[b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
peterkirk at qaya.org
Mon Mar 15 06:46:31 EST 2004
On 14/03/2004 20:46, CS Bartholomew wrote:
>On 3/14/04 2:26 PM, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk at qaya.org> wrote:
>>On the other hand, the aorist indicative
>>is unambiguously past.
>A better way to say this is the aorist indicative is unambiguously aorist.
>S.Porter buried the notion that the "aorist indicative is unambiguously
>past" 15 years ago (1989).
>This is off topic, so I will desist.
Well, it is not really off topic as this is a key point in my criticism
of Rolf's work.
I haven't looked into Porter's work in detail, but from a brief survey
it seems to suffer from the same misunderstandings as Rolf's work in
WAYYIQTOL. Undeniably the aorist indicative (I deliberately rule out
other moods and non-finite forms) was the form most commonly used in
Greek to express a simple action in past time, just as the same is true
of WAYYIQTOL in biblical Hebrew. There may be exceptional circumstances
in which either aorist indicative or WAYYIQTOL is used in non-past
contexts (although many of these can be understood as relative past).
But these exceptions do not disprove the rule.
If you wish to dispute my conclusion that the aorists in Deu 10:3 and
Ezk 12:7, 20:9,14,22, 24:18 are unambiguously past, you need to look at
ancient translations of the LXX and see if any of them are non-past.
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
More information about the b-hebrew