Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Barry <nebarry AT verizon.net>]

Thanks for your response. I still think the translator conceptualized these as simple past tenses for the reasons I mentioned before, but for me, a passage like this is a window into the translator's view of the Hebrew, and is invaluable for that reason (and others).

N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Sent from my iPad

Personal opinions expressed in this email do not reflect any institution with which I may be affiliated

On Sep 27, 2013, at 3:28 AM, C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com> wrote:

Barry,

If I may respond to your comments:

"If I may paraphrase his grammar-speak, the aorist views the action as simple action, rather than as a process (imperfect) or in terms of completion (perfect)."

>> I think this is a correct statement about Wallace's grammar. 

"With regard to the aorist indicative, this means that the action is viewed as taking place in the past (from the point of view the speaker or writer of the text, or represented as so from the point of view presented in the text)."

>> Often, but not always. Aorist often indicates events that occur in the simple present. Stanley Porter discusses this at length in his Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament. Wallace's discussion of Aktionsart is pertinent here, as well. Aorist simply denotes unmarked action that is viewed as a complete event. It IS the "normal narrative past tense verb," as you say, but it is very often used to denote present tense, gnomic usage, and other types of action. I did misspeak myself by describing the use of aorist in Isaiah 44:24 as "gnomic." I was looking for the correct category for the timeless use of the aorist, which would normally be signaled in English by the simple present.

Getting back to Isaiah 44:24...

The "timeless snapshot" use of the aorist neatly explains why the Greek translators chose it to render participial Hebrew verb forms used to describe Y'.