Eclectic Topics in no Particular Order
Various Topics Discussed
/>
Someone wrote: "I’ve read all the topics regards Isaiah 9, which are actually really good, but I have still one question though. Someone pointed out to me that in Hebrew grammar there isn’t really such a thing as tense; Hebrew verbs do not take past, present or future tenses, but instead a Perfect and an Imperfect. The Hebrew Perfect may be taken to represent action in the past, the English present tense is supplied by the participle, and the English future tense by the imperfect. To be strictly accurate we should speak of ‘forms’ rather than ‘tenses’ of the verb, since it is the completeness or otherwise of an action which is being expressed and not the time factor, as in English. Of course normally a verb in the perfect form would imply a past tense, yet there is something called the Prophetic Perfect. This is where prophets speak of future events in the perfect form, because he has seen them in the future where they have already happened, they describe a future event as if it had been already seen or heard. Examples are Isaiah 5:13, 10:28-32, Jeremiah 23;2 and Amos 5:2." That is patently ridiculous. No language can exist without a way to represent past, present and future in its language. Hebrew is very different from Latin based languages. For example, Hebrew has only one past tense, filling the role of the perfect, imperfect and pluperfect tenses of other languages (such as Latin). The verb וְיִקָּרֵא / v'yikkaré is future tense, nif'al (passive) and means IT WILL BE CALLED; this inflection occurs in B'réshıt / Genesis 48:16 and Rut / Ruth 4:14 (yikkaré without the conjunctive vav occurs about 20 times). The Hebrew letter vav (sometimes pronounced waw by non-Hebrew speakers) can be pronounced as a "v" sound or used as a vowel with an "oo" or even "oh" depending on the word and the usage. To turn a word from past into a future tense in Hebrew we use an inverting letter ו / vav (which is pointed וְ־ or וּ־ to reverse a past tense into the future). This is not the case in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5(6). The word יִקְרָא yikra is the 3rd person singular, future tense of the pa'al or kal conjugation. It means "he will call." The word יִקָּרֵא yikkaré is the 3rd person singular, future tense of the nif'al conjugation and means "he will be called." There are thus four possible combinations of these with a conjunctive vav prefix, three of which are found in the Hebrew Bible:
The form not found in the Hebrew Bible is וְיִקְרָא v'yikra which is the word יִקְרָא / yikra ("he/it will call") with non-inverting vav. It means "and he/it will call." The reason why the Christian translations putting of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5(6) in future not past tense is wrong is because no passive verb ever has a direct object. By translating וַיִּקְרָא / vayikra as though it were passive, they absorb the subject of the verb into its object. So, after that very lengthy explanation: of course Hebrew has the ability to show past, present or future. In Y'shayahu 9:5 (6 in Christian versions) וְיִקָּרֵא / v'yikkaré is not the verb which is used. This is the verb that would make it future tense: will be called. It isn't there! In Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 the verb is וַיִּקְרָא vayikra, which is pa'al (“kal”), past tense. There is no inverting vav in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 which might make it future tense. Let's look at two more verbs in this passage:
Past tense.
The future tense in this case, including the preposition "and", 'וְ', would be וְהָיְתָה (e.g., Yoel / Joel 4:17) - also different.
