Which Tense in Isaiah 63?
In the King James Version of the sixty-third chapter of Isaiah, we find a number of verbs (1-4) in the future tense that are in past time in other versions. Which translation is correct?
There are two viewpoints from which this question may be examined: (1) from the standpoint of the Hebrew text, and (2) from the standpoint of the context. The original Hebrew does use the form that is usually translated future in the cases in which the King James Version has the future in this chapter. But in each case the verb is preceded by the Hebrew letter van, which is generally translated "and." The vau has two vowel markings under it, either ":" or "-". It is quite customary when there are two verbs in the past tense, for the second to be preceded by vau with the vowel marking "-", and to be in the form usually translated a future. The vau with this vowel marking " - " is in this case called van consecutive. The vau with the vowel marking " : " is called vau conjunctive.
The Hebrew grammar usually speaks of these two forms of the verb as perfect and imperfect, and so we will use these terms. When a perfect is followed by an imperfect, if this imperfect is preceded by vau consecutive, it is translated as though both verbs were past tense in English and joined by "and." On the other hand, the imperfect form, when preceded by vau conjunctive, is generally translated as a future tense in English.
One must remember that the vowel markings of the Hebrew text are of comparatively recent date. The pronunciation of the consonantal Hebrew original was handed down by oral tradition until the time of the Masoretes (the sixth to the eleventh Christian century). These Masoretes added the vowel markings to their texts. The oldest of these manuscripts that we have, dates from about the tenth century.
Now we are ready to consider which translation is better, the King James Version or that of the Revised and many other modern English and foreign language versions. A study of the context will help us. The chapter begins by presenting to us a person with garment dyed red. This person says that he has trodden the wine press alone. Evidently the judgment of God is compared to a wine press, and the juice that stains the garment of him that treads the wine press is the blood of them that God will tread in His anger and trample in His fury. The prophet presents Christ to us as having accomplished this judgment upon the nations of this world, and with the blood already on His garments. The Revised and many other modern English and foreign language versions are more logical in their translation, but the King Tames Version follows more closely the Hebrew text as punctuated with vowel signs by the Masoretes.
The Masoretic reading may be explained in two ways. Knowing that the judgment of the world is in the future, the Masoretes may have deliberately written the vowel point ": " instead of "-", that is, given us the vau conjunctive instead of the vau consecutive. Or, this van conjunctive may be an exception used to show purpose or manner. No less an authority than Driver translates these imperfects as pasts rather than futures (see Cambridge Bible). George Adam Smith, in the Expositor's Bible, translates this passage as follows:
"Who is this coming from Edom, Raw-red his garments from Bossrah ! This sweeping on in his raiment, Swaying in the wealth of his strength?
"I that do speak in righteousness, Mighty to save!!
"Wherefore is red on thy raiment,
And thy garments like to a wine treader's?
"A trough I have trodden alone, Of the peoples no man was with me. So I trod them down in my fury ; Their life-blood sprinkled my garments. And all my raiment I stained. For the day of revenge in my heart, And the year of my redeemed has come."
L. L. CAVINESS.
Angwin, Calif.