Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference 0198270100, 9780198270102

Citation preview

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

FRONT MATTER

Copyright Page  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0003 Published: March 2001

Page iv

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

p. iv

This book has been printed digitally and produced in a standard speci cation in order to ensure its continuing availability

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With o

ces in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © T. V. Evans 2001 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) Reprinted 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover And you must impose this same condition on any acquirer ISBN 978–0–19–827010–2 Cover illustration: The Israelites travelling in the wilderness, from the Numbers book-heading of J. E. Grabe's 1707 edition of the Greek Octateuch. Courtesy of Dr. John Lee.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

FRONT MATTER

Dedication  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0004 Published: March 2001

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

p. v

For my family, with love, and especially for my parents,

p. vi

Allan and Nona Evans

Pages v–vi

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

FRONT MATTER

Preface  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0005 Published: March 2001

Pages vii–viii

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

THE

language of the Septuagint has in the past received little attention from philologists. A major reason for

this neglect is the Hebraistic cast of most of its contents. Although the Septuagint remains one of our principal resources for studying the early Koine period—for all the twentieth century's discoveries in papyri and inscriptions—the assumption of thoroughgoing bilingual interference has made it seem less than fertile ground for students of the history of Greek. Syntax research has been particularly limited. Yet there are Greek functional categories, including verbal aspect, tense, and mood, which because of linguistic coding di erences between the languages ought to be quite independent of Hebrew (or for some Old Testament books Aramaic) in uence. Their evidence is potentially highly signi cant, with implications extending well beyond the special issues of translation Greek. The perception that this is indeed the case has motivated the present work. I hope to show that the verbal syntax of the Greek Pentateuch, once degrees of in uence from the underlying Hebrew have been gauged, can provide valuable information on the development of the Koine Greek verbal system. This book is a revised version of a Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Sydney in 1997. The revision was completed in the Australian spring of 1999. Many friends and colleagues have made a contribution, direct or indirect, to its production. I shall mention only some important names. It was a privilege and a pleasure to produce the original thesis under the supervision of Dr John Lee, who continues to place his inspiring command of Koine Greek language at my service. Dr Alan Treloar, who introduced me to historical and comparative linguistics and trained me in several languages relevant to the book, and Professor Kevin Lee have also provided crucial support and guidance. Professor Don Carson, Dr Geo

Jenkins, and Professor

Raija Sollamo, the examiners of the thesis, o ered valuable comments, as did Dr Ian Young. The Editorial Board of Vetus Testamentum has kindly granted permission to include here material which has already p. viii

appeared in ‘The

Comparative Optative: A Homeric Reminiscence in the Greek Pentateuch?’, VT 49

(1999), 487–504. The courtesy and care of all at Oxford University Press, and the suggestions of my copyeditor and typesetter, Dr John Waś, have been greatly appreciated. For help and advice of various sorts I am grateful to Allan Evans, Campbell Grey, Dr Yasmin Haskell, Dr Rosalinde Kearsley, Dr Allen Muscio, Amanda Power, Digby Pridmore, Dr Nick Riemer, and Terry Roberts. I also thank Anssi Voitila for his generosity,

among other kindnesses, in granting access to unpublished materials. And I remember fondly Pastor George Metcalfe's public classes on Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, which started all this. Lastly, I acknowledge a profound debt to the circle of family and friends who have sustained my spirits through the years of working on this project. T.V.E.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

FRONT MATTER

List of Tables  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0007 Published: March 2001

Page xv

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

1 Frequencies of Occurrence of Verbal Forms in the Greek Pentateuch  55 2 Frequencies of Occurrence of Imperative Tense Forms in the Greek Pentateuch  56 3 The Greek Genesis: MT Matches for Verbal Forms  92 4 The Greek Exodus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms  98 5 The Greek Leviticus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms  104 6 The Greek Numbers: MT Matches for Verbal Forms  108 7 The Greek Deuteronomy: MT Matches for Verbal Forms  113 8 Functional Classi cation of Optative Forms in the Greek Pentateuch  181 9 Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in Select Works  204 10 Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch  210 11 Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in Extra-Pentateuchal LXX Books  210 12 Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch: Forms Matching Hebrew Perfects and Consecutive Imperfects  215 13 Frequencies of ∈ἰμί Periphrases in the Pentateuch  248 14 Changes to CATSS Verb Counts  277 15 Genesis: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms  281 16 Exodus: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms  284 17 Leviticus: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms  288

18 Numbers: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms  290 19 Deuteronomy: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms  293

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

FRONT MATTER

Abbreviations  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0008 Published: March 2001

Pages xvi–xxiv

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

A Class Acta Classica Aejmelaeus, Parataxis A, Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint: A Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982) AJPh American Journal of Philology ASTI Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute BAGD W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other hi Early Christian Literature, trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2nd edn. rev, F. W. Ginrich and F. W. Danker (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979) BD, Grundriβ K. Brugmann and B. Delbrück, Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn. (5 pts. in 9 vols.; Strasburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1897–1916; repr. Berlin: Walter de Gruytor & Co., 1967) BDR, Grammatik F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 14th edn., rev. F. Rehkopf (Göttingen: vandenhoeek & Ruprecht, 1975) Bergsträsser, Grammatik G. Bergsträsser, Hehräische Grammatik. Mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten 28, Au age von Wilhehn Gesenius' hebräischer Grammatik (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1918–29; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) BHS

K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 2nd emended edn, by W. Rudolph and H. P. Rüger (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984) BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Binnick, Time p. xvii

R. I. Binnick, Time and the Verb: A Guide

to Tense and Aspect (New York and Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 1991) BIOSCS Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies BL, Grammatik H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hehräischen Sprache (Halle, 1922; repr, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962) Browning, Med. & Mod. R. Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 CATSS R. A. Kraft and E. Tov (directors), ‘Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies’, unpublished electronic database (University of Pennsylvania and the Hebrew University, 1994) Chantraine, Grammaire P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique (2 vols,; Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, 1958–63) CQ Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review CS, Grammar F. C. Conybeare and St. G, Stock, Grammar of Septuagint Greek (Boston: Ginn and Co., 1905; expanded edn. repr. Peabody Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995) DÉLG P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (4 vols.; vol, iv completed by O. Masson. J.-P. Perpillou, and J. Taillardat); Paris: Éditions Klincksieck, 1968–80) DHM, Septante G. Dorival, M. Harl, and O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1988) Fanning, ‘Approaches’ B. M. Fanning, ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in De nition and Method’, in S. E, Porter and D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She

eld: JSOT Press, 1993), 46–62.

Fanning, Verbal Aspect B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) FilNT Filologia Neotestamentaria

p. xviii

GEW H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd impression (3 vols.; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1973–9) Gibson, Syntax J. C. L. Gibson, Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, 4th edn. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994) Gignac, Morphology F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, ii. Morphology (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1981) Gignac, Phonology F. T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, i. Phonology (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1976) GKC, Grammar E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English edn. rev. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910) Gonda, Character J. Gonda, The Character of the Indo-European Moods, 2nd impression (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980) Goodwin, Moods and Tenses W. W. Goodwin, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London: Macmillan & Co., 1889; repr. Bristol Classical Press, 1998) HebrUCA Hebrew Union College Annual Helbing, Grammatik R. Helbing, Grammatik der LXX, Lautund Wortlehre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907) HMP, Greek D. Holton, P. Mackridge, and I. Philippaki-Warburton, Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language (London and New York: Routledge, 1997) HR, Concordance E. Hatch, and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897–1906) IE Indo-European IEph. ii C. Börker and R. Merkelbach (eds.). Die Inschriften von Ephesos, pt. 2 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979) IF Indogermanische Forschungen

p. xix

IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature Jellicoe, Septuagint S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; repr, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993) JIES Journal of Indo-European Studies JL Journal of Linguistics JM, Grammar P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans, and rev. T. Muraoka (2 vols.; Rome: Ponti cal Biblical Institute, 1991; corrected repr. 1993) JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joüon, Grammaire P. Joüon, A Grammaire de l’hébreu biblique, 2nd edn. (Rome: Ponti cal Biblical Institute, 1947) JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JThS Journal of Theological Studies KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum alten Testament, 3rd edn., fasc. 1–2 rev. W. Baumgartner, fasc. 3 rev. W. Baumgartner and J. J. Stamm, fasc. 4 rev. J. J. Stamm (Leiden, 1967–90) Lee, Lexical Study J. A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study if the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983) LEH J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek—English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992–6) LSJ H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek—English Lexicon, 9th edn. rev. Sir H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940) LXX Septuagint M., Concordantiae S. Mandelkern, Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chaldaicae (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1895; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- & Verlagsanstalt, 1975) McKay, New Syntax p. xx

K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb Lang, 1994)

in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York: Peter

McKay, ‘Perfect in NT’ K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek’, Nov T 23 (1981), 289– 329 10.1163/156853681X00070 McKay, ‘Perfect in Papyri’ K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-literary Papyri’, BICS 27 (1980), 23–49 McKay, ‘Perfect Use’ K. L. McKay, ‘The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the End of the Second Century A.D. ’, BICS 12 (1965), 1–21 Mandilaras, Verb B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973) Mayser, Grammatik E. Mayser, Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (2 pts. in 6 vols.; Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1906–38; repr. Berlin, 1970 10.1515/9783110833744

; 2nd edn. of vol. i by H.

Schmoll, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1970) 10.1515/9783110833744 MH, Grammar J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ii. Accidence and Word-formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1919–29) Moscati, Comp. Grammar S. Moscati (ed.), An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964) Moulton, Prolegomena J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, i. Prolegomena, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908) MT Masoretic Text Nov T Novum Testamentum NT New Testament OLD P. G. W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, combined edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982) Olofsson, LXX Version S. Olofsson, The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990) OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën p. xxi

PCPhS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society PHI 7 PHI Greek Documentary Texts, CD ROM 7 (Packard Humanities Institute, 1991–6)

Porter, ‘Defence’ S. E. Porter, ‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect’, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She

eld: JSOT Press, 1993), 26–45; repr. as ‘In

Defense of Verbal Aspect’, in S. E. Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 1996), 21–38 Porter, Verbal Aspect S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989) Robertson, Grammar A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th edn. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934) RSV Revised Standard Version Schwyzer, Grammatik E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik, i. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion, 4th impression (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968) SD, Syntax E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik auf der Grundlage von Karl Brugmanns Griechische Grammatik, ii. Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik, 3rd impression, ed. A. Debrunner (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966) Segal, Grammar M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927) Sihler, Comp. Grammar A. L. Sihler, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SM, Grammar H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. G. M. Messing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956) SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici Soisalon-Soininen, In nitive p. xxii

I. Soisalon-Soininen, Die In nitive in

der Septuaginta (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965)

Soisalon-Soininen, Studien I. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987) SS, Two Studies C. M. J. Sicking and P. Stork, Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996) Suppl VT

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Swete, Introduction H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, rev. R. R. Ottley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914; repr. Peabody. Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989) TAPhA Transactions of the American Philological Association Taylor, Parsing Guide B. A. Taylor, The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint: A Complete Parsing Guide (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994) Thackeray, Grammar H. St. J. Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, i. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909) Thumb, Handbook A. Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular, trans. S. Angus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. CD ROM D (University of California, 1992) Tov, Hebrew Bible E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1992) Tov, Septuagint E. Tov, The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd edn. (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1997) TPhS Transactions of the Philological Society Turner, Syntax N. Turner, Syntax [vol. iii of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek] (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) VT Vetus Testamentum Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995) p. xxiii

Wevers, Exodus Notes J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990) Wevers, Exodus Text J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Exodus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992) Wevers, Genesis Notes J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta. Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993) Wevers, Leviticus Notes J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997) Wevers, Leviticus Text

J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Leviticus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986) Wevers, Numbers Notes J. W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998) Wevers, Numbers Text J. W. Wevers, Text History of the Greek Numbers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) WO, Syntax B. K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) Wright, Grammar W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd edn. rev. W. R. Smith and M. J. de Goeje (4 pts. in 2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896–8; repr. 1988) ZATW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft ZVS Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen For ancient extra-biblical authors and works abbreviations generally follow, or are expanded from, those in LSJ; but Hel. is used instead of LSJ's HG for Xenophon's Hellenica, and P. Petr. is cited by volume and text number, not as in LSJ by volume and page number. Citations of biblical works do not follow LSJ, but are p. xxiv intended to be self-explanatory.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

1 General Introduction  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0001 Published: March 2001

Pages 1–10

Abstract This study involves three interconnecting spheres of research, treating the Greek verbal system in general, translation-technical issues and the verb in the Greek Pentateuch, and speci c features of Pentatcuehal verbal syntax in relation both to the underlying Hebrew and the history of the Greek language. This is accordingly presented in three parts. Part l is largely concerned with theoretical issues. Part II assembles and analyses complete data for the Masoteric Text (MT) formal matches of all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Part III contains four detailed studies on features of verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Aside from describing the aims of the study, this chapter also describes previous studies of verbal syntax in the LXX (Septuagint), general tools for study of the Koine Greek verb, and the questions concerning the text of the Greek Pentateuch.

Keywords: LXX language, verbal syntax, Koine Greek, Greek Penteteuch Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

1.1. Preamble Although it may be based on it, Septuagint Greek cannot simply he characterized as Koine Greek, It is rst of all. translation Greek. This is most obvious on the level of syntax and style. The order of the words in the translation most often closely sticks to that of the Hebrew original. In fact, in many passages, the Hebrew and the Greek can be put in parallel columns, word by word, The result is that the syntax of the Septuagint is 1

Hebrew rather than Greek.

These are the words of Lust, It is remarkable to nd such a view of translation Greek still being expressed in the 1990s, especially by a writer who supports the modern consensus that LXX language is essentially Koine 2

Greek. Syntactical and stylistic in uence from the Hebrew is certainly very obvious, but to assert generally that LXX syntax equals Hebrew syntax is extreme. There is much more to syntax than word order. In Dent. 9:

19, for instance, καì εἰσήκουσεν κύριος ἐμοῦ MT ‫וישׁמע יהוה אלי‬. Choice of the genitive form ἐμοῦ is controlled by the demands of Greek case syntax in relation to the verb εἰσακούω. The underlying Hebrew prompts only the use of a rst person singular pronoun. Analogous examples can easily be multiplied. Nevertheless, Lust's observation does illustrate the slow progress of LXX philology in treating the special character of this type of Greek, The original Hebrew (or for some books Aramaic) casts a long shadow over 3

our evaluation of translation Greek and the pace of syntax research has been particularly sluggish. Thus, p. 2

the LXX represents a major resource still little tapped for its information

on the history of the Greek

language, and above all on that of its functional categories.

1.2. Aims of the Present Study 4

This study takes as its focus patterns of usage in verbal, aspect, tense, and mood in the Greek Pentateuch.

The central argument is that verbal syntax in these translation documents represents essentially idiomatic Greek, which needs to be viewed in the light of contemporary Koine vernacular usage. Within its restricted scope, the book will apply the spirit of Thackeray's dictum, that ‘the main function of a grammar of LXX 5

Greek is to serve as a contribution to the larger subject, the grammar of the κοινή (though his ‘main function’ is an obvious overstatement). On the other hand, we must always keep in mind the dual nature of translation Greek language and its special connections with the underlying Hebrew. Of particular importance is the question of bilingual interference in the Greek usage. While the categories of verbal syntax in question here can be expected to be free of bilingual interference in many respects, the Pentateuchal data must not be treated, uncritically as ordinary Koine samples. It will be argued that some syntactical phenomena, idiomatic in function, nevertheless manifest Hebrew interference through their frequencies of occurrence. The book is also intended to contribute more generally towards study of the Greek verbal system. Our standard grammars tend not to re ect progress in verbal studies, particularly in aspect theory, since the 1920s, but new impetus has been lent to this di

cult sphere of research in the last decade by the studies of

Porter and Fanning on the NT. It is incumbent upon any writer attempting a new treatment of the Greek verb to address the modern theoretical debate. The present study will therefore assess the Pentateuchal evidence in the light of twentieth-century developments in aspectology and related issues, including a critique of the arguments of Porter and Fanning.

p. 3

1.3. The Character of LXX Language The LXX is a heterogeneous collection of documents produced at di erent times and by varying methods. Some books are of course original Greek compositions. The corpus cannot usefully be treated as a single entity in terms of its linguistic content and we must be wary of grammatical generalizations, This is a complication even for analysis of comparatively homogeneous elements of the whole. The Pentateuch itself displays signi cant variations among the ve books, each of which seems undoubtedly the work of a 6

7

separate translator, but represents a unity by contrast with the rest of the corpus. As the oldest part of the translation, and to some extent a model for later translators, it is an obvious rst choice for linguistic 8

study. Only in the Pentateuch can. we be con dent that the role of translation-technical tradition is 9

limited, though it is already clearly nascent. Not surprisingly, these books have already received more intense scrutiny than other portions of the LXX. Study of verbal syntax in the Pentateuch addresses the bask problem of LXX philology, the question of the character of translation Greek. That this is not normal Greek is clear. Understanding the nature of its

abnormality has long taxed scholarship. While it is not disputed that the observable oddities re ect Semitic, especially Hebrew, in uence, interpretation of LXX Greek has become polarized according to two theories regarding the manner of this in uence. p. 4

Debate was formerly concentrated on whether unusual features

of LXX language are due largely to the

methods employed in translation, or rather to re ection of a spoken. ‘Jewish Greek’, discrete from, the contemporary Koine. Over the last century it has become possible, in the light of the newly discovered evidence of Greek papyri coupled with methodological advances, to demonstrate more and more clearly in various respects the a

nities of LXX Greek with the contemporary Koine vernacular of Egypt, This has led

in large measure to a resolution of the old dispute. The method of translation adequately explains the Hebraistic cast of the LXX, It is unnecessary to propose 10

the existence of a special Jewish Greek dialect to explain the abnormalities.

Nevertheless, the notion, of 11

Jewish Greek continues to nd its advocates, especially in the broader sphere of biblical Greek studies.

The

present work will supply further clear evidence of ordinary Koine characteristics in the translation Greek of the LXX.

1.4. Previous Study of Verbal Syntax in the LXX The slow pace of syntax research compared with work in other grammatical departments doubtless has a 12

strong bearing on generalizations of the ‘LXX syntax equals Hebrew syntax’ type.

The only LXX grammar

attempting an extended treatment of syntax, including that of the verb, remains the cursory study 13

introducing Conybeare and Stock's Selections from the Septuagint, published in 1905. p. 5

by two much more substantial works,

It was soon followed

Helbing's Gramtnatik der LXX: Laut- und Wortlehre (1907) and

Thackeray's A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, i Introduction, Orthography 14

and Accidence (1909). 15

Intentions,

Neither of these authors produced a syntax volume, however, despite good

Contributions toward, rectifying the de ciency have appeared only gradually.

Since the middle of the twentieth century advances have been made through the study of translation techniques, an approach pioneered by Soisalon-Soininen which frequently casts light on syntactical 16

questions.

A number of translation-technical studies treat verbal features, either speci cally or in passing.

Along with Helbing's older study Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta (1928), we should observe in particular Soisalon-'s Die In nitive in der Septuaginta (1965), the same author's papers collected as Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax(1987), Sollamo's Renderings of Hebrew Semip repositions in the Septuagint (1979), Aejmelaeus's Parataxis in the Septuagint (1982), Schehr's Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15’ (unpublished dissertation of 1990), and Sailhamer's The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (1991). Several of the works in this list (which omits journal articles) focus directly on the language of the Greek Pentateuch, and are accordingly of special value for the present study. Also intermittently helpful on verbal syntax are two new series of commentaries on the Pentateuchal books. These are Wevers's volumes of textual notes (1990–8), produced in the wake of his critical editions, and the Pentateuchal volumes of La Bible d'Alexandrie (1986–94), translations with running commentaries. p. 6

It must be noted that many pages of translation-technical analysis 17

interpretation.

18

Much remains to be done.

tend to yield very limited syntactical

There is special need for work on Greek features (verbal and

other) which lack obvious motivation from the Hebrew text, since these tend to escape the net of specialists in translation technique.

1.5. General Tools for Study of the Koine Greek Verb Beyond the LXX, reference works on the language of other Koine vernacular documents are also limited. This is still a neglected period in the history of Greek. Yet some good guides exist and on the use of aspect, tense, and mood in the Pentateuch considerable help is to be had from this quarter. Although its data are rendered increasingly incomplete by new publications of papyri, Mayser's Grammatik der griechischen Papyri ans der Ptolemäerzeit (1906–38) remains an invaluable research tool. Mandilaras's The Verb in the Greek Non19

literary Papyri (1973) is useful, especially for the later Koine period, despite aws,

but Gignac's excellent A

Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (i. Phonology, 1976; ii. Morphology, 1981) has unfortunately not yet reached a syntax volume. Jannaris's An Historical Greek Grammar (1897) retains value for its rich data, and for later developments Browning's Medieval and Modem Greek (2nd edn. 1983) and p. 7

Horrocks's Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (1997) are important

contributions. This is a

highly selective list. For other major reference works, including NT grammars, see the Abbreviations. The considerable value for aspect studies of Porter's Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (1989) and Fanning's Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (1990) has already received brief mention (§ 1.2). Porter's work has a very broad scope and also addresses other problems of Koine verbal usage. It will be seen, however, that both these monographs need to be used with caution. Lastly, it is important to mention the usefulness of electronic resources—in this case the TLG and PHI 7 databanks—for testing Koine verbal usage. Though not especially sensitive tools for syntax, study, these databanks can still be a great asset for this type of research, if supported by careful manual checking.

1.6. The Critical Texts Employed 20

The text of the Greek Pentateuch used in this study is the Göttingen edition of Wevers.

For extra-

Pentateuchal books I have followed Rahlfs's edition, with occasional reference to available Göttingen volumes and Brooke and McLean's Cambridge edition. The Hebrew text used for comparison is that of BHS (on questions concerning the Hebrew text see § 4.3). Extensive use has also been made of the CATSS electronic databases for morphological analysis of the 21

Pentateuchal verb.

The CATSS text is based on Rahlfs's edition and contains (in its 1994 version) 22

signi cant numbers of tagging errors. p. 8

manually

All Pentateuchal data generated electronically have therefore been

corrected both to remove errors contained in the electronic databases and to align readings

with Wevers's text (for full details see App. 2).

1.7. Questions concerning the Text of the Greek Pentateuch In treating the language of the LXX we encounter major textual uncertainties. Lee put the important 23

questions in this regard in his 1970 thesis.

Can we speak of a single original Alexandrian translation of the

Greek Pentateuch? If we assume its existence, at what date was it produced and to what extent is it recoverable from our uniformly eclectic manuscripts? My study is not concerned directly with these issues, although linguistic analysis can certainly shed light upon them. The availability of Wevers's critical editions is a major advance, providing important new tools for Pentateuchal research. His text is accepted here, along with the guiding assumption of the Göttingen 24

editors that an Alexandrian translation both existed and can be approximately recovered.

This is not to

suggest that Wevers's text is infallible. While for the sake of consistency my verbal statistics re ect his

readings, incorporating only some subsequent alterations which he has himself advocated (see App. 1, § 1 25

(a)), there is obvious merit in the handful of changes suggested recently by Joosten and Voitila.

In other

cases Wevers's readings are based on debatable linguistic judgements, but seem satisfactory in themselves (see e.g. § 9.3.2 on Exod. 4: 12 λαῆλσαι). While the question of date remains short of resolution, the consensus opinion, which places the translation p. 9

26

of the Pentateuch in the rst half of the third century BC , 27

identify a precise date ‘in the closing days of 281 BCE ’, 28

accounts on which her ndings are based. 29

useful, if limited, word studies,

seems reliable. Collins has

in fact attempted to

but few are likely to share her faith in the late

Lee shows the value of linguistic evidence for dating through

The syntactic features studied here do not provide unequivocal evidence in

this regard, but their usage in the Greek Pentateuch is consistent with an early date.

1.8. Plan of the Study The present study involves three interconnecting spheres of research, treating the Greek verbal system in general, translation-technical issues and the verb in the Greek Pentateuch, and speci c features of Pentateuchal verbal syntax in relation both to the underlying Hebrew and the history of the Greek language. It is accordingly presented in three parts, which are arranged as follows. Part I is largely concerned with theoretical issues. Chapter 2 sets out the approach to the Greek verbal system adopted in the study. Special attention is paid to the major problem of aspect, with reference to current theoretical debate. Chapter 3 describes di erences in linguistic coding between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems, demonstrating the scope for independent Greek usage. Part II assembles and analyses complete data for the ΜΤ formal matches of all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Chapter 4 describes the methodological approach to analysis of the formal matches. Chapter 5 supplies the data and interpretation. It is intended to show the general relationship between the Greek verbal forms and underlying Hebrew text components. Di erent types of Hebrew in uence will be distinguished, including the crucial feature of frequency of occurrence as a sign of bilingual interference. Part III contains four detailed studies on features of verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. These are the perfect system, the optative mood, the relative frequencies of aorist and imperfect indicative forms, and p. 10

periphrastic tense forms. All are of considerable interest

with regard to diachronic developments in the

post-Classical Greek verbal system. The features are investigated with a view both to their natural Greek qualities and to the question of Hebrew interference. The aim is to demonstrate the importance of both factors for a proper appreciation of Pentateuchal verbal syntax, and to show the richness of the resource for linguistic analysis of the Koine period in the history of Greek.

Notes 1 2 3 4

5 6

LEH vol. i. pp. viii–ix. Cf. the similar observations of Taylor, Parsing Guide, p. ix. LEH vol. i, p. viii. Lust is reiterating much older views on LXX. syntax; cf. CS, Grammar, 50. In the present study the term. ʻGreek Pentateuchʼ applies to the original, translations of the Hebrew Pentateuch, as far as these are represented by Wevers's Gottingen editions. The convenient, if imprecise, term ʻLXXʼ is used generieally of the Greek Old Testament, as represented by Rahlfs's edition, (on the text see further § 1.6). Thackeray, Grammar, 16. See J. W. Wevers, ʻAn Apologia for Septuagint Studiesʼ, BIOSCS 18 (1985), 16–38 at 20, 24 (on the pioneering mid-19th-cent. assessment of Zaeharias Frankef); id., ʻThe Göttingen Pentateuch: Some Post-partem Reflectionsʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII

7 8 9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16 17 18

19 20 21

22

23

Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 51–60 at 57–60; Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 175 n. 2. See Wevers, ʻGöttingen Pentateuchʼ, 59. Olofsson, LXX Version, 26–7; cf A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993), 93 on translation techniques. See the discussion of A. Aejmelaeus, ʻTranslation Technique and the Intention of the Translatorʼ, in C E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Letmen 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 23–36, repr. in Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators, 65–76; cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, p. xiv, on the mutual influence of di erent sections of Exodus; id., ʻThe LXX Translator of Deuteronomyʼ, in B, A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 57–89 at 67–9 on harmonization within Deuteronomy and with other Pentateuchal books. A clear assessment: of the older debate (up to 1970), showing the fundamental weaknesses of the Jewish. Greek theory, can. be found in Lee, Lexical Study, 11–30, For more recent assessments of the character of LXX Greek see DHM, Septante, 233–5; Olofsson, LXX Version, 33–9. See in general Horsley's treatment of ʻThe Fiction of “Jewish Greek” in G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, v (Sydney: Macquarie University, 1989), 5–40. Others may use language less extreme than Lust's statement quoted above, but it is easy to gain the impression that all categories of syntax in the translation documents are heavily flavoured by Hebraisms; see e.g. C. Rabin, ʻThe Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagintʼ, Textus, 6 (1968), 1–26 at 24, noting ʻthat most disturbing of all LXX. features, the semitisms of its syntaxʼ. This has now been, reprinted with the addition of new indices and vocabularies under the title Grammar of Septuagint Greek (already cited in. n. 3). The sections on grammar are unchanged from the original publication. On. their coverage see E. Tov, ʻThe Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Presentʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization far Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 337–59 at 344–5. All three grammars must he used with caution in the light, of subsequent research. On the shortcomings of Thackeray, without doubt still ʻthe best extantgrammarʼ (Tov, Septuagint, 32), see P. Katz (W. P. M. Walters), ʻSeptuagintal Studies in the Mid-century: Their Links with, the Past and their Present Tendenciesʼ, in S. JeIlicoe (ed,), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974), 21–53 at 29. See R. Helbing,. Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta (Göttingen:Vartdenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928), p, v. Thackeray's ʻVol, iʼ on the title-page makes his plans in this direction clear (and cf. J. H. Moulton, ʻA Grammar of the Septuagintʼ, JThS 11 (1910), 293–300 at 294, 300). On the history and development of translation-technical analysis see Tov, ʻTranslation Techniqueʼ, passim. Note e.g. Soisalon-Soininen's five and a half pages on aspect in the infinitive (Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 147–52) and cf. Tov, ʻTranslation Techniqueʼ, 348, commenting that ʻAs a rule, such studies contain no earth-shaking conclusionsʼ. Cf. the discussion of T. Muraoka, ʻThe Infinitive in the Septuagintʼ, in L. Green spoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 250–71. Muraoka's own intention, stated in this paper, to produce ʻa syntax of Septuagint Greekʼ (ibid. 260), has been delayed by other research commitments (private communication). On the other hand, it is encouraging to learn that the Helsinki School of Septuagintalists has now adopted the aim of compiling a LXX syntax, based on its investigations over many years into translation technique (on which see R. Sollamo, ʻThe Origins of LXX Studies in Finlandʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 159–68). This new aim was announced by Professor Sollamo in her paper ʻProlegomena to Septuagint Syntaxʼ, delivered at the Meeting of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies in Helsinki, July 1999. See J, A. L. Lee, review of B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri, in AUMLA 42 (1974), 225–4. On the choice of the Göttingen edition see § 1.7, and cf. T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ, (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990), 7–8. On the development and character of the CATSS tagged text see W. Adler, ʻComputer Assisted Morphological Analysisʼ, in J. R. Abercrombie, W. Adler, R. A. Kra , and E. Tov, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 69–84 (reprinted with minor changes from W. Adler, ʻComputer Assisted Morphological Analysis of the Septuagintʼ, Textus, 11 (1984), 1–16); cf. on the CATSS project in general J. J. Hughes, Bits, Bytes & Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie Books, 1987), 549–56. On the tagging errors of the CATSS text see in general H. Hahne, ʻInterpretive Implications of Using Bible-search So ware for New Testament Grammatical Analysisʼ, Religious Studies News, 10/4, (1995), 4; Taylor Parsing Guide, p. viii. Note incidentally that lexical statistics in LEH sometimes, perhaps o en, repeat CATSS errors; cf. the comments on LEH statistics and citations for ἕξις of J. A. L. Lee, ʻHebrews 5: 14 and ἕξις: A History of Misunderstandingʼ, NovT 39 (1997), 151–76 at 165. Lee, Lexical Study, 3–4.

24 25

26

Wevers, ʻApologiaʼ, 21. J. Joosten, ʻElaborate Similes: Hebrew and Greek. A Study in Septuagint Translation Techniqueʼ, Biblica, 77 (1996), 227–36 at 231–2, on which see § 7.8 n. 75; A. Voitila. ʻSome Text-critical Remarks on the Greek Text of the Pentateuchʼ, Textus, 20 (forthcoming). See e.g. N. L. Collins, ʻ281 BCE : The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy IIʼ, in G. J. Brooke

27

and B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 403–503 at 403. 484–5 n. 1. Collins, ʻ281 BCE ʼ, 477 and passim.

28 29

Cf. the reserve of Muraoka, ʻInfinitiveʼ, 262. Lee, Lexical Study, 4, 129–44, 148. On the limitations of Lee's lexical samples see G. H. R. Horsley ʻDivergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bibleʼ. Biblica, 65 (1984), 393–403 at 401.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

2 Aspectology, Related Issues, and the Greek Verb  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0002 Published: March 2001

Pages 13–51

Abstract The Ancient Greek verbal system has been subjected to the scrutiny of scholars for over 2,500 years, but is still in many respects little understood. This state of a airs has been clari ed in recent times by the work of Porter and Fanning on the verb in the New Testament (NT). Accordingly, this chapter sets out the theoretical basis of its own approach to the Greek verb with reference to developments in modern aspectology and especially to Porter and Fanning's contributions. According to the approach adopted here, ancient Greek manifests two aspects, perfective and imperfective, and as many as ve aspectual tenses: present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, and pluperfect. The future and future perfect are taken as the only non-aspectual tense forms, but from the later Koine period, the future comes to be replaced by aspectual periphrases.

Keywords: verbal aspect, grammatical marking, perfect tense, Greek grammar, S. E. Porter, B. M. Fanning Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

2.1. Preamble The Ancient Greek verbal system has been subjected to the scrutiny of scholars for over two and a half thousand years, but is still in many respects little understood. This state of a airs has been clari ed in recent times by the work of Porter and Fanning on the verb in the NT Both writers reassess conventional ideas about tense, mood, and. above all the crucial problem of aspect in the light of modern linguistic theory. Porter in particular challenges many of the assertions to be found in the standard Greek grammars, employing a model from systemic linguistics. While the present study is not primarily concerned with general tense and aspect theory, in the wake of Porter and. Fanning no writer on Greek verbal usage can a ord to overlook the current theoretical debate. Accordingly, this chapter will set out the theoretical basis of my own approach to the Greek verb with reference to developments in modern aspectology and especially to Porter and Farming's contributions.

2.2. The Problem of Verbal Aspect Lys. I. 12 καì ἐγώ τὴν γυsναîκα ἀπiέvaι ἐκέλενον καì δούναι τῷ παιδίῳ τòν τιτθόν, ἵνα παύσηται κλᾶον. (‘And I told my wife to go and give the child the breast, in order that it might stop crying,’) This example illustrates the central problem of the Greek verbal system that of describing the grammatical category of aspect. It presents us with coordinated in nitives, the present ἀπiέva and the aorist δούναι, p. 14

manifesting the basic opposition of imperfective

and perfective aspects. What is the di erence in

meaning between them? A typical response of traditional aspectology would be to explain the contrasting forms as durative and punctiliar respectively. This and similar notions, which re ect the old ‘kind of action’ characterization, of 1

aspect, are still current. But the history of aspectology is one of change. Aspect as a metalinguistic category is understood in a quite di erent way by the majority of contemporary theorists. It is now usually taken— though it would be wrong to suggest full consensus—as a viewpoint feature, referring to the way in which a speaker or writer views a verbal occurrence in relation to its internal temporal constituency. Application of this general de nition (on which see further § 2.3.3) to the evidence of Greek raises interesting and di

cult

questions regarding the function and also the number of separate aspects.

2.3. Introduction to Aspect and Related Issues 2.3.1. The development of aspectology When speaking of traditional aspectology, we must remember that the discipline has been, with us for only a hundred and fty years. That brief history has been marked by periodic reinterpretation. From the earliest linguistic investigations until the nineteenth century the Greek verbal system, was understood, primarily in terms of temporal relationships. Admittedly, some awareness is to be found in the early writers that more than simple location in time is involved. The ancient treatments are frequently hard to interpret, but Plato,. Aristotle, and the Stoic grammarians arguably approach modern notions of aspect, or at least closely related features, Their insights had already become blurred, however, if not entirely lost, in the Tecknē Grammatikē p. 15

2

of Dionysius Thrax, the rst surviving grammar of the Greek language (c.100 BC ). In later times the ubiquitous in uence of Latin grammatical categories on linguistic scholarship fostered ignorance of verbal 3

aspect in Greek and other languages. The Latin verbal system displays a highly developed temporally based 4

structure, involving only limited aspectual distinctions,

Modern aspectology had its origins in the nineteenth century. The rise of historical and comparative linguistics was then exposing numerous old ideas to challenge. The weakness of traditional temporally based analysis of the Greek verb (which now seems self-evident when, we consider such, contrasts of present and aorist in non-indicative forms as ἀπiέvaι and δοῦναι above) was gradually coming to be appreciated. The newly identi ed manifestation of aspect in Russian and the Slavonic languages became 5

internationally known and was compared, with verbal usage in Greek and other IE languages. In the middle 6

years of the century Georg Curtius, in uenced by Slavonic aspect, drew a distinction in the Greek verb between temporal reference, which he termed Zeitstufe (lit. ‘stage of time’), and kind of action, which he termed Zeitart (lit. ‘kind of time’), He identi ed the latter as the more signi cant semantic feature of verbal, 7

forms. This was a critical theoretical advance and was rapidly developed by other scholars, especially by Brugmann and the Neogrammarians. The character rather than time of a verbal occurrence came to be p. 16

accepted as fundamental in Greek verbal categories. Technical nomenclature varied, with ‘Zeitart’ (which

8

9

soon fell into disuse), Brugmann's term. Aktionsart’ (lit, ‘kind of action’), and ‘aspect’ all used as synonyms. The category to which these terms were applied was at rst rather vaguely de ned, taking in semantic values manifested morphologically, lexically, and also pragmatically, This crude classi cation led to multiplication of Aktionsarten/aspects. Along with durative and punctiliar, we nd such distinctions as 10

completed and incomplete, repeated and single, inceptive and terminative.

Most of our standard Greek

grammars re ect the work of this early period, the infancy of modern research into the phenomenon.

2.3.2. The distinction between aspect and Aktionsart The contribution of the twentieth century has been an attempt at greater precision in analysis. The period since the 1920s has seen a trend in general linguistics towards an increasingly restricted and decisively altered de nition of aspect. The old category described as aspect or Aktionsart was understood to express the kind of occurrence conveyed by a verbal form. It took in grammatical features systematically marked in languages, as by 11

morphology in Greek (so λαβεîν, λαμβάνειν) or by verb pairs in Slavonic languages.

It covered the inherent

lexical meanings of verbs (so the durative value of English ‘prevent’ or Greek κωλύω). These, in contrast to the grammatical features, are non-grammatical and unsystematic. It also took in semantic values contributed by context, such as the arguably inceptive meanings of the present participle βαλλόντων and imperfect indicative ἔευγον in the following passage. Neither βάλλω ‘throw/hit’ nor ɸεύγω ‘ ee’ conveys inceptive force as part of its lexical meaning. Nor do either verb's aspectually imperfective forms regularly express an idea of inception. It is use of imperfective forms in the particular context of Thuc. 2. 4 which yields this nuance:

p. 17

And two or three times they beat o

attacks, then when they [the Plataeans] charged with a great

din and also the women and slaves, screaming and ululating, from the houses started pelting them with, stones and tiles—and there had been a heavy fall of rain during the night also—they became frightened, turned., and began to ee through, the city. Once these di erences of linguistic expression were unravelled an important new question arose. Are we dealing with di erent ways of expressing the same semantic values? For instance, are the morphologically expressed semantics of the λαβει̂ν/λαμβάνειν contrast parallel with that between the lexical, semantics of βάλλω in the sense ‘hit’, which might be characterized as a punctiliar occurrence, and κωλύω in the durative sense ‘prevent’? Such in uential recent writers as Comrie and Lyons have given an a

rmative answer, taking 12

both types of expression to describe the procedural characteristics of a verbal occurrence.

Increasingly,

however, the semantic values of these categories have come to be regarded as distinct. The term ‘Aktionsart’ has been reserved for procedural characteristics, seen especially as lexically expressed, while the term ‘aspect’ has been, restricted to grammatically expressed viewpoint features. This distinction will be observed in the following discussion. At rst a di erence was also felt to lie in the subjectivity of grammatically expressed aspect, as against the objectivity of lexical categories. Yet although aspect involves comparatively greater subjectivity than 13

Aktionsart, aspectual choices are very rarely pure (i.e. free from the in uence of related features). p. 18

other hand, lexical, categories themselves are not wholly objective. Thus, in the

On the

statement ‘I sat here 14

writing all day’, ‘all day’ may not be an objective representation of the real-world situation.

Hence Bache

15

prefers the respective characterizations ‘quasi-subjectiνity’ and ‘quasi-objectivity’.

He rede nes the

semantic distinction as follows; Aktionsart concerns the procedural characteristics (i.e. the ‘phasal structure’, ‘time extension’ and ‘manner of development’) ascribed to any given situation referred to by a verb phrase whereas aspect re ects the situational focus with which a situation is represented. Sometimes the speaker/writer has a ‘subjective choice’ between two ways of representing the situation (in cases of pure aspectual, opposition), sometimes he MUST choose one or the other way of representation (in 16

cases where the aspects function in di erent ways in relation to tense and Aktionsart).

This more or less re ects the current consensus view, to the extent that consensus exists. Modern 17

linguistics remains short of a ‘coherent general theory’,

and even some relatively recent publications on 18

aspect languages maintain very di erent approaches to the notion of aspect.

2.3.3. A definition of aspect The metalinguistic category of aspect, then, is usually taken by-contemporary theorists to express viewpoint, the manner of conception by speaker or writer of a verbal occurrence in relation to its internal temporal constituency. It is realized systematically through grammatical marking (so in Greek λαβεῖν/ λαμβάνειν, μεῖναι/ μένειν). Aspect essentially involves a binary opposition between perfective and imperfective aspects. The perfective p. 19

aspect views a verbal occurrence as a complete entity, Comrie's ‘single unanalysable

19

whole’.

The

imperfective aspect views an occurrence as incomplete, with reference to its internal temporal constituency. It focuses on process, and in combination with other factors may highlight a particular stage of that process, as in the Thucydidean passage of § 2.3.2. Here we have the answer to the question of § 2.2 on Lys. 1. 12. The di erence of meaning between the present and aorist in nitives is that the writer's viewpoint shifts from internal process in ἀπιέναι to whole occurrence in δοῦναι. Aspect does not in itself indicate how long or short a time these verbal occurrences take to happen—as terms like durative and punctiliar suggest—with reference to some external reference-point. This leads us to an. important note of clari cation. When discussing internal temporal values and the notion of aspectual completion, it is crucial to distinguish aspect from the grammatical category of tense. The di erence, a matter of deixis, is clearly put by Comrie: although both aspect and tense are concerned with time, they are concerned with time in very di erent ways.… tense is a deictic category, i.e. locates situations in time, usually with reference to the present moment, though also with reference to other situations. Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to any other time-point, but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one situation; one could state the di erence as one between situation-internal 20

time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense).

The present treatment has so far concentrated on the opposition between, perfective and imperfective aspects. We should also note here that the enigma of the perfect tense has traditionally been said to 21

manifest a third fundamental aspect.

Some writers also regard the future tense as an. aspect. The number

of genuinely separate aspects in Greek will be considered in §§ 2.4.2, 2.5, and 2.6.

2.3.4. Aktionsart and Vendlerian classification The metalinguistic category of Aktionsart describes the procedural characteristics of a verbal occurrence. It 22

has typically come to be seen as unsystematic and non-grammatical, expressed through lexical semantics (caveats to this element of the de nition will be introduced below). In fact the old Aktionsarten have been p. 20

replaced in large part since the mid-twentieth century by arrangement of

verbs into abstract lexical 23

classes, the so-called Vendlerian classi cation (or Vendler-Kenny taxonomy).

This is a more sophisticated approach, based on the primary distinction between actions (dynamic verbs) and states (non-dynamic verbs), with various modi cations. So βάλλω ‘throw/hit’ expresses a type of action, while σιγῶ ‘be silent’ expresses a state. The three, four, or more abstract classes (see further § 2.4.1) are 24

unsystematic, but obligatory in that they categorize all verbs in a language.

Developed to describe English,

Vendlerian classi cation has much potential for the analysis of verbs in other languages. Several writers have applied it to Greek, with interesting results. Nevertheless, caution is required. The classi cation is as yet compromised by methodological weaknesses. It tends not to distinguish the meanings of verbs from those of the verbal situations in which those verbs occur. The one verb may shift between Vendlerian 25

categories, which apply essentially to the verbal situations.

For instance, Fanning regards ἀκούω and ὁρῶ

and other verbs of ‘passive perception’ as stative, but admits that such verbs may manifest actional force 26

according to their contextual meaning.

Moreover, the abstract Vendlerian categories ought to be based on

advanced lexicographical methods. In all applications to Greek thus far they seem to be somewhat 27

arbitrary

28

and to depend ultimately on the problematic English glosses of LSJ.

There is considerable scope

for further work on these issues. Apart from the Vendlerian classi cation which addresses all the verbs of a language, Aktionsart may be applied to other types of lexical feature. These are the non-obligatory semantic e ects expressed by p. 21

derivational morphology (a

xal elements) in particular

verbs, One example is the di erence of meaning 29

between ἐκθαυμάζω ‘be utterly amazed’ and θαυμάζω ‘be amazed’. 30

procedural characteristics.

Such di erences clearly describe

Yet here again lexicographical questions arise. Semantic bleaching of the

prepositional element is a recognized factor in compound verbs and ἐκθαυμάζω arguably drifts towards practical synonymy with θαυμάζω in Koine Greek.

2.3.5. Grammatical expression of Aktionsart? Consideration of a

xal elements in Greek verbs leads us to a key quali cation regarding the distinction

between aspect as grammatically expressed and. Aktionsart as lexically expressed. It is accepted here that aspect is a systematic category, which is grammatically expressed. On the other hand, the notion that Aktionsart values are entirely unsystematic and expressed only lexically seems forced. There is of course no special reason why a linguistic category should not be expressed both grammatically and lexically, as we shall see-in the case of temporal reference (§ 2.7.1). The pertinent evidence is provided by those a

xal elements which originally contributed independent

semantic values—Aktionsart values—but developed into simple markers of imperfective aspect in Greek, perhaps most familiarly the -σκ- su

x in verbs like γιγνώσκω. The same element expresses inceptive force in

the Homeric imperative βάσκε ‘get going’, habitual force in Homeric and Ionic forms like the imperfect μαχέσκετο ‘used to ght’, and appears with various (especially iterative or durative) semantic values in other 31

IE languages.

Such evidence indicates that the fully edged aspectual system of Classical Greek has grown

from a pre-aspectual stage of development. This is also re ected in the very heterogeneity of aspectual marking, by no means only by -σκ-, but also by other a

xal elements (e.g. the nasal su

x and in x of λα-μ-

β-άν-ειν beside λαβ-εῖν) or by suppletion (e.g. εἶπον as the usual aorist to φημί, from a di erent verbal root).

p. 22

Thus, the Greek

aspectual system is built from bits and pieces of other things and Aktionsart lies behind

it. Is it possible for an Aktionsart value to become grammatically systematized? I would suggest a positive answer. It will be argued below that this has indeed happened in the case of stativity and that the development o ers a workable solution to the problem of the perfect tense (§ 2.5).

2.4. The Contributions of Porter and Fanning 2.4.1. Two more definitions of aspect The advances in aspectology described above have only gradually been introduced from general linguistics into analysis of Greek. Porter and Fanning have both made signi cant recent contributions to this end. A great part of the value of their work rests in their collection of a wealth of relevant material from related disciplines, much of which had previously been overlooked by Greek language specialists. This service in itself provides a surer basis for discussion. It is striking that their monographs, independently produced at much the same time, yield similar basic de nitions of aspect. Yet their di erences are also marked. For Porter ‘Greek verbal aspect is a synthetic semantic category (realized in the forms of verbs) used of meaningful oppositions in a network of tense systems to grammaticalize the author's reasoned subjective 32

choice of conception of a process.’

He explains ‘the Greek verbal structure as a coordinated system of three

verbal aspects grammaticalized by three major tense-forms, in which temporal reference is not 33

grammaticalized in either the indicative or the non-indicative mood-forms’.

We shall return to Porter's

theory regarding temporal reference and the Greek verb (§ 2.7). His three verbal aspects are the perfective (represented by the aorist tense), the imperfective (represented by the present and imperfect), and the stative (represented by the perfect and pluperfect). These terms ‘seem to provide descriptive labels which 34

encapsulate the essential semantics of each aspectual category’.

The perfective signi es the conception of

a process as a ‘single and complete whole’, the imperfective signi es conception as ‘event in progress’, the 35

stative signi es ‘condition or state of a airs in existence’. p. 23

With this assessment we can compare Fanning's extended de nition: Verbal aspect … is that category in the grammar of the verb which re ects the focus or viewpoint of the speaker in regard to the action or condition which the verb describes. It shows the perspective from which the occurrence is regarded or the portrayal of the occurrence apart from the actual or perceived nature of the situation itself. To be more speci c, aspect is concerned with the speaker's viewpoint concerning the action in the sense that it implicitly sets up a relationship between the action described and a reference-point from which the action is viewed. The crucial aspectual distinction is whether this reference-point is internal or external to the action. The action can be viewed from a reference-point within the action, without reference to the beginning or end-point of the action, but with focus instead, on its internal structure or make-up. Or the action can be viewed from a vantage point outside the action, 36

with focus on the whole action from beginning to end, without reference to its internal structure. 37

There are clear similarities in the essentials of these de nitions,

and they share obvious a

nities with the

description given in § 2.3.3. On the one hand their broad agreement is signi cant, but 011 the other we must not lightly pass over important di erences- in emphasis and conception.

Most notably on the positive side, both writers adopt from general theory the strict de nition of aspect as a viewpoint feature. Thus Porter's ‘author's … choice of conception, of a process’ and Fanning's ‘focus or viewpoint of the speaker’. This explicit separation of aspect from the ‘kind of action’ category of Aktionsart 38

is a valuable contribution to Greek studies.

In addition, both writers exploit markedness theory and both

interpret the structural relationships of individual aspects within the verbal system as equipollent binary p. 24

39

oppositions.

Both also recognize that the opposition

between perfective and imperfective (Fanning's 40

external and internal) viewpoints is at the heart of aspect.

Porter is less clear on this point, but does note 41

that the ‘[+perfective]’ versus ‘[−perfective]’ distinction ‘is the broadest aspectual opposition in Greek’.

However, the question of the number of genuine aspectual distinctions raises a major conceptual di erence regarding the perfect tense, to which we shall, return (§ 2.5). With his stress on ‘the author's reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process’, Porter tends to 42

overemphasize the subjectivity of aspect in his monograph.

He has since quali ed this element of his

de nition: ‘This language is not meant to imply that the choice by a language user was always (or ever!) conscious, but that the “choice” was presented or required by the structure of the verbal system of the 43

language.”

The revised statement is much more acceptable. Choice of aspect is probably never conscious

and is controlled to a signi cant extent by a verb's lexical semantics and the demands of linguistic context (cf. § 2.3.2). The environments within which there operates a ‘free’ choice between perfective and imperfective are limited. A rather di erent kind of quasi-subjectivity in aspect usage is probably to be found in features of style and idiolect. This is a sphere neglected by both Porter and Fanning in their common aim 44

to isolate invariant meanings of the aspects.

45

Fanning shows greater sensitivity to the interaction of aspect with inherent lexical meanings of verbs p. 25

adopts a developed

and

model of the Vendlerian classi cation for his analysis of the NT verb. His eight

Vendlerian categories are states and actions, activities and performances, accomplishments and achievements, climaxes and punctuals. These are arranged in a hierarchy, with each of the last three pairs forming 46

subcategories of the second member of the preceding pair.

Fanning' s approach demonstrates the

considerable promise of Vendlerian classi cation, but inevitably becomes entangled in the methodological 47

problems outlined in § 2.3.4. In addition, his own model seems to me over-complicated.

The important

lexical semantic distinction between, action (dynamic) verbs and stative (non-dynamic) verbs on which he bases his hierarchy is certainly signi cant for aspectual choices, but the subcategories of the actional type 48

appear less important for Greek.

2.4.2. Genuine aspects and aspectual tense forms The essence of aspect as a metalinguistic category was presented in § 2.3.3 as a binary opposition of perfective and imperfective viewpoints. The relationship to this model of the apparently larger variety of ‘aspects’ in Greek is, therefore, an obvious problem, The actual, number of ancient Greek aspects is itself a moot point. It is still standard to assert that the perfect system represents a third fundamental verbal aspect, alongside the imperfective aspect of the present system and the perfective aspect of the aorist system. This is in fact p. 26

the original interpretation applied by Curtius in the

nineteenth century and based on the assumption that

the distinct values of the three di erent stems (e.g. of λύω, ἒλυσa, and λέλνκα) manifested across the four moods, in nitive, and participle (§ 3.2) must be distinct aspectual values. We have seen (§ 2.4.1) that Porter follows tradition in recognizing three separate aspects. Fanning, on the other hand, accepts only the two basic aspects of general theory, which he terms aorist (rather than perfective) and present (rather than imperfective). He o ers a mixed characterization of the Greek perfect tense, in which he nds temporal, aspectual, and Aktionsart elements (§ 2.5.3). McKay's system of four

aspects—namely imperfective (present and imperfect tenses), aorist, perfect, and future—also needs to be 49

noted.

We seem, to encounter degrees of confusion between genuine aspects and aspectual tense forms

(i.e. tense forms conveying an aspect value) in these schemes. Nevertheless, all agree that the aorist tense represents the perfective aspect, the present and imperfect tenses the imperfective aspect. The problem tense forms of the Greek system are thus the perfect (with the pluperfect and future perfect) and the future.

2.5 The Perfect Tense 2.5.1. The problem of the perfect The precise role of the perfect tense is a vexed issue in the verbal systems of various IE languages, The nub of the problem, is the apparent instability of the category, which at one extreme may be coordinated with present tenses (for example Skt. veda, Gr. οἶδα, Goth, wait ‘I know’; Lat. odi ‘Ί hate’, memini ‘I remember’), but which also exhibits a peculiar tendency to fall together with past tense systems and to be reborn in 50

periphrastic formations. p. 27

The Greek perfect, demonstrating both of these developments (for diachronic

fusion with the aorist see §§ 6.1, 6.2.2), has inspired

considerable scholarly debate. While we remain

short of a fully satisfactory treatment, signi cant advances have been achieved in recent times. A detailed assessment lies beyond the scope of the present study, but it is necessary to set out the theoretical approach taken, here to the place of this tense form within the Greek system.

2.5.2. The criterial meaning of the perfect The perfect, tense in Greek is traditionally understood to express the continuing state resulting from a prior 51

occurrence.

This de nition is based, however, on limited examples and embraces only certain contextual 52

functions of the perfect.

It may appear satisfactory for verbs whose lexical meaning describes some sort of

action, such as ἀκηκόατε ἑωράκaτε, and πεπόνθατε in the following example from Lysias (for Fanning's di erent classi cation of ἀκούω and ὁρῶ see § 2.3.4), but is clearly not satisfactory for those whose lexical meaning 53

describes a state, such as κεχώλωται in IEph, ii. 567.

It would be far-fetched to assert, that κεχώλωται, ‘is

angry’, encodes the idea of prior occurrence here. Lys. 12.. 100 παύσομαι κατηγορῶν, ἀκηκόατε, ἑωράκaτε, πεπόνθατε, ἒχετε δικάζ.ετε, (‘I shall conclude my accusation. You have heard, you have seen, you have su ered, you have the facts; decide.’) IEph, ii. 567 ε̣ἲ | τις ἂv ὧδε | οὐρήσι, ἡ Έκά | τη αὐτῷ κε | χώλωται. (‘If anyone urinates here, Hecate is angry with him’) The old answer to this problem was to subcategorize, according to an idea of shifting focus of the perfect, on either the continuing state or the prior occurrence. As a result, we nd in our grammars such types as the perfectum praesens (‘present perfect’) and perfectum intensivum (‘intensive perfect’), which cater for 54

perceived semantic variation within the perfect category.

Accordingly, it has to be supposed that the very

grammatical category can mean now one thing, now another. So the weakness of the traditional interpretation of the Greek perfect is that it operates only on the p. 28

pragmatic level and does not

adequately describe the grammatical category The trend in current theory is

to seek a more viable unifying de nition of the perfect's criteria! meaning. To this end recent writers, 55

including Porter, have tended to focus on the form's stative value.

Thus the perfects of the sequence

ἀκηκόατε, ἑωράκατε, πεπόνθατε, ἒχετε in my example from Lysias may be taken to focus on the current state of the dicasts addressed, contrasted with the activity of ἒχετε, This is not to deny a reference to prior occurrence, but that reference is derived, according to the ‘perfect as stative’ approach, from the lexical semantics of the

verbs ἀκούω, ὁρῶ, and πάσχω in combination with contextual factors. It is not encoded in the grammatical category of the perfect. Tension between lexical/contextual and grammatical semantics in action verbs 56

produces the traditionally observed dual focus of the perfect tense.

This new approach seems very promising, though it would be wrong to pretend that a consensus view has yet emerged. The perfect tense remains one of the most di

cult problems in Greek grammatical, studies.

Distinction between grammatical and lexical semantics in treating the form is, however, a crucial step forward.

2.5.3. Grammatical marking of stativity and aspectual value Let us return now to the question of whether the perfect tense represents a third basic aspect parallel to the perfective and imperfective. Its traditional classi cation as such has depended on loose de nition of aspect 57

itself, especially in older scholarship,

There has been a movement among recent aspect theorists towards 58

identifying the perfect as a category subordinate to the fundamental perfective/imperfective opposition, p. 29

and some deny that it has any aspectual character, considering it temporal, or a mixture of 59

reference and Aktionsart.

temporal

On the other hand, Porter follows Louw in taking the perfect as a third,

fundamental aspect in the reformulated stative sense. He writes that ‘Greek realizes three-aspectual choices as the result of two fundamental binary oppositions in its verbal network: the [+perfective]/[–perfective] … 60

and the [+ imperfective]/[+ stative]. The rst is broader, opposing the Aorist to the non-Aorist forms’. Fanning argues that in descriptions of the perfect tense both the term ‘stative’ and the concept of

independent aspect value are unacceptable, if we are to take stativity as an Aktionsart feature in Greek (as is 61

usual), not an aspect.

The terminological quibble may be dismissed as an argument over labels, but the

conceptual question, is important. For Fanning ‘there are signi cant oppositions between the perfect and 62

the pure aspects (present and aorist), but they are not at the de nition level’.

He himself de nes the basic 63

meaning of the perfect along traditional lines, as ‘a state which results from a prior occurrence’,

and

follows Friedrich in nding within the form an intersection of temporal reference (anteriority), Aktionsart 64

(stativity), and aspect (external viewpoint, i.e. perfective aspect).

This is a curiously complicated assessment and involves obvious problems. Fanning maintains the imprecise traditional de nition. As a result, his notions of anteriority and perfective aspect can both be dismissed on the grounds that they arise from failure to distinguish between the e ects of lexical and 65

grammatical semantics. In addition, Porter rightly objects to the con ation of aspect and Aktionsart.

It

e ectively contradicts Fanning' s own distinction between the categories as grammatical and lexical respectively. In fact Fanning and Porter are in agreement over identi cation of stative value in the perfect form (though Fanning, as just noted, takes it as only one of three core semantic components). Their disagreement lies in the de nition of this grammatically expressed meaning. Fanning calls it an Aktionsart, Porter an aspect. p. 30

How, if at all, does it di er from, lexically expressed stativity? Lexically stative

verbs are certainly able to

form perfects (for instance σεσίγηκα, from σιγῶ ‘be silent’), so a real semantic distinction presumably exists, 66

at least in origin, between the present and perfect forms of such verbs.

Sicking and Stork suggest the

distinction involves alterable and inalterable states, which are expressed by the present and perfect tense 67

forms respectively. 68

forms,

But they regard perfects from certain stative verbs as near doublets for the present 69

while Fanning goes further, calling the two forms semantically identical in these lexical types.

Sicking and. Stork's distinction between alterable and inalterable states seems to me forced. The whole question requires more testing. If lexically and grammatically expressed stativity is the same thing—as post-Classical adoption of perfect endings in plural forms of the lexically stative present ἤκω implies (§ 6.2.5 n. 42)—then I would suggest that we normally have at least a special stressing of state or condition of the

subject in the perfect form. If it is not the same thing, we have yet to establish a satisfactory semantic distinction.

2.5.4. The perfect and imperfective aspect The perfect's meaning does appear to involve an aspectual element. This is to be inferred from its fully developed manifestation in all moods, in nitive, and participle. However, the trend towards distinguishing it from the two basic aspects is an important advance, in accordance with the strict de nition of the category of aspect adopted in the present study, Friedrich and Fanning seem right on. this point, but they wrongly equate the aspectual value with the perfective aspect through focusing on the perceived completive 70

reference of the perfect to prior occurrence.

It will already be clear that I follow writers like Louw and

Porter in regarding the prior occurrence idea as arising from lexical semantics. Rather, stativity as the grammatically realized, meaning seems clearly akin to the meaning of the p. 31

71

imperfective aspect.

In my view

stative force is consonant with focus on the verbal occurrence's internal

temporal constituency, thus agreeing with the general de nition of imperfective aspect given in § 2.3.3. So ἀκηκόατε ‘you are in hearing state’ expresses the event in process. Perfective force is absent. 72

The evidence of Sanskrit and the other old IE languages must be treated with caution,

but appears to point 73

in the same direction. It suggests that the IE perfect was ‘in origin a special kind of present tense’, p. 32

diachronic functional merging with past

The

tenses is probably connected with the e ects of lexical 74

semantics. It certainly should not be taken as evidence for the original function of the perfect form.

Thus, the Greek perfect, to which we shall return in Chapter 6, is taken here as aspectual, but not, with Porter, as a third basic aspect. Nor is Fanning's complex picture involving aspect, Aktionsart, and temporal reference accepted, Instead, the form is interpreted in the present study as a special type of imperfective, expressing stativity.

2.6. The Future Tense 2.6.1. The problem of the future 75

The Greek future tense has also proved a slippery sh for its interpreters.

Over the last century the

traditional view of the future as a tense in the strict sense, conveying a relative time value, has been modi ed or directly challenged in several ways. It has been characterized, apart from the purely temporal approach, as a temporal/modal mixture, as purely modal, and as aspectual or even a genuinely separate 76

aspect,

Porter now explains it as a unique category in. the verbal system expressing expectation, distinct 77

from, both the indicative and non-indicative moods.

There seem to be three motivating factors for this range of interpretations, First there is the history of the Greek future forms, which tend to develop transparently from other things, such as subjunctives. Second, there is the future's perceived functional overlap with the non-indicative moods. Third, there is intrusion into the sphere of linguistics of philosophical questions on the concept of futurity.

2.6.2. The history of the Greek future forms The future is clearly a unique category within the Greek verbal system in its comparatively late formation and mixed origin. A distinctive future tense does not seem to have existed in the IE parent language. The p. 33

category arises from various sources in the di erent

historical languages, often from the oblique moods

(for example, the Latin future is mostly a re ex of the inherited IE subjunctive)

78

and from desiderative

forms of the indicative. In Greek identi able sources include original present tense forms, such as εἶμι as Attic future of ἒρχομαι, and short-vowel subjunctives, such as ἒδομαι as future of ἐσθίω. The common sigmatic future has been explained as an original desiderative or as a short-vowel subjunctive from the sigmatic 79

aorist, but is perhaps more probably of mixed origin.

There is a surprising tendency in some quarters to classify the desiderative as a separate mood parallel to 80

the indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative.

This is a confusion presumably stemming from the

volitive semantic value (i.e. wish, will) of the desiderative su

x, since modern languages use similar

combinations involving auxiliary verbs to translate both the desideratives and the oblique modal forms of 81

ancient IE languages.

82

The desiderative is simply a type of present tense form in origin, 83

grammatically marked as a separate mood.

and is clearly not

When occurring in the indicative it expresses a verbal

occurrence as an assertion, not as any sort of oblique modal notion (on the criterial semantic values of the Greek moods see § 2.6.4 and n. 102). Outside the Indo-Iranian subfamily of IE, desideratives characteristically develop into futures, as in Greek. This is not a surprising mutation, since lexical items with the semantic value of volition have a well-known tendency, quite independent of modal distinctions, to become grammaticalized in future tense forms. Postp. 34

Classical Greek constructions involving θέλω plus in nitive 84

in nitive are other examples.

or subjunctive and Modern English will plus

Possibly also relevant is the original middle in ection of a number of Greek 85

futures corresponding to active present and aorist forms,

since a semantic link has been drawn between

86

volition and middle voice.

So the Greek future is a late development, formed mainly from desideratives and subjunctives. Its rise as an independent tense form never extends to a full paradigm. Apart from the indicative, a participle and an 87

in nitive occur in limited environments,

A future optative is found in the Classical period, but this seems 88

to arise largely through analogical tendencies within the literary language and is never common.

Later loss

of the synthetic future forms and their replacement by periphrastic formations is promoted by phonetic and 89

syntactic confusion with the aorist subjunctive,

p. 35

2.6.3. Perceived functional overlap of the future and the oblique moods As to function, the future tense does of course occur in constructions which also take oblique modal forms. This has led to a perception of functional overlap. Some examples will demonstrate the issue. The following instance from Demosthenes shows the use of plain εἰ plus the future indicative in the protasis of a vivid future condition. That from Xenophon's Anabasis presents the more usual prose construction with ἐáυ (here the contracted form ἂυ) plus subjunctive. Dem. 28. 21 εἰ δ’ ὑμεῖς ἂλλο τι γνώσεσθε, ὄ μὴ γένοιτο, τίν’ οἲεσθ’ αὐτὴν ψυχὴν ἒξειv; (‘But if you judge otherwise —may it not happen—in what state of mind do you think she will be?’) Xen. An. 7. 3. I I ἂv δέ τις ἀνθιστῆται, σὺν ὑμι̂ν πειρασόμεθα χειρου̂σθαι. (‘If anyone opposes (us), we shall attempt to overpower (him) with your help.’)

We also nd variation between subjunctive and future indicative in deliberative questions, as illustrated by my poetic examples from Euripides. Particularly interesting is the abrupt shift in the second example from the aorist and present subjunctives of εἲπωμεν ἤ σιγω̂μεν to the future indicative δράαομεν. Eur. Ion 756 αἰαι̂ τί δρῶμεν θάνατος ὧν κει̂ται πέρι; (‘Ah! What are we to do (about that) concerning which death is laid down as the penalty?’) Eur, Ion 758 εἲπωμεν ἤ σιγω̂μεν; ἤ τί δράαομεν; (‘Are we to speak or be silent? Or what shall we do?’) In addition, either subjunctives (especially aorists) or future indicatives may occur with οὐ μή in denials for the future. The following instance from Aeschines shows the future indicative ποιήσετε, that from Thucydides the aorist subjunctive ἐσβάλωσιν. The example of κρύψω from Xenophon's Cyropaedia is, however, morphologically ambiguous. Goodwin can only be making a reasonable guess in categorizing it as aorist 90

subjunctive.

Aeschin. 3. 177 τοὺς μεν γὰρ πονηρούς οὐ μή ποτε βελτίονς ποιήσετε, (‘For you will never make rogues better men,’) p. 36

Thuc. 4. 95 κaὶ ἤν νικήσωμεν, οὐ μή ποτε ὑμι̂ν Πελοποννήαιοι ἐς τὴν χώραν ἂνεν τῆς τῶνδε ἳππον ἐσβάλωσιν. (‘And if we are victorious, never again will the Peloponnesiaiis invade your country without the cavalry of these people [the Boeotians].’) Xen. Cyr, 7. 3, 13 οὐ μή σε κρύψω πρòς ὃντινα βούλομαι ἀɸικέσθαι. (‘A will surely not hide from you the one to whom I want to go.’) Consider also the use of οὐ μή plus second person future indicative in prohibitions, a realm of the imperative 91

and subjunctive.

It is these types of interchange between the Greek future and the oblique moods which

have in uenced scholars. But are such interchanges a real witness to functional equivalence? Or is there a semantic di erence to substitution of the future for more usual alternatives? A response to these questions will be o ered in § 2.6.5. Meanwhile, the modern theories need consideration.

2.6.4. Modern approaches We have seen the evidence of form and function which has in uenced modern nuancing of the traditional explanation of the Greek future. Some resulting theories will now be discussed. The approaches mentioned in the introduction to this section can be divided essentially into aspectual interpretations and modal interpretations, the latter taking in Porter's radical idea of a category expressing expectation. Some writers have classi ed the future tense form as aspectual or as a genuinely discrete aspect. Older studies in which the values of the perfective and imperfective aspects were described in punctiliar and durative terms (or similar) sought unsuccessfully to establish systematic distinctions in the future. 92

Distinctions were based partly on form, partly on lexical semantics.

Thus we have Moulton asserting that

both these aspectual values may be found in the future ἂξω, which can mean ‘I shall lead’ or ‘I shall bring’, 93

the one (as he says) durative, the other e ective (i.e. punctiliar).

As will be clear from the treatment of § 2.3,

Moulton is describing Aktionsart values. The special case of ἒχω, with its contrasting futures ἒχω, formed from the imperfective stem, and σχήσω, built p. 37

on the same zero

grade of the root as the perfective stem, has been cited in support of this same

approach. Such dregs of aspectual distinctions visible in Classical forms re ect, however, the mixed history 94

of the future tense rather than its regular development.

The future arises from aspectually marked forms

and to that extent has an aspectual origin. But the systematically expressed category of verbal aspect

manifests itself in the future tense only in the later language, with the rise of periphrastic formations employing present or aorist in nitives (§ 2.6.2 n. 89). A somewhat di erent, but equally problematic, thesis is that of McKay, who interprets the Greek future as a 95

genuine independent aspect expressing intention, 96

including his own.

though he nds ‘di

culties in any categorization’,

As in the case of the perfect tense, only a loose de nition of aspect will allow such a

classi cation. It is easy enough to see that both the development of future forms out of subjunctives and desiderative indicatives and their occurrence in contexts suitable for oblique moods can encourage scholars to assume a special link between the future tense and these moods. Accordingly, another group of writers interprets the future as a mixture of temporal and modal functions. Porter has pointed out that this terminology is 97

confused.

But even correctly put as a mixture of indicative (taking in temporal reference) and oblique

modal functions, it is unconvincing as a concept of the future's essential function. The approach shows the in uence of philosophical concerns on. linguistic interpretation. So Jespersen observes that ‘It is easy to understand that expressions for times to come are less de nite and less explicit in our languages than those for the past: we do not know so much about the future as about the past and are therefore obliged to talk 98

about it in a more vague way.’ . The idea has more recently been ampli ed by Lyons, another in uential writer, whose statement of 1977 is also worth quoting: It is often implied, if not actually asserted … that the future is like the past, except that it follows, p. 38

rather than precedes, the present in the in nitely

extensible unidimensional continuum of time.

But the future is not like the past from the point of view of our experience and conceptualization of time. Futurity is never a purely temporal concept; it necessarily includes an element of prediction or some related modal notion … the so-called future tense of the Indo-European languages (which is of comparatively recent development in many of them) and the so-called future tense of the relatively small number of other languages throughout the world that have anything that might 99

reasonably be called a future tense is partly temporal and partly modal.

Such observations are sensible in terms of logic, and indeed general interpretation of futurity as a mental construct. Yet they are not especially helpful for analysis of grammatical categories, manifesting a confusion of what we think of as absolute time with the grammatical category of tense. They hold for the origin of the Greek future form, as we have seen, but do not satisfactorily describe its historical function. If we approach the problem of the future tense from a strictly linguistic viewpoint, pausing to consider the essential functions of the moods, we have a better chance of understanding the future's relationship to the oblique moods. As Gonda observes, the indicative presents a verbal idea as a matter of fact, whether or not it 100

is literally true.

101

In Porter's terms it expresses assertion.

As for the oblique moods, Porter rightly states

that they ‘make no assertion about reality but grammaticalize simply the “will” of the speaker, and are 102

therefore deontic’.

Deontic modality involves an idea of imposed obligation. This assertion versus non103

assertion (or epistemic vs. deontic)

distinction between the indicative and oblique moods is an important

re nement of Gonda's formulation, which explains the distinction in quasi-objective vs. subjective 104

terms. p. 39

Porter, however, unfortunately tries to explain the Greek future's functional range by separating it from the 105

moods, in his special category expressing expectation.

It will be seen (§ 2.7) that this proposal is theory-

driven, closely linked to his views on temporal reference. Since Porter does not believe that time values are conveyed by Greek verbal forms even in the indicative mood, he needs a new explanation for the future tense (and other things),

2.6.5. A defence of the traditional interpretation There is in fact no need to introduce new complications into description of Greek modal categories in order to account for the future tense. The vagueness of the notion of futurity made it at rst a realm of the oblique moods (and desiderative expressions). By ‘at rst’ is meant the late prehistoric period of the Greek language's development, when the verbal system seems to have had a more purely aspectual structure. But the factuality of something which has not yet happened may be presupposed. It can be represented as 106

factual, even though logically the speaker or writer cannot actually know that it is so.

The rise of the

future tense, in part an outgrowth of the non-indicative moods, is thus linked with that of temporal 107

distinctions in the verb.

Once the indicative mood begins to convey time values, a future tense becomes a

possibility. This is the situation already reached in Homeric epic (and arguably in the limited Mycenaean material). The diachronic development is simply from expression of future action or situation as a quali ed observation to its more con dent prediction as a fact. In Classical Greek a writer's focusing on. the ‘factual’ quality of an occurrence thus motivates use of the future indicative in such environments as conditional 108

clauses and deliberative questions. It is not di p. 40

cult to see why the various modern theories about the Greek future have arisen. The form

displays obvious historical

links with the subjunctive mood. There are apparent functional similarities

with the oblique moods. During the naїve infancy of aspectology the future could appear to theorists to manifest aspectual distinctions. Confused identi cation of the desiderative as a separate oblique mood and importation into the linguistic treatments of philosophical questions about futurity have not helped. I have sought to show that none of the theories argued from these factors is valid. Porter has done valuable work on de ning the semantic di erence between the indicative and oblique moods. This, however, by no means leads inevitably to his conclusion that the future represents something di erent again, his special expectation category. His reasoning is closely tied to his general ideas on 109

temporal reference in the Greek verb. My acceptance, with Fanning,

of more or less traditional

interpretation of the future tense therefore brings us to one of the fundamental assertions of Porter's thesis, the claim that temporal reference is not conveyed by Greek verbal forms, even in the indicative mood.

2.7. Temporal Reference and the Greek Verb 2.7.1. Expression of temporal reference Location in time is expressed by languages either lexically or grammatically, very frequently by a combination of both means. The lexical type of expression involves adverbs and particles of time (e.g. ‘now’, ‘then’), as well as composite expressions (e.g. ‘last week’). The grammatical type involves the category of 110

tense in verbs (e.g. ‘run’, ‘ran’).

Tense (in this strict sense pertaining to time value) is commonly, but not

universally, realized by verbal morphology in languages; but it is probable that all languages are capable of 111

expressing temporal reference lexically.

2.7.2. Porter's theory Porter characterizes temporal reference in Greek as essentially of the lexical type: ‘time is a nonp. 41

112

grammaticalized category of temporal

reference established on the basis of deixis’.

With regard to the

Greek verbal system this view is an extreme development of standard interpretation. It is now generally 113

accepted that non-indicative verbal forms in Greek convey aspect values, not time values.

Porter's

innovation is to extend non-temporal, aspectual interpretation to the indicative mood and so to the entire 114

system.

He takes his point of departure from those ‘exceptional’ uses of the indicative mood which do not

accord with the usual alignment of, for instance, present with non-past contexts and aorist with past contexts. Thus, such types as gnomic presents, aorists, and perfects, historic presents, and futuristic aorists 115

are central to his argument.

The goal is a theory which will explain these exceptions: ‘I posit rather boldly

a scheme for analysis of the Greek verbal system that does not su er exceptions gladly, since I believe that —especially for ancient languages—one must begin from the dictum that where there is a di erence of 116

form there is a di erence in meaning or function.’

Where there is no di erence of form Porter seeks a unifying category de nition. The theoretical basis to this approach is certainly sensible (though the ‘di erence of form equals di erence of function’ formulation is awed: there is, for example, no functional di erence between the verbal endings -ω and -μι). The most common uses of forms do not necessarily reveal their basic function. Statistically grounded arguments are unsatisfactory, since ‘there is no necessary correlation between a grammatical category's semantics and the 117

number of times it is used’. p. 42

Porter stresses the importance of adequately treating all uses which are

actually met in de ning each category. The most e ective explanation ‘must

encompass the widest range

of uses under a single explanatory head … relegating the fewest number to the category of those beyond 118

comprehension’,

The means to this end lie in recognition of functional di erences between semantics at the level of code and 119

pragmatics at the level of text.

Focus on exceptional uses of the indicative which do not express time

values leads Porter to the conclusion that the common alignment of tense forms with particular temporal spheres is purely a matter of contextual meaning (i.e. pragmatics). On this view temporal reference in Greek has no semantic basis in verbal morphology and the indicative mood is to be interpreted in strictly aspectual terms, just like the non-indicative verbal forms.

2.7.3. Some weaknesses of the theory Porter's approach has considerable theoretical potential for solving the puzzles of the Greek verbal system. 120

However, the criticism it has attracted is not surprising and mostly merited.

Considerable di

culties

arise both in the rigidity of Porter's systemic model and in its practical application. At the purely conceptual level, it ought to be stressed that linguistic systems are not static, but constantly mutate. The di erent manifestations of the Greek verbal system in Homeric, Attic, Koine, and Modern Greek provide a graphic demonstration. Porter's model does not adequately address this process of change. The exceptional uses on which he concentrates are surely best, explained in aspectual terms. But he fails to consider the simple explanation of these anomalies as fossilized survivals of an older aspectual system overlaid by increasingly important temporal distinctions. Accordingly, Carson oversimpli es the standard approach when he describes it as seeing two verbal models operating, one in the indicative and the other 121

throughout the rest of the verbal system,

Aspectual function should by no means be regarded as absent

from the indicative mood. p. 43

On the other hand, temporal reference may be taken to undergo

a diachronic shift in this mood from the

level of pragmatic implicature to that of semantic coding. Rise in importance of the time element supplies a persuasive explanation for the rich development of tense forms in the indicative, as opposed to the rest of

the verbal system. The Classical language has as many as seven indicative tense forms, but in the oblique moods, in nitive, and participle we nd a much-restricted pattern of contrasts, especially in the subjunctive and imperative, dominated by the basic aspectual opposition of aorist (i.e. perfective) and 122

present (i.e. imperfective).

As to practical application, denial of temporal reference in the verb makes it necessary for Porter to produce radical reinterprets-tions of certain grammatical and lexical usages in ancient Greek. The concept of remoteness is introduced from Lyons to explain the semantic contrast between present and imperfect indicative, and between perfect and pluperfect indicative. Thus, he interprets these distinctions in terms of 123

‘here’ and ‘there’, rather than ‘now’ and ‘then’.

As already described (§ 2.6.4), the concept of expectation

is introduced to explain the future, which is taken as a unique category within the verbal system, neither indicative nor oblique mood. In addition, somewhat arti cial, restrictions are applied to the semantic ranges of time-marking lexical items, such as temporal adverbs. For Porter these assume very great signi cance as deictic indicators. He notes three classes of time-deictic indicators. They are (1) lexical items (such as temporal adverbs and adverbial phrases); (2) items such as near and remote demonstratives, the 124

article, and pronouns, which he terms collectively anaphoric words; (3) references to places.

Space cannot be made here for a detailed assessment of Porter's individual NT examples, but his p. 44

interpretation of semantic range in temporal adverbs, apparently ruled by his theory on temporal reference, deserves some notice. He reverses the normal approach, that temporal adverbs take their precise semantic avour from, context and that an in uential factor within that context is the temporal reference of the verbal forms which they modify. For Porter, as noted above, it is the adverb which furnishes the temporal reference of the context. It seems impossible to accept the new limitations this interpretation imposes on the lexical semantics of temporal adverbs. Let us consider the example of vȗv. Porter is alert to the semantic exibility of this word (‘its temporal 125

reference encompasses a broad span, from the immediate moment to a large stretch of time’), 126

its conventionally recognized application to past contexts.

but ignores

A single instance will illustrate the practical

results of this view.

Porter translates: ‘the disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews are now seeking to stone you, and again you 127

are going there?” ‘,

against standard renderings along the lines of ‘the disciples said to him, “Rabbi, just 128

now the Jews were seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” ‘

He argues that the non-remote

imperfective (the present indicative) is being stressed over the remote imperfective (the imperfect), while 129

vȗv as deictic indicator establishes the temporal sphere of reference, extreme nature of Porter's theory. In some respects it is di

This case clearly demonstrates the

cult to counter his interpretation, since he

would presumably assert that even apparently straightforward examples of past-referring νȗν (e.g. Plato, Ap. 33 D  χρῆν δήπου … νυνὶ αὐτοὺς ἀναβαίνοντας ἐμωῦ κατηγορεῖν καὶ τιμωρῖσθαι, ‘they surely ought just now to have come p. 45

up and accused me and sought revenge’; Dem. 130

you racked and killed him’) 131

Greek verb.

18. 133 νῦν δ’ ὑμεῖς στρεβλώσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπεκτείνατε, ‘but as it was

are so explained through enslavement to temporally based analysis of the

But we can certainly note the capacity of similar lexical items in languages where the 132

grammatical category of tense is not in doubt, such as Latin nunc, to refer both to non-past and past.

Porter appears to restrict arti cially the semantic range of νῦν at least, and other members of his list of 133

lexical items clearly also have very broad ranges as deictic time indicators.

2.7.4. The significance of the augment The objections raised so far may seem close to a su

cient refutation of Porter's argument, but its glaring

weakness remains to be noted. This is his super cial treatment of the functional signi cance of the augment within the Greek verbal system, especially striking in view of his already quoted statement that ‘where there is a di erence of form, there is a di erence in meaning or function’. Because of this avowed principle, and because the augment is generally taken as a past-time marker, his treatment of this feature 134

of verbal morphology is surprisingly brief.

While rejecting the notion that any temporal reference is involved, Porter o ers only a token alternative interpretation of augmental function. Schmidt and Silva are both understandably perplexed by this 135

‘complete disregard of the augment as morphologically signi cant’.

Nevertheless, Porter's observation 136

that it is ‘almost axiomatic within Greek grammar to assert without argument’

that the augment

indicates past time is undeniably accurate and deserves a response. The feature will accordingly receive greater than usual attention here in defence of orthodox opinion. The augment is found as a feature of IE verbal systems in Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and doubtfully in 137

Phrygian,

as well as Greek. There is no trace of it in the other IE subfamilies. Originally an independent

particle, it later became attached as a pre x to ‘past’ tenses of the indicative. The syllabic augment re ects p. 46

this original

form. The temporal type arises from it, rst through vowel contraction and then analogical 138

spread of initial vocalic lengthening. 139

sketched brie y.

The Greek history, with the parallel developments in Sanskrit, can be

Barely any examples of the augment are preserved in the Linear Β documents of

140

Mycenaean Greek.

In the arti cial, poetic language of Homer, as in Vedic Sanskrit, we have a mixture of

earlier unaugmented and later augmented verbal forms. The feature has become grammaticalized in Classical Greek, and especially in Attic it is a necessary element of imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect 141

indicative forms.

142

Classical Sanskrit displays a similar development.

Grammaticalization and the loss of special morphological signi cance led inevitably to the partial removal of the augment from the verbal system. The post-Classical vernacular displays a new instability in its 143

orthographic representation, in both the syllabic and temporal types.

At rst, this is in large measure

connected with phonetic change and attendant developments, rather than indicating genuine loss of the element. We also nd double augmentation in certain phonetically confusing verbs, while there is limited spread of the augment to the primary tenses and to non-indicative forms. The false correctness of the latter feature suggests the beginnings of decay, but the hypercorrectness of the former, which has its beginnings 144

in the Classical language,

indicates that the augment was still a required formal feature of the verbal

system. Omission in the pluperfect is probably linked to the general decay of that tense form and is p. 47

unreliable evidence for the speci c history

145

of the augment. 147

and subsequent weakening of pretonic initial vowels

146

The later shift from pitch to stress accent

has led to the preservation generally only of

148

accented augments in Modern Greek.

149

With regard to function, the augment is usually taken as a temporal marker indicating past time.

While

this special signi cance is felt, it marks pastness in the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect indicatives, while the present, future, and perfect indicatives express non-past time. According to this view, later loss of the augment's original function, the eventual result of its grammaticalization, does not involve loss of temporal reference in indicative forms. The endings of verbal forms come to convey temporal value in addition to 150

person and voice.

This explanation is obviously unacceptable to Porter in view of his ideas on temporal reference and the verb. 151

He o ers only a brief refutation, however, drawing attention to some of the dissenting voices, p. 48

focusing on Drewitt's 1912 analysis based on patterns

152

of usage in Homer.

and

Drewitt presents statistics on

the percentage of augmented forms in various types of imperfects and aorists, nding that aorists he

believes to have present reference, such as those of similes and gnomic expressions, rather more frequently take the augment than those he regards as true preterites, such as iteratives and narrative aorists and 153

imperfects.

He concludes that Originally the augment was an interjection or particle, which would mark 154

some connection, or reference to, the present’.

155

He considers its use in Homer to be ‘purely scansional’.

The twentieth-century revolution in Homeric studies has undermined the value of Drewitt's study, essentially a synchronic analysis. Neither of his conclusions is acceptable. It should in fact now be unnecessary to observe that Homer's arti cial diction is the result of an oral poetic tradition developed over 156

many generations,

157

but Porter does not take this factor into consideration.

The traditional method of

composition exploited historically as well as dialectally heterogeneous forms and phrases. This practice accounts for its preservation of unaugmented forms. It is impossible to draw conclusions about which uses of aorist, imperfect, and pluperfect might have attracted the augment to themselves as a bound morpheme rst. The mixed nature of Homeric language provides no reliable evidence for the diachronic development. p. 49

In addition, choice of form is not made purely for metrical purposes,

but also for stylistic e ects. The

158

omission of the augment in Homer is an archaism.

Thus, the Homeric evidence does not disprove standard interpretation of the augment. The feature can in fact be taken as a past-time marker, originally attaching itself to indicative forms in temporally appropriate contexts, then becoming systematized throughout the imperfect, aorist, and pluperfect indicatives. Alternative theories on augmental function stem in large part from di

culties in understanding timeless

uses of aorist and imperfect indicatives (e.g. the gnomic aorist and the imperfect in conditional, sentences), If the augment marks past time, why is it pre xed to verbal forms in such cases? This problem lies behind. McKay's suggestion that the augment might originally have been an ‘adverb of remoteness, signifying either 159

past time or reduced actuality, as required’.

Similarly motivated., is Porter's own assertion that the

feature ‘probably began simply as an adverb restricting … use [of the aorist, etc.] to certain narrative 160

contexts’.