when prefixed to a verb in the PAST TENSE, the vav has vowels with a sh'va (וְ־), and when prefixed to a verb in the FUTURE TENSE, the vav has a vowel with pattah (וַ־), or with kamatz (וָ־) if the next letter is a guttural. Thus, הָיָה hayah "it was" but וְהָיָה v'hayah "[and] it will be" and יְהִי / y'hi "it will be" but וַיְהִי / va-y'hi "[and] it was" [KJV "and it came to pass"]. The future versions are not used -- the past tense is used in Isaiah 9:5(6)... Having written all of that he wrote back and said "However I struggle to explain why verses such as Isaiah 5:13, 10:28-32, Jeremiah 23;2 and Amos 5:2 should differ from Isaiah 9.5." All of those examples are actually in past tense in the Hebrew. So why do some translators choose to translate them as future when they are not future? It is a translator's choice -- one might call it a translator's error but they can be excused for choosing a "future" to simply make comprehension easier for a reader... So why would a prophet use the past tense if he is talking about a prophecy which will happen (may happen) in the future? Let's look at one mentioned by the person who asked the question. Consider Y'shayahu / Isaiah 5:13. The verb גָּלָה / galah here should be translated as "he/it has been exiled." Has been is correct. It does not say "will be exiled." It says "has been exiled." Why did the prophet speak in past tense even though the exile had not yet happened? Because, to the prophet Isaiah the exile HAD happened. He had seen it in a vision. Remember, all negative visions are given as warnings to be avoided. If you repent and do good you can avoid the negative. The prophet envisages himself standing in the future looking back on these events and so he speaks of them using the past tense. This is true for the other passages you asked about. In Amos 5:2 the verb is נָפְלָה / naflah -- it is past tense -- Israel has fallen. "has fallen." Past. Wikipedia calls this "prophetic perfect tense" -- a term primarily used by Christians. It says: “The prophetic perfect tense is a literary technique used in the Bible that describes future events that are so certain to happen that they are referred to in the past tense as if they already happened.” Wikipedia lists the exact four examples you gave in your post. They do NOT list Isaiah 9:5(6). Wikipedia can be written by anyone and depends on readers to correct glaring errors. This entry must have been written by a non-Jew, because no negative prophecy is certain to happen... they are all given as warnings so that people can avoid having them happen... Rabbi David Kimhi (1160 - 1235 CE), known as the Radak / רד"ק, was a great grammarian and wrote in Michlol L'HaRadak that this was a Biblical technique -- it is in past tense because, to the prophet, it is a vision he has already seen: "And you should know that it is a typical behavior of the past tense verbs in the holy language to use a past tense verb in place of a future tense verb (which are the letters איתן), and this is mostly in prophecies because the matter is clear as if it passed, because it has already been decreed." Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5(6) does not fit this criteria. There the prophet is speaking of the son of the king who is already alive. He is saying the child was born and he will be a king in peace time (which he was). This is most likely why Wikipedia does not include Isaiah 9:5(6) -- it does not fit Kimhi's criteria. The English "was born" in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5(6) is the proper translation. It is not possible to properly translate it as a future event. It is not a prophet who has seen a potential future event and is relaying that information in past tense to listeners... The prophet is speaking of a child who has already been born (for unto us a child WAS born)... Check other passages in Christian translations and it is clear that יֻלַד / "was born" and is not future "will be born." That very word is properly translated in other passages in Christian translations. "a son was born; and he called" Genesis 4:26 is the NAS and "to him also there was born a son" in the King James Version (KJV). Past tense. In Genesis 10:21 in the NAS we have "children were born" and KJV has "were [children] born." Past tense. So why, suddenly in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5(6) do they suddenly say it is future and means Jesus 750 years later???? This correct translating into past tense can be found in many other Christian translations of יֻלַד / "was born" are translated in the past by the Christians -- see Genesis 35:26, Genesis 41:50, Genesis 46:27, Judges 18:29, 2 Samuel 21:20, 1 Chronicles 1:19, Ruth 4:17, Job and many psalms in various Christian translations. . . to check this out for yourself. And יֻלַד / "was born" is not the only verb in past tense. The passage should read: "For a child has been born to us, a son was given to us, and the authority has been put upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ / n'tan lanu "was given to us." Past tense. וַתְּהִי - "and has-been" (past tense). The future tense in this case, including the preposition "and", 'וְ', would be וְהָיְתָה (e.g., Yoel / Joel 4:17) - also different. Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 is speaking about the birth of חִזְקִיָּ֫הוּ / Hizkiyyahu / Hezekiah, the son of King Ahaz (of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 7 fame). At the time of Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 the child already was born (past tense) so it could not possibly be about Jesus who would not be born for 700+ years. If this lengthy blog entry has not tired you on the subject I highly recommend an article by UriYosef (native Israeli) entitled Isaiah 9:5-6[6-7] - Is it Messianic or Historical? - which presents a detailed analysis of the grammar that includes tables showing the translations in the KJV. A set of related Lesson notes is also available on this topic.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
|