whole was meant to be descriptive.'
[Would they not be descriptive had they been all past, or all present, or all future?]
On chap. 10. 14, 'The present form, which Hendewerk adopts throughout the verses, is equally grammatical'—[though the first verb is a perfect, and the second a perfect!]
On chap. 14. 24, 'Kimchi explains [the verb] to be a preterite used for a future, and this construction is adopted in most versions, ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary, and in violation of the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz., that they should have their proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by the context or the nature of the subject, which is very far from being the case here, as we shall see below. Gesenius and De Wette evade the difficulty by rendering both the verbs as presents, a construction which is often admissible, and even necessary (!) in a descriptive context, but when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, tends both to weaken and obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the first verb present, and the second future, which is scarcely, if at all, less objectionable.'
The above extracts are surely sufficient to show that Hebrew criticism, as hitherto taught, is capable of being used to any purpose, or moulded to any form the Critic may wish. Such a state of things surely cannot continue any longer, or be adopted by any one who regards simplicity more than ingenious guesses, truth more than tradition.