But once the augment had become grammaticalized as a regular element of the indicative form,

its omission, not its inclusion, would be the unusual occurrence, even in those fossilized indicative uses 161

from which temporal force was absent.

In my view the introduction of the augment signposts introduction of an additional value—which is interpreted here as temporal reference—to the semantic baggage of indicative forms. Its subsequent grammaticalization does not indicate the loss of that value from the indicative's usual formal, semantics, merely the loss of its special connection with the augment. Porter fails to convince when he claims to have shown that the augment is not a temporal indicator and therefore to have eliminated ‘one of the most widely noted points of support for assertions about the 162

essential temporal nature of at least the so-called preterite Indicatives in Greek’. p. 50

He o ers nothing to

shake the normal understanding of this important morphological feature, though the

onus is surely on

him to disprove consensus opinion. Failure to provide a persuasive alternative explanation of augmental function severely weakens his general thesis on temporal reference and the Greek verb. When we add this major di

culty to those already discussed, it becomes clear that his argument cannot be accepted.

2.8. Conclusion Porter and Fanning's independent reassessments of the Greek verbal system have advanced discussion of aspect and related problems and are proving a catalyst for further investigation of this complicated subject. It will be clear from the preceding treatment, however, that their contributions have opened for debate, rather than resolved, a number of key questions. My own analysis of the Greek verb di ers from either or both Porter and Fanning in several, conceptual particulars, A summary of the theoretical approach underpinning the present, study is therefore in order.

Except for Porter's formulation of a tripartite system, the basic characteristics of the descriptions of aspect in Porter and Fanning are not disputed here. In this book the category of aspect is treated as a viewpoint feature, indicating the way in which a speaker or writer views a verbal occurrence with respect to its internal temporal constituency. It is taken to involve a binary opposition, grammatically expressed, between, perfective and imperfective aspects. These focus respectively on whole occurrence and internal process. The perfect tense is a major problem. Like Porter, I treat it as grammatically stative, but do not accept the old view, to which he adheres, that the perfect system, manifests a third fundamental aspect. With Fanning, I take the Greek perfect as aspectual, but not a genuinely separate aspect. Fanning, however, equates its aspect value with the perfective and also nds Aktionsart and temporal qualities marked in the form. Against this mixed characterization I regard the perfect tense as aspectually imperfective. Thus, it is treated here as identical in its aspect value with the present tense. For me the di erence between these tenses lies in the grammatically expressed stativity of the perfect. The perceived di p. 51

culties of the future tense seem less intractable. The traditional treatment, taking the

future form to convey temporal reference, seems to me essentially accurate. Porter's analysis

of the

future as a. unique category expressing expectation, neither indicative nor non-indicative mood, is therefore unnecessary, According to the approach adopted here, Ancient Greek manifests two aspects, perfective and imperfective, and as many as ve aspectual tenses, present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, pluperfect. The future and future perfect are taken, as the only non-aspectual tense forms, but from the later Koine period the future comes to be replaced by aspectual, periphrases. The boldest, element of Porter's thesis, extreme extension of non-temporal, purely aspectual interpretation, of the Greek verb to the indicative mood, seems to me untenable. The exceptional patterns of verbal usage which provide the basis for this theory are better taken as fossilized survivals of an older aspectual structure overlaid by the growing importance of temporal reference. The comparatively late appearance of the future tense form and the introduction of the augment are consistent with the notion of rising temporal reference in the indicative. To conclude, it is important to acknowledge the volatility of research into Greek verbal categories at the close of the twentieth century. Recent work, has clari ed the weakness of many standard ideas, Promising new lines of enquiry are being pursued as a result, but it would be premature to claim resolution of the open questions, especially regarding the perfect tense, abstract lexical classi cations, and aspect itself.

Notes 1

2

3

See e.g. T. Muraoka, ʻThe Infinitive in. the Septuagintʼ, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnieh (eds.) VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 259–71 at 266. On the verb and aspectual distinctions in the ancient Greek grammatical tradition see R. H. Robins, A Short History of Linguisticst. 4th edn, (London and New York: Longman, 1997),. 36–7,. 44–5 with 64–5 for Varro's Latin adaptation of the Stoic system; J, Gonda, The Aspectual Function of the Rgvedic Present and Aorist (The Hague: Mouton, 1962), 16–18; Porter, Verbal Aspect 18–22 84–5; id., ʻDefenceʼ, 40–1; Binnick, Time 3–26, 135; J. Lallot, La Grammaire de Denys le Thrace (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientiflque, 1989), 169–77s; C. H. M. Versteegh, ʻThe Stoic Verbal Systemʼ, Hermes, 108 (1.980), 338–57, For the argument that the Stoics, did not recognize aspectual features see O. Szemerenyi, ʻThe Origin of Aspect in the Indo-European Languagesʼ, Glotta, 65 (1987), 1–18 at 1 and. n. 1. For Latin influence in linguistic analysis note Binnick, Time 28–32, 4.70 n. 4; J. Lyons, Semantics (2 vols,.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), ii, 704 A. R Vlasto, A Linguistic History of Russia to the End of the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 238–9; Gonda, Character 5.

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Apart from the well-known contrast between imperfect and aoristie perfect indicatives in Latin, see E. C. Woodcock, A New Latin Syntax (London: Methuen & Co., 1959), §§ 128–9, for the use of aoristie perfect subjunctives in prohibitions. On the identification in Slavonic languages see Gonda, Function, 8–12; Binnick, Time 139–40; Szemérenyi, Originʼ,. 1–2. The complex and. elusive question of possible genetic links between aspect systems in separate IE languages lies beyond the scope of the present study. For a survey of usage in these languages see Gonda, Function, 251–71, and passim for the early Sanskrit evidence. Fanning, Verbal Aspect 16; Szemerényi, ʻOriginʼ, 2. For discussion of Curtius's analysis of the Greek verb see Porter, Verbal Aspect 26–7; Fanning, Verbal Aspectt 10–12. Porter, Verbal Aspect 27; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 30, overlooks the term's survival, into the 20th. cent, in the work of Stahl. See Porter, Verbal Aspect 29. Cf. Gonda, Function, 21–2; Porter, Verbal Aspect 29–35; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 30, 79. On Slavonic and. especially Russian aspectual marking see Binnick, Time, 136–9. For criticism of their approach see C. Bache, ʻAspect and Aktionsart; Towards a Semantic Distinctionʼ, FL 18 (1982), 57–72 at 58–64 10.1017/S0022226700007234 ; cf also Binnick, Time, 208–9. incidentally, the term Aktionsart is rejected by both Comrie, who uses inherent meaning (see B. Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 6–7 n. 4, 14; cf 41–51), and Lyons, who uses aspectual character (Lyons, Semantics, ii. 705–6).

13

Cf J. Forsyth, A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 2, on the notion, of subjectivity in Russian aspect; ʻit has o en been asserted that verbal aspect is a mystery which no nonSlav can hope to master, since it seems capricious and dependent upon the “subjective choice” of the Russian speaker or writer. It is true that there frequently is freedom for the individual's “subjective choice” of aspectual form in Russian (just as in English there frequently exists freedom of choice between, for instance, the simple past or past continuous) but the importance of this feature has been greatly exaggerated. There is a. logical basis underlying the choice of aspect. A Russian, selects one or other form for some (albeit unconscious) reason, and the relationship between the aspects depends upon an opposition of meanings and grammatical functions which constitutes part of the system, of the Russian verb.ʼ

14

Bache, ʻAspect and Aktionsartʼ, 65–6 10.1017/S0022226700007234

15

Bache, ʻAspect and Aktionsartʼ, 71 10.1017/S0022226700007234

16 17 18

ibid. 70–1 10.1017/S0022226700007234

19 20 21 22 23

; cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 38–40. .

.

Binnick, Time, p. viii, who also observes (p. 213) that ʻNo complete aspectual description of any language exists.ʼ Cf. Vlasto, Linguistic History, 238: ʻThere are only three temporal relations—present, past, future. Any finer distinctions which a verbal system, may show, within a single voice or mood, are aspectual. Most European languages display aspect in this wide sense to a greater or lesser extent in their active finite ʻtensesʼ.ʼ Vlasto is e ectively repeating the early 19thcent. view of Greč, quoted at Binnick, Time, 140. See also J. Hewson and V. Bubenik, Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony (Amsterdam, and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1997), § 1.8, recognizing up to four di erent kinds of aspect (including conflation of aspect and Aktionsart). Comrie, Aspect, 3. ibid. 5. Cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 17–29, 78. Cf. Comrie, Aspect, 52. Binnick, Time, 171. For the independent contributions of the philosophers Vendler and Kenny see Z. Vendler, Linguistics in Philosophy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell. University Press, 1967), 97–121: (reprinted version with minor changes of his ʻVerbs and Timesʼ, Philosophical Review 66 (1957), 43–60 10.2307/2182371 ); A. Kenny, Action, Emotion and Will (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 151–86; also in general Binnick, Time, 170–8, on ʻAristotelian aspectʼ—Aristotle is credited with the original ordering of verbs into abstract lexical classes (ibid. 142–4).

24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ibid. 171. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 127–8. Cf. P. Stork, The Aspectual Usage of the Dynamic Infinitive in Herodotus (Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis, 1982), 37. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 135 and n. 23. Cf. the criticisms of Fanning's classification at Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 37 and n. 3; McKay New Syntax, §§ 3.1.4, 3.6.4. And see Stork, Aspectual Usage, 36–7, admitting some of the problems of classification. On the glosses of LSJ see in general J. Chadwick, ʻThe Case for Replacing Liddell and Scottʼ, ΒICS 39 (1994), I–II. See the treatment in McKay, New Syntax, § 1.10.6; and for a detailed critique of the theory of perfectivizing prefixes in Greek, Porter, Verbal Aspect, 66–70. Former identification of such features with, aspect was inflenced by the usual Slavonic manifestation of aspectual distinctions by means of prefixed. and su ixed forms; see Gonda, Function, 13–16, together with the extended studies of

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42

43 44

45

46 47

48

Vedic Sanskrit and Greek preverbs at 225–50; Binnick, Time, 141; A. L. Lloyd, Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1979), 3. Sihler, Comp. Grammar, § 456.3. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 88 (repeated on p. 107). ibid. 34. ibid. 89. ibid. 91. Fanning, Verbal Aspect 84–5. Cf. M. Silva, ʻA Response to Porter and Fanning on Verbal Aspectʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 74–8 at 77–8 n. 2. Cf. D. D. Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspect in Greek: Two Approachesʼ, in S, E. Porter and. D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 63–73 at 72; D. Mathewson, ʻVerbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctionsʼ, FilNT 9 (1996), 21–35 at 21. Porter, Verbal Aspect 89–90, 178–81, 245–51; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 50–72; cf Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 70; also McKay, New Syntax § 3.6.3, who finds Porter too close to the theory of privative oppositions developed for Slavonic languages. On. application of markedness theory to aspect in general, (including reference to Greek) see Comrie, Aspect, 111–22; Binnick, Time 149–69. Cf, D. D. Schmidt, review of B, M, Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek and S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood in JBL 111 (1992), 714–18 at 717; Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 72. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 95; cf. 245 (and pp. 90, 1.09 for explanatory charts). ibid. 88, 107, and cf. 335. Cf. Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 60; also D. A. Carson, ʻAn Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debateʼ, in S. E, Porter and D A, Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics; Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: J SOT Press, 1993), 18–25 at 25l Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 72. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 32. Silva, ʻResponseʼ, 78–81; cf Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 71. Thus, there is probably more to Turner's claims that habit motivates imperfect/aorist contrasts in verbs of saying in the NT (Turner, Syntax 67–8) than Porter, Verbal Aspect 60, allows. Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 61; Carson, ʻIntroductionʼ, 24–5, For interaction of inherent lexical meaning with grammatical categories cf E. Bakker, ʻVoice, Aspect and Aktionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greekʼ, in B Fox and P. J. Hopper (eds.) Voice; Form and Function (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1994), 23–47 at 23–4 and passim on lexis and voice. On the other hand. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 33 n. 1 and. 36–7, disputes the importance of lexical issues in strict discussion of aspect; cf. his discussion of Mateos's study of NT aspect—J. Mateos, El aspecto verbal en el nuevo testamento (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977)—in Porter, Verbal Aspect 61 (and see also p. 87),. For definitions and. extended discussion see Fanning, Verbal Aspect 127–63, with summaries of Vendler's original fourclass arrangement and Kenny's of three on pp. 44–5. Sicking and. Stork apply a less complex Vendlerian model to Greek in their study of the perfect tense (SS, Two Studies 138– 70). Their four abstract classes—states and. positions (stative types), processes and actions (actional types)—are adopted from H. Pinkster, Lateiniscke Syntax und Semantik (Tübingen: Francke, 1988) (Sicking and. Stork cite the 1990 English translation). See also Stork, Aspectual Usage, 33–8, for discussion of criteria used to establish, such, classes,. McKay, New Syntax § 3.1.4, On the combination of perfective aspect with stative verbs to express the idea of inception of the state in question see also Fanning, Verbal Aspect 137–8; Bache, ʻAspect and Aktionsartʼ, 69 10.1017/S0022226700007234

49

50 51 52 53

; and cf. Thuc. 2. 4. ἐøοβήθησαν, ʻthey became frightenedʼ, given above in § 2.3.2.

McKay defines aspect in ancient Greek as ʻthat category of the verb system by means of which an author (or speaker) shows how he views each event or activity he mentions in relation to its contextʼ (McKay, New Syntax § 3.1.1). Note that McKay's views have altered in the course of his research (cf. K. L, McKay,. ʻThe Declining Optative: Some Observationsʼ, Antichthon, 2.7 (1993), 21–30 at 22 n. 4). My usual practice in this study is to cite the most recent statement in McKay, New Syntax. Lloyd, Anatomy, 117; cf. Sihler, Comp. Grammar § 511, a statement heavily dependent with regard to Greek on the approach, of Wackernage! and Chantraine, for which, see § 6.1. See e.g. the definitions listed at SS, Two Studies 125, and cf. the general (temporally based) definition of Comrie, Aspect, 52, J. R Louw, ʻDie semantiese waarde van die perfektum in hellenistiese grieksʼ, AClass 10 (1967), 23–32 at 23; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect 252 n. 6; SS, Two Studies 121–2. This inscription is undated in lEph, ii. The sentiment and linguistic features make plausible, but cannot definitely establish, a date in the early centuries AD (I have not seen the stone).

54 55 56 57 58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

72

73

See e.g. SM, Grammar §§ 1946–7. The development of this idea can be seen in Louw, ʻSemantiese waardeʼ, 27; McKay, New Syntax § 3.4; Porter, Verbal Aspect 258–9; SS, Two Studies 136–7, 168–70. Cf. SS, Two Studies 127–8, 168, 170. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 117. Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 50 n. 1; P Friedrich, ʻOn Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspectʼ, IFAL 40(1974), Memoir 28, SI–44 at S16–19, S36; Comrie, Aspect, 52–3; Lloyd, Anatomy, 117–22. The conservative doctrine which, identifies the perfect as a combination of perfective and imperfective aspect values is perhaps a vague step in this direction. For an example of this type of classification note Mandilaras, Verb § 457: ʻThe aspect of the perfect combines in itself that of the present (which, is durative) and. that of the aorist (which is punctiliar, regarded as finished), and. thus it denotes the continuance of the e ect of a completed actionʼ. Cf. Fanning, Verbal-Aspect, 291–2 and. n. 212, on perfects from lexically stative verbs. ibid. 117. Porter, Verbal Aspect 245 (my emphasis); cf Louw, ʻSemantiese waardeʼ, 27; also Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 38 n. 4. Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 49–50; cf. Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 71. Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 50 n. 1. Fanning, ʻVerbal Aspect, 119. ibid. 112–20; cf. Friedrich, ʻAspect Theoryʼ, S19. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 38; for criticism of Friedrich's evaluation, of the perfect tense and. aspect generally see Porter, Verbal Aspect 43–5. Cf. Lyons, Semantics, ii. 715: ʻIn languages that have both stative verbs and a stative (resultative) perfect there is still a semantic di erence, in principle … between the perfect and the non-perfect of a particular stative verbʼ. SS, Two Studies, 139–43 (141–2 on the example of σιγῶ), also 169–70. ibid. § 3.4.6; cf. McKay, New Syntax 32–3. Fanning, Verbal Aspect 139–40. Friedrich, ʻAspect Theoryʼ, S19; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 117–18. Cf. Szemerényi, ʻOriginʼ, 10: ʻIf the Greek perfect expressed a state resulting from a past action (e,g. he has completed the process of dying = he is dead), then it is quite clearly, normally, a representative of the imperfective aspect, and not a di erent kind of thingʼ On the comparative evidence see W. Cowgill, ʻAnatolian hi- Conjugation [sic] and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment IIʼ, in E, Neu. and W. Meid (eds,), Hethitisch und Imhgermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur kistorischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 1979), 25–39 at 25–32 (with notions on aspect and temporal reference in the IE verb very di erent from those presented here); cf. Sihler, Comp. Grammar §§ 509–14. On the Vedle Sanskrit usage of the perfect see also A. A. MacDonell, A Vedic Grammar for Students (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916; repr. Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1990), § 213.A; I have not seen Mac-Donells more substantial Vedic Grammar (Strasburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1910), but according to his own account (Vedic Grammar for Students, p. vi), the earlier work is less complete for syntax. T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language, new and. revised edn. (London: Faber & Faber, 1:973), 298; cf. Cowgill, ʻAnatolianʼ, 31. Burrow alludes to the evidence of the Hittite h̬i- Conjugation in support of his view (Burrow, Sanskrit, 297). However, the same evidence has also been interpreted as supporting the connection between perfect tense and perfective aspect; so Friedrich, ʻAspect Theoryʼ, S19; cf, J. Kurytowicz, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1:964), 56 § 1., 67–70 §§ 14–15. In fact there is need for special reserve in treating this Hittite verb class, Its relationship to the IE perfect tense represents a major problem for historical, linguistics. The two formal categories are clearly cognate, but lack any obvious functional similarity For a recent highly speculative attempt at a solution see K. C. Shields, A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co,., 1992), 85–97 (I do not use ʻspeculativeʼ in a derogatory sense; cf. ibid. 2–3, but Shields' s idiosyncratic manner of reconstruction must be noted; c£ J. T. Katz, review of K. C. Shields, A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology, in Language, 69 (1993), 636– 7 10.2307/416733 ). See also the articles collected, in Neu. and Meid, Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Cowgill, ʻAnatolianʼ, 2.5–39; J, H, Jasano , ʻThe Position of the h̬i – Conjugationʼ, 79–90; J. Kurylowicz, ʻDie hethitische h̬i – Konjugationʼ, 143–6. A more conservative position is stated at J. Puhvel, ʻAnatolian: Autochthon or Interloper?ʼ, FIES 22 (1994), 251–63 at 260, within a reassessment of the evidential value of Hittite and Anatolian for comparative linguistics. The important general point in all this is that the Hittite verbal, system has developed in a. very di erent way from that of the other old IE languages, Since the special problems it presents, especially that of the eonjugation, are far from resolution, its evidence must be treated with reserve in. comparative studies.

74 75

Against my view Friedrich, ʻAspect Theoryʼ, S19, finds the later merging compelling evidence for earlier aspectual association of the perfect with, the aorist. Cf. McKay, New Syntax § 3.5, calling the future ʻsomething of an anomaly in the ancient Greek verb systemʼ. The same

76 77 78 79 80

statement could be applied to other IE verbal systems. See Porter, Verbal Aspect 404–16; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 120–4. Porter, Verbal Aspect 413–15, 427, 438–9. Sihler, Comp. Grammar, §§ 501–2. On the history of the Greek future forms see 1 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 403–4; Sihler, Comp. Grammar, §§457, 500. So Lyons, Semantics, ii. 815: ʻThere was no future tense in Proto-Indo-European. But there was probably a fairly rich system of moods, including, in addition to the indicative and the imperative, a subjunctive, an optative, and a desiderative,ʼ Cf. B. Comrie, Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 45–6 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 Porter, Verbal Aspect, 412.

81 82 83

84

;

The same basis in modern translation equivalents explains confusion between the oblique moods and ancient periphrastic constructions involving ʻmodalʼ auxiliaries; cf. Gonda, Character, 5–7. Sihler, Comp. Grammar, §§ 446, 457. This point is demonstrated by the appearance of desideratives in all moods of the present system in Vedic Sanskrit (MacDonell, Vedic Grammar for Students, 200), where the type does not develop as a future. Indo-lranian is the only IE subtamily in which this form retains straightforward desiderative force (Sihler, Comp. Grammar, § 457). On θέλω constructions cf. § 9.3.3. The diachronic process is arguably incomplete in the case of Modern English will and many writers have found it hard to decide whether it forms a genuine future tense auxiliary at all, or is rather a modality marker; cf. Binnick, Time, 251–2, 488 n. 44; Comrie, Tense, 46–8 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 ; F. R. Palmer, Mood and Modality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 8 (where the further reference to his item § 0.2.3 is a misprint for § 6.1.3), 62, 216–18; and on the process more generally O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar (London: George Allen &: Unwin, 1924; repr., with new introduction and index by J. D, McCawley, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 260–1; Lyons, Semantics, 817.

85 86 87 88 89

For a list see Schwyzer, Grammatik, 781–2. On the later instability of these forms and their tendency towards replacement by active futures see Gignac, Morphology, 321–2; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 367–9. Bakker, ʻVoiceʼ, 29, 33–4; A. Rijksbaron, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984), 149–50 (I have not seen Rijksbaron's 2nd edn, of 1994). Porter, Verbal Aspect, 417–19. ibid. 409; Gignac, Morphology, 359–60 n. 8. Browning, Med. & Mod. 31; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 540–3, Browning regards the main factor in the loss of the synthetic future as recasting of the verbal system into a binary aspectual structure. The old future would not lit into this system, since it did not distinguish aspect in the way periphrastic combinations with infinitives could (Browning, Med. & Mod. 31 10.1017/CBO9780511554148

90 91 92 93 94.

95 96 97 98 99

).His argument is based on a multiple-aspect view of the Classical system; ʻthe

distinctions of aspect … in ancient Greek were many-dimensionalʼ (ibid. 29 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 ). According to my own approach, the Greek aspectual system was always binary in nature and we have simply a new intrusion of aspectual quality into the future tense through periphrasis (on the novel development of aspectual distinctions in the future in later Greek I am in agreement with Browning; also Gignac, Morphology, 290). Therefore, I take phonetic and syntactic confusion between future indicative and aorist subjunctive to provide the major impulse towards development of periphrastic future formations, which recovered lost clarity for the future tense. On the fluid nature of the expression of futurity in later Greek (prior to the dominance of the θά plus subjunctive type) see Browning, Med. & Mod. 31 n. 12, 33–4, 35, 79, 94; Gignac, Morphology, 290. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 295. On similar problems of identification pertaining to verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch see App. 1, § I(c). See, incidentally, J. A. L. Lee, ʻSome Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospelʼ, NovT 27 (1985), 1– 26 at 18–23, on the special significance of these οὐ μή constructions in LXX and NT language. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 408. Moulton, Prolegomena, 149. See LSJ 749. s.v. ἒχω, for the common assertion of a functional distinction in accordance with the formal di ertnee. with ἒχω used of ʻdurationʼ and σχήσω used of ʻmomentary actionʼ (cf. Porter, Verbal. Aspect, 408; SM, Grammar, §§ 1738, 1911, who notes in the latter section that ʻἒχω usually does duty for σχήσωʼ). This needs to be tested, but it seems doubtful that a genuine aspectual distinction is involved (and LSJ's dated terminology of duration and momentary action is Aktionsart-oriented). McKay, New Syntax, §§ 3.1.1, 3.5. ibid. § 3.5 n. 1. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 407. Jespersen, Philosophy, 260. Lyons, Semantics, ii. (677–8; cf. 815–23. Lyons's chaiacterization is endoised in Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 123; cf Comrie,

100 101 102

103 104

105 106 107

108 109 110

Aspect, 2 n. 2; id. Τense, 43–8; see also S. Fleisehman, The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 12–16, 22–31. Gonda, Character, 2–3, 6. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 105–6. ibid. 166. Porter characterizes the imperative as the mood of direction, the subjunctive as the mood of projection, anil the optative, ʻmarked in relation to the Subjunctiveʼ, as the mood of projection plus contingency (ibid.). For discussion and definition of terms see ibid, 163–78. On the distinction between deontic modality and epistemic modality see Lyons. Semantics, ii, 823–6; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 165. Cf. Gonda, Character, 2–3, 51–2, 69–71; also at § 2.6.5 n. 107. (Gonda's approach is described as ʻmanifestly falseʼ by D Lightfoot, Natural Logic and the Greek Moods: The Nature of the Subjunctive and Optative in Classical Greek (The Hague: Mouton. 1075). 18, bur his ʻimmediate counter-examplesʼ—indicative with modal particle ἂv in a contrary-to-fact conditional sentence or indicative in an unreal purpose clause—are debatable. It is surely not the force of the indicative form itself which contradicts factuality of the verbal notion in such cases. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 177–8, and as cited at § 2.6.1 n. 77. Cf. Lightfoot, Natural Logic, 133–4. Cf. Gonda, Character, 71: ʻas soon as temporal distinctions increased in importance, the “subjective” subjunctive denoting what the speaker saw in his mind's eye, was apt to develop into a more “objective” future referring to what was to come a er the moment of speaking.ʼ Cf. ibid. 74–80. 177–8. on the future indicative contrasted with the subjunctive. Fanning. Verbal Aspect, 122–4. On location in time see Comrie, Tense, 7–13 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 . Comrie recognizes three classes of temporal expressions, dividing the lexical type into lexical items and lexically composite expressions, along the lines I describe. The lexical classes are together opposed to grammatical categories, which are ʻthe least sensitise of the threeʼ (ibid. 8 10.1017/CBO9781139165815

).

111

Lyons, Semantics, ii. 678–9; Comrie, Tense. 6 10.1017/CBO9781139165815

112

Porter, Verbal Aspect, 99, On temporal reference and deixis see Comrie, Tense, 13–18 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 ; Lyons, Semantics, ii. 636–7, 677–8, 809; cf. id., Introduction to Theoretical Liuguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University

113

Press, 1968), 275–81, 304–17 10.1017/CBO9781139165570 . The secondary relative time values noted by Fanning in non-indicative forms, especially in the participle (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 407–8; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 378–88; also id., ʻDefenceʼ, 37, criticizing Fanning, though the two are not really in disagreement over participial semantics: both see the temporal reference of the participle as relative and eontextuallv based), are due to pragmatic irnplicature (on which see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 103–4; Comrie, Tense, 23– 35 10.1017/CBO9781139165815

114 115 116 117 118 119 120

121 122 123 124

125 126

.

).

McKay, New Syntax, § 4.1.2, reaches a similar position. See especially the introductory; discussion of tense and asptct in Porter, Verbal Aspect, 75–108. The central assertion is repeatedly stressed and amplified in following chapters. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 34. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 103; this point is acknowledged by Fanning, ʻApproachesʼ, 59. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 103. ibid. 103–4. See Fanning. ʻApproachesʼ, 58–9; Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 70–1: Silva, ʻResponseʼ, 77 n. 1; cf. McKay, New Syntax, § 3.6.3. The hostile response of C J. Ruijgh, review (in French) of S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, in Mnemosyne, 4th sen, 48 (1995), 352–66, itself represents an extreme position. Carson, ʻIntroductionʼ, 18–19. Silva, ʻResponseʼ, 77 n. 1. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 198, 207–8, 209–11. 289; Lyons, Semantics, ii. 819–20. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 101. Porter's second class, which he illustrates by means of Matt. 3: 1 ἐν … ταîς ήμέραις ἐκείναις. belongs with Comrie's lexically composite expressions (see above, § 2.7.1 n. no). The third, class is less convincing. Porter o ers the example of 1 Cor. 15: 32 νῦν δʼ ὑμεῖς στρεβλώσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπεκτείνατε; with the comment: ʻPaul refers to fighting wild beasts in Ephesus. Whether these beasts are to be taken literally or figuratively, in either case the article arguably gives past temporal reference to the protasis of this conditional, referring to a previous period in Paul's ministry.ʼ This seems to me a very strained attempt to avoid acceptance of temporal, reference in. the indicative verb (as ἐ θηριομάχησα in Porter's example). Porter, Verbal Aspect, 425, cf. 101. ibid. 425 cites BAGD in support of his semantic analysis quoted immediately above; but does not mention that the same

127 128

129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140

141 142 143 144 145

146 147 148 149

authority recognizes use of vῆv ʻof time shortly before … the immediate pres[ent]ʼ (BAGD, s.v. νῆν, i.b., citing among others the example of John 11: 8). Porter, Verbal Aspect 210. Even McKay here o ers ʻquite recently (just now) the Jews were trying to stone youʼ, though, citing the example in connection with remarks minimizing the importance of deictic time indicators for temporal reference in the verb; ʻIt should be noted that some common time indicators sometimes occur in situations where they are markers of only part of the temporal setting, or where they are markers of some other factor, such, as reality, rather than timeʼ (McKay, New Syntax § 4.1.2). Porter, Verbal Aspect 210. Examples can easily be multiplied; cf. LSJ, s.vῆν, 1.2. Cf. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 37–8, on Fanning's approach. OLD s.v. nunc, 3–5, 8. Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 101. The list also includes ἄρτι, ἥδη, πάλιν, ὡς, τóτε, πάντως, ἕως, μέχρι, ὅταν and πρίν. ibid. 208–9. Schmidt, ʻVerbal Aspectʼ, 71; cf. Silva, ʻResponseʼ, 77 n. 1. Porter, Verbal Aspect 208. Sihler, Comp. Grammar 484 n. 2. For details on origins and IE distribution see BD, Grundriβ ii, 3/1. 10–19; Sihler, Comp. Grammar §§ 441–2; Schwyzer, Grammatik 651. On Greek see further Schwyzer, Grammatik 650–6. M. Ventris and. J, Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 88, 402–3, 48:1; E, Vilborg, A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek (Göteborg: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1960)5 104; Y. Duhoux, ʻLes débuts de l'augment gree: le facteur sociolinguistiqueʼ, Minos, 20–2 (1987), 163–72 at 163–4. (and see passim for a dubious interpretation of augmental omission in Mycenaean and Homeric Greek as aristocratic conservatism). Omission of the augment in post-Homeric poetry is a purely artificial metrical, and stylistic feature (Schwyzer, Grammatik 651–2). For the Sanskrit developments see MacDonell, Vedic Grammar for Students, § 128; W. D. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, 5th edn. (Leipzig, 1924; repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989), §§ 585–7. For details of the post-Classical developments see Mayser, Grammatik i/2. 93–104, 108–13; Gignac, Morphology 223–42; Thackeray, Grammar 195–204, 206–9. Schwyzer, Grammatik 655–6. Against this view, K. L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974),. § a.28, treats the evidence of the pluperfect as significant for the augment generally. His observation is cited approvingly by Porter, Verbal Syntax, 209. However, quite apart from the doubtful evidential value of the pluperfect, the demise of the augment in that tense has been overemphasized. Thackeray's remarks on LXX usage obscure the fact that the pluperfect: always takes the augment in the Pentateuch. (Thackeray, Grammar 196–7). In the Ptolemaic papyri loss of the syllabic augment in the pluperfect occurs Verbältnismäβig seltenʼ (Mayser, Grammatik i/2. 98), Gignae's examples from the later papyri are hardly numerous (Gignac, Morphology 224). W. S. Allen, Vox Graeca, 3rd. edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 130–1. Browning, Med. & Mod. 57–8. Gignac, Morphology 225; Η MP, Greek, § ii. 7.10, The decline of the augment in Old Armenian is also related to accentual e ects; cf. H, Jensen, Altarmenische Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1959), §§ 249–50. See e.g. BD, Grundriβ ii. 3/1. 10–11; P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique (2 vols., Paris: Librairie C Klincksieck, 1958–63), i. 479; and among recent writers Comrie, Tense, 103 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 ; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 15–16 and n. 26; Ö, Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 83, There is no secure etymology (cf, GEW i, 431; DÉLG ii. 307), but Walking's proposal, suggesting original, identity with, the deictic pronominal, element *e-, is attractive (C. Watkins, ʻPreliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verbʼ, Celtica, 6 (1963), 1–49 at 14–16). The semantic shi from ʻthereʼ to ʻthenʼ is easy. Incidentally, Porter may not exploit this possible link in support of his ideas on remoteness in the imperfect and pluperfect indicatives (see § 2.7.3). Connecting the augment with remoteness would, still fail to explain augmentation of the aorist indicative, since non-indicative aorist forms are characteristically unaugmented,

150 151

Fanning, Verbal Aspect 15–16 n. 26; 29 n. 71; Gignac, Morphology, 225 . For instance, Wackernagel. and. Schwyzer take the augment, as a reality (Wirklickkeit) marker. See J. Wackernagel, Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berück-sichtigung von Griechisch, Laieinisch und Deutsch (2 vols.; Basel: Birkhäuser, 1926–8), i. 181; Schwyzer, Gmmmatik, 652; SD, Syntax, 285; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 208, noting the problems of

their terminology. Other theories, some patently wild, could be added to those Porter mentions (cf. the catalogue in L. Bottin, ʻStudio dell'aumento in Omeroʼ, SMEA 10 (1969), 69–145 at 69–80). 152 153

J. A. J. Drewitt, ʻThe Augment in Homerʼ, CQ 6 (1912), 44–59, 104–20 10.1017/S0009838800017523

154

Drewitt, ʻAugmentʼ, 44 10.1017/S0009838800017523 . Incidentally, Porter does not pursue Drewitt's clear temporal distinctions and. suggestion that the augment was originally a ʻpresentʼ indicator (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 209).

155 156

Drewitt, ʻAugmentʼ, 45 10.1017/S0009838800017523

157

158 159 160 161 162

.

These statistics are simplistic—even at the most basic level of analysis it ought to be noted that the allegedly presentreferring aorists in Homer form a much, smaller sample than that of Drewitt's true preterites—and should now be replaced, by the detailed analysis of Bottin, ʻStudioʼ, passim.

.

For a brief recent account of early epic diction see R. Janko, The Iliad.: A Commentary, iv (Cambridge:. Cambridge University Press, 1992), 8–19. Cf. S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn. (She ield: She ield Academic Press, 1994), 35 n. 2: ʻThat the augment cannot, be seen as a past-time indicator is proved by examination of the Homeric writings, in which the so-called gnomic use virtually always has the augment, whereas the augment is o en lacking in narrative contexts.ʼ This is the conclusion drawn by Bottin, ʻStudioʼ, 137–40. McKay, ʻPerfect Useʼ, 19 n„ 22; cf. 6; also id., Grammar, § 8.3.1; cf. his § a.28. Porter, Idioms, 35 (McKay, Grammar, 223, cited here by Porter, does not directly support his suggestion), This presumably the meaning of Turner's comment that ʻthe augment denoting past time cannot be jettisoned, and has to go with [the gnomic aorist]ʼ (Turner, Syntax 73), an explanation rejected at Porter, Verbal Aspect 60. Porter, Verbal Aspect 211.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

3 Comparative Analysis of the Greek and Hebrew Verbal Systems  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0003 Published: March 2001

Pages 52–70

Abstract Because Greek and Hebrew belong to separate language families (IE and Semitic respectively), their grammatical structures are naturally dissimilar in many respects. This chapter provides a mainly descriptive analysis of the verbal systems of the two languages, according to their manifestations in the Greek and MT Pentateuchs. The structural di erences caused the LXX translators, despite their essentially literal techniques, to make choices regarding verbal usage which had less to do with the demands of the underlying Hebrew text than with natural Greek nuances of meaning. A range of options were available in Koine Greek for the translation of most Biblical Hebrew verbal forms. It can be seen that the grammatical categories of aspect, tense, and mood represent a signi cant sphere of di erence between the languages and thus of largely independent Greek usage.

Keywords: Greek verbal system, LXX translators, Hebrew language, Koine Greek, Greek usage Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

3.1. Preamble Because Greek and Hebrew belong to separate language families (IE and Semitic respectively), their 1

grammatical structures are naturally dissimilar in many respects. This chapter will provide a mainly descriptive analysis of the verbal systems of the two languages, according to their manifestations in the Greek and MT Pentateuchs. Comparison of the two systems will clearly display their structural di erences. 2

These di erences caused the LXX translators, despite their essentially literal techniques, to make (largely unconscious) choices regarding verbal usage which had less to do with the demands of the underlying Hebrew text than with natural Greek nuances of meaning, A range of options were available in Koine Greek for the translation of most Biblical Hebrew verbal forms. It will be seen that the grammatical categories of

aspect, tense, and mood represent a signi cant sphere of di erence between the languages and thus of largely independent Greek usage.

3.2. Introduction to the Verbal System in the Greek Pentateuch In the familiar Attic Greek verbal system of the fth and fourth centuries BC a typical verb may theoretically p. 53

in ect for two aspects: perfective and imperfective; for four moods: indicative, subjunctive,

optative, and

imperative; and for three voices: active, middle, and passive (the latter morphologically distinct from the 3

middle only in the future and aorist tenses). There are also an in nitive and a participle. Numerous tense forms are in use. The indicative mood has as many as seven tenses: present, imperfect, future, aorist, perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect. The optative has as many as four: present, future, aorist, and perfect. The subjunctive and imperative display as many as three: present, aorist, and perfect. The in nitive and participle each have four tenses: present, future, aorist, and perfect. The full range of these forms, especially of tense forms, is probably citable for few verbs. This is due both to the obvious fact that numerous verbs are rarely attested and to the perhaps less obvious reason that many others, though common enough, are restricted to particular linguistic contexts in our ancient documents. And frequencies of occurrence of the verbal forms vary according to context (on linguistic context see also § 5.5.2), Outside the indicative mood by far the most commonly required tense forms in the limited number of linguistic contexts which our texts preserve are the aorist and present, re ecting the basic aspectual contrast between perfective and imperfective. The Greek verbal system undergoes a major restructuring in the Koine vernacular, roughly during the period 4

from 300 BC to AD 600. Changes develop gradually over these several centuries—though some individual 5

changes may well be rapid —and are naturally mutually in uential. The eventual results which are relevant here may be summarized as follows. The voices are reduced from three to two, with middle and passive coalescing morphologically and functionally (the category of voice will receive only peripheral attention in the present study). The optative mood is lust as a separate category, surviving only in one or two fossilized uses. Its functions are transferred to the subjunctive and certain periphrases. The perfect tense fuses formally with the aorist and disappears as a synthetic tense form, the synthetic future and future perfect are p. 54

also lost, and a number of periphrastic tense formations arise in

place of the lost forms. There is formal

coincidence of present subjunctive with present indicative and aorist subjunctive with future indicative. A general tendency towards morphological levelling and simpli cation of the system can be observed, with 6

varying degrees of functional merging.

The Greek Pentateuch is usually dated (§ 1.7) to the very early Koine period, speci cally to the rst half of the third century BC . Descriptive analysis of the verbal system in these documents yields results certainly consistent with early composition. Table 1 displays the range of synthetic tense forms (essentially the Attic system) witnessed here, though its raw statistics are of limited value without careful attention to linguistic context. As has been pointed out by McKay, context is of far greater signi cance in the analysis of forms 7

than frequency of occurrence. Nevertheless, the statistics can alert us to potentially fruitful lines of enquiry.

Table 1. Frequencies of Occurrence of Verbal Forms in the Greek Pentateuch Form

Gen.

Exod.

Lev.

Num.

Deut.

Total

Indicative

392

225

245

198

280

1,340

Subjunctive

23

45

61

26

60

215

Optative

1

0

0

0

0

1

Imperative

76

73

24

28

67

268

Infinitive

82

77

26

54

141

380

Participle

292

236

249

297

243

1,317

296

128

3

64

52

543

Indicative

527

956

1,279

846

1,087

4,695

Infinitive

2

0

0

1

0

3

Participle

1

1

0

0

1

3

Indicative

2,594

1,096

333

1,001

680

5,704

Subjunctive

208

259

295

200

426

1,388

Optative

22

4

0

14

39

79

Imperative

288

181

45

151

96

761

Infinitive

233

140

85

123

185

766

Participle

268

114

63

114

120

679

Indicative

101

97

23

68

64

353

Subjunctive

0

5

1

0

0

6

Infinitive

3

4

0

0

5

12

Participle

27

118

66

123

65

399

Indicative

16

7

3

6

9

41

TOTAL

5,452

3,766

2,801

3,314

3,620

18,953

Present

Imperfect Indicative Future

Aorist

Perfect

Pluperfect

Source: CATSS materials, manually corrected (for discussion see App. 1, § 1).

Table 1 demonstrates that the verbal system re ected in Attic Greek is still largely in place, with regard to 8

moods and tenses. Changes are as yet only nascent, if apparent at all. We may note brie y here certain suggestive patterns revealed by its word counts. Of the older language's seven synthetic tense forms in the indicative mood only the future perfect, which 9

was an early Koine loss from the system, is not represented in the Pentateuchal documents, Thackeray 10

notes a single (recurring) example in the whole of the LXX, namely κεκράξομαι. p. 55

arguable examples of a periphrastic future perfect in the Pentateuch (§ 9.4.12).

There are, however, ve But the most notable

statistic pertaining to the indicative forms is the rarity of the imperfect compared with the aorist. p. 56

In the other moods and the in nitive the contrast between present

and aorist is of greatest importance in

terms of frequency, a strong statistical preference for the aorist being exhibited in four of the books, Deuteronomy is an interesting exception in the imperative and in nitive, where aorists outnumber presents 11

more narrowly.

By contrast we nd in the participle a preference for the present over the aorist, while the

perfect form is well represented, especially in Exodus and Numbers. The rarity of the optative (which with one exception is manifested only in the aorist) in Exodus and its complete absence from Leviticus are noteworthy, but its distribution in the other books suggests that the category is not necessarily moribund. Incidentally, the distinction between second and third person forms of the Greek imperative will later become important for analysing Hebrew formal matches (§ 5.3.10), Table 2, which constitutes a supplement to the gures given for imperative forms in Table 1, sets out comparative frequencies of the two forms in the Pentateuch. Table 2. Frequencies of Occurrence of Imperative Tense Forms in the Greek Pentateuch Form

Gen.

Exod.

Lev.

Num.

Dent.

Total

2nd Person

58

45

2

13

51

169

3rd Person

18

28

22

15

16

99

TOTAL

76

73

24

28

67

268

2nd Person

250

156

42

132

78

658

3rd Person

38

25

3

19

18

103

TOTAL

288

181

45

151

96

761

2nd Person

308

201

44

145

129

827

3rd Person

56

53

25

34

34

202

TOTAL

364

254

69

179

163

1,029

Present

Aorist

Present and aorist combined

Source: CATSS materials, manually corrected.

p. 57

It must be stressed again that questions of distribution and frequency have to be assessed in the light of linguistic context and genre e ects. There is also need for alertness to lexical factors, i.e. whether certain

forms are restricted to particular verbs, a point especially relevant to the smaller samples. The main worth of Table 1 (with Table 2) lies in its demonstration of the range of synthetic forms found in the Pentateuch, not in its actual gures. However, it raises many interesting questions concerning verbal usage in the Greek Pentateuch, several of which will be pursued in the detailed studies of Part III.

3.3. The Biblical Hebrew Verbal System 3.3.1. Problems of the system 12

The Biblical Hebrew verbal system contains perhaps even greater obscurities than that of ancient Greek,

These have been exacerbated by the comparative weakness of past syntax study of Hebrew and the other 13

ancient Semitic languages.

Notable problems relevant to the verb are the question of aspect, time value,

and semantic coding in verbal forms, the related and notorious issue of the waw-consecutive constructions, 14

and the systemic relationships of the di erent verbal-stem types (e.g. Qal, Niphal, Piel).

Detailed

examination of such matters is not apposite to the present purpose. A largely descriptive analysis is required p. 58

for comparison of formal matches between Hebrew and Greek, and will have to be

su

cient here, with

15

brief remarks on the problematic theoretical issues.

3.3.2. Aspect and related issues In study of Biblical Hebrew we nd the same nineteenth-century shift which has been described of Greek, from older interpretations of the verbal system based on time values towards aspect-oriented theories, and the same subsequent change in reference of the term ‘aspect’, from kind of occurrence to viewpoint. Biblical Hebrew lacked a native grammatical tradition. Linguistic study of the language owered only with the works of Saadia Gaon (882–942). The medieval Jewish grammarians, as well as later Christian scholars, were much in uenced by languages realizing the category of tense, especially Mishnaic Hebrew and the languages of Western Europe, and traditional descriptions of the Biblical Hebrew verb were temporally 16

based.

The language has only two tense forms, one characterized by su

by pre xing (the yqtl pattern). The su

xing (the qtl pattern), the other

xal form was taken as a past tense, the pre xal form as a future. But

such interpretation does not adequately explain the facts of usage and its weaknesses motivated the 17

eventual rise of theories of aspect.

The aspectual approach was pioneered by Ewald, who introduced the terms ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ to 18

describe the two Hebrew tenses, though he used them in senses not entirely free of temporal connotations. In subsequent study of the Hebrew verb the history of confused concepts and terminology which bedevils Greek and general theory is mirrored, with mutual in uence between Semitic and IE scholars and the inevitable tendency to minimize unhelpfully di erences in the manifestation of aspect in separate 19

languages and language families. p. 59

Ideas on the character of the Hebrew verb continue to uctuate 20

returned to temporally based analysis.

and a number of recent writers have

Binnick's review of aspect theory in relation to Quranic Arabic and 21

Biblical Hebrew provides a vivid demonstration of the unresolved problems.

He lists a range of

approaches, which can be ordered into ‘theories which explain the facts in purely semantic terms versus those involving pragmatics, and, within the former group, those involving aspect, relative tense, absolute 22

tense, or something else’ as well as mixed theories.

23

Since Ewald, however, the Biblical Hebrew system has usually been regarded as aspectually based.

Aspect

itself is increasingly being recognized by Semiticists as a viewpoint feature, rather than indicating kind of 24

verbal occurrence,

The metalinguistic category of aspect, as de ned in § 2.3.3, can therefore be applied

e ectively to Hebrew This is the approach of the present study. The perfective and imperfective aspects are taken here to be realized in Hebrew by one tense form each, the perfect and imperfect tenses respectively. 25

Both tense forms can be employed in past, present, or future timeframes,

and time deixis in Biblical 26

Hebrew is essentially a matter of lexical expression and pragmatic implicature.

27

On the other hand, time values are clearly realized in the Mishnaic Hebrew verb,

and a similar change in 28

the importance of temporal reference occurs between Classical and Modern Arabic. p. 60

pragmatic meaning to semantic coding is

Diachronic shift from

thus probably witnessed in both these Semitic languages,

similar to that argued for Ancient Greek in the previous chapter (§ 2.7.3). But there does not seem to be clear evidence for the beginnings of the development in the prose and poetic styles of Pentateuchal Hebrew.

3.3.3. The waw-consecutive constructions Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system is its development of waw29

consecutive constructions. These have few obvious parallels in other Semitic languages,

but are the 30

standard Hebrew prose structures, especially of narrative, and of the earlier books of the MT.

A classic

description may serve as their introduction: One of the most striking peculiarities in the Hebrew consecution of tenses is the phenomenon that, in representing a series of past events, only the rst verb stands in the perfect, and the narration is continued in the imperfect. Conversely, the representation of a series of future events begins with 31

the imperfect, and is continued in the perfect.

These constructions represent a major complicating factor in evaluation of the verbal system. In ‘Classical’ 32

or ‘Standard’ Biblical Hebrew, which the Pentateuchal books represent,

four major verbal forms or

constructions are found: (1) perfect (qtl pattern); (2) consecutive perfect (wqtl pattern); (3) imperfect (yqtl pattern); (4) consecutive imperfect (wyyqtl pattern). We should also note (5) the jussive modal form, which 33

is only in part morphologically distinct from the imperfect, with simple waw (wyqtl pattern).

In the consecutive constructions, types (2) and (4), it appears prima facie that the perfect and imperfect tenses reverse their meanings. A perfect form in combination with the conjunction ְ‫‘ ו‬and’ (indicated in the p. 61

traditional terminology by its initial consonant

waw) appears to adopt the function of the imperfect

tense, Thus ‫‘ וְ כָתַ ב‬and he will write’. An imperfect form, in combination with the same conjunction (with 34

certain orthographic modi cations)

appears to adopt the function of the perfect tense. Thus ‫‘ וַיִּ כְ תֹּ ב‬and he

wrote’. The consecutive forms typically occur in sequence after an. introducing imperfect and perfect tense form respectively, though such an introducing form, may merely be implied. Thus, on an aspectual interpretation, the tense forms apparently shift from one aspect value to the other in one particular context. The improbability of such a semantic shift has long seemed obvious, For descriptive purposes the waw-consecutive constructions are not especially problematic. The consecutive imperfect functions as a practical equivalent for the perfect, the consecutive perfect as a practical equivalent for the imperfect, The theoretical puzzle will be touched on here because of its implications for Hebrew aspect theory From the beginnings of the grammatical tradition these constructions have represented the central crux of Biblical Hebrew verbal studies. Numerous attempts have been made to explain them, with the intense theoretical speculation of the modern period, re ected in changing terminology. The same constructions have been called (among other things) ‘waw-conversive’, 35

‘waw -inductive’, ‘waw-relative’, ‘waw-consecutive’, ‘waw-conservative’, and. ‘waw-consequential’. 36

The common term ‘waw- consecutive’ will continue to be used in the present study,

but it is the

historical-comparative approach, associated with the term ‘waw-conservative’, which provides the likeliest 37

key to a solution.

This approach has developed in the course of the twentieth century and has derived

impetus from the increasingly precise description of new comparative evidence, especially the Amarna letters and Ugaritic texts. The usual formal alignment of the consecutive imperfect forms with the jussive where the latter is distinct p. 62

from the imperfect indicates the unreliability of the prima-facie impressions described

above, at least in

38

the case of the preiixal forms. The yqtl and wyyqtl types probably have separate origins.

Bergsträsser's

in uential diachronic analysis derives the wyyqtl consecutive imperfect from a Northwest Semitic ✴yaqtul 39

preterite

formally identical with the jussive and distinct from the long form ✴yaqtulu which is the

antecedent of the yqtl imperfect. According to this explanation the ✴yaqtul preterite survives in Biblical 40

Hebrew in the waw- consecutive construction (perhaps also as a free form in certain environments)

and

41

partially merges with the imperfect after loss of the latter's original nal vowel.

The consecutive perfect has been taken, as arising on the analogy of the consecutive imperfect, that is, the 42

pattern of perfect plus consecutive imperfect motivates that of imperfect plus consecutive perfect.

It has

also been linked with futuristic uses of the re exes of ✴qatala, antecedent of the qtl perfect, in the Amarna letters and Ugaritic, most persuasively with such forms in future-referring apodoses of conditional 43

constructions,

44

while some stress the optative function of the perfect tense as a signi cant precursor.

The

two explanations, of derivation from special perfect tense usage or analogy from the consecutive imperfect, 45

are not mutually exclusive. Both factors are probably in uential for the history of the consecutive perfect. The waw-consecutive constructions can therefore be explained in terms of partial merging of originally

independent verbal forms and analogical spread of originally restricted uses. For aspect theory the problem p. 63

remains that the preiixal types yqtl and wyyqtl contain

the remnants of two historically separate verbal

forms, These have fused formally and in part also functionally. It is accepted here that the yqtl type (from ✴yaqtuhi) represents imperfective aspect (§ 3.3.2). But what is the special semantic force of the ✴yaqtul 46

form, which seems to be identical, with the jussive?

One possible answer is that ✴yaqtul is essentially a zero form, i.e. root plus personal a

xes, of which past

narrative and jussive functions are two manifestations. In narrative the zero form is used following an introductory perfect form. In this context the perfect tense form establishes the characteristic aspectual character (perfective) of narrative sequence in Biblical Hebrew. The zero form (consecutive imperfect) conveys no independent aspect value and is grammatically marked only for person and number, though it 47

adopts the value of the perfect from pragmatic implicature.

3.3.4. The verbal stems Outside the scope of the present work, lies the theory of the Hebrew verbal stems developed by Jenni and 48

others,

This synchronic interpretation aligns the seven major stem types (Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael, 49

Hiphil, and Hophal) in a systemic network based on causation and voice.

An extended translation50

technical analysis of the Greek translators' treatment of the verbal stems would be interesting,

and they

would naturally need to be treated in any systematic analysis of voice in the LXX verb, but their usage is of limited, relevance here. Thompson's assertion of interference from these verbal stems manifested in use of the Greek perfect indicative will, however, be considered (§ 6.2.4), p. 64

It is important to note in this connection Waltke and O'Connor's

very broad application of the term.

‘Aktionsart’, which they de ne as ‘the way in which the structure of a situation is understood in relation to 51

causation, voice, transitivity, re exivity, repetition, and similar factors’.

This is clearly a much looser

de nition than that adopted in the previous chapter (§§ 2.3.4, 2.3.5) and involves for Hebrew mainly 52

grammatically expressed features (partly involving the verbal, stems).

Waltke and O'Connor's summary

list contains ve types of Aktionsart, namely: (1) voice: active, passive, and middle; (2) type of movement/activity: entive and stative; (3) contour of movement/activity: transitive and intransitive; (4)

causation: causative, resultative/factitive, and declarative; (5) double-status action: re exive, reciprocal, and 53

tolerative.

Of these only ‘type of movement/activity’, which stresses the action/stative contrast and thus 54

accords with Vendlerian classi cation (cf. §§ 2.3.4, 2.4.1),

ts within the description of the category given

in Chapter 2. Waltke and O'Connor's application of Aktionsart will not be accepted in this study.

3.3.5. Descriptive analysis of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system We can now turn, to a purely descriptive treatment of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system. The following description focuses on the strong verb of triliteral structure, which provides an adequate demonstration of the characteristic formal categories. A typical verb can theoretically form as many as seven verbal stems, the pattern of Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual, Hithpael, Hiphil, and Hophal mentioned above. In somewhat simpli ed 55

terms these function as follows.

The Qal, Piel, and Hiphil are active in voice. The Qal is the ‘simple’ active

form and formally also the basic type, while the Piel (traditionally described as intensive) and Hiphil express degrees of causation. To these three forms the Niphal, Pual, and Hophal respectively function as passives, but the Niphal also serves as a ‘simple’ re exive. The Hithpael is the re exive to the Piel. There are also 56

limited survivals of a greater range of formal types. p. 65

In each verbal stem a verb may theoretically in ect for two tenses, for jussive, cohortative, and imperative modal forms (except that the cohortative and imperative are lacking for Pual and Hophal), for two in nitives (the in nitive construct and the in nitive absolute), and for one participle (but two in the Qal; see below). As already discussed, the two tenses, perfect (with the consecutive imperfect) and imperfect (with the consecutive perfect), represent the perfective and imperfective aspects respectively. The Biblical Hebrew verb in ects for two numbers (singular and plural) and three persons ( rst, second, third) like the 57

Koine Greek verb, which loses the dual number of Attic.

But the Hebrew verb also in ects for gender in

second, and third persons, unlike Greek. The jussive, cohortative, and imperative form a rough functional unity, characteristically expressing 58

volition, as in commands, wishes, prohibitions, and exhortations.

The Hebrew imperative is used for

commands in the second person and plays much the same role as its counterpart in Greek. The cohortative and jussive express degrees of volition in the rst and third persons. Each of these derives from forms originally conjugating in all persons, but in Biblical Hebrew they have fused functionally to form a 59

composite paradigm. p. 66

60

The cohortative form is almost completely restricted to the rst person,

expressing

the will of the speaker. The jussive is mainly restricted to the third person, though the second person

is

61

regular in prohibitions, and there are survivals of rst person forms.

It is necessary to distinguish between jussive and cohortative form and function. The forms distinct from the imperfect are not commonly preserved, and in some instances are not used. even, though elsewhere 62

citable.

On the other hand, there are examples which are jussive or cohortative in form, but apparently not

in sense, e.g. pseudo-cohortatives, such as Gen. 43: 21

63

.‫ וַנִּ פְ ְתּחָ ה‬In this study the term cohortative consistently

refers to rst person volitive function, the term jussive to second and. (most often) third person volitive function (see further § 4.4.6). Of the two in nitives, the in nitive construct is broadly similar in function to the Greek in nitive. In addition, in combination with certain prepositions it regularly forms adverbial expressions where Greek 64

would tend to employ a clause. The in nitive absolute, probably historically distinct and unrelated,

is used

nominally (most familiarly the paronomastic intensifying type) as complement to clause or verb, and also 65

to a. limited extent in place of other verbal forms.

The Hebrew participle has uses similar to those of Greek

participles, but also occurs commonly as predicate in nominal sentences (cf. § 9.5.2). It is active or passive according to the function of each stem type, but the Qal displays limited survivals of a. passive form, as well as its usual, active participle.

p. 67

3.4. Structural Comparison of the Greek and Hebrew Verbal Systems Comparison, of the two verbal systems described above will demonstrate the simple, but fundamentally important, fact that Hebrew forms frequently lack near equivalents in Greek. The structural di erences of the two systems, some of which have been mentioned incidentally in the preceding section, provide a clear indication that in aspect, tense, and mood we are dealing with spheres of usage where the Greek of the Pentateuch may potentially display a large measure of independence. Wevers provides a brief descriptive 66

survey of the signi cant points of dissimilarity.

He notes the e ects of Hebrew marking for gender and of

the in nitive absolute in its nominal use, for which Greek has no real counterpart (on this well-known translation-technical problem see § 5.3.12 n. 19). Especially relevant to the present study are his observations on the comparative richness of the Greek system of moods and tenses, but these require ampli cation. We nd a greater facility for the expression of modal nuances in translation Greek than in the underlying Hebrew. The imperative is employed in similar fashion by the two languages (though the third person imperative of Greek operates in the functional territory of the Hebrew jussive) and this is also broadly true of the indicative. But the Hebrew jussive/cohortative composite has a rather more limited range than the Greek subjunctive and optative. As a result, it will be seen that the Hebrew indicative may often be translated by a Greek oblique mood (not to mention, the capacity of the Greek, participle, in its function as clause 67

equivalent, to render a Hebrew nite verb).

Disagreement of mood will occur commonly, despite

signi cant arti cial constraints which are imposed on the Greek. Parataxis, the characteristic structure of Biblical Hebrew prose style, is usually reproduced in. LXX Greek (see further §§ 5.5.4, 8.5.1). This type of p. 68

sentence structure militates against full manifestation of Greek modal variety, which is

intrinsically

68

linked to the subordinating structure more typical of original Greek compositions. 69

With regard to tense usage the di erences are still clearer.

In the indicative mood as many as seven Greek

tenses are ranged against the two of Hebrew. The Hebrew context must have in uenced broadly the translators' choices amongst these Greek forms: for example, a past narrative context would naturally have suggested a Greek form characteristic of such a context. But this still left a choice over which speci c Greek form to employ, e.g. between aorist and imperfect, or even pluperfect (see further § 5.5.2). In the oblique moods, since aspect is manifested only in the indicative in Hebrew, Greek displays as many as four tenses against the single Hebrew forms for jussive, cohortative, and imperative. Similarly, the Hebrew in nitive construct and participle, where rendered by their Greek counterparts, each, have up to four possible 70

equivalents.

The conclusion to be drawn from these comparative observations is that in verbal usage there was major scope for independence in translation from Hebrew to Greek. The LXX translators regularly faced, options pertaining to Greek syntactical, usage which were not speci cally motivated by their Hebrew text. This in itself warrants detailed analysis of LXX Greek to discover what methods of translation are actually employed 71

and to what extent regularity is to be found in translational equivalents of particular Hebrew forms. p. 69

Though Greek may seem structurally incapable of translating

Hebrew verbal forms in a purely

mechanical fashion, a developing translation technique might well encourage preferences for more or less standard renderings of these forms (§ 5.5.4). Only when we have identi ed the renderings in use can we establish degrees of Hebrew in uence over Greek usage, and conversely degrees of freedom in the Greek. The next step for the present study will be to provide complete data for the formal matches which are to be found in the MT for all verbal, forms in the Greek Pentateuch, to show as precisely as possible the practice of the translators. Once this has been demonstrated, the way becomes clear to appreciate the ‘normal Greek’ avour of the features of LXX syntax in question and to exploit their evidence for general study of the postp. 70

Classical Greek verb.

Notes 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12

13 14

15

Cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, p. vii. Cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 281 and passim. For the sake of completeness one might mention also the verbal adjective in -τέoς, which is employed in gerundival constructions with εἰμí. These are restricted in the post-Classical vernucular and are almost completely absent from the LXX; see Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I. 359–60; Thackeray, Grammar. 194; and cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1097. See Browning, Med. & Mod, 19–24. Cf. McKay, ʻPerfect Useʼ 4. For details, on the various changes see Browning, Med. & Mod. 29–36. On morphological and functional merging cf. § 2.6.2 n. 89; § 6.2.2; § 7.2 n. 9. McKay, ʻPerfect in NTʼ, 292–3; see also R. Sollamo, ʻSome “Improper” Prepositions, such as ἐνώπιov, ἐνaντίoν, ἔνaντι, etc., in the Sepruagint and Early Koine Greekʼ, VT 25 (1975), 773–82 at 775. Indeed, throughout the LXX corpus, of which most elements were written before the 1st cent. AD (Swete, Introduction, 23– 7; DHM, Septante, 86–101, 110–11; Olofsson, LXX Version, 33 and n. 264; Tov, Hebrew Bible. 136–7), this system remains largely intact. Cf. the general observations on the LXX verbal system of Thackeray, Grammar, 24, 193–5; there are also vague statements in Swete, Introduction, 305, 306, 308. But later books were probably influenced towards conservatism by earlier ones, and the archaizing e ects of Atticism are apparent in some documents; for example, the ʻClassicalʼ use of the optative in 4 Maccabees is due to the literary character of that composition (Thackeray, Grammar, 24, 193). Gignac, Morphology, 307 and n. 2; Mayser, Grammatik, i/2. 155; ii/1. 225; Schwyzer, Grammatik, 783–4; SD, Syntax, 289–90. Thackeray, Grammar, 194, 233, 273. On the tense forms of the Greek infinitive in the Pentateuchal books cf. Soisalon-Soininen, infinitive, 148. He attributes the frequency of the present infinitive in Deuteronomy to linguistic context. The term ʻBiblical Hebrewʼ will be applied here to the literary language of the 12th to 3rd cents, BC ; cf. WO, Syntax, 3, 8–9. It does not imply linguistic unity, with diachronic and stylistic heterogeneity even within the Pentateuch; see-in general ibid, 11–15; cf. E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language, ed. R. Kutscher (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1982), 12, 44–5, 77–85; I. Young, Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993), 73– 96, 122–73. On the continuing problem of the Hebrew Bible's manner of composition see e.g. R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (She ield: JSOT Press. 1987); N. K. Gottwald, The Hebrew Bible: A Socioliterary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). W. R. Bodine, ʻHow Linguists Study Syntaxʼ, in W. R. Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. 1992), 89–107 at 89–90. The vague, but now common, term ʻverbal stemsʼ (and derivatives) will be used here, in accordance with the practice of Waltke and O'Connor, for the verbal patterns called binyanim (lit. ʻbuildingsʼ) by early Hebrew grammarians (see WO, Syntax, 351–2). For a recent discussion see P. J. Gentry, ʻThe System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrewʼ, Hebrew Studies, 39 (1998), 7–39 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003

16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

.

WO, Syntax, 458–61. On the general history of Hebrew grammatical study see ibid. 31–43; also L. McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Ρresent Day (She ield: Almond Press, 1982), 1–16, for a survey of early grammatical analyses of the Biblical Hebrew verb down to 1827, with focus on study of the waw-consecutive construction. On the weaknesses of the traditional theories see WO, Syntax, 459–60; Binnick, Time, 434–5. For the contribution of Ewald see McFall, Enigma, 43–57; WO, Syntax, 463–6. Fanning, Verbal Syntax, 17; WO, Syntax. 464. Gentry, ʻSystemʼ, 10 and n. 15 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003

.

Binnick. Time, 434–44; see also T. N. D. Mettinger, ʻThe Hebrew Verb System: A Survey of Recent Researchʼ, ASTI 9 (1973), 64–84 at 70, 73–9. Binnick, Time, 435. WO, Syntax, 475. n. 91; Binnick, Time, 435; Mettinger, ʻHebrew Verb Systemʼ, 73, 79; Kutscher, History, 44; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 157–8. Gentry, ʻSystemʼ, 14–15 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003

.

Cf. WO, Syntax, 486, 502. On the pragmatic e ects see Gentry, ʻSystemʼ 15–20 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003 . Gentry's model ʻdoes argue that the Serb form grammaticalizes both aspect and tense, although the latter is indicated by a combination of morphology and

27

28

29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39 40 41

42

43 44 45 46

47

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

discourse frameworkʼ (ibid. 20 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003 ). For me this manifestation of tense is not a criterial value of the verbal forms. Segal, Grammar, 150–65. If the notion accepted here is correct, that the Biblical Hebrew verb is marked for aspect, but not for temporal reference, Segal's comment on the ʻgreater precisionʼ of the tenses in Mishnaic Hebrew contrasted with those of Biblical Hebrew (ibid. 150) is astray. It is rather that tin formal semantics of the verb have been reoriented. On the relationship between Mishnaic and Biblical Hebrew see ibid. 10–14; cf. WO, Syntax, 10 and n. 25. Cf. B. Comrie, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976),80–1 and 80 n. 1. Comrie, however, presents a mixed time/aspect value theory of the Arabic verb (ibid. 78–81; B. Comrie, Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 63–4). On the parallels, some of which are debatable, see M. S. Smith, The Origins and Development of the Waw-consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 17–21; WO, Syntax, 458 n. 17; 529 n. 26; C. R. Krahmalkov, ʻThe Qatal with Future Tense Reference in Phoenicianʼ, JSS 31 (1986), 5–10; S. Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1976), § 64.44; GKC, Grammar, § 49a n. 1. On the distribution of waw-consecutive constructions in narrative and direct speech see Smith, Origins, 21–7. On their decline in later books see ibid. 27–33. GKC, Grammar, § 49a. Cf. Kutscher, History, 12; WO, Syntax, 12. For discussion of these five forms see WO, Syntax, 456, with law statistics somewhat misleadingly analysed without reference to context; cf. McFall, Enigma, 176. On the wyqtl pattern see also WO, Syntax, 562–3, 650, 653–4. WO, Syntax, 543; GKC, Grammar, § 49c. On the various theories see in general WO, Syntax, 456–78; cf. Binnick, Time, 435, 439–43. This accords with the practice of most modern, writers since Ewald, who adopted the term from Böttcher (WO, Syntax, 463). Waltke and. OʼConnor prefer ʻwaw-relativeʼ(ibid. 477, 519–20, 543). The historical-comparative approach is by no means free from di iculties and it has been fitted to both, temporally and aspectually based theories; see Smith, Origins, 1–6; WO, Syntax, 466–70; Mettinger,. ʻHebrew Verb Systemʼ, 70–3; cf, Moscati, Comp. Grammar, §§ 16.28–16,31. WO, Syntax, 469–70, 543–4; cf 566, and. also McFall, Enigma, 54–5. The expression ʻ✴yaqtul preteriteʼ obviously implies time value, but this is not a necessary interpretation; cf. Smith, Origins, 2–3; also n. 37 above and the zero-form explanation detailed at the end. of this section. WO, Syntax, 469 and n. 72; Smith, Origins, 5, 12. Bergsträsser, Grammatik, ii. 13–14, This reconstruction is restated at Smith, Origins, 5–6, and see his further discussion of Northwest Semitic ✴yaqtul at pp. xi, 12–13, 14; cf. WO, Syntax, 545–6. For the debate on whether identification, of ✴yaqtid in the Amarna letters and. Ugaritic is valid see Smith, Origins, 65–7. On. loss of the final vowel of the imperfect tense in Hebrew see also Moscati, Comp, Grammar, § 16.54. Bergsträsser, Gramtnatik, ii. 14; cf. Smith, Origins, 6. The consecutive imperfect is ʻthe most frequent verbal form in the Hebrew Scripturesʼ (WO, Syntax, 547; cf. 456, 544). However, Waltke and OʼConnor surprisingly suggest analogical influence in the reverse direction, from the consecutive perfect construction, on the consecutive-imperfect (ibid. 546–7). Smith, Origins, pp. xi, 6–12, 13–15. See also WO, Syntax, 521–2, 525. See Smith, Origins, 13. ibid, 8. For the argument that the past narrative and jussive functions correspond to separate forms, distinguished by accent as ✴yáqtul preterite and ✴yaqtúl jussive, see R, Hetzron, ʻThe Evidence for Perfect ✴yáqtul and Jussive ✴yaqtúl in ProtoSemiticʼ, JSS 14 (1969), 1–21. Hetzron. is largely in. agreement (ibid. 2) with the reconstruction of G. R. Driver, Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936), 112–24. I do not find Hetzronʼs views on Proto-Semitic stress patterns persuasive. This zero-form interpretation, represents the unpublished views of Dr A, Treloar. The attractiveness of his suggestion, lies in. its economical capacity to remove di iculties for aspect theory regarding the formal semantics of ✴yaqtul and the Hebrew consecutive imperfect. Treloar accepts the analogical explanation, for development of the consecutive perfect. See WO, Syntax, 354. For discussion see ibid. 352–61; cf. Mettinger, ʻHebrew Verb Systemʼ, 66–9. Cf, J, H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 18. WO, Syntax, 689. ibid, 346, 348–50. ibid, 350. For an application of Vendlerian. analysis to Modern. Standard Arabic see E, N. MeCarus, ʻA Semantic Analysis of Arabic

55 56 57 58

Verbsʼ, in L. L. Orlin (ed.), Michigan Oriental Studies in Honor of George G, Cameron (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1976), 3–28. This brief semantic characterization of the stem types may be supplemented by the detailed analysis of WO, Syntax, 352– 452; for a more traditional account see GKC, Grammar, §§ 51–4. WO, Syntax, 359–61; cf Wright, Grammar, i, 29–47, for the system, of fi een stem types recognized for the Arabic triliteral verb; also Moscati, Comp. Grammar, §§ 16. 1–16.26 for further comparative evidence, A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar (London: Macmillan & Co., 1897), § 688; cf, Schwyzer, Grammatik, 1:27; G, Horrocks, Greek; A History of the Language and its Speakers (London, and New York; Longman, 1997), 27, 53. WO, Syntax, 564–79, For a very di erent treatment of the non-indicative moods in Hebrew see Gentry, ʻSystemʼ, 21– 30 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003

59

60

61 62

63 64 65

66

67 68

69

70

71

.

WO, Syntax, 564–5, The Hebrew jussive is identified with that of Arabic, and see the discussion of § 3.3.3 for its probable connection with narrative ✴yaqtul. The cohortative has been linked with the pausal form, of the Arabic second, energic (Wright, Grammar, i. 61; GKC, Grammar, § 48b; Moscati, Comp. Grammar, § 16.34), but Moran identifies it with the Arabic subjunctive (W L. Moran, ʻEarly Canaanite Yaqtmlciʼ, Orientalistf 29 (1960), 1–19; cf, J. Blau, ʻStudies in. Hebrew Verb Formationʼ, HebrUCA 42 (1971), 133–58 at 133–44), All of these Arabic modal, forms (jussive, energtc, and subjunctive) conjugate fully, Rare exceptions are listed in S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 3rd. edn, (Oxford: Clarendon. Press, 1892), 51 n. 1. Of these the only Pentateuchal example (‫בוֹאתה‬ ָ ‫ ָתּ‬in Deut, 33: 16) is probably a scribal error (ibid., and see BL, Grammatik, 444p). None of the first person forms seem to be Pentateuchal; see Driver,. Treatise, 51 n. 4. Joüon, Grammaire, §§ 114b n. 1; 114g n. 2; WO, Syntax, 566, Formal, levelling between the imperfect and jussive forms is mainly due to prehistoric vowel loss in the imperfect (cf, § 3.3.3 and n. 4.1). In the case of ‫ ל״ה‬verbs vowel contraction, causes loss of distinct cohortative forms, though the grammars tend to state less accurately that the ordinary form of the imperfect expresses the cohortative function; see GKC, Grammar, § 751; BL, Grammatik, 4091–n; Joüon, Grammaire, § 790. WO, Syntax, 576–7. ibid, 581, For a di erent view, taking the Qal infinitive construct as derived from the corresponding absolute form, see De L, OʼLeary, Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1923), § 151(1). WO, Syntax, 580–97, The uses of the infinitive absolute may be broadly classified as follows: (1) employment as a noun, especially as an absolute or adverbial complement; (2) as a frozen adverb; (3) as a word of command; (4) as a finite verb; (5) as a participle; (6) as an infinitive construct (ibid, 583). Wevers, Exodus Notes, pp. x–xiii. This statement essentially repeats that of J. W Wevers,. ʻThe Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagintʼ, in N. Fernandez Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en ία investigation contempomnea (V Cangreso de ία IOSCS) (Madrid: Institute ʻArias Montaneʼ, 1985), 15–24 at 16–18. On this use of the Greek participle see Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 88–109, 111, 117. Gf, Wevers, Exodus Notes, p. xi; A. Voitila, ʻLa technique de traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans l'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen. 37, 39–50)ʼ, in C. E. Cox. (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 223–37 at 223. Cf. J. Barr, ʻTranslators' Handling of Verb Tense in Semantically Ambiguous Contextsʼ, in C. E,. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press,. 1987), 381– 403 at 383,. commenting specifically on the indicative: ʻOf course everyone knows that no Hebrew tense corresponds precisely to any Greek tense.ʼ This variety of Greek equivalents available for particular Hebrew forms may be compared, with the similar variety of English equivalents found in the RSV; see the illustrative tables in McFall, Enigma, 186–8, 215–16; also 18–19; some of McFall's figures are repeated with brief comment at Binnick, Time, 434–5, Cf. WO, Syntax, 484–5, on English perfect tenses translating the Hebrew perfect, Cf. in the lexical sphere S. P. Swinn, ʻἀγαπἃν in the Septuagintʼ, in. T Muraoka (ed.), Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990), 49–81: at 62, remarking on the variety of Greek translations of ‫ אהב‬in. the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Proverbs.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

4 Preliminary Questions concerning Greek—Hebrew Comparisons  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0004 Published: March 2001

Pages 73–90

Abstract This chapter considers the relationship between verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch and the underlying Hebrew text components, so as to establish degrees of independence in the Greek usage. In approaching the Greek-Hebrew formal comparisons, three issues must be addressed: the necessity for a methodology di erent from conventional translation-technical analysis; questions regarding the Hebrew text to be used as the basis for comparison; and complications concerning classi cation of Hebrew forms. It is apparent from this chapter that classi cation of Hebrew formal matches involves numerous di

culties. Nevertheless, consistent application of the method described provides a model

for their resolution. The vast bulk of Greek-Hebrew formal matches in the Pentateuch are clear-cut.

Keywords: Hebrew text, NIT Hebrew matches, Greek verbal doublets, Pentateuch, translation-technical analysis Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

4.1. Preamble Interpretation of translation Greek syntactical phenomena lacks validity without supporting translation1

technical study. We now need to consider the relationship between verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch and the underlying Hebrew text components, so as to establish degrees of independence in the Greek usage. This will prepare the way for more detailed analyses of particular features in Part III. Only when the extent of Hebrew in uence on the features in question has been shown can Pentateuehal evidence be safely interpreted in relation to contemporary extra-Biblical Greek and the general history of the language. In approaching the Greek-Hebrew formal comparisons three issues must be addressed: (1) the necessity for a methodology di erent from conventional translation-technical analysis; (2) questions regarding the

Hebrew text to be used as the basis for comparison; (3) complications concerning classi cation of Hebrew forms.

4.2. Translation-technical Analysis and the Present Study The syntax of translation Greek documents is undoubtedly a ected in many respects by that of their Hebrew p. 74

originals. This is due especially to the literal methods of translation employed, all LXX

translations

2

showing varying degrees of literalism. Because of this Hebrew in uence the analysis of translation technique has become closely associated with questions of LXX syntax. In a series of publications SoisalonSoininen has placed heavy emphasis on the importance of translation-technical study as the basis for LXX 3

syntax research. He asserts that we should have ‘no syntax of a translation without serious research on 4

translation-technique; no research purely on translation-technique alone’ and stresses that one ought to begin analysis of syntactical features with the Hebrew text, not the Greek. Only in this way can one distinguish between ‘die Einwirkung des unterschiedlichen Charakters des Hebräischen Textes und die der 5

Übersetzungsweise des Übersetzers’.

Soisalon-Soininen's approach has been broadly in uential (cf. § 1.4). However, certain features of LXX Greek verbal syntax are independent, wholly or in part, of Hebrew syntax. These include precisely those usages of aspect, tense, and mood which are central to the present study, a fact admitted by SoisalonSoininen himself: Die Syntax einer Überselzung enthält eben hinsichtlich der Ausgangs-spraehe und der Übersetzer Material von verschiedener Art. Im Griechischen gibt es syntaktische Fragen, die ganz unabhängig vom Hebräischen sind. So ist z. B. die Verwendung des Modus, zum Teil auch die der Tempora, eine Erscheinung, die nicht vom Hebräischen abhängig ist. in dieser Hinsicht ist aber auch der Spnichgebraueh der Septuaginta praktisch gese-hen derselbe wie in der übrigen Koine. Hier 6

ergeben sich meistens keine Sonderfragen.

Accordingly, translation-technical analysis of the sort advocated by Soisalon-Soininen is (with one p. 75

exception; see § 9.5) inappropriate for the present subject-matter. To assess aspect, tense, and

mood

usage a di erent procedure is needed. We may note in addition that while these features perhaps raise few ‘Sonderfragen’ for Soisalon-Soininen's purpose of examining translators' methods—though there is room 7

for debate on this point —they are clearly of great interest for an appreciation of the nature of LXX Greek. The degree to which use of the moods and tenses in translation Greek accords with general Koine usage certainly deserves more careful testing than it has so far received, and this will be the focus of Part III. Meanwhile, a method of analysis di erent from orthodox translation-technical study is required in order to compare Greek verbal forms with their Hebrew matches. My starting-point must be with the Greek forms, 8

not the Hebrew. It is obviously not practical to commence a study of such features as Greek aspectual distinctions or instances of the optative mood with the Hebrew text. Therefore, because of the nature of the 9

features in question, there is no full-scale analysis of translation technique in the present study. p. 76

It should be made clear from the outset that the tables in § 5.2

do not embrace all verbal forms in the

Hebrew Pentateuch. These are not in all instances translated by Greek verbal forms, even leaving out of consideration verbal forms occurring in the portions of Hebrew text which are not reproduced in the LXX. Because my analysis is oriented by the Greek text, a small residue of Hebrew verbal forms is inevitably 10

missed.

This residue is not signi cant for the present purpose.

4.3. Questions concerning the Hebrew Text 11

Mention has been made of the importance of comparing the Greek text with the ‘underlying’ Hebrew.

Yet

it is impossible to make such a comparison directly, since the text which the LXX translators had before them is irrecoverably lost. This immediately raises the complicated issue of the relationship between the 12

LXX and the extant Hebrew witnesses, none of which precisely re ects the Vorlage of the LXX.

Should the

Hebrew text used for comparison be the textus receptus of the MT, an almost standard choice in studies of 13

translation technique,

or should one go beyond this and attempt to reconstruct the LXX Vorlage where it

seems to have di ered from the MT? Our Hebrew witnesses for the Pentateuchal books include the Samaritan Pentateuch and a number of 14

Qumran fragments in addition to the MT. p. 77

In the case of the latter we must also distinguish between the

older consonantal text and the Masoretic vocalization

of the later rst millennium ad. This vocalization

itself represents an old oral tradition, but it does not always seem to accord with the originally intended 15

sense of the consonantal forms.

As is well known, the LXX contains very many readings which di er in one way or another from the MT. There are also numerous variants from the MT in the other Hebrew witnesses—some 6,000 in the 16

Samaritan Pentateuch alone —and these often show an a

17

nity with the LXX. variants.

It is on the basis

of extra-MT Hebrew variants which are in agreement with LXX readings and of other translational variants in the Greek text that scholars attempt to reconstruct the LXX Vorlage. Much e ort has been expended to this end, but it remains in many respects a di

cult and doubtful exercise.

Di erences between the LXX and the MT may indeed be due to variants from the MT in the translators’ Vorlage, but very often they may have their origin rather in the translation process itself, i.e. through 18

exegesis, translation technique, or misinterpretation.

The trend in modern scholarship is towards 19

exercising great caution in reconstructing Hebrew variants from Greek variants.

Even where Hebrew

variants do occur in agreement with Greek readings there are problems involved in identifying a speci c p. 78

Hebrew variant with the

20

genuine source of the corresponding LXX. variant.

It is especially dangerous to

make assumptions concerning ‘grammatical words’—including the tense and mood forms of verbs—in the 21

Vorlage on the basis of the Greek evidence.

Nor should we overemphasize the di erences between, the LXX and MT. It needs to be stressed that the LXX actually re ects a Hebrew text which was in the main closely similar to the MT. The Hebrew text presupposed by the LXX basically represents a tradition which is either close to that of MT or can easily be explained as a descendant or a source of it. In several individual instances, however, the LXX represents a text that comes close to other sources, viz., certain 22

Hebrew scrolls from Qumran and the Sam[aritan] Pent[ateuch].

On the other hand, few of the numerous types of lexical, orthographic, and grammatical Hebrew variants 23

are speci cally relevant to the present analysis.

With regard to the identi cation of verbal tense and mood

forms, and of in nitives and participles, most lexical and orthographic variants are unimportant, and this is also true of some of the grammatical types, such as variations in number and voice. Broad sampling from all ve books of the Samaritan. Pentateuch suggests no more than about one relevant type of variant per chapter, such as presence or absence of the cohortative su

24

x.

An interesting exception is Deut. 32, with

approximately fteen, signi cant verbal variants. In view of these considerations no investigation into the Vorlage will be undertaken here. Such an examination in the realm of verbal, forms would be interesting, but it will already be clear that its results p. 79

would, be of debatable value. Comparison of the Greek Pentateuch

with the consonantal MT—the

consonantal, text receiving priority over the vocalization because LXX readings occasionally suggest a 25

vocalizing tradition di erent from that of the Masoretes, though within the same consonantal framework —provides an objective test of the data. This is in no way meant to imply an assumption that the MT and the LXX Vorlage are identical. But it is

assumed that the consonantal MT is so close to the Vorlage of the LXX that assessment of LXX equivalencies with the MT provides an accurate general impression of the relationship of the Greek to the Hebrew text which actually underlies it. It also seems preferable to employ a citable Hebrew text rather than, a scholar's 26

reconstruction.

Finally, for the speci c purpose at hand the question of variants is not especially

important, because the character of most of them is not relevant, The evidence of those Hebrew variants which are germane to the issue would not have a major impact on the statistics.

4.4. Classification of MT Hebrew Matches for LXX Verbal Forms 4.4.1. The general method of classification The third issue requiring preliminary discussion, is classi cation, of Hebrew matches. The aim of Tables 3– 7 in Chapter 5 is to demonstrate the relationship of all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch to the underlying Hebrew, to the extent that this is possible using the Gottingen edition of the Greek text and BHS. The statistics in the tables are based on a careful comparison of the Greek verbal forms with their formal matches in the MT These MT matches have been classi ed in seventeen categories of Hebrew forms. Methodological problems inevitably arise in such a process. The system of classi cation, including its various complications and their treatment, needs to be described. Apart from basic problems of de nition regarding certain of the Hebrew categories, it is not always easy or even possible to establish formal equivalencies between the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Pentateuch. In p. 80

addition,

the morphological, ambiguity which is a feature of parts of the Hebrew verbal system, often

renders allotment of individual Hebrew forms to particular categories a doubtful process. In addressing these problems it is impossible to avoid making subjective judgements. It must be admitted that the material is open to di erent systems of classi cation and individual forms to di erent interpretations. What follows is a description, with, brief examples, of the present study's method, which is employed consistently in classifying the data. Because di overlap with di

culties relating to de nition of Hebrew categories tend to

culties relating to alignment of Greek and Hebrew text components, these will be treated

together. Morphological ambiguity is a di erent order of problem and will be considered separately in § 4.4.6. Valuable tools exist for comparison of the Greek and Hebrew texts, in particular the CATSS parallel alignment of the MT and LXX. This displays ‘in parallel columns elements of the LXX and MT in such a way 27

that each element in the LXX has its equivalent in the column of MT and vice versa1, 28

principle of formal equivalence of the Greek and Hebrew.

and is based on the

Thus, it is highly appropriate for use in the

present analysis, except that the Greek text of the CATSS alignment follows Rahlfs's edition. The Greek word counts in my tables have been adjusted to accord with Wevers's Göttingen editions of the Pentateuchal books (§ 1.6, App. 2, § 2). The CATSS materials can now be supplemented for all the Pentateuchal books by Wevers's volumes of textual notes, which do not always interpret matches in agreement with CATSS. There are also occasional observations, useful for their independent judgements, in the various monographs and journal articles on Pentateuchal language. In my analysis all instances have been independently checked. Its gures do not represent a mechanical reproduction of the CATSS equivalencies, though in the vast majority of cases it agrees with them.

p. 81

Statistical typologies are inevitably in uenced by their purpose.

An attempt has been made in the tables

to represent the di erent types of MT Hebrew match as accurately as possible. The grammarian's urge to subcategorize has been resisted in classifying items peripheral to the aims of the study, with a view to limiting the total number of categories. The seventeen categories of Hebrew matches which are nevertheless to be found in Tables 3–7 are as follows: (1) Verbal matches: (a) Perfect; (b) Consecutive Imperfect; (c) Imperfect; (d) Consecutive Perfect; (e) Jussive; (f) Cohortative; (g) Imperative; (h) Participle; (i) In nitive Construct; (j) In nitive Absolute; (2) Non-Verbal matches: (a) Noun; (b) Pronoun; (c) Adjective; (d) Particle; (e) Preposition; (f) Complex Unit; (g) Minus. The verbal forms of the Greek Pentateuch are usually matched by Hebrew verbal forms, with the result that the categories of class (1) above are much more frequently represented in the tables than those of class (2). But commonly enough, more often with some Greek verbal forms than, others (e.g. the present indicative), the Hebrew match is some non-verbal part of speech (for details see the interpretation of data in § 5.3). Since the verbal system of Biblical. Hebrew has already been surveyed (§ 3.3.5), the verbal match categories will not require further discussion. The non-verbal types Noun and Adjective are also self-explanatory, but the others, namely Particle, Preposition, Pronoun, Complex Unit, and Minus, need clari cation.

