Biblical Hebrew Forum

[MarjorieAlley AT cs.com]

Rolf ---

Rolf wrote: >>> I now return to your question again.  I knew the grammatical 
theory of the NWT when I started my research.<<<

When you started your research did you know the grammatical theory of the NWT 
only through the NWT foreword and Appendix C, "Hebrew Verbs Indicating 
Continuous or Progressive Action," or had you also studied the 1990 WTS book 
"All 
Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial"?

Study Number 8 in the 1990 WTS book "All Scripture is Inspired of God and 
Beneficial" is called "Advantages of the New World Translation." The section 
with 
paragraphs numbered 11-18 is headed "Careful Verb Renderings."



The passage is too long to quote in its entirety, but I think paragraphs #12 
and #14 are particularly relevant:



#12 "The Hebrew verb does not have “tenses” in the way the term “tense” is 
applied to most languages of the West. In English, verbs are viewed 
particularly from the standpoint of tense, or time: past, present, and 
future. The 
Hebrew verb, on the other hand, basically expresses the conditionof the 
action, 
that is, the action is viewed as either complete (the perfect state) or 
incomplete (the imperfect state). These states of the Hebrew verb may be used 
to 
indicate actions in the past or in the future, the context determining the 
time. For 
example, the perfect, or completed, state of the verb naturally represents 
actions in the past, but it is also used to speak of a future happening as if 
it 
had already occurred and were past, showing its future certainty or the 
obligation of it to occur."





[The above is a quotation from "Careful Verb Renderings," in "Study Number 8 
-- Advantages of the New World Translation," from the 1990 Watchtower Society 
book "All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial."

]





The last sentence is speaking of the prophetic perfect which you referred to 
in your previous post to me as a 19th century "ad hoc hypothesis." Can you 
please clarify this? Are you saying that you disagree with the WTS's position 
that the perfect is "also used to speak of a future happening as if it had 
already occurred and were past"?



Continuing with paragraph #14:



"14 One of the reasons for inaccuracies in translating the Hebrew verbal 
forms is the grammatical theory today called waw consecutive. Waw is the 
Hebrew 
conjunction that basically means “and.” It never stands alone but is always 
joined with some other word, frequently with the Hebrew verb, in order to 
form 
one word with it. It has been, and still is, claimed by some that this 
relationship has the power to convert the verb from one state to another, 
that is, from 
the imperfect to the perfect (as has been done in many translations, 
including modern ones, at Genesis 2:2, 3) or from the perfect to the 
imperfect. This 
effect has been described also by the term “waw conversive.” This incorrect 
application of the verbal form has led to much confusion and to 
mistranslation 
of the Hebrew text. The New World Translation does not recognize that the 
letter waw has any power to change the state of the verb. Rather, the attempt 
is 
made to bring out the proper and distinctive force of the Hebrew verb, thus 
preserving the meaning of the original accurately."



You said that you knew the grammatical theory of the NWT when you started 
your research.



Does this mean that even *before you started your research, you adhered to 
the WTS position that "incorrect application of the verbal form has led to 
much 
confusion and to mistranslation of the Hebrew text"? 



And did you believe that "the letter waw has [no] power to change the state 
of the verb" even before you started your research?



We all bring a load of baggage with us in the way of underlying 
preconceptions, many of them philosophical, but I wonder how many of us 
approached our 
study of Hebrew with such explicit ideas about the Hebrew verbal system?



It's interesting --- and, perhaps, laudable --- that literature aimed at 
general readers challenges them to consider grammatical and syntactical 
features 
of the Bible languages, but don't you think that those who are untrained in 
the 
language are going to walk away from a study like that absolutely 
__convinced__ that "waw conversive" is an "incorrect application of the 
verbal form"?  

Regards,
Marjorie Alley   </HTML>