Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: CS Bartholomew <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>
  • Cc: hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Psa 107:19-21 (was WAYYIQTOL)
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 03:46:31 -0800

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 Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page