4.4.2. The matches Particle, Preposition, and Pronoun In grammars of Hebrew and other Semitic languages the term particle usually refers to the complex class 29

composed of adverbs (themselves an extremely mixed group), 30

p. 82

prepositions, conjunctions, and

interjections.

The boundaries between these subcategories tend to be unstable and. one nds uctuating

terminology

applied to individual particles in the grammatical literature.

31

Most examples of Hebrew

particles underlying Greek verbal forms in the Pentateuch involve a small number of words usually called adverbs. For convenience and to avoid problems of nomenclature the category into which these are grouped in the present study is given, the generic title of Particle. On the other hand, Hebrew prepositions, which 32

sometimes match Greek verbs in the Pentateuchal documents, form a fairly small and well-de ned group, and are accordingly reserved to the category Preposition. Almost all instances of Particle in the tables involve the words ‫ הִ נֵּה‬,‫יֵשׁ‬, and ‫אַ יִ ן‬, with or without pronominal su

33

x.

34

These usually match, forms of copulative εἰμί,

the following examples being characteristic.

Gen. 19:8 ϵἰσὶν δέ μοι δύο θυγατέρες ‫הנה־נא לי שׁתי בנות‬ Exod. 22:2 (MT 22:1) οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῷ ϕόνος p. 83

‫אין לו דמים‬ Num. 27: 10 ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ὦσιν αὐτῷ ἀδϵλϕοί ‫ואם־אין לו אחים‬ Sometimes these Hebrew words match forms of other Greek verbs. For example, οὐχ ὑπάρχει (a near synonym 35

of ἐστί) translates ‫ איננו‬at Gen. 42: 13, 32;

36

 καὶ οὐχ ηὑρίσκετο translates ‫ ואיננו‬at Gen. 5: 24;

 ὁρῶσιν translates ‫והנה‬

37

at Exod. 14: 10; cf. 2: 13.

Among other Hebrew particles occurring as matches for Greek verbal forms, the nominal, exclamations ‫בִּ י‬ 38

‫אָ מֵ ן‬,, and ‫ נְ ֭אם‬deserve comment.

In all its Pentateuchal instances, twice in Num. 5: 22 and. twelve times in

Deut. 27, ‫ אמן‬is translated by γένοιτο (see further §§ 5.3.9, 7.6.1 and n. 44). In Gen. 43: 20 ‫ כי‬is translated by δεόμεθα, and in. Gen. 44: 18; Exod. 4: 10, 13, and Num. 12: 11 by δέομαι. In Gen. 22: 16 and Num. 14: 28 ‫נאם‬ matches λέγει, and the same particle is translated ve times by φησίν in the poetic passages of Num. 24. The category Particle also includes perhaps a dozen examples of other Hebrew words matching Greek verbal forms in the entire corpus of the Pentateuch. 39

The category Preposition is a rare match, pronominal su

mainly of Greek participles. It too includes forms with

x (see 11. 33 above). The following examples may serve to illustrate the type.

Exod. 33:8 καὶ κατενοοῦν ἀπιόντος Μωυσῆ p. 84

‫והביטו אחדי משׁה‬ Num. 2:5 καὶ οἱ παρϵ̓μβάλλοντϵς ϵ̓χόμϵνοι ϕυλὴ ’Ισσαχάρ 40

‫והחנים עליו מטה ישׂשכר‬

The category Pronoun includes the Hebrew personal and demonstrative pronouns and also the relative 41

clause marker ,‫ אֲשֶׁ ר‬which is treated here as a pronoun according to convention.

The relative is a very rare

match, usually for participles in their relative function, for instance καὶ τήν πόλιν τήν οὖσαν ἐv rῇ φάραγγι translating ‫ והעיר אשׁר כנחל‬at Deut. 2: 36. Su

xal pronouns are not recorded in this category (as already

indicated by the descriptions of the Particle and Preposition categories above) unless in my judgement clearly identi able as the precise match to a Greek verba! form. Like Particle, Pronoun is usually a match for forms of copulative εἰμί, and the following example may be taken as characteristic. Deut. 4:24 ὅτι κύριος ὁ θϵός σον πῦρ καταναλίσκον ϵ̓στίν ‫כי יהוה אלהיך אשׁ אכלה הוא‬

4.4.3. The match Complex Unit Because of the literal character of the Greek translation, with its regular word-for-word correspondences, the problem of establishing formal Greek-Hebrew equivalencies is limited. Identi cation of Hebrew matches is generally straightforward even where elements of the translation are comparatively free. The di erent coding systems of Greek and Hebrew (§ 3.4) make it at times di

cult, however, to identify a

precise Hebrew match for a speci c Greek form. In some cases it is not useful and even potentially misleading to attempt to isolate a match. Di p. 85

cult identi cations tend to concern Hebrew expressions recast in the Greek or obscure or possibly

corrupt elements in the

Hebrew text. In eases of this sort the method followed here has been to attempt

to isolate the semantic element of the Hebrew which provides the motivation for the Greek verbal form in question. Thus, in the following example the match Preposition is recorded in the relevant list (Table 5.6) 42

for ἐπιπορευομένη.

Lev. 26:33 καὶ ϵ̓ξαναλώσϵι ὑμᾶς ϵ̓πιπορϵνομϵ́νη ἡ μάχαιαρ ‫והריקתי אחריכם חרב‬ Where it is considered impossible to establish such an identi cation, a very rare situation, it has been 43

necessary to resort to the classi cation. Complex Unit.

This category describes instances where the Greek

form cannot be regarded as the equivalent of a single element in the Hebrew text, but matches a Hebrew expression composed of multiple elements. The following may serve as an example, though the grouping is inevitably very mixed. Gen. 31:29 καὶ νῦν ἰσχύϵι ἡ χϵίρ μον ‫ישׁ־לאל ידי‬

44

Here ἰσχύει ‘has power’ is roughly matched by ‫‘ ישׁ־לאל‬it is for the power’.

4.4.4. The match Minus There are also many instances where a Greek verbal form lacks any equivalent at all in the Hebrew text. For these the category Minus is used in the tables. This grouping is a unity in terms of the Hebrew match, but miscellaneous from the Greek point of view, re ecting two quite distinct kinds of verbal plus. One is comparatively free, the other conditioned, by underlying Hebrew constructions, To distinguish these two Greek, types, supplementary gures are given in the relevant lists within, the tables (see e.g. Table 3.1). The former type is simply termed Type 1 Greek Plus, the latter Type 2 Greek Plus, since the use of terms like free p. 86

and obligatory would not be strictly accurate (as will be seen from the following descriptions). 45

Greek Plus is itself a heterogeneous class, representing more or less free Greek additions.

The Type 1

It commonly

signi es pluses on the MT where no motivation for the addition is apparent in the Hebrew. Such examples may re ect a Hebrew Vorlage di erent from the MT So ἐγένετο in Gen. 27: 34, a plus for which the Samaritan 46

Pentateuch provides a match.

As already discussed, however, we ought not to conclude that all Greek

forms lacking MT motivation re ect a variant parent text (§ 4.3). The class also includes instances where the Greek expresses ideas actually implicit in the MT, such as ἔξελθε in Gen. 19: 15. ἀναστὰς λάβϵ τὴν γυναῖκά σου καὶ τὰς δύο θυγατϵ́ρας, ἃς ϵ῎χϵις, καὶ ϵ῎ξϵλθϵ, ἵνα μὴ καὶ σὶ συναπόλῃ ‫קום קח את־אשׁתך ואת־שׁתי בנתיך הנמצאת פן־תספה‬ Against my interpretation the CATSS alignment records καί ἔξελθε ‘and come forth’ as a doublet on ‫הנמצאח‬ 47

‘who are found’, i.e. ‘who are with you’.

The Type 2 Greek Plus involves additions where Greek grammatical structure generally requires a verb, but Hebrew does not. The copulative use of εἰμί, especially in the present tense, produces the majority of examples, which usually occur in translations of Hebrew nominal sentences which have a noun, rather than 48

a pronoun (e.g.‫ )הוא‬or particle (e.g.‫)הנה‬, as subject.

This type of Hebrew construction is characteristically

verbless. Of course, in Greek itself expression of the copula is not essential, so that the type of plus in 49

question cannot be described accurately as obligatory.

The regular pattern of the Greek Pentateuch,

however, is for εἰμί to be expressed. Greek use and omission of copulative εἰμί are both demonstrated by the following example. Gen. 24:29 τῇ δϵ́ ῾Ρϵβϵ́κκᾳ ἀδϵλϕὸς ἦν, ᾧ ὄνομα Λαβάν ‫ולרבקה אח ושׁמו לבן‬ p. 87

The rst clause here has ψ, an instance of Type 2 Greek Plus for

which the MT match is Minus, but in the

second clause the copula is only implied in. the Greek.

4.4.5. The treatment of Greek verbal doublets and complexes The category Minus causes some signi cant problems for classi cation, since decisions on whether Greek 50

forms are genuine pluses on. the Hebrew text involve a considerable element of subjectivity.

Certain Greek,

forms which may have the appearance of pluses are-better taken as translating elements actually expressed in the Hebrew There can be little argument with this general observation, though opinions will inevitably di er on the treatment of particular examples (such as Gen 19: 15 ἔξελθε, just discussed in § 4.4.4). Cases relevant to the present study involve forms judged to be Greek verbal doublets or elements in complex verbal expressions (characteristically composed of an in nitive or participle dependent on another verbal form and including verbal periphrases). Since these forms are not regarded as genuine Greek pluses, and so

not compatible with the Hebrew Minus category, they require a special method of classi cation in the tables. Where, according to my judgement, a pair of Greek, verbal forms conveys the force of a single Hebrew form two instances of the Hebrew match have been counted. An extended treatment of the various relevant instances, approximately thirty in the whole Pentateuch, is a matter for conventional translationtechnical study and will not be undertaken here, but brief illustrations will demonstrate my approach to their classi cation (and see § 9.5 on instances in which two Greek verbal forms matching a single Hebrew form comprise a periphrasis). In the following example LXX καì κακώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καì ταπει-νώσουσιν αὐτοὺς translates MT ‫וענו אתם‬, with καì p. 88

51

κακώσουσιν αὐτούς a doublet,

According to my method this is recorded in the relevant

list (Table 3.9) as

two instances of the Hebrew category Consecutive Perfect. Gen. 15:13 καὶ δονλώσουσιυ αὐτοὺς καὶ κακώσουσιυ αὐτοὺς καὶ ταπϵινώσουσιυ αὐτοὺς τϵτρακόσια ϵ῎τη ‫ועבדום וענו אתם ארבע מאות שׁנה‬ 52

Greek verbal complexes matching single Hebrew forms are a mixed class,

but the next example illustrates

their general treatment, similar to that of the doublets, in my tables. Gen. 41:51 ὅτι ἐπιλαθέσθαι με ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς πάντων τω̑ν πόνων μον ‫כי־נשׁני אלהים את־כל־עמלי‬ Here ἐπιλαθέσθαι με ἐποίησεν conveys the causative force of the Piel

53

‫ נשׁני‬For this equivalency two instances of 54

the Hebrew category Perfect are recorded, in the lists, one in Table 3.12, the other in Table 3.17.

4.4.6. The treatment of morphological ambiguity These, then, are the principles guiding identi cation of Greek-Hebrew formal equivalencies, We can now turn to the additional complication of morphological ambiguity. Even where clear single-word matches can be established, this feature bedevils classi cation of certain verbal forms in both Greek and Hebrew The problems of identi cation which it creates in relation to Greek are minor (App. 1, § 1 (c), (d)), since the number of ambiguous forms is relatively small. In Hebrew their frequency of occurrence is much higher and the problem is accordingly much more signi cant. Cases of Hebrew formal identity such as that between the masculine third person singular perfect and the masculine singular participle of some verbs, e.g. ‫בָּ א‬, provide a few problems for classi cation. The major area of di p. 89

culty, however, concerns the limited morphological distinction to be observed between the

Hebrew imperfect

on the one hand and the jussive and cohortative on. the other, combined with their

overlapping functional environments (on form and function of the Hebrew imperfect, jussive, and cohortative see § 3.3.5). These factors demand subjective decisions on classi cation of many pre xal verba! forms within the Pentateuch, It has to be acknowledged that opinions are likely to di er over particular 55

instances, especially in such notoriously problematic contexts as the poetic language of Deut. 32.

Yet the

decisions have to be made in order to produce meaningful word counts. It is certainly unsatisfactory to base 56

gures purely on morphological distinctions.

Therefore, my assessments are based on function. All examples have been considered individually and 57

decisions have been dictated by the Hebrew context.

Thus Gen. 1: 26 ‫ ַנﬠֲשֶׂ ה‬is recorded in the Cohortative

category; so too Gen. 30: 31 ‫ אֶ ְרﬠֶה‬and ‫ אֶ ְשׁמֹ ר‬and Gen. 30: 32

58

.‫ אֶ ﬠֱבר‬Gen. 43: 21 ‫ וַנִּ פְ ְתּחָ ה‬is recorded in the

Consecutive-Imperfect category (cf. § 3.3.5). The wyqtl pattern is interpreted in all but a handful of poetic passages as jussive or cohortative (cf. § 3.3.3 and n. 33). Thus Gen. 22; 17 ‫ וְ יִ ַרשׁ‬is recorded as Jussive.

Great caution must be exercised in using the evidence of corresponding Greek forms to assist identi cation. The Greek translation does provide a commentary of sorts and a translator’s choice of Greek mood might well suggest how a particular Hebrew form was interpreted in Alexandria in the third century bc (note, for p. 90

example, ποιήσωμεν corresponding to ‫ ַנﬠֲשֶׂ ה‬in Gen, 1: 26), But in view

of the natural di erences in linguistic

coding between the two languages (as well as the textual questions outlined in § 4.3), it would be extremely unsafe to place too much reliance on the inference of Greek forms, Greek does not necessarily require a subjunctive where Hebrew has a cohortative or jussive, and vice versa (thus, according to my interpretation, Greek future indicatives translate the cohortatives ‫אֶ ְרﬠֶה‬, and ‫אֶ שֶׁ תֹ ר‬, in Gen. 30: 31).

4.4.7. Concluding remark on the classification It will be apparent from the preceding discussion that classi cation of Hebrew formal matches involves numerous di

culties. Nevertheless, consistent application, of the method described provides a model for

their resolution. In addition, the space devoted here to explaining the treatment of problem cases should not obscure the fact that these form a minority of all matches. The vast bulk of Greek–Hebrew formal matches in the Pentateuch are clear-cut.

Notes 1

2

3 4 5 6 7

8

9

Cf. Ε. Tov, ʻThe Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Post and Presentʼ in C E Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 337–59 at 351. Thaekeray's famous classification of LXX books ʻfrom the point of view of styleʼ at Thackeray, (Grammar, 12–16, which recognizes a range of types of translation, might seem to contradict my statement, but note the criticisms of his tabular presentation at R. Sollamo, ʻSome “Improper” Prepositions, such as ἐνώπιον, ἐναντίον. ἔναντι, etc., in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greekʼ, VT 25 (1975), 773–82 at 775; J. Barr, The Typology of, Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 283. For Soisalon-Soininen's views on methodoloy see Soisalon-Soininen, studien, 11–18 (reprinted from Soisalon-Soininen, infinitive, 7–15, with some minor changes), and also his papers collected in Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 19–52. I. Soisalon-Soininen, ʻSyntax Translation-techniqueʼ, BIOSCS 5 (1972), 9–11 at 10. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 41; on starting from the original and not the translation see also Olofsson, LXX Version, 65. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 17. See the discussion at § 5.5 below; also A. Voitila, ʻLa technique tie traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans l'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen 37, 39–50)ʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress: of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies; Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 223–37 at 237 n. 24, observing that while SoisalonSoininen regards LXX tense usage in the infinitive as a matter of Greek idiom (Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 147–52), he has not tin estimated other verbal forms, where tense usage operates di erently. Cf. T. Muraoka, ʻThe Infinitive in the Septuagintʼ, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds.), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 259–71 at 261; in general also Tov, ʻTranslation Techniqueʼ, 340–2, on di erent methodological requirements in grammatical and translationtechnical analyses of LXX language. For translation-technical analyses cow-ring limited portions of my material see especially T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ (diss. Hebrew Union College. Ohio, 1990), 16–76, on the entire verbal system in Gen. 1–15; Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, 223–37, on Greek renderings of Hebrew prefixal forms in Gen. 37, 39–50; Aejmelaeus. Parataxis, XX—117, on the participle and infinitive; Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, passim on the infinitive, with general statistics for the Pentateuchal books at p. 192. Incidentally, the di erences between my figures and SoisalonSoininen's for the infinitive in the Pentateuch (I find totals for all tenses of the infinitive of 320 in Genesis, 221 in Exodus, III in Leviticus, 178 in Numbers, and 331 in Deuteronomy; Soisalon-Soininen's totals are 307, 203, 105, 1 n8, and 293 respectively) are probably to he attributed to the use of di erent editions (writing in 1965 Soisalon-Soininen manually employed Rahlfs's edition) and to di erent counting methods (cf. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 191; In contrast with my study he does not aim to count every single instance). Human error is unlikely to be a significant factor in the discrepancies, though the di erence in the case of Deuteronomy is certainly striking.

10 11

12

13 14

15

16 17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24

25

26 27 28

29 30

Note e.g. that Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 70–1, finds three Greek minuses for Hebrew verbal forms in Gen. 1–15. On the status of the Greek test see § 1.7. It is assumed in the following discussion that by using the Göttingen editions of the Pentateuchal books one is close to the original LXX text and that this practice eliminates most variants arising in the course of the Greek text history (cf. Olofsson. LXX Version, 68 and n. 24; for a brief survey of the transmission history of the LXX see ibid. 57–63). Cf. A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1903), 77. The technical term Vorlage refers to ʻthe text that lay before the translatorʼ (Tov, Hebrew Bible, 122: id., Septuagint, 10). ʻThis approach is characteristic of the Helsinki School; see e.g. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 20; Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 8– 9; and cf. Olofsson, LXX Version, 65 and n. 4. On the Samaritan Pentateuch and pre-Samaritan texts see in general Tov; Hebrew Bible, 80–100; cf. Ε. R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994), 64–9, 94; on the Qumran texts Tov, Hebrew Bible, 100–17 with 104–5 Table 19, for the numbers of fragments from di erent Biblical books; cf. in general Brotzman, Old Testament, 87–96. for details on the contents of Qumran fragments relevant to the Pentateuch see Ε. Ulrich, ʻAn Index of the Passages in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Genesis—Kings)ʼ, Dead Sea Discoveries, I (1904), 113–29 at 115–27: on the limitation of this index see ibid. 113–14. On vocalization of the MT see Tov, Hebrew Bible, 39–40; Brotzman. Old Testament, 49–51, 79; J. Barr; Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1968; repr., with additions and corrections, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 188–222. Τοv, Septuagint, 200; Brotzman. Old Testament, 67. On a inities between the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch see Τοv, Septuagint, 200 and n. 34; Brotzman, Old Testament, 67 and tin. 17, 18. On a inities between the LXX and the Qumran scrolls see Tov, Septuagint, 188–9; Brotzman. Old Testament, 92, 94, 95–6. I use the term variant as defined at Tov. Septuagint, 6 (cf. p. 8); ʻThe biblical text has been transmitted in various textual sources, among which Λ IT is the central witness … every detail that di ers from a given form of MT is called a “variant (reading)”.ʼ Tov, Septuagint, 33; Olofsson, LXX Version, 68; Brutzman, Old Testament, 78–9. Tov, Septuagint, 44; Olofsson, LXX Version, 68–9, For a recent example of such caution see the discussion in J. H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew: Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (New York: Peter Lang, 1991), 210–13. This trend contrasts with the extremism of such scholars as Jahn, who produced mechanical reconstructions of whole books of the Vorlag (Tov, Septuagint. 57 and n. 1, 67–8, 125–7). For a general assessment of the relationship between the Vorlage of the LXX and the Qumran scrolls and Samaritan. Pentateuch see ibid. 188–203. ibid. 59, 68–71, 154–62; cf. the endorsement of Tows views at Olofsson, LXX Version, 71. Tov, Septuagint, 188; cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, p. xv; also Olofsson, LXX Version, 68, acknowledging that ʻmost of the elements in MT are also indicated in the Septuagintʼ. For details on types of variants in the Samaritan text see Tov, Hebrew Bible, 84–97; on those in the Qumran. texts see ibid. 29–33 (proto-Masoretic texts), 97–100 (pre-Samaritan texts), 107–14 (texts written in the Qumran practice). For some specific examples of notable variants see §§ 4.4.2 n. 37; 4.4.4; 5.3.5 n. 4, My sampling is based on the parallel alignment of the MT and Samaritan texts in A. Sadaqa and. R. Sadaqa, Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch with Particular Stress on the Di erences Between Both Texts (Tel Aviv, 1961–5), On the character of this edition, of the Samaritan text see Tov, Hebrew Bible, 84. Tov, Septuagint, 105–1:6; Brotzman, Old Testament, 79. This is a matter separate from the question of extra-MT Hebrew variants. The problem, of Masoretic traditions also takes in di erences of division between words, sentences, and sense units within the sentence; for details see Tov, Septuagint, 117–21. Cf, ibid. 57–8; Olofsson, LXX Version, 67–8. E. Tov, ʻBackground of the Greek-Hebrew Alignmentʼ, in. J. R. Abercrombie, W. Adler, R. A. Kra , and E. Tov, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 37–51 at 37. ibid. and passim on formal, equivalence and the development of the parallel, alignment in general; cf. Tov, Septuagint, 102. On the computer generation of the CATSS alignment see J. R. Abercrombie, ʻComputer Aspects of the Alignmentʼ, in J. R. Abercrombie, W. Adler, R. A. Kra , and E. Tov, Computer Assisted Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 19–35. On the problems of defining the adverb class both. in general and. with particular reference to Biblical Hebrew and other Semitic languages see WO, Syntax, 655–6. Thus Joüon, Grammaire, 267;. ʻOn nomme particules toutes les parties du discours qui ne sont pas nom, pronom ou verbe, á savoir l'adverbe, la préposition, la conjunction, l'interjection. La limite entre les diverses catégories de particules est souvent imprécise; un même mot peut, par example, être employe comme adverbe et comme préposition.ʼ Cf. the

31

32 33

34

35 36 37

38 39

40

41 42 43

44 45 46

treatment of GKC, Grammar, §§ 99–105, and the similar classification for Arabic of Wright, Grammar, iv. 278. WO, Syntax, 692, define particle as ʻa class of words that connects and subjoins nouns and verbs (including prepositions, some adverbs, the article, etc.) or exists on the margins of utterances (e.g., exclamations and interjections)ʼ. For Waltke and O'Connor not every adverb is a particle; cf. ibid. 656–7. For instance, the word ‫ הנה‬is termed a preventative particle at WO, Syntax, 675 (and cf. n. 4). It is a preventative adverb according to JM, Grammar, § 105d (note that this is Muraoka's terminology; at the corresponding place in the original French version (Joüon, Grammaire, § 105d) Joüon merely refers to ʻl'adverbe ‫)יהנֵּה‬, ִ At GKC, Grammar, § 1000, ‫ הנה‬seems to be classified as an adverb, while ibid. § 105b it is called an interjection. Cf. Waltke and O'Connor's treatment of ‫ישׁ‬. This is termed, together with ‫אין‬, an existential particle (WO, Syntax, 182). ibid. 660–2 ‫ אין‬is classed more precisely as a. negative adverb, while ibid. 661 n, 61 it is observed that if ‫ ישׁ‬is ʻo en considered an. adverbʼ, apparently implying doubt or disagreement over this identification (though ‫ ישׁ‬and ‫ אין‬need to be classified in the same way). These examples demonstrate the di iculties of defining subcategories of Hebrew particles. The lack of a standard nomenclature and the apparent inconsistencies even, within particular studies are unfortunate, but doubtless due in part to the varying usage of some of these words. Cf. WO, Syntax, 187–8. On the reasoning behind, inclusion of the su ixal forms cf. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 77, on ‫( אין‬and note his examples): ʻBei ‫ אין‬+ Su ix ist zu beachten, daβ das bloβe ‫ אין‬schon mit οὐκ ἔoτw übersetzt wird; das Su ix bestimmt aber die Person, so daβ die Form, des Verbs εἶvaι auch. ihm entsprichtʼ. Cf. from, the translation-technical viewpoint, ibid. 181–3 on. the εἶvaι + dative construction, which o en, translates ‫ישׁ ל‬ and ‫ אין ל‬expressions. Note, incidentally, that J. Cook, ʻThe Exegesis of the Greek Genesisʼ, in. C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 91– 125 at 91–2, 93–4, employing the CATSS database and a method of analysis which may well di er from mine, finds only seven, examples of ‫ הנה‬matching εἰμί in. Genesis. Cf. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 77; Wevers, Genesis Notes, 709. Cf. Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 77; Wevers, Genesis Notes, 71. This Exod. 14: 10 identification agrees with the CATSS alignment against Wevers, Exodus Notes, 213, who is influenced by the Samaritan Pentateuchal variant ‫ ויראו‬and by renderings of similar Hebrew formulae in Genesis (e.g. Gen. 1.8: 2; 37: 25). On the other hand, he regards ‫ והנה‬as ʻwell renderedʼ by ὁρᾷ at Exod. 2: 13 (ibid. 17–18). Incidentally, the use of ὁρῶ in. both, instances is suggested by the context; ‫ הנה‬itself conveys no special sense of vision, a fact which the traditional English translation equivalent ʻbehold!ʼ should not be allowed to obscure (cf. WO, Syntax, 675 n. 4). For the term nominal exclamation and. discussion of these three words see ibid. 680–1. t Hebrew compound expressions which sometimes form semiprepositions are distributed between, my categories Complex Unit (on. which see § 4.4.3) and Preposition, according to meaning in context. On the application, of the term semipreposition see R. Soilamo, Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 1–2; cf. C. Brockelmann, Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, ii. Syntax (Berlin: Von Reuther & Rei chard, 1913; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1982), 383, on Halbpräpositionen. In classifying combinations as prepositional I have tended, to be more conservative than Soilamo, who includes ʻall cases where the combination, can be understood to have a prepositional functionʼ (Soilamo, Renderings, I; my emphasis). The participle ἐχόμεvoς translating Hebrew prepositions and prepositional phrases is itself o en interpreted as an adverb or quasi-preposition. For this view see Thackeray, Grammar, 25; R. Helbing, Die Kasussyntax der Verba bet den Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928), 128–3.0; and. cf. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/2. 200; Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 184. But in the Pentateuchal examples of this usage the participle declines, and. thus should be regarded as retaining its adjectival character (cf. Soilamo, Renderings, 210, 219; note that her statement on p. 210 regarding distribution of instances used absolutely or followed by the genitive accords with Rahlfs's text, which at Num. 2: 5 reads ἐχόμενοι φυλῆς; on reasons for rejecting this reading see Wevers, Numbers Text, 98). See e.g. WO, Syntax, 331–2; and cf. JM, Grammar, § 3.8; Gibson, Syntax, 9. With my identification contrast: Lee, Lexical Study, 89, where ἐπιπορευομένη is taken as ʻa paraphrastic addition rather than a literal, rendering of any of the Hebrew wordsʼ. The tables contain 23 instances of this match, for Genesis (0.42% of all. matches), 2.0 instances for Exodus (0.53% of all matches), 12 instances for Leviticus (0.43% of all matches), 12 instances for Numbers (0.36% of all matches), and 11 instances for Deuteronomy (0.30% of all matches). This amounts to 78 matches, 0.41% of all matches, in the entire Pentateuch. Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 510–11. With my treatment of the Type 1 Plus cf. the discussion, at Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 68–70, and note his examples of Greek pluses perhaps suggested by parallel passages in the Hebrew. Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 434.

47 48

49 50 51

52 53 54

55 56

57 58

Cf. ibid. 274. Where a pronoun or particle acts as subject of this type of sentence it is usually to be taken as the match, for copulative εἰμί; cf. § 4.4.2; also Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 62–4, on translation technique regarding the Hebrew nominal clauses in Gen, 1–15 (but note that Schehr's figures are based on a method of classification di erent, from mine). Cf. ibid. 62–3. Cf, Tov, ʻBackgroundʼ, 47, And. on. questions of methodology relating to identification of Greek pluses (and minuses, which are not relevant here) see further ibid. 47–8. Cf, Wevers, Genesis Notes, 211. Wevers errs here, however, in taking the ʻdescendants of Abramʼ as the subject of δουλώσουσιν ʻenslaveʼ. The portion of LXX Gen. 15: 13 which I quote should be translated ʻand they [i.e. the Egyptians] will enslave them and maltreat them and oppress them for four hundred yearsʼ. Wevers has perhaps confused δουλώ, under the influence of the sense of the Hebrew verb (‫ ועבדום‬ʻand they will serve themʼ), with δουλεύω ʻserveʼ, which occurs in the following verse; the same Hebrew verb is used in both, verses, Cf. LEH, s.vv, δovλεύω, δονλόω, For a. very di erent view of this instance see Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 69–70, who attributes καί κακώσουσιν αυτούς to a Vorlage di erent from the MT For the type involving Greek infinitives cf. in general Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 134–9, who includes Pentateuchal examples. Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 700. See incidentally BL, Grammatik, 442e for the irregular MT vocalization of this Piel form (‫נ ַַשּׁנִ י‬ ). This Hebraistic ποιώ + infinitive construction expressing the causative force of Piel or Hiphil forms is not common in the LXX, and is rare in the Pentateuch. The only other Pentateuchal examples are in Exod. 23: 33 and. Deut, 32: 39; cf. in general Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 134–5; also,. Tov, ʻΤhe Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiphʿil in the LXX: A Study in Translation Techniqueʼ, Biblica, 63. (1982), 417–24 at 422 and passim for various methods employed to express causative force in the LXX. The ease of ‫ֱשׂהּ‬ ֶ ‫ אֶ ﬠ‬in. Gen. 2: 18 may serve as an example. I take the form as cohortative in function, with BL, Grammatik, 409m, but Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 36, regards it as ʻmore likely indicativeʼ. For an approach to the problem generally similar to mine, applied to Gen. 1–15, see Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 35–40. Sailhamer seems to treat only forms which, can be identified objectively in compiling lists of imperfects and. jussives in Psalms 3–4.1 (Sailhamer, Psalms, 74, 91). It is not clear whether he. excludes doubtful cases from, his word counts altogether. However, Sailhamerʼs lists of cohortatives are based, on function, as testing of his full citations will, reveal (ibid. 98–103). Cf D. J. A. Clines, ʻVerb Modality and the Interpretation of Job iv 20–21ʼ, VT 30 (1980), 354–7 at 355: ʻThe chief criterion for determining the modality of a [Hebrew] verb must be the context.ʼ Note that ‫אשׁובה‬, which introduces this sequence of first person, singular prefixal forms in Gen. 30: 31–2 and is the one formally distinct cohortative in the series, is the only form lacking a Greek verbal, equivalent in the translation πάλιν ποιμανώ τá πρόβατá σον καὶ φυλάξω, παρίλθάτω … for … ‫ אעבר‬:‫אשׁובה ארעה צאנך אשׁםר‬. On the rendering of ‫ אשׁובה‬by πάλιν see Wevers, Genesis Notes, 489; on the rendering of ‫ אעבר‬by παρελθάτω see also § 5,3. 10 and n. 12.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

5 Data and Interpretation  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0005 Published: March 2001

Pages 91–142

Abstract This chapter supplies a statistical analysis of the MT formal matches for all 18,953 instances of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Interpretation of the data follows, focusing on the key features of independent Greek usage and Hebrew in uence. The results are in general consistent with the ndings of other scholars for small portions of the same material or for other parts of the LXX. But an advantage of this analysis is that it provides precise coverage of the evidence from a very large sample of text and embraces the entire verbal system. Because of this broad scope, this study demonstrates the formal matches with the MT more comprehensively than any previous analysis of the verbal system in translation Greek. It can be seen that some noteworthy patterns of usage emerge from so large a body of evidence.

Keywords: imperfect indicatives, Greek Penteteuch, Masoretic Text, Hebrew influence, bilingual interference Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

5.1. Preamble This chapter supplies a statistical analysis of the ΜΤ formal matches for all 18,953 instances of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Interpretation of the data follows, focusing on the key features of independent Greek usage and Hebrew in uence, as they are manifested in Tables 3–7.

Table 3. The Greek Genesis: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus) MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

Minus

112

[T2 GP 105; T1 GP 7] 28.57

Ρronoun

69

17.60

Participle

64

16.33

Perfect

45

11.48

Particle

39

9.95

Imperfect

20

5.10

Noun

17

4.34

Adjective

12

3.06

Complex unit

9

2.30

Consecutive imperfect

3

0.77

Infinitive construct

1

0.25

Cohortative

1

0.25

Imperfect

5

21.74

Minus

5 [T2 GP]

21.74

Cohortative

3

13.04

Particle

3

13.04

Infinitive construct

2

8.70

Participle

2

8.70

Complex unit

2

8.70

Consecutive perfect

1

4.34

1 [T2 GP]

100.00

40

68.97

3.1. Greek present indicative Frequency of occurrence: 392

3.2 Greek present subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 23

3.3 Greek present optative Frequency of occurrence: 1 Minus 3.4 Greek 2nd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 58 Imperative

Jussive

12

20.69

Consecutive perfect

3

5.17

Imperfect

2

3.45

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.72

Jussive

13

72.22

Consecutive perfect

3

16.67

Imperfect

2

11.11

Infinitive construct

62

75.60

Noun

7

8.54

Minus

5 [T2 GP 4; Τ1 GP 1]

6.10

Participle

4

4.88

Perfect

1

1.22

Imperfect

1

1.22

Consecutive imperfect

1

1.22

Complex unit

1

1.22

Participle

98

33.57

Infinitive construct

86

29.46

Noun

27

9,25

Minus

18 [T1 GP 13; T2 GP 5]

6.16

Infinitive absolute

13

445

Consecutive imperfect

12

4.11

Adjective

11

3.77

Pronoun

8

2.74

Perfect

6

2.05

Particle

4

1.37

Complex unit

4

1.37

3.5 Greek 3rd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 18

3.6 Greek present infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 82

3.7. Greek present participle Frequency of occurrence: 292

Imperfect

2

0.68

Jussive

1

0.34

Consecutive perfect

1

0.34

Preposition

1

0.34

Consecutive imperfect

69

23.32

Minus

65 [T2 GP 60; Τ1 GP 5]

21.96

Perfect

58

19.59

Participle

38

12.84

Particle

22

7.43

Pronoun

12

4.05

Consecutive perfect

10

3.38

Imperfect

8

2.70

Infinitive construct

8

2.70

Complex unit

4

1.35

Infinitive absolute

2

0.68

Imperfect

270

51.22

Consecutive perfect

145

27.51

Cohortative

47

8.92

Jussive

13

2.47

Minus

12 [T1 GP 6; T2 GP 6]

2.28

Participle

11

2.09

Perfect

6

1.14

Imperative

6

1.14

Pronoun

6

1.14

Consecutive imperfect

3

0.57

Infinitive construct

3

0.57

Particle

3

0.57

Infinitive absolute

1

0.19

3.8. Greek imperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 296

3.9. Greek future indicative Frequency of occurrence: 527

Noun

1

0.19

2

100.00

1

100.00

Consecutive imperfect

1,807

69.66

Perfect

627

24.17

Minus

69 [T1 GP 68; T2 GP 1]

2.66

Infinitive construct

40

1.54

Noun

16

0.62

Consecutive perfect

11

0.42

Participle

6

0.23

Adjective

5

0.19

Imperfect

4

0.15

Infinitive absolute

3

0.12

Jussive

2

0.08

Cohortative

2

0.08

Particle

1

0.04

Complex unit

1

0.04

Imperfect

102

49.04

Cohortative

43

20.67

Consecutive perfect

20

9.62

Jussive

17

8.17

Infinitive construct

13

6.25

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

3.37

Perfect

3

1.44

3.10 Greek future infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 2 Imperfect 3.11 Greek future participle Frequency of occurrence: 1 Pronoun 3.12 Greek aorist indicative Frequency of occurrence: 2.594

3.13 Greek aorist subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 208

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.48

Participle

1

0.48

Noun

1

0.48

Jussive

15

68.17

Imperfect

2

9.09

Noun

2

9.09

Consecutive perfect

1

4.55

Cohortative

1

4.55

Infinitive construct

1

4.55

Imperative

217

86.80

Imperfect

10

4.00

Consecutive perfect

7

2.80

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

1.60

Jussive

3

1.20

Perfect

2

0.80

Participle

2

0.80

Particle

2

0.80

infinitive construct

1

0.40

Infinitive absolute

1

0.40

Noun

1

0.40

Jussive

33

86.85

Consecutive perfect

2

5.26

imperfect

1

2.63

Cohortative

1

2.63

Imperative

1

2.63

3.14 Greek aorist optative Frequency of occurrence: 22

3.15 Greek 2nd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 250

3.16 Greek 3rd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 38

3.17 Greek aorist infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 233 Infinitive construct

183

78.53

Imperfect

14

6.01

Perfect.

11

4.72

Noun

11

4.72

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

2.15

Consecutive imperfect

4

1.72

Imperative

2

0.86

Jussive

2

0.86

Cohortative

1

0.43

Consecutive imperfect

171

63.80

Participle

24

8.96

Imperative

21

7.84

Perfect

12

4.48

Cohortative

10

3.73

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

2.61

Consecutive perfect

6

2.24

Imperfect

4

1.49

Noun

4

1.49

Infinitive construct

3

1.12

Infinitive absolute

3

1.12

Complex unit

2

0.75

Pronoun

1

0.37

Perfect.

86

85.15

Participle

4

3.96

Imperfect

3

2.97

Adjective

2

1.98

3.18 Greek aorist participle Frequency of occurrence: 268

3.19 Greek perfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 101

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

1.98

Consecutive perfect

1

0.99

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.99

Imperative

1

0.99

Infinitive construct

1

0.99

Participle

2

66.67

Noun

1

33.33

Participle

18

66.67

Noun

4

14.81

Perfect

2

7.41

Consecutive perfect

2

7.41

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.70

Perfect

9

56.25

Participle

5

31–25

Imperfect

1

6.25

Consecutive imperfect

1

6.25

3.20 Greek perfect infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 3

3.21 Greek perfect participle Frequency of occurrence: 27

3.22 Greek pluperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 16

Table 4. The Greek Exodus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus) MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

Minus

55 [T2 GP 48; T1 GP 7]

24.44

Participle

52

23.11

Consecutive imperfect

25

11.11

Pronoun

24

10.67

Imperfect

22

9.78

Perfect

20

8.89

Particle

13

5.78

Infinitive construct

4

1.78

Adjective

4

1.78

Consecutive perfect

2

0.89

Noun

2

0.89

Jussive

1

0.44

Complex unit

1

0.44

infinitive construct

14

31.11

Imperfect

13

28.89

Pronoun

4

8.89

Minus

4 [T1 GP 3; T2 GP 1]

8.89

Consecutive perfect

3

6.67

Particle

3

6.67

Participle

2

4.44

Perfect

1

2.22

Jussive

1

2.22

Imperative

33

73–34

Jussive

5

11.11

4.1. Greek present indicative Frequency of occurrence: 225

4.2 Greek present subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 45

4.3 Greek 2nd per sent present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 45

Particle

3

6.67

Imperfect

1

2.22

Consecutive perfect

1

2.22

infinitive absolute

1

2.22

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

2.22

Jussive

13

46.44

Imperfect

10

35.71

Consecutive perfect

2

7.14

Imperative

1

3.57

Participle

1

3.57

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.57

Infinitive construct

59

76.61

Minus

9 [T1 GP 8; T2 GP 1]

11.69

Noun

3

3.90

Perfect

1

1.30

Imperfect

1

1.30

Imperative

1

1.30

Participle

1

1.30

Particle

1

1.30

Complex unit

1

1.30

Participle

77

32.64

Infinitive construct

71

30.09

Noun

22

9.32

Minus

22 [T1 GP 21; T2 GP 1]

9.32

Adjective

11

4.66

Consecutive imperfect

9

3.81

4.4 Greek 3rd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 28

4.5 Greek present infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 77

4.6. Greek present participle Frequency of occurrence: 236

Complex unit

7

2.97

Imperfect

6

2.54

Infinitive absolute

3

1.27

Pronoun

3

1.27

Perfect

2

0.85

Consecutive perfect

1

0.42

Imperative

1

0.42

Preposition

1

0.42

Consecutive imperfect

37

28.90

Perfect

27

21.09

Imperfect

12

9.38

Consecutive perfect

12

9.38

Pronoun

9

7.03

Minus

9 [T2 GP 8; T1 GP 1]

7.03

Participle

8

6.25

Infinitive construct

7

5.47

Particle

4

3.13

Noun

2

1.56

Adjective

1

0.78

Imperfect

439

45.93

Consecutive perfect

433

45.29

Minus

26 [T1 GP 18; T2 GP 8]

2.72

Cohortative

16

1.67

Jussive

11

1.15

Participle

10

1.05

Imperative

7

0.73

Infinitive construct

3

0.31

Noun

3

0.31

4.7 Greek imperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 128

4.8 Greek future indicative Frequency of occurrence: 956

Perfect

2

0.21

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.21

Infinitive absolute

2

0.21

Complex unit

2

0.21

1

100.00

Consecutive imperfect

693

63.24

Perfect

316

28.83

Imperfect

20

1.82

Minus

18 [T1 GP 17; T2 GP 1]

1.64

infinitive construct

16

1.46

Consecutive perfect

13

1.19

Participle

6

0.55

Noun

6

0.55

Infinitive absolute

2

0.18

Complex unit

2

0.18

Imperative

1

0.09

Pronoun

1

0.09

Adjective

1

0.09

Particle

1

0.09

Imperfect

138

53.27

Consecutive perfect

46

17.76

Jussive

21

8.11

Infinitive construct

14

5.41

Cohortative

13

5.02

Minus

8 [T1 GP]

3.09

Participle

6

2.32

4.9. Greek future participle Frequency of occurrence: 1 Imperfect 4.10. Greek aorist indicative Frequency of occurrence: 1.096

4.11. Greek aorist subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 259

Perfect

5

1.93

Complex unit

4

1.54

Imperative

2

0.77

Infinitive absolute

1

0.39

Adjective

1

0.39

imperfect

2

50.00

Jussive

2

50.00

Imperative

133

85.26

Imperfect

9

5.77

Consecutive perfect

8

5.13

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

1.92

Jussive

2

1.28

Infinitive absolute

1

0.64

Jussive

15

60.00

Consecutive perfect

5

20.00

Imperfect

3

12.00

Adjective

1

4.00

Preposition

1

4.00

Infinitive construct

116

82.87

Imperfect

5

3.57

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

2.86

Perfect

3

2.14

Consecutive perfect

3

2.14

Participle

3

2.14

4.12 Greek aorist optative Frequency of occurrence: 4

4.13 Greek 2nd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 156

4.14 Greek 3rd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 25

4.15 Greek aorist infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 140

Imperative

2

1.43

Noun

2

1.43

Jussive

1

0.71

Infinitive absolute

1

0.71

Consecutive imperfect

54

47.37

Consecutive perfect

10

8.77

Imperative

9

7.89

Perfect

6

5.26

Participle

6

5.26

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

5.26

Imperfect

5

4.39

jussive

4

3.51

infinitive construct

4

3.51

Infinitive absolute

4

3.51

Noun

3

2.63

Cohortative

1

ο.88

Preposition

1

0.88

Complex unit

1

ο.88

Perfect

77

79 39

Participle

9

9.28

Consecutive imperfect

4

4.12

Infinitive construct

3

3.09

Imperfect

2

2.06

Noun

1

1.03

Adjective

1

1.03

4

80.00

4.16 Greek aorist participle Frequency of occurrence: 114

4.17. Greek Perfect Indicative Frequency of occurrence: 97

4.18. Greek perfect subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 5 Imperfect

Cohortative

1

20.00

Perfect

3

75.00

imperfect

1

25.00

Participle

63

53.39

Adjective

19

16.10

Noun

16

13.56

Minus

9 [T1 GP 8; T2 GP 1]

7.63

Perfect

4

3.39

Imperfect

2

1.69

Complex unit

2

1.69

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.85

Consecutive perfect

1

0.85

infinitive construct

1

0.85

Perfect

3

42.85

Consecutive imperfect

2

28.57

Imperfect

1

14.29

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

14.29

4.19. Greek perfect infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 4

4.20. Greek perfect participle Frequency of occurrence: 118

4.21. Greek pluperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 7

Table 5. The Greek Leviticus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus) MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

Pronoun

98

40.00

Minus

69 [T2 GP 60; Τ1 GP 9]

28.16

Participle

29

11.83

Imperfect

19

7.76

Perfect

9

3.67

Particle

8

3.27

Complex unit

6

2.45

Noun

4

1.63

Preposition

2

0.82

Infinitive construct

1

0.41

Imperfect

31

50.81

Minus

12 [T2 GP 10; Τ1 GP 2]

19.67

Particle

5

8.20

Consecutive perfect

3

4.92

Infinitive construct

3

4.92

Pronoun

2

3.28

Complex unit

2

3.28

Participle

1

1.64

Noun

1

1.64

Preposition

1

1.64

Imperfect

1

50.00

Jussive

1

50.00

5.1. Greek present indicative Frequency of occurrence: 245

5.2. Greek present subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 61

5.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 2

5.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 22

Imperfect

18

81.81

Jussive

3

13.64

Consecutive perfect

1

4.55

Infinitive construct

24

92.31

Imperfect

2

7.69

Participle

102

40.96

Infinitive construct

55

22.09

Adjective

35

14.06

Noun

23

9.24

Pronoun

13

5.22

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

2.81

Imperfect

6

2.41

Infinitive absolute

6

2.41

Preposition

2

0.80

Minus

2 [T2GP]

66.67

Infinitive construct

1

33.33

Consecutive perfect

641

50.11

Imperfect

574

44.87

Minus

23 [T1 GP 18; Τ2 GP 5]

1.79

Jussive

15

1.17

Pronoun

7

0.55

Infinitive construct

5

0.39

Perfect

2

0.16

Imperative

2

0.16

5.5. Greek present infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 26

5.6. Greek present participle Frequency of occurrence: 249

5.7. Greek imperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 3

5.8. Greek future indicative Frequency of occurrence: 1,279

Infinitive absolute

2

0.16

Noun

2

0.16

Complex unit

2

0.16

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.08

Participle

1

0.08

Adjective

1

0.08

Particle

1

0.08

Consecutive imperfect

181

54.36

Perfect

131

39.34

Infinitive construct

7

2.10

Imperfect

5

1.50

Noun

4

1.20

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

1.20

Consecutive perfect

1

0.30

Imperfect

187

63.39

Consecutive perfect

50

16.95

Perfect

20

6.78

Infinitive construct

19

6.44

Participle

8

2.71

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

1.69

Noun

3

1.02

Jussive

2

0.68

Infinitive absolute

1

0.34

Imperative

39

92.86

Imperfect

3

7.14

5.9. Greek aorist indicative Frequency of occurrence: 333

5.10. Greek aorist subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 295

5.11. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 42

5.12. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 3 Imperfect

2

66.67

Jussive

1

33.33

Infinitive construct

71

83.53

Noun

8

9.41

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

3.53

Consecutive perfect

2

2.35

Perfect

1

1.18

Participle

26

41.28

Consecutive perfect

13

20.64

Consecutive imperfect

6

9.52

Perfect

4

6.35

Imperfect

4

6.35

Infinitive absolute

3

4.76

Noun

3

4.76

Infinitive construct

2

3.17

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

3.17

Perfect

19

82.60

Noun

2

8.70

Consecutive imperfect

1

4.35

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

4.35

1

100.00

5.13 Greek aorist infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 85

5.14. Greek aorist participle Frequency of occurrence: 63

5.15. Greek perfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 23

5.16. Greek perfect subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 1 Imperfect

5.17. Greek perfect participle Frequency of occurrence: 66 Participle

29

43.94

Noun

15

22.72

Adjective

12

18.18

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

4.54

Infinitive construct

2

3.03

Complex unit

2

3.03

Perfect

1

1.52

Imperfect

1

1.52

Consecutive perfect

1

1.52

3

100.00

5.18. Greek pluperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 3 Perfect

Table 6. The Greek Numbers; ΜΤ Matches for Verbal Forms (ʻT1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus) ΜΤ formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

Minus

46 [T2 GP 40; T1 GP 6]

23.23

Participle

35

17.67

Pronoun

34

17.17

Imperfect

26

13.13

Perfect

18

9.09

Particle

17

8.58

Consecutive imperfect

7

3.54

Noun

6

3.03

Adjective

4

2.02

Consecutive perfect

2

1.01

Infinitive construct

1

0.51

Preposition

1

0.51

Complex unit

1

0.51

Infinitive construct

7

26.92

Particle

6

23.08

Perfect

5

19.23

Imperfect

5

19.23

Pronoun

2

7.69

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.85

Imperative

8

61.54

Jussive

3

23.08

Infinitive absolute

1

7.69

Particle

1

7.69

6.1. Greek present indicative Frequency of occurrence: 198

6.2. Greek present subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 26

6.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 13

6.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 15 Imperfect

10

66.67

Jussive

2

13.33

Adjective

2

13.33

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

6.67

Infinitive construct

36

66.67

Noun

16

29.63

Participle

1

1.85

Complex unit

1

1.85

Participle

114

38.39

Infinitive construct

92

30.98

Minus

35 [T1 CP 32; T2 GP 3]

11.78

Noun

17

5.72

Adjective

11

3.70

Pronoun

7

2.36

Preposition

7

2.36

Infinitive absolute

6

2.02

Perfect

3

1.01

Imperfect

2

0.67

Complex unit

2

0.67

Consecutive perfect

1

0.34

Consecutive imperfect

18

28.12

Perfect

16

25.00

Consecutive perfect

6

9.38

Participle

6

9.38

6.5. Greek present infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 54

6.6. Greek present participle Frequency of occurrence: 297

6.7. Greek imperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 64

Imperfect

5

7.81

Particle

4

6.25

Minus

4 [T2 GP 4]

6.25

Noun

2

3.13

Infinitive construct

1

1.56

Pronoun

1

1.56

Complex unit

1

1.56

Imperfect

400

47.28

Consecutive perfect

367

43.38

Minus

26 [T1 GP 21; T2 GP 5]

3.07

Cohortative

13

1.54

Jussive

11

1.30

Perfect

7

0.83

Imperative

5

0.59

Noun

5

0.59

Participle

4

0.47

Pronoun

4

0.47

Particle

2

0.24

Preposition

1

0.12

Complex unit

1

0.12

1

100.00

Consecutive imperfect

654

65.33

Perfect

285

28.47

Infinitive construct

17

1.70

Imperfect

14

1.40

Minus

10 [T1 GP]

1.00

6.8. Greek future indicative Frequency of occurrence: 846

6.9. Greek future infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 1 Imperfect 6.10. Greek aorist indicative Frequency of occurrence: 1,001

Participle

7

0.70

Consecutive perfect

5

0.50

Noun

5

0.50

Complex unit

2

0.20

Jussive

1

0.10

Adjective

1

0.10

Imperfect

104

52.00

Consecutive perfect

26

13.00

Infinitive construct

17

8.50

Jussive

14

7.00

Perfect

13

6.50

Consecutive imperfect

8

4.00

Cohortative

5

2.50

Noun

5

2.50

Participle

3

1.50

Complex unit

2

1.00

Minus

2 [T1 GP 1; T2 GP 1]

1.00

Infinitive absolute

1

0.50

Jussive

9

64.28

Imperfect

2

14.29

Particle

2

14.29

Infinitive construct

1

7.14

Imperative

109

82.57

Imperfect

9

6.82

Consecutive perfect

5

3.79

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

3.03

6.11. Greek aorist subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 200

6.12. Greek aorist optative Frequency of occurrence: 14

6.13. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 132

Infinitive absolute

3

2.27

Jussive

1

0.76

Participle

1

0.76

Jussive

12

63.15

Imperfect

5

26.32

Consecutive perfect

2

10.53

Infinitive construct

99

80.47

Noun

10

8.13

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

4.07

Imperfect

3

2.44

Perfect

2

1.63

Jussive

2

1.63

Consecutive perfect

2

1.63

Consecutive imperfect

53

46.50

Participle

24

21.05

Perfect

11

9.65

Imperfect

4

3.51

Infinitive construct

4

3.51

Infinitive absolute

4

3.51

Noun

4

3.51

Consecutive perfect

3

2.63

Imperative

2

1.75

Adjective

2

1.75

Complex unit

2

1.75

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

0.88

6.14. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 19

6.15. Greek aorist infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 123

6.16 Greek aorist participle Frequency of occurrence: 114

6.17. Greek perfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 68 Perfect

55

80.88

Participle

8

11.77

Noun

2

2.94

Consecutive imperfect

1

1.47

Imperfect

1

1.47

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.47

Participle

94

76.43

Noun

17

13.82

Adjective

6

4.88

Perfect

4

3.25

Infinitive construct

1

0.81

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

0.81

Participle

4

66.67

Perfect

2

33.33

6.18. Greek perfect participle Frequency of occurrence: 123

6.19. Greek pluperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 6

Table 7. The Greek Deuteronomy; MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus) MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

Participle

140

50.00

Minus

39 [T2GP35; T1 GP 4]

13.93

Pronoun

26

9.28

Perfect

22

7.85

Imperfect

18

6.43

Particle

18

6.43

Adjective

6

2.14

Noun

4

1.43

Complex unit

4

1.43

Jussive

1

0.36

Consecutive perfect

1

0.36

Infinitive construct

1

0.36

Imperfect

37

61.66

Noun

4

6.67

Minus

4 [T1 GP 3; T2 GP 1]

6.67

Infinitive construct

3

5.00

Adjective

3

5.00

Perfect

2

3.33

Consecutive perfect

2

3.33

Complex unit

2

3.33

Cohortative

1

1.67

Participle

1

1.67

Particle

1

1.67

33

64.72

7. 1. Greek present indicative Frequency of occurrence: 280

7.2. Greek present subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 60

7.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 51 Imperative

Jussive

6

11.76

Imperfect

5

9.80

Consecutive perfect

2

3.92

Infinitive absolute

2

3.92

Infinitive construct

1

1.96

Particle

1

1.96

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.96

Jussive

11

68.75

Adjective

3

18.75

Imperfect

1

6.25

Consecutive perfect

1

6.25

Infinitive construct

118

83.67

Imperfect

6

4.26

Noun

6

4.26

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

4.26

Consecutive perfect

2

1.42

Perfect

1

0.71

Imperative

1

0.71

Preposition

1

0.71

Participle

115

47.33

Infinitive construct

65

26.75

Adjective

17

7.00

Noun

16

6.58

Infinitive absolute

10

4.12

Minus

7 [T1 CP 6; T2 GP 1]

2.88

Pronoun

4

1.65

7.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative Frequency of occurrence: 16

7.5. Greek present infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 141

7.6. Greek present participle Frequency of occurrence: 243

Perfect

2

0.82

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.82

Particle

2

0.82

Imperfect

1

0.41

Preposition

1

0.41

Complex unit

1

0.41

Perfect

22

42.30

Consecutive imperfect

11

21.15

Participle

6

11.54

Minus

5 [T2 GP 3; T1 GP 2]

9.62

Particle

3

5.77

Infinitive construct

2

3.85

Adjective

2

3.85

Pronoun

1

1.92

Imperfect

520

47.84

Consecutive perfect

469

43·15

Jussive

22

2.02

Minus

22 [T1 GP 20; T2 GP 2]

2.02

Cohortative

19

1.75

Participle

8

0.74

Consecutive imperfect

7

0.64

Particle

5

0.46

Perfect

4

0.37

Noun

4

0.37

Imperative

3

0.28

Infinitive absolute

2

0.18

Infinitive construct

1

0.09

Adjective

1

0.09

7.7. Greek imperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 52

7.8. Greek future indicative Frequency of occurrence: 1,087

7.9. Greek future participle Frequency of occurrence: 1 Participle

1

100.00

Perfect

400

58.81

Consecutive imperfect

213

31.32

Imperfect

25

3.68

Infinitive construct

14

2.06

Participle

9

1.32

Minus

8 [T1 GP]

1.18

Consecutive perfect

4

0.59

Noun

4

0.59

Jussive

1

0.15

Infinitive absolute

1

0.15

Particle

1

0.15

Imperfect

238

55.87

Consecutive perfect

101

23.71

Infinitive construct

40

9.39

Jussive

15

3.52

Cohortative

9

2.11

Noun

6

1.41

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

1.41

Perfect

4

0.94

Participle

4

0.94

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.47

Complex unit

1

0.23

17

43.60

7.10. Greek aorist indicative Frequency of occurrence: 680

7.11 Greek aorist subjunctive Frequency of occurrence: 426

7.12.Greek aorist optative Frequency of occurrence: 39 Jussive

Particle

12

30.77

Imperfect

8

20.51

Consecutive perfect

1

2.56

Imperative

1

2.56

Imperative

62

79.48

Infinitive absolute

4

5.13

Imperfect

3

3.85

Consecutive perfect

3

3.85

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

3.85

Perfect

1

1.28

Infinitive construct

1

1.28

Particle

1

1.28

Jussive

11

61.10

Imperfect

3

16.67

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

11.11

Cohortative

1

5.56

Adjective

1

5.56

Infinitive construct

164

88.66

Perfect

6

3.24

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

3.24

Noun

4

2.16

Imperfect

3

1.62

Cohortative

1

0.54

Preposition

1

0.54

7.13. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 78

7.14. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative Frequency of occurrence: 18

7.15 Greek aorist infinitive Frequency of occurrence: 185

7.16. Greek aorist participle Frequency of occurrence: 120

Consecutive perfect

33

27.50

Participle

19

15.83

Consecutive imperfect

18

15.00

Imperfect

17

14.16

Perfect

9

7.50

Infinitive construct

9

7.50

Imperative

5

4.17

Jussive

2

1.67

Infinitive absolute

2

1.67

Complex unit

2

1.67

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

1.67

Cohortative

1

0.83

Noun

1

0.83

Perfect

51

79.68

Participle

7

10.94

Imperfect

4

6.25

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

3.13

5

100.00

Participle

44

67.68

Noun

14

21.54

Adjective

2

3.08

Particle

2

3.08

Perfect

1

1.54

Infinitive construct

1

1.54

Complex unit

1

1.54

7.17. Greek perfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 64

7.18. Greek perfect infinitiveFrequency of occurrence: 5 Infinitive construct 7.19. Greek perfect participle Frequency of occurrence: 65

7.20. Greek pluperfect indicative Frequency of occurrence: 9

Perfect

7

77.78

Participle

1

11.11

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

11.11

It ought to be stressed in advance that my gures display no especially startling trends in Greek-Hebrew formal matches. Their results are in general consistent with the ndings of other scholars for small portions 1

of the same material or for other parts of the LXX. But an advantage of the present analysis is that it provides precise coverage of the evidence from a very large sample of text and embraces the entire verbal system (to the extent that the system is displayed within that sample). Because of this broad scope the present study demonstrates the formal matches with the MT more comprehensively than, any previous analysis of the verbal system, in translation Greek. It will be seen that some noteworthy patterns of usage emerge from so large a body of evidence.

p. 92

5.2. The Data Tables 3–7 treat separately the ve Pentateuchal books. Each table is subdivided into a series of lists, which present the data for the various Greek verbal forms found in each book (in § 3.2 see Table 1 for concise tabulation of the frequencies of occurrence of these verbal forms and Table 2 for those of second and third person imperative forms; for the generation of Tables 3–7 see § 4.4.1). Each list is headed by the name of the Greek verbal form in question, together with its frequency of occurrence, and contains three columns. The rst column, ‘MT formal match’, displays the MT formal matches citable for the relevant Greek verbal form, For the seventeen categories of Hebrew formal match used in the tables see § 4.4.1. For the method of classi cation for verbal match categories compare the descriptive analysis of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system in § 3.3.5, with § 4.4.6 on morphological ambiguity. For the method of classi cation for non-verbal match categories see the explanations in §§ 4.4.2–4.4.4. The second column, ‘Frequency of match’, displays the frequency of occurrence of each MT formal match represented in the rst column. The sum of the gures in this second column necessarily equals the total frequency of occurrence of the Greek form, treated in each list. The third column, ‘Match as %’, displays the frequency of occurrence of each MT formal match as a percentage of the total frequency of occurrence of the Greek form, in question. All percentages have been

p. 93 p. 94 p. 95 p. 96 p. 97 p. 98 p. 99 p. 100

rounded to the second decimal place.

p. 101

p. 102 p. 103 p. 104 p. 105 p. 106 p. 107 p. 108 p. 109 p. 110 p. 111 p. 112 p. 113 p. 114 p. 115 p. 116 p. 117 p. 118

5.3. Analysis of the Data 5.3.1. Preliminary comments The data collected in Tables 3–7 demonstrate the practical results for the LXX translation of those major structural di erences between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems which were described in Chapter 3. The Greek verbal usage is obviously natural in many respects. On the other hand, the data also show clear in uence from the underlying Hebrew on choices of Greek forms. The two factors of natural Greek usage and Hebrew in uence (and the tensions between them) control all syntactical phenomena in translation Greek. The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify the e ects of these factors on verbal aspect, tense, and mood in the Greek Pentateuch, to the extent that they are brought out by the statistical analysis. The treatment of this section involves a systematic assessment of signi cant trends in usage demonstrated by the Greek—Hebrew matches. It should be read in conjunction with the relevant lists from Tables 3–7. Illustrative examples have been chosen from all ve books and unless otherwise stated it can be assumed

that they demonstrate characteristic Pentateuchal usage of the features in question. Except in certain special cases, which will be clear from my commentary, the intention is not to provide exhaustive references on particular usages. In addition, percentages cited in the discussion are mostly approximate. For precise percentages see the tables.

p. 119

5.3.2. Present indicatives The present indicative (Tables 3.1; 4.1; 5.1; 6.1; 7.1), well represented in all the Pentateuchal books, shows no consistent tendency to match any one Hebrew construction. Biblical Hebrew has no single tense form or construction which this Greek form, might naturally render. Rather, it can approximate a variety of Hebrew expressions. Chief among its matches throughout the Pentateuchal books are Minus, Pronoun, and Participle. The category Minus is the most common match in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, accounting for over 28 per cent of examples in Genesis and over 23 per cent in all the other books except Deuteronomy. The other two categories are somewhat less well represented in general, but Pronoun is the most common match in Leviticus, where it accounts for 40 per cent of examples, and Participle the same in Deuteronomy, giving 50 per cent of that book's examples. The common copulative use of εỉμí, for which Hebrew has no verbal equivalent, is largely responsible for the high frequencies of Minus and Pronoun and also for the notable minority match Particle (§§ 4.4.2, 4.4.4). The match with Participle is due to the frequent use of the Hebrew participle as predicate in a nominal sentence, a usage very often rendered by a Greek present indicative, e.g. Deut. 4: 14 ἐπì τἣς γἣς, εỉς ἣν ὑμεἳς εỉσπορεύσθε ἐκεἳ for ‫בארץ אשׁר אתם עברים שׁמה‬. Note that these four matches—Minus, Pronoun, Participle, and Particle—share a common feature, since they all represent elements of Hebrew nominal sentences. In all books Perfect and Imperfect are signi cant minority matches for the present indicative, which to a limited degree overlaps functionally with both the perfect and the imperfect tense forms in Hebrew. Thus, ἐπíσταμαι for ‫ ידעחי‬at Exod. 4: 14 and 9: 30; κατακαίεται for ‫ יבער‬at Exod. 3: 3. The idiolect preference of the Exodus translator for the historic present explains the comparatively high frequency of the match Consecutive

p. 120

2

Imperfect—25 instances representing 11 per cent of all matches—in that book.

The Hebrew consecutive

imperfect is characteristic of past narrative contexts. Of the 26 examples (according to my count) of the historic present in Exodus, 24 correspond to Consecutive Imperfect. The two remaining examples render 4.4.2 §) ‫ והנה‬and n. 37).

5.3.3. Imperfect indicatives The Greek imperfect indicative (Tables 3.8; 4.7; 5.7; 6.7; 7.7) shows varying match patterns, perhaps linked partly to varying frequencies of occurrence, in the di erent books. Given this form's natural associations with past narrative, the counts for Perfect and Consecutive Imperfect are not surprisingly most frequent. p. 121

Together they provide almost 43 per cent of the 296 occurrences in Genesis,

50 per cent of the 128 in

Exodus, 53 per cent of the 64 in Numbers, and 63 per cent of the 52 in Deuteronomy. The statistics from Leviticus are negligible, since by my reckoning that book contains only three occurrences of the Greek imperfect (see App. 1, § 1(c) and the relevant lists of App. 2, §§ 1, 2). On the other hand, the functional composite of Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect is a noteworthy minority match in the Exodus and Numbers samples, providing 18 and 17 per cent of matches respectively. The Greek imperfect might appear prima facie to be a sensitive rendering for the pragmatic e ects of the Hebrew 3

imperfect and consecutive perfect in past contexts. But we must wonder to what extent the Exodus and Numbers translators were attuned to such subtleties, since the aorist indicative is occasionally also employed in translating these Hebrew forms. The rendering by the Greek imperfect, though aspectually

appropriate, is probably merely accidental, motivated by natural Greek contextual requirements (see further § 5.5.3 on translators’ awareness of the formal semantics of the Hebrew verb). For In nitive Construct as a rare match for the Greek imperfect see below on the aorist indicative. As with the present indicative, the copulative use of εἰμί in uences the frequencies of the matches Minus, Particle, and Pronoun for the Greek imperfect. However, these are much more common in the large Genesis sample, where Minus alone provides almost 22 per cent of occurrences, than in the following books. Hebrew nominal sentences in past contexts can naturally motivate a Greek imperfect, and for this reason the match Participle is also a notable minority equivalent.

5.3.4. Future indicatives High frequencies of the Greek future indicative (Tables 3.9; 4.8; 5.8; 6.8; 7.8) are found in all books and the form displays notably regular match patterns throughout the Pentateuch. It corresponds to the functional composite of Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect—a predictable equivalency since these forms are characteristic of Hebrew expressions of futurity—in over 90 per cent of cases in all books but Genesis, where in a comparatively small sample their combined frequency is a little under 80 per cent. Numerous p. 122

other match types occur, but are mostly very rare. The Hebrew oblique

moods are signi cant among

these, especially in Genesis, where Cohortative provides almost 9 per cent and Jussive a further 2.47 per cent of all matches. This is another natural enough match, involving a di erence only in de niteness. Instances of the match Minus mostly represent Greek additions of the more or less free type, except in Genesis, and are not very signi cant for the present purpose.

5.3.5. Aorist indicatives Even more clear-cut are the gures for the heavily attested aorist indicative (Tables 3.12; 4.10; 5.9; 6.10; 7.10), This form matches the Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect composite in over 90 per cent of its occurrences in all ve books, in samples ranging from the 333 instances of Leviticus to the 2,594 of Genesis. The motivation for this regular equivalency is precisely the same as in the case of the Greek imperfect. It is only to be expected that Hebrew perfects and consecutive imperfects, characteristic forms in past narrative contexts, should usually be rendered by Greek forms typical of similar environments. Like the future indicative form., the aorist displays various rare match types. Of these the category Minus, occasional in all books, may seem, signi cant from, a glance at the tables, but it almost always re ects free Greek pluses here and accordingly tells us little about formal correspondences. As already remarked (§ 5.3.3), the aorist indicative, like the imperfect, sometimes corresponds to the Hebrew imperfect or consecutive perfect where these occur in past narrative contexts. The other notable minority match for the aorist indicative is In nitive Construct. The translators sometimes use a subordinate clause instead, of an in nitive to render Hebrew genitival in nitive constructs or expressions involving in nitive construct plus preposition. In past narrative contexts this method, of translation characteristically yields an aorist (or imperfect) indicative, e.g. καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα εῒδεν τὰ ἐνώτια καὶ τὰ ψέλια for ‫ כראת את־הנזם ואת־הצמדים‬and καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσεν τὰ ρήματα ‘Ρεβέκκας for ‫וכשׁמעו את־דברי רבקה‬, both, in Gen. 24: 30 (the ‫ כראותו‬of the Samaritan Pentateuch for MT ‫ כִּ ְראׂת‬in this verse is an example of a verbal variant not p. 123

relevant to the present enquiry; cf. § 4.3); καὶ ἐγένετο ᾑ ἡμέρα συνετέλεσεν Μωυσἣς 4

‫ ביום כלות תשׁה להקים את־המשׁכן‬in Num. 7: 1.

 ὥστε ἀναστἣσαι τὴν σκηνήν for ‫ויהי‬

5.3.6. Perfect indicatives The Greek perfect indicative (Tables 3.19; 4.17; 5.15; 6.17; 7.17) is a less frequent form, occurring only 353 times in the whole Pentateuch. Its regular match is Perfect. The frequency for this equivalency is generally around 80 per cent of cases, and it accounts for over 85 per cent in Genesis. Interestingly, the match 5

Consecutive Imperfect is very rare. This is due to the typical use of the Greek perfect indicative in speeches rather than past narrative (§§ 6.2.5, 6.2.6). The Hebrew consecutive imperfect, as already noted, is especially common in the latter linguistic environment. The match Participle is a signi cant minority equivalent for the Greek perfect indicative, accounting for around 10 per cent of occurrences in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, It is less common in Genesis, where the gure is rather smaller in a large sample, and is not represented in the small Leviticus sample (which has only 23 examples). This match tends to arise from the occasional use of the Greek perfect 6

indicative to translate Hebrew nominal clauses with predicative participle, as in Exod. 5: 8, 16; 17: 6, 9; Num. 22: 34; 27: 7; Deut. 28: 52.

p. 124

5.3.7. Pluperfect indicatives The pluperfect indicative (Tables 3.22; 4.21; 5.18; 6.19; 7.20) has very low frequencies of occurrence in all books, so that few rm statements can be made on the frequencies of its match types. However, the regular 7

match is clearly the Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect composite. In addition, it is interesting that among the 16 occurrences of the pluperfect in Genesis 5 match Participle, while the same match corresponds to 4 of the 6 examples in Numbers. One may well wonder about the relationship of the Masoretic vocalization to the reading tradition in uencing the LXX translators in one or two of these examples, e.g. ᾒδει for ‫ידע‬, which the 8

MΤ vocalizes ַ‫יֹ דֵ ﬠ‬, but which might have been read as ‫יָדַ ע‬, in Gen. 3: 5.

5.3.8. Subjunctives The statistics for the di erent tenses of the Greek subjunctive mood are complicated and possibly skewed by their frequencies of occurrence. There are 1,388 examples of the aorist subjunctive in the whole Pentateuch, only 215 examples of the present, and 6 (all from οἶδα) of the perfect. Certain di erences in frequency of match types between the aorist and present tense forms are thus probably insigni cant, while the perfect subjunctive sample (Tables 4.18; 5.16) is too small to be instructive. The samples of the present subjunctive (Tables 3.2; 4.2; 5.2; 6.2; 7.2) are rather small in all books and do not yield consistent results. They are a ected to varying extents by copulative εἰμί, with the matches Minus, Particle, and Pronoun fairly well represented in the di erent books. Only in the Deuteronomy sample are all three rare or absent. More noteworthy is In nitive Construct, which is the most common match in Numbers (almost 27 per cent of 26 examples) and represents 31 per cent of 45 occurrences in Exodus (where Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect account for over 35 per cent in combination). When Hebrew in nitival p. 125

constructions are rendered by a Greek subordinate clause in primary sequence, that

clause tends to 9

require a subjunctive, e.g. ἡνίκα ἂν εἰσπορεύησθε εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοὓ μαρτυρίου for ‫ בבאכם אל־אהל תוער‬in Lev. 10: 9. The Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect composite is a frequent equivalent for the present subjunctive

throughout the Pentateuch. It accounts for 55 percent of 61 occurrences in Leviticus and 65 per cent of 60 occurrences in Deuteronomy, these books providing the two largest samples of the present tense form. For this match too, the common use of the Greek subjunctive in subordinate clauses in primary sequence is largely responsible.

The much larger samples of the Greek aorist subjunctive (Tables 3.13; 4.11; 5.10; 6.11; 7.11) provide clearer evidence of characteristic patterns. Here the Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect composite match is responsible for a little under 60 per cent of occurrences in Genesis and rather higher gures in the other books, up to 80 per cent in Leviticus. These frequencies, together with those for the present subjunctive in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, shorn?” that the larger the sample, the more clearly Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect is revealed as the regular match for the Greek subjunctive. The match Cohortative represents 20 per cent of occurrences of the aorist subjunctive in Genesis, though less common or absent elsewhere. In addition, Jussive represents over 8 per cent of matches in both Genesis and Exodus, and is only really rare in Leviticus. The jussive functions of the Greek subjunctive explain both matches. A notable minority match in all books is In nitive Construct, already discussed as a match for the present subjunctive form, which is most common in the large Deuteronomy sample, supplying over 9 per cent of 426 occurrences. Occasional instances of the Hebrew perfect or consecutive imperfect in subordinate clauses are rendered by subjunctives, usually aorists, according to Greek contextual requirements, e.g. γενηθἣ for ‫ נעשׂתה‬in Num. 15: 24. This phenomenon is most commonly represented in Leviticus, where the match Perfect accounts for nearly 7 per cent of all occurrences.

5.3.9. Optatives The samples of the optative mood (Tables 3.3, 14; 4.12; 6.12; 7.12) are small, so observations on p. 126

characteristic formal equivalencies must be advanced with caution. Of the 80 Pentateuchal instances

all

but one (copulative εἴη at Gen. 23: 15, for which the match is Minus) are aorists, and nearly half (39) of these occur in Deuteronomy. The regular match is Jussive, which will be seen to be a match between the volitive functions of the Hebrew jussive and Greek optative (§ 7.6). The match with Imperfect–Consecutive Perfect is also represented as a minority equivalent in the three books where the optative occurs in signi cant numbers (there are only 4 examples in Exodus and none in Leviticus). The match Particle for 30 per cent of the Deuteronomy occurrences and for 2 of the 14 instances in Numbers is a special case, namely γένοιτο translating ‫אמן‬, a lexical formula a ecting the verbal statistics (cf. §§ 4.4.2, 7.6.1). For an extended treatment of the Pentateuchal optative see Chapter 7.

5.3.10. Imperatives The tables clearly demonstrate the usual patterns of match types for the Greek imperative mood. They also show the importance of supplying separate gures for second and third person forms, which are quite distinct in their characteristic Hebrew matches. For both forms there are few discrepancies between the counts for the present and aorist tense forms (there are no Pentateuchal examples of the synthetic perfect imperative, but see § 9.4.10 for some doubtful periphrastic forms). Those oddities which do manifest themselves can be ascribed to di erent frequencies of occurrence or to the e ects of translational formulas on. small samples. The Greek second person imperative (Tables 3.4, 15; 4.3, 13; 5.3, 11; 6.3, 13; 7.3, 13) is fairly well attested, in the Pentateuch, with a frequency of 827 occurrences. It has similar functions to the Hebrew imperative and accordingly Imperative is the regular match, throughout. In the small, samples of the present imperative, of which there are 169 examples, this match represents from nearly 65 per cent of instances in Deuteronomy —discounting the negligible Leviticus sample of 2 occurrences—up to 73 per cent in Exodus. For the much more common aorists (658 instances) the lowest frequency is 79 per cent of 78 occurrences in Deuteronomy. The gure is over 85 per cent in Genesis and Exodus and 82 per cent in Numbers, in larger samples, while it is nearly 93 per cent in the limited Leviticus sample (42 occurrences).

The Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect composite is a consistently notable minority match, arising through p. 127

simple modal shift in

10

translation, e.g. εἰσάγαγε for ‫ תקח‬in Gen. 7: 2.

The minority match Jussive is a more

frequent equivalent to the present than to the aorist in the second person imperatives. The major cause for this equivalency with the present form is the rendering of Hebrew ‫ אַ ל‬plus second person jussive in prohibitions by μή plus present imperative—the aorist subjunctive is of course normal if the perfective 11

aspect is employed—according to regular Greek idiom,

e.g. μὴ φοβεîσθε for ‫ אל־תירא‬in Dent. 1:21; μὴ ἐχθραίνετε

αὐτοîς for ‫ אל־תצרם‬in Dent. 2: 19. Other instances of the match Jussive arise from change of construction in the Greek. The Greek third person imperative (Tables 3.5, 16; 4.4, 14; 5.4, 12; 6.4, 14; 7.4, 14) is infrequent in the Pentateuch. There are 202 occurrences, comprising 99 presents and 103 aorists. The samples from the individual books are accordingly small. They show clearly enough, however, that Jussive, which in most samples accounts for high percentages of occurrences (e.g. nearly 87 per cent of the 38 aorist forms in Genesis), is the regular match for this form. This is due to the functional overlap of the Greek third person imperative with the Hebrew jussive. Exceptional are the gures for present tense forms in Leviticus and Numbers, where the regular match is Imperfect. These cases illustrate the e ects a lexical formula can have on the statistics in some samples (see further § 5.5.4). Of the 18 instances matching Imperfect in Leviticus (out of 22 examples), 12 are from the one verb θανατώ. They represent θανάτῳ θανατούσθω/θανατούσθωσαν rendering the formulaic expression (‫מות יומת)ו‬ 9) of these instances are from Lev. 20, the other 3 from Lev. 24; note incidentally that in 1 example, Lev. 24: 21, the Hebrew lacks ‫)מות‬. Similarly, among 10 instances matching Imperfect in the Numbers sample of 15 present tense forms, 5 represent θανατούσθω rendering the same formula (4 of these 5 instances occur in p. 128

Num. 35). As with the second person imperative, modal shift in translation yields the equivalency with Imperfect (and Consecutive Perfect). This composite is the signi cant minority match in the other third person imperative samples from the Pentateuch. The third person imperatives νιψάτωσαν at Gen. 18: 4 and πορευέσθωσαν at Exod. 10: 11 correspond to Imperative, while παρελθάτω at Gen. 30: 32 and άκονσάτωσαν at Deut. 4: 10 correspond to Cohortative. These matches might cause surprise, since the Hebrew imperative is restricted to the second person and the 12

cohortative to the rst person. However, Greek syntactic recasting explains all 4 instances.

5.3.11. Infinitives The Greek present (Tables 3.6; 4.5; 5.5; 6.5; 7.5) and aorist (Tables 3.17; 4.15; 5.13; 6.15; 7.15) in nitives 13

display impressive consistency in their formal matches.

Once again, the sample of the perfect tense 14

15

(Tables 3.20; 4.19; 7.18) is too limited—there are 12 instances in the Pentateuch —to be very revealing. 16

There are a mere 3 examples of the future in nitive (Tables 3.10; 6.9).

The regular match for both the present and aorist forms throughout the Pentateuch is In nitive Construct. This is a natural equivalency, since the Greek in nitive and the Hebrew in nitive construct are functional equivalents in certain common uses. In the case of the (Jreek present in nitive. In nitive Construct represents from 66 per cent of occurrences in Numbers, up to 92 per cent in the small Leviticus sample of 26 p. 129

instances. In the large aorist samples

this match represents from 78 per cent of occurrences in Genesis

up to 88 per cent in Deuteronomy. As a verbal noun, the Greek in nitive can be an easy equivalent for other types of Hebrew noun apart from the in nitive construct, e.g. τοû εἰδέναι for ‫ הדצת‬in Gen. 2: 9; μιανθήναι for ‫ טמאה‬in Num. 5: 19. Thus, the match Noun is a notable minority in all books except Exodus, where it is rare. Some instances of this match are due to Greek syntactic recasting, e.g. ᾖρκτοι θραύειν τὸν λαόν for ‫ החל הנגף‬at Num. 16: 46 (MT 17: 11). Rare matches

with Hebrew nite verbal forms also tend to re ect free Greek syntax. So ᾖ εἰδέναι βούλει for ‫ הטרם תדע‬at Exod. 17

10: 7.

5.3.12. Participles Very interesting variations appear in patterns of matches between the tense forms of the Greek participle. As already mentioned (§ 3.2), their frequencies of occurrence are strikingly di erent from those of the oblique moods and the in nitive. There are 1,317 examples of the present participle (Tables 3.7; 4, 6; 5.6; 6.6; 7.6), 679 of the aorist (Tables 3.18; 4.16; 5.14; 6.16; 7.16), and 399 of the perfect (Tables 3.21; 4.20; 5.17; 6.18; 7.19). Only the future participle (Tables 3.11; 4.9; 7.9) provides too small a sample (3 instances) to 18

exhibit clear trends in match patterns.

The functional elasticity of the Greek participle allows it to render a variety of Hebrew forms and p. 130

19

constructions. Accordingly, a broad range of match types is exhibited in the tables.

For the

present and

perfect forms Participle, representing a natural enough equivalency, is the most common match. In the case of the present participle it accounts for a low of around 33 per cent of occurrences in Genesis and Exodus, with a highest frequency of 47 per cent in Deuteronomy. For the smaller samples of the perfect participle it is generally even more frequent, representing from almost 44 per cent in Leviticus up to 76 per cent of the 123 Numbers examples (the largest count in any of the Pentateuchal books). For the aorist participle the equivalency with Participle is also well represented, but mostly as a minority match and less commonly in Exodus than elsewhere. It is the most frequent match only in the case of Leviticus, where it represents 41 per cent of all occurrences. The match In nitive Construct is second in frequency only to Participle for the Greek present participle. It represents around 30 per cent of matches in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, 26 per cent in Deuteronomy and 22 per cent in Leviticus. By contrast, this equivalency is rare for both the aorist and perfect participles. Largely responsible for the high frequencies matching the Greek present form is the use of the present participle of λέγω as a formula of translation for the very frequent Hebrew expression

20

.‫לאמר‬

It is notable that the important use of the Greek participle as a clause equivalent mostly involves the aorist tense form in the Pentateuch. The aorist participle very commonly corresponds to the Perfect—Consecutive p. 131

Imperfect and Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect

composites. The comparative frequencies of these two

composite matches uctuate within each book, depending very much on linguistic context (for the e ects of which on match patterns see further § 5.5.2). Thus, the match with Perfect-Consecutive Imperfect is much more common in Genesis (representing 68 per cent of the 268 aorist participles) than that with Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect, which represents less than 4 per cent. This is due to the fact that Genesis is largely composed of past narrative. Exodus and Numbers, both of which also have large past narrative elements, display a roughly similar distribution. In Exodus 52 per cent of the 114 aorist participles represent Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect, while 13 per cent represent Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect, In Numbers the gures are 56 per cent and 6 per cent respectively, out of 114 aorist participles. The laws and directions comprising the bulk of Leviticus and Deuteronomy yield a di erent result. In Leviticus Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect accounts for some 27 per cent of the 63 aorist participles, and Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect for less than 16 per cent. In Deuteronomy the gures are 42 per cent of 120 aorists for the Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect match and 22 per cent for Perfect— Consecutive Imperfect. These matches are rare for the present participle, and even more so for the perfect participle, but the present tense form does exhibit similar trends to the aorist in the comparative frequencies of the two composite match types. Notable also as representing the clause equivalent usage of the Greek participle is

Imperative, which accounts for almost 8 per cent of examples of the aorist participle in both Genesis and Exodus. Given the substantival and adjectival functions of the Greek participle, it is hardly surprising that Noun and Adjective are well represented minority matches. Rather more noteworthy is the fact that these equivalencies, like the much larger samples of the match Participle and also the small samples of In nitive Absolute (see n. 19 above), involve the present and perfect participles far more frequently than the aorist (for further illustration see the relevant lists in the tables of Appendix 3). Thus, the following patterns of tense usage in the Greek participles are revealed. In all Pentateuchal books there is a greater tendency for the present and perfect participles to be used in rendering Hebrew participles, p. 132

other adjectives, and nouns (including 21

Hebrew nite verbal forms.

the Hebrew in nitives), but for the aorist participle to render

This phenomenon requires further study.

A full investigation of the distribution would be very interesting. This will not be pursued in the present study, but one surely important contributing factor, the e ects of translational formulae on the frequencies, has been noted above with regard to the present participle of λέγω rendering ‫ לאמר‬and will be seen again in relation to the perfect participle (§ 6.3). Another partial cause may be that fully adjectivized or substantivized participles cease to manifest the perfective/imperfective aspectual opposition, appearing characteristically in the present or perfect tense forms. On this possibility, which also needs to be tested, see § 9.4.1.

5.3.13. General tendencies The analysis of Greek—Hebrew matches reveals certain obvious patterns of formal alignment. Pentateuchal matches appear to be based largely on pragmatic functional agreement, rather than mechanical translation equivalencies. It can be seen that a single Hebrew form may be rendered by a variety of Greek verbal forms, while in all but the very smallest samples Greek verbal forms translate a variety of Hebrew forms or constructions. On the other hand, it is clear that most Greek verbal forms characteristically render particular Hebrew forms or constructions. In the majority of cases one or two regular matches account for the great bulk of occurrences of each Greek form, (the notable exception is the present indicative, though even here there is a certain unity, since its various common matches are all associated, with Hebrew nominal sentence structure). This regularity may be further illustrated by a brief description of the equivalencies from the Hebrew–Greek viewpoint. For a comprehensive portrayal, of Hebrew–Greek verbal matches in the Pentateuch reference 22

should be made to Tables 15–19 in Appendix 3. p. 133

tendencies in

These tables demonstrate remarkably consistent

Greek verbal renderings of the 10 Hebrew verbal forms throughout the Pentateuchal

corpus. It is not intended to enter into translation-technical detail here, but in summary: (1) the Hebrew perfect is regularly translated by the aorist indicative; (2) similarly the consecutive imperfect; (3) the Hebrew imperfect is regularly translated by the future indicative, with the subjunctive (mainly the aorist) a common minority rendering; (4) similarly the consecutive perfect, though the percentages for the subjunctive are generally rather smaller here; (5) the Hebrew imperative is regularly translated by a Greek imperative; (6) the in nitive construct is regularly translated by a Greek in nitive, with the present participle a common minority rendering (on this match see § 5.3.12 n. 20); (7) the Hebrew participle is regularly translated by a Greek participle, with the present indicative a common (in Deuteronomy very common) minority 23

rendering.

