Suggestions Toward a More Exact Nomenclature and Definition of the Hebrew Tenses

7/29/2019 Suggestions Toward a More Exact Nomenclature and Definition of the Hebrew Tenses

1/3

SUGGESTIONSOWARD MORE XACTNOMENCLATUREANDDEFINITION FTHEHEBREW ENSES,BY PROFESSOR Wx. G. BALLANTINE, D. D.,

Oberlin Theological Seminary, Oberlin, O.

With the recent translations of the works of Ewald and Miiller on generalHebrew syntax, and the excellent monograph of Professor Driver on the Use ofthe Tenses, the beginner cannot complain of lack of efficient help at the most dif-ficult point of the language. Still it must be confessed that the subject has notyet been wholly freed from perplexity, and that portions of it are still envelopedin that "luminous haze " which Ewald so often substituted for dry light. Weventure, therefore, with much diffidence, to offer for the criticism of scholars atentative scheme of nomenclature and definition of the Hebrew Tenses, with,some remarks in explanation. We would present the doctrine of the tenses to thebeginner in Hebrew grammar somewhat as follows:

There are in Hebrew two tenses, the Aorist and the Subsequent.I. The Aorist Tense expresses the mere predication of a fact. It asserts

the occurrence of the action signified by the verb, without connotation of thetime of that occurrence.1. But since most facts are now past, the proper translation of this tense in

English will oftenest be our Preterite; e. g., D, ig "1)God created,Gen. I., 1.2. Very frequently the translation will be our Perfect; e. g., 1:?;; I havegiven, Gen. I., 29.3. Occasionally the translation will be our Pluperfect; e. g., "7j '"rIwhich he had made, Gen. ii., 2.

4. When the verb signifies an action or state likely to be present, the pre-sumption is that the speaker refers to the present. The translation then is ourPresent; e. g., 1: "1*4 I knownot, Gen. Iv., 9; : ;1 Jehovahreigns, Ps.xcIiI., 1. (But the context may show that the past is meant, and then the sameverbal forms must be rendered by Preterites, etc.)5. General truths are expressed by the Aorist, and rendered by the EnglishPresent; e. g., 1?n f thegrass withereth,Isa. XL., 7.6. When a future occurrence is regarded as so certain that it may bepredicated as a fact, the Hebrew uses the Aorist, but the English transla-tion may require the Future or Present; e. g., , f; : Naomi selleth,Ruth Iv., 3.7. The Aorist may be used where the most precise English expression is theFuture Perfect; e. g.,

1.r7t_ until she shall have borne,Mic. v., 2.

This content downloaded from 71.155.240.105 on Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:26:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


2/3

54 HEBRAICA.II. The Subsequent Tense connotes the act predicated as following upon or

arising out of a known act or situation of affairs.1. In independent sentences the act will oftenest be understood to be sub-sequent to the speaker's present, i. e., future. In such sentences it is exactlyrendered by the English Future; e. g., '- he shall rule overthee,Gen. Il., 16.2. Often, however, the action must be understood to supervene immediatelyupon the existing situation. The Subsequent Tense is then a vivid Present, andmust be rendered by the English Present; e. g., '1f .-Mt thefloods lift up,PS. XCIII.,3.3. When by means of the adverbs of time or place t&, , , or inany other manner, a date, starting point, or scene of action, has been indicated,the Subsequent Tense connotes the action as following after or occurring uponsuch point or scene; e. g., J1t' tI it was not yet, Gen. II., 5; 1 it~tin fromthence it was parted, Gen. II., 10; , )t

the day I was born, Job III., 3. Theproper translation here will often be one of the English past tenses.4. From the idea of supervention, the transition is easy to that of liability tooccur, and thus to repetition. Accordingly, the Subsequent Tense is used inpredicating customary actions; e. g., ~7 t"I I a mist usedto go up, Gen. 11., 6.5. By a very natural extension the Subsequent Tense is employed to expressthe Subjunctive Mood, and also the Optative and Potential. It is thus used inwishes, permissions and commands; e. g., ~i 'p let there belight, Gen. I., 3.III. The Tenses with Waw Conversive.

1. When joined by Waw Conversive to a preceding predication (or idea), theSubsequent Tense connotes an action as supervenient upon or arising out of thatforegoing action.

2. When joined by Waw Conversive to a preceding Subsequent Tense (oridea), the Aorist falls into the temporal and modal limitations of that foregoingpredication.

In justification of this scheme, and upon the subject in general, we make thefollowing somewhat disjointed remarks, or rather memoranda:1. This is but a sketch. Many important usages are not mentioned; but we

think that they may be appropriately classed under the several heads and defini-tions.

2. The old names of the tenses-past and future-were after all nearer to thetruth than perfect and imperfect. The Subsequent is a future, only future to anyassigned date, not merely to the speaker's present. The name Aorist exactly fitsthat Hebrew tense. In Greek the Aorist Indicative is limited to the past; but inHebrew the Aorist is truly unlimited except by the possibilities of reality.3. The application of the term moodsto the Hebrew tenses is an abuse of a use-ful word of fixed meaning, as necessary in that meaning to Hebrew grammar as toany grammar. The distinction of the two Hebrew forms is a true tensedistinction.



3/3

THE HEBREW TENSES. 554. The Perfect is often definedas connoting " finished' or "completed"action. These words are misleading. They can only fairly be used to meanactionviewedcomprehensively, s in the GreekAorist, not nowcompleted,as inthe GreekPerfect.5. The grammarians ave greatdifficultywith the numerouscasesin whichthe Hebrew Perfect must be renderedas equivalentto an EnglishPresent. They

explain that the consequencesf the finished act continue to the present. Butmakingthe most of suchclassicparallelsas olda ndmemini,he explanation ailsfor a host of cases; e. g., f3 1 amlittle,Gen.xxxII., 11.6. It is a mistakenanalogy to comparethe Hebrew Perfect,when used ingeneraltruths,with the GreekGnomicAorist. In Greekthere is a reference opast experience. In Hebrewthere is no evidenceof sucha reference.7. The differencebetween the HebrewAorist and Subsequent s not at allthe same as that between the Greek Aorist and Imperfect. Only incidentally,by the extension of the usage of the Hebrew tense to connote customaryacts,does that languagereach the powerto express the distinction.8. It appearsa confusion to definea tense as inceptive,nd then nameit theImperfect. An Inceptive Imperfectwhich expressesthe future is a grammaticaljumble.9. We believe that all that Ewald andDriver so laboriously et forthregard-ing "incipiency,""nascency' and "progressivecontinuance,"maybe fairlyre-ducedto the simpleidea of subsequence.10. It appearsthat the conversionfter strongWawis ratherof the Englishtranslation. The Subsequent s by strongWaw only made moredistinctlysub-sequentto the precedingverb,andthe Aorist falls under the limitationsalreadyexpressed.


Suggestions Toward a More Exact Nomenclature and Definition of the Hebrew Tenses

Documents

Transcript of Suggestions Toward a More Exact Nomenclature and Definition of the Hebrew Tenses