Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew verbalsystem

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: MarjorieAlley AT cs.com
  • To: furuli AT online.no, b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Question for Rolf on the JW outlook on the Hebrew verbalsystem
  • Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:35:17 EDT

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>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page