For the mixed renderings of the jussive, cohortative, and in nitive absolute forms, which tend 24

to appear in small samples, see the relevant lists in the tables of Appendix 3.

p. 134

As Barr observes, Hebrew–Greek analysis also brings out the characteristic range of exceptional minority matches, which usually represent individually less than 10 per cent of occurrences. These can be as instructive for assessing independent Greek usage as the regular matches, whether or not they arise through recasting of the Hebrew. The largely descriptive analysis so far o ered is only a rst step. We have already seen the value of more detailed interpretation of the matches in parts of the preceding treatment. More precise examination of particular features is necessary to appreciate properly the relationship between Pentateuchal Greek verbal forms and the underlying Hebrew. Assemblage and analysis of complete data for all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch allow reliable identi cation of the general tendencies towards regular match patterns for these forms. This process already reveals much concerning the character of both natural Greek and Hebraistic phenomena, which will be de ned in the following sections. The discussion will, however, be in part preliminary. The crucial evidence provided by frequency of occurrence can be demonstrated fully only through extended analyses of the type to be found in Part III.

5.4. Natural Greek Usage The considerable scope for natural Greek verbal usage in the LXX was outlined in Chapter 3. Some of its 25

results have also been observed previously by other writers.

Given the linguistic coding di erences

between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems described in § 3.4, the fact that the Greek system is so fully manifested in the Pentateuch is itself a sign of independence. Employment of the rich stock of moods and tenses, including thorough manifestation of the perfectiνe/imperfectiνe aspectual opposition, involves numerous features free of speci c Hebrew in uence. A good example is the Exodus translator's idiolect preference for the historic present (§ 5.3.2), as is the clause-equivalent function of the participle (§ 5.3.12). These features of course derive an oblique motivation from the original Hebrew context (see § 5.5.2), but within that context their use is entirely independent. The p. 135

Hebrew text components they render have other far more predictable Greek renderings. Further features demonstrating free Greek verbal syntax will be brought out in the detailed studies of Part III. Strongly indicative of independent usage are the Pentateuchal employment of the perfect indicative (§ 6.2), the potential optative (§§ 7.7–7.8), and the μέλλω periphrases (§ 9.3.2). These features will be seen to provide valuable evidence regarding the history of the Greek verbal system, in particular on the survival of the Classical values of perfect tense forms and the optative mood. Of special interest is a possible sign of Homeric stylistic in uence in the comparative use of the potential optative (§ 7.8).

5.5. Hebrew Influence 5.5.1. Two levels of Hebrew influence Hebrew in uence manifests itself at two levels, obliquely at that of the broad context and more directly at 26

the level of speci c underlying forms and constructions.

The contextual in uence is inevitably remote and

imprecise in its e ects. The second type is of far greater signi cance for the study of Pentateuchal Greek verbal syntax, since it extends to bilingual interference in the Greek usage. This interference is di

cult to isolate without assembling very full data. The importance of speci c

in uence from the formal semantics of the Hebrew verb (i.e. the semantic content of the grammatical form as opposed to a particular word's lexical semantics) on choices of LXX verbal tense forms has in fact been

downplayed by Barr (see § 5.5.3). But it will be argued here that the Greek Pentateuch provides clear evidence of such in uence, with broad implications, manifested through frequencies of occurrence of Greek 27

verbal forms. p. 136

Indeed, bilingual interference from Hebrew text components involves factors additional to

the formal semantics of

the verb. A distinction will be drawn in the following discussion between lexical

interference, where a formulaic translation equivalent for a particular Hebrew lexical item yields apparent distortion of a Greek verbal form's frequency of occurrence, and formal interference, which derives from the formal semantics of Hebrew items or from Hebrew clausal structure. Several syntactic features Hebraistic in their frequency of occurrence have been isolated in the present study. It is important to note, however, that no new features Hebraistic in their syntactic function have been observed. This supports the general assertion that verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch is essentially idiomatic Greek, excepting a small group of well-known features like the participle translating the Hebrew in nitive absolute (§ 5.3.12 n. 19) and ποιῶ plus in nitive rendering Piel or Hiphil forms (§ 4.4.5 n. 54).

5.5.2. Contextual influence Linguistic context exercises a natural control over the frequencies of occurrence of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. It also manifests oblique in uence from the original Hebrew, which necessarily establishes the contextual framework of the Greek translations. The Hebrew context is usually reproduced with a high degree of accuracy in the Pentateuch, though not always so in the occasionally obscure case of poetic language. The linguistic contexts of the Pentateuch vary from book to book, also within each book, and even within short passages of text. Separate types of context represented can be identi ed clearly enough for the present purpose by a basic classi cation into past narrative and allied types (e.g. genealogies and other listings) on the one hand, and direct speech and allied types (e.g. laws and directions; poetic passages) on the other. Thus, Genesis is largely a mixture of past narrative and similar contexts interspersed with limited quantities of direct speech, including scattered poetic passages (e.g. in Gen. 4, 9, 25, and 27, with a longer poem in Gen. 49). Exodus has similar contents in its rst half (with an extended poetic passage in Exod. 15), but in the second half displays mainly direct speech and similar types. Leviticus contains almost exclusively material p. 137

of this latter sort

(there is past narrative in Lev. 8–10). Numbers has much direct speech, but also

extended past narrative passages (Num. 9–25, 27, 31–3) and poetry (especially in Num. 21, 23, 24). Deuteronomy is largely composed of direct speech types, but has some extended past narrative (Deut. 1–4, 31, 34) and poetic passages (Deut. 32–3). This characterization is not meant to ignore the fact of subtle contextual shifts (thus the dialogue in Gen. 24, where the speeches of Abraham's servant sometimes develop the avour of narrative, rather than direct 28

speech), but attempts at more precise classi cation tend to encourage uncertain and subjective results. The classi cation employed here, aiming only to identify the general character of passages, is su

ciently

sensitive to explain certain features of the Greek Pentateuchal verb counts. An obvious example is provided by the comparative frequencies of aorist and future indicatives. There are many more aorists than futures in Genesis (2,594 aorists to 527 futures), roughly similar counts in Exodus (1,096 aorists to 956 futures) and Numbers (1,001 aorists to 846 futures), and far higher frequencies of futures in Deuteronomy (1,087 futures to 680 aorists) and especially Leviticus (1,279 futures to 333 aorists). These counts are to be linked directly to the distribution of linguistic contexts described above. Aorist indicatives are characteristic of past narrative, future indicatives of laws and directions prescribing future conduct. Hebrew contextual e ects on the regular MT matches of these two forms, Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect and Imperfect–Consecutive Perfect respectively, have already been observed in §§ 5.3.4, 5.3.5 (cf. the comments on MT matches for clause-equivalent Greek participles in § 5.3.1 2).

So the demands of context tend to support regular match patterns. Conversely, they may also in uence departure from a characteristic match. The rare minority matches of Tables 3–7 often demonstrate dynamic 29

equivalence as a feature of the Pentateuchal translators’ methods,

whereby the use of characteristic 30

renderings is not extended to the point of distorting the perceived sense of the Hebrew context. p. 138

requirements according to the

Greek

translators’ interpretation of context seem to motivate matches such as

that of Gen. 15: 18 τῷ σπέρματί σον δώσω τὴν γἣν ταύτην for ‫לזרעך נתתי את־הארץ הזאת‬, i.e. Greek future indicative for Hebrew perfect, and Exod. 15: 1 τότε ᾖσεν Mωυσἣς for ‫אז ישׁיר־משׁה‬, i.e. Greek aorist indicative for Hebrew imperfect. This point brings us to the crucial question of speci c in uence from underlying Hebrew forms and will be modi ed in § 5.5.3. The in uence of the underlying Hebrew context is remote from the subtleties of Greek verbal usage and by no means precise in its e ects. Choices of Greek tense and mood forms are governed to a large extent by the 31

independent requirements of the Greek language.

The Hebrew context, as interpreted by the translator,

may motivate an appropriate Greek form, but because of the relative complexity of the Greek verbal system a choice usually remains between two or more idiomatically suitable Greek renderings. Options open within past narrative contexts were touched on at § 3.4. By way of further illustration, a Hebrew imperfect or consecutive perfect in a main clause with future reference might be appropriately rendered by a Greek present or future indicative, or by an imperative, subjunctive, or optative, according to the nuance the translator chose to stress, or perhaps stylistic considerations (cf. Wevers's discussion of εἷσάγαγε in Gen. 7: 2, as cited in § 5.3.10 n. 10; also §§ 7.6–7.7 on the volitive and potential optative functions). In the non-indicative options mentioned here the choice of Greek form involves greater independence. The future indicative might be seen as the default form (cf. § 7.7 on τίς δώη and τίς δώσει), as is the aorist indicative for Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect in past narrative (§ 8.5.1). Aejmelaeus's interesting observation that variations in translators’ linguistic usage may be linked to contextual in uences also deserves brief mention here. Laws and listings, dry and repetitive in content, invite and appear to have received a somewhat mechanical treatment, by comparison with pure narrative 32

and in particular direct speech.

See further the comments on frequency of the Greek imperfect indicative

in § 8.5.2.

5.5.3. Translators' awareness of formal semantics of the Hebrew verb As mentioned in § 5.5.1, Barr has raised doubts over the degree of in uence from the formal semantics of p. 139

the Hebrew verb on choices

33

of LXX verbal forms.

The issue needs to be addressed here, since it has

implications for assessment of bilingual interference. Barr argues that it is mainly the general sense of Hebrew passages which a ects these Greek verbal choices. He observes the LXX translators’ generally e ective treatment of Hebrew verbal tenses and notes the importance of that e ectiveness for the overall success of the translation. But judging from limited examples in temporally ambiguous contexts in Psalms 34

and 2 Kingdoms,

he concludes that the LXX translators were not particularly alert to the special nuances of

Hebrew verbal forms. Barr's assessment requires much more comprehensive testing than he supplies, however, both in individual 35

books and in the entire LXX corpus.

In fact Sailhamer's detailed translation-technical analysis of Psalms

3–41 leads that writer to the assumption that the Psalms translator had ‘a reasonably well-informed 36

knowledge of the Hebrew verb’.

Nor does Barr address adequately the heterogeneous nature of the LXX.

The e ects of varying qualify of the reading tradition for di erent parts of the corpus are likely to be considerable, while di erences of genre, style, authorship, and date of composition are also important factors.

The impression gained from the present treatment of the Pentateuchal books is that their translators had a sound knowledge of the Hebrew verb. They appear to have been better informed than the sometimes misled Psalms 3–41 translator, who normally translated Hebrew verbal forms accurately, but sometimes resorted to a form's characteristic rendering at the expense of making sense in context, apparently through failure to comprehend a particular function of that verbal form. This translator's understanding thus ‘had both a wide 37

breadth and a discernible boundary’.

Voitila has now identi ed at least two cases of similar confusion in

Numbers. Hebrew imperfect and consecutive perfect forms motivate Greek futures (the regular match; see § p. 140

38

5.3.4) inappropriate to their contexts in Num. 9: 18–23; 10: 17–25. 39

within the Greek Pentateuch.

These, however, are isolated examples

They perhaps re ect confusion arising from the repeated switches

between narrative and direct speech in Num. 9–10 and contrast with the Pentateuchal translators’ usual command over their material. This is not to suggest that these translators possessed a precisely formulated grammatical awareness of the 40

Hebrew,

but that they were supported by a strong reading tradition of the Torah— certainly plausible

given its religious and cultural signi cance, Barr implies a remoteness from Hebrew linguistic structures which for the Pentateuch at least seems improbable. Though its translators are indeed unlikely to have had, for instance, a developed understanding of the ‘preterite’ function of the imperfect or of Hebrew aspectual 41

oppositions,

it is di

cult to believe they were reduced to mere guesswork when they met instances like the

already cited ‫ ישׁיר‬in Exod. 15: 1. Though guided by pragmatic implicature, they were probably fully alert to the fact that the semantics of the Hebrew tense forms uctuate in di erent temporal spheres. Thus, the generally accurate capturing of Hebrew nuances of meaning in the verbal forms of the Greek Pentateuch appears to depend not just on the context, but also on strong awareness of formal semantics in 42

the Hebrew verb.

Cases where the translators seem to render modal nuances of ambiguous Hebrew forms

with genuine sensitivity are especially persuasive. The major illustration of this in the present study will be seen in the common translation of Hebrew volitive jussives by Greek volitive optatives (§ 7.6.1), the regularity of which can hardly be due to context-guided chance.

5.5.4. Bilingual interference from Hebrew text components The evidence identi ed in the present study of lexical and formal interference, manifested through frequencies of occurrence of verbal forms, may now be summarized. p. 141

The match Jussive for the volitive optative which was mentioned above, as well as showing the translators’ alertness to the nuances of Hebrew verbal forms, demonstrates bilingual interference. The formal motivation for the match provides a partial explanation for the high frequency of the optative's volitive function in the Pentateuch relative to its potential force. We shall see that these relative frequencies contrast sharply with the evidence of extra-Biblical Koine documents. It is probable that the observation applies to optative frequencies in all translation Greek portions of the LXX. For full details see §§ 7.3, 7.6. Another manifestation of formal interference in the Greek Pentateuch involves Hebrew clausal structure. It will be shown that the repetitive paratactic structures of Biblical Hebrew syntax in uence certain typical Greek renderings (§§ 3.4, 8.5.1), restricting the exibility of Greek sentence structure and thus natural Greek verbal usage, though the constructions employed in the translations are idiomatic in their actual function. This type of Hebraism is to be taken as a result of easy translation technique (§ 8.5.1). For a detailed analysis of the e ect on imperfect and aorist indicative frequencies in both the Pentateuchal books and the LXX in general see the treatment of Chapter 8. A less common Hebrew clause structure, ‫ היה‬plus participle, will be shown to a ect the frequency of periphrastic verbal tense forms in the Greek Pentateuch, though conclusions regarding verbal periphrases must be advanced with particular caution. See the treatment of Chapter 9 (especially §§ 9.5, 9.6).

Two cases of Hebrew lexical interference have already been observed, explaining respectively the interesting frequencies of the match Imperfect for the third person present imperative in Leviticus and Numbers (§ 5.3.10) and of the match In nitive Construct for the present participle throughout the Pentateuch (§ 5.3.12). Further examples of such interference a ecting frequencies will be demonstrated in Part III, pertaining to the perfect participle (§ 6.3) and the aorist indicative (§ 8.5.3). It seems highly probable that much more evidence of Hebrew lexical interference in frequencies of occurrence of LXX verbal forms remains to be identi ed. In particular, the Greek participles are likely to prove a very fertile eld for investigation. But the need to treat large samples for adequate testing of frequencies must be stressed.

p. 142

5.6. Conclusion The analysis of Part II assembles and interprets complete data for the MT formal matches of all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. It clearly shows that aspect, tense, and mood usage in the Greek Pentateuch is in many respects independent of the underlying I lebrew and deserves to be considered as a natural sample of Koine usage. However, the data also demonstrate two levels of Hebrew in uence on the Greek verbal forms. A more remote in uence from the broad context is operative, as well as a direct in uence from speci c Hebrew text components. The latter type, which may be lexical or formal, can extend to bilingual interference in the Greek verbal usage. A small number of syntactic Hebraisms in LXX verbal usage, relatively easy to identify, have long been known. Voitila has recently identi ed an additional instance (§ 5.5.3). The new examples treated in the present study, to be fully brought out in Part III, are manifested through the frequencies of occurrence of Greek forms. These examples can be assessed adequately only by testing large bodies of data, in a manner similar to the present analysis. Because a form's frequency of occurrence in translation Greek can be shown to be highly signi cant, LXX verbal forms require careful analysis for signs of Hebrew interference in their frequency, whether or not their actual function appears natural, before their evidence for Koine usage and for the general history of the Greek language can safely be exploited. The detailed studies of Part III will show that such analysis is a very worthwhile undertaking.

Notes 1

2

See Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive; T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1– 15ʼ (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990); and A. Voitila, ʻLa technique de traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans ll'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen. 37, 39–50)ʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 223–37, as cited in § 4.2 n. 9; also J. H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (New York;. Peter Lang, 1991), on the entire verbal system with the exception of the infinitive in Psalms 3–41. There are brief remarks on. tense usage in. 1 and 2 Chronicles at L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Μassoretic Text, pt. 1. The Translator's Cra (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 42, and cf Sailhamer's survey of scattered comments in the literature on LXX treatment of the Hebrew verb (Sailhamer, Psalms, 11–16). On the high frequency of the historic present in Exodus, both by contrast with the other Pentateuchal books and within the whole LXX, see Sir J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of tin Synoptic Problem, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 215–14: cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 237n. 85. Hawkins finds 24 instances in Exodus: 17 front λέγω, 7 from όρω̂. I count 26 examples of the usage in this book; 19 from λέγω and 7 from όρω̂. The disagreement between these figures can probably be ascribed to di erences of text. Wevers, however, notes 20 examples from λέγω (including ο in Exod. 32–3) at Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18, but gives the figure as 22 (including 7 in Exod. 32–3) at Wevers, Exodus Text, 228. The discrepancies between his two counts and mine must be due to human error. The 19 examples I find are: Exod. 2: 13; 4: 18; 5: 3; 10: 7, 9, 28, 29; 18: 14, 15; 20: 20; 32: 1, 2. 17, 18, 23, 27; 33: 14, 15, 18 (a list which agues with

3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12

Wevers, Exodus Notes, on the count of 9 instances in Exod. 32–3). The frequency of forms from λέγω in Exodus clearly contradicts, for that book at least, the assertion of H. St. J. Thackeray, ʻThe Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kingsʼ, JThS 8, 1907), 262–78 at 273–4, that ʻIn the LXX the historic present is not frequent with verbs of saying: in the Pentateuch it is found chiefly with verbs of seeingʼ (incidentally, the statement at Thackeray, Grammer, 24, is accurate, but the incorrect view of Thackeray, ʻGreek Translatorsʼ, is repeated at Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 235 n. 78). Apart from these minor statistical inconsistencies, Wevers's observation that ʻThere seems to be no particular reason for the [Exodus] translator's occasional lapse into the historical presentʼ (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18; cf. Wevers, Exodus Text, 258) seems unsatisfactory. This ʻoccasional lapseʼ represents a stereotyping stylistic preference for the historic present in the use of certain verbs of saving and seeing; cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 24; and note that Wevers, Exodus Text, 224–5, does recognize the stylistic significance of the historic present λέγονσιν at Exod. 5: 3, though he seems to confuse the motivation for this form with that for έξαποστέλλοω, a present with a di erent function, in the previous verse. The fact that the use of λέλει/λέγονιν as a translation for (‫ ויאמר)ו‬is rare in Exodus—accoiding to Wevers's first count it occurs 20 times, against 158 occurrences of εἶπεν/εἶπαν (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18)—would be significant only if we assumed the translator employed a mechanical method in rendering verbal forms. The usage is in my view a natural Greek phenomenon, without Hebrew motivation (so H. G. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina Libri iii Erlangen, 1841), 187; against my interpreration A. Voitila is developing a theory, as yet unpublished, arguing Hebrew motivation for some historic present forms). On the distribution of the historic present in Ancient Greek in general and its apparently fluctuating stylistic value see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 235–9. But does the Exodus translator have ʻno aspirations to literary styleʼ (ibid. 237)? This interesting question lies largely outside the scope of the present study, but cf. § 7.8 and n. 92. Another matter again is the problem of semantic coding in the historic present. Is its key feature one of temporal transfer (so Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 226–31) or aspectual e ect (so Porter, Verbal Aspect, 189–98; cf. Porter, ʻDefenceʼ, 40)? According to the interpretation of temporal reference in Greek o ered in § 2.7, I would suggest that time value is of increasing importance diachronically. On the Hebrew imperfect in past contexts see in general WO, Syntax, 502–4; Gibson, Syntax, 73–4; JM, Grammar, § 113e–k. For discussion and additional Pentateuchal examples see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, especialy 24–5 (on clausal renderings of the gemtiv al infinitive construct); 85–6, 87 (on the infinitive construct with the prtposition 6–95 ;(‫( ב‬on the infinifive cotistruct uith the preposition ‫)ב‬. These infinitival constructions, characteristic of Pentateuchal Hebrew usage, show signs of decay in later Biblical Hebrew and art lost in Mishnaic Hebrew (R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Ηebrew Prose (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976, 45–6 60– 1; Segal, Grammar, 165–6). The Samaritan Pentateuch somenmes replaces such infinitival constructions with a Hebrew perfect (or other finite) form, e.g. ‫ הכיתי‬against MT ‫כּתי‬ ִ ‫ ַה‬in Num. 3: 13: 8; 17: ‫ הוקם‬against MT ‫ ֶה ִקים‬in Num. 9: 15 (cf. B. K. Waltke, ʻThe Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testamentʼ, in J. B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1970), 212–39 at 216, on this modernizing tendency). Their Greek renderings with finite verbs do not, however, provide any evidence for this type of ν arrant in the LXX Vorlage, since these renderings represent a natural Greek reflex of the MT's infinitival constructions. It is not absent, as the observation of A. Voitila, ʻSome Remarks on the Perfect Indicative in the LXXʼ, BIOSCS 26 (1993), 11– 16 at 15 on the matches of Gen. 37, 39–50, might seem to suggest. On the independent character of this Greek renelering cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 63· Cf. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 14–15, observing that the pluperfect is ʻrather rarely used [in narrative] as an equivalent of qatal in the Pentateuchʼ. See Wevers, Genesis Notes, 38; cf. ibid. 450 on ἐπεστήρικτο for ‫ נצב‬in Gen. 28: 13. But cf. ibid.244–5 on the contextual appropiateness of εἱστήκεισαν rendering a participle in Gen. 18: 2 and ibid.249 on that of παρειστήκει in Gen. 18: 8. I would suggest that the translator's interpretation of contextual requirements could explain both the Gen. 3: 5 and 28: 13 examples (espectallv the latter) as well. We are not compelled by the Greek evidence to assume a variant leading tradition of its Vorlage in these places. Cf. the discussion of Infinitive Construct as a match for the Greek aorist indicative in § 5.3.5, and for further Pentateuchal examples see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, as cited in n. 4 above. On parallelism with εἴσελθε for the imperative ‫ בא‬in the preceding verse as the specilic motivation here, see Wevers, Genesis Note, 89. Cf. SD, Syntax, 343; SM, Grammar, § 1840. B Use of the second person aorisr imperative in prohibitions, though not unknown, is vers unusual (Chantraine, Grammaire, ii. 230–1; J. P. Louw, ʻOn Greek Prohibitionsʼ, A Class 2 (1959), 43–57 at 43; A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles (Leiden: J. Brill, 1982), 221; on some late. instances in the papyri see Mandilaras. Verb, §§ 568. 1–3, 705). There are no examples in Wevers's edition of the Greek Pentateuch, though I note in his apparatus a single case occurring as a variant for the present imperative (γίνεσθε for γίνεσθε at Num. 14: 9). On the Genesis examples see Wevers, Genesis Notes, 246–7, 489; on the Exodus example see Wevers. Exodus Notes, 150. At Deut. 4:10 the Hebrew ‫ואשׁמעם את־דברי‬, ʻthat I might make them hear my words”, is rendered by καì ἀκουσάτωσαν τὰ

13 14

15 16

17 18

19

20

21 22

23

ρήματά μου, ʻand let them hear my wordsʼ; cf. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 72, whose translation of the MT does not recognize cohortative value in the Hebrew verb (so in the Gen. 30; 32 example, on which see also § 4.4.6 and n. 58). For detailed translation-technical analysis of the Greek infinitive reference shoulcl be made to Soisalon–Soininen, Infinitive (on this monograph see also § 4.2 n. u. 9 Soisalon-Soininen counts 37 instances in the whole of the LXX and observes that 20 of these involve, εἰδέναι, ἑστάναι, and πεποιθέναι, which tend to align themselves with the present tense form (Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 151–2; and see further § 6.4). But see the general comment ibid. 152, on the relationship to the Hebrew text of future and perfect infinitives in the LXX. The instances of the (Jreek futurt infinitive, all 3 motivated by Grtik idiom, are in (Jen. 21: 23; 26: 20; Num. 14: 31. On the Genesis examples cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 310, 412; and see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 150–1, who notes only 11 instances in the entire LXX, On this rendering cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 148. The instances of the future participle, which like those of the future infinitive are motivated by natural Greek requirements, are in Gen. 41: 31; Exod. 2: 4; Deut. 22: 27. On tltese examples note respectively Wevers, Genesis Notes, 689; id. Exodus Notes, 14; id., Deuteronomy Notes, 361–2. Note, however, the artificial character of the usage represented by the occasional match Infinitive Absolute, e.g. φυλάσσωυ φυλάξῃ for ‫ שׁמור תשׁמרון‬at Deut. 6; 17. This well-known Hebraism employs the present participle more frequently than the aorist in most of the Pentateuchal books (Genesis has 13 present participles and 3 aorists, Exodus 3 and 4, Leviticus 6 and 3, Numbers 6 and 4, Deuteronomy 10 and 2), and never the perfect or future. On the usage see H. St. J. Thackeray, ʻRenderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXXʼ, JThS 9(1908), 597–601; Thackeray, Grammar, 47–50; R. Sollamo, ʻThe LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronvmous Finite Verb in the Pentateuchʼ, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.). La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) ( Madrid: Instituto ʻArias Montanoʼ, 1985), 101–13; Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 48–52, 254–61; cf. M. S. Krause, ʻThe Finite Verb with Cognate Participle in the New Testamentʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Question in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 187–206. Schehr argues from unconvincing Classical examples that it should not be regarded as unidiomatic Greek and is a Hebraism only in terms of its frequency (Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 48–9, 260– 1, 263). The earlier statements to the contrary of Thackeray and Sollamo remain for me more satisfying; see especially Thackeray, ʻInfinitive Absoluteʼ, 587–8, 601 (the usage is ʻpurely “translatese” and does not appear to have been adopted in the colloquial or the literary languageʼ); Sollamo, ʻInfinitive Absoluteʼ, 103–5. The present participle of λέγω occurs 90 times in Genesis and in 72 of those occurrences renders ‫לאמר‬, thus accounting for 83.72% of the 86 instances of the Infinitive Construct match for the present participle in that book. For Exodus the figures are 71 occurrences of the present participle of λέγω, of which 49 render ‫לאמר‬, accounting for 69.01% of the 71 instances of the Hebrew infinitive construct/Greek present participle match. The respective figures for Leviticus are 49 occurrences, of which 48 render ‫ לאמר‬and represent 87.27% of 55 instances of the infinitive construct/present participle match; for Numbers 95 occurrences, of which 82 render ‫ לאמר‬and represent 89.13% of 92 instances of the infinitve construct/present participle match; for Deuteronomy 43 occurrences, of which 40 render ‫ לאמר‬and represent 61.54% of 65 instances of the infinitive construct/present participle match. On LXX renderings of ‫ לאמר‬in general see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, (18–75; cf. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 88, 101, 103. Note further Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 101, on the high frequency of the aorist participle as participium coniunctum rendering Hebrew coordinate clauses in the Pentateuch. Tables 15–19 provide statistical analysis of all MT Hebrew verbal forms which are translated In Greek verbal forms. The Hebrew–Greek figures were developed on the basis of the Greek—Hebrew data of Tables 3–7, but do not reflect the same level of accuracy and completeness. They do not represent complete counts for Hebrew verbal forms in the Pentateuch (cf. § 4.2 and n. 10). Since they have been generated mechanically from the lists of Greek—Hebrew matches, they also contain very minor inaccuracies through double counting of Hebrew hums involved in Greek verbal doublets and complexes (see § 4.4.5). In addition, the Hebrew category Complex Unit, which in a few cases has νerbal components, has been omitted (on the frequency of the Complex Unit category see § 4.4.3 n. 43). Nevertheless, taken as close appioximates of actual frequencies they should prove reliable. J. Barr, ʻTranslatorsʼ Handling of Verb Tense in Semantically Ambiguous Contextsʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congerss of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986, (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 381– 403 at 384, has stated that ʻA Hebrew participle will mostly be a [Greek] present [indicative], or in circumstantial clauses, in past narration, an imperfectʼ, but has in mind only what he terms the Hebrew participle tense (ibid.), not the participle's full range of functions, in a description restricted to Hebrew ʻtenseʼ forms (even so, except in Genesis the Greek imperfect indicative is a less common match for the Hebrew participle than Barr's characterization suggests). There is no genuine ʻparticiple tenseʼ in Biblical Hebrew. Barr is referring to the use of the Hebrew participle as predicate in a nominal

24

25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

39

40 41 42

sentence, a usage which has developed into a present tense formation in Mishnaic Hebrew (WO, Syntax, 623–8, esp. 624–5; Segal, Grammar, 155–6). With these general observations cf. Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 73, noting in Gen. 1–15 ʻthe- extended sequences of aorist forms connected by the coordinating conjunction for Hebrew prefixed forms with waw [sic] consecutive … the predominance of aorists for su ixed forms, future indicatives for prefixed forms, future indicatives for su ixed verbs + waw [sic] consecutive, and nominal clauses for the same in Hebrewʼ. Note also the similar findings of Sailhamer, Psalms, 173–8. on Psalms 3–41; Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, as cited at § 4.2 n. 9 above; and the results of Heller's limited soundings, which are based only on renderings throughout the LXX of the verbs ‫ כתב‬and ‫( זבת‬J. Heller, ʻGrenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung der LXX: Ein Beitrag zur Übersetzungstechnik dei LXX auf dem Gebiet der Flexionskategorienʼ, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschuug, 15 (1969), 234–48 at 244–7). Barr's theoretical scheme of normal LXX renderings of Hebrew finite verbal forms su ers from the lack of supporting statistical analysis, but is largely accurate as far as it goes with regard to Pentateuchal usage (Barr, ʻVerb Tenseʼ, 384). See e.g. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 147–52; id., Studien, 17 (quoted in § 4.2). Cf. the similar assessment of Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ. 234–5. Frequency of occurrence as a sign of Hebrew (or other Semitic) influence on the language of the LXX and other Greek documents has been noted previously, Cf. T. P. Sche[h]r, ʻThe Perfect Indicative in Septuagint Genesisʼ. BIOSCS 24 (1991), 14–24 at 24, referring also to Martin's syntax criticism, i.e. analysis of Greek syntactic features potentially betraying through their frequencies of occurrence Semitic sources for Greek compositions. For an application of Martin's approach to the LXX see R. Martin. ʻThe Syntax Criticism of Baruchʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). 361–71. For a critique of Martin's methods see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 160–1. Only one of the 17 Greek syntactic features which Martin analyses (Martin, ʻBaruchʼ, 362–3), namely the adverbial use of the participle, involves the Greek verb. On the di iculties of precise classification cf. McKay,ʻPerfect in NTʼ, 293. Of. Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 17–18, 74: on the term dynamic equivalence see also E. A. Nida and C. R. Taher, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). 22–8, 202. Contrast occasional distortion of this sort in the work of the Psalms 3–41 translator (Sailhamer, Psalms, 209) and see § 5.5.3 for isolated examples in Numbers. Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, 223–4, 233–5. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 172–3. Sec Barr, ʻVerb Tenseʼ, passim. For Barr's approach to the issues of temporal reference and aspect in the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems see ibid. 583– 4. Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, 234. Sailhamer, Psalms, 209. ibid. A. Voitila. ʻWhat the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translatorsʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 183–96 at 186–7, 188, 193–4: id., ʻThe Translator of the Greek Numbersʼ, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Siptuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 109–21 at 111–13. Voitila proposes other examples of interference from Hebrew verbal forms in choice of Greek verbal forms in the papers cited in n. 38. They seem to me open to alternative explanations and so to weaken his explanatory theory of short segment translation. Cf. Barr, ʻVerb Tenseʼ, 385–6, 387. Cf. ibid. 387–8. On probable ignorance of Hebrew aspect see also § 5.3.3. Cf. Voitila,ʼYiqtolʼ, 233–5.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

6 The Perfect System  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0006 Published: March 2001

Pages 145–174

Abstract This chapter establishes what evidence the Greek Pentateuch has to o er for the function of the perfect system. It shows that the choice of the perfect forms in these documents is largely free from Hebrew interference. These forms provide an important sample of early Koine usage, as it relates to Classical usage on the one hand, to that of the later Koine period on the other. The perfect system in the Pentateuch is free of formal interference from the underlying Hebrew. Lexical interference a ects only the perfect participle, and is limited to the issue of frequency. The Greek verbal adjectives are in general vulnerable to such in uence, through use as characteristic translation equivalents of common Hebrew expressions. This yields distortion of comparative frequencies among the tense forms of the participle.

Keywords: Greek Pentateuch, perfect tense system, Hebrew interference, Koine usage Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

6.1. Preamble The criterial meaning and pragmatic function of the Greek perfect tense raise di

cult problems for

interpretation. The major theoretical question of the perfect's relationship to the fundamental contrast between perfective and imperfective aspects has already been discussed in § 2.5. There the criterial value of the form was de ned as stative, its aspectual content as imperfective. The prior-occurrence reference of traditional de nitions was ascribed to the lexical semantics of verbs which express actions. In addition to this basic problem of the perfect's grammatical semantics, any analysis of the form's pragmatic function, must address the certain fact that the Greek synthetic perfect is eventually desystematized., fusing in both form and function with the aorist. The process appears to be complete by the early medieval period. But how early does the aoristic perfect begin to appear? Scholars have tended to

1

argue backwards from, the known period of fusion and to place its beginnings even in the fth century BC. The parfait résultatif theory of transfer of stative focus from subject to object of the perfect tense has long p. 146

2

been seen as demonstrating a crucial step toward the perfect's demise. However, the weakness of this 3

theory has been shown by McKay, who places the date of fusion very late, ‘well beyond the middle of the 4

rst millennium A.D.’

The purpose of this chapter is to establish what evidence the Greek Pentateuch has to o er for the function of the perfect system. It will be seen that choice of the perfect forms in these documents is largely free from Hebrew interference (for the exception of the perfect participle see § 6.3), They therefore provide us with, an important sample of early Koine usage, as it relates to Classical usage on the one hand, to that of the later Koine period on the other. Table 1 (§ 3.2) has shown that the perfect system has a limited representation in the Greek Pentateuch, There are 353 examples of the perfect indicative, only 6 of the subjunctive, and 12 of the in nitive, 399 examples of the participle, and 41 of the pluperfect indicative (periphrastic perfect forms in the Pentateuch are discussed in Chapter 9). Small portions of the Genesis data, speci cally for the perfect indicative, have 5

already received attention from Schehr and Voitila. Both writers raise interesting questions on 6

Pentateuchal usage. The scope of the present study allows, however, for a much fuller statement than any previously o ered. Here too the main focus will be on the perfect indicative, with particular regard to the issue of aoristic usage, but all forms of the system manifested in the Pentateuchal books will be discussed.

p. 147

6.2. The Perfect Indicative 6.2.1. Illustrations of perfect indicative function The pragmatic function of the perfect tense has been treated in very di erent ways by di erent writers, essentially because of the theoretical problems the form poses. This observation applies especially to the perfect indicative. For example, Wavers's interpretation of Exod, 17:6 ὂδε ἐγὠ ἓστηκα as a translation of MT ‫הנני‬ ‫ עמד‬contrasts, sharply with that of the present study (and indeed with traditional interpretation of this particular verb). Wevers believes that the translator ‘shows some dissatisfaction with a literal rendering of MT in which God is pictured as standing before Moses on. the rock, and interprets the Hebrew rst as a 7

reference to God's earlier presence, i.e. ὂδε ἐγὠ ἓστηκα “here I did stand” ’. Yet ἓστηκα ought to mean ‘I 8

stand/am standing’. Conservative scholars would call it a perfectum praesens; for me it manifests the normal present stative value of the perfect in the indicative mood. At Exod. 17: 6 it thus provides a highly e ective literal rendering of the Hebrew combination of pronominal su

9

x and participle.

Given such di erences and the departure here from the traditional interpretation, it will be appropriate to demonstrate at the outset the practical e ects of the perfect indicative's semantic value, as interpreted in the present study. It is taken to convey stative force, imperfective aspect, and non-past temporal reference. The form, does not in itself refer to prior occurrence, though the lexical semantics of action verbs tend to produce this e ect. The state involved is always that of the subject. I nd no support for the parfait résultatif theory in the Pentateuchal evidence. The following examples will serve to illustrate my approach (the English perfect will often be employed as an equivalent of the Greek perfect, but it should be noted that idiomatic translation into another language does not equal, explanation of the precise role of a tense form, within its own verbal system). p. 148

*

Gen. 23: 11 τòν ảρòν καì τò σπήλαιον τò ἐν αὐτῷ σοι δίδωµι ἐvavτίov πάντων τῶν πολιτῶν μου δέδωκά σοι . (‘The eld and the cave which is in it I am giving you; before ail my fellow citizens I give [it] to you …’)

‫השׂדה נתתי לך רהמערה אשׁר־בו לך נתתיה לעיני בני־עמי נתתיה לך‬ The change from present δίδωμι to perfect δέωκα involves a shift in focus from the act to the state of the subject (compare my explanation of the Lys. 12. 100 example in § 2.5.2). Note that the translator omits ‫נתתי לך‬ and that the Hebrew form underlying both Greek tense forms is the perfect

10

.‫ נתתיה‬The Greek variation

between present and perfect is clearly independent. *

Gen. 35; 12 καì τὴν γῆν ἣν δέδωka Ἀβραàμ καì Ἰσβάκ, σοì δέδωκα αὐτήν σοì ἔσται, καì τῷ σπέρματί σου μετά σε δώσω τὴν γῆν ταύτην, (‘And the land which I have given to Abraham and Isaac, I give to you [too]; it will be yours, and to your descendants after you I shall give this land.’) ‫ואת־הארץ אשׁר נתתי לאברהם ליצחק לך אחננה ולזרעך אחריך אתן את־הארץ‬ Here the LXX uses the perfect indicative δέδωκα rst to translate the Hebrew perfect ‫נתתי‬, then the Hebrew imperfect ‫אתננה‬. The independent point of using the two Greek perfects seems to be to show that God's relationship with Jacob is identical to his relationship with Abraham and Isaac. It is reference to the older patriarchs as recipients of the gift, not the grammatical, semantics of the perfect tense, which introduces the pragmatic implication of prior occurrence indicated in my rendering of the rst δέδωκα. The notion of futurity implied pragmatically by the Hebrew imperfect ‫ אתננה‬in this context is brought out by the Greek plus 11

σοì ἔσται.

Note that ‫ אתן‬is rendered, by δώσω later in the verse.

Gen. 38:24 ἐγένετο δὲ μετά τρίμηνον ảπηγγέλη τῷ Ἰούδᾳ λέγοντες Ἐκπεπόρ-νευκεν Θαμάρ ἡ νύμφη σου, καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐv γαστρὶ ἔχει ἐκ πopvεtίaς. (‘It happened after three months that it was reported to Judah: “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is a praetiser of prostitution, and behold, she is pregnant through her prostitution”.’) ‫ויהי כנשׁלשׁ חדשׁים זיגד ליהזדה לאמר זנתה תמר כלתך וגם הנה הרה לזנונים‬ The perfect ἐκπεπópvεκεv focuses attention on Tamar's alleged state of prostitution, not on the prior act indicated by the verb's lexical meaning ‘act as prostitute’. p. 149

Lev, 5: 5–6 καὶ ἐξαγορεύσει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν περὶ ὧν ἡμάρτηκεν κατ’ αὐτῆς, καὶ οἴοει πεpὶ ὧv ἐπλημμέλησεν κυρίῳ, περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἧς ἣμαρτεν, θῆλυ ἀπò τῶν προβάτων , (‘And he will confess the sin. concerning which he is a sinner through it., and concerning his o ensive acts [περὶ ὧν ἐπλημμέλησεν] against the Lord, concerning the sin which he committed, he will bring a female from the ock’) ‫ והביא את־אשׁמו ליהוה על חטאתו אשׁר חטא נקבה מן־העאן‬:‫והתזדה אשׁר חטא עליה‬ The perfect ἡμάρτηκεν in 5: 5 describes the state of the sinner. In contrast the aorist ἣμαρτεν of the same verb in 5:6 focuses attention on the act of sinning. Both forms render the Hebrew perfect ‫חטא‬, while a second instance of the aorist ἡμάρτηκεν, a plus on the MT, occurs later in 5: 6. Num. 12: 2 καὶ εἶπαv Μὴ Μωυσᾐ μόνῳ λελάληκεν κύριος; οὐχὶ καὶ ἡμĩν ἐλά-λησεν ; (‘And they [i.e. Miriam and Aaron] said, “Surely the Lord does not speak to Moses alone? Did he not speak to us too?” ’) ‫ריאמרו הרק אך־במשׁה דבר יהוה הלא גמ־בנו דבר‬ There is a notable contrast here between perfect and aorist indicatives from the same verb, both translating the Hebrew perfect ‫דבר‬. The perfect λελάληκεν focuses on God's characteristic condition of communicating his will through Moses. The aorist ἐλάλησεν refers to speci c acts of communication with Miriam and Aaron, which demonstrate that Moses is not the only recipient of divine information.

Num. 23: 11 καὶ εἷπεν Βαλάκ πρòς Βαλαάμ Τί πεποίηκάς μοι; εἰς κατάρασιν ἐχθρῶν μου κέκληκά σε, καὶ ἰδοὺ εὐλόγηκας εὐλóγίαν . (‘And Baiak said to Balaam, “What have you done to me? For cursing of my enemies I have called you, and behold, you have o ered a blessing!” ’) ‫ויאמר בלק אל־בלעם תה עשׂית לי לקב איבי לקחתיך והנה ברכת ברך‬ Balak contrasts states—his own (κέκληκα) with that of Balaam (πε-ποίηκας, εὐλόγηκας). According to my interpretation, we might translate hyperliterally ‘A what-doer are you to me?’ (compare the complaint of Balaam's ass at Num. 22: 28, cited in § 6.2.6), ‘I am your caller’, and ‘you are a blesser of a blessing’. There is a subtle di erence in the next example, where the change to aorist εὐλόγησας from the perfect εὐλόγηκας of 23: 11 is due to di erence of focus, which shifts to the act of blessing itself. p. 150

Num. 24: 10 καὶ εἷπεv Βαλὰκ πρὸς-Βαλαάμ Καταρâσθαι τὸν ἐχθρόν μου κέκληκά σε, καὶ ἰδoὺ εὐλογῶν εὐλόγησας τρίτον τοῦτο. (‘And Balak said to Balaam, “To curse my enemy I have called you, and. behold, you actually [εὐλογῶν] gave a blessing this third time”.’) ‫ויאמר בלק אל־בלעם לקב איבי קראתיך והנה בדכת בדך זה שׁלשׁ פעמים‬ The following instance from Gen. 43: 3 displays a type of context which has particularly fostered the traditional ‘continuing result of prior occurrence’ de nition. The man's (i.e. Joseph's) actual warning is obviously a prior occurrence. Judah's speech, however, is a direct response to Jacob's command that his sons should return to Egypt. Jacob has overlooked the diplomatic negotiations of the previous journey and Judah's reply may arguably be taken to summarize the present state of a airs by means of the perfect διαμεμαρτύρηταί, i.e. ‘the man's situation is one of expressly warning us’. Gen. 43: 3 εἷπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ’Ιούδας λέγων Διαμαρτυρίᾳ διαμεμαρτύρηται ἡμῖν ὁ ἄνθρωπος λέγων Oὐκ ὄνθѰεσθε τὸ πρόσωπόν μου , (‘And Judah said to him, “The man has expressly warned us to the e ect: ‘You will 12

not see my face…’ ”.’)

‫ויאמר אליו יהודה לאמר העד בנו האישׁ לאמר לא־תראו פני‬

6.2.2. The problem of the aoristic perfect Now let us consider two examples of perfect indicatives within past referring contexts, λελάληκεν in Gen. 42: 30 and παρῳκήκασιν in Exod. 6: 4. These are of a sort frequently interpreted as aoristic in force. In Gen. 42: 30 Joseph's harsh, speech is again a prior occurrence. It is tempting to take λελάληκεν here like an aorist, especially in the light of its co-ordination with the following aorist ἔθετo, so λελάληκεν ὁ ἂνθρωπος … σκληρά, ‘the 13

man spoke harshly’.

To assert aoristic function has long been seen as the easy solution of such cases in

early Koine Greek, It might be applied also to παρῳκήκασιν in Exod. 6: 4 (and for another likely suspect see the discussion, of § 6.2.5 on γέγoνεν in Exod. 10: 14). Whether it is a genuinely viable solution is another matter, My translations anticipate a di erent view. p. 151

Gen, 42: 29–30 ἧλθον δὲ πρὸς ’Ιακὼβ τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν εἰς γῆν Χανάαν, καὶ ἀπήγγελαν αὐτῷ πάντα τà συμβάντα αὐτοĩς λέγοντες Λελάληκεν ὁ ἂνθρωπος ὁ κύριος τῆς γῆς πρὸς ἡμãς σκληρὰ καὶ ἔθετο ἡμãς ἐv φυλακῇ ὡς κατασκοπεύοντας τὴν γῆν, (‘They came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan and reported to him everything which had happened to them, saying: “The man. who is master of the land is a speaker of harsh words to us and he placed us in custody on the grounds that we were spying out the land”.’) ‫ דבר האישׁ אדני הארץ קשׁות ויתן אתנו כמרגלים את־הארץ‬:‫ויבאו אל־יעקב אביהם ארעה כנען ויגידו לו את כל־הקרת אתם לאמר‬ Exod. 6: 4 καὶ ἔστησα τὴν διαθήκην μου πρòς αὐτοὺςὣστε δοṽναι αὐτοῖς τὴν γῆν τῶν Χαναναίων, τὴν γῆν, ἣν παρῳκήκασιν, ἐν ᾗ καὶ παρῴκησαν ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. (‘And I established my covenant with them [i.e. Abraham,

Isaac, and Jacob], to give them the land of the Canaanites, the land of their habitation as temporary residents, in which they in fact [καὶ] dwelt as temporary residents.’) ‫וגם הקמתי את־בריתי אתם לתת להם את־ארץ כנען את ארץ מגריהם אשׁר־גרו בה‬ Interpretation of alleged aoristic perfects is essentially a subjective matter, depending on the modern reader's feeling for speci c contexts and understanding of the perfect tense in general. Mandilaras has 14

attempted to establish criteria for identifying instances,

but these cannot be called objective and their 15

unreliability has been demonstrated by McKay and Fanning.

Support for the (still standard) view that

functional merging of perfect and aorist occurs early has been sought in various morphological developments, involving blurring of formal distinctions between the two tenses, which begin even in the 16

Classical period.

17

The functional merging is often assumed to precede and propel the formal blending.

The morphological, developments, however, are unlikely to be linked, at least initially, to changes in grammatical semantics. They are part of a broader process occurring in the Koine period, by which the verbal paradigms are simpli ed and regularized. So we need to be wary of anticipating in Classical and early post-Classical Greek a recognized phenomenon of the later language. Although the very late date of fusion p. 152

with the aorist o ered by McKay and Porter

(§ 6.1 and n. 4) is probably an overcorrection, it is likely that

no aoristic perfects can be conclusively isolated before at least the rst century AD. In any case, an alternative explanation exists for our Gen. 42: 30 and Exod. 6: 4 examples, They may be interpreted adequately as historic perfects (as might also be argued for the Gen. 43: 3 example above, though I would suggest unnecessarily). The historic perfect, or ‘vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect’, 18

as Robertson colourfully describes the type,

has a force analogous to that of the historic present, An

example from the Classical language is γεγένηται in Lys. 1. 7 ἐπειδὴ δέ μοι ἡ μήτηρ ἐτελεύτησε, πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἀποθανοṽσα αἰτία μοι γεγένηται ‘but when my mother died, she is become through her death the cause of all my ills’. Historic perfect function seems especially tting in the case of λελάληκεν at Gen 42: 30, where the perfect form introduces the report and explains the general situation. It contrasts with ἔθετo the rst of a series of aorists (the others are 42: 31 εἲπαμεν; 42: 33 εἶπεν) which describe the details of the discussion between Joseph and his brothers. The construction of Exod. 6:4 is admittedly perplexing—is there an exegetical point (lost for us) here?—but παρῳκήκασιν is clearly used with special intent. It seems beyond doubt that the expansion of the Hebrew 19

nominal participle into a separate clause—‫ ארץ מגריהם‬is rendered freely by τὴν γῆν, ἣν παρῳκήκασιν ,

the use of

di erent tenses of the same verb (perfect παρῳκήκασιν and aorist παρῴκησαν) in the two Greek relative clauses thus produced, and the introduction of adverbial καί without MT motivation in the second clause are all designed to establish an explicit contrast. Any intentional contrast in the underlying Hebrew is at best only implicit. In fact the tautology (from a modern viewpoint) of the Hebrew expression ‘the land of their sojourning in which they sojourned’ is probably merely a stylistic feature. It does, however, allow scope for free interpretation by the translator. p. 153

The change from perfect to aorist between, the two Greek clauses is a crucial

20

element in that

interpretation. Without the tense shift the result of the adaptation would itself be tautologous. Nevetheless, the particular reason for use of the historic perfect (if that is what it is) is di

21

cult to understand.

6 2.3. The question of Hebrew interference The analysis of Part II. (supported, by the examples just discussed) suggests a negative conclusion regarding bilingual interference in choice of the perfect indicative form. The only type of Hebrew in uence apparent is contextual. The regular match of the Greek perfect indicative throughout the Pentateuch is the Hebrew perfect (§ 5.3.6), but there is no special connection between these forms. The Greek perfect has special associations with direct speech (discussed in §§ 6.2.5, 6.2.6). The Hebrew perfect happens to be rather more 22

common than the consecutive imperfect in direct speech settings and in narrative is less frequent,

but this 23

is simply because extended paratactic sequences are less common in direct speech than in narrative.

In addition, the Hebrew perfect is equally liable to be rendered by the aorist indicative in direct speech (note in § 6.2.1 the examples of ἣμαρτεν beside ήμάρτηκεv in Lev. 5: 5–6 and of ἐλάλησεν beside λελάληκεν in Num. 12: 2; also the renderings of ‫ ברכת ברך‬in Num. 23: 11 and 24: 10 respectively), and the Hebrew imperfect by the Greek perfect indicative (so in § 6.2.1 δ δέδωκα for ‫ אתננה‬at Gen. 35: 12). Choices are dictated by natural Greek preferences, As Schehr observes, ‘the translator had to decide upon this nuance [i.e. the sense conveyed by 24

the perfect] chie y from context’.

Voitila raises the question of possible Hebrew lexical interference in the choice of the Greek perfect 25

indicative, without pursuing the matter.

He points out the importance of establishing whether only certain

Hebrew verbs are rendered by perfect indicatives and whether only certain Greek, verbs form the perfect in p. 154

26

these translations

(this second issue is only in part a translation-technical

matter, since restriction of

this sort could also be an independent Greek development). In each case a negative conclusion is to be drawn. Taking the second point rst, the perfect indicative is certainly freely formed in the Pentateuch, the 353 examples representing 121 di erent verbs. The 101 examples in Genesis represent 50

The 97 examples in Exodus represent 45 verbs: ἀγαπ ῶ, ἀκούω ,

The 23 examples in Leviticus represent 19 verbs: άμαρτάνω,

The 68 examples in Numbers represent 35 verbs: άκούω (3 examples),

p. 155

(3 examples)

The 64 examples in Deuteronomy are from 24 di erent verbs: άκούω (4 examples), ἂρχω, γίνομαι (5 examples), δεικνύω, δίδωμι (6 examples), ἐγγίζω, εἰσέρχομαι, ἐκκαίω, ἐπικαλῶ (2 examples), ἐργάζομαι (2 examples), εὑρίσκω (2 examples), ἲστημι, λαλῶ, λαμβάνω, μνηστεύω (2 examples), οΐδα (12 examples), ὁρῶ (11 examples), παραδίδιωμι (4 examples), παραθερμαίνω, πείθω, προστίθημι, συνάγω, σφραγίζω, φέρω. It follows from the variety of lexical items represented in these lists that no particular restriction applies to the range of Hebrew verbs underlying them. An examination of the Genesis sample su

ciently

demonstrates the point. The 101 examples in the Greek translation do not all render Hebrew verbs. In 2 cases Hebrew adjectives are rendered by Greek perfect indicatives, in 2 more the Greek verbs are pluses. Thus, 97 Hebrew verbal forms are rendered by Greek perfect indicatives in Genesis. Reference may be made to Table 3.19 for details on the Hebrew forms involved; 86 of them are perfects (see also § 5.3.6). The total of lexical items represented is 51, beside the Greek gure of 50, The verb most commonly rendered by the Greek perfect indicative is ‫נתן‬, so rendered 9 times, while ‫ דבר‬and ‫ ידע‬are each so rendered 5 times. These are not mechanical matches. For instance, in Gen. 23: 11 (see § 6.2.1) ָ‫ נְ תַ ִתּיה‬occurs twice, but is translated rst by δίδωμι, then by δέδωκα. It seems clear that there is no translation-technical link between particular Hebrew verbs and the Greek perfect indicative form. The slight discrepancy between the Hebrew and Greek counts of lexical items in Genesis should alert us to the fact that not all of the Hebrew lexical items have a single lexical re ex in the Greek. Thus, ‫ ידע‬translated by a Greek perfect indicative in Genesis is always rendered by οἷδα (31: 6; 43: 22; 44: 15; 48: 19 (bis)), but of the 4 instances of ‫ שׁמע‬so translated 3 are rendered by the perfect of ἀκούω (23: 15; 41: 15; 42: 2), 1 by that of ἐπακούω (21: 17), and of the 9 such examples of 8 ‫ נתן‬are rendered by the perfect of δίδωμι (1: 29; 9: 2, 3; 16: 5; 27

20: 16; 23: 11; 35: 12 (bis)), 1 by that of τίθημι (17: 5). p. 156

Greek

On the other hand, there are a few instances of one

verb's perfect indicative translating more than one Hebrew verb. So ἐκλέλοιπεν occurs 3 times in

close proximity in Genesis, twice rendering 16 ,15 :47) ‫)אפס‬, then once 18 :47) ‫)תמם‬.

6.2.4. Thompson's theory of Hebrew interference In his book The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax Thompson has argued that the Greek perfect indicative is 28

occasionally used in the LXX to indicate that its underlying Hebrew verb exhibits a non-Qal verbal stem. 29

On the basis of 6 examples from Exodus, Ezekiel, and Daniel (Theodotion),

Thompson states that the 30

Greek, perfect is employed in such cases ‘in a way wholly against its natural use’,

He does not explain his

view of the ‘natural use’ of the perfect, but it is clear from the discussion of examples that his approach is traditional. Thompson identi es 3 examples of allegedly unnatural perfect indicatives in Ezekiel, but nds 31

the form to be used elsewhere in that book ‘in its proper sense’.

So according to this argument the perfect

indicative is employed arti cially in the LXX only in speci c cases. This theory is highly debatable. Does Thompson mean that the presence of a Hebrew verb of non-Qal stem matching a Greek perfect indicative does not necessarily indicate arti cial use of the Greek, form.? Whether

or not he does, the validity of his argument depends on the existence of genuinely unnatural usage of the Greek perfect, to mark the relevant instances from the perfect's ‘proper’ employment, However, not one of his examples seems to me persuasive. For example, Exod. 2: 14 καὶ εἷπεν Εἰ oὓτως ἐμφανές γέγονεν τò ῥῆμα τοṽτο is described as ‘not the most natural construction; it represents an attempt by the translator to signal the 32

presence of a niphal verb in the underlying Hebrew’.

But it is not shown how the use of the perfect

indicative is problematic in this context, In my view it is an unremarkable example of ordinary perfect p. 157

function (as outlined, above), to be translated ‘is this matter so well known?’

Thompson himself

33

translates ἐμφανές γέγονεν τò ῥῆμα τοṽτο as ‘the thing is known’.

In addition, Exod, 32: 1 καὶ ἰδὼν ὁ λαός ὅτι κεχρόνικεν Μωνσῆς is taken as an ‘Especially striking’ instance of arti cial usage, translating the Hebrew Polel ‫( בּשֵׁ שׁ‬from

34

.(‫ בושׁ‬Thompson wrongly nds unsatisfactory

Moulton's explanation of the form as retained mood and tense of direct speech/thought in oratio obliqua, There are 14 other examples of the perfect indicative in this construction in the Greek Pentateuch (see further § 6.2.5 and n. 44), of which 11 render Qal forms, 2 render other stem forms, and 1 is a plus. The construction clearly functions in accordance with natural Greek requirements and. has no motivation whatsoever from, the stem, forms of the underlying Hebrew verbs. Study of the usage of Genesis provides an adequate test of Thompson's argument. The 97 Hebrew verbal forms rendered by perfect indicatives reveal the following variety of stem types: 75 Qal stems; 8 Piel stems (17: 20; 18: 5; 24: 30, 31; 26: 24; 41: 28; 42: 14, 30); 6 Niphal stems (9: 2; 24: 13,43; 31: 15; 34: 22; 42: 38); 6 35

Hiphil stems (24: 21; 31: 39; 43: 3; 44: 5; 46: 32; 47: 25); 2 Pual stems (4: 24; 44: 28).

None of these 22

examples of the Greek perfect indicative rendering non-Qal stem forms seem to me abnormal (see e.g. the discussion of Gen. 42: 30 in § 6.2.2 and 43: 3 in § 6.2.1 and the classi cation of Gen. 24: 21; 44: 28 in § 6.2.5). Note also that εύόδωκεν occurs at Gen. 24: 21, 27, rst translating the Hiphil stem form ַ‫( הִ צְ לִ יח‬from ‫)עלח‬, but in the second instance rendering ‫( נָחַ נִ י‬from ‫)נחה‬, a Qal stem form from a di erent verb. Sampling from the other Pentateuchal books suggests a similar situation, which is no more than one might expect. The in uence of the Hebrew verbal stems on translation Greek can only be lexical (cf. § 4.4.5 and n. 54). It should also be observed that Thompson assumes a technical sensitivity to the Hebrew verbal stems among the translators of the LXX which is at best doubtful and for which we have no positive evidence. At any rate, he would need to argue that such sensitivity had. been completely lost at a later date. Saadia Gaon, p. 158

the tenth-century-ad founder of the medieval Jewish grammatical tradition 36

Qal and Hiphil.

(§ 3.3.2), was aware only of

Recognition of the broader range of verbal stems is attributed to Yehuda Ḥayyuj (c.940– 37

c.1010), though he did not distinguish between Pual and Hophal.

The rst grammar containing the now

familiar seven-stem system., the Sepher Mikhlol of David Qimḥi (1160–1235), appeared some three hundred 38

years after Saadia.

6.2.5. Distribution of perfect indicative forms The perfect indicative is not very common statistically in the Pentateuch, but occurs in limited quantities in all ve books. As we have seen, there are 101 examples in Genesis, 97 in Exodus, 23 in Leviticus, 68 in Numbers, and 64 in Deuteronomy. The contextual distribution of these occurrences is highly signi cant, giving an immediate insight into the natural character of the translation-Greek usage. The Classical Greek perfect indicative, because of the combined e ects of its essential stative value and nonpast reference, has a special a

nity with direct speech. The link was long ago observed by Gilder sleeve:

‘The perfect belongs to the drama, to the orators, to the dialogues of Plato. In history the perfect has no 39

place outside of the speeches and the re ective passages in which the author has his say’.

Gi.ldersl.eeve 40

regards the perfect as a gauge for ‘The nearness of any department of literature to practical life’

and

elsewhere asserts that ‘In practical life the perfect was much more frequently used than we might gather

41

from, a general survey of the literature.’

This is a reasonable assumption, though Gildersleeve does not

clarify what he means by the perfect indicative's connection with ‘practical life’. The point is that everyday language would inevitably contain a great deal more direct speech than most of the recorded literature does, p. 159

The signi cant connection, then, for the

semantic reasons already mentioned, is between perfect

indicative and direct speech. The same link exists in the Greek Pentateuch, as is clearly borne out. by the perfect indicative's distribution in these documents. In Genesis 94 out of the 101 occurrences are in direct speech. In Exodus the gure is 87 42

out of 97. All occurrences in Leviticus, Numbers, and. Deuteronomy appear in in this type of setting.

It will

be noted that the examples of §§ 6.2.1, 6.2.2 all illustrate direct speech. The remaining 17 examples from Genesis and Exodus occur in narrative settings (on classi cation under direct speech or narrative see § 5.5.2), but do not belong to what we might call (with Voitila) ‘pure’ 43

narrative.

The 7 examples from Genesis and 7 of those from Exodus (for the other 3 see below) appear in

indirect statement/thought after ὅτι or in indirect questions after εἰ in historic sequence,

.The other examples are (1) indirect statement/thought: Gen. 8: 11; 38: 14; 50: 15; Exod. 8: 15; 9: 34; 14: 5; 32: 25; 34: 29, 35; (2) indirect question: Gen. 8: 7, 8. These perfects are used in graphic construction, representing the tense form of the original speech or 44

thought. p. 160

Note also Gen. 44: 28 καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὁ εἷς ἀπ’ ἐμοṽ, καὶ εἲπατε ὅτι θηριόβρωτος γέγονεν, καὶ οὀκ εἷδον αὐτòν ἔτι καὶ

νṽν , which exhibits the same construction,

but occurs within direct speech (Jacob—according to Judah—

is addressing his sons) and so was counted among the 94 such Genesis examples mentioned above. 45

Voitila (citing the authority of Kühner and Gerth)

makes the interesting observation, that in idiomatic

Classical Greek the mood and tense of direct speech is retained in indirect speech/thought only if the 46

viewpoint of the subject of the main verb is emphasized.

If it is intended to indicate the narrator's 47

viewpoint ‘the mood and tense of narration should be used’, 48

changed into imperfects and pluperfects. 49

language,

or more precisely, presents and perfects are

However, this special distinction is only optional in the Classical

and I would suggest that testing is required, to judge whether it is always as real a distinction as 50

some modern grammarians maintain.

It does not appear to be drawn at all in the Greek Pentateuch when

the tense form of direct speech would, be the perfect—I. nd no examples of the pluperfect replacing the perfect—though admittedly the 15 instances of the construction do not provide a sample large enough to support rm conclusions. There are in fact a few instances of the imperfect replacing the present, which are worth, considering by way of brief excursus, Thus, Gen. 13: 10 καὶ ἐπάρας Λὼτ τοὺς ὁφθαλμοὺς αὐτοṽ εἶοεν πãσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοṽ ’Ιορδάνου ὅτι πãσα p. 161

ἦν ποτιζομενη , Gen. 28: 6

εἶδεν δὲ ’Ήσαὺ ὅτι εὐλóγησεν ’Ισαàκ τòν ’Ιακὼβ καὶ ἀπῴχετο εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν Συρίας (the

sense of the original thought is ‘Isaac blessed Jacob and he is gone away …’), Exod. 3: 2 ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῴ ἄγγελος κυρίου ἐν πυρί φλογòς πυρòς ἐκ τοṽ βάτου, καὶ ὁρᾷ ὅτι ὁ βάτος καίεται πυρί, ὁ δἐ βάτος οὐ κατεκαίετο (there is a shift here from focus on the subject's viewpoint through the present καίεται to that of the narrator through the imperfect 51

κατεκαίετο).

There are 6 examples (4 in Genesis and 2 in Exodus) in the entire Pentateuch, the others being

Gen. 3: 7 ἦσαν, 12: 14 ἦν, Exod. 16: 15 ἦν. A manual search of the Pentateuchal data for retained present indicatives of direct speech/thought has revealed di ering trends. The Genesis translator normally retains the present indicative, e.g. Gen. 39: 3 ᾔδει δἐ ὁ κύριος αὐτοṽ ὅτι κύριος μετ’ αὐτοṽ καὶ ὅσα ἄν ποιῇ, κύριος εὐοδοῖ , Gen. 42: 23 αὐτοὶ δἐ οὐκ ᾔδεισαν ὅτι ἀκούει ’Ιωσήφ . I note a total of 21 examples in this book—the remaining instances are at Gen. 3: 11; 6: 2, 5; 12: 18; 16: 4, 5; 22:

12 (νṽν γàρ ἔγνων ὅτι φοβῇ τòν θεόν —on the force of νṽν see § 2.7.3); 28: 8; 29: 12 (bis), 31, 33; 31: 20; 32: 25; 37: 4; 38: 16; 42: 1; 43: 6 (in an indirect question), 25—beside the 4 examples of change to imperfect. In Exodus, on the other hand, I nd only 2 instances of retained present (Exod. 3: 2 καίεται (noted above), 4 προσάγει) beside the 2 exhibiting change to imperfect. Numbers has 2 instances of retained present (Num. 22: 36 ἣκει, 24:  I  ἔστιν) and none of change to imperfect, while Leviticus and Deuteronomy have no instances of either form of the construction. Except in the case of Genesis, these samples are all too small to allow clear conclusions to be drawn regarding translators’ preferences. It must be remembered also that examples of indirect speech are limited by the paratactic structure of the underlying Hebrew, which characteristically expresses speech and thought 52

directly.

Returning to the main argument, there are 3 additional perfect indicatives within narrative settings in p. 162

Exodus. All are from γίνομαι

(a verb whose perfect tense usage displays certain peculiarities well worth a

diachronic investigation); Exod. 9: 24 γέγονεν, γεγένηται; 10: 14 γέγονεν. These examples, I suggest, are actually used in contexts similar to direct speech. They represent parenthetic comment, a use of the perfect familiar 53

from the historians (Gildersleeve's ‘re ective passages in which the author has his say’).

In both contexts

the translator interprets the relevant clauses of the MT as explanatory asides within the narrative sequences. Exod. 9: 23–4

54

Exod. 10: 13–14

In Exod. 9: 24 ἡ δὲ χάλαζα πολλὴ σφόδρα σφόδρα , ἥτις τοιαύτη οὐ γέγονεν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἀφ’ οὗ γεγένηται ἐπ’ αὐτῆς ἔθνος , ‘and the hail shower was very, very great, the like of which has not happened in Egypt all the while a people has been in it’, the past-referring prepositional phrase ἀφ’ οὗ with γεγένηται is a complicating factor, but the example is to be seen as analogous with the use of the present indicative for occurrences extending from 55

past into present.

More di

cult is the Exod. 10: 14 example of προτέρα αὐτῆς οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀκρὶς καὶ μετ ’ αὐτὴν

οὐκ ἔσται οὕτως , ‘before it no such locust swarm has happened and after it none such will occur’, which seems to me close to the value of the historic perfect described in §6.2.2. There is strong tension between the p. 163

grammatical and lexical semantics—especially in association with the past-referring adverbial expression προτέρα αὐτῆς . Some will of course prefer to take this example as an early aoristic perfect, so ‘before it no such locust swarm happened’. It certainly points in the direction of the later development (but see again § 6.2.2 on the doubtfulness of aoristic perfect function in the early Koine period).

6.2.6. The Pentateuchal perfect indicative and contemporary Koine evidence The main focus of the treatments of Schehr and Voitila is Pentateuchal evidence for the post-Classical functional development of the perfect indicative. It has to be observed at once that Schehr's discussion is 56

awed by the mistaken assumption that his data from Gen. 1–15 are a representative portion of that book. 57

He recognizes in these chapters only 8 examples of the perfect indicative (omitting in error a ninth).

Voitila addresses in contrast the selection Gen. 37, 39–50, where he counts 35 examples (I nd 31, or 37 by 58

adding 6 instances of plural forms of ἥκω with perfect endings).

The statistical disparity between the two

sections of the book is explained by the simple fact that there is rather less direct speech in the early part of 59

Genesis than in the later chapters.

Indeed, Voitila observes that in Gen, 16–20 there are already 8 further 60

examples of the perfect indicative to be contrasted with Schehr's count for the rst 15 chapters.

The aoristic perfect looms large in Schehr's analysis. Noting that his handful of examples all occur in direct or indirect speech/ thought, he rightly states that the Classical sense of the perfect, distinct from that of the p. 164

aorist, is maintained in Gen. 1–15. Much

more di

cult to accept is his assertion that this distinction

marks a contrast with contemporary post-Classical Greek usage. He follows the conservative theory that 61

clear functional distinction of the perfect from the aorist is breaking down from the late Classical period, an approach which for me rests on insecure evidence (§ 6.2.2). The supporting examples of early Koine

perfects alleged to have aoristic sense all come from letters or from, parenthetic addresses by narrator to 62

audience within narrative settings.

None belongs to pure narrative, so it is unsafe to attribute to them 63

aoristic force. Schehr himself nds some of these examples doubtful.

A single illustration will demonstrate the unreliability of the argument. Schehr states that ‘the perfect is undoubtedly used with, the tense value of the aorist when there is some indication of past time in the 64

clause’.

66

221 BC )

65

Following Mandilaras,

he cites P.Petr. ii. 2. 2. 5–6 άπέσταλκα αυτόν προς oe τηι ς| του Φαρμοv̂θι (260 or

and translates ‘I sent him to you on the sixth day of Pharmouthi.’ Here Schehr overlooks the fact

that this is the nal sentence of the letter, which summarizes the actual situation resulting from the events reported in the preceding lines. The author, Moschion, states άντιλέγοντος δἐ του̂ Διονυσίου μηθἐν ἔχειν τω̂ν διà τη̂ς ἐντευχεως ἐγκεκλημένων άπεσταλκα αυτόν προς σἐ . The sense is ‘but since Dionysius argues that none of the charges 67

levelled in the petition had any substance, I am sending him to you’.

The focus of the perfect indicative is

on Moschion's present state. The letter is dated φαρμοv̂θι ε , ‘the fth of Pharmouthi’, i.e. the day before 68

Dionysius was to be sent,

so Schehr (with Mandilaras) could only argue that there is any indication of past 69

time involved by invoking the doubtful category of epistolary perfect (which he does not). p. 165

The perfect indicative is not found in pure narrative in early Koine Greek for the simple reason that it is not functionally appropriate to such linguistic contexts, so long as its Classical meaning persists. Thus, while 70

Schehr is alert to the associations of the perfect with direct-speech settings,

he is unconvincing on the

subject of its absence from narrative in Gen, 1–15. He attributes this to ‘at least two factors’: a translationtechnical preference for the aorist indicative as a rendering for the Hebrew consecutive imperfect and deliberate avoidance of ‘the mixture of aorist and perfect tenses characteristic of non-literary compositions 71

in the post-classical period’.

Neither of these observations is really apposite. That the aorist indicative is favoured in narrative through Hebrew interference is in fact an important point. However, this is germane to the low imperfect indicative frequencies in the Pentateuch (see Chapter 8), not to those of the perfect. Turning to the second factor, Schehr's ‘mixture of aorist and perfect tenses’ in other post-Classical documents does not actually occur in pure narrative—as Voitila observes, ‘Schehr should carefully consider exactly what he means by his 72

conception of “narration”’ —so there is no reason to expect any such mixture in pure narrative passages in the Pentateuch and nothing remarkable in its absence.

The perfect indicative in the Pentateuch displays no discernible di erence of function from its use in either the Classical language or other early Koine documents. It ought not to be aligned with the former in contrast to contemporary extra-Biblical Greek, and should be seen as a typical sample of early post-Classical usage. Convincing evidence for fusion of perfect with aorist at this period is lacking. Nor do I accept, any aoristic perfect indicatives in the Pentateuchal corpus (the 3 possible instances are Gen. 42: 30; Exod. 6:4; 10: 14), so my extensive testing agrees with the ndings of both Schehr and Voitila on this issue. An obliquely connected matter requiring a nal comment is Schehr's potentially misleading assertion that the perfect in Genesis ‘is especially appropriate where God addresses mortals, bestowing upon them some p. 166

73

permanent condition’.

The perfect indicative is

clearly appropriate in these contexts, but there is no

special signi cance in the use of the perfect with God as subject. It happens that there is limited direct speech in Gen. 1–15 and that God has the major speaking part there. Elsewhere the perfect tense is placed in the mouths of a wide variety of human subjects, both in. the later portions of Genesis itself and throughout the Pentateuch, Even Balaam's ass asks; τί πεποίηκά σοι οτι πεπαικάς με τούτο τρίτον; in Num. 22: 28. The important point is that the perfect occurs in direct speech, not which particular speaker uses it.

6.3. The Perfect Participle The most common perfect tense form in the Greek Pentateuch is the participle, with 399 examples representing 156 di erent verbs. The perfect participle conveys the criterial value of stativity without any external temporal reference. So Gen. 30: 33 πâν, ő ἐάν μή ᾖ ῥαντὸν καί διάλευκον ἐν ταῖς αίξίν καί φαιόν ἐν ταῖς άρνάσιν, κεκλεμμἐνον ἔσται παρ’ ἐμοί , ‘whatever is not speckled and pure white [§ 9.4.6 n. 74] among the goats and, grey among the lambs will, amount to goods stolen by me’; Lev. 21: 14 χήραν δἐ καί ἐκβεβλημἐνην καί βεβηλωμἐνην καί πόρνην, ταύτας ού λήμφεται , ‘a widow, a divorced woman, a woman de led, a prostitute; such women he will not marry’. As in the case of the perfect indicative, there can be no question of formal interference from the Hebrew beyond broad contextual factors. Lexical in uence on frequencies of occurrence is discernible in certain commonly recurring expressions (see the discussion below), but the perfect participle is as freely formed, as the indicative. The 27 instances in Genesis represent 21 verbs: άμαρτάνω (2 examples),

The 118 instances in Exodus represent 52 verbs: γλύφω, γράφω (3

p. 167

 

The 66 Leviticus examples represent 39 verbs: αγιάζω (4 examples),

The 123 examples in Numbers represent 46 verbs: αγιάζω (4

The 65 examples in Deuteronomy represent 37 di erent verbs:

The gures given above display interesting contrasts in frequency among the Pentateuchal books. With only 27 examples Genesis is poor in perfect participles, but the form is considerably more common elsewhere, especially in Exodus and Numbers. These di erences are essentially dictated by the demands of context. The past narrative passages which make up so much of Genesis do not encourage frequent use of the perfect, p. 168

participle. There are

also only 14 examples in Exod. 1–20, which have a similar narrative character, but a

further 114 in the second half of that book. Here the form is fostered by the lengthy and repetitious descriptions of materials to be used for the building and furnishing of the tabernacle. There are only 3 instances of the perfect participle in the narrative portions of Deuteronomy. It is thus observable that the perfect participle is generally more frequent outside narrative contexts in the Pentateuch. However, the gures for Numbers are not in agreement. There are some 60 instances in the portions of that book mainly composed of narrative (Num. 9–25, 27, 31–3). Clearly, we must take care when generalizing about the distribution, since a verbal adjective cannot be hinged to a particular context in the same way as a nite verbal form. A safer statement is that narrative tends not to foster the use of the perfect participle, but that it is freely used, when required in this linguistic environment. Formulaic usage also has a bearing on the frequencies. The use of certain perfect participles with adjectival or substantival function in characteristic renderings of common Hebrew expressions is one reason for the form's somewhat high frequency in the Greek-Pentateuch. This can be illustrated by the extreme examples. The perfect participles of the ‘spinning’ verbs κλώθω, νήθω, and its compound διανήθω occur a combined total of 43 times in Exodus, while there are 4 more examples from κλώθω in Leviticus. The perfect participle of άναποιώ occurs 4 times in Leviticus and. 27 times in. Numbers. That of επισκέπτομαι occurs once in Exodus and

18 times in Numbers. All owe their comparatively high frequencies of occurrence to use in rendering commonly occurring Hebrew phrases. In Exodus the frequent phrase ‫‘ תּוֹלֵצָ ה שָׁ נִ י‬scarlet cloth’ is rendered, by κόκκινον κεκλωσμένον 5 times, by κόκκινον 74

νενησμένον 6 times, and by κόκκινον διανενησμένον (once κόκκινον διπλούν διανενησμένον)

6 times. The same Hebrew

expression in the form ‫ ְשׁנִ י תוֹלַצַ ת‬or similar is rendered by κεκλωσμένον κόκκινον a further 4 times in Leviticus. Note that κόκκινον in itself is an adequate translation for ‘scarlet cloth’ and that the characteristic Greek equivalents introduce the ‘spun’ notion. p. 169

The phrase ‫‘ שֵׁ שׁ מָ ְשׁזָר‬twisted linen’, also common in the MT,

75

is rendered by βύσσος κεκλωσμένη 17 times,

by

βύσσος νενησμένη once, In another 3 instances (Exod, 25: 4; 35: 6; 36: 10) βύσσος κεκλωσμένη is used where the MT 76

has ‫ שֵׁ שׁ‬alone, while at Exod. 36: 32 βύσσος κεκλωσμένη renders ‫ מָ ְשׁזָר‬alone.

Both elements of the Greek phrase

are pluses on the MT at Exod, 28: 29; 31:4. 77

These data leave a single instance of κεκλωσμένης matching the noun ‫( פּ ִָתיל‬Exod. 28: 33),

and one of νενησμένα

matching the noun ‫( מַ ְטוֶה‬Exod. 35: 25), to explain all occurrences of the perfect participles of these three ‘spinning’ verbs in the Greek Pentateuch. Thus, the perfect participle of κλώθω occurs 33 times, matching 18 ‫ מָ ְשׁזָר‬times, 9 ;‫ שָׁ נִ י‬times, Minus 5 times, and ‫ פּ ִָתיל‬once. There are 8 occurrences of the perfect participle of νήθω, matching 6 ‫ שָׁ נִ י‬times, ‫ מָ ְשׁזָר‬once, and ‫ מַ ְטוֶה‬once. There are 6 occurrences of the perfect participle of διανήθω, all matching ‫שָׁ נִ י‬. While these forms do not render all occurrences of ‫ תּוֹ ֵלﬠָה שָׁ נִ י‬and ‫שֵׁ שׁ מָ ְשׁזָר‬, and in 2 isolated cases are motivated by quite di erent Hebrew forms, lexical in uence on their frequencies from the 78

two Hebrew phrases discussed seems clear.

The point is more obviously demonstrated by the perfect participle of άναποιῶ, in the sense ‘mixed’ (ἐν 79

ελαίω),

which in 30 of its 31 Pentateuchal. occurrences (12 of them gathered in Num. 7 and 7 in Num. 28)

renders forms of the Qal passive participle ‫‘ בָּ לוּל‬moistened’. The exception is at Lev. 6: 40 (MT 7: 10). But here we nd the expression πάσα θυσία άναπεποιημένη ἐν ελαίω και μή άναπέποιημένη , where μή άναπεποιημένη is a unit, p. 170

rendering ‫‘ ח ֲֵרבָ ה‬dry’ and

simply used to express the opposite of άναπεποιημένη ἐν ελαίω , So the perfect

participle of αναττοιώ provides another manifest example of a formulaic rendering in uencing the frequency of a verbal form in the Pentateuch. In this connection note also the perfect participle of φυρώ ‘mix’, which occurs twice in Exodus and 7 times in 80

Leviticus. Of these instances 7 render the remaining 7 instances of forms of ‫ בָּ לוּל‬in the Pentateuch.

At Lev.

6: 21 (MT 6: 14); 7: 2 (MT 7: 12) the underlying Hebrew form is ‫( מ ְֻרבֶּ כֶת‬Hophal participle of ‫‘ רבך‬mix’). So the translation-technical variety found in renderings of ‫ בָּ לוּל‬is concentrated in Leviticus, Here forms of ‫בָּ לוּל‬ occur 8 times, rendered 3 times by the perfect participle of άναποιώ, 5 times by that of φυρώ. The Leviticus 81

translator is noted for ‘varied though literal renderings’.

By contrast, the 27 forms of ‫ בָּ לוּל‬in Numbers are

all translated by the perfect participle of άναποιώ. The single instance of the perfect participle of επισκέπτομαι at Exod. 39: 2 (MT 38: 25) and the further 18 examples in Numbers (16 of them in Num. 2) are all due to the use of οί επισκεμμενοι as the characteristic translation equivalent of ‫‘ הַ פְּ קֻ ִדים‬those numbered/counted’. The Hebrew word is used as a technical term with 82

reference to censuses of the Israelites.

While these are the most obvious cases of formulaic in uence on the perfect participle's frequencies, examples could be multiplied. The phenomenon is another lexical Hebraism of the sort produced by forms of the present participle λέγων rendering ‫( לאמר‬see §5.3.12 and. n. 20). It provides further evidence of bilingual interference as a partial, explanation for the curious comparative frequencies of the Pentateuchal participles. On the other hand, it should be stressed that the function of the perfect participle has no speci c p. 171

formal motivation, from the Hebrew. In this respect it is just as independently formed as the rest of the perfect system.

6.4. Rarely Attested Perfect Forms Other synthetic forms of the perfect system are rare in the Greek Pentateuch. We do nd subjunctives, in nitives, and pluperfects, but the perfect optative, imperative, and future perfect indicative are not attested (see §§ 9.4.10; 9,4.12 for relevant periphrastic forms). The samples are fairly typical of the early 83

Koine period,

Even in the Classical language these forms are not especially common and the oblique 84

moods, except for forms from οΐδα, are extremely unusual, with periphrastic expressions used instead.

So

it is in. no way surprising that the 6 Pentateuchal instances of the perfect subjunctive are all from οΐδα (Exod, 85

8: 10, 22; 9: 14; 11: 17; 33: 13; Lev 23: 43).

86

In addition, of the 12 instances of the perfect in nitive,

 5 are from οΐδα (Gen. 2: 9; Exod. 10: 7; Deut, 4: 35;

13: 3; 29: 4), 4 from έστηκα (Gen. 41: 1, 17) and its compound παρέστη κ a (Deut. 10: 8 παρεστάναι, 21: 5 87

Of the 41 instances of the pluperfect indicative, 20 are from οΐδα (Gen. 3: 5; 18: 19, 33, 35; 28:

παρεστηκέναι).

16; 31: 32; 39: 3, 6; 42: 23; 43: 7; Exod. 1:8; 16: 15; 34: 29; Lev 5:18; Deut. 8: 3, 16; 13: 6, 13; 32: 17 (bis)) and 12 from ἕστηκα (Gen. 18: 2; 19: 27; Exod. 20: 21; 24: 10; 33: 8; Num. 16: 27; Deut. 5: 5) and compounds (Gen. 18: 8 παρειστήκει, 45: 1 παρειστήκει, Exod. 18: 13 παρειστήκει, Num. 23: 6 έφειστήκει, 17 έφειστήκει). The other 3 examples (formed, from 2 verbs) of the perfect in nitive are all in Exodus (19: 18 καταβεβηκέναι, p. 172

22: 8, 11 πζπονηρεῦσθαι).

A total of 9 other verbs form pluperfects (Gen. 28: 13 ὲπεστήρικτο, 4θ: 3 ὰπήκτο , Lev 10:

16 ὲvewewopiaro, 16: 23 ὲveoeovkei, Num. 16: 47 ὲvrjpkτoy 22: 22 ὲπιβεβηκβί, 33: 56 δΐεγνώκειν, Deut. 9: 1Ο ὲγὲγραπτο, 32: 37 ὲπεποίθεισαν). The comparatively high frequency of forms from οΐδα ‘know’ and ἕστηκα ‘stand’ is another general Greek phenomenon. Because of their lexical force these perfects tend to align themselves closely with the present system and are therefore much more productive in the in nitive and pluperfect than other perfects. So Hebrew lexical interference is not to be seen as an issue here with, regard to the limited range of Greek lexical items represented. And although the samples are really too small to be instructive (cf. §§ 5.3.7; 5.3.8; 5.3.11), formal interference seems improbable. Accordingly, the handful of Pentateuchal examples may be taken to be dictated by natural Greek requirements. This view is supported by the following illustrations, which neatly t the stative (and aspectually imperfective) de nition of the perfect category used in the present study The pluperfect is taken here (ἐπεστήρικτο in Gen. 28: 13; άπήκτο in Gen. 40: 3; ἐvήρκτο in Num. 16: 47), in accordance with orthodox opinion, to be distinguished from the perfect indicative by its past temporal reference (originally marked by 88

the augment).

