Biblical Hebrew Forum

[C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com>]

Thank you, Ken.

I do think that, as you mention, it is valid to discuss Biblical Greek on this forum as long as it is demonstrably tied to questions of Biblical Hebrew. In this case, the question was, "What can we discern of the Biblical Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 44:24 based on the Old Greek translation of this verse?" Corollary to that: "What do the aorist verbs (and participles) tell us about the Hebrew text?"

In response to your criticism of Porter, I think his theories have some merit, but they go too far in suggesting that Koine Greek is PURELY aspectual. His comments on the aorist as a timeless, background tense form are often helpful to remind the reader that aorist is not simply past-tense.

HOWEVER, his reliance on Comrie's theories of verbal aspect is a bad move, in my opinion. Comrie described verbal aspect in terms of Russian (and similar Slavic languages), which is very unlike Koine Greek. (Full disclosure: I have been a professional Russian linguist for many years, so I speak from that perspective when I opine that Porter really does not understand Comrie. As a result, his theory is rightly to be criticized at those points where he relies on Comrie.)

In response to your concern that we my be getting off topic, I have no further comments on Isaiah 44:24, unless someone else on the forum would care to continue the discussion.

On a somewhat related note, Ken: Is the forum aware of your scholarly work in Greek Isaiah? I imagine that this group would appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Chris Lovelace

---

From: Ken Penner <kpenner AT stfx.ca>
To: C L <sigebryht AT yahoo.com>; "b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 5:46 AM
Subject: RE: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 44:24

Recognizing again that this is about Greek rather than Hebrew, I mention the following article only because of the appeal to Stan Porter’s Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament.

Steve Runge has identified “foundational errors in Stan Porter’s theoretical framework that significantly undermine the validity of his claims regarding the Greek verb.” See

http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2013/08/porters-use-of-contrastive-substitution/

 

This is relevant for Hebrew to the extent that Hebrew grammarians use Greek to illustrate or provide parallels for the Hebrew verbal system.

 

 

Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Religious Studies

2329 Notre Dame Avenue, 409 Nicholson Tower

St. Francis Xavier University

Antigonish, NS  B2G 2W5

Canada

(902)867-2265

kpenner AT stfx.ca

 

 

 

 

From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of C L
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 4:28 AM
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: [b-hebrew] Isaiah 44:24

 

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'.

Sincerely,

Chris Lovelace