Page:The Holy Bible (YLT).djvu/13



Common Version:—"As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou SHALT be a father of many nations; neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many nations HAVE I made thee."

New Version:—"I—lo. My covenant is with thee, and thou HAST become a father of a multitude of nations, and thy name is no more called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for a father of a multitude of nations HAVE I made thee."—Gen. 17. 4, 5.

It is the first and the last of the verbs in the above verses to which the reader's attention is specially requested, viz., those translated in the Common Version, "Thou shalt be," and "I have made," and in the New Version, "Thou hast become," and "I have made."

Both Versions agree in translating the last verb as a preterite, "I have made;" as the form of the verb is admitted on all hands to be that of a preterite.

The versions differ, however, in the translation of the first verb, the one rendering it by the future "shall," the other by the preterite "hast."

The question at issue is: Which of the two is right? both cannot be right—one must be wrong.

It is undoubtedly in the preterite form, precisely like the last verb in the sentence, admitted on all hands to be a preterite. Why then should this not be translated as a preterite likewise?

If it be said, that the sense requires it to be translated as a future, seeing it is not literally true that Abraham was a father of many nations at the moment that God addressed these words to him, then, on precisely the same principle, the last verb ought to be translated as a future, "I will make thee,"—not "I have made thee," as both versions agree in doing—as it is not literally true, that, at the moment when God thus addressed him, He had made him a father of many nations.

If no one will venture to translate the last verb as a future, why should the first be so rendered?

If it be said that the first verb has a conjunction before it, called Waw, signifying "and," and that the Hebrew Grammarians have laid it down as an idiom of the language, that, in certain circumstances, Waw before a preterite indicates that the preterite is to be reckoned as a future, the answer is: These circumstances do not exist in the present case.

The fundamental Rule laid down by all Hebrew Grammarians to regulate Waw Conversive is: that the first verb to be converted must be preceded by one of a different tense, e.g., a preterite must be preceded by a future, and a future by a preterite.

But, in the passage before us, there is, in the Hebrew, no verb at all preceding the one supposed to be converted, and consequently the Rule cannot operate.

On no principle of Hebrew Grammar, as commonly taught, can the Conversive Principle come into operation in this passage, and it is only one out of hundreds of similar instances.

The solution of the matter is formed in the principle: That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the preterite form of the verb to denote a fixed determination that the things mentioned shall and must take place; this principle is common to all the Semitic languages; it is distinctly admitted by the best Hebrew Grammarians; it is common to the New Testament Writers, and to the whole series of Greek and Latin Classics, (see Winer, Stuart, Kühner, &c.) and it is the only one that meets all cases.

The Waw Conversive, on the contrary, is unknown in every other Hebrew composition—in every other Semitic dialect—in every other language on earth.