Exod. 19: 18 τὁ δἐ ὄρος τό Σινά ἐκαπνίζ ετο δλον ὄιὰ τὁ καταβεβηκέναι τὁν θhov ἐπ’ αὐτὁ ἐv nvpἱ (‘And the whole of Mount Sinai was smoking because of God's settling upon it in re.’) ‫והד סיני עשׁן כלו מפני אשׁר ירד עליו יהוה באשׁ‬ The special nuance of the perfect in nitive καταβεβηκεναι, referring to God's condition of presence on the mountain, is freely introduced by the translator. The Hebrew perfect ‫ ירד‬simply means ‘had descended’ and could, well have been rendered by an aorist in nitive. p. 173

Gen, 28: 12–13 καί· ἐνυπνιάσθη, καί δoὐ κλίμαξ ἐστηριγμἐνη ἐν τᾗ γᾗ , γ ᾗ , ή κεφάλὴ άφικνεΐτο εὶς τ ὀν oύρανόν, καί οί ἅγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ άνεβαινον και κατεβαινον επ’ αύτἦ.ς ὁ δἑ κύριος ἑπεστήρικτο ἑ π’ αὐτής καἱ εἶπεν , (‘And. he had a dream., and. behold! a. ladder xed on. the earth, of which the head was reaching into heaven, and the angels of God were going up and down upon it, And the Lord was supported [i.e. stood] upon it and he said, …’) ‫ויחלם והנה סלם מצב ארצה וראשׁו מגיע השׁמימה והנה מלאכי אלהים עלים וירדים‬

‫ והנה יהוה נצב צליו ויאמר‬:‫בו‬ Gen. 40: 3 καἱ ἒθετο αύτοὐς ἐν φυλακᾗ παρά τᾧ άρχιμαγείρῳ εὶς τὸ δεσμωτήριον εὶς τὀν τόπον, οὗ ’Ιωσήφ άπήκτο ὲκεἷ . (‘And he placed them in custody with the chief of his guards in the prison, in the place where Joseph was held.’) ‫ויתן אתם במשׁמר בית שׂר הטבחים אל־בית הסהר מקום אשׁר יוסף אסור שׁם‬ Num. 16: 47 (MT 17: 12) καἷ ἔλαβεν ’Ααρών, καθάπερ ἐλάλησεν αὐτᾧ Μωνσής, καὶ ἒδραμεν εἰ ς τἠν συναγωγήν καί ἣδη ενῆρκτο ή θραΰσιςὲν τᾦ λαᾦ’ καί ἐπἑβαλεν τὀ θυμίαμα , (‘And Aaron took, [it], as Moses had said to him, and he ran into the gathering—the plague was already launched against the people—and he put on the incense,’) ‫ויקח אהרן כאשׁר דבר משׁה וירץ אל־תוך הקהל והנה החל הנגף בעם ויתן את־הקטרת‬

6.5. Conclusion The perfect system in the Pentateuch is free of formal interference from, the underlying Hebrew. Lexical interference a ects only the perfect participle, and is limited to the issue of frequency The Greek verbal adjectives are in general vulnerable to such in uence, through use as characteristic translation equivalents of common Hebrew expressions. This yields distortion of comparative frequencies among the tense forms of the participle. Because of its independence from the Hebrew, the evidence of the Pentateuchal perfect ought to be exploited, with regard, to the general history of the tense form, It has been argued above that the Pentateuchal usage accords both with that of the Classical language and, with, other early Koine evidence, In my view no unambiguous cases of functional drift into the sphere of the aorist can be demonstrated in these translation Greek documents, though one or two examples (especially Exod. 10: 14) presage that later p. 174

development. The usage agrees with the developing theory of the perfect form as

essentially stative,

focusing always on the condition of the subject and without inherent reference to prior occurrence. The employment of the perfect system in the Greek Pentateuch, similar to that of the Classical language, is consistent with an early Koine date. However, it has been seen that recent scholarship has moved towards acceptance of a relatively late date for fusion, of the synthetic perfect with the aorist. Therefore, the perfect's function cannot by itself be regarded as a secure chronological guide.

Notes 1

2

3

4

On the dangers of working backwards from known change note the warning of McKay, ʻPerfect Useʼ, 4–5, though McKay has tended to carry his own method of working forwards ʻuntil we have clear evidence of changeʼ (ibid. 5) to extreme lengthsʼ The still influential parfait résultatif theory was developed in the studies of J. Wackernagel, ʻStudien zum griechischen Perfectumʼ, Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung (1904), 3–24; repr. in. id., Kleine Schri en (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953), 1000–21, and P. Chantraine, Histoire du parfait grec (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1927). See especially McKay, ʻPerfect Useʼ, 1–21 (also id., ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 23–49; id., ʻPerfect in NT”, 289–329), showing that the state described is probably always that of the subject. Cf. the discussions of Porter, Verbal Aspect, 273–81; SS, Two Studies, 128–9. The parfait résultatif theory's ongoing influence can be seen in Panning, Verbal Aspect, 293–6. McKay, ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 23. Similarly, Porter, Verbal Aspect, 273, suggests ʻat least the 4th–5th cent[ury] A.D.ʼ A di erent approach is presented by G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and. its Speakers (London and New York; Longman, 1997), 53, 118, who states that the origins of the aoristic perfect can. already be seen in writers like Menander; but contrast

5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

the conclusion of Goldberg's treatment at D. Ε Goldberg (Shalev), ʻStudies in the Language of Menanderʼ (diss, Oxford, 1996), 223. T. P. Sehe[h]r, ʻThe Perfect Indicative in Septuagint Genesisʼ, BIOSCS 24 (1991), 14–24; A. Voitila, ʻSome Remarks on the Perfect Indicative in the LXXʼ, BIOSCS 26 (1993), 11–16 (a direct, reply to Schehr's treatment). Both Schehr and Voitila use the traditional ʻcontinuing result of past actionʼ definition of the perfect form (Se.he[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 16; Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 12, 14). Wevers, Exodus Notes, 266. Cf SM, Grammar, § 1946, Wevers states that ʻLittle was done in the [textual] tradition, about the verb ἓστηκα though the participle ‫ עמד‬clearly implies incipient actionʼ (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 266). The RSV translates MT ‫הנני עמד לפניך שׁם על־הצור בחרב והכית בצור‬ ʻBehold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb; and you shall strike the rock.ʼ I would argue that, although, the implication of futurity is easily drawn from the context, the actual meaning of the MT is ʻBehold, I am standing before you, there upon the rock at Horeb, and. you shall strike the rock.ʼ Cf. Wevers. Genesis Notes, 336. For a. di erent interpretation, coloured by the traditional notion that the perfect form, conveys past reference, cf. ibid. 581. Similarly Wevers. ibid. 723, translates διαμαρτυρία διαμεμαρτύρηται ʻ “with a solemn protest has protested,” i.e. “expressly warned.” ʼ. On the other hand, Wevers, Wevers. ibid. 718, while expressing surprise at this use of the perfect, suggests that the implication ʻis that the harsh, words spoken by the κύpιoς τῆς γῆς have not yet: lost their e ectʼ. B. G. Mandikras, Studies in the Greek Language (Athens: Hellenic Ministry ofCulture and Sciences, 1972), 17–18; id., Verb, §§ 471–2. McKay, ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 31–2; Fanning, ʻVerbal Aspect., 300–2. Fanning draws attention to additional unsatisfactory criteria employed by Chantraine (ibid. 300n. 230). Browning, Med, & Mod, 30, 64; Gignac, Morphology. 225, 242–4, 346–8, 353–6; Horrocks, Greek, 1.18–19. See e.g. ibid. 118. Robertson, Grammar 899, Mandilaras seems to me to come very close to the historic perfect idea in. his description of Plato's ἑώpακα at Cri. 44 A as emphasizing ʻpresent vividness of the visionʼ, even though he is arguing that the form is aoristic in opposition to Robertson's views (Mandilaras, Studies, 16; id., Verb, § 470). On relevant translation-technical issues see Soisalon–Soininen, Studiem, 70, 95. By interesting contrast, Rabbi R. Apple of the Great Synagogue, Sydney, informs me that he finds no exegetical. discussion of the ‫ ארץ מגריהם אשׁר‾גרו בה‬sequence in the Rabbinic commentaries. Wevers. Exodus Notes, 74, is also troubled by this perfect form. Unfortunately his explanation, assigns unnatural values to both, perfect παρῳκήκασιν and aorist παρῴκησαν, rendering ʻthe land (in) which they had. been sojourning, in which, also they were sojourning on itʼ. Cf. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 13–14, 14–15. Cf. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis 172. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 18. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 15. On the importance of counting the lexical items involved cf. SS, Two Studies 121. My figures here for ‫ נתן‬and δὶωμι, together with the preceding lists of Greek verbs forming perfect indicatives, provide an oblique answer to the lexical questions raised at Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 15. S. Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 42– 3 10.1017/CBO9780511555114 . On the Hebrew verbal stems see § 3.3.4. Porter, who finds Thompson's argument ʻof minima! valueʼ, adds two more examples of perfect indicatives translating non-Qal stem forms at Gen. 9; 2, 3 (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 119). However, he is mistaken over the Gen. 9: 3 example, which involves the Hebrew Qal form ‫ נ ַָת ִתּי‬rendered by δέδωκα.

30

Thompson, Apocalypse, 43 10.1017/CBO9780511555114

31

ibid 10.1017/CBO9780511555114

32

ibid. 42 10.1017/CBO9780511555114

33

ibid 10.1017/CBO9780511555114

34 35

ibid 10.1017/CBO9780511555114 . These Pual. stems could be di erently classified; ‫ י ַ̖קּם‬at Gen. 4: 24 as Hophal (KB iii. 681), ‫ טֹ ׇ ֑רף‬at Gen. 44: 28 as Qal passive (KB ii. 364). L. McFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day (She ield: Almond Press,

36

.

. .

.

37 38 39

40 41 42

43 44

45 46 47 48

49 50 51

52

53 54 55

56

1982), 3; cf. WO, Syntax, 32. McFall, Enigma, 5. ibid. 3; cf. WO, Syntax, 36. B. L. Gildersleeve, ʻStahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb, Second Article; Tensesʼ, AJPh 29 (1908), 389–409 at 396; cf. 390; also id., ʻProblems in Greek Syntax IIIʼ, AJPh 23 (1902), 241–60 at 248–9; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 246; Fanning. Verbal Aspect, 296–7, Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 16; Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 12–13. The appropriateness of the perfect tense form to drama is perhaps overlooked by H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 12, who mentions ʻthe increased use of the perfect at the expense of the aoristʼ as a sign of late date in Ezekiel's Exagoge. Gildersleeve,ʻstahi's Syntaxʼ, 396. Gildersleeve, ʻProblemsʼ, 248. Not included in these counts are the 8 Pentateuchal examples (Gen. 42: 7, 9; 45; 16; 46; 31; 47:. 4, 5; Deut. 12: 9; 32: 17)—all in direct speech—of plural forms of the present, ἣκω with perfect endings (see App. 1., §1(e) for their classification in the present study). This present with ʻperfect senseʼ adopts a hybrid conjugation in post-Classical Greek, displaying present, endings in the singular (of which the Pentateuchal instances are Gen. 6: 13; Exod. 3: 9; Num. 22: 36, 3.8; Deut, 33: 2), but adopting perfect endings in the plural and also in the infinitive and participle (Mayser, Grammatik, i/2, 148; Thackeray, Grammar, 269; Gignac, Morphology, 329–30; BDR, Grammatik, § 101.28). The partial morphological shi into the perfect seems to be motivated especially by the verb's lexical meaning ʻam comeʼ, but is probably encouraged by the stem final κ, which might suggest a perfect form. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 13. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 17–18; Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 11–12. Thus, A. N, Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar (London: Macmillan & Co., 1897), § 1872, and A. Thumb, Die griechische Sprache on Zeitalter des Hellemsmus: Beit-ragezur Geschtchte unci Beurteikmg der κοινή (Strasburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trüibner,1901), 153 n. 6, are astray in taking κεχρόνικεν at Exod, 32: 1 as an example of the perfect replacing the aorist in past narrative; cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 142. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, ii. Satzlehre, pt. 2(Hanover and Leipzig: Hahnsche Buehhandlung, 1904), § 550.3. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 11–12. ibid. 12. SM, Grammar, § 2624; cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 674.2, 3 (who does not draw the viewpoint distinction). For this phenomenon in the NT see Robertson, Grammar, 1029–30; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, English edn. adapted by J. Smith from the 4th. Latin edn, (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), §§ 346–7., Porter and Fanning both seem insensitive to the usage. Porter's list of perfect indicatives used in contexts with, past implicature (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261–5) includes examples of retained perfects in indirect expressions a er verbs of perception: Luke 1: 22 ἐώρακεν (cited, by Robertson, Grammar, 1029, as an example of graphic construction) and the similar instances of Mark 5: 33 yέyovεv, 15: 44 τέθνηκεν, 16: 4 ἀπoκεκύλιστaι The use of the perfect in this last, example is called vivid by V. Taylor. The Gospel according to St. Mark, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1.966), 605 (as noted by Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261, citing the i.st edn. of 1952), who compares Mark 15: 44 and also cites 15: 47. Taylor perhaps displays greater alertness to the nature of the construction than Porter, but more probably has in mind retention of the direct form's mood and. tense in contrast with the common Classical change to the optative. See SM, Grammar, § 2624, especially §2624d. It is not recognized by all scholars; cf. ibid. § 2624b: ʻThe common explanation of the use of the imperfect and pluperfect for the present and perfect is that Greek had the same assimilation of tense as English.ʼ There are examples of similar mixture in the Classical language (of, ibid. on. Xen. Cyr. 4. 2. 35–6; though I would, slightly alter this citation to 4. 2. 36) and in the later Koine (cf. Robertson, Grammar, 1029, on Acts 22: 29), Wevers does not observe this subtlety in Exod. 3: 2, but he does note the interesting wordplay of simplex and compound introduced by the Greek translator; the MT has di erent Hebrew verbs (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 26). Incidentally, the Pentateuch provides no examples of the optative a er a historic introducing verb in oratio obliqua. On the Pentateuchal and post-Classical optative see ch. 7, especially § 7.3 for the oblique optative in the Ptolemaic papyri and the LXX.; also Turner, Syntax, 129–31. Cf. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 13, on Schehr's Polybius and Revelation examples (Schehr, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 20–1). For the LXX's slight alteration from the MT reading at the end. of 9: 24 see Wevers, Exodus Notes, 137. See SM, Grammar, § 1885, and especially § 1885b, recognizing similar use of the perfect; K. L, McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974), § 24.2.4; id., New Syntax, § 4.2.4; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 217–18. Comparable are the examples of Matt. 19: 8; 21: 4; 26; 56, all of which Porter, incidentally, takes as instances of past usage (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261). Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 15–16; cf. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 11, 16.

57

58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

67 68 69

70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

80 81

82

83

Schehr's citations and categorization of examples are confused. He mentions 8 examples (Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 16), of which 7 are cited (ibid. 16–18): Gen. 1: 29; 3: 22; 8: 8, 11; 9: 2, 3; 15: 16. Among these, he observes 2 instances within subordinate clauses (ibid. 16, 17–18): Gen. 8: 8, 11. A third example (Gen. 8: 7) is overlooked here, though noted at T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990), 148 (where the Gen. 8: 11. instance is not cited). The missing ninth instance is Gen. 4: 24 ἐκδεδίκηται. This is obviously excluded through misinterpretation, since it is taken as perfect subjunctive ibid. 135 (Taylor, Parsing Guide, 128, parses the form correctly). Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 11. The examples I note are at Gen, 37: 17; 39: 9;41: 15 (bis), 28; 42: 2, 14, 30, 38; 43: 3, 14 (bis), 22; 44: 5 (bis), 15, 28, 32; 45: 8;46: 30, 32; 47: 9, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25, 29; 48: 19 (bis); 50: 15. For the plural forms from ἥκω see § 6.2.5, n. 42 above. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 15. ibid. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 18–19. ibid. 19–22. ibid. 20, 22; see Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 13–14. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 21. This statement is obviously based on Mandilaras, Studies, 17–18. ibid. 18. The letter is dated ʻYear 25ʼ and the BC dating depends on whether the twenty-fi h year of the second or third Ptolemy is meant, J. P. Maha y, The Flinders Peirie Papyri with Transcriptions, Commentaries and Index, pt. 2 (Dublin: Royal Irish. Academy, 1893), 8, [3], argues for the earlier date. Cf. McKay, ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 31–2 for a similar interpretation. Maha y's ʻBut when Dionysius denied … I have sent him …ʼ also takes the perfect as non-aoristie (Maha y, Petrie Papyri, [3]). See McKay, ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 32. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1, 183, does in fact take this example as a perfect of the epistolary type. For description of this category., which, seems to me to reflect the di iculty of defining the perfect's criterial function rather than a genuinely distinct usage, see Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 50; Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1. 183; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 475–9. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 16. ibid. 23. Voitila, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 14. Sche[h]r, ʻPerfect Indicativeʼ, 16. On the motivation for διπλούν here (Exod. 35: 6) see Wevers, Exodus Notes, 393. The figure is 19 according to Wevers, Exodus Notes, 393. The examples I note are Exod. 26: 1, 36; 27: 9, 16, 18; 28: 6, 8, 15; 36: 9, 12, 15, 36; 37: 3, 5, 7, 14, 16. Note that ‫ ָמ ְשׁזָר‬is the Hophal participle of ‫( שׁזר‬KB iv. 1351). See Wevers, Exodus Notes, 461. For further translation-technical detail see ibid. 392–3. However. Wevers's observation that νενησμένης is substituted for κεκλωσμένης at Exod, 26: 31 because ʻκεκλωσμένου had just occurred before it to modify κοκκινου (ibid. 393) is unconvincing. The Exodus translator is not elsewhere troubled by the repetition thus avoided; cf. Exod. 26: 1, 36; 27: 1.6; 28, 15. In. all these cases κεκλωσμένος occurs twice in the verse, modifying both κόκκινον and βνσσος. The LEH gloss ʻmake up, prepareʼ is unsatisfactory for the Pentateuchal sense of άναποιώ (LEH, s.v.). LEH simply reproduce the first gloss in the relevant LSJ article; ʻmake up, prepareʼ (for which LSJ cites only Hipp, Nat. Mul, 36) refers to the preparation of medicine. They do not record. LSJ's second listed gloss ʻmix up, stir upʼ, illustrated by limited citations from the papyri (without dates), and in one-instance associated with the phrase μετʼ ελαίου (see LSJ, s.v άναποιώ). This is obviously more relevant to the Pentateuchal sense (though LSJ's treatment overlooks the word's 31 Pentateuchal occurrences) and in fact the basic sense of the Hipp, Nat. Mul. instance is probably ʻmix upʼ as well. For the total of 37 instances of this Qal passive participle in the Pentateuch, see M., Concordantiae, i. 202. J. W. Wevers, ʻThe Göttingen Pentateuch: Some Post-partem Reflectionsʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 51–60 at 59; cf. Wevers, Leviticus Text, 72–6, for further examples. Cf. H. S. Gehman, ʻʼΕπισκεπομαι, επίσκεψις, Μσκοπος, and. επισκοπή in. the Septuagint in Relation to ‫ פקד‬and Other Hebrew Roots: A Case of Semantic Development Similar to that of Hebrewʼ, VT 22 (1972), 179–207 at 199–200. Gehman counts more than just instances of the perfect participle of this verb, but also misses the instances at Num. 2: 23, 31. Incidentally, his practice in this article of citing the Greek verb as the by-form ἐπισκἐπομαι (instead of ἐπισκέπτομαι) is a surprise; fordetails on forms used in the LXX. see Thackeray, Grammar, 284–5. Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 361–2, 392–4; McKay, ʻPerfect in Papyriʼ, 34–6; id., ʻPerfect in NTʼ, 322–5; also Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 185–92; 207–11; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 396.

84 85 86 87 88

See the valuable data in J. E. Harry, ʻThe Perfect Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative in Greekʼ, CR 19 (1905), 347–54; id., ʻThe Perfect Forms in Later Greek from Aristotle to Justinianʼ, TAPhA 37 (1906), 53–72; also Porter, Verbal Aspect, 361. On the Exod. 33: 13 and Lev 2.3: 4.3 examples see P. Walters (Katz), The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. D. W. Gooding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 199–200; also my § 7,4 and n. 27. See also Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 151–2, as cited at § 5.3.11 n, 14, on the 37 examples of the perfect infinitive in the entire LXX. For these contrasting forms of the perfect infinitive of παρίστημι in Deuteronomy see Thackeray, Grammar, 253 (but note that where Thackeray reads another example of παρεστάναι at Deut, 18: 5, Wevers reads the aorist παραστήναι). So Fanning, who takes the pluperfect's criterial meaning to accord with his complex aspect/Aktionsart/temporal reference interpretation of the perfect (on which see § 2.5.3), observes that ʻThe sense of the pluperfect is simply that of the perfect … removed one step into past timeʼ (Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 305–6). On the other hand, Porter defines the form, as expressing stative aspect, like the perfect, but with its distinguishing value the sense of rem.ote.ness (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 287–9; see also my §§ 2.7.3. 2.7.4). And note McKay's definition, which stresses the stative value (McKay, New Syntax, § 4,6; cf, id., ʻPerfect in NTʼ 322), but is not clear on the semantic di erence between, perfect and. Pluperfect.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

7 The Optative Mood  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0007 Published: March 2001

Pages 175–197

Abstract This chapter examines the Pentateuchal optative, reassessing its relationship both to the Hebrew and to the usage of non-translation Greek. The use of the optative mood, showing delicacy in the adaptation of Hebrew context to bring out special Greek nuances, provides clear evidence of independent verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Only the volitive function is directly motivated by features of the Hebrew text. Yet it is always employed idiomatically and can be regarded as exhibiting bilingual interference only in terms of its frequency comparative to the optative's other functions. The general vigour of the optative mood in the Pentateuch points towards early Koine composition. Though an insu

ciently sensitive guide for precise dating, it suggests the period of the 3rd to 2nd century BC

and is certainly compatible with the consensus view that the Pentatetich was translated in the 3rd century BC .

Keywords: Pentateuchal optative, Greek optative, Ptolemaic papyri, optative mood, Greek Pentateuch Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

7.1. Preamble 1

The LXX use of the optative looks a promising subject for Mr Thackeray's much-needed Grammar.

The hope re ected in Moulton's prescient observation went unful lled. Thackeray of course never produced a syntax volume, and his Introduction, Orthography and Accidence volume contains only brief comments on. the optative mood, According to Turner's statistics (on which see § 7.3) there are some 539 instances of the optative in the LXX, By my count there are 80 in the Pentateuch itself. The evidence of the Μ Τ matches suggests that, except in the case of the particle ‫אמן‬, these examples are not speci cally motivated by the Hebrew expressions which they translate (§ 5.3.9). Therefore, the Pentateuchal documents ought to provide us with valuable evidence for the history of the optative, a doomed, form which is already showing signs of

decline in the third century BC . Yet the use of the mood in Deut. 28 has been described by Walters as ‘a 2

distinctly syntactical Hebraism’. There is need for a special study of the Pentateuchal optative, reassessing its relationship both, to the Hebrew and to the usage of n.on-translation Greek.

7.2. The Decline of the Optative It is well known that the Greek optative is gradually desystematized in the Koine vernacular. However, our p. 176

evidence for the process has

its complications. Opinions vary on its nature, pace, and cause. The data

must be handled with, sensitivity both to contextual, factors and to the e ects of the arti cial Atticizing revival of the mood, which appear to have ltered down from more literary style into the language of less 3

well-educated writers.

In its full vigour in the Classical language the optative has three major functions. In main clauses it may 4

express either volition or potential value, while in subordinate clauses it marks historic sequence. These three uses decline at di erent rates in the Koine vernacular. The process is obscured, by the optative's persistence in stereotyped phrases such as the familiar καλῶς ἄν ποιήσαις and (μὴ) γένοιτο, and Atticism, produces an arti cial rise in frequency from the second, century ad in writers with literary pretensions. Yet the trends seem clear enough. The historic-sequence function is the rst to be lost, while the volitive 5

and potential uses last rather longer, the volitive proving most robust. By the late Koine period the optative 6

has disappeared as a separate modal category, except in certain fossilized survivals which assume p. 177

increasingly

7

lexical rather than grammatical character. The subjunctive and various periphrases take 8

over its functions.

9

The loss of the optative is a genuine removal from the verbal system, not a result of phonetic changes, as in 10

the case of the subjunctive (§ 2.6.2 n. 89). It is caused by simpli cation of the modal system,

with speakers

losing awareness of the special functional properties of the optative which distinguished it from the 11

subjunctive on the one hand, the future indicative on the other. 12

optative, and imperative is prone to such restructuring.

The IE system of indicative, subjunctive,

Reduction of separate subjunctive and optative

moods into a single category is a general development among the di erent languages, though, the p. 178

phenomenon is variously

13

manifested (for example, the optative ousts the subjunctive in Sanskrit),

Greek is in fact remarkable in its long retention of the four-mood structure.

7.3. The Evidence of the Ptolemaic Papyri and the LXX Already in vernacular documents of the last three centuries BC the optative shows signs of restricted usage. 14

But the mood form still has some vigour in this period.

15

volitive function is ‘still alive’ in the Ptolemaic papyri.

Walters goes too far in claiming that only the Of Mayser's total of 211 examples (including 5 from

the fourth century BC ) there are 181 in main clauses, and these include 54 volitives and 127 potentials. There 16

are also 30 examples in subordinate clauses (13 conditional and 17 oblique).

It is true that the potential 17

optative is much restricted to formulaic expressions (there are 56 examples of καλῶς ἂν ποιήσαις),

but this

does not necessarily indicate that the function is dead (it will be seen that the Greek Pentateuch provides strong evidence to the contrary), In addition, the gradual nature of the process of decline should be stressed, Mayser's statistics show 131 instances of the optative from the third century, 73 from the second century 18

and 2 from the rst century in the papyri he treats.

Turner's gures for the LXX also demonstrate the optative's persistence, but exhibit di erent trends in the survival of its various functions, Here the volitive is by far the most common use, accounting for 80.52 per

p. 179

19

cent of all occurrences, while the potential

and the subordinate-clause uses are rare.

Out of the total of

539 examples Turner identi es 475 main-clause instances (434 volitive, 41 potential) and 64 in subordinate 20

clauses (26 conditional, 7 oblique; 18 comparative, 13 nal).

Because of the heterogeneity of LXX language, these raw gures, which in any case can be treated only as 21

rough approximates,

do not present a clear picture. To take the extreme example, 4 Maccabees, which is 22

literary and an original Greek composition,

contains some 43 of Turner's instances (only 4 volitives, but 15

of the 41 potential, examples, 13 of the 26 conditional examples, 9 of the 13 nal examples, and 2 of the 7 23

oblique instances), while occupying less than 28 of the 2,125 pages of Rahlfs's edition.

Nevertheless, the signi cant point emerging from Turner's count is clear. In documents which are translations from the Hebrew, the volitive is well represented, if hardly common, while the other uses are infrequent. This distribution contrasts sharply with Mayser's statistics for the contemporary papyri, where the potential optative is much more frequent. The discrepancy seems adequately explained by the translation-Greek environment. Literal translation techniques allow no scope for formulate expressions of 24

the καλῶς ἂν ποιήσαις, εὖ (καλῶς) ἂν ἔχοι, or εἴη ἂν ὡς types to bolster the ranks of potential-function examples.

As Conybeare and Stock observe, the volitive's comparative frequency is doubtless explained in part also by broad contextual factors: ‘the optative … employed to express a wish … is of frequent occurrence in the LXX, as might be expected, from the character of the contents, so much of which is in the form either of 25

aspiration or of imprecation’.

In addition, and in my view more importantly, it will be seen that the volitive is the only one of the optative's uses fostered by speci c Hebrew forms in the Pentateuchal books. So, while the function is p. 180

perfectly natural Greek, its comparatively high frequency appears

to re ect bilingual interference. It

seems probable that this observation, could be extended to embrace translation Greek in general, though careful testing of all occurrences would naturally be required for veri cation.

7.4. Subjunctives Allegedly Replacing Optatives A brief digression is necessary here to discuss a red herring pertaining to LXX usage. Thackeray states that there are instances of the subjunctive replacing the optative in the LXX, He o ers examples from Exod. 33: 26

13, the Β text of Judg. 9: 15, and the A text of Job 31: 40, adding an unhelpful ‘etc.’

These would be

remarkably early cases of the subjunctive shifting into the functional territory of the optative, but examination of the contexts shows that they are not real examples of the phenomenon. The Exod. 33: 13 instance is γνωστῶς εἰδῶ σε, though Thackeray reads the itacistic variant ιδω, i.e. aorist 27

subjunctive instead, of perfect subjunctive.

Wevers also seems to attribute optative sense to the

subjunctive here, since his translation ‘would I know you clearly’—apparently understanding a preceding 28

‘(only then)’— suggests potential value.

29

In fact it reads naturally as subjunctive with exhortative force.

The full context is: el εἰ oὖv εὕpηκα χάριν ἐναντίον σον, ἐμφάνισ μοι σεαυτόν γνωστῶ ς εἰδῶ σε, ὅπως ἂν ὦ εύρηκὼς χάριν ἐναντίον σου, καί ἵνα γνῶ ὅτι λαός σου τò ἒθνος τοῦτο, I would translate: ‘If I have found grace before you, reveal yourself to me; let me have true knowledge of you, that I might be in a grace- nding condition before you, p. 181

and that I might know that this

nation is your people,’ LXX ἐμφάνισόν μοι σεαυrόv γνωστῶς εἰδῶ σε is a free

adaptation of MT ‫הודעני נא את־דדכך ואדעך‬, ‘please make me know your ways, that I might know you’. Thackeray's other examples—Judg. 9: 15 Β ἐξέλθῃ πρῦ … καὶ καταφάγῃ, and Job 31: 40 Α ἐξέλθῃ—are also doubtful, 30

but for a di erent reason. In both cases the subjunctives are variants on optatives,

but this need, not

indicate functional identity. I would suggest that the variants re ect di erent interpretations of the sense of the Hebrew, the subjunctive expressing command, the optative volition.

7.5. Introduction to the Pentateuchal Usage Table 8. Functional Classi cation of Optative Forms in the. Greek Pentateuch The Greek Pentateuch, though manifesting only three uses of the optative, provides statistical evidence similar to that of the LXX taken, as a whole. Both the volitive and potential functions occur in main clauses, and the potential also appears in subordinate clauses of comparison expressing similes. My analysis yields the distribution shown in Table 8. Table 8. Functional Classification of Optative Forms in Greek Pentateu Function

Gen.

Exod.

Lev.

Num.

Deut.

Total

Volitive

20

3

0

11

Potential

2

0

0

1

3

6

Comparative

1

1

0

2

5

9

Total

23

4

0

14

39

8o

In main clauses

In subordinate clauses

Note: For discussion of the disagreement between, my figure of 80 occurrences and Turner's of 70- see App. 1, § 2.

p. 182

The 80 Pentateuchal instances represent a total of 41 di erent

31

verbs, Unlike the Ptolemaic papyri,

there

is clearly no limitation to the lexical items involved. There is also variety within the individual books. The 23 examples in Genesis represent 18 di erent verbs:

32

The only formulaic use discernible is that of γένοιτο for ‫ אמן‬in Numbers and Deuteronomy (on which see §

7.6.1). The Pentateuchal optative's evidence for aspectual usage is interesting, but inconclusive, since the sample is so limited. It is notable that there is only a single instance of the present form and that from εἰμί (Gen. 23: 15), All the rest are aorists. Attention to context reveals nothing obviously arti cial in this preference for the aorist. Once again the Ptolemaic papyri provide a marked contrast. There Mayser nds 124 presents, 85 aorists, and 2 perfects. He records higher frequencies of present optatives classi ed both by century of occurrence and 33

by function (except in the case of the conditional use, where there are 5 presents and 8 aorists). p. 183

63 potential aorists beside 64 presents, but as already observed,

There are

56 of these aorists appear in the καλῶς ἂν

ποιήσαις formula. Many of the Ptolemaic examples of the present optative also, however, belong to formulaic

34

expressions,

35

and many (most?—Mayser does not give a. gure) are from εἰμί.

So the almost universal

choice of the aorist in the Pentateuch is remarkable, but probably not as signi cant as the bare gures suggest.

7.6. The Volitive Optative 7.6.1. The question of Hebrew interference As in the LXX taken, as a whole, so in the Pentateuch the volitive is the common use of the optative, representing 82.50 per cent of occurrences, It is also the only Pentateuchal function with a clear motivation from the Hebrew We have already seen that the Pentateuchal optative's regular MT match is the jussive (§ 5.3.9). This is due to the fact that the Hebrew jussive may express wishes and requests as well as its more 36

characteristic third person command function, according to pragmatic factors.

While Greek subjunctives

or third person imperatives are commonly used to translate the jussive of command, the volitive optative is a natural Greek rendering for the jussive's wish function. Indeed, this semantic alignment motivates most examples of the volitive. optative in. the Pentateuch, Hebrew jussives match 15 of the 20 volitives in Genesis, 2 of the 3 in Exodus, 9 of the 11 in Numbers, and 16 37

of the 3.1 in Deuteronomy, p. 184

Thus, for instance, Gen. 43: 29 ὁ θεòς ἐλεήσαι σε for ‫ ;אלהים יחנך‬Exod, 5: 21 ἵδoι ὁ θεòς

ὑμᾶς καὶ κρίναι for ‫ירא יהוה עליכם וישׁפט‬. There is also at least one case of

a volitive optative rendering a Hebrew

consecutive perfect which I regard as similarly motivated. The consecutive perfect occurs in sequence after a form taken here to be jussive. Gen. 43: 14 ὁ δὲ θεòς μoυ δῴη ὑμîν χá⍴ιν ἐναντíoν τoÛ àνθ⍴ώπoυ, καὶ àπoστεíλαι τòν àδελφòν ὑµῶν τòν ἕνα καὶ τòν Bενιαµίν(‘May God grant you favour before the man, and may he send forth your one [i.e. “other”] brother and Benjamin.’) ‫ואל שׁדי יתן לכם רחמים לפני האישׁ ושׁלח לכם את־אתיכם אחר ואת־בנימין‬ The wαw-consecutive form ‫ ושׁלח‬is semantically neutral in itself (cf. the discussion of § 3.3.3) and e ectively continues the jussive sense of ‫ יתן‬Deut 28: 13 καταστήσαι σε κύριος ὁ θεός σου for ‫ ונתנך יהוה‬is probably a parallel example, since the wαw-consecutive ‫ ונתנך‬occurs within a series of verse-initial jussives, some of which are 38

formally distinct.

The Pentateuchal usage appears, however, by no means mechanical. Volitive optatives sometimes render Hebrew forms other than jussives, demonstrating a free element in the Greek usage. According to my classi cation of Hebrew forms there are 3 instances matching Hebrew imperfects, 1 matching a cohortative, and I matching an imperative in these documents. The Hebrew imperfects of Gen. 49: 8 αἰνἐσαισαν for ‫ יודוך‬and Exod. 15: 16 ἐπιπἐσοι for ‫ תפל‬might also be 39

interpreted as jussives,and were presumably so understood by the LXX translators.

But ὅσιά μοι γένοιτο for

‫ שׁלום יהיה־לי‬at Deut. 29: 19 (MT 29: 18) displays a formally distinct Hebrew imperfect translated by a volitive 40

optative, p. 185

while another clear example of a non-jussive match is Deut. 33: 27 άπόλοιο for the imperative

41

‫השׁמד‬. In the case of εὕροιμι χάριν ἐναντίον ὑμῶν for ‫ אמצא־חן בעיניכם‬at Gen, 34; 11 the

form ‫ אמצא‬is ambiguous,

but there can be little doubt that it has cohortative function. (‘Let me nd’), which the Greek turns into a 42

wish construction (‘may I nd’),

We also nd impersonal γένοıτο as an idiomatic rendering for two set expressions. At Gen. 44: 7, 17 μὴ γένοιτο with dative translates the oath formula

43

‫ חלילה ל‬The 14 instances of ‫ אמן‬in Num. 5: 22 (bis) and Deut. 27: 15,

16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are all rendered by γένοιτο, here developing into a translational 44

formula.

These examples show that although occurrences of the volitive optative are to a large extent conditioned by the jussive of wish, it is not merely a re ex of that jussive function. It is used elsewhere according to perceived contextual requirements. Conversely, not all jussives of wish are rendered by optatives, e.g. καὶ 45

ἔσται for ‫ ויהי‬at Gen. 9: 26; Exod. 18: 19; ζήτω ‘Pουβήν καὶ μὴ ἀποθανέτω for ‫ יחי ראובן ואל־ימת‬at Deut. 33: 6.

The regular pattern, then, is Hebrew volitive jussive rendered by Greek volitive optative. Some of the apparent variations on this match may be due to misinterpretation, arising from the frequent morphological identity between Hebrew imperfects and jussives and, the capacity of the jussive to express both wish and command (Gen. 34: 11; 49: 8; Exod. 15: 16; Deut, 33: 6). We are dealing with subtle semantic distinctions. The notions of wish/hope, command, and future statement—expressed with greater formal clarity in Greek by optative, subjunctive, imperative, and future indicative—are not semantically remote 46

from one another.

In certain contexts they are possible alternatives. In other cases formal ambiguity is not

an issue (so Gen. 9: 26; Exod. 18: 19; Deut. 29: 19; 33: 27) and there seems to be deliberate variation on the p. 186

Hebrew

original (as already argued in § 5.5.3, it is hard to believe that the translators of the Greek

Pentateuch were not sensitive to the Hebrew verb's formal semantics). The general impression gained is that the volitive optative is used, naturally in the Pentateuch. Its appearance, while especially in uenced by the Hebrew jussive of wish, is dictated by translators’ interpretations of the demands of context.

7.6.2. Walters's ʻjussive optativeʼ theory A notable grouping of optatives occurs in Deut, 28: 7–36, Apart from the comparative optative in 28: 29 (§ 7.8), there are 14 examples, which have already been characterized in the present study as volitives (§ 7.6.1 47

with n. 37).

It is these examples, however, which Walters regards as Hebraistic. He terms the usage jussiυe 48

optative aorist.

Walters begins from the premiss that the relevant optatives are unusual in the linguistic context of Deut, 28: ‘Whereas Lev. 26 and also Deut. 30 express a similar series of promises and curses by future formations 49

only, as we should expect them to do, Deut. 28 discloses a strange mixture.’

The ‘strange mixture’ consists

of interspersed aorist optatives and future indicatives in verses 7–36. Walters observes that in these verses, with very few exceptions, the aorist optative occurs in clauses of which God is the subject, while the future 50

indicative occurs in all the rest, where men are the subject.

He would extend this scheme to the entire

passage and back to verse 1 by means of ve emendations to Rahlfs's text (only one of which is adopted by 51

Wevers in the Göttin.gen edition).

Walters also notes that these optatives render Hebrew jussives of wish.

On the grounds of the perceived peculiarity of the Greek usage and the twin connections with underlying p. 187

optative jussives and with God as subject, he concludes that these Deut. 28 optatives

are ‘a mere 52

Hebraism’ arti cially representing the ‘pious’ jussives, and characterizes them as futuristic in sense, Is the optative usage of Deut, 28 so strange? The individual instances seem to read quite naturally as volitives. The fact that the mood does not occur in the similar contexts of Lev 26 and Deut, 30 is not su

cient reason to doubt its appropriateness here. Nor, reading Wevers's text, does the variation between

aorist optative and future indicative in this chapter seem a real problem, LIse of one or the other depends on the manner in which the translator visualizes each verbal occurrence, Thus, we have a shift from the con dent assertion of πληθυνε ῖ οε κύριος, ‘the Lord will increase you’ in 28: 11 to the wish άνοίξαι σοι κύριος, ‘may the Lord open, for you’ in 28: 12.

The correspondence with Hebrew jussives should not cause surprise. It has been, shown above that the optative in its volitive sense regularly occurs as a rendering for Hebrew jussives expressing wish. So there is nothing peculiar in the MT match. Rather, this should suggest normality, since it accords with the usage throughout the Pentateuch. Employment of the optative when God is the subject is also a familiar Greek usage, paralleled both 53

elsewhere in the Pentateuch and in the Ptolemaic papyri.

Within the Pentateuch God is the subject of 12 of

the 20 volitive optatives in Genesis (and is arguably the real or logical subject in 2 further cases: Gen. 48: 16 (bis)), of 2 of the 3 in Exodus, 7 of the 11 in Numbers, and 16 of the 31 in Deuteronomy itself (where 13 of the rest are impersonal γένοιτο). The reason for this Greek link between divine subjects and the optative probably rests in the fact that the volitive optative regularly expresses blessings and curses. Thus, Walters's theory should, be rejected, The 14 optatives in question have natural volitive force. Optatives translating jussives of wish are no more Hebraistic in the Greek Pentateuch than Greek 54

imperatives rendering Hebrew imperatives.

p. 188

7.7. The Potential Optative The 6 examples of the potential optative in main clauses provide clear evidence of natural Greek usage. Of these, 5 occur in questions, 4 of them rendering the Hebrew imperfect, while copulative εἴη in Gen. 23: 15 predictably has the match Minus. The Deut. 33:7 example, which occurs in direct statement, renders a Hebrew jussive. In each case potential force is a nuance introduced by the translator with no particular motivation from, the Hebrew Gen. 23: 15 γῆ τετρακοσίων διδράχμων ἀργυρίου, ἀνà μέσον ἐμοῦ καί σοῦ τί ἂ ν εἴη τοῦτο (‘Land worth four 55

hundred didrachmas, what would this be between, me and you?’) ‫ארץ ארבע מאת שׁקל־כסף ביני ובינך מה־הוא‬

Gen. 44: 8 πῶς ἄν κλέψαιμεν ἐκ τοῦ οἲκοῦ τοῦ κυρίου σου ἀργύριον ἢ χρυσίον (‘How would we steal silver or 56

gold from the house of your master?’) ‫ואיך נגנב מבית אדניך כסף או זהב‬

Num. 11: 29 κα ὶ τίς δᾡη πάντα τòν λαòν κυρίου προφήτας; (‘And who would give all the people of the Lord as prophets [i.e. “would that all the people were …”]?’) ‫ומי יתן כל־עם יהוה נביאים‬ Deut. 28: 67 τò πρωϊ ἐ ⍴ε î ς Π ῶ ς ἂ ν γένοιτο ἑ σπέρα; κα ì τ ò ἑ σπέρας ἐ ρπέρας Π ῶ ς ἂ ν γένοιτο πρω ï; (‘In the morning you will say “How might it become evening?” and in the evening you will say “How might 57

it become morning?”.’)

‫בבקר תאמר מי־יתן ערב ובערב תאמר מי־יתן בקר‬ Deut. 33: 7

(‘Listen, Lord, to the voice of Judah, 58

and you would come among his people,’) ‫שׁמע יהוה קול יהודה ואל־עמו תביאנו‬

The Num. 11: 29 instance, alone among the Pentateuchal potential instances, lacks the particle ἂ v. This p. 189

presumably in uences Moulton's view that ‘We may regard [LXX instances of τίς δ ᾡ η] 59

thrown into the interrogative form.’

as real wishes

However, ἂ v does not seem to be a necessary element of potential 60

expressions, as Moulton himself observes.

This Numbers example is especially interesting. The use of the optative in τίς δ ῴ η for ‫ מי יתן‬demonstrates independent Greek adaptation within the framework of a Hebraistic construction. There are 4 other 61

examples of this ‫ מי יתן‬idiom, (one of the more elaborate Hebrew wish constructions)

in the MT

Pentateuch; Exod. 16: 3, Deut. 5: 26 (LXX 5: 29), 28: 67 (bis). Of these, 3 are rendered idiomatically in the 62

Greek. The two examples of Deut. 28: 67 are translated by πῶς ἄv with potential optative, as shown above.

The Exodus example di ers in rendering a wish with, past reference, but is equally idiomatic in translating ‫ מי־יתן מותנו‬by means of ὄ φελον ἀ πεθάνομεν (on ὄ φελον see App. 1, § 1(f)). Only the Deut. 5: 29 instance equals Num. 11: 29 in mirroring the Hebrew construction, but the Deuteronomy example has the more mechanical p. 190

63

τίς δώσει.

Thus, the Num. 11: 29 rendering shows bilingual interference

through imitation of the Hebrew

idiom. Yet the translator's choice of optative δῴη (instead, of the ‘easy’ choice of future indicative for Hebrew imperfect) introduces a potential nuance free of speci c Hebrew motivation. The health of the potential optative in the Greek Pentateuch must be considered further strong evidence for an early Koine date of translation. It cannot in itself allow us to narrow that date with precision, but certainly accords with other evidence pointing in the direction of composition in the third century BC (cf. § 1.7).

7.8. The Comparative Optative 64

There are also 9 Pentateuchal occurrences of the comparative optative, out of a LXX total of 25,

which are

introduced by ὡς Є ἰ (ὡ σ  є  ί) or plain ὡς. Like the main-clause potential examples, they are independent of 65

the underlying Hebrew—7 render Hebrew imperfects, 2 in nitives construct, 66

examples are more prevalent in Deuteronomy than the other books.

As Thackeray notes,

It in fact supplies 5 of the 9, but this

higher frequency cannot be due to idiolect preference (though it is interesting that the same book supplies 3 of the 6 main-clause potentials). The frequency of the Greek similes is inevitably restricted by the distribution of similes in the underlying Hebrew text, The Pentateuchal instances are as follows. Gen, 33; 10 ἕνєκєν τούτου єἶδоν τò πρόσωπóν σου, ὡς ἄν τις ἲδοι πρόσωπον θєοὓ (‘Because of this I have seen 67

your face, as one might look on the face of God.’) ‫על־כן ראיתי פניך כראת פני אלהים‬ p. 191

Exod. 33:11 καὶ ἐλάλησεν κύριος πρὸς Mωυσῆν ἐνώπιος ἐνώπιῳ,ὡς εἴ τις

68

 λαλήσαι πρòς τòναυτοὓ φίλον.

(‘And

the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one might speak to his friend.’) ‫ודבר יהוה אל־משׁה פנים אל־פנים כאשׁר ידבר אישׁ אל־רעהו‬ Num. 11: 12 λάβ ε α ὐ τo ὺ ς ε ἰ ς τ  ò  ν κόλπον σον, ὡσ ε ι ἄ ραι τιθην ὸ ς τ ὸ ν θηλάζοντα. (‘Take them into your 69

bosom, as a nurse would lift up the sucking child.’) ‫שׂאהו בחיקך כאשׁר ישׂא האמן את־הינק‬

Num. 22: 4 ʋ  ὓ ν ἐ κλ ε ίζ ει  ἡ  συναγωγή αὓτη πάντας τοὺς κύκλῳ  ἡ  μ ῶ ν, ὡς ἐκλ ε ί ζα ι ὁ μόσχος τ à χλωρ ὰ ἐ κ τοὓ π εδ í ου. (‘Now this band will lick up all those round us, as the young bull might lick up the grass from the plain.’) ‫עתה ילחכו הקהל את־כל־סביבתינו כלחך השׁור את ירק השׂדה‬

Deut. 1: 31 ὡς ἐτροφοφόρησέν σε κύριος ὁ θεός σον, ὡς єἲ τις τροφοφορήσαι ἂνθρωπος τòν υἱὸν αὐτοὓ. (‘So the Lord your God sustained you, as a man would sustain his son.’) ‫אשׁר נשׂאך יהוה אלהיך כאשׁר ישׂא־אישׁ את־בנו‬ Deut. I: 44 καì κατЄδίωξαν ὑμᾶς, ὡς Єἰ ποιήσαισαν αἱ μέλισσαι. (‘And they pursued you, as bees would do.’) ‫וירדפו אתכם כאשׂר תעשׁינה הדברים‬ Deut. 8: 5 ὡς Єἲ τις παιήσαι άνθρωπος τòν υἱòν αὑτοὓ, oὓτως κύριος ὁ θЄóς σου παιδεύσει σЄ. (‘As a man might discipline his son, thus the Lord your God will discipline you.’) ‫כאשׁר ייסר אישׁ את־בנו יהוה אלהיך מיסרך‬ Deut. 28: 29 κ α  ὶ  ἒ σ  ῃ  ψηλαφ ῶ ν μεσημβρίας, ὡ σ  Є  ὶ  ψηλαφήσαι ὁ τυφλ ò ς ἐ ν τῷ σκότ  Є  ι. (‘And you will grope [blindly] at noon, as the blind man would grope in the darkness.’) ‫והיית ממשׁשׁ בצהרים כאשׁר ימשׁשׁ העור באפלה‬ Deut. 32: 11

(‘As an eagle would watch over its nest, 70

so [κοί] has he [i.,e. the Lord] yearned over his young,) ‫כנשׁר יעיר קנו על־גוזליו ירחף‬. p. 192

The mixture of introductory particles—6 examples of ὡς Є  ἰ (4)

and ὡσЄí (2) and 3 of ὡς, with ἂ v added

once to the latter type—is not signi cant in Greek terms, since ὡς Єἰ/ὡσЄι in this construction, is e ectively 71

just a lengthened form of ὡς.

But there is a translation-technical motivation for the distribution. The ὡςЄἰ

type renders the Hebrew expression ‫כאשׁר‬, while ὡς renders

72

.‫כ‬

Turner suspects that the LXX use of the optative in similes is‘aided by the similar idiom in Hebrew (‫ַכּאֲשֶׁ ר אּישׁ‬ 73

with imperfect]).’

This ‫ כאשׁר‬expression matches only 9 of the LXX's 25 occurrences, however, and in any

case can only be said to motivate a Greek comparative construction. It does not automatically demand the use of the optative mood. Greek has available a range of expressions for similes and compari sons of the ‘as 74

if/like’ type and these more usually employ the indicative or subjunctive.

In fact we nd one Pentateuchal 75

instance of ὡς Єἰ with subjunctive for ‫ כאשׁר אישׁ‬with imperfect at Deut. 22: 26.

So the ὡς Єἰ or ὡς with optative construction receives no speci c encouragement from the underlying Hebrew. It is another example of independent use of the optative mood in the Greek Pentateuch. Therefore, we may now turn to the intriguing question of its extra-Biblical Greek connections. As just mentioned, the p. 193

optative is not

the characteristic mood of Greek similes and comparisons, Though Turner asserts that the 76

optative in comparative clauses is a ‘quite common class[ical] construction’,

this does not in fact seem to

be correct for the speci c type of ὡς Єἰ or ὡς with optative. The construction ὡς Єἰ /ὡς Єἲ τε with optative occurs rst in Homer, where it is rather rare. There are only 8 examples, e.g. II, 2. 780 ο ἱ δ’ ἂ ρ’ ἴ σαν ὡ ς ε ἴ τε πυρ ὶ χθὼν πᾶ σα ν έ μοιτο, ‘and their going was as if the whole earth 77

were being consumed by re’ (also Il 11, 389,467; 22. 410–11;Od. 9. 314; 10. 416, 420; 17. 36ο).

Much more

78

frequent in ‘as if/like’ similes is ὡς or ὡς τε with indicative or subjunctive.

In the Classical language ὡς Єἰ with optative in comparisons seems, contrary to Turner's claim, to be extremely rare. An electronically based search of the entire corpora of Herodotus, Thucydides, Lysias, 79

Xenophon, Plato, and Demosthenes yielded only 7 examples, 80

4; 4, 99. 4, 5; 7. 162. 2),

81

1 in Plato (Laws 628 d 2–3),

Of these, 5 are in Herodotus (1. 155. 1; 3. 140,

and 1 in pseudo-Plato (Ax. 369 c 4–5). The same type

82

of search yielded a single instance of ὡς ἂ ν  Є  ἰ with optative, in Plato Prt. 344 B 6. p. 194

nearly equivalent expression ὥσπερ Єἰ (ὡσπερεί) or 83

optative.

Attic has developed the

ὥσπ ε ρ ἂv ε ἰ (ώσπ ε ραν ε ἱ), which sometimes takes the

Electronic searching of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Menander revealed

no examples of comparative ώς (ἂv) ε ἰ with optative, though ώς ε ἲ (ὡσ ε ἱ) and ώς ε ἰ τ ε ‘appear occasionally in 84

Attic poetry with nouns or adjectives in their Homeric sense’.

So comparative ώς ε ἰ with optative is a rare feature of Homeric language, appears to be only just alive in Classical prose, especially outside the Ionic prose of Herodotus, and is apparently absent from both tragedy and comedy. Therefore, its employment 6 times in the Greek Pentateuch is remarkable, while the 3 examples with plain ώς seem to be without Classical parallel (see n. 74 above). In addition, Mayser nds a solitary example of ώς ἂv ε ἰ with optative in the Ptolemaic papyri, P.Cairo Zen, 59093. 18 Νικάνωρ μὲv γὰρ 85

κέχρηται ήμίν, ώς ἂν ε ἲ τις ἐχθρώι χρήσαιτο, ‘Nicanor treats us as one might treat an enemy’.

The document is a

business letter of 257 BC (so probably contemporary with the Greek Pentateuch), unpretentious in its 86

general level of language.

This is a very strange history. It requires further study, but some tentative observations may be advanced on the implications of the evidence collected here. There seem, to be three possibilities. First, it would be tempting to characterize the construction as an Ion-icism traceable from Homer through Herodotus into the Koine, were it not for the examples in the Platonic corpus. Further, it occurs so seldom even in Ionic settings that the statistical distribution (so far as it has been investigated in the present study) must be regarded as inconclusive. Secondly, it might be taken as a colloquialism which barely enters the literary sphere and is natural to vernacular documents like the Greek Pentateuch and the papyri. Against this is its p. 195

extreme rarity in the latter environment,

as well as the improbability of the optative as a colloquialism.

The simile is in fact a feature which, seems likely to have encouraged elevated style, given its Homeric resonances. This leads us to the third possibility, that the prose use of the construction is modelled on Homer. Since Homer's in uence on later Greek, is ubiquitous, this is an idea worth considering, in the LXX and third-century-BC papyri no less than in Herodotus and Plato. The translators of the Pentateuch were more probably familiar with Homer than not. The same Jewish 87

Alexandrian environment later produced poetry in the Classical style,

and there is widespread evidence of 88

Classical, including Homeric, reminiscences among Hellenistic Jewish writers. 89

are signs of attempts at elevated style.

Proverbs even contains numerous examples of Classical 90

versi cation, especially hexameter endings, 91

Wisdom.

Within the LXX itself there

while rhythmical patterns have also been identi ed, in

The Pentateuch is of course an earlier composition and rather di erent in character from these

poetic books. Its generally unpretentious vernacular language seems a less fertile environment for attempts p. 196

92

at elegant style, but instances exist

and the

special setting of the simile might well be a trigger for such

embellishment, The Pentateuchal usage probably provides a model for the other LXX examples, which almost all belong to poetic contexts. Turning brie y to our other vernacular example, the instance from Heraclitus’ above-mentioned letter to Zenon occurs in the context of a complaint over a delay in giving him some appointment. One may well wonder—though this can only be speculation— whether Heraclitus is waxing lyrical. The obvious problem with this suggestion is the rarity of ώς ε ἰ with optative even in Homer, and also in the Classical language; I detect nothing in the actual content of the Homeric examples to favour late prose employment of the construction instead of ώς with indicative or subjunctive. But this very rarity makes the Pentateuchal examples seem marked for style. To attempt to draw rm conclusions regarding the comparative optative in the Pentateuch would be unwise. As stated above, the problem deserves further investigation, both into Greek clauses of comparison in general and into the construction in question in particular. While a large sample of Ancient Greek has been

considered here, the very paucity of the data extracted means that our impressions could be signi cantly altered by notice of even half a dozen further examples. It might also be argued that too much is being made of the speci c type of construction introduced by ώς ε ἰ, since our counts of Classical comparative optatives would immediately be augmented by inclusion of the ὥσπερ εἰ (ὡσπεpεἱ) or ὡσπ εpἂvεἰ (ὡσπεpαvεἱ) type in the analysis. But why do the Pentateuchal translators employ the ώς ε ἰ construction instead? Why is the latter even in their minds, given its extreme rarity? It is clear that comparative ώς εἰ with optative in the Greek Pentateuch is a noteworthy construction. My own feeling, taking into account the quali cations advanced above, is that Homeric reminiscence is its most plausible explanation. The alternative possibilities of lonicism or colloquialism are in my view rather less probable. I hope to have demonstrated that the possibility of in uence from., the Classical literary tradition on the Pentateuchal translators is not to be dismissed lightly. The in uence of Homer is likeliest of all. If my p. 197

suggestion is correct, we have here a ne example of the

fascinating complexity of post-Classical Greek

and of the intrusion into lower-level language of Classical literary styles, but in perhaps the most 93

unexpected of vernacular settings.

7.9. Conclusion The use of the optative mood, showing delicacy in the adaptation of Hebrew context to bring out special Greek nuances, provides clear evidence of independent verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Only the volitive function is directly motivated by features of the Hebrew text. Yet it is always employed idiomatically and can be regarded as exhibiting bilingual interference only in terms of its frequency comparative to the optative's other functions. Walters's theory on the allegedly Hebraistic ‘jussive optatives’ of Deut. 28 is untenable. The volitive is never a mechanical re ex of the jussive of wish and is used, to translate other Hebrew forms and expressions as well. It develops the appearance of a translational formula only in the special case of γένοιτο rendering ‫ אמן‬in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and this is a lexical, not grammatical, match. The potential optative in main clauses is used idiomatically, having no motivation whatsoever from the Hebrew Although it is rare, the fact that it occurs at all demonstrates the continuing liveliness of the mood form at the period when the Greek Pentateuch, was translated. The potential optative in clauses of comparison provides similar evidence of free Greek usage. The appearance of ώς ε ἰ with optative in the Pentateuchal documents also raises interesting questions about style. The data examined suggest possible Homeric reminiscence in this post-Classical vernacular setting. The general vigour of the optative mood in the Pentateuch points towards early Koine composition. Though an insu

ciently sensitive guide for precise dating, it suggests the period of the third to second century BC

and is certainly compatible with the consensus view that the Pentateuch was translated in the third century BC .

Notes 1 2 3

Moulton, Prolegomena, 194 n. 2. P. Walters (Katz), The Text of the Septuagmt: Its Corruptions ami their Emendation, ed, D. W. Gooding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 110. On the importance of context over simple counts of occurrences see K. L. McKay, ʻThe Declining Optative: Some Observationsʼ, Antichthon, 27 (1993), 21–30 at 21, 24, McKay, however, underestimates the optative's stylistic significance in the Koine period, though admitting that Atticism may be a factor in the later papyri (ibid. 28, 29). On Atticism., note that

4

5

6 7

8 9

10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20

the developing dichotomy between Koine vernacular and literary Koine is far from clear-cut, involving more than just two levels of language. Cf. in general J. A. L. Lee, ʻSome Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospelʼ, NoυT 27 (1985), 1–26 at 8–9; G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, ν (Sydney: Macquarie University, 1989), 41–8,. See also Lee, ʻFeaturesʼ, 13–15, on φάγοι at Mark 11: 14, the only instance of the optative in. Mark's low-level vernacular (contrast the treatment of McKay, ʻOptativeʼ, 25, who does not comment on the NT distribution of the mood form). On Classical Greek usage see in general SD, Syntax, 319–37. On the older debate, reflected in Schwyzer's treatment, as to which of the volitional and potential uses represents the more original function of the optative, see Gonda, Character, 47– 67; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 173–4. Potential function is a significant factor also in subordinate-clause usage; for an extreme view see McKay, ʻOptativeʼ, 22–4, 25–6, 28–30; cf. Turner, Syntax, 132–3. For details on post-Classical vernacular usage see Moulton, Prolegomena, 194–9; Robertson, Grammar, esp. 935–40, 1408;A. Debrunner, Geschichte der griechh-chem Sprache, ii, Grurtdfragen und Grundzüge des nachklassischen Griechisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1954), 123–8; SD, Syntax., 337–8; J.-A. de Foucault, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972), 145–55; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 627–58; BDR, Grammatik, §§ 384–6. McKay argues for very late desystematization (McKay, ʻOptativeʼ, 21, 27–30), but see n. 3 above for criticism of his approach, Browning, Med. & Mod. 30. The somewhat literary phrase μὴ γένοιτο is sometimes cited as the only Modern Greek survival of the optative; see e.g. Moulton, Prolegomena, 194 with notes on pp. 240, 249; SD, Syntax, 337 and n, 2; Mandilaras, Verb, § 629. This is not quite true. Note A. Mirambel, Grammaire du grec moderne, new edn. (Paris: Éditions Klincksieek, 1969), 164, who cites also φυλάξοι, and is followed by Gignac, Morphology, 359 n. 7 (Gignac refers to Mirambel's 1.949 edn.); also D, N, Stavropoulos, Oxford Greek—English Learner's Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford. University Press, 1988), s.v, φυλά[γ] ω, citing θεός φυλάξοι, ʻGod forbid!ʼ; ʻSaints preserve us!ʼ But both, γένοιτο and φυλάξοι are lexical fossils (and. the latter is a hybrid form, the -oι ending attached to a first aorist stem.). The optative category-has completely disappeared. (Thumb, Handbook,. § 179). Browning, Med, & Mod, 30. For the subjunctive expressing future wishes in Modern Greek see Thumb, Handbook, § 193.3; HMP, Greek, § iii.5.1.2. The loss of the optative was largely complete before itacistic vowel shi s over the Koine period produced phonetic identity of some optative endings with those of indicative and subjunctive forms (SD, Syntax, 337–8; Browning, Med, & Mod. 30). For details on. this complicated process of itacism see Gignac, Phonology, 235–75, It could only have been a factor in the very late stages of the optative's demise (note the scepticism of Thumb, recorded in Moulton, Prolegomena, 199, 240; and. contrast Sihler, Camp. Grammar, § 415 n. 2, a. recent writer still emphasizing the influence of phonologi cal developments). Cf, Gignac, Morphology, 359 n. 7; Schwyzer, Grammatik, 797. For other interpretations see Mandilaras, Verb, § 657, arguing curiously that the optative is lost ʻbecause this mood, with, its distinct vowel system, could, not accommodate itself to the morphology of the other moods'; also Porter, Verbal Aspect, 177, for the argument that ʻthe Optative retained its semantic features but that speakers felt that it was less o en necessary to grammatically theseʼ (similarly ibid. 335), which makes the process appear one of conscious decision. On the original semantic distinction between, optative and subjunctive, a matter of contingency, see § 2.6.4 n. I02. This system, was perhaps not universal among the old IE languages. The Hittite verb displays only indicative and. imperative moods, and if it originally possessed subjunctive and optative forms has lost them without trace. For discussion see J. Puhvel, ʻAnatolian: Autochthon or Interloper?ʼ, JIES 22 (1994), 251–63 at 260–1; H. Kronasser, Vergleichende Lout- und Pormenlehre des Hethitischen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter,. 1956), §§ 174–5; Sihler, Camp. Grammar, § 533, esp. § 5.3.3b. On the IE subjunctive and optative forms see BD, Grundriß, ii/3/2. 517–63. For a summary of the developments in the di erent languages see Debrunner, Geschichte, ii. 123. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 288–9; Thackeray, Grammar, 193 and n. 1. Walters, Text, 237,TYPE. On the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I. 288–96, with statistics on pp. 295–6. ibid. 296. The chronological distribution of our finds may well, a ect these figures. The Heidelberg Institut fur Papyrologie's electronic Gesamiverzeichms der griechisehen Papyrusurkunden Aegyptem lists (as at Oct. 1999) 2,622 published papyri from the third century, 1,809 from, the second, and 996 from the first. These figures naturally represent a corpus larger than that from which. Mayser's statistics were drawn, including documents published since he wrote, On. the respective quantities note also E. G. Turner, Greek Papyri: An introduction, 2nd edn, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 45–6; Lee, Lexical Study, 135. See also the general remarks of Thackeray, Grammar, 24, 193; CS, Grammar, 72–3. Turner, Syntax, 119.

21

22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

32

33 34 35

36 37

38 39

40 41

They are presumably based on Rahife's text and include variants (see the citations at Turner, Syntax, 120–1, 123, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132 n. 1), but there are errors of omission and. commission, as well; see App, 1, § 2, for details regarding the Pentateuchal books; also § 7.8 n. 64 on the comparative optative. Thackeray, Grammar, 13; but. see also ibid. 160 for evidence of vernacular tendencies even here. For citations see Turner, Syntax, 121, 123, 126, 129, 130, 131. Cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 24, 193; also my § 3.2 n. 8. Cf. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I . 291–2. CS, Grammar, 72. Thackeray, Grammar, 193 n. 1; he is followed by Robertson., Grammar, 936. On the correction to εἰδ ῶ see Walters, Text, 199–200; Wevers, Exodus Notes, 548; id., Exodus Text, 269. Wevers consistently gives the form the incorrect accented εἰδ ῶ, apparently following a manuscript tradition; see his critical apparatus and cf. H. W Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation, rev 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881; repr. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1983), § 794, observing the frequent accentuation εἰδ ῶ, εἰδ ῶ μεν in the manuscripts of Aristotle and the grammariansʼ dispute which produced it (note also Walters, Text, 200; Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 386, on the correction of Rahlfs's ἵδωσιν to εἰδ ῶ σιν, which. Wevers accents εἰδσιν, at Lev. 2.3: 43). Incidentally, an isolated variant has the optative ιδοιμι (see again Wevers's apparatus), which is based on the reading ιδω, and so clearly secondary Wevers, Exodus Notes, 548. A, Le Boultuec and R Sandevoir, La. Bible dʼAlexandrie: LʼExode (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1989), 333, reading Rahlfs's ἵδ ῶ, o er a. translation suggesting final subjunctive force: ʻque je te voie de manière à te connaîtreʼ. Cf. SD, Syntax, 314.ι For the Judges instance see Rahlfe's edition; for the Job instance see the apparatus in J. Ziegler, Sepumginta: Vetus Testmmntum Graecum, x.i/4. lob (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Cf, A. Voitila, ʻLa technique de traduction du Yiqtol (Iʼimparfait hébreu) dans PHistoire du Joseph, grecque (Gen, 37, 39– 50)ʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga. Scholars Press, 1991), 230, 236 n. 17; Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I . 289, The form επίδοι at Gen. 31: 49, explaining the name ή ὅpασις and. Translating ‫יצף‬, must be third person singular aorist optative from επεῖ v; so HR, Concordance, i. 519, s.v. επίδεv; Wevers, Genesis Notes, 523–4, It is identified as third person singular aorist optative from ἐπιδίδωμ—the Gen. 31: 49 example appears to be the only instance in the LXX—by Taylor, Parsing Guide, 175, despite the sense of the context and the doubtful status of such an optative form (which, would need to be accented on the final syllable; cf Chandler, Accentuation, § 807) for δίδωμι or its compounds. Taylor is probably influenced by the same error in. the CATSS database. On optative forms of δίδωμι in the LXX see CS, Grammar, 45; and cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 250, On. the post-Classical optative of δίδωμι see in general Gignac, Morphology, 390 with n. 1, for certain, di iculties in distinguishing between post-Classical optatives and. subjunctives from, this verb; also Mayser, Grammatik, ii/2. 88; Mandilaras, Verb, § 613. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 296. See e.g. the specimens ibid, 289, 291. Cf, Gignac's comment (Gignac, Morphology, 359–60 n. 8, based on the findings of C. Harsing, ʻDe Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usuʼ (diss. Bonn, 1910)), on the comparative statistics for present and aorist optative forms in the papyri: ʻthere are absolutely more forms of the pres[ent] than of the aor[ist] opt[ative], but of the pres[ent] the vast majority are of εἰμί, with the result that the aor[ist] opt[ative] is the more living, esp[ecially] in Byz[antine] timesʼ. WO, Syntax, 565, 568–9, on the jussive expressing wish. pp. 568–70; GKC, Grammar, § io9b–c; Joüon, Grammaire,§ H4h–i. These figures for Hebrew jussives inevitably depend, in. part on subjective analysis of ambiguous forms. For my approach to the classification of prefixal Hebrew verbal forms see § 4.4.6. The MT examples in question here are: Gen, 9: 27; 16: 5; 27: 28; 28: 3. (ter), 4; 31: 49; 43: 14, 29; 48: 16 (bis), 20; 49: 6 (bis); Exod. 5: 21 (bis); Num. 5: 2I ; 6: 24 (bis) (LXX 6: 25 (bis)), 25 (bis) (LXX 6: 26 (bis)), 26 (bis) (LXX 6: 27 (bis)); 23: 10 (bis); Deut. 1: 11 (bis); 28: 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, 36; 33: 16. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 429 on Deut, 28: 8. On ambiguous Hebrew prefixal forms cf. n. 37 above. It would be dangerous to identify the original sense of these Hebrew forms in Gen, 49: 8 and Exod. 15: 16 as jussive of wish on the evidence of the LXX. use of optatives, especially as the MT linguistic context is poetic in both cases, Votitila however, apparently takes the Gen, 49; 8 example as jussive for this very reason (Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, 230, on the Genesis translator's ʻhabileté à apercevoir de petites nuances dans son texteʼ; cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 824). On. the general di iculties of interpreting the verbal forms in Exod. 15 see B. S. ChiIds, Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1974), 242. Chlds's translation. ʻTerror and. dread. | Fell upon themʼ (ibid, 241) indicates that he too takes ‫ תפל‬in verse 16 as imperfect, Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 471, Cf, ibid. 554, mistakenly identifying the aorist ἀπόλοιο as ʻa second person future middle optativeʼ—Wevers may have in mind, the properispomenon form ἀπόλο ῖ οbut the direct speech context will not support & future optative (cf, SM, Grammar, § 1862b, and see above, § 2.6.2 and n, 88).,

42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61 62

63

64

65 66 67 68

On the sense of the Hebrew form cf, Wevers, Genesis Notes, 563, However, Wevers seems to me to misunderstand the sense of the Greek optative here. See ibid. 743, suggesting an exegetieal motivation for the di erent rendering of this Hebrew formula twice in Gen, 18: 25, There are no other Pentateuchal examples. Cf. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 421–2. See also §§ 4.4.2, 5.3.9, and cf, § 7,2 n, 7 on the later significance of (μὴ) γένοιτο. The Biblical usage doubtless fosters the long survival of this expression, but it should not to be taken as Hebraistic in origin; the expression (ὃ) μὴ γένοιτο is found from Aeschylus (Sept, 5; Ag, 1249) onwards (cf. the. example of Dern. 28. 21 cited in. § 2,6,3). See WO, Syntax, 569, on the Hebrew jussives of wish, in these examples. Cf, Turner, Syntax, 120. Note incidentally that Deut, 28 also boasts two potential optatives in verse 67. Walters, Text, 237 (heading to excursus I x), 240. ibid. 238 (my emphasis). ibid. We should note, though, it is a peripheral point, that Walters's formulation is not quite accurate here. Even, if we limit the application to renderings of Hebrew prefixal. forms and consecutive perfects, men are not the grammatical subjects of Deut, 28: 24 καταβήσεται and 28: 31 άποδοθήσται. Walters, Text, 238–9; cf Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 429 (on 28: 7), 43.1 (on 2.8: 11), 439 (on 28: 2.9), 458 (on 28: 65). Wevers restricts observation of the ʻoptative whenever God is subjectʼ pattern to the sequence of 28: 20–36 (ibid. 434 on 28: 20). Walters, Text, 240, 343 n. 8, Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I , 289–90; Mandilaras, Verb, § 634, adding later examples; Voitila, ʻYiqtolʼ, 230. Philo's reputation, as a grammarian may now be rehabilitated. He was unfamiliar with the aorist optative's use as a. future because the usage did not really exist. Contrast Walters, Text, 343 n. 8. Cf, Wevers, Genesis Nates, 338; also Sotsalon-Soininen, Studien, 80, who slips in citing εἲη as an instance of the ʻKonjunktivʼ On the optative's pragmatic value here see Wevers, Genesis Nates, 743. Cf. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 459. The Greek here reinterprets the Hebrew, where the verb matching the optative happens to be a jussive of wish; see ibid. 542. Moulton, Prolegomena, 194 n. 2. (cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 54,. on ʻthe use of a question to express a wishʼ). Moulton also raises here, but is inclined to reject, the suspicion that δ ῴ η in this construction is a deliberative subjunctive. The context is discussion, of δωη as a possible subjunctive form in the NT, δ 〈BB〉ώ〈/BB〉 ῃ rather than δ ῴ η (Moulton, Prolegomena, 55, 193–4, 196). For more recent assessments see BDR, Grammatik, § 95; Gignac, Morphology, 390 n. 4. Moulton, Prolegomena, 198; cf. Turner, Syntax, 122–3; Mandilaras, Verb, § 640; but on the Ptolemaic papyri, see Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 292. See GKC, Grammar, § 151a–b; Joüon, Grammaire, § 163d; WO, Syntax, 680. For the frequent use of πῶς ἄ v with optative to express a wish in Classical tragedy see LSJ, s.v. πώς II. b; SD, Syntax, 327– 8, The construction is also noted by LSJ as a. later prose usage, but with citation only of the Deut. 28: 67 instances (BDR, Grammatik, § 385 n. 2, add Acts 8: 31: from the NT). This link with, poetic language is intriguing, since in § 7.8 it will be suggested that the comparative use of the Pentateuchal optative may be a Homeric reminiscence. On the Pentateuchal renderings of ‫ מי יתן‬see also Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 108, who does not comment on the modal shi between Num. 11: 29 and Deut. 5: 29. Note that δωη occurs as a variant reading at Deut. 5: 29, while for the Num. 11: 29 instance δωσει. is a weakly attested variant. Walters's argument that ʻit is extremely unlikely that the rare device of an opt[ative] aor[ist] should be secondary where it appears as a variantʼ might tempt some to read the variant optative at Deut. 5: 29 (Walters, Text, 238, commenting on. Deut. 28: 1, where he prefers καì to Rahlfs's καì δώσει; Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 426–7. also reads καì δώσει, making no reference to Walter's views). Walters, however, is overstating the case (for an example of an. unconvincing variant optative c£ § 7,4 n. 27), while τίς δώσει is certainly a very easy translational choice. In addition τίς δῴ η is a familiar expression in the LXX which, might well be secondary Sampling of Rahlfs's text reveals the following variety in literal LXX renderings of the ‫ מי יתן‬idiom referring to the future: τίς δῴ η (e.g. Judg. 9: 29; 2 Kgd. 19: 1; Job 31: 35; Cant. 8: 1; Jer. 9: 1—this is the list from Moulton, Prolegomena, 194 n. 2, with corrections), τíç ἄν δῴη (e.g. Job 19: 23, 31: 31), and τ ί ς δ ώσ ει (e.g. Ps. 52: 7 (MT 53: 7), 54: 7 (MT 55: 7); Jer 8; 23). Turner, Syntax, 132 n. 1, cites 9 extra-Pentateuchal examples: Judg. 16: 9 B;Ps. 82: 15 (MT 83: 15); Prov 23: 7; 25: 26 (bis); Isa. 11: 9; 21: 1; 66: 20; Ezek. 1: 16. J. Joosten, ʻElaborate Similes: Hebrew and Greek. A Study in Septuagint Translation Techniqueʼ, Biblica, 77 (1996), 227–36 at 231, adds 7 more: Judg, 14: 6 A; Ps, 89: 5,6 (quinquies), (MT 90: 5, 6 (quinquies)). On the Hebrew constructions involved cf. ibid. 227–9. Thackeray, Grammar, 24. See Wevers, Genesis Notes, 550, noting the independent potential force of the Greek expression. Wevers's accentuation λαλῆσαι, to be found both in his edition and at Wevers, Exodus Notes, 546, is incorrect; cf. Chandler,

81

Accentuation, §§ 16, 764. Walters, Text, 341, incorrectly cites this example as Num. 11:2, apparently following H. G. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina Libri iii (Erlangen, 1841), 101. This is the translation of Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 515 (see his discussion of these lines on pp. 515–16). SM, Grammar, § 2485. Cf, Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, §§ 475, 869, for theoriginal semantic distinction between. ὡ ς and ὡ ς Є ἰ (expressing added conditional force) in comparisons, which was probably already lost in Homer; so D. J. N. Lee, The Similes of the Iliad and the Odyssey Compared (Melbourne: Melbourne UniversityPress, 1964), 20, characterizing ὡ ς and ὡ ς Є ἰ in Homeric similes as variants metrigratia. Cf. Joosten, ʻElaborate Similesʼ, 232, This pattern, does not: hold good for the extra-Pentateuch.al examples of the construction, (see n. 64 above). Of these, 3 translate ‫כאשׁר‬, but Isa. 66: 20 uses ὡ ς ἂ v; Ezek. 1: 16 καθ ὼ ς ἄ v; only Judg. 16: 9 Β ὡ ς Є ἰ.On. the other hand, at Judg, 14: 6 A, Ps. 82: 15 (MT 83: 15), and. 89: 5 (90: 5) ὡ σ Є í translates ‫כ‬. Turner Syntax, 132. The use of ‫ אישׁ‬as subject of the verb in this Hebrew idiom is not so characteristic as Turner's statement might imply. Of the 6 Pentateuchal similes with ‫כאשׁר‬, only 3 have ‫אישׁ‬. See in general SM, Grammar, §§ 2481–7, and for examples in the LXX Joosten, ʻElaborate Similesʼ, 233, 234, Note that Smyth, describing the Homeric and Classical language, recognizes the use of the optative only a er ὡ ς Є ἰ or ὡ ς Є ἲ τ Є (SM, Grammar, § 2481a). The LXX occurrences of the optative a er plain ὡ ς probably represent a post-Classical development due to the practical semantic equivalence of ὡ ς and ὡ ς Є ἲ in similes. In Classical Greek ὡ ς in similes takes the indicative (usually-present indicative) or subjunctive (ibid. §§ 2482–3). For Wevers's subjunctives έπαναστ ῇ and φονεύσ ῃ in this verse Joosten,. however, prefers to read the variants επαναστη and φουευσαι, which, would regularize the Pentateuchal renderings and bolster the optative frequencies (Joosten, ʻElaborate Similesʼ, 231–2), Turner, Syntax, 132. Goodwin., Moods and Tenses, § 485; Lee, Similes, 20, These writers between them record the 8 instances cited, though neither gives a full, list. The count has been verified through electronic searching (cf. n. 79). Goodwin, and Lee both also note rare occurrences of the ὡ ς εἰ opening with other moods; cf. LSJ, s.v. ὡ σεί (an entry which might seem to imply that: the use with the optative is common, in Homer). Lee, Similes, 18–19, and see pp. 3–4 on the total number of Homeric similes. The initial, electronic search, of the TLG databank was not su iciently sensitive to isolate examples of ὡ ς εί with optative in comparisons and had to be reined by manual checking. The resulting count of 7 instances is most safely taken as approximate. Note that the example at 7, 162. 2 ὡ ς εἰ τò ἒαρ ἐκ το〈BB〉 ὓ〈/BB〉 ivmvrov ίξαραφημιςνον, in lines which Wesseling would delete—see the critical apparatus of Herodotus, Herodoti Historiae, ed. C. Hude, 3rd. edn. (2- vols,; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927)— appears to have been borrowed by Herodotus from Pericles, to whom it is twice ascribed by Aristotle {Rhet. 1. 7. 34; 3. 10. 7). For discussion see W. W. How and j. Wells, A Commentary on Herodotus, corrected repr., vol., ii (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928), 198;E. M. Cope, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, rev by J, E. Sandys (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olrns, 1.970), L 145–6, Hi. 11.2. Aristotle records the simile by means of the construction amwep et with optative in both places, On ώς before et with, optative at Laws 769 B 7 see E. B, England, The Laws of Plato (2 vols.; Manchester: Manchester

82 83 84 85

University Press, 1921), i. 598. This example is not cited by LSJ, s.v. unravel. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, §§ 485, 868; SM, Grammar, §§ 2087a, 2478–80; cf. LSJ, s.v. ὥσπ ∈ p ∈ ἰ. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 873. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 293; cf Turner, Syntax, 132. Mayser cites this document as ʻCain Zen, 14, 18ʼ, and dates it 256 BC . He

69 70 71

72

73 74

75

76 77

78 79

80

86 87

88 89

is followed by Turner, who turns the citation into ʻP Cair. Zen. 14, 18ʼ, perhaps foiling to note that Mayser's reference is to C. C. Edgar, ʻSelected. Papyri from the Archives of Zenonʼ, Annales du Service des Antiquités de l'Égypte, 18(1918), not to the now standard edition of C. C. Edgar, Zenon Papyri (5 vols.; vol. ν ed. O. Guéraud and P, Jouguet; Cairo: Institut Francais d'Archéologie Orientale, 1925–40; repr, Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1971), for which P.Cairo Zen. is the usual abbreviation. I follow the latter on form of citation and date. Incidentally, this example is listed by Mayser among the 13 conditional optatives in his statistics for the Ptolemaic papyri cited in § 7.3. See Edgar, Zenon Papyri, i. 113–14, For what it is worth, however, note that lines 18–1:9 contain. a μέv … δέ complex (see Lee, ʻFeaturesʼ, 1–2). See Swete, Introduction, 369–71. Long fragments of Ezekiel's Exagoge, a. play in the style of Euripides, survive; see H. Jacobson, The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1983), esp. 5–17 on date and provenance, 23–8 on the influence of the tragedians of the 5th. cent. BC . ibid. 26. See e.g. G. Gerieman, Studies in the Septuagint, i. Book of Job (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946), 14, on the Job translator's

attempts ʻat a dignified and even poetic languageʼ, and. in general J. A. L. Lee, ʻTranslations of the Old Testament, I: Greekʼ, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C . – A.D . 400 (Leiden, New York and 90

91 92

93

Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997), 775–83, on devices from Classical rhetoric in various LXX books. See Gerieman, Studies in the Septuagint, iii, Proverbs (Lund: C. W. K, Gleerup, 1956), 15–17, calling for caution over some of the identifications of H. St, J,. Thackeray, ʻThe Poetry of the Greek. Book of Proverbsʼ, JThS 13 (1912), 46–66; cf, H. St. J. Thackeray, The LXX and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins, 2nd edn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1923), 13, ap, Jellicoe, Septuagint, 317, On the whole question of Hellenistic influence on LXX Proverbs see J. Cook, The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (Leiden, New York and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997), who acknowledges (35, 320, and passim) significant literary and. stylistic influence. H. St. J, Thackeray, ʻRhythm in the Book of Wisdomʼ, JThS 6 (1905), 232–7. Lee, ʻTranslationsʼ, 777, points out the use of variatio at Exod. 21: 15–17(θανάτῳ θανατοὑσθω, τ ∈ λ ∈ ντησ ∈ ι θανάτῳ— here Lee follows Rahlfs's text; Wevers has θανάτῳ τ ∈ λ ∈ ντάτω—and θανάτῳ τ ∈ λ ∈ vτάτω, all for ‫ מות יומת‬and. Deut. 22: 6–7 (τ έ κνων and παιδἱα, both, rendering ‫)הבנים‬, among ʻmany examples … available from thePentateuchʼ, Note also the use of the simplex ἀρώμαι beside its compounds καταρώμαι and ἐπικαταρώμαι in the Balaam story at Num. 22: 6, 11; 23: 7, 8 (cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 260, who calls the simplex, poetic), and see § 6,2.5 and n. 51, on καίεται and κατ ∈ καἱ ∈ το at Exod. 3: 2, and § 7.7 n, 62, on πὡς ἂv with potential optative in Deut, 28: 67. Joosten comes to a di erent conclusion, but has not investigated the extra-Biblical Greek, history (Joosten, ʻElaborate Similesʼ, 232–3).

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

8 Relative Frequencies of Imperfect and Aorist Indicatives  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0008 Published: March 2001

Pages 198–219

Abstract This chapter's assessment of Pentateuchal usage is essentially a study in statistical syntax. More precise analyses of the linguistic contexts in which these hundreds of imperfects and thousands of aorist indicatives occur, and of relevant issues in translation technique, are likely to demand some nuancing of the argument. Given these quali cations, the conclusions here must be regarded as preliminary. Yet it seems that at the macro-level, the solution to the puzzle of low imperfect frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch. The discussion attempts to show that the essential nature of the phenomenon as the manifestation of a Hebraism. Available statistics for extra-Biblical Greek appear to demonstrate a decline in the frequency of the imperfect relative to the aorist indicative during the post-Classical period, especially in the vernacular language. The actual function of the imperfect remains unchanged.

Keywords: imperfect frequencies, free Greek features, statistical syntax, translation technique Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

8.1. Preamble The issue of frequency of occurrence as a gauge of Hebrew interference has arisen more than once in earlier chapters (§ 5.5.4). We have seen that this is a lexical phenomenon in relation to the peculiar comparative frequencies of the tenses of the participle in the Greek Pentateuch (§ 5.3.12 and n. 20, § 6.3). In the case of the volitive optative the interference is syntactic, a particular category of the Hebrew verb motivating the comparatively high frequency of that optative function (§ 7.6). On the other hand, it has been observed that Schehr alleges Hebrew interference as a factor in the low frequency of the perfect indicative in Gen. 1–15 (§ 6.2.6). He is clearly misled here by examination of an unrepresentative sample of that tense form (and by a conservative theoretical approach). The weakness of his conclusions demonstrates the need to base study of frequencies on much larger samples and to pay careful attention to linguistic context.

Nevertheless, Schehr's observation that certain features of LXX Greek are distinctive through their frequency is certainly sound (cf. § 5.5.1 n. 27). In addition to the participle and volitive optative counts, another relevant feature of the Greek Pentateuch is the rarity of the imperfect indicative relative to the aorist indicative. Schehr has noted the characteristic in Gen. 1–15, and has linked the preference for the 1

aorist with the underlying Hebrew clause structure. For this question his material turns out to be more p. 199

typical of the whole Pentateuch. The connection between low imperfect

frequencies and Hebrew syntax

can in fact be demonstrated much more convincingly through examination of larger samples of translation Greek, while a lexical element to the Hebraism also manifests itself.

8.2. Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Function in the Greek Pentateuch The actual function of the imperfect and aorist indicatives in the Pentateuch seems unremarkable. Num. 11: 9 provides an excellent illustration. καὶ ὅταν κατέβη ἡ δρόσος ἐπὶ τὴν παρεμβολὴν νυκτός, κατέβαινεν τò μάννα ἐπ’ αὐτῆς. (‘And when the dew fell upon the camp by night, the manna was falling upon it.’) ‫וברדת הטל על־המחנה לילה ירד המן עליו‬ The aorist κατέβη translates an in nitive construct (cf. § 5.3.5), the imperfect κατέβαινεν a Hebrew imperfect (cf. § 5.3.3). To assert that either rendering is speci cally motivated by the underlying Hebrew form would 2

miss the delicacy of the aspectual contrast between the Greek tenses. The dew simply ‘fell’, the manna ‘was falling’, with focus on internal temporal structure, on the process of its falling. This is natural Greek usage. Further examples from the Pentateuch and other Koine sources reinforce the impression.

when she was talking to Joseph day after day he would not in fact [καί] listen to her so as to lie down with her to have sex with her. But a certain such day came, Joseph entered the house to do his p. 200

work, and none of the people of the house was inside, and she drew him in by his clothing saying: “Make love with me!” And leaving his clothing in her hands he ed and went outside.’) ‫ ויהי כהיום‬:‫ויהי כדברה אל־יוסף יום יום ולא־שׁמע אליה לשׁכב אצלה להיות עמה‬ ‫ ותתפשׂהו בבגדו‬:‫הזה ויבא הביתה לעשׂות מלאכתו ואין אישׁ מאנשׁי הבית שׁם בבית‬ ‫לאמר שׁכבה עמי ויעזב בגדו בידה וינס ויצא החוצה‬

(‘How he stood against you in the way and smote your stragglers, the weary ones at your rear, and you were hungry and tired, and he did not fear God.’) ‫אשׁר קרך בדרך ויזנב בך כל־הנהשׁלים אחריך ואתה עיף ויגע ולא ירא אלהים‬

The imperfects ἐλάλει and ὑπήκουεν, focusing on process, are highly e ective in the context of Gen. 39: 10–12, especially in connection with ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας, conveying a scenario of stubborn virtue in the face of persistent temptation. They contrast with the atomic viewpoint of the following aorist indicatives, which 3

economically propel the narrative forward. Compare the imperfects ἀφικνεῖτο, ἀνέβαινον, and κατέβαινον giving the details of Jacob's dream after the aorist ἐνυπνιάσθη in Gen. 28: 12, a verse already quoted in § 6.4. It is true that in this latter case the three Greek imperfects render Hebrew participles (similarly the imperfects of Deut. 25: 18), so some particular encouragement from Hebrew text components for choice of the Greek imperfects does exist (cf. § 5.3.3). It can hardly be classi ed as interference, however, since the Greek forms make excellent sense in Greek terms.

