Future tense in Psalm 41:5 (LXX)
Steven R. Lo Vullo
doulos at chorus.net
Sat Dec 9 20:37:12 EST 2000
On 12/9/00 10:57 AM, Jon D. Boyd wrote:
> TAUTA EMNHSQHN KAI EXECEA EP' EME THN YUCHN MOU hOTI DIELEUSOMAI EN
> TOPWi SKHNHS QAUMASTHS hEWS TOU OIKOU TOU QEOU EN FWNHi AGALLIASEWS KAI
> EXOMOLOGHSEWS HCOU hEOPTAZONTOS.
> My question centers on the use of the future tense DIELEUSOMAI. Most
> English versions render the Hebrew as an imperfect: "I used to go . . ."
> And the Hebrew word is in the prefix form, which indicates imperfective
> aspect. But, as Carl has mentioned, the LXX can be interpreted on its
> own merits. My question: What do you make of this use of the future
> tense? Is this just a bad translation of the underlying Hebrew (changing
> the sense of the Hebrew text), or can the future tense be used to
> describe something that used to happen?
It may be a bad translation *and* a description of past action. As far as
past action is concerned, it all depends on how you understand hOTI. If it
is causal, then I don't see any way to take DIELEUSOMAI as past action.
However, in light of the fact that at least one of the main verbs is a verb
of perception, which may have a hOTI clause introducing indirect discourse
as its direct object, it is at least possible to take hOTI as a marker of
indirect discourse. Since the tense of the Greek verb in indirect discourse
is retained from the direct discourse, the future tense verb here would
indicate the future from the perspective of the time of the main verb. Since
the main verb is an aorist, both verbs would indicate past time from the
perspective of the speaker (and, of course, the reader). The direct object
clause would, in addition, be appositional to TAUTA. We could therefore
translate: "This (these things) I remembered ... that I would go to the
place of your marvelous tabernacle, to the house of God, with a voice of
gladness and thanksgiving, etc."
More information about the B-Greek