It seems to me that your comments reflect traditional Christian exegesis and are not rooted in grammar or syntax. On which *grammatical* or *syntactical* basis do you claim that "52:14 puts the suffering in the *past*"? I note that the LXX has future verbs in this verse, one translates the Hebrew QATAL and the other translates a Hebrew substantive. I take v. 14 as simple future, just as does the LXX. Why should I not?
I do not reject the principle of "relative time," but to use it in translation often requires a great amount of theological exegesis. So please tell me your grammatical and syntactical reasons when you say "So the report in the more distant future looks back at the less future events. It looks back to them as past" Which grammatical or syntactical arguments will you use against the following translation of Isaiah 53:1: "Who will believe our report, and the arm of YHWH, to whom will it be revealed?" I note that the LXX uses two aorists in this verse, but the aorist can also refer to the future, even if this does not happen often (cf. Jude 1:14).
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.