 τὰ κτήνη τῷ δίψει; (‘And the people were railing at Moses saying: “Give us water, that we may drink.” And Moses said to them: “Why are you railing at me, and why are you testing the Lord?” But the p. 201

people thirsted there

for water, and the people were muttering against Moses saying: “Why did

you bring us up out of Egypt to kill us and our children and cattle with thirst?” ’) ‫וירב העם עם־משׁה ויאמרו תנו־לני מים ונשׁתה ויאמר להם משׁה מה־תריבון‬ ‫ ויצמא שׁם העם למים וילן העם על־משׁה ויאמר למה וה‬:‫עמדי מה־תנסון את־יהוה‬ ‫העליתנו ממצרים להמית אתי ואת־בני ואת־מקני בצמא‬ Here we have a subtle interplay between pairs of imperfect and aorist indicatives (ἐλοιδορεῖτο and εἶπεν, ἐδίψησεν and ἐγόγγυζεν) in past narrative. All four forms translate Hebrew consecutive imperfects. The aspectual variation in the Greek is apparently quite free.

ings to Zenon. If you are well and the rest for you is satisfactory, it would be as we wish. We are well too, and think of you all the time. With regard to the pony we were asking Nicanor to arrange the purchase for us. So when he would not consent, we were forced to buy a horse for 800 drachmas and brand it.’)

 φιλοτιμίας εἰς τοὺς Οἰνιάδας. (‘[Philip] razed its wall to the ground completely, and breaking up the houses was tting the timbers and tiling together into rafts for the river, with ambitious designs regarding the people of Oeniadae.’)

milius, back from Illyria, celebrated splendidly his triumph, and Hannibal, having taken Saguntum by force, dispersed his army into winter quarters. The Romans, on hearing of the capture of Saguntum, sent o

ambassadors to demand Hannibal from the Carthaginians, and at the same

time were preparing for war, electing Publius Cornelius and Tiberius Sempronius as consuls.’) p. 202

The linguistically intriguing letter P.Cairo Zen. 59093 of 257 BC

(on which see also § 7.8) is unusual for its

employment of the imperfect. Apart from ἠξιοῦμεν and ἐπεχώρει in the passage given above, it contains at least ve more instances of the tense. Yet the imperfect, as we shall see, is quite rare in the non-literary papyri. On the Polybian imperfects καθήρμοζε.and εἰσῆγε see further § 8.3. In my view the Pentateuchal examples quoted are characteristic both of general usage in these documents 4

(see also § 5.5.3) and of extra-Biblical Greek. Hebrew interference in their function is not an issue. The oddity of the Pentateuchal evidence lies in the strength of the preference for aorist over imperfect indicative. The translators do not exploit the descriptive force of the imperfect to the extent found in original Greek documents which are analogous in genre, style, and literary level.

8.3. Diachronic Trends in Relative Imperfect and Aorist Frequencies The limited attestation of the imperfect tense in. the Greek Pentateuch does re ect a general trend. The 5

imperfect declines in frequency relative to the aorist indicative during the post-Classical period. Several scholars have shown statistically the relative frequencies of the two tenses in a variety of Greek authors. Their data give us a general impression of the changing tendencies in the early history of the language, although many gaps in the coverage must be noted. Statistics have been collected only for select authors and 6

works. In addition, the results must be treated with caution, since methods of collecting data vary and an p. 203

element of subjectivity must be assumed in the analysis of some items in the counts (see e.g. App. for my treatment of morphologically ambiguous items in the Pentateuch).

1, § 1(c)

The available statistics seem to be restricted to synthetic forms. Periphrastic imperfects are indeed best excluded, since often they cannot be identi ed objectively. In many cases the participial element might as easily be taken as adjectival or substantival (see § 9.4.1). Di erent approaches are also apparent to the question of omitting some verbs on the grounds that they lack aorist forms. For this reason it is the usual, 7

though not universal, practice in such word counts to compile imperfect statistics omitting forms from εἰμί. Such a set of statistics is more signi cant since it represents instances where the choice of employing corresponding aorist forms is theoretically available to the authors. In the following discussion all

observations refer to counts omitting εἰμί, unless otherwise indicated. Some authorities also omit imperfect forms of φημί, but this seems unwarranted. For φημί the e ective aorist is εἶπov. While reserve must be exercised both on these methodological grounds and in the absence of full data, we have enough information to form an impression of Greek usage. The following distribution can be observed. 8

There is a greater proportion of aorists in samples from Homer, Pindar, and Sophocles. In Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon the imperfect mostly prevails, with some interesting exceptions. Polybius, on the other hand, shows a slight preference for the aorist. And here the imperfect has begun a decline in 9

favour of the aorist, which becomes pronounced in the papyri (increasingly in the later papyri) and in the 10

NT. Josephus p. 204

and Arrian are more in line with Polybius. Table 9 shows detailed statistics for select prose

texts ( gures from the poets are excluded, since their relevance to Pentateuchal usage is limited).

Table 9. Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in Select Works Work

Imperf.

Aorist

Total

Relat. Frequency (%) Imperf.

Aorist

Historical prose Hdt. 7

819

588

1,407

58.21

41.79

omitting εἰμί

729

588

1,317

55.35

44.65

Hdt. 8

587

399

986

59.53

40.47

omitting εἰμί

516

399

915

56.39

43.61

Thuc. 7

593

372

965

61.45

38.55

omitting εἰμί

518

372

890

58.20

41.80

Thuc. total

4,286

3,910

8,196

52.29

47.71

omitting εἰμί

3,685

3,910

7,595

48.52

51.48

Xen. An. 1–4

1,437

880

2,317

62.02

37.98

omitting εἰμί

1,148

880

2,028

56.61

43.39

Xen. Cyr. 1

358

167

525

68.19

31.81

omitting φημί

260

167

427

60.89

39.11

omitting εἰμί and φημί

241

167

408

59.07

40.93

Xen. Cyr. 2

282

176

458

61.57

38.43

omitting φημί

170

176

346

49·13

50.87

omitting εἰμί and φημί

150

176

326

46.01

53.99

Xen. Cyr. 3

371

171

542

68.45

31.55

omitting φημί

249

171

420

59.29

40.71

omitting εἰμί and φημί

232

171

403

57.57

42.43

Xen. Hel. 1

186

317

503

36.98

63.02

omitting εἰμί

163

317

480

33 96

66.04

Plb. 1

572

618

1,190

48.07

51.93

omitting εἰμί

492

618

1,110

44.32

55.68

Plb. 2

308

491

799

38.55

61.45

omitting εἰμί

254

491

745

34.09

65.91

Plb. 3

652

647

1,299

50.19

49.81

omitting εἰμί

569

647

1,216

46.79

53.21

Plb. 4

477

493

970

49.18

50.82

omitting εἰμί

434

493

927

46.82

53.18

Plb. 5

710

664

1,374

51.67

48.33

omitting εἰμί

618

664

1282

48.21

51.79

Plb. 1–5

2,719

2,913

5,632

48.28

51.72

omitting εἰμί

2,367

2,913

5,280

44.83

55.17

Arr. An. 1

332

374

706

47.03

52.97

omitting intro.

330

366

696

47.41

52.59

omitting εἰμί and intro.

262

366

628

41.72

58.28

NT Books Matt.

79

13.00

87.00

Mark

222

37.00

63.00

Luke

252

26.00

74.00

John

151

21.00

79.00

Acts

314

29.00

71.00

Supplementary samples from other genres and periods Lys. 13. 5–48

70

62

132

53.03

46.97

omitting εἰμί

56

62

118

47.46

52.54

Dem. 21.13–18, 77–89, 103–19

53

69

122

43.44

56.56

omitting εἰμί

44

69

113

38.94

61.06

Vita Aesopi G. 1–28

54

145

199

27.14

72.86

omitting εἰμί

48

145

193

24.87

75.13

Chariton 1–6

85

110

195

43.59

56.41

omitting εἰμί

70

110

180

38.89

61.11

Sources: C. W. E. Miller, ʻThe Imperfect and the Aorist in Greekʼ, AJPh 16 (1895), 142; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 254 (and. see App, 1, § 3).

p. 205

It is apparent that the relative frequencies reveal patterns of usage linked to the date, genre, and literary level of works. The aorist prevails in. the samples of early poetry. In prose texts it is at rst outnumbered by the imperfect in the historians, but gradually develops into the much more usual choice during the post11

Classical period.

The preference is clearer in certain types of later material, with the high frequency of the

aorist in the papyri and other vernacular documents not matched by literary authors like Josephus and Arrian. This is the general impression to be drawn from the data, but we also nd reverse trends in the prose samples and at no period is the evidence from groups of texts of related genre entirely uniform. There are notable uctuations in usage even within the works of individual authors. Miller notes ‘an excess of aorist’ p. 206

in Xenophon's

12

Hel. 1,

in sharp contrast to the Anabasis and Cyropaedia, but his expression is presumably

gurative, not a real accusation of misuse of the tense. The explanation for this contrast probably lies in the 13

di erences of genre and style between the Hellenica and the other works tested.

Such discrepancies must alert us to the complexity of the evidence. In fact the raw statistics tell us very little in themselves. Perhaps the most obviously necessary quali cation is the fact that the imperfect or aorist indicatives of few samples will be restricted to the same linguistic context. In this respect none of the counts of imperfects and aorists recorded from any work in my tables (except possibly for very small samples) is likely to be entirely homogeneous. And di erences of context may a ect the relative frequencies. It seems a reasonable working assumption, however, that the vast majority of these imperfects and aorists belong to past narrative (or analogous) contexts. This is at least true of the Greek Pentateuch, regarding which my comments are based on careful assessment of context. There is need for sensitivity to other factors as well. The choice between aorist and imperfect may be linked to such matters as a verb's lexical meaning, to idiolect and style (§ 2.4.1 and n. 44), genre and literary level, 14

and to some extent simply to the manner in which the author aims to depict a particular scene.

For all these reasons, it is extremely unwise to ascribe an individual author's preferences to ‘misuse’ of either tense form. This e rontery, in icted on Mark contrasted with the other Gospels on the grounds of his more frequent use of the imperfect, is discussed by Fanning. A more likely explanation of Markan usage is 15

the ‘desire to portray events in vivid fashion’. 16

tense’, p. 207

The aorist indicative is the ‘most “economical” narrative 17

while, as many have noted, the imperfect is the descriptive form, adding vividness in narration.

The NT gures most deserving of special notice are those from.

Matthew, which approach the extreme

preference for the aorist shown by the LXX translators, Hawkins suggests that the rarer use of the imperfect in Matthew (and also John) in contrast to the other NT books treated is due to ‘the larger amount of 18

discourse in proportion to narrative’,

but this does not explain its low frequency relative to the aorist. The

usage of Matthew requires further study. The possibility of bilingual interference occurs, but imperfect frequencies as a criterion for such interference need very cautious assessment in the absence of a known, 19

source.

With regard to the importance of linguistic context, the evidence of the papyri requires special consideration. Mandilaras tabulates the relative frequencies of the seven Greek tenses in 456 papyrus texts 20

arranged by century,

treating texts from the third century BC down to the seventh and eighth centuries ad.

He nds in total 161 imperfects and 1,186 aorist indicatives, with relative frequency percentages of 11.95 and 88.05 respectively. From 43 third-century-BC documents he nds 20 imperfects and 66 aorists (relative frequency percentages 23.26 and 76.74) and from 46 second-century-BC documents 28 imperfects and 93 aorists (almost identical percentages of 23.14 and 76.86). It must be noted that Mandilaras's samples are rather small and that he does not separate imperfect forms of εἰμί in his statistics. In order to test the frequencies further I have analysed 50 documents of the third-century BC Zenon papyri, selecting letters, p. 208

21

memoranda, and petitions.

My count yields 29 imperfects

and 104 aorists, with relative frequency

percentages of 21.80 and 78.20. Omitting forms of εἰμί, the imperfects number 27, altering the frequencies to 20.61 and 79.39. These gures exhibit a remarkable degree of conformity with those of Mandilaras.

The Ptolemaic papyri provide our best opportunity for synchronic comparison with LXX frequencies. Yet their usefulness is limited. The texts are mainly brief business documents, stylistically quite remote from the long narrative passages of the LXX. Their simplicity of expression tends to favour use of the aorist. On the other hand, their language is replete with formulae and special, ‘epistolary’ uses of aorist and especially imperfect indicatives. These account for a number of instances of commonly repeated imperfect forms, which thus have an arti cial character. Therefore, the statistics produced by analysis of the papyri do not possess strong relevance for the LXX. Rather, prose texts containing extended past narrative deserve closest attention for purposes of comparison with the aorist and imperfect frequencies of the Greek Pentateuch (on the relationship of imperfect and aorist indicatives to past narrative contexts in the Pentateuch itself cf. §§ 5.3.3, 5.3.5, 5.5.2), The most relevant of the gures given above are those from the historians, the NT books, and from the orators and Chariton's novel. While we must always bear in mind the caveats already mentioned, a general diachronic trend toward favouritism of the aorist over imperfect is clearly observable in. these documents. This is not the place for an extended discussion of reasons for the development, which would, in any case need to be based on much more comprehensive data than those currently available. But it would seem, assuming that the gures are reliable, to indicate a shift towards use of a simple preterite vs. a strongly marked alternative in past narrative. The imperfect increasingly becomes the marked form, the aorist the ‘default’, Incidentally, some authorities have suggested that the imperfect is occasionally confused with the aorist in post-Classical prose. This ‘aoristic’ imperfect idea is based on the old durative vs. punctual understanding of aspectual distinctions in the Greek verb and seems unsustainable. Apart from the theoretical issues p. 209

pertaining to aspect, problems of basic methodology are involved. For example,

the Polybian imperfects

καθήρμοζε and εἰσῆγε, which were cited in § 8.2, are mentioned by de Foucanlt in a discussion of this aoristic 22

imperfect.

Here de Foucault is falling into the old trap which has also bedevilled analysis of many ‘aoristic’

perfects (on which see § 6.2.2) in post-Classical Greek, implying—he does not state it explicitly—that these imperfects may be aoristic simply because they are coordinated with aorist indicatives. It has been demonstrated that such co-ordination is an unreliable criterion for establishing the function of Greek tense 23

forms.

I would suggest that no special explanation οf καθήρμοζε and εἰσῆγε is required, They are easily

understood as ordinary imperfects focusing on internal structure, in opposition to the nearby aorist indicatives (though a di erence will not necessarily emerge in English translation). So the imperfect becomes rare relative to the aorist indicative in prose of the post-Classical, period. Nevertheless, it continues in its Classical function and in frequency drops below 20 per cent relative to the aorist only in Matthew (and Revelation).

8.4. The Evidence of the LXX The evidence of translation Greek in the Pentateuch seems to t within, this process, but reveals a much stronger preference for the aorist than, in other Greek documents examined. In Miller's terms the translators su er from an extreme case of aoristic excess, Throughout the ve books imperfect frequencies are under 10 per cent, once examples from, εἰμί are removed from the statistics. The frequencies are a little higher in Genesis and Exodus, which have greater narrative content, than in the other three books. But even, if we select the mainly narrative rst 19 chapters of Exodus we nd only 89 imperfects beside 730 aorists at relative frequency percentages of 10.87 and 89.13, and omitting εἰμί 66 imperfects beside 730 aorists at percentages of 8.29 and 91.71. Leviticus, which contains very little extended narrative, exhibits the extreme low By my count it has only one example of the imperfect omitting εἰμί (and but two examples of ἦv). Table 10 provides full details.

Table 10. Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch Book

Imperf.

Aorist

Total

Relat. Frequency (%) Imperf.

Aorist

Genesis

296

2,594

2,890

10.24

89.76

omitting εἰμί

152

2,594

2,746

5.54

94.46

Exodus

128

1,096

1,224

10.46

89.54

omitting εἰμί

89

1,096

1,185

7.51

92.49

Leviticus

3

333

336

0.89

99.11

omitting εἰμί

1

333

334

0.30

99·70

Numbers

64

1,001

1,065

6.00

94.00

omitting εἰμί

37

1,001

1,038

3.56

96.44

Deuteronomy

52

680

732

7.10

92.90

omitting εἰμί

28

680

708

3.95

96.05

p. 210

The exceedingly low imperfect frequencies of the Pentateuchal

books call for further testing of

translation Greek. And electronic searching of the entire LXX yields encouragingly similar results. These are p. 211 p. 212

demonstrated in Table 11.

Table 11. Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in Extra-Pentateuchal LXX Books Book

Imperf.

Aorist

Total

Relat. Frequency (%)

Imperf.

Aorist

Joshua B

71

888

959

7.40

92.60

omitting εἰμί

37

888

925

4.00

96.00

Judges A

123

1,541

1,664

7.39

92.61

omitting εἰμί

71

1541

1612

4.40

95.60

Judges B

112

1,548

1,660

6.75

93.25

omitting εἰμί

57

1,548

1,605

3.55

96.45

Ruth

9

190

199

452

95.48

omitting εἰμί

5

190

195

2,56

97.44

1 Kingdoms

202

1,470

1,672

12.08

87.92

omitting εἰμί

134

1,470

1,604

8.35

91.65

2 Kingdoms

126

1,467

1,593

7.91

92.09

omitting εἰμί

76

1,467

1,543

4.93

95.07

3 Kingdoms

190

1,506

1,696

11.20

88.80

omitting εἰμί

105

1,506

1,611

6.52

93.48

4 Kingdoms

123

1,784

1,907

6.45

93.55

omitting εἰμί

78

1,784

1,862

4.19

95.81

1 Chronicles

88

767

855

10.29

89.71

omitting εἰμί

22

767

789

2.79

97.21

2 Chronicles

156

1,575

1,731

9.01

90.99

omitting εἰμί

96

1,575

1,671

5.75

94.25

1 Esdras

45

366

411

10.95

89.05

omitting εἰμί

29

366

395

7.34

92.66

2 Esdras

70

723

793

8.83

91.17

omitting εἰμί

28

723

751

3.73

96.27

Esther

58

354

412

14.08

85.92

omitting εἰμί

41

354

395

10.38

89.62

Judith

88

648

736

11.96

88.04

omitting εἰμί

39

648

687

5.68

94.32

Tobit BA

64

361

425

15.06

84.94

omitting εἰμί

54

361

415

13.01

86.99

Tobit ‫א‬

82

484

566

14.49

85.51

omitting εἰμί

72

484

556

12.95

87.05

1 Maccabees

208

1,708

1,916

10.86

89.14

omitting εἰμί

153

1,708

1,861

8.22

91.78

2 Maccabees

206

427

633

32.54

67.46

omitting εἰμί

175

427

602

29.07

70.93

3 Maccabees

83

125

208

39.90

60.10

omitting εἰμί

69

125

194

35.57

64.43

4 Maccabees

140

190

330

42.42

57.58

omitting εἰμί

125

190

315

39.68

60.32

Psalms

117

1,938

2,055

5.69

94.31

omitting εἰμί

100

1,938

2,038

4.91

95.09

Odes

6

217

223

2.69

97.31

omitting εἰμί

5

217

222

2.25

97.75

Proverbs

24

117

141

17.02

82.98

omitting εἰμί

23

117

140

16.43

83.57

Qoheleth

3

169

172

1.74

98.26

omitting εἰμί

0

169

169

0.00

100.00

Canticles

1

101

102

0.98

99.02

omitting εἰμί

0

101

101

0.00

100.00

Job

83

685

768

10.81

89.19

omitting εἰμί

56

685

741

7.56

92.44

Wisdom

90

305

395

22.78

77.22

omitting εἰμί

75

305

380

19.74

80.26

Sirach

10

627

637

1.57

98.43

omitting εἰμί

7

627

634

1.10

98.90

Psalms of solomon

12

195

207

5.80

94.20

omitting εἰμί

9

195

204

4.41

95.59

Hosea

33

217

250

13.20

86.80

omitting εἰμί

27

217

244

11.07

88.93

Amos

16

99

115

13.91

86.09

omitting εἰμί

12

99

111

10.81

89.19

Micah

11

67

78

14.10

85.90

omitting εἰμί

9

67

76

11.84

88.16

Joel

4

51

55

7.27

92.73

omitting εἰμί

4

53

55

7.27

93.73

Obadiah

1

20

21

4.76

95.24

omitting εἰμί

0

20

20

0.00

100.00

Jonah

16

110

126

12.70

87.30

omitting εἰμί

13

110

123

10.57

89.43

Nahum

10

30

40

25.00

75.00

omitting εἰμί

5

30

35

14.29

85.71

Habakkuk

1

44

45

2.22

97.78

omitting εἰμί

1

44

45

2.22

97.78

Zephaniah

2

23

25

8.00

92.00

omitting εἰμί

2

23

25

8.00

92.00

Haggai

6

36

42

14.29

85.71

omitting εἰμί

5

36

41

12.20

87.80

Zachariah

23

163

186

12.37

87.63

omitting εἰμί

16

163

179

8.94

91.06

Malachi

10

54

64

15.63

84.37

omitting εἰμί

6

54

60

10.00

90.00

Isaiah

62

1,031

1,093

5.67

94.33

omitting εἰμί

33

1,031

1,064

3.10

96.90

Jeremiah

131

1,552

1,683

7.78

92.22

omitting εἰμί

89

1,552

1,641

5.42

94.58

Baruch

8

153

161

4.97

95.03

omitting εἰμί

7

153

160

4.38

95.62

Lamentations

11

292

303

3.63

96.37

omitting εἰμί

8

292

300

2.67

97.33

Epistle of Jeremiah

2

4

6

33.33

66.67

omitting εἰμί

2

4

6

33.33

66.67

Ezekiel

180

986

1,166

15.44

84.56

omitting εἰμί

136

986

1,122

12.12

87.88

Susanna (LXX)

18

54

72

25.00

75.00

omitting εἰμί

15

54

69

21.74

78.26

Susanna (Th)

30

100

130

23.08

76.92

omitting εἰμί

17

100

117

14.53

85.47

Daniel (LXX)

118

536

654

18.04

81.96

omitting εἰμί

86

536

622

13.83

86.17

Daniel (Th)

109

559

668

16.32

83.68

omitting εἰμί

83

559

642

12.93

87.07

Bel (LXX)

21

72

93

22.58

77.42

omitting εἰμί

12

72

84

14.29

85.71

Bel (Th)

19

80

99

19.19

80.81

omitting εἰμί

12

80

92

13.04

86.96

Source: CATSS materials, uncorrected (see App. 1, § 4).

p. 213

The relative frequency percentages of aorists in extra-Pentateuchal books are almost universally very high, in the high 80s or 90s (omitting forms of εἰμί), and closely resemble the frequencies of the Pentateuch itself. On the other hand, the counts for 2–4 Maccabees, which are original Greek compositions, show signi cantly higher frequencies for the imperfect than do the translated documents. In fact 2–4 Maccabees exhibit gures resembling extra-Biblical samples from the Koine period. It is instructive to compare their statistics on the one hand with the similar gures for Polybius, and on the other with those for 1 Maccabees, which is translation Greek and displays a relative frequency percentage for the imperfect of only 8.22 (omitting forms from εἰμί). Apart from 2–4 Maccabees, Proverbs and Wisdom have high imperfect counts comparative to the majority of books, though they are low by contrast with both the later books of Maccabees and general Greek, 24

evidence, As is well known, these books display a certain stylistic freedom,

which may be a factor

in uencing the frequencies. Note also that the very small samples in some books are naturally of limited value. These include the remaining cases of comparatively high relative imperfect frequencies, the Epistle of Jeremiah, (which has a combined total of only six imperfect and aorist indicatives) and the LXX version of Susanna.

p. 214

8.5. The Question of Hebrew Interference 8.5.1. The syntactic factor Thus, the evidence of the LXX in general and of the Pentateuch in particular shows a remarkably low frequency of imperfect forms relative to aorist indicatives. The underlying Hebrew (or Aramaic in some extra-Pentateuchal books) appears to be responsible. This manifestation of bilingual interference is to be seen as largely formal (as in the case of the volitive optative), but here motivation is found in the characteristic paratactic clause structure of Hebrew narrative, rather than a particular form of the Hebrew verb. 25

Over half the clauses in the MT Pentateuch employ parataxis, 26

are similar.

and the gures for the whole Hebrew Bible 27

This type of clause structure is not unnatural in Greek syntax, especially in the vernacular,

but does not occur to so great an extent in extra-Biblical language. Greek possesses a much greater capacity for grammatical subordination than Hebrew (cf. § 3.4). In fact the Pentateuchal translators exploit a variety 28

of subordinating constructions, notably participial expressions.

In keeping with their literal style of

translation, however, they most commonly render the long strings of Hebrew nite verbs linked by the coordinating conjunction. ְ‫ ו‬by means of equally simple coordinate sequences involving καί and nite verbs. It seems highly probable that the imperfect's rarity in the Greek Pentateuch (and the rest of the LXX) is due in large part to preference for the aorist indicative in rendering this paratactic type of construction in past narrative. The tendency would be natural enough in its origins. As has been mentioned, the aorist is the ‘economical’, or unmarked, choice in such contexts in post-Classical Greek. But the underlying Hebrew p. 215

clausal structure would strongly encourage

its use as a regular equivalency. In Barr's well-known 29

expression, to employ the aorist would be ‘easy technique’.

The impression is greatly strengthened by examination of those imperfect and aorist indicatives which match Hebrew perfects or consecutive imperfects, these being the usual nite verbal forms of past narrative in the Hebrew Pentateuch. It can be seen from Table 12 that the low relative frequency percentages of the imperfect become even more extreme when linked to this composite Hebrew match. And the gures for the aorist given there represent the vast majority of aorist indicatives in each book (as comparison with the totals in Table 10 indicates). The Greek imperfect, on the other hand, though so much less frequent, has a greater variety of quite common Hebrew matches (for details see §§ 5.3.3, 5.3.5 and the relevant tables in Chapter 5). Yet when the Hebrew perfect and consecutive imperfect are involved the Greek imperfect's frequency as a translation equivalent is less than 5 per cent relative to the aorist indicative in all live books.

Table 12. Imperfect and Aorist Indicative Frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch: Forms Matching Hebrew Perfects and Consecutive Imperfects Book

Imperf.

Aorist

Total

Relat. Frequency (%) Imperf.

Aorist

Genesis

127

2,434

2,561

4.96

95.04

omitting εἰμί

74

2,434

2,508

2.95

97.05

Exodus

64

1,009

1,073

5.96

94.04

omitting εἰμί

49

1,009

1,058

4.03

95.37

Leviticus

0

312

312

0.00

100.00

omitting εἰμί

0

312

312

0.00

100.00

Numbers

34

939

973

3.49

96.51

omitting εἰμί

19

939

958

1.98

98.02

Deuteronomy

33

613

646

5.11

94.89

omitting εἰμί

18

613

631

2.85

97.15

The tendency towards an unconsciously mechanical preference for the aorist would be encouraged particularly by the Hebrew Pentateuch's extended passages containing lists and details of religious p. 216

procedure (which are often structurally analogous to past narrative),

as well as by past narrative

sequences employing repetitive language. Such passages favour the LXX translators’ use of the unmarked form. This might well explain the extremely low relative imperfect frequencies in Leviticus, Numbers, 30

Deuteronomy, and the second half of Exodus, which are so rich in this sort of material.

8.5.2. Free Greek features and subject-matter As already shown, even in the largely narrative sequences of Genesis and the rst half of Exodus the imperfect tense form is not much more common, but an additional consideration helps to clarify the nature of the distribution. Aejmelaeus has drawn an interesting link between clustering of free features in 31

translation Greek and particular types of ‘interesting and even inspiring’ subject-matter.

On the basis of

the preceding discussion, use of the imperfect would seem a useful test of this idea, and while the results of my examination are not clear-cut, certain details of distribution deserve notice. The following counts exclude forms from εἰμί. In Gen. 19 (the story of Lot's escape from Sodom) there are 10 imperfects; in Gen. 37 (the selling of Joseph into slavery) there are 12 imperfects; in Gen. 41: 1–6, 17–23 (Pharaoh's dream) there are 13 imperfects. In Exod. 1–2 (Moses’ birth) there are 21 imperfects and another 9 appear in Exod. 33: 7–11 (on God's conversing with Moses in the tent of meeting). There is also a group of 9 instances in Num. 11: 4–9 (on the manna from heaven), and there are 6 more in Num. 22: 22–35 (on Balaam and his ass). Some of these passages are notable for other types of free renderings as well, (note, for example, the historic presents and subordinating use of participles in Exod. 1–2 and Num. 22). These are the most prominent extended groupings of imperfects in the Pentateuch. Their evidence is not in itself convincing, since there are numerous other passages which might seem equally ‘interesting and even inspiring’, but do not exploit the imperfect tense form to the same degree. The clusters cited do, however, provide limited support for the general notion that certain, types of subject-matter foster greater scope for free renderings and natural Greek idiom than others. Aejmelaeus's argument deserves further investigation.

p. 217

8.5.3. The lexical factor The phenomenon of low imperfect frequencies seems to manifest a syntactic Hebraism. Yet the bilingual interference is not to be seen as purely syntactic. There is also a lexical ingredient. Literal translation technique tends, of course, to encourage regular rendering of a recurring Hebrew lexical item by a single Greek equivalent. If that recurring Hebrew item is a verbal form in past narrative rendered initially by a Greek aorist indicative, subsequent use of the Greek aorist as the regular translation can take on a mechanical quality. Num. 33: 1–49 provides an extreme example. This passage, which describes the stations of the Israelites' journey in the wilderness, contains 4 imperfects (omitting 2 instances from εἰμί) and 96 aorist indicatives. Of these aorists there are 42 examples of ἀπῆραν, ‘they departed’ and 44 of παρενέβαλον, ‘they encamped’, which almost all occur in sequence translating the formula ‫ויחנו‬  …  ‫( ויסעו‬there is one instance of ἀπάραντες for ‫ ויסעו‬in 33: 5 at the start of the series, while one of the Greek sequences is a plus). The aorist indicative is certainly an appropriate Greek rendering here, and on the other hand the few Greek imperfects employed in. this passage appear in naturally suitable places, but the repetitious nature of the Hebrew encourages repetition of the lexical items ἀπῆραν and παρενέβαλον, once they have been established as translation equivalents for the underlying formula. Similar formulaic patterns motivating high aorist indicative frequencies can be observed in other passages in the Pentateuch, e.g. the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11.

8.5.4. Broader implications A nal point, somewhat beyond the scope of the present study, may also be noted here in passing. It has been, shown that LXX books which are either de nitely or probably translations tend to form a unity in. their very low imperfect frequencies. If the interpretation, o ered here—that these frequencies are due to bilingual interference—is correct, it has obvious implications for LXX books whose status as translations 32

from Hebrew or Aramaic originals has been questioned, e.g. Tobit. p. 218

‘more Semitic’ ‫ א‬version and the ΒA text, which ‘is somewhat 33

Greek’.

This book exists in two recensions, the

shorter and is written, in a more idiomatic

Their low relative frequency percentages for the imperfect (omitting εἰμί) of 12.95 and 13.01

respectively provide some support for the view that Tobit is a translation from a Semitic source, not an original Greek composition. Yet, although there seems to be a strong link between low imperfect frequencies and translation Greek, we should also consider the possibility of the paratactic style of the translated books a ecting original compositions. In particular, the in uence of the Pentateuchal books on later LXX works is generally 34

assumed to have been strong,

and might conceivably be active in this sphere.

8.6. Conclusion The preceding assessment of Pentateuchal usage is essentially a study in statistical syntax, which as 35

Robertson has put it is ‘interesting, laborious and not always conclusive’.

As such the present treatment

has obvious limitations. More precise analyses of the linguistic contexts in which these hundreds of imperfects and thousands of aorist indicatives occur, and of relevant issues in translation technique, are likely to demand some nuancing of the argument. The reasons for speci c choices of aorist forms in preference to imperfects will inevitably be more complex, than my broadbrush study might suggest. Given these quali cations, my conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. Yet it seems to me that we have here at the macro-level the solution to the puzzle of low imperfect frequencies in the Greek Pentateuch. What I have attempted to show is the essential nature of the phenomenon as the manifestation of a Hebraism. I hope also to have provided a valid structure for further micro-level investigation. Available statistics for extra-Biblical Greek appear to demonstrate a decline in the frequency of the p. 219

imperfect relative to the

aorist indicative during the post-Classical period, especially in the vernacular

language. The actual function of the imperfect remains unchanged. The evidence of translation Greek in the LXX is similar, but here the low frequencies of the imperfect are, with isolated exceptions, extreme. This is especially true of the Greek Pentateuch. The abnormality is clearly shown by comparison with analogous texts, such, as historical writings, past narrative passages from oratory, and NT books (excepting Matthew and Revelation, where bilingual interference may also be a factor). The likely cause is Hebrew interference. We have here another example of Hebraism manifested not through function, but through frequency of occurrence. Its principal, motivation is the translators’ largely literal method of rendering Hebrew coordinate clauses. In past narrative and analogous contexts this method encourages preference, through ‘easy technique’, for the aorist over the marked imperfect. Accordingly, the abnormal frequencies are most clearly demonstrated by isolating relative frequencies of imperfect and aorist indicatives matching Hebrew perfects and consecutive imperfects. This composite MT match represents the forms characteristic of past narrative in the Hebrew Pentateuch.

To some degree the employment of regular lexical equivalents in translation is also a contributing factor. Literal translation technique tends to encourage repeated rendering of a recurring Hebrew lexical item by a single Greek equivalent. Where that recurring Hebrew item is a verbal form in past narrative rendered initially by a Greek aorist indicative, subsequent use of the Greek aorist as the regular translation can take on a mechanical quality. Thus, we are dealing with a Hebraism of mixed type, largely syntactic, partly lexical. The phenomenon of low imperfect frequencies develops in the Pentateuch and continues as a feature of the later LXX translations.

Notes 1

9

T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990), 92; cf. Wevers, Numbers Text, 124–5, observing the preference for the aorist over the imperfect in Numbers. Cf. Voitila's remarks regarding free choice of the string of Greek imperfects in the preceding verse at A. Voitila, ʻWhat the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translatorsʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 183–96 at 189–90; id., ʻThe Translator of the Greek Numbersʼ, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 109–21 at 117 n. 11. Wevers's comments on the aspectual significance of the tenses here capture something of the imperfects' pragmatic force, but reflect conservative aspect theory (Wevers, Genesis Notes, 654–5). The imperfect ὑπήκουεν certainly seems a more likely original reading than the variant aorist υπηκουσεν, answering ἐλάλει in the preceding clause, but it is problematic to assert that ʻThe verb in the apodosis must perforce also be in the imperfect … the not-listening was of course also repetitiveʼ (ibid. 654; my emphasis). The idea of repeated action is an Aktionsart feature, not the criterial value of the imperfective aspect. It does not control choice of that aspect (cf. the treatment of §§ 2.3.2–2.3.4). Cf. Turner, Syntax, 64, on the general Koine usage (but describing the imperfect and aorist indicatives in terms of ʻlinear and punctiliar Aktionsartʼ). There is, incidentally, no question of desystematization of the imperfect indicative, which remains a living functional category in Modern Greek (HMP, Greek, §§ ii.7.1.3, iii.1.6.2). Significant contributions are B. L. Gildersleeve, ʻStudies in Pindaric Syntaxʼ, AJPh 4 (1883), 158–65; id. ʻBrief Mentionʼ, AJPh 29 (1908), 242–46; F. Hultsch, ʻDie erzählenden Zeitformen bei Polybios: Ein Beitrag zur Syntax der gemeingriechischen Spracheʼ, Abhandlungen der philologischhistorischen Classe der königlich Sächsischen Gesellscha der Wissenscha en, 13 (1893), 1–210, 347–467; C. W. E. Miller, ʻThe Imperfect and the Aorist in Greekʼ, AJPh 16 (1895), 139–85; L. Schlachter, ʻStatistische Untersuchungen über den Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi bei einzelnen griechischen Schri stellernʼ, IF 22 (1907), 202–42; 23 (1908), 165–204; 24 (1909), 189–221; Robertson, Grammar, 837–40; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 49–50, 284; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 253–5. Gildersleeve states that γίγνομαι provides the aorist of εἰμί (Gildersleeve, ʻBrief Mentionʼ (1908), 243, and see id., ʻBrief Mentionʼ, AJPh 27 (1906), 228–37 at 234, for the antecedent to his 1908 observation), but this is only approximately true. The semantic ranges of the two verbs only partially overlap; cf. LSJ, s.vv. γίγνομαι, εἰμί, and see the discussion in §§ 9.2, 9.3.1. The observation to the contrary on Homer at Mandilaras, Verb, § 284, is puzzling. Adaptation of the figures from Schlachter, ʻUntersuchungenʼ (1907), 225, 229, gives relative frequency percentages for the Iliad of imperfect 40.86, aorist 59.14, and for the Odyssey of imperfect 43.62, aorist 56.38. See the figures at Mandilaras, Verb, § 49, and on the evidence of the 3rd- and 2nd-cent.-BC Ptolemaic papyri see my

10 11 12 13

discussion below; also Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 134 and n. 3. Schlachter, ʻUntersuchungenʼ (1907), 229. Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 199 n. 15. Miller, ʻImperfect and Aoristʼ, 141. Cf. W. R. Connor, ʻHistorical Writing in the Fourth Century B.C. and in the Hellenistic Periodʼ, in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W.

14 15 16

Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, i (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 458–71 at 459– 60. Robertson, Grammar, 839–40. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 255. ibid. 256.

2

3

4 5 6

7

8

17 18 19

20

21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32

33 34 35

ibid. 241, with literature cited in n. 100, to which might be added Mandilaras, Verb, § 285; Robertson, Grammar, 837–40. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 51. Robertson notes the low relative frequency percentage of the imperfect in Matthew and adds the even more extreme figure of only 7% for the imperfect relative to the aorist in Revelation (from Schlachter, ʻUntersuchungenʼ (1907), 229), but does not pursue the issue (Robertson, Grammar, 839). On bilingual interference in Revelation see in general G. H. R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, v (Sydney: Macquarie University, 1989), 34–5. Cf. also Porter, Verbal Aspect, 111–56, for a general review of the question of influence from Semitic languages on verbal aspect in the NT, Allegedly high frequencies of the imperfect indicative—presumably relative to all. the other tenses, not just to the aorist indicative—have in feet been taken by some writers as a sign, of Semitic influence on the Greek of the NT (ibid. 136, showing the weakness of the argument). Mandilaras, Verb, § 49. In the preamble to the table the number is mentioned as ʻ434 examined textsʼ. The column, giving numbers of texts checked from each century totals 456, but perhaps verbal forms do not occur in some of these. Mandilaras's selection is drawn from L. Mitteis and U. Wilken, Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde (2 vols. in 4 pts.; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912). The texts examined are P.Cairo Zen. 59298–301, 59303–11, 59314–18, 59322–4, 59329–32, 59335–8, 59341–6, 59348–59, 59362–3, and 59365. I exclude from the count restored forms, even where the restorations seem secure, unless original, word elements identifying forms as imperfect or aorist indicatives (e.g. augments) have been preserved. J.-A. de Foucault, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972), 130–1. On the aoristic imperfect see also Mayser, Grammatik, ii/I . 137–8; Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 288–92. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 300–1. See Thackeray, Grammar, 13, 15; for Wisdom also Swete, Introduction, 267–9; for Proverbs also G. Gerleman, Studies in the Septuagint, iii. Proverbs (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956), 11–35; Jellicoe, Septuagint, 317–18. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 2, 10. Cf. WO, Syntax, 456, whose figures (based on L. MeFall, The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ewald to the Present Day (She ield: Almond Press, 1982), 186–8) show that verbal forms directly introduced by ‫ ְו‬represent 45% of all finite verbs in the Hebrew Bible. And these do not of course cover all cases of paratactic clause structure (the Hebrew verb does not always follow the conjunction directly). Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 6. For the variety found in renderings of ordinary paratactic clauses see ibid. 123. For details on participial renderings see ibid. 88–112. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 300. Aejmelaeus reaches similar conclusions on. renderings of Hebrew coordinateclauses in the Pentateuch (Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 183). ibid. 172. See the discussion of J. D. Thomas, ʻThe Greek Text of Tobitʼ, JBL 91 (1972), 463–71 at 463–5, 470–1, discounting the view that the book is an original Greek composition and arguing for an Aramaic (rather than Hebrew) background. Aramaic maic lacks waw-consecutive constructions, but shares the basically paratactic clause structure of Biblical Hebrew. ibid. 463. See in general. Olofsson, LXX Vernon, 26–8. Robertson, Grammar, 838–9. Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 199 n. 15, observing that ʻthe use of statistics must be carefully regulatedʼ.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

9. Periphrastic Tense Forms  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0009 Published: March 2001

Pages 220–258

Abstract Periphrastic tense forms are a recognized feature of the Greek verbal system from the language of Homer through to the Modern period. Yet their analysis involves both major theoretical di

culties and

an inescapable element of subjectivity. The Pentateuchal periphrases are of special interest for their relationship to the underlying Hebrew. This chapter treats the theoretical debate, in particular the contribution of Porter, and establishes the de nition of periphrasis which guides the present analysis, before moving to detailed discussion of actual examples. Verbal periphrasis is de ned here as the combination of auxiliary verb plus participle or in nitive as near equivalent to or replacement for a synthetic tense form. According to this de nition, there are total of sixty-eight examples in the entire Greek Pentateuch. This small quantity displays both independent Greek usage and Hebrew interference. Over 57% of examples closely imitate similar Hebrew expressions.

Keywords: tense forms, verbal Periphrasis, rare periphrases, auxiliary verb, subjectivity, Porter Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

9.1. Preamble Periphrastic tense forms are a recognized feature of the Greek verbal system from the language of Homer through to the Modern period. Yet their analysis involves both major theoretical di

culties and an

Inescapable element of subjectivity. To begin with, there is a basic problem over de nition. Di erent writers apply the term. ‘verbal periphrasis’ in quite di erent, often rather vague, senses. Porter's recent attempt to impose a more rigorous de nition is unfortunately unconvincing. Second, there will inevitably be a subjective element in any classi cation, since the important εἰμί periphrasis is not formally distinct from certain other constructions. This ambiguity of form frequently causes potential, for disagreement over identi cation of speci c examples, even those of the suppletive type (§ 9.2), as genuine periphrases.

For these reasons the periphrastic tense forms of the Greek Pentateuch have been excluded, from the preceding treatment and reserved for separate discussion in the present chapter. According to my approach, 68 examples may be identi ed. There are 62 εἰμί plus participle periphrases, 3 with γίνομαι plus participle, and 3 more with μέλλω plus in nitive. Thus, the feature is rather rare in this large translation Greek sample. The Pentateuchal periphrases are of special interest for their relationship to the underlying Hebrew. Aerts states that LXX language (and. ultimately Hebrew interference) is the source of certain εἰμί plus participle periphrases in later Biblical Greek. His assertion needs to be tested regarding the extent to which the LXX periphrases—theoretically natural Greek constructions—can be considered Hebraistic. By way of p. 221

introduction it will be necessary

to treat the theoretical debate, in particular the contribution of Porter,

and to establish the de nition of periphrasis which guides the present analysis, before moving to detailed discussion of actual examples.

9.2. The Definition of Verbal Periphrasis Employment of the term ‘verbal periphrasis’ in Greek grammatical scholarship has tended to lack precision. Some authorities use this and related expressions with a broad application to describe a variety of verbal, 1

combinations. It is also employed in a narrower technical sense, strictly of auxiliary verb plus participle or in nitive as a near equivalent to a synthetic verbal form., e.g. Gen. 1.4: 12 ἦν κατοικῶν beside Gen. 14: 13 κατῴκει, both meaning ‘he was living’. It is important to avoid confusion between these two uses of the term. 2

In the present study only the more precise sense of ‘analytic tense form’ is intended, unless otherwise indicated. Aerts observes the following subdivision, which is ‘sometimes’ applied to the analysis of such periphrastic 3

tense forms:

(1) substitute periphrasis, which is more or less equivalent to an existing synthetic form, such as the already cited ἦν κατοικῶν; (2) suppletive periphrasis, which replaces a no longer (if ever) existing synthetic form, e.g. the perfect subjunctive ὦ εὑρηκώς of Exod. 33: 13; 4

(3) expressive periphrasis, which ‘appears to be used with a special purport’.

Of these, the rst two categories are useful for describing Ancient Greek, though just how close an 5

equivalent to a synthetic form may be produced through substitute periphrasis is debatable. On the other hand, the third, type seems a doubtful entity. In. the rst place it appears over-subjective. How is one to p. 222

establish the ‘special

purport’ involved? More signi cantly, if this special force means a sense not

conveyed by a parallel synthetic form, then, the type is not a verbal periphrasis in the strict sense adopted above. Therefore, Aerts's third category is not recognized here. A problem immediately arises in de ning verbal, periphrasis in its technical sense. Which verbs can be said to function as auxiliaries in genuinely close equivalents to synthetic forms? While Aerts treats only εἰμί and 6

ἔχω plus participle constructions in his in uential monograph, many writers would add other verbs to the 7

list and. would, include combinations of nite verb plus in nitive.

Porter argues that only ‘aspectually vague’ verbs can potentially operate in this way. He asserts that a handful of very old verbs—namely εἰμί ‘be’, εἶμί ‘come/go’, ἧμαι ‘sit’, κεῖμαι ‘lie’ νέομαι ‘go/come’, and φημί 8

‘say’—are not formally marked for aspectual choices and are therefore aspectually vague. According to this approach εἰμί is the only genuine auxiliary in verbal periphrasis, suited to such usage by the combination of 9

its aspectual vagueness with its natural lexical vagueness.

This line of reasoning seems unsatisfactory. It lacks diachronic scope and. yields an arti cially narrow de nition of periphrasis. Porter's allegedly vague verbs may be taken as relics from the pre-aspectual structure of the Greek verbal system (§ 2.3.5). Some items in his list (εἶμί, νέομαι, φημί) have in fact become marked for aspect through, suppletion from other roots. In the obvious case of εἶμί, for instance, this present tense form develops the function of a future in Attic Greek to the present ἔρχομαι and aorist ἧλθον, while supplying also the oblique moods, participle, and in nitive of ἔρχομαι. It is clearly imperfective, not aspectually vague. Porter o ers a lengthy discussion of φημί, arguing that the form ἔφην is functionally 10

neither imperfect nor aorist and, needs to be explained in terms of aspectual vagueness, p. 223

11

to admit that there is limited

development of an aorist ἔφησα,

but is compelled

while ignoring the role of εἶπον as aorist to

φημί. Even εἰμί overlaps partially the semantic range of γίνομαι, and ἐγενόμν in the sense ‘was’ can arguably function as its aorist (cf. § 8.3 n. 7, § 9.3.1). Meanwhile, εἰμί ἧμαι, and κεῖμαι have probably not been fully integrated into the aspectual system because their lexical, semantics do not foster marking for more than one aspect (the imperfective), Without the notion of vagueness Porter would nd di

culty with the aspectual contribution of the auxiliary

to a periphrastic tense form, since he rightly states that the participle determines the aspectual, character of 12

the periphrasis.

However, I take the lexical, not aspectual, semantics of a verb to govern its potential use

as auxiliary in verbal periphrasis, Certain verbs are suited by their (in some cases changing) lexical meaning 13

to grammaticalization in this role.

At di erent periods Greek develops a rich variety of analytic

conjugational patterns, involving such auxiliaries as ἔχω, θέλω, μέλλω, and ὀφείλω, in addition to the familiar 14

εἰμί, in combination with participles and in nitives,

Once a. lexically suitable verb becomes

grammaticalized in the auxiliary function a degree of aspectual vagueness is a probable result, But it is very di

cult to entertain the notion of aspectual vagueness as the cause of the usage.

According to interpretation of the perfect tense form as aspectually imperfective (§ 2.5.4), there is in fact no p. 224

case for ‘aspectual

15

con ict’

in the εἰμί plus participle periphrases of the Greek Pentateuch. All of them

involve the aspectually imperfective forms of εἰμί and similarly imperfective present or perfect participles. 16

Elsewhere the εἰμί plus aorist participle periphrasis is of course well documented,

and we shall also nd

evidence for aspectual mixture in the γίνομαι plus participle and μέλλω plus in nitive periphrases (§ 9.3). The auxiliary's signi cant contribution to the formal semantics of periphrases is understood in the present study as modal, and in the indicative forms also temporal, it is agreed, with. Porter that the participle (or in nitive) conveys the signi cant aspectual value. Since auxiliary function is not seen here as the preserve only of εἰμί, it is next necessary to establish which lexically suitable verbs are actually grammaticalized as periphrastic auxiliaries in the particular documents and. period, under discussion. It is also important in the case of the oblique moods not to confuse compound expressions involving the indicatives of such verbs as 17

χρή, δύναμαι, and δεῖ plus in nitive with genuine non-indicative periphrases.

While the older forms of these

moods remain living categories in the language, we can only regard as true periphrases for non-indicative moods those compound expressions formed with the (genuine) auxiliary in a non-indicative mood, e.g. Gen. 1: 6 ἔστω διαχωρίζον, ‘let it divide’.

9.3. Periphrases Rare in the Greek Pentateuch 9.3.1. The γίνομαι periphrases The most common periphrastic type of post-Classical Greek is εἰμί plus participle, as in the Classical 18

language,

19

It ‘occurs quite regularly’ throughout the LXX

and provides most of the Pentateuchal

instances. These will be discussed in detail in § 9.4. The interesting Classical combination of ἔχω plus aorist or perfect participle, which is mainly restricted to Sophocles, Euripides, and Herodotus, begins to die out in 20

the early fourth century BC and is not found, in the LXX. compound p. 225

There are a few examples, however, of other

verbal expressions in the Pentateuchal books, which may be classi ed as verbal periphrases

according to the de nition adopted here. As has been mentioned, the semantic ranges of εἰμί and γίνομαι overlap when the latter's primary sense ‘become’ is weakened to ‘be’. This is well brought out by the example of Gen. 18: 18 γινόμενος ἔσται for ‫היו יהיה‬, to which we shall return. Therefore, γίνομαι plus participle may sometimes be understood as a periphrasis in 21

the technical sense,

though it is usually di

cult to decide whether γίνομαι functions as a synonym of εἰμί in

particular cases. Thompson claims that ‘The periphrastic tense employing a form of γίνομαι plus participle is 22

well-attested in the LXX’,

23

but his reference to Aerts is not supportive

and, the evidence of the Pentateuch

at least contradicts him. There are actually only a few debatable Pentateuchal cases of verbal periphrasis involving γίνομαι plus participle. Porter, who takes εἰμί and γίνομαι as synonyms to be distinguished only by aspectual markedness, has a di erent view He states that ‘γίνομαι appears to be the aspectually marked lexical equivalent of the lexically vague εἰμί’, with a ‘vague meaning … suitable to any number of contexts, while still contributing an 24

aspectual semantic component’.

In accordance with, his concept of aspectual vagueness as a requirement

of periphrastic auxiliaries, he does not recognize the auxiliary function of the aspectually marked γίνομαι. If we take lexical semantics as the feature of major importance for potential auxiliary use, the question of aspectual marking ceases to be a problem. But we need to distinguish between γίνομαι in the sense ‘become’ plus participle, when it does not function, as an auxiliary (an equivalent to a synthetic tense form not p. 226

resulting from

the combination), and in its weakened meaning ‘be’. Porter's description of the lexical 25

character of the verb is inaccurate

and is undermined by his own hyperliteral translations of γίνομαι plus

participle constructions, which stress the primary sense of ‘become’ (a meaning not conveyed by εἰμί ‘be, 26

exist’).

In the sense ‘be’ γίνομαι plus participle may form a synthetic tense equivalent. This weakened sense seems to prevail in 3 Pentateuchal instances: Gen. 31: 40 ἐγινόμην τῆς ἡμέρας συγκαιόμενος τῷ καύματι καὶ παγετῷ τῆς νυκτός. (‘I was being burnt up by heat during the day and by frost during the night.’) ‫הייתי ביום אבלני הרב וקרח בלילה‬ The Greek recasts the MT's construction ‘[thus] I was; by day the heat consumed me, and the frost by 27

night’.

Exod. 17: 12 καὶ ἐγένοντο aἱ χεῖρες Μωυσῆ ἐστηριγμέναι ἕως δυσμῶν ἡλίου. (‘And Moses’ hands were supported 28

until sunset.)

‫ויהי ידיו אמונה עד־בא השׁמשׁ‬

29

Here the MT literally means: ‘and his hands were steadiness until sunset’; ‫ אמונה‬is a noun.

Num. 10: 36 (MT 10: 34) καὶ ἡ νεφέλη ἐyένετo σκιάζουσα ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἡμέρας ἐv τῷ ἐξαίρειν αὐτοὺς ἐκ τῆς παρεμβολῆς. (‘And the cloud was overshadowing them, by day at their departure from the camp.’) ‫וענן יהוה עליהם יומם בנסעם מן־המתנה‬ The LXX translator presumably read ‫יהיה‬, not the MT's ‫יהוה‬. The aspectual variations of the γίνομαι forms in these examples are interesting, but need to be treated with caution. It is well known that forms of γίνομαι commonly render forms of ‫ היה‬in the LXX, especially ἐγένετο δέ/ 30

καὶ ἐγένετο and similar for ‫ ויהי‬and similar. p. 227

Thus, there is a mechanical quality to choice of the aorist

indicative. In fact, at Gen. 31: 40 εγενομην is the majority A reading instead of more di

Wevers's ἐγινόμην, though the

31

cult imperfect is probably original.

In these γίνομαι combinations, as in those with εἰμί, I take the participle to provide the dominant aspectual contribution to the periphrasis. So the Gen. 31: 40 and Num. 10: 36 instances are to be de ned as imperfect indicative equivalents, while the Exod. 17: 12 instance is a pluperfect indicative equivalent. By contrast with the preceding examples, the primary meaning of γίνομαι seems to be operative in the γίνομαι plus participle constructions of Gen. 26: 13; Exod. 19: 19; Deut. 19: 11 (a debatable case); 22: 23, as also in Lev. 13: 49 and 22: 13, where the participles are fully adjectivized. None of these instances is accepted here as a genuine equivalent to a synthetic tense form. They are, incidentally, all in uenced by the underlying Hebrew structure (cf. § 9.5 on the genuine Pentateuchal periphrases). Only the Gen. 26: 13 form of γίνομαι does not render a form of

32

.‫היה‬

9.3.2. The μέλλω periphrases The γίνομαι plus participle periphrases, like the common εἰμί type, arise from, sentences of originally nominal structure. A fundamentally di erent type of periphrasis involving nite verb plus in nitive appears in purely verbal, sentences. The construction, μέλλω plus in nitive is usually taken as a temporal or modal 33

periphrasis in Ancient Greek,

34

In the Pentateuch, however, as in the Ptolemaic papyri,

it is extremely rare. 35

It would appear that μέλλω is moribund as an auxiliary in the vernacular language of this period.

There are

36

only 3 Pentateuchal examples, all of which may be classed as future tense periphrases. p. 228

Gen. 25: 22 εἷπεν δέ Eἰ οὕτως μοι μέλλει γίνεσθαι, ἵνα τί μοι τοῦτο; (‘And she said, “If it will be so- for me, why is this [happening] for me?” ’) ‫ותאמר אם־כן למה וה אנכי‬ The sense of the MT (literally ‘And she said, “If it is thus, why is this as to me?” ’) is notoriously obscure 37

and is variously interpreted in the ancient versions,

The LXX combines free and literal translation

techniques; the periphrasis itself is quite independent, but otherwise the Greek wording closely follows that 38

of the MT.

Gen, 43: 25 ἤκουσαν γὰρ ὅιn ἐκεῖ μέλλει ἀριστᾶν. (‘For they heard that he would be dining there,’) ‫כי שׁמעו כי־שׁם יאכלו לחם‬ Here μέλλει ἀριστᾶν ‘he would be dining’ recasts ‫‘ יאכלו לחם‬they would eat bread’, so as to change the sense 39

completely,

but interestingly retains the number of separate elements in the Hebrew (for the retained

present indicative μέλλει of the indirect speech see § 6.2.5).

Exod. 4: 12 καὶ συμβιβάσω σε ἅ μέλλεις λαλῆσαι. (And I shall teach you what you will say.’) ‫והוריתיך אשׁר תדבר‬ This example, as an alternative to the synthetic future, is entirely without motivation from the Hebrew text, μέλλεις λαλῆσαι matching the imperfect ‫תדבר‬. The Exodus example contrasts with those of Genesis in its use of the aorist in nitive. Wevers's apparent dismissal of the n reading λαλειν on aspectual grounds is, however, unsatisfactory. It would not be 40

‘tautological in view of μέλλεις’,

as reference to the Genesis examples, which both have the present of μέλλω

plus present in nitive, shows (at Gen. 25: 22 Wevers in fact rejects the variant γενεσθαι). The rise of periphrastic futures in Greek involves the introduction of aspectual distinctions into expressions of futurity p. 229

(§ 2.6.2 and n. 89). At Exod. 4: 12 linguistic grounds cannot decide

the choice of reading, since a pure

aspectual choice between present and. aorist in nitive is available in the context (on such choices cf. § 2.3.2). But the atomic viewpoint of the aorist λαλῆσαι is certainly appropriate and should be preferred as the reading with strongest textual support.

9.3.3. Pentateuchal use of θέλω The verb θέλω becomes an important auxiliary in later Greek. In combination with in nitives it is more 41

common in the Pentateuch than the μέλλω periphrases (though also rare in the Ptolemaic papyri).

Yet the

lexical semantics of the Pentateuchal occurrences clearly demonstrate that θέλω has not yet developed a 42

genuine auxiliary function. 43

‘be willing, want’.

In 15 examples plus in nitive it almost always has the usual Classical meaning

Only in Exod. 2; 14 μὴ ἀνελεῖν με σὺ θέλεις …; ‘surely you don't mean to kill me?’, for ‫הלהרגני‬ 44

‫אתה אמר‬, do we nd the shift from ‘be willing’ to ‘mean/intend’,

foreshadowing the later development.

9.3.4. Summary The present analysis, then, yields only 6 Pentateuchal examples of these rarer types of early post-Classical periphrasis. We have 2 imperfect indicatives (Gen. 31: 40; Num. 10: 36) and 1 pluperfect indicative (Exod. 17: 12) of the γίνομαι plus participle construction. There are also 3 future indicative periphrases (Gen. 25: 22; 43: 25; Exod. 4: 12) of the μέλλω plus in nitive type. These examples should be compared with the counts for εἰμί periphrases given below in. Table 13

Table 13. Frequencies of εἰμί Periphrases in the Pentateuch Form

Gen.

Exod.

Lev.

Num.

Deut.

Total

Indicative

0

0

2

1

0

3

Subjunctive

0

0

1

0

0

1

Imperative

1

0

0

0

0

1

9

2

0

2

4

17

3

5

0

2

5

15

Indicative

1

0

1

2

0

4

Subjunctive

0

3

0

4

0

7

Imperative

1

1

1

0

0

3

3

3

0

0

0

6

Indicative

3

1

0

0

1

5

total

21

15

5

11

10

62

Present

Imperfect Indicative Future Indicative Perfect

Pluperfect Indicative Future perfect

Note. The double periphrases of Gen. 4: 12, 14; Exod. 28: 20, and Deut. 28: 29 are each counted once in the table. The Deut, 28: 33 example is a problem, since it involves ἔσῃ plus contrasting present and perfect participles. I have counted it twice.

p. 230

9.4. The εἰμί Periphrases in the Greek Pentateuch 9.4.1. Problems for definition of εἰμί periphrases As in Classical and early post-Classical Greek generally, so in the Greek Pentateuch the productive type of verbal periphrasis, in the strict sense of near synthetic tense equivalent, is εἰμί plus participle. Only the present and perfect participles are used (according to Aerts, periphrasis of εἰμί plus aorist participle does not 45

occur in the LXX at all).

The patterns είμί/ἢμηυ/ἒσομαι plus present participle form presents, imperfects, and

futures respectively, while είμί/ἢμηυ/ἒσομαι plus perfect participle form perfects, pluperfects, and future perfects. Some special problems (relevant in part also to γίνομαι periphrases) are involved in the de nition of the εἰμί 46

periphrases, the theorists disagreeing over criteria to be applied. 47

deserves notice.

Most of the di

In particular, the contribution of Porter

culties pertain to substitute periphrasis. Suppletive periphrases are

relatively clear-cut, since they do not occur in theoretical opposition to synthetic equivalents. As a result, it

should rarely be di

cult to identify such Greek forms, e.g. periphrastic perfect subjunctives (or indeed the

suppletive periphrases of other verbal systems, such as Latin amata est). First, Aerts draws a semantic distinction between a ‘situation- xing’ (i.e. lexically stative?) class of 48

periphrasis and Björck's ‘progressive’ (i.e. durative) periphrasis.

For Aerts, the progressive type is a Koine, 49

and especially Biblical Greek, innovation, manifesting Semitic in uence. 50

evidence-to the contrary.

This seems to ignore Classical

In addition, Porter has shown that the situation- xing/progressive opposition

is unreliable. Identi cation of speci c examples of both types is apparently based largely on translational 51

equivalents in modern languages.

Second, genuine εἰμί periphrases are formally indistinct from certain other verbal constructions with which p. 231

they can easily be

confused. Instances in which a participle appears in close proximity and. grammatical

agreement to a form, of εἰμί, but is either fully adjectivized or (by a further development) substantivized, or functions as an adverbial modi er, must be carefully distinguished. In the case of adjectivization, identi cation of examples either as copula plus predicate adjective or as periphrasis is inevitably somewhat subjective, depending on the interpreter's feeling for each particular example. As Fanning notes, there is ‘very little beyond appropriateness in the context to serve as a basis for 52

deciding between the options’.

Porter nds this approach unsound, since it takes us beyond the bounds of

formal criteria for identi cation of periphrasis. He argues that ‘delimitation of periphrasis on… the basis of 53

adjectivisation of the Participle … must be dismissed’,

making the important observation that

translational choices tend to in uence modern interpretations, which are accordingly subjective. Porter would reject the distinction between ‘genuinely’ periphrastic and fully adjectivized participles on the 54

grounds that even when the participle functions like an adjective it ‘asserts its verbal aspect’.

This itself seems both a subjective judgement and, extremely doubtful. Certainly, in the next stage of development from fully adjectivized participle to substantive it is di

cult to believe that the original,

aspectual force was still overt. An example is ἂρχων ‘chief, captain, ruler’, always substantival in the 55

Pentateuch.

Such adjectivized and substantivized participles are characteristically employed in the present

or perfect tense forms, not the aorist (cf. § 5.3.12). The perfective/imperfective opposition does not seem to be operative here. The issue needs to be tested more broadly in Ancient Greek, and is likely to involve further problems of de nition. By what objective criteria, for instance, are we to judge when a participle becomes completely adjectivized? At any rate, using the technical sense of periphrasis adopted in the present study, 56

we are obliged to go beyond the limitations of Porter's formally based de nition of the feature.

An attempt

must be made on the grounds of contextual probabilities to isolate the genuine εἰμί periphrases from cases where the participle in close proximity and grammatical agreement to a form of εἰμί is fully adjectivized. p. 232

For Pentateuchal examples of the latter type note Gen, 9: 3 ζῶν, 3ο: 33 κεκλεμμένον, Exod. 21: 23 ἐξεικονισμένον, Num. 22: 12 εὐλογημένος (but see § 9.4.10 on Gen. 27: 33 εὐλογημένος). In these instances the fully adjectivized participle acts as predicate. Observe also Lev, 13; 11 παλαιου μένη, 31 ξανθίζονσα, 32 ξανθίζονσα, 42 ἐξανθον̂σα, 57 ἐξανθον̂σα, Deut. 32: 20 ἐξεστραμμένη, 28 ἀπολωλε-κóς, where the participles function as attributive adjectives. 57

Clearly substantival are Gen. 42: 6 ἂρχων

and Deut,. 23: 17 πορνεύων and τελισκóμενος, while τεθνηκώς in Exod.

58

12: 30 should be taken in the same way.

Participles in close proximity to forms of εἰμί but functioning as adverbial modi ers are also potentially misleading. So in Exod, 28:7 δύo ἐπωμίδες ἒσονται αὐτῷ συνέχονσαι for ‫שׁתי כתפת חברת יהיה־לו‬, where the Greek should be translated ‘it will have two shoulder-straps, joined together’. For other Pentateuchal examples note Gen. 3: 5 καὶ ἒσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν, ‘and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil’ for ‫והייתם‬ ‫( כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע‬while this is not periphrasis, it appears to have been interpreted as such by the author of 59

the Apocalypse of Moses);

Gen. 29: 2 ἀva-πανόμενα, Exod. 2: 16 ποιμαίνονσαι,7: 5 ἐκτείνων, 32: 16 κεκολαμμένη, 60

Num. 6: 5 τρέøων, 35: 34 κατασκηνῶν. Consider also the anacoluthic use of λέγων after ἐστίν in Deut. 30: 12, 13,

though it ought to be stressed that the participles here are mechanical renderings of ‫( לאמר‬cf. § 5.3.12 and n. 20). Third, Porter states that any elements ‘modifying or specifying the auxiliary (e.g. subject)’ inserted between auxiliary and participle (except for connectives) should be ‘seen as a formal means of establishing the independence of the auxiliary’, so that such patterns are not to be considered periphrastic (and would have 61

to be included in the class of adverbial modi ers discussed above),

Thus, for Porter Gen, 39: 23 οὐκ ἦv ὁ

ἀρχιδεσμοøύλαξ τον̂ δεσμωτηρίον γινώσκων δι’ αὐτὸν οὐθέν (see § 9.4.6) cannot be a periphrasis. His rule seems p. 233

entirely arti cial, ignoring the natural exibility of Greek word

62

order.

It is inapplicable to translation

Greek, where the order of words is largely dictated by that of the Vorlage. In conclusion to this section it must be stated that although Porter's attempt to isolate the feature of verbal periphrasis along formal lines is admirable in principle, none of his proposed criteria for identi cation—the requirement of combined aspectual and lexical ‘vagueness’ in. auxiliary verbs (discussed, in § 9.2), the dismissal of distinction between fully adjectivized and truly periphrastic participles, and the imposition of arbitrary rules regarding word order—is convincing. Thus, his treatment does not represent a genuine advance on the work of Aerts and others, except in so far as it demonstrates their shortcomings. It is inescapably true that the analysis of Greek, verbal periphrasis, especially substitute periphrasis, contains a considerable element of subjectivity.

9.4.2. Distribution of Pentateuchal examples We may now turn to examination of actual Pentateuchal examples of εἰμί periphrases. By my count there are 62 (at least arguable) occurrences, 45 substitute periphrases, and 17 of the suppletive type. Another division worth observing is that into 37 εἰμί plus present participle combinations and 25 εἰμί plus perfect participle combinations, Examples are arranged, in the following discussion by tense and mood form, For the distribution among the Pentateuchal books see Table 13 at § 9.4.13.

9.4.3. Present indicatives There are 3 present indicatives: Lev 11: 26 καὶ ἐv πâσιν τοι̂ς κτήνεσιν, ὃ ἐστιv διχηλου̂ν ὁπλὴν καὶ ὀνυχιστ η̂ρας ὀνυχίζει κα=ὶ= μηρυκισμὁν οὐ μαρυκâται. (‘And among all the beasts, that which divides [its] hoof and has cloven hoofs and does not chew its cud.’) ‫לכל־הבהמה אשׁר הוא מפרסת פרסה ושׁסע איננה שׁסעת וגרה איננה מעלה‬ Note that the Greek omits the rst ‫ איננה‬of the MT In Wevers's view the LXX thus makes ‘much better 63

sense’. p. 234

Lev, 20: 24 γη̂, ἣτις ἐστ ὶv ῥέουσα γάλα καὶ μέλι. (‘Α land which is owing with milk and honey,’) ‫ארץ ובת תלב ודבשׁ‬ With the comparative freedom of ἣτις ἐστ ὶv ῥέουσα for ‫ זבת‬contrast ἣτις ἐστ ὶv ῥέουσα for ‫ אשׁר הוא זבת‬in the following example. Num. 14: 8 γη̂ ἣτις ἐστ ὶv ῥέουσα γάλα καὶ μέλι. (‘Α land which is owing with milk and honey’) ‫ארץ אשׁר־הוא ובת תלב ודבשׁ‬

9.4.4. Present subjunctive There is only I Pentateuchal instance of the present subjunctive. Lev. 15: 19 καὶ γυνή, ἣτις ἄv ᾖ ῥέουσα αἳματι. (‘And as for a woman who has a bloody discharge [lit. ows with blood].’) ‫ואשׁה כי־תהיה ובה דם‬ 64

With ᾖ ῥέουσα for ‫ תהיה זבה‬here

compare the equally literalistic synthetic subjunctives ῥέᾖ ῥύσιν for ‫ יזוב זוב‬and

ῥέᾖ for ‫ תזוב‬in Lev I5: 25.

9.4.5. Present imperative There is also a solitary example of a third person singular present imperative. Gen. 1: 6 γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐv μέσῳ τον̂ ὓςaτος καὶ ἒστω ςιαχωρίζον ἀνà μέσον ὓςaτος καὶ ὓςaτος. (‘Let there be a rmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide between water and water.’) ‫יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים‬ Against my interpretation of the expression ἒστω ςιαχωρίζον as a periphrasis, note that Wevers takes ςιαχωρίζον 65

substantively in the sense ‘a thing that separates’.

9.4.6 Imperfect indicatives The most common verbal periphrasis in the Greek Pentateuch substitutes for the imperfect indicative. There are 17 examples, 9 of them, in Genesis, p. 235

Gen, 4: 2 καὶ ἐγένετο “Άβελ ποιμήν προβάτων, Κάιν δὲ ἧν ἐργαζόμενος τὴν γῆν. (‘And Abel became a shepherd, while Cain was tilling the earth,’) ‫ויהי־הבל רעה צאן וקין היה עבד אדמה‬ Here we nd the aorist ἐγένετο in its primary sense ‘became’ plus predicate noun in the rst limb of the 66

sentence coordinate with the periphrastic imperfect in the second. 67

of ‫ויהי‬/‫ היה‬with substantival participle in each limb.

The Hebrew has the same construction

A combination of lexical semantic requirements and

literalism, rather than deliberate aspectual choice, is probably responsible for the aorist/imperfect contrast in the Greek. On the one hand, the change of verb is an innovation of the translator, stressing that Abel 68

‘became’ a shepherd, in contrast with his elder brother, who already ‘was’ working the soil.

On the other,

καὶ ἐγένετο is the regular re ex of ‫ ויהי‬in its rst 22 translated instances in Genesis (καὶ ἧν for ‫ ויהי‬appears rst in 4: 17, where it is periphrastic; see below), and its occurrence here is likely to be in uenced by translation 69

technique.

Gen, 4: 17 καὶ ἧν οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν τὴν πόλιν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι του̂ υἰου̂ αὐτου̂ ‘Ένώχ. (‘And he was 70

building a city and he named the city by the name of his son. Enoch’) ‫ויהי בנה עיר ויקרא שׁם העיר כשׁם בנו חנוך‬

Gen, 1.3: 10 καὶ ἐπάρας Λώτ τους ὀøθαλμοὺς αὐτου̂ εἶδεν πâσαν τὴν περίχωρον του̂ ’ Ιορδάνου ὃτι πâσα ἧν ποτιζομένη. 71

(‘And Lot raised his eyes and saw that the whole valley of the Jordan was under irrigation.’) ‫וישׂא־לוט את־עיניו וירא את־כל־ככר הירדן כי כלה משׁקה‬

72

p. 236

Gen, 14: 12 ἧν γὰρ κaτοικῶν ἐv Σοδόμοις. (‘For he was living in Sodom,’) ‫והוא ישׁב בסדם‬

Note the contrasting rendering of aὐτòς ςὲ κατ ῴκει πρòς τ ῇ δρυἶ τ ῇ Μαμβρή for ‫ והוא שׁכן באלני ממרא‬in the following verse. There aὐτòς ςέ is used to emphasize the change of subject, probably occasioning the di erent treatment of a Hebrew construction identical with that of the Gen. 14: 12 instance (the fact that the MT uses participles from di erent verbs in the two instances is not relevant to the syntactic considerations). Gen, 26: 35. καὶ ἧσαν ἐρίζονσαι τῷ ’Ισαὰκ καὶ τῇ ‘Ρεβέκκą. (‘And they were quarrelling with Isaac and Rebecca’) ‫ותהיין מרת רוח ליצחק ולרבקה‬ The periphrasis here is a free rendering employed in translating a grammatically awkward Hebrew expression. The problem concerns not so much the hapax ‫מרת‬, which is misinterpreted in the Greek, as the genitive construct ‫‘ מרת רוח‬a bitterness of spirit’, which is apparently understood as ‘rebelliousness of 73

spirit’.

The translation, demonstrates the natural character of the Greek periphrasis, since it is not in itself

motivated by the underlying text, though, probably used deliberately to approximate the number of elements found in the Hebrew. Gen, 31: 10 καὶ ἰδοὺ οἱ τράγοι καὶ οἱ κριοὶ ἀναβαίνοντες ἧσαν ἐπὶ τὰ πρόβατα καὶ τὰς αἶγας διάλενκοι καὶ ποικίλοι καὶ σποδοειδε⍳̂ς ρ̒αντοἱ, (‘And behold, the he-goats and rams were mounting the sheep and she-goats, 74

(being) pure white

and spotted and ashy speckled’)

‫והנה העתדים העלים על־הצאן עקדים נקדים וברדים‬ p. 237

Here the Greek not only ampli es the Hebrew by adding καὶ οἱ κριοἱ, 75

‫‘ על‬which were mounting’

but recasts syntactically the MT's ‫העלים‬

(unless based on a Vorlage with anarthrous participle). Wevers feels that ἧσαν

‘makes the syntax of this passage di

76

cult’,

and would make better sense transposed after αἶγας. But the

Greek is clear as it stands and the position, of the adjectives (though based of course on the Hebrew word order) produces an e ective emphasis. Contrast Gen. 31: 12, where καὶ ἰδὲ τοὺς τράγους καὶ τοὺς κριοὺς ἀναβαίνοντας renders

77

.‫וראה כל־העתדים העלים‬

Gen,37: 2 ’Iωσὴø δέκα ἑπτὰ ἐτ ῶν ἧν ποιμαίνων μετὰ τῶν ἀδελøῶν αὐτου̂ τὰ πρόβατα ὢν νέος. (‘Joseph, who was 78

[sc. ὢν] ι j years old, was tending the sheep with his brothers, since he was a youth.’) ‫יוסף בן־שׁבע־עשׂרה שׂנה היה רעה את־אחיו בצאן הוא נער‬

Gen, 39; 23 οὐκ ἧν ὁ ἀρχιδεσμοøύλαξ τον̂ δεσμωτηρίον γινώσκων δι’ αὐτόν οὐθέν πάντα γὰρ ἧν διὰ χειρòς ’Ιωσήø. (‘The chief jailer of the prison was not aware of anything because of him; for everything was in the 79

hands of Joseph.’)

‫אין שׂר בית־הסהר ראה את־כל־מאומה בידו‬ Gen. 40: 13 καὶ δώσεις τò ποτήριον Φαραὼ εἰς τ ὴν χει̂ρα αὐτου̂ κατὰ τ ὴν ἀρχήν σου τήν προτέραν, ὡς ἧσθα οἰνοχόῶν, (‘And you will put. Pharaoh's cup into his hand in accordance with your former o

ce, when you

were acting as butler’) ‫ונתת כוס־פרעה בידו כמשׁפט הראשׁון אשׁר הײת משׁקהו‬ The Greek, translation passes over the pronominal su 80

participle.

x of ‫‘ משׁקהו‬his butler’ in rendering the noun with a

Exod. 3: 1 καὶ Μωυσῆς ἧν ποιμαίνων τά πρόβατα ’Iοθόρ. (‘And Moses was tending the sheep of Jethro.’) ‫ומשׁה היה רעה את־צאן יתרו‬ Exod. 9: 24 ἧν δὲ ἡ χάλαζα, καὶ τò πυ̂ρ øλογίζον ἐν τ ῇ χαλάζῃ. (‘And the hail shower was happening, and re was ashing in the hail.’) p. 238

‫ויהי ברד ואשׁ מתלקחת בתוך הברד‬ 81

The ἧν does double duty here and øλογίζον is therefore to be taken as periphrastic.

Num. 11: 1 καὶ ἧν ὁ λαòς γογγύζων πονηρὰ ἒναντι κυρίου, (‘And the people were grumbling wickedly before the Lord’) ‫ויהי העם כמתאננים רע באזני יהוה‬ 82

The MT has ‘And the people were like (‫ )כ‬those complaining wickedly in the hearing of the Lord’.

Num. 35: 23 αὐτòς δὲ οὐκ ἐχθρòς αὐτον̂ ἧν oὐδὲ ζητῶν κακοποιῆσαι αὐτόν, (‘But he was not his enemy nor was he seeking to harm him.’) ‫והוא לא־אויב לו ולא מבקשׁ רעתו‬ Here ἧν does double duty, as in Exod. 9: 24, and is to be understood with ζητῶν, so that this is another instance of elliptical periphrasis. Deut. 9: 22 καὶ ἐv τῷ ’Έμπυρισμῷ καὶ ἐv τῷ Πειρασμῷ καὶ ἐv τοι̂ς Μνήμασιν τῆς ἐπιθυμίας παροξύνοντες ἧτε κύριον, (‘And at the Burning and at the Temptation and at the Tombs of Longing you were provoking the Lord.’) ‫ובתבערה ובמסה ובקברת התאוה מקצפים הײתם את־יהוה‬ Deut. 9: 24 ἀπειθου̂ντες ἧτε τὰ πρòς κύριον ἀπò τη̂ς ἡμέρας, ἧς ἐγνώσθη ὑμι̂ν. (‘You were disobeying the [commands] of the Lord from the day he became known to you.’) ‫ממרים הײתם עם־יהוה מיום דעתי אתכם‬ With this example compare the lexical, variation of παραπικραίνοντες ἧτε for ‫ ממרים היתם‬in Deut. 31: 27 (for which see also below). And contrast in 9: 7 the freer rendering ἀπειθου̂ντες διετελει̂τε, ‘you were continually disobeying’, also for

83

.‫ממרים הייתם‬

Deut. 19: 6 ὅτι oὐ μισών ἧν αὐτòν πρò τη̂ς ἐχθὲς καὶ πρò τη̂ς τρίτης. (‘For he was not hating him previously’) ‫כי לא שׂנא לו מתמול שׁלשׁום‬ Contrast the equally literal, but syntactically quite di erent, example of Deut. 19: 4. There καὶ οὖτος οὐ μισ ῶν αὐτόν renders ‫והוא לא־שׂנא לו‬, the Greek participial phrase being epexegetic in the sense ‘and. this man not 84

hating him’. p. 239

Deut. 31: 27 ἒτι γὰρ ἐμον̂ ζῶντος μεθ’ ὑμῶν σήμερον παραπικραίνοντες ἧτε τὰ πρòς τòν θεόν. (‘For while I am still 85

alive among you today you have been rebelling against the things pertaining to God.’) ‫בעודני חי עמכם היום ממרים היתם עם־יהוה‬

9.4.7. Future indicatives The other well-represented Pentateuchal periphrasis forms a substitute future indicative. There are 15 examples. Gen. 4: 12 στ ένών καὶ τρέμων ἒσ ῃ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (‘You will be groaning and trembling upon the earth’) ‫נע ונד תהיה בארץ‬ Gen. 4: 14 καὶ ἒσομαι στένων καὶ τρέμων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. (‘Then [καὶ] I shall be groaning and trembling upon the earth’) ‫והײתי נע ונד בארץ‬ This double periphrasis of Gen. 4: 12, 14 is lexically free (Hebrew ‫ נע ונד‬means ‘wandering and homeless’), 86

but structurally literal.

Gen. 18: 18 ’βραὰμ δὲ γινόμενος ἒσται εἰς ἒθνος μέγα καὶ πολύ, (‘And Abraham will become a great and numerous nation’) ‫ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול וצצום‬ Wevers regards γινόμενος ἒσται as a ‘rather remarkable’ rendering, ‘since γίνεσθαι means to become, and so does 87

εἶναι εἰς’

88

His interpretation overlooks, the periphrastic character of the construction,

and more

importantly fails to note that the participle γινόμενος represents a quite common type of re ex for the 89

underlying Hebrew in nitive absolute in. this construction (here it is in fact a near synonym of ἒσται).

The

90

example is really an accidental periphrasis, arising out of an arti cial translational pattern. p. 240

Exod. 22: 25 (MT 22: 24) οὐκ ἒσῃ αὐτòν κατεπείγων, οὐκ ἐπιθήσεις αὐτῷ.

τόκον. (‘You will not press him

hard (as a creditor), you will not charge him interest.’) ‫לא־תהיה לו כנשׁה לא־תשׂימון עליו נשׁך‬ Underlying the periphrasis in the rst clause the MT has ‘you will not be as (‫ )כ‬a creditor/usurer to him’. Exod. 25: 19 (MT 25: 20) ἔσονται οἱ χερουβὶμ ἐκτείνοντες τὰς πτέρυγας ἐπάνωθεν, συσκιάζοντες ταῖς πτέρυξιν αὐτῶν, (‘The Cherubim will be stretching out their wings above, overshadowing with their wings.’) ‫והיו הכרבים פרשׂי כנפים למעלה סככים בכנפוהם‬ The periphrasis renders a construct expression with epexegetic genitive ‫פרשׂי כנפים‬, lit. ‘spreading as regards 91

wings’.

92

I take the second participle συσκιάζοντες as an adverbial modi er.

Exod. 26: 3 contains an identical pair of future periphrases. Exod. 26: 3 πέντε δὲ αὐλαῖαι ἔσονται ἐξ ἀλλήλων συνεχόμεναι ἑτέρα ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. (‘And ve curtains will be joined together, one to another.’) ‫חמשׁ היריעת תהײן חברת אשׁה אל־אחתה‬ Exod. 26: 3 καὶ πέντε αὐλαῖαι ἔσονται συνεχόμεναι ἑτέρα ἐκ τῆς ἑτέρας. (‘And (another) ve curtains will be joined together, one to the other.’) ‫וחמשׁ יריעת חברת אשׁה אל־אחתה‬

Note that ‫ תהײן‬is not repeated in the second limb of the Hebrew verse, so the second instance of ἔσονται is a 93

Greek plus.

94

Against my interpretation Aerts regards these participles as adjectival.

Exod. 26: 13 πῆχυν ἐκ τούτου καὶ πῆχυν ἐκ τούτου ἐκ τοῦ ὑπερέχοντος τῶν δέρρεων ἐκ τοῦ μήκους τῶν δέρρεων τῆς σκηνῆς ἔσται συγκαλύπτον ἐπὶ τὰ πλάγια τῆς σκηνῆς. (‘Α cubit on one side and a cubit on the other side of that which remains over of the skins, from the length of the skins of the tent, will cover the sides of the tent.’) ‫והאמה מזה והאמה מזה בעדף בארך יריעת האהל יהיה סרוח על־צדי המשׁכן‬ Num. 8: 19 καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς ‘Ισραὴλ προσεγγίζων πρòς τὰ ἅγια. (‘And none among the sons of Israel will approach the sanctuary.’) p. 241

‫ולא יהיה בבני ישׂראל נגף בגשׁת בני־ישׂראל אל־הקדשׁ‬ This interesting periphrasis is a borderline case, since προσεγγίζων might well be taken as substantival, giving ‘there will not be … an approacher’. The expression occurs in free translation. The moderation of the language of the MT (‘and among the sons of Israel there will not be a plague when/if the sons of Israel 95

approach the sanctuary’) is perhaps deliberate, the word ‫‘ נגף‬blow, plague’ being left untranslated.

Num. 14: 33 oἱ δὲ υἱoὶ ὑμῶν ἔσονται νεμόμενοι ἐv τῇ ἐρήμῳ τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἀνοίσουσιν τὴν πορνείαν ὑμῶν. (‘And your sons will be shepherding in the wilderness for forty years and will bear your harlotry.’) ‫ובניכם יהיו רעים במדבר ארבעים שׁנה ונשׂאו את־זנותיכם‬ 96

Deut. 16: 15 καὶ ἔσῃ εὐφραινόμενος. (‘Also you will be happily disposed.’) ‫והײת אך שׂמח‬

Deut. 28: 29 καὶ ἔσῃ ψηλαφῶν μεσημβρίας. (‘And you will grope (blindly) at noon.’) ‫והײת ממשׁשׁ בצהרים‬ Deut. 28: 29 ἔσῃ τότε ἀδικούμενος καὶ διαρπαζόμενος. (‘And at that time you will be wronged and 97

despoiled.’)

‫והײת אך עשׁוק וגזול‬ Deut. 28: 33 καὶ ἔσῃ ἀδικούμενος καὶ τεθραυσμένος πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας. (‘And you will be wronged and in 98

stricken state all your days.’) ‫והײת רק עשׁוק ורצוץ כל־הימים‬

With the contrast between Greek present and perfect participles translating Qal passive participles in this p. 242

double periphrasis compare the paired present participles, also translating Qal passive participles,

in 28:

29 above. The periphrases are in uenced by the Hebrew wording, but the choices of tense form display natural Greek preferences, ἔσῃ … τεθραυσμένος being a suppletive future perfect combination. Deut. 28: 66 καὶ ἔσται ἡ ζωή σον κρεμαμένη ἀπέναντι τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν σου. (‘And your life will hang before your 99

eyes.’)

