Page:The Holy Bible (YLT).djvu/12



THE doctrine of "Waw Conversive," according to the common Hebrew Grammars, is:—

"The past tense, with the prefix waw, expresses future time when preceded by a verb in the future or by an imperative." And again:—

"The 'future tense, with the prefix waw and. dagesh in the following letter, is used to express the past." [See the Grammars of Hurwitz, Gesenius, &c.]

I. It is insufficient to explain the many thousands of passages in the Hebrew Bible where a past tense is preceded neither by a future nor by an imperative, yet where it is "converted" in the Common English Bible, and with as much propriety as in any of those instances that are supposed to be indisputable: e.g.

Ge. 9. 12, "This (is) the token of the covenant that I am making between me and you . . my bow I have set in the cloud, and it hath become the token of the covenant . . . and it hath come to pass . . . and it hath been seen . . . and I have remembered . . . and the waters do no more," &c.

Ge. 17. 4, "Lo, My covenant (is) with thee, and thou hast become the father of a multitude of nations."

The true solution of the principle involved in these passages is: That the Hebrews were in the habit of expressing the certainty of an action taking place by putting it in the past tense (see particularly Ge. 23. 11, "I have given . . . I have given . . . I have given;" also in verse 13, "I have given"), taking its fulfilment for granted.

II. It leads to results rather startling, viz., that most, if not all, of the Hebrew particles are conversive! Grammarians have already been driven to admit, or rather assert, that az then, and terem not yet, are conversive as well as waw.

But the list might be enlarged with such as the following:—

This is only a small specimen of what might be adduced. It is not too much to say that the above twenty particles (including az, waw, and terem) might be doubled, if not tripled, in number.

III. It requires us to admit that the form yigtol is essentially a future tense, while from the analogy of the Modern and Ancient Arabic, as well as from its use in the following passages (which might easily be multiplied), it is evidently an indefinite present, expressive of habitual action, which may very naturally be viewed as being or continuing in operation at some period afterwards as well as at present.

None of these passages can with any propriety be regarded as expressive of future action; and there seems no rational way of solving the problem but by regarding the tense as is done above.

IV. It is not found in any other language; and in particular, it is unknown in all the cognate Semitic dialects, viz., the Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in all the voluminous uninspired literature of the Jews. Attempts have been made to find something like it in the use of the Arabic particle pha, but, as Professor Lee has well remarked (in his Hebrew Grammar and Lexicon), the same thing might be alleged of most other Arabic particles, such as la, no, lam, not, lamma, why, summa, then, &c., which no one has ever as yet thought of doing.

The Arabs, in order to lessen the occasional ambiguity arising from the same form of the verb being used indifferently for the present and the future, sometimes prefix to it the particle sa (a contraction of soufa, at last, hereafter), which makes it strictly future, and sometimes the word ammal (an agent), which makes it strictly present.