‫והיו חײך תלאים לך מנגד‬

9.4.8. Perfect indicatives We now move to εἰμί plus perfect participle combinations, rst the 4 examples forming perfect indicatives. Gen. 20: 3 αὕτη δέ ἐστιν συνῳκηκνῖα ἀνδρί. (‘But she is (already) married to a man.’) ‫והוא בעלת בעל‬ Hebrew ‫ בעלת בעל‬is a genitive construct expression, lit. ‘female possession of a husband’. The Qal passive 100

participle is substantival.

The Greek interestingly uses the demonstrative αὕτη δέ for ‫ והוא‬to emphasize

change of subject, but employs the periphrasis ἐστιν συνῳκηκυῖα in choosing a verbal rendering for ‫בעלת‬.We have a blend of two translational patterns. Lev. 14: 46 πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, ἃς ἀφωρισμένη ἐστίν. (‘All the time it is set apart [as unclean].’) ‫כל־ימי הסגיר אתו‬ 101

Here MT ‫ הִ ְסגִּ יר‬is an irregularly pointed in nitive construct.

While this rendering is structurally quite free, 102

it interprets the sense of the Hebrew construction elegantly and accurately. Num. 3: 9 δόμα δεδομένοι οὗτοί μοί εἰσιν. (‘As a gift these are given to me.’) ‫נתונם נתונם המה לו‬

Num. 8: 16 ὅτι ἀπόδομα ἀποδεδομένοι οὗτοί μοί εἰσιν. (‘For as a gift these are given to me.’) ‫כי נתנים נתנים המה לי‬

p. 243

9.4.9. Perfect subjunctives The perfect subjunctive is formed by suppletive periphrasis. There are 7 Pentateuchal examples. Exod. 21: 23. ἐὰν δὲ ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ. (‘But if it [i.e. the child] should be fully formed.’) ‫ואם־אסון יהיה‬ The Greek alters the sense of the MT's ‘but if there is a mishap’, so that the periphrasis is not speci cally motivated by the underlying text. It reproduces the separate elements of the Hebrew, however, the perfect participle matching the noun

103

.‫אסון‬

 μὴ ἀφανίσῃ αὐτόν. (‘But if the bull is known to have been a gorer in the past and they have warned its master and he should not get rid of it.’) ‫או נודע כו שׁור נגח הוא מתמול שׁלשׁם ולא ישׁמרנו בעליו‬ 104

Here διαμεμαρτυρημένοι ὦσιν belongs to a free elaboration based on the Hebrew of 21: 29,

where the aorist

subjunctive διαμαρτύρωνται, appropriate in that context, translates ‫( והועד‬the form διαμαρτύρωνται is ambiguous 105

and might be taken as present subjunctive).

Exod. 33: 13 γνωστῶς εἰδῶ σε ὅπως ἂν ὦ εὑρηκὼς χάριν ἐναντίον σου. (‘Let me have true knowledge of you [or I want truly to know you], that I might be in a grace- nding condition before you.’)

‫ואדעך למען אמצא־חן בעיניך‬ 106

Num. 5: 12–14 contains a series of perfect subjunctives.

Num. 5: 13. αὐτὴ δὲ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη. (‘And she should be de led.’) ‫והיא נטמאה‬ Num. 5: 13 κaὶ αὐτὴ μὴ ᾖ αυνειλημμένη. (‘And she should be undetected.’) p. 244

‫והוא לא נתפשׂה‬ Num. 5: 14 αὐτὴ δὲ μὴ ᾖ μεμιαμμένη. (‘But she should not he de led.’) ‫והיא לא נטמאה‬ With these renderings contrast the perfect indicative of αὐτὴ δὲ μεμίανται for ‫ והוא נטמאה‬in 5: 14. The translator made this clause into an explanatory parenthesis, quite without motivation from the Hebrew. The same chapter also has a fourth instance of the perfect subjunctive. Num. 5: 27 ἐὰν ᾖ μεμιαμμένη. (‘If she should be de led.’) ‫אם־נטמאה‬

9.4.10. Perfect imperatives There are 3 more or less doubtful cases of perfect imperative periphrasis. Gen. 27: 33 καὶ εὐλόγησα αὐτόν, καὶ εὐλογημένος ἔστω. (‘And I blessed him and let him be blessed.’) ‫ואברכהו גם־ברוך יהיה‬ The perfect passive participle εὐλογημένος usually appears to be fully adjectivized in the Pentateuch. See, for example, the 6 instances in Deut. 28: 3–6 and note the frequent manuscript interchanges between εὐλογημένος and the verbal adjective εὐλογητός, both translating the Qal passive participle

107

.‫ ברוך‬So I am

disinclined to take Num. 22: 12 ἔστιν γὰρ εὐλογημένος for ‫ כי ברוך הוא‬as an analytic tense form, against Conybeare 108

and Stock.

In Gen. 27: 33, however, after εὐλόγησα the verbal function of εὐλογημένος seems very much alive.

The example is taken here as periphrastic, but is admittedly a doubtful case. The modal variation of the 109

auxiliary between MT and LXX is possibly due to di erent textual traditions.

 In any case this periphrasis

is surely motivated by the Hebrew, though it might be regarded as suppletive in addition; the synthetic 110

perfect imperative is greatly restricted in the contemporary papyri. p. 245

Exod. 28: 20 περικεκαλυμμένα χρυσίῳ, συνδεδεμένα ἐv χρυσίῳ, ἔστωσαν. (‘Let them be covered about with gold, bound together with gold.’) ‫משׁבצים זהב יהיו‬ The Greek is probably literalistic here, re ecting a parent text longer than that of the MT, but in accordance 111

with the Samaritan Pentateuch.

Lev 13: 45 τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἔστω παραλελυμένα καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκατακάλυπτος. (‘Let his clothes be loosened and his head be uncovered.’) ‫בגדיו יהיו פרמים וראשׁו יהיה פרוע‬

Note the shift in construction here, ἔστω forming a periphrasis with the perfect participle παραλελυμένα, but then to be understood as copula to ἀκατακάλυπτος.

9.4.11. Pluperfect indicatives There are 6 periphrases forming pluperfect indicatives. Of these 4 are substitutive, but 2—third person 112

plural middle/passive forms—suppletive.

Gen. 6: 12 καὶ εἶδεν κύριος ὁ θεòς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἦν κατεφθαρμένη. (‘And the Lord God beheld the earth, and it had been thoroughly corrupted.’) ‫וירא אלהים את־הארץ והנה נשׁחתה‬ Gen. 18: 22 ’Αβραὰμ δὲ ἦν ἔτι ἑστηκὼς ἐναντίον κυρίου. (‘But Abraham was still standing before the Lord.’) ‫ואברהם עודנו עמד לפני יהוה‬ Gen. 40: 6 καὶ εἶδεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἦσαν τεταραγμένοι. (‘And he saw them, and they were troubled.’) ‫וירא אתם והנם זעפים‬ Exod. 32: 15 πλάκες λίθιναι γεγραμμέναι ἐκ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν αὐτῶν, ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν ἦσαν γεγραμμέναι. (‘Stone tablets inscribed on both their sides; on the one side and on the other they were inscribed.’) ‫לחת כתבים משׁני עבריהם מזה ומזה הם כתבים‬ Exod. 34: 30 καὶ εἶδεν ’Ααρὼν καὶ πάντες οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ’Iσραὴλ τòν Μωυσῆν, καὶ ἦν δεδοξασμένη ἡ ὄψις τοῦ χρωτòς τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ. (‘And Aaron and all the elders of Israel beheld Moses, and the appearance of the skin of his face was ashine [with the glory of the Lord].’) p. 246

‫וירא אהרן וכל־בני ישׂראל את־משׁה והנה קרן עור פניו‬ Here ἦν δεδοξασμένη renders accurately the sense of the rare Qal perfect form

113

.‫ קרן‬But καὶ ἦν is in uenced by

the underlying ‫והנה‬, so that the periphrasis is not to be taken as free from Hebrew formal motivation. The synthetic perfect indicative δεδόξασται translates ‫ קרן‬in 34: 29, 35 in graphic indirect speech constructions (§ 6.2.5). Exod. 39: 23 (MT 39: 43) καὶ εἶδεν Μωυσῆς πάντα τὰ ἔργα, καὶ ἦσαν πεποιηκότες αὐτὰ ὃν τρόπον συνέταξεν κύριος τῷ Μωυσῇ, οὕτως ἐποίησαν αὐτά. (‘And Moses looked at all the things done, and they had made them the 114

way the Lord had commanded Moses; thus they made them.’) ‫וירא משׁה את־כל־המלאכה והנה עשׂו אתה כאשׁר צוה יהוה כן עשׂו‬

Here we nd καὶ ἦσαν πεποιηκότες for ‫ והנה עשׁו‬contrasting with οὕτως ἐποίησαν for ‫ כן עשׁו‬later in the same verse. In the former case καὶ ἦσαν, and so the periphrasis, seems to be motivated by ‫( והנה‬cf. the Exod. 34: 30 example above). But a neat contrast is also introduced by the translator through the pluperfect's focus on the state of the subject against the aorist's focus on the act of making.

9.4.12. Future perfect indicatives There are 5 examples (see § 9.4.7 for Deut. 28: 33 ἔσῃ … τεθραυσμένος) forming future perfect indicatives.

Gen. 41: 36 καὶ ἔσται τὰ βρώματα πεφυλαγμένα τῇ γῇ εἰς τὰ ἑπτὰ ἔτη τοῦ λιμοῦ. (‘And the food will be kept for the land for the seven years of famine.’) ‫והיה האכל לפקדון לארץ לשׁבע שׁני הרעב‬ This free Greek periphrasis of the suppletive type cannot be motivated by obscurity regarding the rare 115

technical, term ‫‘ פקדון‬something left in trust/kept in reserve’.

The Greek version accurately renders the

sense of the Hebrew. Note that the number of the Hebrew sense units is duplicated. Gen. 43: 9 ἐὰν μὴ ἀγάγω αὐτòν εἰς σὲ καὶ στήσω αὐτòν ἐναντίον σου, ἡμαρτηκὼς ἔσομαι πρòς σὲ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας. (‘If I should not bring him to you and set him before you, I shall be guilty towards you for ever.’) ‫אם־לא הביאתיו אליך והצגתיו לפניך וחטאתי לך כל־הימים‬ Gen. 44: 32 ἐὰν μὴ ἀγάγω αὐτòν πρòς σὲ καὶ στήσω αὐτòν ἐναντίον σου, ἡμαρτηκὼς ἔσομαι πρòς τòν πατέρα πάσας p. 247

τὰς ἡμέρας. (‘If I should not bring

him to you and set him before you, I shall be guilty toward my

father forever.’) ‫אם־לא אביאנו אליך וחטאתי לאבי כל־הימים‬ Exod. 12: 6 καὶ ἔσται ὑμῖν διατετηρημένον ἕως τῆς τεσσαρεσκαιδεκάτης τοῦ μηνòς τούτου. (‘And it will be preserved for/by you until the fourteenth day of this month.’) ‫והיה לכם למשׁמרת עד ארבעה עשׂר יום לחדשׁ הזה‬ The Hebrew expression ‫ לכם‬might suggest that we should read ὑμῖν as dative of possession, with διατετηρημένον adverbial, so: ‘and it will be yours, preserved … ’. In the recast syntax of the Greek, however, the dative seems more easily taken as expressing personal interest (and secondarily agent) and the participle as 116

periphrastic. Note that the term ‫משׁמרת‬, presumably due to the breadth of its semantic range,

elicits a

117

variety of renderings in the Pentateuch.

9.4.13. Summary These, then, are the εἰμί periphrases which I recognize in the Greek Pentateuch. Given the admitted element of subjectivity involved in many of the identi cations, it is worth noting points of agreement with the 118

partial Pentateuchal data o ered by Conybeare and Stock,

119

Turner,

120

and Aerts,

none of whom seems to

attempt a complete list of occurrences. Both Aerts and Conybeare and Stock cite Gen. 4: 12, 14; 18: 18; 39: 23. Both Turner and Conybeare and Stock cite Gen. 41: 36; 43: 9; 44: 32; Exod. 12: 6; 39: 23. Turner and. Aerts identify no examples in common. Conybeare and Stock alone also cite Gen. 37: 2; 40: 13; Exod. 3: 1; 22: 25; Num. 8: 19; 11: 1; 14: 8, 33 (incorrectly cited as Deut. 14: 33, a non-existent verse); Deut. 9: 22, 24; 28: 29 (bis) (on which see § 9.4.7 and n. 97); 31: 27. Turner alone cites Gen. 27: 33; 40: 6; Exod. 21: 23, 36; 32: 15; 33: 13; 34: 30. Aerts alone cites Gen. 13: 10; 14: 12; 26: 35; Deut. 28: 33, 66. In addition, these writers all cite examples in disagreement with the present study. Conybeare and Stock cite Gen. 42: 6 and Num. 22: 12 (see § 9.4.1). Turner wrongly cites Exod. 12: 34 (where he presumably p. 248

understands an elliptical periphrasis involving

ἐvδεδεμένα). Aerts cites Gen. 4: 2 and Exod. 26: 3, as I do,

but does not interpret them in accordance with my de nition of periphrasis (see §9.4.6 n. 66, § 9.4.7 and n. 121

94). He also nds two extra periphrases by reading variants in Gen. 39: 22

122

and Exod. 7: 15.

It can be seen that the εἰμί periphrases are not common in the Greek Pentateuch. The 62 examples are fairly evenly distributed among the ve books, with imperfect and future indicatives easily the most frequent. This is shown by Table 13.

p. 249

9.5. The Question of Hebrew Interference 9.5.1. Translation-technical issues In § 4.2 it was stated that conventional translation-technical analysis, starting from the Hebrew text, is not appropriate for the present study. The treatment of verbal periphrasis is a partial exception, especially in the case of substitute periphrasis. Even the most super cial comparison of the LXX and MT passages cited in §§ 9.3, 9.4 shows that underlying Hebrew forms normally motivate the Greek periphrases (though not their modal characteristics). 123

Aerts has called for a translation-technical study of the feature,

since he sees in Hebraistic LXX usage the 124

source of certain types of εἰμί plus participle periphrasis in later Biblical Greek.

The Hebrew constructions

underlying LXX periphrases in the Pentateuch are quite heterogeneous, however, and mostly produce a variety of Greek re exes, of which periphrases form a minority. A full-scale analysis of relevant translation-technical, issues, which, carried to logical extremes, would involve treatment of all instances of every Hebrew construction possibly motivating a Greek periphrasis, would not be feasible here, Nor in all probability would it be very fruitful. The patterns of usage can be shown clearly enough by a careful 125

outline.

All 68 Pentateuchal periphrases, not only the εἰμί constructions which interest Aerts, are treated below. In this part of the analysis the individual instances are cited in brief. For the full citations reference should be made to § 9.3.1 (for γίνομαι periphrases), § 9.3.2 (for μέλλω periphrases), and §§ 9.4.3–9.4.12 (for εἰμί p. 250

periphrases). With regard to translation technique, it is again important to distinguish

guish between

substitutive and suppletive periphrases. The latter type, lacking synthetic equivalents, can. be expected to display comparative freedom from bilingual interference, The Pentateuchal periphrases divide in translation-technical terms into three broad, categories, The rst represents literal, renderings of somewhat similar Hebrew constructions. The second, very mixed, category displays comparative structural, freedom., translating various dissimilar Hebrew constructions, but nevertheless seems to be used to approximate the number of separate elements in the Hebrew, so that formal motivation is apparent here too. The third category is clearly free of formal motivation from the MT

9.5.2. Substitute periphrasis The Greek Pentateuch contains 51 examples of substitute periphrasis, Of these, 33 belong to the rst translation-technical category. This itself requires subdivision. First, the most literal, periphrastic renderings translate roughly analogous Hebrew expressions involving ‫ היה‬plus participle. These Hebrew expressions are not especially common in the Pentateuch-occurring more 126

frequently in the style of the later books

—but are almost always translated, by Greek periphrases. I have

not made a systematic search, but am aware of only two exceptions; Gen. 39: 22 ‫ היה עשׁה‬is a Hebrew plus (see the references cited in § 9.4.1311, 121), while Deut, 9: 7 ‫ ממרים הייתם‬is freely rendered by ἀπ∈ειθοῦντ∈ς δι-∈τ∈λ∈ῖτ∈ (§ 9.4.6, under Deut. 9: 24). Other Hebrew combinations of ‫ היה‬plus participle, which are formally identical but syntactically dissimilar (e.g. Gen. 4: 2 ‫היה עבד‬, where the participle seems best taken as substantival), tend to produce a similar Greek rendering. Such cases are included, in the following list. The 20 Pentateuchal examples of substitute periphrases translating ‫ היה‬plus participle are Gen. 1: 6 ἔστω διαχωρίζον, 4:2 ἦν  

p. 251

 

(for 4 additional examples involving Greek suppletive periphrases see § 9.5.3). Second, the Hebrew construction of pronoun or particle plus participle also displays obvious in uence on the Greek periphrases. Hebrew nominal clauses with participle as predicate are quite common, especially with pronominal subjects. The combination of pronoun plus participle (the particle plus participle type is discussed below) is commonly rendered in the Greek Pentateuch by pronoun plus nite verb, e.g. Gen. 9: 12 ἐγὼ δίδωμι for

127

.‫ אני נתן‬The Greek nite verb matching the Hebrew participle occurs in whatever tense is

appropriate to the context. So Exod. 4: 23 ἐγὼ ἀποκτ∈νῶ for ‫ ;אנכי הרג‬Deut. 28: 52 σὺ πέποιθας for ‫אתה בטח‬. In pursuing this literalistic method the Pentateuchal translators faced a special problem dealing with Hebrew third person pronominal subject plus participle combinations, since Ancient Greek, unlike Biblical 128

Hebrew, is de cient in nominative third person pronouns.

The di

culty does not exist with rst or

second person pronominal subjects plus participle, for which the nominatives ἐγώ and σύ were available. The main renderings employed for the third person pronominal element in this construction (where the Greek 129

does not recast the syntax) are forms of the demonstrative οὗτος or the originally intensive αὐτός. p. 252

αὐτός with weakened force, which becomes a characteristic usage of the 130

found in the Ptolemaic papyri,

Traces of

later language, are also to be

but literal methods of translation surely in uence its employment in the

Greek Pentateuch and later LXX books. Occasionally the pronoun is not expressed independently, in keeping 131

with natural Greek idiom.

Another option sometimes exploited by the translators was to render the Hebrew pronoun with forms of ∈ἰμί 132

and the Hebrew participle with a Greek participle, instead of a nite verb.

This method—since it alters the

pronominal element of the Hebrew instead of its participle—produces a periphrasis in the Greek, Cases where the Hebrew pronominal element is su

xal are included in the following list. There are 6 substitute

periphrases rendering pronoun plus participle in the Greek Pentateuch: Gen, 13: 10 ἧν ποτιζομένη. Gen. 14: 12 ἧν … κατοικῶν. Gen. 18: 22 ἧν … ἑστηκώς, Lev. 11: 26 ἐστιν διχηλοῦν, Num. 14: 8 ἐστὶν ῥέουσα, Deut. 19: 6 μισῶν ἧν. There are 3 examples of substitute periphrasis in the Greek Pentateuch which represent a. combination of these two methods of translating Hebrew pronoun plus participle, employing both a demonstrative 133

pronoun, and a form of ∈ἰμί plus participle.

They are Gen. 20: 3 αὕτη … ἐστιν συνῳκηκνῖα, Num. 3: 9 δ∈δομένοι

οὗτοί … ∈ἰσιν, Num. 8: 16 ἀποδ∈δομένοι οὗτοι … εἰσιν.

Similar Hebrew nominal constructions involving particle plus participle may also yield Greek periphrases. In Genesis there are 2 instances of this type, Gen. 6: 12 ἧν κατ∈ɸθαρμένη rendering ‫ הנה‬plus participle (compare the Gen. 40: 6 example cited above, where ἧσαν represents ‫הנם‬, i.e. ‫ הנה‬plus pronominal su

x) and Gen. 39: 23

ἧν … γινώσκων rendering ‫ אין‬plus participle. Slightly (but signi cantly) di erent again in their Hebrew motivation are Exod. 34: 30 ἧν δ∈δοξασμένη and Exod. 39: 23 ἧσαν π∈ποιηκότ∈ς, which both translate ‫ היה‬plus a perfect tense form. p. 253

These last two examples bring us to the verge of the second

broad translation-technical category

mentioned above. As stated in § 9.5.1, it involves periphrastic tense forms which are comparatively free, rendering a miscellaneous group of Hebrew constructions (for details on the underlying Hebrew of

particular examples see the relevant observations in §§ 9.3, 9.4), but which nevertheless show signs of formal motivation. The Greek periphrases of this category appear to be used intentionally to mirror the number of separate elements in the Hebrew word for word. The 14 examples are Gen. 18: 18 γίνομ∈νος ἔσται, Gen. 26: 35

 προσ∈γγίζων (for 3 additional examples involving Greek suppletive periphrases see § 9.5.3). Similar are 2 further examples, the elliptical Greek periphrases Exod. 9: 24 (ἧν) ɸλογίζον and Num. 35: 23 (ἧν) ζητῶν. The third, category, involving clearly free Greek periphrases, is represented by 2 of the μέλλω plus in nitive combinations: Gen. 25: 22 μέλλ∈ι γίν∈σθαι and Exod. 4: 12 μέλλ∈ι λαλήσαι (for a further 8 examples involving Greek suppletive periphrases see § 9.5.3).

9.5.3. Suppletive periphrasis There are 17 Pentateuchal periphrases which may be classi ed as suppletive: 7 perfect subjunctives, 3 perfect imperatives, 5 future perfect indicatives, and 2 third person plural middle/passive pluperfect indicatives. In theory these ought to be independent of the Hebrew, since they re ect the natural tendencies 134

of early Koine Greek. The synthetic future perfect was lost early in. the Koine,

and the perfect subjunctive 135

and imperative were already characteristically formed by suppletive periphrasis in the Classical language, along with the third person plural middle/passive pluperfect from consonant stems. p. 254

Interestingly, only 8 of the Pentateuchal examples are entirely

These are 6 of the perfect subjunctives—

Exod. 21: 36 διαμεμαρτνρημένοι ὦσιν, 33: I 3 ὦ εὑρηκώς, Num. 5: 13 77 ᾖ μαμιαμμένη, 13 ᾖ συνειλημμένη, 14 ᾖ μεμιαμμένη, 27 ᾖ μεμιαμμένη—and 2 of the future perfect forms—Gen. 43: 9 ἡμαρτηκώς ἒσομαι, 44: 32 ἡμαρτηκὼς ἒσομαι, The other 9 cases show Hebrew motivation. There are 6 examples belonging to my rst translation-technical category. Lev 13: 45 ἒστω παραλελνμένα is motivated by ‫ היה‬plus participle; so too Gen. 27: 33 εὐλογημένος ἒστω (though we may wonder to what degree 136

the underlying Qal passive participle ‫ ברוך‬retains its original, verbal character),

and Deut. 28: 33 καὶ ἒση

(ἀδικούμενος καὶ) τεθραυσμένος, which shows freedom in its contrast between present and perfect participles, but follows the wording of the Hebrew. Probably similar is the double periphrasis of Exod. 28: 20 περικεκαλυμμένα … συνδεδεμένα … ἒστωσαν, although the MT has a shorter text. Gen, 40; 6 ᾖσαν τεταραγμένοι and Exod. 32:15 ᾖσαν γεγραμμέναι render pronoun plus participle. The remaining 3 examples belong to my second translation-technical category. Gen. 41: 36 ἒσται … πεφυλαγμένα, Exod. 12: 6 ἒσται … διατετηρημένον, and Exod. 21: 23 ἐξεικονισμένον ᾖ are technically free suppletive periphrases, but also display motivation from, the underlying Hebrew structures (see the relevant observations in §§9.4.9,9.4.12).

9.5.4. Summary The translation-technical details for the Greek Pentateuch's 68 periphrases, according to the typology given in § 9.5.1, may be summarized, as follows: (1) There is a total of 39 examples of the rst category. The combination ‫ היה‬plus participle motivates 24

Greek periphrases. The combination pronoun/particle plus participle motivates 13 Greek periphrases (including in the count the examples of Gen, 20: 3; Num. 3: 9; 8: 16). The combination particle plus perfect tense form motivates 2 Greek periphrases. (2) There is a total of 19 examples (including the elliptical periphrases of Exod, 9: 24; Num. 35: 23) of the comparatively free second category. It is possible, however, that some of these examples arise p. 255

through overlooking subtleties of the Hebrew constructions

or from a Vorlage slightly di erent

from the MT (e.g. Gen. 31: 10) and belong in spirit with the rst category. (3) There is a total of 10 examples of the third and most independent category. The second and third categories, especially the third, provide evidence for independent Pentateuchal usage of all the periphrastic combinations identi ed (εἰμί plus participle; γίνομαι plus participle; μέλλω plus in nitive), of both substitutive and suppletive character. They are not speci cally motivated by the underlying Hebrew Nevertheless, it is also clear that formal interference greatly a ects the εἰμί periphrases. Indeed, 85.29 per cent of all the Pentateuchal periphrases show some degree of Hebrew in uence, 57.35 per cent belonging to the most heavily in uenced rst category, 27.94 per cent to the second category. The distribution among the Pentateuchal books is as follows. The totals for each book are: Genesis 24; Exodus 17; Leviticus 5; Numbers 12; Deuteronomy 10. The rst category is represented in Genesis 14 times, in Exodus 8 times, in Leviticus 3 times, in Numbers 4 times, and in Deuteronomy 10 times. The second category is represented in Genesis 7 times, in Exodus 6 times, in Leviticus 2 times, in Numbers 4 times, but not at all in Deuteronomy The third category is represented 3 times each in Genesis and Exodus, 4 times in Numbers, and is absent from Leviticus and Deuteronomy Little can be made of such limited samples, but certain points are noteworthy All the periphrases of Deuteronomy represent the most literal types of rendering. Of the 12 Numbers examples, 8 are comparatively free (but note that its 4 representatives of the third category are all clustered in Num. 5). The other three books display a. fairly even distribution of literal and comparatively free-periphrases.

9.6. Conclusion Verbal, periphrasis in Ancient Greek is an intrinsically di

cult feature to describe. Its analysis involves both

general problems of de nition and a considerable element of unavoidable subjectivity in the treatment of speci c examples (this subjectivity explains the exclusion of periphrastic tense forms from the data p. 256

collected in. Parts I and II of this study), Porter's attempt to establish

objective formal criteria for

identi cation inevitably fails to advance our understanding of the feature, since it includes its own arbitrary judgements and o ers a de nition of periphrasis rather insensitive to the nuances of the Greek language. Verbal, periphrasis is de ned here as the combination of auxiliary verb plus participle or in nitive as near equivalent to (substitute periphrasis) or replacement for (suppletive periphrasis) a synthetic tense form. With regard to the auxiliary verb, lexical (not aspectual) semantics are taken to qualify certain verbs for grammaticalization in that function. The Pentateuchal auxiliaries recognized are εἰμί and γίνομαι, which combine with present and perfect participles, and μέλλω, which combines with present and aorist in nitives. In the case of the εἰμί and γίνομαι periphrases, formal identity with certain non-periphrastic constructions makes identi cation of examples a subjective matter, based on contextual probabilities. According to this de nition, I note a total of 68 examples in the entire Greek Pentateuch. This small quantity displays both independent Greek usage and Hebrew interference. Over 57 per cent of examples closely imitate similar Hebrew expressions, while nearly 28 per cent are comparatively free, but still show signs of formal in uence, and nearly 15 per cent are free of any formal motivation from the MT

The translation-technical analysis shows the natural character of periphrastic tense formation in Greek, most obviously in the 10 freely formed examples. But in one case at least it also demonstrates the tendency for the underlying Hebrew to foster the use of the feature. The largest single group (24 instances) of Greek periphrases observed in the summary of § 9.5.4 is motivated by the most analogous of the Hebrew constructions, the ‫ היה‬plus participle complex. I am awrare of only 2 instances (1 a Hebrew plus) where this Hebrew construction does not yield a Greek periphrasis (§ 9.5.2). It is clear that we have here, particularly regarding the 20 substitute periphrases involved, another case of Hebrew interference manifested through frequency of occurrence. Thus, Aerts's claim that Hebraistic LXX usage in uences certain NT periphrases potentially has some validity, though not in his precise formulation. Neither of the speci c periphrastic forms he has in mind—the ‘progressive’ periphrasis and the future periphrasis—appears to originate in the LXX (see § 9.5.1 and n. 124). p. 257

Beyond this, rm, conclusions cannot be drawn from my material

regarding frequency of occurrence of

Greek periphrases and Hebrew interference, in. the absence of full translation-technical data. It has not been established how regularly the motivating Hebrew constructions other than ‫ היה‬plus participle do not produce Greek periphrases. Nor do adequate general data exist for this little-studied phenomenon to enable p. 258

us to test the Pentateuchal frequencies against natural frequencies of occurrence in extra-Biblical Greek.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

e.g. SM, Grammar, §§ 1959–65, and for definitional problems in the secondary literature specifically relating to the εἰμί plus participle constructions see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 452. Conybeare and Stock actually prefer the term analytic tense for these combinations, but with a loose reference (CS, Grammar, 68–71, especially § 72c, d). W. J. Aerts, Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of εἶναι and ἔχειν as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the Present Day (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965), 3. ibid.. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 453–4. Aerts's definition of verbal periphrasis is essentially that given above, applied when finite verb and participle express ʻan elementary verbal, conceptionʼ, but as the ʻpseudo-auxiliariesʼ of his subtitle indicates also occasionally in a broader sense simply of ʻthe combination of εἶναι or εχειν plus participleʼ (Aerts, Periphrastica, 2). He does also recognize a γίγνομαι plus participle periphrasis (ibid. 33), without pursuing its history. See Porter on what he terms catenative constructions (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 487–92). ibid. 443. ibid. 449–52, 452–3. Porter's review of scholarly disagreement over formal and functional classification of ἔφην as imperfect or second, aorist (ibid. 444–6) is potentially confusing, especially on the complexities of Greek stem formation. The form, should be taken as imperfect (Sihler, Camp. Grammar, §§ 456.3, 503), but showing the functional imprecision regarding aspectual force typical of Greek verbs of saying in. the post-Classical, period, which, is possibly connected with idiolect and stylistic preferences (cf. Moulton, Prolegomena, 128; also my §2.4.1 n. 44). Porter, Verbal Aspect, 444. ibid. 452–3. On the process of grammaticalization of auxiliary verbs see P J. Hopper and E. C. Traugott, Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 108–12. For the late Koine, Medieval, and Modern periods see Browning, Med. & Mod. 32–4, 35, 79–81, 94– 5; 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 G. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London, and New York: Longman,. 1997), esp. 75–8, 229–32; Thumb, Handbook, §§ 223–33, Nor is the tendency to produce such a range of periphrastic tense forms an. isolated Greek phenomenon within the IE language family (though of course the category of verbal aspect, claimed, by Porter as an issue in the case of Greek, is not universally manifested). See e.g. the discussion of R. Coleman, ʻExponents of Futurity in Gothicʼ, TPhS 94 (1996), 1–29; also H. Pinkster, ʻThe Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latinʼ, in M, Harris and. R Ramat (eds.), Historical Development of Auxiliaries (Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1987), 193–223 10.1515/9783110856910

.

15 16 17

Porter, Verbal Aspect, 452. Cf. Aerts, Periphrastica, 27–35, 76–90, 110–20; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 476–8. See Gonda, Character, 5–9.

18 19

For examples in the Ptolemaic papyri see Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1. 223–5 10.1515/9783110833744

20

periphrastica, 160; Browning, Med. & Mod, 33–4, 94 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 21

).

For such, an interpretation, applied in the sphere of Biblical Greek see CS, Grammar, 70; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 310 n. 255 (though he apparently believes that γίνομαι retains its primary sense in. periphrases). Mayser finds no examples of this type in the Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1. 223 10.1515/9783110833744 the construction see LSJ, S. V. γίγνομαι, II. 1; SM, Grammar, § 1964.

22

.

Aerts, Periphrastica, 62. Examples from extra-Pentateuchal books are provided by Aerts (ibid. 62–9) and by CS, Grammar, 68–9. Many understand this construction as a periphrasis in the strict sense; see Aerts,Periphrastica, 128–60, and for a di erent view Porter, Verbal Aspect, 489–91. It is best taken, as unrelated to later periphrastic constructions of ἔχω (Aerts,

). On the Classical antecedents of

S. Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 52 10.1017/CBO9780511555114

.

23

ibid. 124 n. 165 10.1017/CBO9780511555114 states that ʻFurther examples are cited by Aerts, periphrastica, pp. 56 .ʼ These pages in Aerts turn, out not to be relevant. Thompson probably means ʻpp. 65 .ʼ, which do treat the LXX, but even here one is hard pressed to find mention of γίνομαι periphrases. I note, however, reference to ʻγίγνεσθαι ὡς + participleʼ, which is not a genuine verbal periphrasis in my view, at p. 67 (and cf. p. 64).

24 25

Porter, Verbal Aspect, 491. Cf. LSJ, S. V. γίγνομαι LEH, S. V. γίνομαι.

26 27 28 29 30

Porter, Verbal Aspect, 491. Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 518. This example is recognized by CS, Grammar, 70; Turner, Syntax, 89. KB i. 60; cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 270, whose (perfectly acceptable) translation ʻsteady, firmʼ obscures the fact. See Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 2.4–6, 40–2; cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 50–2; in general also M. Johannessohn, ʻDas biblische καὶ ἐγένετο und seine Geschichteʼ, ZVS 53 (1925), 161–212; id., ʻDie biblische Einführungsformel καὶ ἔσταιʼ, ZATW 59 (1943), 129–84 10.1515/zatw.1943.59.1-4.129

31 32 33

.

Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 518. The LXX here has καὶ ὑψώθη ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ προβαίνων μϵίζων ἐγίνετο, ἕως οὑ̑ μϵ̓ϵ́νϵτο σφόδρα for the MT's ‫ויגדל האישׁ‬ ‫וילך הלוך וגדל עד כי־גדל מאד‬. See e.g. McKay, New Syntax, § 4.8.3; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 309 n. 253—on the loose notion of periphrastic moods in early IE languages involved here see my § 9.2 (end); also the dissenting voice of Porter, Verbal Aspect, 488–9. A significant problem for analysis of μέλλω is the uncertainty over its basic meaning, Szemerényi's theory, talcing it as a -yo- present to ἔμολον ʻgoʼ is attractive (O Szemerényi, ʻGreek μέλλω: A Historical and Comparative Studyʼ, AJPh 72 (1951), 346–68); cf. GEW, S. V. μέλλω; DÉLG, S. V. μέλλω.

34

Mayser. Grammatik, ii/1. 226 10.1515/9783110833744

35

For its later revival see Browning, Med. & Mod. 34, 43 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 gives an example from c152 BC on p. 66.

36

On the μέλλω constructions see also Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 135 (who notes only 2 examples from extraPentateuchal books). Cf. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 391. On the e ects of obscurity in the original Hebrew on LXX translations and the combination of free and literal techniques in. rendering obscure passages cf. J. Barr, The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 289–90. It is hard for me to understand why ʻThe Hebrew certainly makes better sense hereʼ (Wevers, Genesis Notes, 734). The Greek simply alters the focus to expectation, of Joseph's arrival. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 47.

37 38

39 40 41 42

43

Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1. 226 10.1515/9783110833744

. ; Horrocks, Greek, 76–7, who also

.

LSJ o ers a few examples of alleged auxiliary function, in the Classical language, but only those with inanimate subjects, e.g. Plato, Rep. 370 B , seem to show the beginnings of the usage (see LSJ, S. V. ἐθέλω, ΙΙ. 1). On the later development of θέλω constructions cf. B. D. Joseph, Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek (New York and London: Garland. Publishing, 1990), 113–59, 213–22. The examples are in Gen. 24: 8; 37: 35; Exod. 2: 14; 8: 32 (MT 8: 28); 10: 4; 11: 10; Num. 20: 21; 22: 14; Deut. 1: 26; 2: 30; 10: 10; 23: 5 (MT 23: 6), 22 (MT 23: 23); 25: 7; 29: 19.

44

45 46 47 48 49 50

The underlying Hebrew ‫ אמר‬is here used in its rare sense ʻintendʼ plus infinitive (KB i. 64). Note also the interesting example with dependent subjunctive in Exod. 2: 7. There θέλεις καλέσω, an idiomatic rendering of MT ‫( האלך וקראתי‬cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 15), also points towards a later periphrastic type; cf. Browning, Med. & Mod. 79 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 . Aerts, periphrastica, 77. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 447–9; for earlier scholarship cf. Aerts, periphrastica, 5–7, 12–17. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 441–92. Aerts, periphrastica, 17, 52–3. ibid. 52–75. For possible Classical examples see J. Gonda, ʻA. Remark on “Periphrastic” Constructions in Greekʼ, Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 12 (1959), 97–112 at 105–6 10.1163/156852559X00077

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

64 65 66

67

68 69

70 71 72 73

74

; cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 457.

ibid. 457–63. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 311; cf, Aerts, periphrastica, 17. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 454. ibid. Cf. LEH, s.v. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 452–4. This example is, however, taken as periphrastic by CS, Grammar, 69. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 642 (under 39: 23) takes this example (οὐκ ἦv … τεθνηκώς for ‫ אין…מת‬as a periphrastic substitute for the pluperfect. Nevertheless, his note on 12: 30 (ibid. 184) does seem, to understand τεθνηκώς as substantival. Aerts, periphrastica, 69. Cf Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 483–4. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 453; see also id., Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn. (She ield: She ield. Academic Press, 1994), 45–6. For a discussion of Porter's rule, with NT counter-examples, see D. D, Schmidt, review of S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, in JBL 1.13 (1994), 534–6 at 534–5. Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 153, On the meaning of διχηλου̂ν ὁπλὴν κα ὶ ὀννχιστη̂ρας ὀνυχίζει see ibid. 152–3, also 143; for a somewhat di erent approach cf. P. Ηarlé and D, Pralon, La Bible dʼAlexandria Le Lévitique (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988), 131. On which cf. Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 232. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 4. Similarly, M, Harl, La Bible dʼAlexandrie: La Genèse (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986), 88, has ʻune séparationʼ. Aerts takes the participle ἐργαζόμενος as substantival (Aerts, periphrastica, 65), ignoring the fact that it governs a direct object in τὴν γη̂ν. So too T. P. Schehr, ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ (diss, Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990), 89, 250–1. For ‫ רעה‬see KB iv. 1175; for ‫ עכד‬cf. S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 3rd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892), 200; A. B. Davidson, Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 3rd edn, (Edinburgh: Τ, & T, Clark, 1901), 147. On the other hand Wevers's note (Wevers, Genesis Notes, 52) suggests that he understands ‫ אדמה‬as accusative, not genitive, in. function, Wevers, Genesis Notes, 52; cf. Harl, La Genèse, 112; Driver, Treatise, 200. Cf. Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 88–9, 127 n, 26. My count of 22 instances of κα ὶ ἐγένετο rendering ‫ ויהי‬in these few chapters is not a contradiction of the figure of 18 instances for the whole of Genesis given at Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 25, since she is concerned, with the translation of a particular function of ‫( ויהי‬ibid. 24). Cf. Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 88; and for a di erent interpretation Wevers, Genesis Notes, 62, who apparently takes οἰκοδομῶν πόλιν as ʻone who builds a cityʼ. Note incidentally that Wevers would now omit the αὐτου̂ of his critical, edition (Wevers, Genesis Notes, 179). Cf. Schehr, ʻSyntaxʼ, 88. cf Wevers, Genesis Notes, 417; in general also J. A. L. Lee, ʻEquivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXXʼ, Revue hiblique, 87 (1980), 104–17 at 115–16, on LXX translatorsʼ treatment of the problematic root ‫מרה‬. Aerts's translation of the Hebrew expression is imprecise (Aerts, periphrastica, 66–7). On the correct translation, of the adjective διάλενκος as ʻpure whiteʼ see Wevers, Genesis Notes, 490 with. n. 22, against Hari, La Grnèse, 231–2, who o ers ʻmouchete de blancʼ under the influence of the Hebrew terms the word, renders (on. which see Wevers, Genesis Notes, 489–90, 491, 493, 500, 501), and is followed by LEH, S.V. (with the gloss ʻspeckled, with white spotsʼ). In the LXX account it seems clear enough, that Jacob's goats were to be all those with any white on them (Wevers, Genesis Notes, 491), including those which were pure white. See Gen. 30: 32–31: 12, esp, 30: 35, The distinctive colour of the sheep was to be øαιός, ʻgreyʼ.

75: 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105

107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Wevers, Genesis Notes, 501. ibid.. ibid. 501–2. Cf, ibid. 613 on the periphrasis. However, I do not accept the interpretation(ibid., 612–13) of νέος as ʻattendantʼ; cf Wevers, Exodus Notes, 547, on Exod, 33: 11,where νέος (there incorrectly accented νέος), used of Joshua, is taken in the same way. See Wevers, Genesis Notes, 661–2, on the general translation-technical issues,Aerts notes this example, and also reads a periphrastic variant in the preceding verse, on which see § 9.4.13 and n. 121. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 669. Cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 136. Cf. Wevers, Numbers Notes, 160. Cf. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 161, 170. Cf. ibid. 309 on the unusual nature of this rendering. Cf. ibid. 506. See Wevers, Genesis Notes, 58. Wevers takes the Greek participles as substantival: ʻhe will be a στένων κα ὶ τρέμων on the earthʼ. These examples are, however, treated as periphrases at Aerts, Penphmstiea, 68; CS, Grammar, 68. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 256. Cf, Aerts, periphrastica, 68; CS, Grammar, 68. Cf. R. Sollamo, ʻThe LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuchʼ, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigatión contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Institute “Arias Montano”, 1985), 101–13 at 103–5, with p. 103 n. 7 for specific reference to this example, On the lexical semantics see also the discussion in§ 9.3.1. See H, St, J. Thackeray,. ʻRenderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXXʼ. GKC, Grammar, § 128x, y. Wevers appears to have a di erent understanding (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 400). On the general translation technique see ibid. 413. Aerts, periphrastica, 68. I take his ʻwith adjectival participleʼ to refer to both examples. For discussion see Wevers, Numbers Notes, 127; G. Dorival, La Bible d'Alexandrie: Les Nombres (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994), 268. Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 273, describes the future of εἰμί plus participle construction as ʻunusualʼ for Deuteronomy. This is true, but note that the construction occurs 5 times, a frequency matched within the Pentateuch only by Exodus. Conybeare and Stock cite this example as ἔσῃ…ἀδικούμενος (CS, Grammar, 68). It would be interesting to know what they made of the following καὶδιαρπαζόμενος. A er citing Gen. 4: 12 στένων καὶ τρέμων ἔσῃ, they do in fact compare Deut. 28: 29 and reference to the double periphrasis of that verse seems logical, but since it is itself cited immediately a erwards in the partial form noted above, one must presume that the preceding citation of Deut. 28: 29 refers to the verse's other future periphrasis ἔσῃ ψηλαφῶν. See Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 441–2, on the LXX's overlooking of ‫רק‬. See ibid. 458 on the general, translation-technical issues. Cf. KB i, 136; Wevers, Genesis Notes, 290. Cf. BL, Grammatik, 333i′. Mandelkern mistakenly classifies it as a perfect indicative (M., Concordantiae, i. 791). Cf. Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 219. On the Greek interpretation cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 333–4, especially under Exod. 21: 22. ibid. 339. So ibid.; Taylor, Parsing Guide, 97.

Cf. E. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History, pt. 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 315–16 n. 11; Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 428–9. CS, Grammar, 69. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 434. Mayser, Grammatik, ii/i. 185 10.1515/9783110833744

.

See Wevers, Exodus Notes, 453–4, who also recognizes the double periphrasis. See SM, Grammar, §§ 599e, 707; cf. Aerts, periphrastica, 41, 49–50, 51. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 570, under 34: 29.

114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123

124

125 126

127

128 129

Cf. ibid. 642. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 692; cf. KB iii. 903. See KB ii. 614. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 170. CS, Grammar, 68–9. Turner, Syntax, 89, who appears to treat only periphrases employing perfect participles in Genesis and Exodus. Aerts, periphrastica, 65, 66–7, 68. ibid. 65 with n. 2; but see Wevers, Genesis Notes, 661. Aerts, periphrastica, 68; but see Wevers, Exodus Notes, 100. Aerts, periphrastica, 67. This will, allow ʻgreater certainty as to the emotional value of the “progressive” periphrases of εἶναι + present participle in the LXX.ʼ Whatever Aerts means precisely by ʻemotional, valueʼ here, we can certainly test the degree of bilingual interference on the Greek periphrases. Aerts attributes the greater frequency of verbal periphrases in later Biblical and. Christian Greek, compared with extraBiblical literature, to the influence of the LXX, and so indirectly to that of the Hebrew (ibid. 56–8, 60–75). His view is based on the assertion that future periphrasis with ἔσομαι plus participle arises in the LXX and is almost exclusively restricted to the LXX and NT, with very little later expansion (ibid., 59–60, 68–9; cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 317; the claim is contradicted by Porter, Verbal Aspect, 463–4), and that the ʻprogressiveʼ periphrasis also arises in the LXX (Aerts, periphrastica, 74–5; but see § 9.4.1. above). Porter denies special Semitic influence on the NT constructions, although noting the possible e ect of LXX precedents (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 457, 478). Aerts, periphrastica, 62–9, provides a sketch, of general LXX usage. This type of Hebrew construction, to which my definition of verbal periphrasis as synthetic tense form, equivalent is not transferable (at least for Pentateuchal Hebrew), ʻsometimesʼ occurs to emphasize continuing action; so GKC, Grammar,. § 116r; cf. WO, Syntax, 628–9; also Driver, Treatise, 169–71, especially on the greater frequency of the construction in later books. Cf. J. W. Wevers, ʻThe Use of Versions for Text. Criticism: The Septuagintʼ, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la itwestigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Institute ʻArias Montanoʼ, 1985), 15–24 at 18; id., Exodus Notes, p. xii; id., Deuteronomy Notes, 309, on Deut. 19: 4. For translation-technical details, especially on the tension, between this type of rendering and the natural. Greek tendency to express the pronoun only for emphasis, see SoisalonSoininen, Studien, 81–3. Cf. CS, Grammar, 29–30 (but note that the passage cited is unfortunate in contrasting Greek, with Modern English, rather than Hebrew). Translatorsʼ preferences appear to vary for this type of rendering, though the following samples are too small to be very instructive (and the figures are only approximate, based on a single manual count). For what it is worth, I note 9 instances of αὐτός in Genesis, but none of οὗτος (but αὕτη occurs for ‫ הוא‬in a slightly di erent Hebrew construction in Gen, 20: 3); in Exodus 4 of aὐvτóς and 1 of οὗτóς; in Leviticus 6 and 7; in Numbers 8 and 4; in Deuteronomy 1 and 4. Little can be made of these statistics in isolation, since both pronominal, renderings have a much wider use for other types of construction; c£ Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 72–3.

130

Mayser, Grammatik ii/i, 64 10.1515/9783110833744

131

62 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 ; also Thumb,. Handbook, §§ 136, 144, for Modern Greek usage. For figures regarding omission of all persons of the pronoun see Soisalon-Soininen, Studien, 83.

132

ibid. 10.1017/CBO9780511554148

133 134 135 136

. For later developments c£ Browning, Med. & Mod.

For the common practice of using forms of ∈ἰμί to translate Hebrew personal

pronouns functioning as subjects in nominal sentences cf. ibid. 75–6 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 , and see my §§ 4.4.2, 5.3.2, 5.3.3. Note that in the analysis of pt. 11 the match Type 2 Minus was recorded for the forms of ∈ἰμί in these instances. Gignac, Morphology, 307 n. 2; Mayser, Grammatik i/2, 155; ii/1. 225; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 322. Gignac, Morphology, 307; Smyth., Grammar, §§ 691–3, 697–8; and see § 6,4 and n. 84 This passive participle is a fossilized survival of an otherwise unknown Qal form; it is also used as a personal name (KB i. 152–3; cf. i. 148).

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

CHAPTER

10 General Conclusion  T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0010 Published: March 2001

Pages 259–264

Abstract The use of aspect, tense, and mood in the Greek Pentateuch represents essentially idiomatic Greek, in accord with the usage of the early Koine vernacular. The evidence of these verbal categories contradicts the ‘LXX syntax equals Hebrew syntax’ view, for the Pentateuch at least. This is not to claim that Hebrew interference is entirely absent from these categories. However, apart from a few rather rare functional traits, interference is mainly manifested through the feature of frequency of occurrence. Thus, the Greek Pentateuch — and indeed the entire LXX — is an important witness for the history of the Greek verbal system during the early post-Classical period, when important changes were in progress. The verbal categories of translation Greek documents richly reward the intense scrutiny they have recently begun to attract.

Keywords: LXX syntax, Hebrew syntax, Hebrew interference, natural Greek usage, Septuagint Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

10.1. Summary Conclusion The use of aspect, tense, and mood in the Greek Pentateuch represents essentially idiomatic Greek, in accord with the usage of the early Koine vernacular. The evidence of these verbal categories contradicts the ‘LXX syntax equals Hebrew syntax’ view, for the Pentateuch at least. This is not to claim that Hebrew? interference is entirely absent from these categories. However, apart from a few rather rare functional traits, interference is mainly manifested through the feature of frequency of occurrence. Thus, the Greek Pentateuch—and indeed the entire LXX—is an important witness for the history of the Greek verbal system during the early post-Classical period, when important changes were in progress. The verbal categories of translation Greek documents richly reward the intense scrutiny they have recently begun to attract.

10.2. Hebrew Interference Any translation document will manifest in uence from its original, even if only at the broad contextual level. Such in uence will inevitably be strong if—as in the case of the Greek Pentateuch—largely literal translation techniques are employed. The most obvious example throughout the translated books of the LXX is their Hebraistic word order. Nevertheless, thoroughgoing bilingual interference in all syntactic categories, which Lust's formulation suggests (‘the syntax of the Septuagint is Hebrew rather than Greek’, from which we began at § 1.1), is by no p. 260

means a necessary result of word-for

word renderings. In verbal syntax the major coding di erences

between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems allow very considerable scope for natural Greek usage in the translations. An illustrative instance is the tense usage of the Greek in nitive in the Pentateuch. Greek in nitives commonly translate the Hebrew in nitive construct (§ 5.3.11), but the usual Greek choice between aorist and present tense forms must be free of motivation from the underlying Hebrew, which does not manifest aspectual choice in the in nitive. On the other hand, it is true that the Greek Pentateuch displays features Hebraistic in function. In the sphere of verbal syntax the use of the Greek participle to render the Hebrew in nitive absolute (§ 5.3.12 n. 19), arising from literal translation techniques, is perhaps the most familiar of them. Another is the arti cial combination of nite verb plus in nitive used to translate the force of Piel and Hiphil forms (§ 4.4.5 and n. 54), an interesting manifestation of lexical interference. It needs to be stressed that such features are very limited in both number and frequency. And we have seen that the Numbers translator even introduces the potential optative independently within the Hebraism of 11: 29 τίς δῴη for 7.7 §)‫)מי יתן‬. Further, we must be more wary than some previous writers of alleging Hebraistic syntactic features of verbal usage. The assertion of Thompson that the Greek perfect indicative is occasionally used to indicate an underlying non-Qal verbal stem (§ 6.2.4) and Walters's jussive optative theory (§ 7.6.2) have both been shown in this study to be unsustainable. A manifestation of bilingual interference much more pervasive, but also much more subtle, than the functional features mentioned above lies in frequencies of occurrence of the Greek verbal forms. Abnormal frequencies are di

cult to identify securely without large-scale text sampling, but repay investigation.

They arise in the Greek Pentateuch through two basic types of interference, formal and lexical. Instances of both types have been identi ed in the present study by means of the comprehensive data assembled. Thus, the frequencies of the volitive optative, though not the mood's potential and comparative functions, manifest formal interference. It has been shown that the volitive function has abnormally high frequencies in the LXX and that the bulk of the Pentateuchal examples are motivated by the Hebrew jussive of wish (§ p. 261

7.6.1). The observation could probably be applied to the volitive optative's

frequencies throughout the

LXX, though it requires careful testing. We have seen another type of formal interference, derived from paratactic Hebrew clausal structure, in the abnormally low Pentateuchal frequencies of the Greek imperfect indicative relative to those of the aorist indicative (§ 8.5.1). Statistical analysis reveals similar patterns throughout the translated books of the LXX (§ 8.4). In fact this feature appears to have considerable potential as a general gauge for testing whether documents are genuine translations from Hebrew or Aramaic. It must, of course, be applied with reserve. Stylistic in uence from translation Greek could well be a factor in original Greek compositions within the biblical corpus. In the absence of a known Semitic source we shall always be on treacherous ground. Interference from Hebrew clausal structure also appears to manifest itself in the case of periphrastic tense forms rendering the ‫ היה‬plus participle construction. It seems likely that bilingual interference is a factor in

most examples of periphrases rendering other Hebrew” constructions as well, but the verbal periphrases in the Greek Pentateuch constitute a special case. Their relationship to underlying Hebrew text components is very complex and problematic and has not been fully tested in the present study (see §§ 9.5–9.6). Lexical interference is perhaps an additional factor in uencing the relative frequencies of aorist and imperfect indicatives (§ 8.5.3). It clearly a ects the frequencies of the tenses of the Greek participle. These can be seen from a glance at the statistics of Table 1 (§ 3.2) to di er markedly from those of the oblique moods and in nitive in the Pentateuch. The oddity has been shown to be at least partly due to lexical interference in the present (§ 5.3.12) and perfect (§ 6.3) participles. We have also seen a rather particular example in relation to the third person present imperative in Leviticus and Numbers (§ 5.3.10). Numerous other examples of lexical interference are likely to await identi cation. In my view, the need to investigate frequencies of verbal forms in all translated books of the LXX as an integral part of syntactic analysis has been established by the present study. But statistics, while often a guide to rewarding areas of research, must be carefully assessed. Sensitivity to the form/function p. 262

distinction and to contextual e ects is vital, as is broad-based sampling. Small samples can

yield

misleading results, as we have seen with regard to Schehr's interpretation of the perfect indicative in Gen. 1–15 (§ 6.2.6). In all these cases we are dealing only with Hebraistic frequency, not Hebraistic function, I have isolated no new examples of the latter type. It is worth stressing again the essentially idiomatic usage of the functional categories of the verb in the Greek Pentateuch.

10.3. Natural Greek Usage In the light of these conclusions regarding Hebrew interference, it becomes possible to analyse more con dently the evidence of the Pentateuch for natural developments within the Greek verbal system. This evidence is all the more interesting and instructive in the current climate of reinvigorated research into the Greek verb. My own approach to the verbal system is based on independent assessment of the recent scholarly debate, especially the contributions of Porter and Panning. The Greek system is taken here to be aspectually based, manifesting two fundamental aspects (perfective and imperfective), and to convey temporal reference in the indicative mood (against Porter's theory; see § 2.7). The perfect tense form is interpreted as stative in force, without inherent reference to prior occurrence, and as aspectually imperfective (§ 2.5). The future tense form is interpreted as essentially temporal in force (§ 2.6). The de nitional problems of periphrastic tense forms, which become increasingly important in post-Classical Greek, have also been addressed (§§ 9.2; 9.4.1), with lexical semantics taken to govern the potential grammaticaltzation of certain verbs as periphrastic auxiliaries. On the structure of the system see further the summary statements of §§ 2.8; 9.6. According to this theoretical model, verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch may be characterized generally as typical of early Koine vernacular usage. The Attic structures are still largely intact. Koine changes manifested in the Pentateuchal books are mostly those already nascent in the late Classical period (§ 3.2). With regard to the perfect system and the optative mood, we have seen that the Pentateuch provides very useful evidence for the history of Greek. On the perfect, the Pentateuchal evidence clearly shows the associations of the perfect indicative with direct speech. It also supports the theory of persistence of the p. 263

perfect tense form's Classical function, distinct from that of the aorist, during the early

Koine period. As

for the optative, this mood is obviously in decline. However, the volitive function, though normally motivated by the jussive of wish, also shows signs of independent employment and is not to be seen as an

arti cial feature (§ 7.6). In addition, the potential function is plainly still alive, though rare, since it is quite free of Hebrew motivation (§§ 7.7–7.8). Interesting points regarding style have also emerged from the syntactic analysis. The general level of Pentateuchal language is unpretentious, but stylistic ourishes are not absent, illustrating the important point that Koine Greek involves more than a simple dichotomy between literary and vernacular language (cf. § 7.2 n. 3). Especially noteworthy is the comparative use of the potential optative, interpreted here as likely to be a Homeric reminiscence (§ 7.8). The use of the historic present in Exodus perhaps also has a positive stylistic value, against Fanning's view (§ 5.3.2 n. 2). Lexical features manifesting conscious e orts at style (§ 6.2.5 and n. 51; § 7.8 n. 92) support these identi cations in the syntactic sphere.

10.4. The Questions of Date and Authorship Finally, it is interesting to note the evidence of verbal syntax for the perennially interesting questions of date and authorship of the Pentateuch. These documents have already been characterized in this chapter as belonging to the early Koine vernacular. The syntactic features examined in my study do not provide evidence su

ciently sensitive to assist precise dating. However, the features analysed in detail, as well as

the general structural similarity of the Pentateuchal verbal system to the Attic system, are strongly suggestive of production early (probably very early) in the post-Classical period. They are thus consistent with the consensus view of a date of c.280–250 BC (cf. § 1.7). The strongest evidence treated lies in identi cation of potential optative function in these documents. Nonformulaic potential use of the mood in vernacular writings seems unlikely after the period of the third to second centuries BC . The evidence of the perfect system is less precise, since the persistence of its Classical function distinct from the aorist arguably extends into the early centuries AD . The theory of separate authorship of the ve books, pioneered in the nineteenth century by Frankel, has p. 264

been restated persuasively by Wevers and others in recent times (see § 1.3 and n. 6). Some

evidence

providing further support for this view has been noted in the present study. It is mostly somewhat ambiguous, but one very clear example should be observed. The idiolect preference of the Exodus translator for the historic present has long been recognized (§ 5.3.2 and n. 2), but its strong evidence for separate authorship of this book does not seem to have been exploited fully. The distribution of types of periphrasis in Numbers and Deuteronomy (§ 9.5.4), the higher frequency of the imperfect indicative relative to the aorist indicative in Exodus (see Table 10 in § 8.4 and Table 12 in § 8.5.1), and the higher frequency of the present in nitive and imperative in Deuteronomy relative to the aorist tense forms may also be idiolect features, but are less clear indicators open to other interpretations (see e.g. § 3.2 n. 11).

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

END MATTER

Appendix 1 Notes On Tables 1, 8, 9, and 11  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.005.0001 Published: March 2001

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

Appendix 1

Pages 265–269

1. Notes on Table 1 (a) Table 1 includes all 18,953 synthetic verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch according to Wevers's text. His Göttingen editions actually contain 18,954 forms, but corrections a ecting the verbal classi cation proposed by Wevers for his critical editions at Lev. 5: 7; 21: 1, Num. 11: 33, 22: 11, and 1

Deut. 30: 13 have been incorporated here. At Lev. 21: 1 Wevers would now omit the present participle λέγων, which appears in his edition. The gures were generated initially by morphological analysis of the CATSS databases. The resulting CATSS counts have been manually corrected throughout to accord with Wevers's text (instead of Rahlfs's edition) and to remove tagging errors contained, in the databases (cf. § 1.6 and for details of my changes to the CATSS gures see App. 2). (b) This table does not take account of periphrastic tense forms. Figures for these are given in Table 13 (§ 9.4.13). See Chapter 9 for discussion of the complex problem of verbal periphrasis. (c) The counts involve a limited degree of subjectivity since certain Greek forms are ambiguous. It is not possible to allocate all forms to particular categories in a purely objective manner. Problematic decisions mainly concern, identi cation of forms as imperfect or aorist indicative, as aorist or present subjunctive (especially in liquid and nasal stems), and as aorist subjunctive or future indicative. My classi cations of doubtful cases are based on contextual probabilities. The number of such cases is very small, however, and di erent conclusions would have minimal, impact on the statistics. It should be noted in this connection that some of the CATSS errors listed in App. 2, § 1 may re ect other scholars' reasoned decisions based on context, not merely the results of automatic tagging. With regard to the imperfect or aorist indicative type, -έχεεν forms from χέω compounds have been, interpreted as aorist indicatives, not imperfects, contrary to the CATSS analysis. The morphology is ambiguous, but context strongly suggests that the forms in question ought all to be read as p. 266

aorists. Out of 15 examples the only cases which seem readily open, to the alternative interpretation occur in Gen, 38: 9 and 39: 21. Ambiguous forms are also produced, in the third person singular by liquid, and, nasal stems. Here too the aorist indicative has been read in the 6 instances according to contextual probabilities. For details of all examples see App. 2, § 1. Debatable aorist subjunctive or future indicative instances relate mainly to rst person singular deliberative questions. McWhorter makes a persuasive case that ambiguous forms in such questions 2

should usually be taken as aorist subjunctive, not future indicative. This is my interpretation (requiring some changes to the CATSS analysis; see App. 2, § 1) of most Pentateuchal examples, e.g. ποιήσω in Gen. 27: 37; 39: 9; Exod. 17: 4, Wevers, however, takes the Gen, 39: 9 instance as future 3

indicative. Apparently in agreement is Voitila, since he recognizes only two instances of deliberative subjunctives in direct questions within the chapters he treats, and cites the two in Gen, 44: 16 4

(λαλήσωμεν and δικαιωθῶμεν). These writers, are presumably in uenced by the following future ἁμαρτήσομαι, but this should not dictate classi cation of ποιήσω, even if the two verbs are taken as closely coordinated. Note that the Gen 44: 16 examples follow an indicative (τί ἀντεροῦμεν τῷ κυρίῳ ἢ τί 5

λαλήσωμεν ἢ τί δικαιωθῶμεν;).

Incidentally, Mayser recognizes instances of the deliberative subjunctive in. the Ptolemaic papyri, 6

only in indirect questions (for Pentateuchal examples in indirect questions note Exod. 8: 9 τάξαι πρός με, πότε εὔξω-μαι …, 10: 26 ἡμεῖς δε οὐκ οἴδαμεν, τί λατρεύσωμεν …). But on the one hand it is not clear to what extent ambiguous forms in direct questions are an issue in the papyri and how Mayser treats them, while on the other the often formulate character of his material perhaps makes the absence there of deliberative direct questions less notable, The deliberative subjunctive in direct questions is also 7

witnessed in NT usage.

(d) A more objective decision between future indicative and aorist subjunctive is possible for ἐξάξω in p. 267

Gen, 19: 8. Wevers identi es this as a sigmatic aorist exhortative subjunctive from ἐξάγω, clearly 8

in uenced by

the ΜΤ cohortative .‫ אוציאה‬However, I take the form as future indicative, in

agreement with the CATSS tag. The sigmatic aorist of ἄγω and its compounds becomes common 9

10

enough in. the Koine, but is infrequent in the LXX.

I recognize no convincing examples in the

Greek Pentateuch. The Gen. 19: 8 instance makes excellent sense as a future indicative, so Wevers's interpretation seems both unnecessary and unlikely (e) The verb ἥκω has a hybrid conjugation in post-Classical Greek, its present indicative adopting perfect endings in the plural (see § 6.2.5 n. 42). Both the singular and plural forms are classi ed here as present indicatives, as tagged in the CATSS les. Taylor's classi cation of the plural forms as 11

perfects is certainly reasonable on formal grounds,

but tends to obscure the unity of the paradigm.

(f) Not included in my counts are three instances of οφελον (in Exod. 16: 3 translating ‫ ;מי יהן‬in Num. 14: 2 and 20: 3 translating ‫)לו‬, which is tagged in the CATSS les as an aorist participle. The form, was originally verbal, but becomes fossilized in post-Classical Greek as an optative particle. The two interpretations of the word's precise origin to be found in the literature are worth noting here. It is commonly taken as developing from an unaugmented rst singular aorist indicative of 12

ὀφείλω,

but Wackernagel's interpretation, that the form, is historically a neuter participle with, ἐστίν 13

understood, is certainly possible and has its supporters. 14

participle in its LXX occurrences,

Taylor seems wrong to parse the form as a

where it clearly functions as a particle; however, the similar

CATSS tagging may well re ect mechanical, error, rather than, intention. Whatever the origin of the form, it has been, completely removed from, the verbal system. (g) The participle ἐχόμενος in its usage translating Hebrew prepositions and prepositional phrases is included in the counts, in agreement with the CATSS tagging. Though, treated, by some writers as a quasi-preposition, it retains its character as a verbal adjective in the Pentateuchal examples (see § 4.4.2 n. 40).

p. 268

2. Note on Table 8 The discrepancy between, my total gure of 80 Pentateuchal optatives and Turner's of 70 (56 volitives; 5 potentials; 9 comparatives), which I glean from his general lists of LXX citations (see § 7.3 n. 21), seems to be due to more than use of di erent texts and methods regarding variants. Since the process Turner employed to generate his statistics is unclear, I shall riot attempt to reconcile our two counts, but note certain, apparent errors in his lists, If he used Rahlfs's edition, he missed numerous examples; I note Gen, 1.6: 5; 28: 3 (bis; Turner cites only 1 of the 3 occurrences in this verse), 4; 48: 20; Exod. 5: 21 (bis); Num. 5: 21, 22 (Turner cites only 1 of 2 occurrences in. this verse); 11: 12; Deut. 1: 11 (bis); 28: 8, 9, all of which are read by Rahlfs. Conversely Turner cites an example from Gen. 19: 9, but whether he refers to the A reading κριναι 15

(both Rahlfs and Wevers read κρίνειν), which Brooke and McLean accent κρῖναι, i.e. as an in nitive,

or less

probably συντρῖψαι, these forms are both to be taken as aorist in nitives. I can see no textual warrant at all for 16

his Num., 22: 7 citation.

3. Notes on Table 9 (a) The gures for historical prose writers in Table 9 are adapted from Miller, who does not claim for 17

them ‘Rigid accuracy’; ‘They are the result of a single careful count’.

(b) The less complete NT gures are from Fanning, excluding ‘the imperfects of εἰμί and the occurrences 18

of ἔφη’.

19

Fanning's gures are based on the counts of Hawkins and the percentages of Schlachter

(with percentages for Mark corrected according to Fanning's own count). (c) My supplementary samples are selected, almost at random, but I have deliberately chosen mainly narrative passages from Lysias and Demosthenes. The statistics for the di erent authors in these samples must be treated with reserve. They are drawn from samples of approximately ten pages of p. 269

text each. For Vita Aesopi G this represents nearly a quarter of the

whole work, but for Chariton less

than, a fteenth, and for the orators a tiny fraction of their corpora. Further, to test these particular works editions of dissimilar formats have had to be used, so that the ten pages of each do not amount to anything more than roughly equivalent portions of Greek text. Nevertheless, their evidence, for what it is worth, accords with general trends. Chariton and the rhetorical narrative passages are similar to other literary prose documents, the vernacular language of Vita Aesopi G to the NT books. This is as we might expect. (d) From the Chariton sample 2 imperfect and 3 aorist indicative forms in Homeric quotations have been omitted.

4. Note on Table 11 The gures of Table 11, unlike those for all my Pentateuchal word, counts, are based on Rahlfs's 1935 edition of the LXX. They have been generated purely by morphological analysis of the CATSS databases without manual modi cation, and so must be assumed to reproduce some morphological tagging errors. Experience of CATSS tagging relevant to the imperfect and aorist indicatives in the Pentateuchal books (on which see App. 1, § 1(c)) suggests, however, that in most cases errors would not be su

ciently numerous to distort the

statistics signi cantly.

Notes 1 2 3 4

5

Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 57, 331; id., Numbers Notes, 180–1, 366; id., Deuteronomy Notes, 484. A. W. McWhorter, ʻA Study of the So-called Deliberative Type of Question(τί ποιήσω;) as Found in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripidesʼʼ, TAPhA 41 (1910),157–67, esp. 165–7 on ambiguous forms. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 654. A. Voitila, ʻLa technique de traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans l'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen 37, 39–50)ʼ, in C, E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leaven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1.991), 223–37 at 227–8. Cf. the Eur. Ion 758 example in § 2.6.3 and McWhorter ʻDeliberativeʼ, 159–60, for statistics on subjunctive/future combinations in deliberative questions in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides.

6

Mayser, Grammatik, ii/1. 235–6 10.1515/9783110833744 situation, in the later papyri.

; cf. Mandilaras, Verb, §§ 571–3, esp § 572, observing a similar

7 8

BDR, Grammatik, § 366; Turner, Syntax, 98–9; and for the independent deliberative subjunctive in Modern Greek see Thumb, Handbook, 126. Wevers, Genesis Notes, 269.

9

Gignac, Morphology, 290–1, with 290 n. 6; Mayser, Grammatik, i/2. 144 10.1515/9783110833744

.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19

Wevers, Exodus Text, 229–30; Thackeray, Grammar, 233 (he notes ἐπάξω in Exod. 33: 5, regarding it as probably future, but Wevers, Exodus Text, 229–30, reads ἐπαγάγω there); Helbing, Grammatik, 90. Taylor, Parsing Guide, 212. Helbing, Grammatik, 73–4; Moulton, Prolegomena, 200–1 and 201 n. 1; Thackeray, Grammar, 199,280; LSJ, s.v. ὀφείλω, II.3.c.; Robertson, Grammar, 923, 1003–4; MH, Grammar, 191, 252; SD, Syntax, 345–6. J. Wackernagel, Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916), 199–200; cf. BDR, Gmmmatik, § 67.2. and n. 4; BAGD, s.v ὄφελον; Wevers, Exodus Notes, 243; McKay, New Syntax, § 10.3.1. n. 1. Taylor, Parsing Guide, 326. A. E. Brooke, N. McLean, and (from vol. ii/1 (1927) onwards) H. St. J. Thackeray, The Old Testament in Greek (3 vols. in 9 pts.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–40), i/1. 4.5. Turner, Syntax, 132 n. 1. C. W. E. Miller, ʻThe Imperfect and the Aorist in Greekʼ, AJPh 16 (1895), 139–85 at 142 n. 1. Cf. the figures of L. Schlachter, ʻStatistische Untersuchungen überden Gebrauch. der Tempora und Modi bei einzelnen griechischen Schri steilernʼ, IF 22 (1907), 202–42 at 229. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 254. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 51; Schlachter, ʻStatistische Untersuchungenʼ, 229, Note that MH, Grammar, 457, count 165 imperfects in John, incorporating Burney's correction to Hawkins's count, and. that this is the figure cited by Porter, Verbal Aspect, 136.

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

END MATTER

Appendix 2 Changes to the CATSS Verb Counts  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.005.0002 Published: March 2001

Pages 270–280

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

Appendix 2 The statistics of Table 1 (§ 3.2) frequently disagree with those generated electronically by morphological analysis of the CATSS databases (1994 versions). The disagreements are of two sorts: (1) cases where I consider the CATSS morphological tags to be incorrect; (2) cases where Wevers's text, which I follow, disagrees with Rahlfs's text, on which the CATSS materials are based. The two types of disagreement, (the rst is obviously the more serious) are recorded separately in the lists of §§ 1 and 2 below. Their combined e ects on my verb counts are displayed in. Table 14.

Table 14. Changes to Catss Verb Counts Form

CATSS total

Items omitted

Items added

My total

Indicative

406

16

2

392

Subjunctive

24

5

4

23

Optative

1

0

0

1

Imperative

65

0

11

76

Infinitive

79

0

3

82

Participle

296

6

2

292

299

9

6

296

Indicative

519

6

14

527

Infinitive

2

0

0

2

Participle

1

0

0

1

Indicative

2,594

16

16

2594

Subjunctive

210

13

11

208

Optative

20

0

2

22

Imperative

286

4

6

288

Infinitive

236

3

0

233

Participle

267

3

4

268

Indicative

99

1

3

101

Subjunctive

1

1

0

0

Infinitive

3

0

0

3

Participle

26

0

1

27

16

0

0

16

Genesis Present

Imperfect Indicative Future

Aorist

Perfect

Pluperfect Indicative Exodus Present

Indicative

237

14

2

225

Subjunctive

47

5

3

45

Imperative

68

1

6

73

Infinitive

76

0

1

77

Participle

235

2

3

236

129

7

6

128

Indicative

956

17

17

956

Participle

1

0

0

1

Indicative

1,094

10

12

1096

Subjunctive

267

20

12

259

Optative

3

0

1

4

Imperative

181

3

3

181

Infinitive

142

4

2

140

Participle

120

8

2

114

Indicative

95

0

2

97

Subjunctive

4

0

1

5

Infinitive

4

0

0

4

Participle

119

2

1

118

7

0

0

7

Indicative

246

3

2

245

Subjunctive

66

8

3

61

Imperative

23

1

2

24

Infinitive

26

0

0

26

Participle

249

4

4

249

Imperfect Indicative Future

Aorist

Perfect

Pluperfect Indicative Leviticus Present

Imperfect

Indicative

12

9

0

3

1,276

6

9

1,279

Indicative

324

0

9

333

Subjunctive

284

3

14

295

Optative

1

1

0

0

Imperative

52

7

0

45

Infinitive

85

0

0

85

Participle

62

0

1

63

Indicative

23

0

0

23

Subjunctive

0

0

1

1

Participle

65

0

1

66

4

1

0

3

Indicative

201

5

2

198

Subjunctive

34

9

1

26

Imperative

26

1

3

28

Infinitive

55

0

0

55

Participle

298

2

1

297

64

2

2

64

Indicative

831

7

22

846

Optative

1

1

0

0

Infinitive

1

0

0

1

Indicative

1,004

6

3

1,001

Subjunctive

202

12

9

199

Future Indicative Aorist

Perfect

Pluperfect Indicative Numbers Present

Imperfect Indicative Future

Aorist

Optative

13

1

2

14

Imperative

146

3

8

151

Infinitive

129

8

2

123

Participle

118

4

0

114

Indicative

70

4

2

68

Participle

120

0

3

123

3

0

3

6

Indicative

281

8

7

280

Subjunctive

60

3

3

60

Optative

1

1

0

0

Imperative

67

0

0

67

Infinitive

141

1

1

141

Participle

249

7

1

243

51

2

3

52

Indicative

1,094

15

8

1,087

Participle

1

1

1

1

Indicative

676

6

10

680

Subjunctive

417

8

17

426

Optative

31

1

9

39

Imperative

100

8

4

96

Infinitive

194

12

3

185

Participle

120

3

3

120

Indicative

69

5

0

64

Infinitive

5

1

1

5

Perfect

Pluperfect Indicative Deuteronomy Present

Imperfect Indicative Future

Aorist

Perfect

Participle

64

0

1

65

9

2

2

9

Pluperfect Indicative

With regard to § 1 below, see App. 1. § 1, for my treatment of problematic forms and especially the question of morphological ambiguity It is clear from the entries of Taylor, Parsing Guide, that he has already found some, but not all, of the CATSS tagging errors which I note, though he does not identify speci c instances. With regard, to § 2 below, see the critical apparatuses to Wevers's Göttingen editions for details regarding the textual di erences noted. Chapter and verse numbers in the following lists are necessarily those of Rahlfs, which are employed in the CATSS databases. Those in brackets are Wevers's, where he di ers from Rahlfs.

I. Changes Reflecting Disagreement with CATSS Morphological Tags Genesis Present indicative: 1: 28 ἄρχετε, 24: 56 κατέχετε, 29: 7 βόσκετε, 32: 17 (32: 16) ποιεῖτε, 34: 10 κστοικεῖτε, 43: 23 φοβεῖσθε, 50: 19 φοβεῖσθε, 50: 21 φοβεῖσθε are present imperatives; 9: 27 πλατύναι is an aorist optative; 32: 18 (32: 17) ἐρωτᾷ, 42: 2 ζῶμεν, 43: 8 ζῶμεν, 47: 19 ζῶμεν are present subjunctives; 41: 44 ἐξαρεῖ is a future indicative. Present subjunctive: 11: 6 ἐπιθῶνται, 11: 7 σνγχέωμεν, 19: 15 συναπόλῃ, 37: 22 ἐκχέητε are aorist subjunctives; 32: 18 (32: 17) πορεύῃ is a present indicative. Present participle: 25: 22 ἐσκίρτων is an imperfect indicative; 39: 15 ὕψωσα, 39: 18 ὕψωσα are aorist indicatives; 47: 26 ἀποπεμπτοῦν is a present in nitive. p. 271

Imperfect indicative: 6: 12 κατέφθειρεν, 11: 9 συνέχεεν, 26: 22 ἐπλάτυνεν, 28: l8 ἐπέχεεν, 35: 14 ἐπέχεεν, 38: 9 ἐξέχεεν, 38: 16 ἐξέκλινεν, 39: 21 κατέχεεν are aorist indicatives. Future indicative: 3: 22 φάγῃ, 12: 1 δείξω, 27: 7 εὐλογήσω, 31: 43 ποιήσω, 37: 27 ἀποδώμεθα are aorist subjunctives. Aorist indicative: 6: 4 ἐγεννῶσεν, 32: 25 (32: 24) ἐπάλαιεν are imperfect indicatives; 22: 5 καθίσατε, 34: 9 ἐπιγαμβρεύσασθε, 42: 16 ἀπάχθητε, 48: 18 ἐπίθες, 5ο: 17 εἴπατε are aorist imperatives; 22: 7 εἴπας, 32: 10 (32: 9) εἴπας, 46: 2 εἴπας are aorist participles. Aorist subjunctive: 7: 4 ἐξαλείψω, 9: 5 ἐκζητήσω (ter), 21: 13 ποιήσω, 24: 4 πορεύσῃ, 24: 38 πορεύσῃ, 27: 21 ψηλαφήσω, 47: 30 ποιήσω are future indicatives; 49: 1 σννάχθητε is an aorist imperative. Aorist imperative: 1: 22 πληθυνέσθω (the CATSS form, is actually the third person plural πληθυνέσθωσαν, which Rahlfs has for Wevers's third singular), 47: 5 κατοικείτωσαν are present imperatives; 43: 14 ἀποστείλαι is an aorist optative. Aorist in nitive: 32: 26 (32: 25) παλαίειν, 49: 15 πονεῖν are present in nitives. Aorist participle: 32: 29 (32: 28) ἐνίσχυσας is an aorist indicative; 36: 4.3 καπῳκοδομηρέναις is a perfect participle. Perfect subjunctive: 24: 41. ἔλθῃς is an aorist subjunctive. Noun: 40: 13 οἰνοχοῶν is a present participle.

Exodus Present indicative: 1: 22 ζωογονεῖτε, 5: 11 συλλέγετε, 12: 31 βαδίζετε, 33: 5 ὁρᾶτε are present imperatives; 3: 6 εὐλαβεῖτο is an imperfect indicative; 8: 17 (8: 21) βούλῃ, 12: 13 παίω are present subjunctives; 23: 18 ἐμπλατύνω is an aorist subjunctive; 27: 6 φορεῖς, 2J: 7 φορεῖς (bis) are nouns. Present subjunctive: 25: 9 (25: 8) δεικνύω, 33: 15 πορεύῃ are present indicatives; 34: 24 ἐμπλατύνω (the CATSS form is actually Rahlfs's simplex πλατύνω) is an aorist subjunctive. Present imperative: 4: 21 πορευομένον is a present participle. Imperfect indicative: 8: 28 (8: 32) ἐβάρυνεν, 9: 34 ἐβάρυνεν, 24: 6 ἐvέχεεv, προσέχεεν are aorist indicatives. 1

Future indicative: 7: 4 ἐκδικήσει is a noun; 12: 15 φάγῃ, 12: 1.9 φάγῃ, 21:21 διαβιώσῃ, 34: 20 λυτρώσῃ, 34: 24 ἐκβάλω are aorist subjunctives. Aorist indicative: 3: 20 ἐκτείνας, 4: 4 ἐκτείνας are aorist participles; 10: 17 προσεύξασθε is an aorist imperative. p. 272

Aorist subjunctive: 3: 20 ποιήσω, 4: 12 ἀνοίξω, συμβιβάσω, 4: 21 σκληρυνῶ,

7: 3 σκληρυνῶ, πληθυνῶ, 7: 4 ἐπιβaλaῶ, 12:

12 ποιήσω, 12: 13 σκεπάσω, 23: 20 ἀναπληρώσω, 25: 22 (25: 21.) λαλήσω, 33: 5 ποιήσω, 33: 14 καταπαύσω, 33: 19 καλέσω are future indicatives. Aorist imperative: 8: 25 (8: 29) ἐξαπατῆσαι is an. aorist in nitive. Aorist in nitive: 4: 13 προχείρισαι, 17: 9 παράταξαι are aorist imperatives. Aorist participle: 12: 9 ἡψημένον is a perfect participle; 16: 3 ὄφελον is a particle (App. 1, § 1.(f)) Perfect participle: 37: 1.6 ἐξισούμενον, 38: 15 ἐξισούμενοι are present participles.

Leviticus Present indicative: 18: 24 μιαίνεσθε is a present imperative. Present subjunctive: 13: 22 διαχέηται, l3: 23 διαχέηται, 13: 27 διαχέηται, 13: 35 διαχέηται, 13: 51 διαχέηται, 13: 53 διαχέηται, 22: 7 δύῃ are aorist subjunctives. Present participle: 14: 29 καταλειφθέν is an aorist participle. Imperfect indicative: 8: 12 ἐπέχεεν, 8: 15 ἐξέχεεν, 8: 19 προσέχεεν, 8: 24 προσέχεεν, 9: 9 ἐξέχεεν, 9: 12 προσέχεεν, 9: 1.8 προσέχεεν, 17: 4 ε- ἐξέχεεν are aorist indicatives. Aorist imperative: 10: 9 πίεσθε is a future indicative. Pluperfect indicative: 16: 26 διεσταλμένον is a perfect participle.

Numbers Present indicative: 9: 8 ἐντελεῖται is a future indicative; 14: 42 ἀναβαίνετε, 16: 26 ἅπτεσθε, 2i: 17 ἐξάρχετε are present imperatives. Present subjunctive: 3: 49 ἐκλύτρωσιν is a noun; 10: 5 σαλπιεῖτε, 10: 6 σαλπιεῖτε (ter), 10: 7 σαλπιεῖτε, 10: 10 σαλπιεῖτε are future indicatives; 11: 29 ζηλοῖς is a present indicative; 12:11 συνεπιθῇ is an aorist subjunctive. Present imperative: 11: 15 ἀναιρέσει is a noun.

Present participle: 1.4: 22 εἰσήκονσαν is an aorist indicative. Future indicative: 15:31 ἐκτρίψει is a noun; 16: 34 καταπίῃ, 22: 6 καταράσῃ, 22: 20 λαλήσω, 23: 3 δείξῃ, 23: 20 ἀποστρέψω, 23: 24 φάγῃ are aorist subjunctives. Future optative: 9: 20 σκεπάσῃ is an. aorist subjunctive. Aorist indicative: 1: 18 ἐπηξονοῦσαν is an imperfect indicative; 14: 28 εἶπον (the CATSS form has Rahlfs's accentuation εἰπόν), 17: 11 (16: 46) ἐπίθες are aorist imperatives. Aorist subjunctive: 4: 27 ἐπισκέψῃ, 14: 12 ποιήσω, 14: 28 ποιήσω, 14: 35 ποισω, 22: 17 τιμήσω, 23: 9 προσνοήσω, 32: 30 σνγκατακληρονομοθήσονται, 33: 56 ποιήσω, 35: 34 κατασκηνώσω are future indicatives; 14: 25 ἐπιστράφητε is an aorist imperative. Aorist optative: 7: 1 ἀναστῆσαι is an aorist in nitive. p. 273

Aorist imperative: 14: 9 φοβηθῆτε is an aorist subjunctive; 22: 16 ἀξιῶ is a present indicative. Aorist in mtive: 3: 15 ἐπίσκεψαι, 3: 40 ἐπίσκεψαι, 4: 23 ἐπίσκεψαι, 12: 13 ἴασαι, 21: 7 εὖξαι are aorist imperatives; 11: 12 ἄpαι, 22: 4 ἐκλεξαι are aorist optatives. Aorist participle: 3: 3 ἠλειμμένοι 14: 35 ἐπισυνεσταμένῃ are perfect participles; 14; 2 ὄφελον, 20: 3 ὄφελον are particles (App. 1, § 1(f)). Perfect indicative: 22: 22 ἐπιβεβήκει, 23: 6 ἐφειστήκει, 23: 17 ἐφειστήκει are pluperfect indicatives. Noun: 4: 5. συσκιάζον is a present participle.

Deuteronomy Present indicative: 20: 3 θραύεσθε is a present imperative; 31: 14 ἐντελοῦμαι, 32: 46 ἐντελεῖσθε are future indicatives. Present, subjunctive: 19: 8 ἐμπλατύνῃ, 27: 19 ἐκκλίνῃ are aorist subjunctives. Present optative: 33: 27 ἀπόλοιο is an aorist optative. Present imperative: 1: 33 πορεύεσθε, 2: 4 παραπορεύεσθε are present indicatives; 20: 3 ἐκκλίνητε is an aorist subjunctive. Present participle: 3: 27 Λελαξευμένου is a perfect participle, but also a proper noun and so omitted from, my count altogether. Imperfect indicative: 29: 17 (29: 18) ἐξέκλικν is an aorist indicative. Future indicative: 17: 18 καθίaῃ, 19: 11 ἐνεδρεύσῃ, 23: 22 (23: 21) εὔξῃ are aorist subjunctives; 24: 11 add στήσῃ, which is correctly tagged in the CATSS database as a future indicative, except that the tag (VF FM12S) contains the misprint ‘I ’ for ‘I’, Future participle: 19: 5 ἐκπεσόν is an aorist participle. Aorist indicative: 25: 18 ἐκπίνας, ἐκοπίας are imperfect indicatives. Aorist subjunctive: 18: 18 ἀναστήσω, 20: 10 ἐκκαλέσῃ are future indicatives.

Aorist imperative: 1: 20 ἤλθατε, 1: 22 προσήλθατε are aorist indicatives; 1: 21. δειλιάσητε, 1: 29 πτήξητε, 1: 42 συντριβῆτε are aorist subjunctives; 33: 6 ζήτω is a present imperative. Aorist in nitive: 19: 3 στόχασαι, 30: 19 ἔκλεξαι are aorist imperatives; 28: 22 πατάξαι, 28: 27 πατάξαι, 28: 28 πατάξαι, 28: 29 ψηλαφήσαι, 28: 35 πατάξαι, 32: 11 σκεπάσαι are aorist optatives. Aorist participle: 22: 27 βοηθήσων is a future participle. Pluperfect indicative: 32: 11 ἐπεπόθησεν is an aorist indicative.

2. Changes Reflecting Di erences between Rahlfs's and Wevers's Texts Genesis Present indicative: 15: 7 add εἰμί, 37: 30 for πορεύομαι read future indicative πορεύσομαι, 49: 18 for περιμένω read, present participle περιμένων. p. 274

Present participle: 19: 37 omit λέγουσα, 50: 16 for λέγοντες read aorist indicative εἶπαν. Imperfect indicative: 25: 27 omit ἦν, 29: 16 add ἦσαν. Future indicative: 23: 6 for κωλύσει read aorist subjunctive κωλύση. Aorist indicative: 17: 20 for εὐλόγησα read perfect indicative εὐλόγηκα, 18: 11 for ἐξέλιπεν read imperfect indicative ἐξέλειπεν, 26: 33 add ἐκάλεσεν, 27: 19 for ἐποίησα read perfect indicative πεποίηκα, 29: 34 for ἔτεκον read perfect indicative τέτοκα, 39: 10 for ὑπήκουσεν read imperfect indicative ὑπήκουεν, 50: 12 add ἐνετείλατο, 50: 16 for παρεγένοντο read aorist participle παραγενόμενοι. Aorist subjunctive: 22: 5 for ἀναστρέψωμεν read future indicative ἀναστρέψομεν, 34: 31 for χρήσωνται future indicative χρήσονται, 43: 4 for ἀγοράσωμεν read, future indicative ἀγοράσομεν, Aorist imperative: 34: 10 for ἐγκτήσασθε read present imperative ἐγκτᾶσθε. Aorist in nitive: 24: 32 omit νίψασθαι. Aorist participle: 31: 33 for ἐξελθών read aorist indicative ἐξῆλθαν. Perfect indicative: 14: 14 for ᾐχμαλώτευται, read aorist indicative ᾐχμαλωτεύθη.

Exodus Present indicative: 8: 24 (8: 28) for ἀποστέλλω read, future indicative ἐξαποστελῶ, 23: 22 omit ἐστιν, 32: 34 for προπορεύεται read future indicative προπορεύσεται. Present subjunctive: 28: 41 (28: 37) for ἱερατεύωσιν read aorist subjunctive ἱερατεύσωσιν, 30: 21 omit είσπορεύωνται, Present participle: 11:9 omit πληθύνων, 18: 4 omit λέγων. Imperfect indicative: 7: 7 add ἦν, 10: 16 for κατέσπευδεν read aorist indicative κατέσπευσεν, 17: 11 for ἐγίνετο read aorist indicative ἐγένετο, 21: 23 for ἦν read present subjunctive ᾖ.

Future indicative: 8: 22 (8: 26) for θύσομεν read aorist subjunctive θύσωμεν, 13: 11 for read aorist subjunctive δῷ, 21: 16 for τελευτὴσει read present imperative τελευτάτω; 22: 10 (22: 11) for ἀποτείσει read aorist subjunctive ἀποτείσῃ, 23: 12 add ἀναπαύσῃ, 23: 22 omit ἔσεσθε (bis), ἐρεῖς, 30: 21 omit νίφονται, 33: 5 for επάξω read aorist subjunctive επαγάγω, 33: 11 for ΑαΑ^σα read aorist optative λάλησα* (Wevers incorrectly accents ΑαΑ^σαι); 4o: 8 (40; 6) omit αγιάσεις. Aorist indicative: 14: 5 for εποιήσαμεν read perfect indicative πεποιήκαμεν, 14: 2θ omit εwr, 18: 26 for εκρίνοσαν, άνεφεροσαν, εκρίνοσαν read imperfect indicatives έκριναν, ανέφεραν, ε κρίνον, 31: 6 for έοωκα read perfect indicative oVSoiica, 33: 8 for κατενοονσαν read imperfect indicative κατενοοΰν, 38: 2 add εποίησεν. p. 275

Aorist subjunctive: 22: 13 (22: 14) omit γενιμαι, 23: 22 omit εντείλωμαι,

φνλάξητε, ἀκούσητε, ποιήσῃς, 33: 13 for ἴδω

read perfect subjunctive εἰδῶ (Wevers accents εἴδω; see § 7.4 n. 27). Aorist imperative: 10: 24 for ὑπολίπεσθε read, present imperative ὑπολείπεσθε, 32: 34 omit κατάβηθι. Aorist in nitive: 17: 6 add ἐλθει̂ν, 27: 20 omit καυ̂σαι, 31:4 for ἀρχιτεκτονῆσαι read present in nitive ἀρχιτεκτονει̂ν. Aorist participle: 12: 30 for ἀναστάς read, aorist indicative ἀνέστη, 12: 37 for ἀπάραντες read, aorist indicative ἔπῆραν, 14: 7 for λαβών read aorist indicative ἔλαβεν, 15: 20 for λαβοὓσα read aorist indicative ἔλαβεν, 16: 18 for μετρήσαντες read aorist indicative ἐμέτρησαν, 17: 10 omit ἐξελθών.

Leviticus Present indicative: 6: 10 (6: 17) add ἐστίν, 15: 4 for ἐστιν read future indicative ἔσται, 20 24 add ἐστίν, 27: 34 omit εἰσιν. Present subjunctive: 2: 8 for πоιῇ read, aorist subjunctive ποιήσῃ. Present imperative: 20.: 23 for πopεύεσθε read future indicative πορεύσεσθε. Present participle: 3: 9 add κατακαλπτον, 4: 18 add ὄντоς, 13: 42 add ἐξανθοὓσα, 17: 3 omit προσκειμένων, 21: 1 omit. λέγων (App. 1, § 1 (a)), 25: 25 omit ἐγγίζων, 27: 31 add λυτούμενος. Imperfect indicative: 22: 13 for ἦν read present subjunctive ᾖ Future indicative: 16: 32 for τελειώσουσιν read, aorist subjunctive τελει-ώσωσιν, 17: 5 for σφάξουσιν read aorist subjunctive σφάξωσιν, 19: 23 for καταφυτεύσετε read aorist subjunctive καταφυτεύσητε, 27: 12 for τμήσεται read aorist. subjunctive τιμήσηται, 27: 14 for τιμήσεται read aorist subjunctive τιμήσηται, 27: 27 for ἀλλάξει read, aorist subjunctive ἀλλάξῃ Aorist indicative: 9: 15 add ἐκαθάρισεν. Aorist subjunctive: 5: 7 for ἰσχύσῃ read present subjunctive ἰσχύῃ (App. 1, § 1 (a)), 15: 23 for καθίσῃ read present 2

subjunctive καθῆται, 23: 43 for ἴδωσιν read perfect subjunctive εἰῶσιν (Wevers accents εἴδωσιν; see § 7.4 n. 27). Aorist optative: 5: 1.6 for ἀποτείσαι read future indicative ἀποτείσει. Aorist imperative: 13: 45 for περιβαλέσθω, read present imperative περίβαλλέσθω, 16: 29 for ταπεινώσατε read future indicative ταπεινώσετε, 20: 22 for φυλάξασθε read, future indicative φνλάξεσθε, 20: 24 for κληρονομήσατε read future indicative κληρονομήσετε, 20: 27 for λιθοβολήσατε read future indicative λιθοβολήσετε, 25: 18 for φυλάξασθε read future indicative φυλάξεσθε.

Numbers Present indicative: 32: 6 for πopεύovτaι read future indicative πορεύσονται. Present in nitive: 11: 33 for ἐκλείπειν read aorist in nitive ἐκλιπει̂ν, which Wevers incorrectly accents ἐκλίπειν (App. 1, § 1(a)). p. 276

Present participle: 31: 27 for ἐκπορευομένων read perfect participle ἐκπε-πορευμένων. Imperfect indicative: 5; 13 for ἧν read present subjunctive ᾖ, 21: 9 for ἔδακνεν read aorist indicative ἔδακεν. Future indicative: 9: 21 add ἀπαρου̂σιν, 28; 20 add ποιήσετε. Aorist indicative: 21: 7 for ἡμάρτομεν read, perfect indicative ἡμαρτήκαμεν, 22: 22 for ἐπορεύθη read imperfect indicative ἐπορεύετο, 22: 28 for ἐποίησα read perfect indicative πεποίηκα. Aorist subjunctive: 9: 21 add ἀναβῇ, 23: 8 for ἀράσωμαι read future indicative ἀράσομαι, 23: 8 for καταράσωμαι read future indicative καταράσομαι. Aorist imperative: 3: 15 for ἐπισκέψασθε read future indicative ἐπισκέψῃ. Aorist in nitive: 11: 21 omit φαγει̂ν. Perfect indicative: 22: 11 for κεκάλυφεν read ἐκάλυψεν (App. 1, § (a)).

Deuteronomy Present indicative: 3: 9 for ἐπονομάζονσιν read, aorist indicative ἐπωνόμασαν, 15: 8 for ἐπιδέεται read present subjunctive ἐπιδέηται, 15: 10 for ἐπώέεται read present subjunctive ἐπιδέηται, 28: 1 omit δίδωσιν, 30: 11 add ἐστιν 30: 18 omit δίδωσιν. 3

Present subjunctive: 26: 3 for ᾖ read future indicative ἔσταἔι. Present in nitive: 30: 10 omit ποιει̂ν.

Present participle: 2: 10 for ἰσχύοντες read adjective ἰσχνρόν, 2: 14 omit ἀποθνῄσκοντες, 5: 14 omit παροικών, 18: 4 omit κούρων (which is in any case a noun); 20: 16 add εμπνεον, 25: 2 for ασεβών read adjective άσεβης, 27: 23 omit κοιμώμενος. imperfect indicative: 1: 27 for Βιεγογγνζετε read aorist indicative Βιεγογ-γύσατε. Future indicative: 1: 41 for πολεμήσομεν read aorist subjunctive πολεμήσωμεν 1: 42 for πολεμήσετε read, aorist subjunctive πολεμήσητε, 2: 18 for παραπορεύσῃ read present indicative παραπορεύη, 4: 31 for ἐκτρίψει read aorist subjunctive ἐκτρίψῃ, 13: 15(13: 14) add ἐτάσεις, 17: 20 for μακροχρονίσῃ read present subjunctive (μακροχρόνιος)ᾖ, 21: 10 for προνομεύσεις read aorist subjunctive προνομεύσῃς, 22: 1 omit ἀποδώσεις: 26: 5 for ἀποκριθήσῃ read, aorist 4

participle ἀποκριθείς, 27: 23 omit ἐρου̂σιν, 30: 13 for ποιήσει read aorist participle ἀκούσαιτες, 31: 19 for διδάξετε read, aorist imperative διδάξετε, 32: 43 for ἐκδικἃται read present indicative ἐκδικει̂ται. p. 277

Aorist indicative: 1: 40 for ἐστρατοπεύσατε read aorist imperative στρα

 τοπεδεύσατε, 8: 3 for εἴδησαν read

pluperfect indicative ᾕδεισαν, 8: 16 for εἴδησαν read pluperfect indicative ᾕδεισαν, 26: 16 for ἐνετείλατο read present, indicative ἐντέλλεται. Aorist subjunctive: 1: 31 for τροφοφορήσει (incorrectly tagged, since Rahlfs's form is future indicative) read aorist optative τροφοφορήσαι, 4: 1 omit πολυπλασιασθἣτε, 6: 15 omit θνμωθῇ, 8: 16 for ποίησῇ read aorist in nitive ποιῆσαι, 11: 17 add ὀργισθῇ 19: 5 add τύχῃ, 28: 1 omit διαβῆτε, 28: 7 for παραδῷ read aorist optative παραδῴη.

Aorist optative: 27: 23 omit γένοιτο. Aorist imperative: 1: 16 for κρίνατε read present imperative κρίνετε, 24: 8 for φυλάξασθε read future indicative φυλάξεσθε. Aorist in nitive: 4: 35 for εἰδῆσαι read perfect in nitive εἰδέναι, 19: 14 add κληρονομῆσαι,19: 15 omit μαρτυρῆσαι, 28: 63 for κληρονομῆσαι read present in nitive κληρονομεἳν, 31: 20 omit δοὓναι. Aorist participle: 11: 8 for εἰσελθόντες read aorist subjunctive εἰσέλθητε, 21: 10 for ἐξελθών read, aorist subjunctive ἐξέλθῃς. Perfect indicative: 2: 12 for δέδωκεν read aorist indicative ἔδωκεν, 3: 16 for δέδωκα read aorist indicative ἔδωκα, 11: 7 for ἑώρακαν read imperfect indicative ἑώρων, 11: 10 for ἐκπεπόρευσθε read present indicative ἐκπορεύεσθε, 15: 16 for ἠγάπηκεν read aorist indicative ἠγάπησεν. Perfect in nitive: 18: 5 for παρεστάναι read aorist in nitive παραστῆναι. Perfect participle: 33: 24 add εὐλογημένος. p. 278

Pluperfect indicative: 10: 10 for εἱστήκειν read aorist indicative ἔστην.

p. 279 p. 280

Notes 1

2 3

Exod. 34: 20 contains 3 instances of the ambiguous form λυτρώσῃ. 1 refer to the second instance, which must be subjunctive in a vivid future condition a er ἐάν, All 3 are tanked as futures in the CATSS database, and this is correct for the first and third instances. On Wevers's correction, to the accent of his critical edition, where he reads κάθηται, see Wevers, Leviticus Notes, 234; he apparently originally took the form as present indicative. Note that at Deut. 19: 6 Wevers reads ἦν for Rahlfs's ᾖ (which is naturally the CATSS form, correctly tagged as present subjunctive), but that he rightly takes this as a post-Classical present subjunctive form, not an imperfect indicative (Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 311; cf. Mayser, Grammatik, 1/2. 86) 10.1515/9783110833744 does not impact on. my verb counts.

4

See Wevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 484.

, so that his di erent reading

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

END MATTER

Appendix 3 Hebrew—Greek Matches: MT Verbal Forms Matched by Greek Verbal Forms in the Pentateuch  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.005.0003 Published: March 2001

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

Appendix 3

Pages 281–296

p. 282 p. 283 p. 284 p. 285 p. 286 p. 287 p. 288 p. 289 p. 290 p. 291 p. 292 p. 293 p. 294 p. 295 p. 296

Table 15. Genesis: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms Greek formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

15.1. Hebrew perfect Frequency of occurrence: 868 Aorist indicative

627

72.23

Perfect indicative

86

9.91

Imperfect indicative

58

6.68

Present indicative

45

5.18

Aorist participle

12

1.38

Aorist infinitive

11

1.27

Pluperfect indicative

9

1.04

Present participle

6

0.69

Future indicative

6

0.69

Aorist subjunctive

3

0.35

Aorist imperative

2

0.23

Perfect participle

2

0.23

Present infinitive

1

0.12

15.2. Hebrew consecutive imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 2,073 Aorist indicative

1,807

87.17

Aorist participle

171

8.25

Imperfect indicative

69

3.33

Present participle

12

0.58

Aorist infinitive

4

0.19

Present indicative

3

0.14

Future indicative

3

0.14

Present infinitive

1

0.05

Aorist subjunctive

1

0.05

Perfect indicative

1

0.05

Pluperfect indicative

1

0.05

15,3, Hebrew imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 453 Future indicative

270

59.61

Aorist subjunctive

102

22.52

Present indicative

20

4.42

Aorist infinitive

14

3.09

Aorist imperative

11

2.43

Imperfect indicative

8

1.77

Present subjunctive

5

1.10

Present imperative

4

0.88

Aorist indicative

4

0.88

Aorist participle

4

0.88

Perfect indicative

3

0.66

Present participle

2

0.44

Future infinitive

2

0.44

Aorist optative

2

0.44

Present infinitive

1

0.22

Pluperfect indicative

1

0.22

15.4, Hebrew consecutive perfect Frequency of occurrence: 213 Future indicative

145

68.07

Aorist subjunctive

20

9.39

Aorist indicative

11

5.16

Imperfect indicative

10

4.69

Aorist imperative

9

4.23

Present imperative

6

2.82

Aorist participle

6

2.82

Perfect participle

2

0.94

Present subjunctive

1

0.47

Present participle

1

0.47

Aorist optative

1

0.47

Perfect indicative

1

0.47

15.5. Hebrew jussive Frequency of occurrence: 111 Aorist imperative

36

32.44

Present imperative

25

22.52

Aorist subjunctive

17

15.32

Aorist optative

15

13.51

Future indicative

13

11.71

Aorist indicative

2

1.80

Aorist infinitive

2

1.80

Present participle

1

0.90

15.6. Hebrew cohortative Frequency of occurrence: 109 Future indicative

47

43.12

Aorist subjunctive

43

39.45

Aorist participle

10

9.17

Present subjunctive

3

2.75

Aorist indicative

2

1.83

Present indicative

1

0.92

Aorist optative

1

0.92

Aorist imperative

1

0.92

Aorist infinitive

1

0.92

15.7. Hebrew imperative Frequency of occurrence: 288 Aorist imperative

218

75.70

Present imperative

40

13.89

Aorist participle

21

7.29

Future indicative

6

2.08

Aorist infinitive

2

0.69

Perfect indicative

1

0.35

15.8. Hebrew infinitive construct Frequency of occurrence: 404 Aorist infinitive

183

45.29

Present participle

86

21.29

Present infinitive

62

15.35

Aorist indicative

40

9.90

Aorist subjunctive

13

3.21

Imperfect indicative

8

1.98

Future indicative

3

0.74

Aorist participle

3

0.74

Present subjunctive

2

0.50

Present indicative

1

0.25

Aorist optative

1

0.25

Aorist imperative

1

0.25

Perfect indicative

1

0.25

15.9. Hebrew infinitive absolute Frequency of occurrence: 23 Present participle

13

56.52

Aorist indicative

3

13.04

Aorist participle

3

13.04

Imperfect indicative

2

8.70

Future indicative

1

4.35

Aorist imperative

1

4.35

15.10. Hebrew participle Frequency of occurrence: 279 Present participle

98

35.13

Present indicative

64

22.94

Imperfect indicative

38

13.62

Aorist participle

24

8.60

Perfect participle

18

6.45

Future indicative

11

3.94

Aorist indicative

6

2.15

Pluperfect indicative

5

1.79

Present infinitive

4

1.43

Perfect indicative

4

1.43

Present subjunctive

2

0.72

Aorist imperative

2

0.72

Perfect infinitive

2

0.72

Aorist subjunctive

1

0.36

Table 16. Exodus: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms Greek formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

16.1 Hebrew perfect Frequency of occurrence: 467 Aorist indicative

316

67.68

Perfect indicative

77

16.49

Imperfect indicative

27

5.78

Perfect indicative

20

4.28

Aorist participle

6

1.28

Aorist subjunctive

5

1.07

Perfect participle

4

0.86

Aorist indicative

3

0.64

Perfect infinitive

3

0.64

Present participle

2

0.43

Future indicative

2

0.43

Present subjuntive

1

0.21

Present infinitive

1

0.21

16.2 Hebrew consecutive imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 825 Aorist indicative

693

84.00

Aorist participle

54

6.55

Imperfect indicative

37

4.49

Present indicative

25

3.03

Perfect participle

9

1.09

Perfect indicative

4

0.48

Future indicative

2

0.24

Perfect participle

1

0.12

16.3 Hebrew imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 696 Future infinitive

439

63.08

Aorist subjunctive

138

19.84

Present indicative

22

3.16

Aorist indicative

20

2.87

Perfect subjunctive

13

1.87

Imperfect indicative

12

1.72

Aorist imperative

12

1.72

Perfect imperative

11

1.58

Perfect participle

6

0.86

Aorist infinitive

5

0.72

Aorist participle

5

0.72

Perfect subjunctive

4

0.57

Aorist optative

2

0.29

Perfect indicative

2

0.29

Perfect participle

2

0.29

Perfect infinitive

1

0.14

Future participle

1

0.14

Perfect infinitive

1

0.14

16.4. Hebrew consecutive perfect Frequency of occurrence: 540 Future indicative

433

80.19

Aorist subjunctive

46

8.52

Aorist indicative

13

2.41

Aorist imperative

13

2.41

Imperfect indicative

12

2.22

Aorist participle

10

1.85

Present subjunctive

3

0.55

Present imperative

3

0.55

Aorist infinitive

3

0.55

Present indicative

2

0.37

Present participle

1

0.19

Perfect participle

1

0.19

16.5. Hebrew jussive Frequency of occurrence: 76 Aorist subjunctive

21

27.63

Present imperative

18

23.68

Aorist imperative

17

22.37

Future indicative

11

14.47

Aorist participle

4

5.26

Aorist optative

2

2.63

Present indicative

1

1.32

Present subjunctive

1

1.32

Aorist infinitive

1

1.32

16.6 Hebrew cohortative Frequency of occurrence: 31 Future indicative

16

51.60

Aorist subjunctive

13

41.94

Aorist participle

1

3.23

Perfect subjunctive

1

3.23

16.7. Hebrew imperative Frequency of occurrence: 190 Aorist imperative

133

70.00

Present imperative

34

17.89

Aorist participle

9

4.74

Future indicative

7

3.68

Aorist subjunctive

2

1.05

Aorist infinitive

2

1.05

Present infinitive

1

0.53

Present participle

1

0.53

Aorist indicative

1

0.53

16.8. Hebrew infinitive construct Frequency of occurrence: 312 Aorist infinitive

116

37.18

Present participle

71

22.76

Present infinitive

59

18.91

Aorist indicative

16

5.13

Present subjunctive

14

4.49

Aorist subjunctive

14

4.49

Imperfect indicative

7

2.24

Present indicative

4

1.28

Aorist participle

4

1.28

Future indicative

3

0.96

Perfect indicative

3

0.96

Perfect participle

1

0.32

16.9. Hebrew infinitive absolute Frequency of occurrence: 15

Aorist participle

4

26.66

Present participle

3

20.00

Future indicative

2

13.33

Aorist indicative

2

13.33

Present imperative

1

6.67

Aorist subjunctive

1

6.67

Aorist imperative

1

6.67

Aorist infinitive

1

6.67

16.10. Hebrew participle Frequency of occurrence: 244 Present participle

77

31.55

Perfect participle

63

25.82

Present indicative

52

21.31

Future indicative

10

4.10

Perfect indicative

9

3.69

Imperfect indicative

8

3.28

Aorist indicative

6

2.46

Aorist subjunctive

6

2.46

Aorist participle

6

2.46

Aorist infinitive

3

1.23

Present subjunctive

2

0.82

Present imperative

1

0.41

Present infinitive

1

0.41

Table 17. Leviticus: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms Greek formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

17.1. Hebrew perfect Frequency of occurrence: 190 Aorist indicative

131

68.95

Aorist subjunctive

20

10.53

Perfect indicative

19

10.00

Present indicative

9

4.74

Aorist participle

4

2.11

Pluperfect indicative

3

1.58

Future indicative

2

1.05

Aorist infinitive

1

0.52

Perfect participle

1

0.52

17.2. Hebrew consecutive imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 189 Aorist indicative

181

95.77

Aorist participle

6

3.17

Future indicative

1

0.53

Perfect indicative

1

0.53

17.3. Hebrew imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 854 Future indicative

574

67.22

Aorist subjunctive

187

21.89

Present subjunctive

31

3.63

Present indicative

19

2.22

Present imperative

19

2.22

Present participle

6

0.70

Aorist indicative

5

0.59

Aorist imperative

5

0.59

Aorist participle

4

0.47

Present infinitive

2

0.23

Perfect subjunctive

1

0.12

Perfect participle

1

0.12

17.4, Hebrew consecutive perfect Frequency of occurrence: 712 Future indicative

641

90.03

Aorist subjunctive

50

7.02

Aorist participle

13

1.83

Present subjunctive

3

0.42

Aorist infinitive

2

0.28

Present imperative

1

0.14

Aorist indicative

1

0.14

Perfect participle

1

0.14

17.5, Hebrew jussive Frequency of occurrence: 22 Future indicative

15

68.18

Present imperative

4

18.18

Aorist subjunctive

2

9.09

Aorist imperative

1

4.55

17.6. Hebrew imperative Frequency of occurrence: 41 Aorist imperative

39

95.12

Future indicative

2

4.88

17.7. Hebrew infinitive construct Frequency of occurrence: 190 Aorist infinitive

71

37.37

Present participle

55

28.95

Present infinitive

24

12.63

Aorist subjunctive

19

10.00

Aorist indicative

7

3.68

Future indicative

5

2.63

Present subjunctive

3

1.58

Aorist participle

2

1.05

Perfect participle

2

1.05

Present indicative

1

0.53

Imperfect indicative

1

0.53

17.8. Hebrew infinitive absolute Frequency of occurrence: 12 Present participle

6

50.00

Aorist participle

3

25.00

Future indicative

2

16.67

Aorist subjunctive

1

8.33

17.9 Hebrew participle Frequency of occurrence: 196 Present participle

102

52.03

Present indicative

29

14.80

Perfect participle

29

14.80

Aorist participle

26

13.27

Aorist subjunctive

8

4.08

Present subjunctive

1

0.51

Future indicative

1

0.51

Table 18. Numbers: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms Greek formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

18.1. Hebrew perfect Frequency of occurrence: 421 Aorist indicative

285

67.69

Perfect indicative

55

13.06

Present indicative

18

4.28

Imperfect indicative

16

3.80

Aorist subjunctive

13

3.09

Aorist participle

11

2.61

Future indicative

7

1.66

Present subjunctive

5

1.19

Perfect participle

4

0.95

Present participle

3

0.71

Aorist infinitive

2

0.48

Pluperfect indicative

2

0.48

18.2 Hebrew consecutive imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 741 Aorist indicative

654

88.26

Aorist participle

53

7.15

Imperfect indicative

18

2.43

Aorist subjunctive

8

1.08

Present indicative

7

0.94

Perfect indicative

1

0.14

18.3. Hebrew imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 591 Future indicative

400

67.68

Aorist subjunctive

104

17.60

Present indicative

26

4.40

Aorist indicative

14

2.37

Aorist imperative

14

2.37

Present imperative

10

1.69

Present subjunctive

5

0.84

Imperfect indicative

5

0.84

Aorist participle

4

0.68

Aorist infinitive

3

0.51

Present participle

2

0.34

Aorist optative

2

0.34

Future infinitive

1

0.17

Perfect indicative

1

0.17

18.4. Hebrew consecutive perfect Frequency of occurrence: 419 Future indicative

367

87.58

Aorist subjunctive

26

6.21

Aorist imperative

7

1.67

Imperfect indicative

6

1.43

Aorist indicative

5

1.19

Aorist participle

3

0.72

Present indicative

2

0.48

Aorist infinitive

2

0.48

Present participle

1

0.24

18.5. Hebrew jussive Frequency of occurrence: 55 Aorist subjunctive

14

25.45

Aorist imperative

13

23.64

Future indicative

11

20.00

Aorist optative

9

16.36

Present imperative

5

9.09

Aorist infinitive

2

3.64

Aorist indicative

1

1.82

18.6. Hebrew cohortative Frequency of occurrence: 18 Future indicative

13

72.22

Aorist subjunctive

5

27.78

18.7. Hebrew imperative Frequency of occurrence: 124 Aorist imperative

109

87.91

Present imperative

8

6.45

Future indicative

5

4.03

Aorist participle

2

1.61

18.8. Hebrew infinitive construct Frequency of occurrence: 276

Aorist infinitive

99

35.88

Present participle

92

33.33

Present infinitive

36

13.04

Aorist indicative

17

6.16

Aorist subjunctive

17

6.16

Present subjunctive

7

2.54

Aorist participle

4

1.45

Present indicative

1

0.36

Imperfect indicative

1

0.36

Aorist optative

1

0.36

Perfect participle

1

0.36

18.9. Hebrew infinitive absoluteFrequency of occurrence: 15 Present participle

6

40.00

Aorist participle

4

26.66

Aorist imperative

3

20.00

Present imperative

1

6.67

Aorist subjunctive

1

6.67

18.10. Hebrew participleFrequency of occurrence: 301 Present participle

114

37.87

Perfect participle

94

31.23

Present indicative

35

11.63

Aorist participle

24

7.97

Perfect indicative

8

2.66

Aorist indicative

7

2.33

Imperfect indicative

6

1.99

Future indicative

4

1.33

Pluperfect indicative

4

1.33

Aorist subjunctive

3

1.00

Present infinitive

1

0.33

Aorist imperative

1

0.33

Table 19. Deuteronomy: Frequencies of Greek Verbal Matches for MT Verbal Forms Greek formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

19.1. Hebrew perfect Frequency of occurrence: 532 Aorist indicative

400

75.18

Perfect indicative

51

9.59

Present indicative

22

4.13

Imperfect indicative

22

4.13

Aorist participle

9

1.69

Pluperfect indicative

7

1.32

Aorist infinitive

6

1.13

Future indicative

4

0.75

Aorist subjunctive

4

0.75

Present subjunctive

2

0.38

Present participle

2

0.38

Present infinitive

1

0.19

Aorist imperative

1

0.19

Perfect participle

1

0.19

19.2. Hebrew consecutive imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 253 Aorist indicative

213

84.19

Aorist participle

18

7.11

Imperfect indicative

11

4.35

Future indicative

7

2.77

Present participle

2

0.79

Aorist subjunctive

2

0.79

19.3. Hebrew imperfect Frequency of occurrence: 889 Future indicative

520

58.49

Aorist subjunctive

238

26.77

Present subjunctive

37

4.16

Aorist indicative

25

2.81

Present indicative

18

2.02

Aorist participle

17

1.91

Aorist optative

8

0.90

Present imperative

6

0.68

Present infinitive

6

0.68

Aorist imperative

6

0.68

Perfect indicative

4

0.45

Aorist infinitive

3

0.34

Present participle

1

0.11

19.4. Hebrew consecutive perfect Frequency of occurrence: 619 Future indicative

469

75.78

Aorist subjunctive

101

16.32

Aorist participle

33

5.33

Aorist indicative

4

0.65

Present imperative

3

0.48

Aorist imperative

3

0.48

Present subjunctive

2

0.32

Present infinitive

2

0.32

Present indicative

1

0.16

Aorist optative

1

0.16

19.5. Hebrew jussive Frequency of occurrence: 86 Future indicative

22

25.58

Present imperative

17

19.77

Aorist optative

17

19.77

Aorist subjunctive

15

17.44

Aorist imperative

11

12.79

Aorist participle

2

2.33

Present indicative

1

1.16

Aorist indicative

1

1.16

19.6. Hebrew cohortative Frequency of occurrence: 32 Future indicative

19

59.39

Aorist subjunctive

9

28.13

Present subjunctive

1

3.12

Aorist imperative

1

3.12

Aorist infinitive

1

3.12

Aorist participle

1

3.12

19.7. Hebrew imperative Frequency of occurrence: 105 Aorist imperative

62

59.05

Present imperative

33

31.43

Aorist participle

5

4.76

Future indicative

3

2.86

Present infinitive

1

0.95

Aorist optative

1

0.95

19.8. Hebrew infinitive construct Frequency of occurrence: 425 Aorist infinitive

164

38.58

Present infinitive

118

27.75

Present participle

65

15.29

Aorist subjunctive

40

9.41

Aorist indicative

14

3.29

Aorist participle

9

2.12

Perfect infinitive

5

1.18

Present subjunctive

3

0.71

Imperfect indicative

2

0.47

Present indicative

1

0.24

Present imperative

1

0.24

Future indicative

1

0.24

Aorist imperative

1

0.24

Perfect participle

1

0.24

19.9. Hebrew infinitive absoluteFrequency of occurrence: 21 Present participle

10

47.63

Aorist imperative

4

19.05

Present imperative

2

9.52

Future indicative

2

9.52

Aorist participle

2

9.52

Aorist indicative

1

4.76

19.10. Hebrew participle Frequency of occurrence; 355 Present indicative

140

39.45

Present participle

115

32.39

Perfect participle

44

12.39

Aorist participle

19

5.35

Aorist indicative

9

2.54

Future indicative

8

2.25

Perfect indicative

7

1.97

Imperfect indicative

6

1.69

Aorist subjunctive

4

1.13

Present subjunctive

1

0.28

Future participle

1

0.28

Pluperfect indicative

1

0.28

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

END MATTER

Glossary of Key Linguistic Terms  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.002.0009 Published: March 2001

Page 297

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

  Aktionsart character of a verbal occurrence, expressing procedural characteristics (e.g. durative, punctiliar, and iterative values); typically expressed unsystematically through lexical semantics, but in the present study taken also as capable of grammatical expression (§§ 2.3.2, 2.3.4, 2.3.5)   analytic tense form

see periphrastic tense form

  aspect viewpoint feature expressing the manner of conception In speaker or writer of a verbal occurrence in relation to its internal temporal constituency (§ 2.3.3)   deixis location of an utterance within its spatio-temporal context; tense is a deictic category, relating a verbal occurrence to an external temporal reference-point (usually the ‘now’ of speaker or writer); aspect is nondeictic, relating to the internal time extension of an occurrence without reference to any external referencepoint   deontic modality

the sphere of mood relating to permission and obligation

  epistemic modality

the sphere of mood relating to knowledge and belief

  external time

see deixis

  grammaticalization

change of a word or word element from lexical to grammatical function

  internal time  

see deixis

periphrastic tense form a tense form consisting of more than one word (§ 9.2); also termed analytic tense form   pragmatics

meaning derived from contextual e ects

  semantic bleaching

loss of intrinsic semantic content involved in grammaticalization

  synthetic tense form

a tense form consisting of a single word

  tense grammatical expression of location in time relative to some external reference-point; also (commonly in the present study) a term describing the various in exional sets within the verbal paradigm (e.g. aorist. present, and imperfect in Greek), which are no longer interpreted as necessarily expressing location in time   Vendlerian classi cation arrangement of verbs into abstract lexical classes (§§ 2.3.4, 2.4.1), based on the primary distinction between actions (dynamic verbs) and states (non-dynamic verbs)

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

Search in this book

END MATTER

Bibliography  Published: March 2001

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

This bibliography contains all items cited in my text and some other works consulted. Classification has been minimized for the sake of clarity, but text editions are recorded separately to the general list.

Text editions BÖRKER, C. , and MERKELBACH, R. (eds.), Die Inschri

Google Scholar

Google Preview

en von Ephesos, pt. 2 (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1979).

WorldCat

COPAC

Brooke, A. E., Mclean, N., and (from vol ii/1 (1927) onwards) THACKERAY, H. ST. J. , The Old Testament in Greek (3 vols. in 9 pts.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–40). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat

COPAC

Cope, E. M., The Rhetoric of Aristotle, rev. by J. E. Sandys (3 vols.; Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1877; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970). 10.1017/CBO9780511707445 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref Demosthenes, Demosthenis Orationes, ed. S. PL Butcher, ii/1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Edgar, C. C., Zenon Papyri (5 vols., vol. ν ed. O., Guéraud and P. Jouguet; Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1925–40; repr. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1971). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Elliger, K., and RUDOLPH, W. , Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgartensia, 2nd. emended edn. by W. Rudolph and H. P. Rüger (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha , 1984). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

England, E. B., The Laws of Plato (2 vols.; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1921). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chariton, Callirhoe, ed. G. P. Goold (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Hanhart, R., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, viii/5. Tobit (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Herodotus, Herodoti Historiae, ed. C. Hude, 3rd edn. (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lysias, Lysiae Orationes, ed. C. Hude (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Maha y, J. P., The Flinders Petrie Papyri with Transcriptions, Commentaries and Index, pt. 2 (Dublin: Royal Irish Academy, 1893). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Perry, B. E., Aesopica, vol. i (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1952). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Polybius, Histoires: Livre IV, ed. and trans. J. de Foucault (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 299

Rahlfs, A., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha , 1935; repr. 1979 [2 vols, in 1]). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sadaqa,. A., and SADAQA, R. , Jewish and Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch with Particular Stress on the Di erences between Both Texts (Tel Aviv, 1961–5). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Wevers, J. W., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, i. Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, iii/2. Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, iii/i. Numbers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, ii/2. Leviticus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, ii/1. Exodus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ziegler, J., Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum, Graecum, xi/4. Iob (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

General bibliography Abercrombie, J. R., ʻComputer Aspects of the Alignmentʼ, in J. R. Abercrombie, W. Adler, R. A. Kra , and E. Tοv Computer Assisted Took for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 19–35. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ADLER, W. , ʻComputer Assisted Morphological Analysisʼ, in J. R. Abercrombie, W., Adler, R. A. Kra

Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 69–84.

, and E. Tοv, Computer Assisted

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

——— ʻComputer Assisted Morphological Analysis of the Septuagintʼ, Textus, 11 (1984), 1–16. WorldCat Aejmelaeus, A., On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Parataxis in the Septuagint: A. Study of the Renderings of the Hebrew Coordinate Clauses in the Greek Pentateuch (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻTranslation Technique and the Intention of the Translatorʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 23–36

; repr. in A. Aejmelaeus, On the Trail

of the Septuagint Translators (Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993), 65–76. Abets, W. J., Periphrastica: An Investigation into the Use of εἶναι and ἓχειν as Auxiliaries or Pseudo-auxiliaries in Greek from Homer up to the Present Day (Amsterdam.: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1965). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 300

Allen, L. C., The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text, pt. 1. The Translator's Cra (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Allen, W. S., Vox Graeca, 3rd edn, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bache, C., ʻAspect and Aktionsart; Towards a Semantic Distinctionʼ, JL 18 (1982), 57–72. 10.1017/S0022226700007234 WorldCat Crossref BAKKER, E. , ʻVoice, Aspect and Aktionsart: Middle and Passive in Ancient Greekʼ, in B., Fox and P. J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and

Function (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1994), 23–47. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Barr, J., Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968; repr., with additions and corrections, Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1987). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Review of P. Walters, The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation, in VT 25 (1975), 247–54. WorldCat ——— The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻTranslators' Handling of Verb Tense in Semantically Ambiguous Contextsʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 381–403. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻVocalization and the Analysis of Hebrew among the Ancient Translatorsʼ, SupplVT 16 (1967), 1–11. WorldCat BARTHÉLEMY, D. , Les Devanciers d'aquila (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Bauer, H., and LEANDER, P. , Historische Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache (Halle, 1922; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2nd edn. rev F W Gingrich and F W Danker (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC BERGSTRÄSSER, G. , Hebräische Grammatik. Mit Benutzung der von E. Kautzsch bearbeiteten 28, Auflage von Wilhelm Gesenius'

hebräischer Grammatik (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1918–29; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Berkowitz, L., and SQUITIER, K. A. , Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Canon of Greek Authors and Works, 3rd edn. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Bickerman, E., Studies in Jewish and Christian History, pt, 2 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Binnick, R. I., Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 301

Bishop,. C. E., ʻThe Greek Verbal in –τεοʼ, AJPh 20 (1899), 1–21, 121–38, 241–53. WorldCat Blass, F., and DEBRUNNBR, A. , Grammatik des mutestamentlichen Griechisch, 14th edn. rev. F Rehkopf (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Blau, J., ʻStudies in Hebrew Verb Formationʼ, HebrUCA 42 (1971), 133–58. WorldCat Blomqvist, J., Greek Particles in Hellenistic Prose (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1969). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Bodine, W. R., ʻHow Linguists Study Syntaxʼ, in W. R. Bodine (ed.), Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 89–107. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Borras, F. M., and. CHRISTIAN, R., F. , Russian Syntax: Aspects of Modern Russian Syntax and Semantics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Bottin, L., ʻStudio dell'aumento in Omeroʼ, SMEA 10 (1969), 69–145. WorldCat Brock, S. P., ʻThe Phenomenon of the Septuagintʼ, OTS 17 (1972), 11–36. WorldCat ——— FRITSCH, C. T. , and JELLICOE, S. , A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Brockelmann, C., Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, ii. Syntax (Berlin: Von Reuther & Reichard, 1913; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

——— Hebräische Syntax (Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Erziehungsvereins, 1956). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Brotzman, E. R., Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Browning, R., Medieval and Modern Greek, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 10.1017/CBO9780511554148 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref Brugmann, K., and DELRRÜCK, B. , Grundriβ der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 2nd edn., 5 pts. in 9 vols. (Strassburg: Karl J. Trübner, 1897–1916; repr. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1967). Buck, C. D., Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1933). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Burrow, T., The Sanskrit Language, new and rev. edn. (London: Faber & Faber, 1973). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC CARSON, D. A. , ʻAn Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debateʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and

Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 18–25. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chadwick, J., ʻThe Case for Replacing Liddell and Scottʼ, BICS 39 (1994), 1–11. WorldCat Chandler, H W., A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation, rev. 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881; repr. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas, 1983). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 302

Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (4 vols.; vol. iv completed by O. Masson, J.-P. Perpillou, and J. Taillardat; Paris: Éditions Klineksieck, 1968–80). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Grammaire homérique (2 vols.; Paris: Librairie C Klineksieck, 1958–63). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Histoire du parfait grec (Paris: Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1927). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Chejne, A. G., The Arabic Language: Its Role in History (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1969). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Childs, B. S., Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Clines, D. J. A., ʻVerb Modality and the Interpretation of Job iv 20–21ʼ, VT 30 (1980), 354–7. WorldCat Coleman, R., ʻExponents of Futurity in Gothicʼ, TPhS 94 (1996), 1–29. WorldCat COLLINS, N., L. , ʻ281 BCE: The Year of the Translation of the Pentateuch into Greek under Ptolemy IIʼ, in G. J. Brooke and B. Lindars

(eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992), 403–503. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Comrie, B., Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Tense (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 10.1017/CBO9781139165815 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref CONNOR, W. R. , ʻhistorical Writing in the Fourth Century B.C. and in. the Hellenistic Periodʼ, in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W., Knox

(eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, i (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 458–71. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Convbeare, F. C., and STOCK, ST. G. , Grammar of Septuagint Greek (Boston: Ginn. & Co., 1905; expanded edn. repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

COOK, J. , ʻThe Exegesis of the Greek Genesisʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and

Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 91–125. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— The Septuagint of Proverbs: Jewish and/or Hellenistic Proverbs? Concerning the Hellenistic Colouring of LXX Proverbs (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Costas, P. S., An Outline of the History of the Greek Language, with Particular Emphasis on the Koine and the Subsequent. Stages (Chicago: University of Chicago Libraries, 1936). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC COWGILL, W. , ʻanatolian hi-conjugation [sic] and Indo-European Perfect: Instalment. IIʼ, in E. Neu and W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und

Indogermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 1979), 25–39. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 303

Cox, C. E. (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987).

and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta,

——— VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Curtius, G., The Greek Verb: Its Structure and Development, 2nd edn., trans. A. S. Wilkins and E. B. England (London: John Murray, 1883). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Dahl, Ö., Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Davidson, A. B., Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Hebrew Syntax, 3rd. edn. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— An Introductory Hebrew-Grammar, 26th edn., rev. J. Mauchline (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Debrunner, A., Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, ii. Grundfragen und Grundzüge des nachklassischen Griechisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1954). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Dogniez, C., Bibliography of the Septuagint/Bibliographie de la Septante (1970–1993) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— and HARL, M. , La Bible l'Alexandrie: Le Deutéronome (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1992). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Dorival, G., La Bible d'alexandrie: Les Nombres (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1994). ——— HARL, M. , and MUNNICH, O. , La Bible grecque des Septante (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Drewitt, J. A. J., ʻThe Augment in Homerʼ, CQ 6 (1912), 44–59, 104–20. 10.1017/S0009838800017523 WorldCat Crossref Driver, G. R., Problems of the Hebrew Verbal System (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Driver, S. R., A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 3rd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892). Duhoux, Y., ʻLes débuts de l'augment grec: le facteur sociolinguistiqueʼ, Minos, 20–2 (1987), 163–72. WorldCat Entwistle, W. J., and. MORISON, W. A. , Russian and the Slavonic Languages (London: Faber & Faber, 1949). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Evans, T. V., ʻThe Comparative Optative: A Homeric Reminiscence in the Greek Pentateuch?ʼ, VT 49 (1999), 487–504. WorldCat Fanning, B. M., Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, N. (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Instituto ʻArias

Montanoʼ, 1985). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Fitzmyer, J. A., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools for Study, rev. edn. (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Fleischman, S., The Future in Thought and Language: Diachronic Evidence from Romance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 304

Forsyth, J., A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Foucault, J.-A. De, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1972). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Friedrich, P., ʻOn Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspectʼ, IJAL 40 (1974), Memoir 28, S1–44. WorldCat Frisk, H., Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbueh, 2nd impression (3 vols.; Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitatsverlag, 1973–9). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

FRÖSÉN, J. , ʻprolegomena to a Study of the Greek Language in the First Centuries A.D. : The Problem of Koiné and Atticismʼ (diss.

Helsinki, 1974). Gehman, H. S., ἐπισκἐπομαι, ἐπίσκεψις, ἐπίσκοπος, and ἐπισκοπή in the Septuagint in Relation to ‫ פקד‬and Other Hebrew Roots: A Case of Semantic Development Similar to that of Hebrewʼ, VT 22 (1972), 197–207. ——— ʻHebraisms of the Old Greek Version of Genesisʼ, VT 3 (1953), 141–8. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greekʼ, VT 1 (1951), 81–90. WorldCat Gentry, P. J., ʻThe System of the Finite Verb in Classical Biblical Hebrewʼ, Hebrew Studies, 39 (1998), 7–39. 10.1353/hbr.1998.0003 WorldCat Crossref Gerleman, G., Studies in the Septuagint, i. Book of Job (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Studies in the Septuagint, ii. Chronicles (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1946). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Studies in the Septuagint, iii. Proverbs (Lund: C. W K. Gleerup, 1956). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gibson, J. C. L., Davidson's Introductory Hebrew Grammar: Syntax, 4th edn. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gignac, F. T., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, i. Phonology (Milan: Istituto Editoriale CisalpinoLa Goliardica, 1976). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, ii. Morphology (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino-La Goliardica, 1981). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Gildersleeve, B. L., ʻBrief Mentionʼ, AJPh 27 (1906), 228–37. WorldCat ——— ʻBrief Mentionʼ, AJPh 29 (1908), 242–6. WorldCat ——— ʻProblems in Greek Syntax IIIʼ, AJPh 23 (1902), 241–60. WorldCat ——— ʻStahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb, Second Article: Tensesʼ, AJPh 29 (1908), 389–409. WorldCat ——— ʻStudies in Pindaric Syntaxʼ, AJPh 4 (1883), 158–65. WorldCat ——— Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes (2 vols.; New York: American Book Co., 1900–11). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC GOLDBERG (SHALEV), D. F. , ʻStudies in the Language of Menanderʼ (diss. Oxford, 1996).

p. 305

Gonda, J., ʻA Remark on “Periphrastic” Constructions in Greekʼ, Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 12 (1959), 97– 112. 10.1163/156852559X00077 Crossref ——— The Aspectual Function of the Rgvedic Present and Aorist (The Hague: Mouton, 1962). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— The Character of the Indo-European Moods, 2nd impression (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1980). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Goodwin, W. W., Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb (London: Macmillan & Co., 1889; repr. Bristol Classical Press, 1998). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., ʻTheory and Practice of Textual Criticism: The Text-critical Use of the Septuagintʼ, Textus, 3 (1963), 130– 58. WorldCat Gottwald, N. K., The Hebrew Bible: A. Socio-literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hahn, E. A., Subjunctive and Optative: Their Origin as Futures (New York: American Philological Association, 1953). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hahne, H, ʻInterpretive Implications of Using Bible-search So ware tor-New Testament. Grammatical Analysisʼ, Religious Studies News, 10/4 (1995), 4, 30–1. WorldCat Harl, M., La Bible d'Alexandrie: La Genèse (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC HarlÉ, P., And PRALON, D., La Bible d'Alexandrie: Le Lévitique (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Harry, J. E., ʻThe Perfect Forms in Later Greek from. Aristotle to Justinianʼ, TAPhA 37 (1906), 53–72. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Perfect Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative in Greekʼ, CR 19 (1905), 347–54. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Perfect. Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative in Greek Againʼ, CR 20 (1906), 100–3. WorldCat Harsing, C., De Optativi in Chartis Aegyptiis Usu (diss. Bonn, 1910). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hatch, E., and REDPATH, H. A. , A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897–1906). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hauri, H. W., Kontrakiertes und sigmatisches Futur: Einflüsse von Laut-struktur und Aktionsart auf die Bildung des griechischen Futurs (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Hawkins, Sir J. C., Home Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Helring, R., Die Kasussyntax der Verba bei den Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1928). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Grammatik der LXX: Laut- und Wortlehre (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1907). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Heller, J., ʻGrenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung der LXX: Εin Beitrag zur Übersetzungstechnik der LXX auf dem Gebiet der Flexionskategorienʼ, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, 15 (1969), 234–48. WorldCat p. 306

✴ ✴ Hetzron, R., ʻthe Evidence for Perfect yáqtul and Jussive yaqtúl in Proto-Semiticʼ, JSS 14 (1969), 1–21. Hewson, J., and BUBENIK, V. , Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Holton, D., MACKRIDGE P. , and PHILIPPAKI-WARBURTON, I. , Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language (London and New York: Routledge, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Hopper, P. J., and TRAUGOTT, E. C. , Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Horrocks, G., Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers (London and New York: Longman, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻOn Condition …: Aspect and Modality in the History of Greekʼ, PCPhS 41 (1995), 153–73. WorldCat Horsley, G. H. R., ʻDivergent Views on the Nature of the Greek of the Bibleʼ, Biblica, 65 (1984), 393–403. WorldCat ——— New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. v (Sydney: Macquarie University, 1989). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC How, W. W., and WELLS, J. , A Commentary on Herodotus, corrected repr., vol. ii (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Huddleston, R., Introduction to the Grammar of English (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). 10.1017/CBO9781139165785 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref Hughes, J. A., ʻAnother Look at the Plebrew Tensesʼ, JNES 29 (1970), 12–24. WorldCat Hughes, J. J., Bits, Bytes & Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, Mich,: Academic Books, 1987). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Hultsch, F., ʻDie erzählenden Zeitformen bei Poly bios: Εin Beitrag zur Syntax der gemeingriechischen Spracheʼ, Abhandlungen der philologischhistorischen Classe der königlich Sächsischen Gesellscha der Wissenscha en, 13 (1893), 1–210, 347–467. WorldCat

Jacobson, H., The Exagoge of Ezekiel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Janko, R., The Iliad: A Commentary, vol. iv (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jannaris, A. N., An Historical Greek Grammar (London: Macmillan & Co., 1897). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC JASANOFF, J. H. , ʻthe Position of the ḫi-Conjugationʼ, in E. Neu and W. Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch: Vergleichende

Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiem (Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 1979), 79–90. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jellicoe, S., (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 307

——— The Septuagint and Modern Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968; repr. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jensen, H., Altarmenische Grammatik (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1959). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jespessen, O., The Philosophy of Grammar (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1924; repr. with new introduction and index by J. D. McCawley, Chicago and London; University of Chicago Press, 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Johannessohn, M., ʻdas biblische καì ἐγένετo und seine Geschichteʼ ZVS 53 (1925), 161–212. ——— ʻDie biblische Einführungsformel καì ἔσταιʼ ZATW 59 (1943), 129–84. 10.1515/zatw.1943.59.1-4.129 Crossref Joosten, J., ʻElaborate Similes: Hebrew and Greek. A. Study in Septuagint Translation Techniqueʼ, Biblica, 77 (1996), 227–36. WorldCat Joseph, B. D., Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek (New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC JoÜon, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. Τ Muraoka (2 vols.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991; corrected repr. 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique , 2nd edn. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1947). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Katz, J. T., review of K. C. Shields, A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology, in Language, 69 (1993), 636–7. 10.2307/416733 WorldCat Crossref KATZ, P. (W. P. M. Walters), ʻSeptuagintal Studies in the Mid-century: Their Links with the Past and their Present Tendenciesʼ, in S.

Jellicoe (ed.), Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1974), 21–53. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kautzsch, E., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar, 2nd English edn. rev. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Kenny, A., Action, Emotion and Will (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Koehler, L., and BAUMGARTNER, W. , Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, 2nd edn. (2 vols.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Kogut, S., ʻon the Meaning and Syntactical Status of ‫ ִהנֵּה‬in Biblical Hebrewʼ, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 31 (1986), 133–54. Krahmalkov, C. R., ʻthe Qatal with Future Tense Reference in Phoenicianʼ, JSS 31 (1986), 5–10. Krause, M. S., ʻThe Finite Verb with Cognate Participle in the New Testamentʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 187–206. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kronasser, H., Vergleichende Lout- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1956). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 308

KÜHNBR, R. , and GERTH, B. , Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache,

ii, Satzlehre, pt. 2 (Hannover and Leipzig:

Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1904). KURYLOWICZ, J. , ʻdie hethitische ḫi-Konjugationʼ, in E. Neu and W Meid. (eds.), Hethitisch und indogermanisch: Vergleichende

Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der in-dogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 1979), 143–6. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— The inflectional Categories of Indo-European (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1964). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻVerbal Aspect in Semiticʼ, Orientalia, 42 (1973), 114–20. WorldCat Kutscher, E. Y., A History of the Hebrew Language, ed. R. Kutscher (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lallot, J., La Grammaire de Denys le Thrace (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1989). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Le Boulluec, A., and SANDEVOIR, P. , La Bible d'Alexandrie: L'exode (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989). Lee, D. J. N., The Similes of the Iliad and the Odyssey Compared (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1964). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lee, J. A. L., A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻEquivocal and Stereotyped Renderings in the LXXʼ Revue biblique, 87 (1980), 104–17. WorldCat ——— ʻhebrews 5: 14 and ἕξις: A History of Misunderstandingʼ, NovT 39 (1997), 151–76. ——— review of B. G. Mandilaras, The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri, in AUMLA 42 (1974), 223–4. WorldCat

——— ʻSome Features of the Speech of Jesus in Mark's Gospelʼ, NovT 27 (1985), 1–26. WorldCat ——— ʻTranslations of the Old Testament, I: Greekʼ, in S. E. Porter (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.– A.D. 400 (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997), 775–83. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lefort, L.-Τh., ʻPour une Gramma ire des LXXʼ, Le Muséon, 41 (1928), 152–60. WorldCat Liddell, H G., and SCOTT, R. , A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn. rev. Sir H. S. Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

——— and JONES, H. S. , Greek-English Lexicon: A Supplement, with the assistance of P. Maas, M. Scheller, and M. L. West (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

——— Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement, ed. P. G. W. Glare, with the assistance of A. A. Thompson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 309

Lightfoot, D., Natural Logic and the Greek Moods: The Nature of the Subjunctwe ami Optative in Classical Greek (The Hague: Mouton, 1975). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lloyd, A. L., Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1979). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Louw, J. P., ʻDie semantiese waarde van die perfektum in hellenistiese grieksʼ, A Class 10 (1.967), 23–32. WorldCat ——— ʻOn Greek. Prohibitionsʼ, A Class 2 (1959), 43–57. WorldCat Lust, J., EYNIKEL, E. , and HAUSPIE, K. , A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellscha , 1992–6). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Lyons, J., Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968). 10.1017/CBO9781139165570 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref ——— Semantics (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mccarter, P. K., Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC MCCARUS, E. N. , ʻA Semantic Analysis of Arabic Verbsʼ, in L. L. Orlin (ed.), Michigan Oriented Studies in Honor of George G. Cameron

(Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1976), 3–28. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Macdonell, A. A., A Vedic Grammar for Students (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1916; repr. Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1990).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Mcfall, L., The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System: Solutions from Ezoald to the Present Day (She ield: Almond Press, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mckay, K. L., A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York: Peter Lang, 1994). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻAspectual Usage in Timeless Contexts in Ancient Greekʼ, in A. Rijks-baron, H. A. Mulder, and G. C. Wakker (eds.), In the Footsteps of Raphael Kühner (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1988), 193–209. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻOn the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-literary Papyriʼ, BICS 27 (1980), 23–49. WorldCat ——— ʻOn the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greekʼ, NovT 23 (1981), 289–329. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Declining Optative: Some Observationsʼ, Antichthon, 27 (1993), 21–30. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect down to the End of the Second Century A.D.ʼ, BICS 12 (1965), 1–21. WorldCat ——— ʻTime and Aspect in New Testament Greekʼ, NovT 34 (1992), 209–28. WorldCat Mackridge, P., The Modern Greek Language: A escriptive Analysis of Standard Modern Greek (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 310

Macuch, R., Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebräisch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1969). 10.1515/9783110823479 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref Mcwhorter, A. W., ʻa Study of the So-called Deliberative Type of Question (τí ποιήσω;) as Found in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripidesʼ, TAPhA 41 (1910), 157–67. Mandelkern, S., Veteris Testamenti Concordantiae Hebraicae atque Chal-daicae (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1895; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- & Verlagsanstalt, 1975). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mandilaras, B. G., Studies in the Greek Language (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1972). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1972). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— The Verb in the Greek Non-literary Papyri (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sciences, 1973). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

MARTIN, R. , ʻThe Syntax Criticism, of Baruchʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and

Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 361–71. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mateos, J., El aspecto verbal en el nuevo testamento (Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad, 1977). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mathewson, D., ʻVerbal Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in Pauline Ethical Injunctionsʼ, FilNT 9 (1996), 21–35. WorldCat Mayser, E., Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit (2 pts. in, 6 vols.; Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1906–38

; repr. Berlin, 1970; 2nd edn. of vol. i by H Schmoll, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1970). 10.1515/9783110833744

Mettinger, T. N. D., ʻThe Hebrew Verb System: A Survey of Recent. Researchʼ, ASTI 9 (1973), 64–84. WorldCat Miller, C. W. E., ʻThe Imperfect and the Aorist in Greekʼ, AFPh 16 (1895), 139–85 WorldCat Mirambel, A., Grammaire du grec moderns, new edn. (Paris: Éditions Klineksieck, 1969). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mitteis, L., and WILKEN, U. , Grundziige und Chrestornathie der Papyruskunde (2 vols, in 4 pts.; Leipzig: B. G. Teu brier, 1912) Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Moorhouse, A. C., The Syntax of Sophocles (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Moran, W. L., ʻearly Canaanite Yaqtulaʼ, Orientalia, 29 (1960), 1–19. Moscati, S. (ed.), An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages: Phonology and Morphology (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowi tz, 1964). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, i. Prolegomena, 3rd edn. (Edinburgh: T & T. Clark, 1908). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻA Grammar of the Septuagintʼ, FThS 11 (1910), 293–300. WorldCat ——— ʻThackeray's Old Testament Grammarʼ, CR 24 (1910), 52–5. ——— and Howard, W. P., A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ii, Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1919– 29). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 311

Muraoka, T. (ed.), Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Infinitive in the Septuagintʼ, in L. Greenspoon and O. Munnich (eds,), VIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Paris 1992 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 259–71. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Mussies, G., The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the Apocalypse of St. John: A Study in Bilingualism (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Neu, E., and MEID, W. (eds.), Hethitisch und Inchgermanisch: Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stel-lung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiem (Innsbruck: University of Innsbruck, 1979). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Niccacci, A., The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose, trans. W. G. E. Watson (She ield: JSOT Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Nida, E. A., and TABER, C. R. , The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Nieuwoudt, E. A., ʻAspects of the Translation Technique of the Septuagint: The Finite Verb in the Septuagint of Deuteronomyʼ (diss. University of Stellenbosch, 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC O'LEARY, DE L. , Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1923).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Olofsson, S., ʻConsistency as a Translation Techniqueʼ, SJOT 6 (1992), 14–30. WorldCat ——— ʻStudying the Word Order of the Septuagint: Questions and Possibilitiesʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 217–37. WorldCat ——— The LXX Version: A Guide to the Translation Technique of the Septuagint (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ottley, R. R., A Handbook to the Septuagint (London: Methuen & Co., 1920). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Owens, J., The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduction to Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1988). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Palmer, F. R., Mood and Modality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Palmer, L. R., The Greek Language (London: Faber & Faber, 1980

; repr. Bristol Classical Press, 1995).

Pinkster, H., Lateinische Syntax und Semantik (Tübingen: Francke, 1988). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latinʼ, in. M. Harris and P. Ramat (eds,). Historical Development of Auxiliaries (Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter, 1987), 193– 223. 10.1515/9783110856910 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref p. 312

Polzin, R., Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976).

Hebrew Prose (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for

Porter, S. E., (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C. –A.D. 400 (Leiden, New York and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1997).

——— Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd edn. (She ield: She ield Academic Press, 1994). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻIn Defence of Verbal Aspectʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.). Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 26–45

; repr. as ʻIn Defense of Verbal Aspectʼ, in S. E. Porter, Studies in the

Greek New Testament (New York; Peter Lang, 1996), 21–38. ——— Studies in the Greek New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 1996). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— and CARSON, D. A. , Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Powell, J. E., A Lexicon to Herodotus, 2nd edn, (Hildesheim: Georg Dims, 1960). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Puhvel, J., ʻAnatolian: Autochthon or Interloper?ʼ, JIES 22 (1994), 251–63. WorldCat Purvis, J. D., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Qimron, E., ʻconsecutive and Conjunctive Imperfect: The Form of the Imperfect with waw in Biblical Hebrewʼ, Jewish Quarterly Review, 77 (1986–7), 149–61. 10.2307/1454472 Crossref Rabin, C., ʻThe Ancient Versions and the Indefinite Subjectʼ, Textus, 2 (1962), 60–76. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagintʼ, Textus, 6 (1968), 1–26. WorldCat Rijksbaron, A., The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek: An Introduction (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1984). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th edn. (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman Press, 1934). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Robins, R. H., A Short History of Linguistics, 4th edn. (London and New York: Longman, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rosenthal, F., A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1961). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rostovtze , M., A Large Estate in Egypt in the Third Century B.C. : A Study in Economic History (Madison, Wise: University of Wisconsin, 1922). Ruijgh, C. J., review of S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, in Mnemosyne, 4th ser, 48 (1995), 352–66.

Google Scholar p. 313

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Sailhamer, J. H., The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (New York: Peter Lang, 1991). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Schehr, T. P., ʻSyntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15ʼ (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Perfect Indicative in Septuagint Genesisʼ, BIOSCS 24 (1991), 14–24. WorldCat Schlachter, L., ʻStatistische Untersuchungen über den Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi bei einzelnen griechischen Schri stellernʼ, IF 22 (1907), 202–42

; 23 (1908), 165–204; 24 (1909), 189–221.

Schmidt, D. D., review of B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek and. S. E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, in JBL 111 (1992), ]714–18. WorldCat ——— review of S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, in JBL 113 (1994), 534–6. WorldCat ——— ʻVerbal Aspect in Greek: Two Approachesʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 63–73. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Segal, M. H., A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927

; repr. 1980).

Segert, S., A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 1976). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Allaramäische Grammatik nit Bibliographic, Chrestomathie und Glossar (Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Shields, K. C., A History of Indo-European Verb Morphology (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sicking, C. M. J., and STORK, P. , Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Sihler, A. L., New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC SILVA, M. , ʻA Response to Porter and Fanning on Verbal Aspectʼ, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and

Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (She ield: JSOT Press, 1993), 74–82. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻBilingualism and the Character of Palestinian Greekʼ, Biblica, 61 (1980), 198–219. WorldCat Smith, C. S., The Parameter of Aspect (Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991). 10.1007/978-94-0157911-7 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref

Smith, M. S., The Origins and Development of the Waw-consecutive: Northwest Semitic Evidence from Ugarit to Qumran (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). Smyth, H. W., Greek Grammar, rev. G. M. Messing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1956). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 314

Soisalon-Soininen, I., Die Infinitive in der Septuaginta (Helsinki: Suo-malainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Studien zur Septuaginta-Syntax (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakate-mia, 1987). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻSyntax of Translation-techniqueʼ, BIOSCS 5 (1972), 9–11. WorldCat Sollamo, R., Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Repetition of the Possessive Pronouns in the Septuagint (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻSome “Improper” Prepositions, such as ἐνώπɩον, ἐναντίον, ἔναντɩ, etc., in the Septuagint and Early Koine Greekʼ, VT 25 (1975), 773–82. ——— ʻThe LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronymous Finite Verb in the Pentateuchʼ, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Institute ʻArias Montanoʼ, 1985), 101–13. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Origins of LXX Studies in Finlandʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 159–68. WorldCat Sonnenschein, E. A., ʻThe Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greek: A Replyʼ, CR 19 (1905), 439–40. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Perfect Subjunctive, Optative, and Imperative in Greekʼ, CR 20 (1906), 155–6. WorldCat Stahl, J. M., Kritisch-historische Syntax des griechischen Verbums der klassischen Zeit (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1907

; repr; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1965).

Stavropoulos, D. N., Oxford Greek-English Learner's Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Sterenberg, J., ʻThe Use of Conditional Sentences in the Alexandrian Version of the Pentateuchʼ (diss. Munich, 1908). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Stork, P., The Aspectual Usage of the Dynamic Infinitive in Herodotus (Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Swete, H. B., An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, rev R. R. Ottley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914 Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989).

; repr.

SWINN, S. P. , ʻảγαπâν in the Septuagintʼ, in T. Muraoka (ed.), Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography (Atlanta, Ga.:

Scholars Press, 1990), 49–81.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

SZEMERÉNYI, O. , ʻgreek μέλλω: A Historical and Comparative Studyʼ, AJPh 72 (1951), 346–68.

——— ʻThe Origin of Aspect in the Indo-European Languagesʼ, Glotta, 65 (1987), 1–18. WorldCat Taylor, B. A., IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 315

——— The Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint: A Complete Parsing Guide (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark, 2nd edn. (London: Macmillan, 1966). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Thackeray, H. St. J., Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, i. Introduction, Orthography and Accidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻRenderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXXʼ, JThS 9 (1908), 597–601. WorldCat ——— ʻRhythm in the Rook of Wisdomʼ, JThS 6 (1905), 232–7. WorldCat ——— ʻThe Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kingsʼ, JThS 8 (1907), 262–78. WorldCat ——— The LXX and Jewish Worship: A. Study in Origins, 2nd. edn. (London: Oxford University Press, 1923). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Poetry of the Greek Rook of Proverbsʼ, JThS 13 (1912), 46–66. WorldCat Thiersch, H. G. J., De Pentateuchi Versione Alexandrina Libri iii (Erlangen, 1841). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Thomas, J. D., ʻThe Greek Text of Tobitʼ, JBL 91 (1972), 463–71. WorldCat Thompson, S., The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 10.1017/CBO9780511555114 Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Crossref Thumb, A., Die griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellemsmus: Beiträge zur Geschichte und Beurteilung der κοινή (Strasburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner, 1901). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular, trans. S. Angus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC TOV, E. , ʻBackground of the Greek-Hebrew Alignmentʼ, in J. R. Aber-crombie, W. Adler, R. A. Kra

, and E. Tov, Computer Assisted

Tools for Septuagint Studies (CATSS), i. Ruth (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 37–51. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Nature and Study of the Translation Technique of the LXX in the Past and Presentʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 337–59. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻthe Representation of the Causative Aspects of the Hiphʻil in the LXX: A Study in Translation Techniqueʼ, Biblica, 63 (1982), 417–24. ——— The Text-critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, 2nd edn. (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Trask, R. L., A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics (London and New York: Routledge, 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Turner, E. G., Greek Papyri: An Introduction, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 316

TURNER, N. , Style, vol. iv of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976).

Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

——— Syntax, vol. iii of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Unique Character of Biblical Greekʼ, VT 5 (1955), 208–13. WorldCat Ulrich, E., ʻAn Index of the Passages, in the Biblical Manuscripts from the Judean Desert (Genesis-Kings)ʼ, Dead Sea Discoveries, 1 (1994), 113–29. WorldCat Vendler, Z., ʻVerbs and Timesʼ, Philosophical Review, 66 (1957), 43–60. 10.2307/2182371 WorldCat Crossref ——— Linguistics in Philosophy (Ithaca, NY; Cornell University Press, 1967). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Ventris, M., and CHADWICK, J. , Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Versteegh, C. H. M., ʻThe Stoic Verbal Systemʼ, Hermes, 108 (1980), 338–57. WorldCat Vet, Co, and VETTERS, C. (eds.), Tense and Aspect in Discourse (Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1994). 10.1515/9783110902617 Google Scholar Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Crossref

Vilborg, E., A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek (Göteborg: Aimqvist & Wiksell, 1960). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Vlasto, A. P., A Linguistic History of Russia to the End of the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC VOITILA, A. , ʻLa technique de traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans l'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen 37, 39–50)ʼ, in C. E.

Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 223–37. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻSome Remarks on the Perfect Indicative in the LXXʼ, BIOSCS 26 (1993), 11–16. WorldCat ——— ʻSome Text-critical Remarks on the Greek Text of the Pentateuchʼ, Textus, 20 (forthcoming). WorldCat ——— ʻThe Translator of the Greek Numbersʼ, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 109–21. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻWhat the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translatorsʼ, SJOT 10 (1996), 183–96. WorldCat Wackernagel, J., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Homer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1916). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻStudien zum griechischen Perfectumʼ, Programm zur akademischen Preisverteilung (1904), 3–24

; repr. in id., Kleine

Schri en (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953), 1000–21. ——— Vorlesungen über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch (2 vols.; Basel: Birkhäuser, 1926–8). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Walters (Katz), P., The Text of the Septuagint: Its Corruptions and their Emendation, ed. D. W. Gooding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 317

WALTKE, B. K. , ʻThe Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testamentʼ, in J. B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives, on the Old

Testament (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1970), 212–39. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat

COPAC

——— and O'CONNOR, M. , An introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990). Google Scholar

Google Preview

WorldCat

COPAC

Watkins, C., ʻPreliminaries to a Historical and Comparative Analysis of the Syntax of the Old Irish Verbʼ, Celtica, 6 (1963), 1–49. WorldCat Wevers, J. W., ʻAn Apologia for Septuagint Studiesʼ, BIOSCS 18 (1985), 16–38. WorldCat ——— Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

——— Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Notes on the Greek Text of Leviticus (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Text History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Text History of the Greek Exodus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Text History of the Greek Genesis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Text History of the Greek Leviticus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— Text History of the Greek Numbers (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Göttingen Pentateuch: Some Post-partem Reflectionsʼ, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 51–60. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe LXX Translator of Deuteronomyʼ, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 57–89. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC ——— ʻThe Use of Versions for Text Criticism: The Septuagintʼ, in. N. Fernández Marcos (ed.), La Septuaginta en la investigatión contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) (Madrid: Instituto ʻArias Montanoʼ, 1985), 15–24. Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Whitney, W. D., Sanskrit Grammar, 5th edn. (Leipzig, 1924

; repr. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1989).

Whybray, R. N., The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (She ield: JSOT Press, 1987). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Woodcock, E. C., A New Latin Syntax (London: Methuen & Co., 1959). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC p. 318

Wright, W., A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd edn., rev, W. R. Smith and M. J. de Goeje (4 pts. in 2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896–8

; repr. 1988).

Young, L., Diversity in Pre-Exilic Hebrew (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeek), 1993). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Zerwick, M., Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, English edn. adapted by J. Smith from the 4th Latin edn. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963). Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC

Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference T. V. Evans https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001 Published: 2001

Online ISBN: 9780191683909

Search in this book

END MATTER

Index  Published: March 2001

Subject: Biblical Studies Collection: Oxford Scholarship Online

Print ISBN: 9780198270102

319Index Locorum Greek Extra-Biblical Greek Aesch. Ag. 1249 185 44 Sept. 5 185 44 Aesehin. 3. 177 35 Arist. Rhet. 1. 7. 34 193 80 3. 10. 7 193 80 Dem. 18. 133 44–5 28. 21 35185 44 Eur. Ion 756 35 758 35266 5 Hdt. 1. 155. 1 193 3. 140. 4 193 4. 99. 4 193 4. 99. 5 193 7. 162. 2 193 and 80 Hipp. Nat. Mul. 36 169 79 Homer, Il. 2. 780 193 11. 389 193 11. 467 193 22. 410–11 193 Homer, Od. 9. 314 193 10. 416 193 10. 420 193 17. 366 193 IEph. ii. 567 27 Lys. 1. 7 152 1 12 1319 12. 100 27148 P.Cairo Zen. 59093. 1–4 201 59093. 18 194 59093. 18–19 194 86 59298–301 207 21 59303–11 207 21 59314–18 207 21 59322–4 207 21 59329–32 207 21 59335–8 207 21 59341–6 207 21 59348–59 207 21 59362–3 207 21 59365 207 21 Plato, Ap. 33 D 44 Cri. 44 A 152 18 Laws 628 D 2–3 193 769 B 7 193 81 Prt. 344 B 6 193

Rep. 370 B 229 42 Plb. 4. 65. 4 201 4. 66. 8–9 201 P.Petr. ii. 2. 2. 5–6 164 pseudo-Plato, Ax. 369 C 4–5 193 Thuc. 2. 4 16–171925 48 4. 95 36 Xen. An. 7. 3. 11 35 Cyr. 4. 2. 35–6 161 51 7. 3. 13 36 LXX Gen. 1–15 86 48163–6198262 1: 6 224234250 1: 22 271 1: 26 89 1: 28 270 1: 29 155163 57 2: 9 129171 3: 5 124 and 8171232 3: 7 161 3: 11 161 3: 22 163 57271 4 136 4: 2 235248250 4: 12 239241 97247248250 4: 14 239247248250 4: 17 235250 4: 24 157 and 35163 57 5 217 5: 24 83 6: 2 161 6: 4 271 6: 5 161 6: 12 245252271 6: 13 159 42 7: 2 127138 7: 4 271 8: 7 159163 57 p. 320

8: 8

159163 57

8: 11 159163 57 9 136 9: 2 155156 29157163 57 9: 3 155156 29163 57232 9: 5 271 9: 12 251 9: 26 185 9: 27 270 11 217 11: 6 270

11: 7 270 11: 9 271 12: 1 271 12: 14 161 12: 18 161 13: 10 160235247252 14: 12 221236247252 14: 13 221 14: 14 274 15: 7 273 15: 13 87 5188 15: 16 163 57 15: 18 138 16–20 163 16: 4 161 16: 5 155161268 17: 5 155 17: 20 157274 18: 2 83 37124 8171 18: 4 128 18: 5 157 18: 8 124 8171 18: 11 274 18: 18 225239247253 18: 19 171 18: 22 245252 18: 25 185 43 18: 33 171 18: 35 171 19 216 19: 8 82266–7 19: 9 268 19: 15 8687270 19: 27 171 19: 37 274 20: 3 242251 129252254 20: 16 155 21: 13 271 21: 17 155 21: 23 128 16 22: 5 271274 22: 7 271 22: 12 161 22: 16 83 23: 6 274 23: 11 148155 23: 15 126155182188 24 137 24: 4 271

24: 8 229 43 24: 13 157 24: 21 157159 24: 27 157 24: 29 86 24: 30 122157 24: 31 157 24: 32 274 24: 38 271 24: 41 271 24: 43 157 24: 56 270 25 136 25: 22 228229253270 25: 27 274 26: 13 227 26: 22 271 26: 24 157 26: 29 128 16 26: 33 274 26: 35 236247253 27 136 27: 7 271 27: 19 274 27: 21 271 27: 33 232244247254 27: 34 86 27: 37 266 28: 3 268 28: 4 268 28: 6 160–1 28: 8 161 28: 12 200 28: 12–13 173 28: 13 124 8172 28: 16 171 28: 18 271 29: 2 232 29: 7 270 29: 12 161 29: 16 274 29: 31 161 29: 33 161 29: 34 274 30: 31–2 89 58 p. 321

30: 1

159

30: 32 89128 and 12 30: 32–31:12 236 74 30: 33 166232

30: 35 236 74 31: 6 155 31: 10 236253255 31: 12 237 31: 15 157 31: 20 161 31: 29 85 31: 32 171 31: 33 274 31: 39 157 31: 40 226227229253 31: 43 271 31: 49 182 32 32: 9 (Rahlfs 32: 10) 271 32: 16 (Rahlfs 32: 17) 270 32: 17 (Rahlfs 32: 18) 270 32: 24 (Rahlfs 32: 25) 271 32: 25 (Rahlfs 32: 26) 161271 32: 28 (Rahlfs 32: 29) 271 33: 10 190 34: 9 271 34: 10 270274 34: 11 184185 34: 22 157 34: 31 274 35: 12 148153155 35: 14 271 36: 43 271 37 216 37, 39–50 123 5163 37: 2 237247250 37: 4 161 37: 17 163 58 37: 22 270 37: 25 83 37 37: 27 271 37: 30 273 37: 35 229 43 38: 9 266271 38: 14 159 38: 16 161271 38: 24 148 39: 3 161171 39: 6 171 39: 9 163 58266 39: 10 274 39: 10–12 199–200 39: 15 270 39: 18 270

39: 21 266271 39 22 248250 39 23 232237247252 40: 3 172173 40: 6 245247252254 40: 13 237247253271 41: 1 171 41: 1–6 216 41: 15 155163 58 41: 17 171 41: 17–23 216 41: 28 157163 58 41: 31 129 18 41: 36 246247254 41: 44 270 41: 51 88 42: 1 161 42: 2 155163 58270 42: 6 232247 42: 7 159 42 42: 9 159 42 42: 13 83 42: 14 157163 58 42: 16 271 42: 23 161171 42: 29–30 151 42: 30 150152157163 58165 42: 31 152 42: 32 83 42: 33 152 42: 38 157163 58 43: 3 150152157163 58 43: 4 274 43: 6 161 43: 7 171 43: 8 270 43: 9 246247254 43: 14 163 58184271 43: 20 83 43: 22 155163 58 43: 23 270 43: 25 161228229253 43: 29 183 44: 5 157163 58 44: 7 185 44: 8 188 44: 15 155163 58 44: 16 266 44: 17 185

44: 18 83 44: 28 157 and 35159163 58 p. 322

44: 32

163 58246–7254

45: 1 171 45: 8 163 58 45: 16 159 42 46: 2 271 46: 30 163 58 46: 31 159 42 46: 32 157163 58 47: 4 159 42 47: 5 159 42271 47: 9 163 58 47: 15 156163 58 47: 16 156163 58 47: 18 156163 58 47: 19 270 47: 23 163 58 47: 25 157163 58 47: 26 270 47: 29 163 58 47: 30 271 48: 16 187 48: 18 271 48: 19 155163 58 48: 20 268 49 136 49: 1 271 49: 8 184 and 39185 49: 15 271 49: 18 273 50: 12 274 50: 15 159163 58 50: 16 274 50: 17 271 50: 19 270 50: 21 270 Exod. 1–2 216 1–20 168 1: 8 171 1: 22 271 2: 4 129 18 2: 7 229 44 2: 13 83 and 37120 n. 2: 14 156229 and 43 2: 16 232 3: 1 237247250 3: 2 161 and 51195–6 92 3:3 119

3: 4 161 3: 6 271 3: 9 159 42 3: 20 271 4: 4 271 4: 10 83 4: 12 8228229253271 4: 13 83272 4: 14 119 4: 18 120 n. 4: 21 271 4: 23 251 5: 3 120 n. 5: 8 123 5: 11 271 5: 16 123 5: 21 183268 6: 4 150151152165 7: 3 272 7: 4 271272 7: 5 232 7: 7 274 7: 15 248 8: 9 266 8: 10 171 8: 15 159 8: 21 (Rahlfs 8: 17) 271 8: 22 171 8: 26 (Rahlfs 8:22) 274 8: 28 (Rahlfs 8: 24) 274 8: 29 (Rahlfs 8: 25) 272 8: 32 (MT, Rahlfs 8: 28) 229 43271 9: 14 171 9: 23–4 162 9: 24 162 and 54237–8253254 9: 30 119 9: 34 159271 10: 4 229 43 10: 7 120 n.129171 10: 9 120 n. 10: 11 128 10: 13–14 162 10: 14 150162165173 10: 16 274 10: 17 271 10: 24 275 10: 26 266 10: 28 120 n. 10: 29 120 n.

11: 9 274 11: 10 229 43 11: 17 171 12: 6 247254 12: 9 272 12: 12 272 p. 323

12: 13

271272

12: 15 271 12: 19 271 12: 30 232 and 58275 12: 31 271 12: 34 247 12: 37 275 13: 11 274 14: 5 159274 14: 7 275 14: 10 83 and 37 14: 20 274 15: 136 15: 1 138140 15: 16 184 and 39185 15: 20 275 16: 3 189267272 16: 15 161171 16: 18 275 17: 2–3 200–1 17: 4 266 17: 6 123147275 17: 9 123272 17: 10 275 17: 11 274 17: 12 226227229253 18: 4 274 18: 13 171 18: 14 120 n. 18: 15 120 n. l8: 19 185 l8: 26 274 19: l8 171172 19: 19 227 20: 20 120 n. 20: 21 171 21: 15–17 195 92 21: 16 274 21: 21 271 21: 22 243 103 21: 23 232243247254274 21: 29 243 21: 36 243247254

22: 2(MT 22: 1) 82 22: 8 171 22: 11 (Rahlfs 22: 10) 171274 22: 14 (Rahlfs 22: 13) 274 22: 25 (MT 22: 24) 239–40247253 23: 12 274 23: 18 271 23: 22 274 23: 26 272 23 33 88 54 24: 6 271 24 10 171 25: 4 169 25: 8 (Rahlfs 25: 9) 271 25: 19 (MT 25: 20) 240250 25: 21 (Rahlfs 25: 22) 272 26: 1 169 75 and 78 26: 3 240248250253 26: 13 240250 26: 31 169 78 26: 36 169 75 and 78 27: 6 271 27: 7 271 27: 9 169 75 27: 16 169 75 and 78 27: 18 169 75 27: 20 275 28: 6 169 75 28: 7 232 28: 8 169 75 28: 15 169 75 and 78 28: 20 245248254 28: 29 169 28: 33 169 28: 37 (Rahlfs 28: 41) 274 30: 21 274 31: 4 169275 31: 6 274 32–3 119–20 n. 32: 1 120 n.157159 and 44 32: 2 120 n. 32: 15 245247254 32: 16 232 32: 17 120 n. 32: 18 120 n. 32: 23 120 n. 32: 25 159 32: 27 120 n. 32: 34 274275

33: 5 267 10271272274 33: 7–11 216 33: 8 83171274 33: 11 190–1237 78274 33: 13 171 and 85180–1221243247254275 33: 14 120 n.272 33: 15 120 n.271 33: 18 120 n. 33: 19 272 34: 20 271 and n. 34: 24 271 34: 29 159171246 and 113 p. 324

34: 30

245–6247252

34: 35 159246 35: 6 168 n.169 35: 25 169 36: 9 169 75 36: 10 169 36: 12 169 75 36: 15 169 75 36: 32 169 36: 36 169 75 37: 3 169 75 37: 5 169 75 37: 7 169 75 37: 14 169 75 37: 16 169 75272 38: 2 274 38: 15 272 39: 2 (MT 38: 25) 170 39: 23 (MT 39: 43) 232 58246247252 40: 6 (Rahlfs 40: 8) 274 Lev. 2: 8 275 3: 9 275 4: 18 275 5: 5–6 149153 5: 7 265275 5: 16 275 5: 18 171 6: 17 (Rahlfs 6: 10) 275 6: 21 (MT 6: 14) 170 6: 40 (MT 7: 10) 169 7: 2 (MT 7: 12) 170 8–10 137 8: 12 272 8: 15 272 8: 19 272 8: 24 272 9: 9 272

9: 12 272 9: 15 275 9: 18 272 10: 9 125272 10: 16 172 11: 26 233252 13: 11 232 13: 22 272 13: 23 272 13: 27 272 13: 31 232 13: 32 232 13: 35 272 13: 42 232275 13: 45 245254275 13: 49 227 13: 51 272 13: 53 272 13: 57 232 14: 29 272 14: 46 242253 15: 4 275 15: 19 234250 15: 23 275 15: 25 234 16: 23 172 16: 26 272 16: 29 275 16: 32 275 17: 3 275 17: 4 272 17: 5 275 18: 24 272 19; 23 275 20 127 20: 22 275 20: 23 275 20: 24 234253275 20: 27 275 21: 1 265275 21: 14 166 22: 7 272 22: 13 227275 23: 43 171 and 85180 27275 24 127 24: 21 127 25: 18 275 25: 25 275 26: 186187

26: 33 85 27: 12 275 27: 14 275 27: 27 275 27: 31 275 27: 34 275 Num. 1: 18 272 2 170 2: 5 84 and 40 2: 23 170 82 2: 31 170 82 3: 3 273 3: 9 242252254 3: 15 273276 3: 40 273 p. 325

3:49

272

4: 5 273 4: 23 273 4: 27 272 5 255 5: 12–14 243 and 106 5: 13 243–4254276 5: 14 244254 5: 19 129 5: 21 268 5: 22 83185268 5: 27 244254 6: 5 232 7 169 7: 1 122–3272 8: 16 242252254 8: 19 240–1247253 9–10 140 9–25 137168 9: 8 272 9: 18–23 139 9: 20 272 9: 21 276 10: 5 272 10: 6 272 10: 7 272 10: 10 272 10: 17–25 139 10: 36 (MT 10: 34) 226227229253 11: 1 238247253 11: 4–9 216 11: 9 199 11: 12 191268273 11: 15 272

11: 21 276 11: 29 188–90 and 63260272 11: 33 265275 12: 2 149153 12: 11 83272 12: 13 273 14: 2 267273 14: 8 234247252 14: 9 127 11273 14: 12 272 14: 22 272 14: 25 272 14: 28 83272 14: 31 128 16 14: 33 241247250 14: 35 272273 14: 42 272 15: 24 125 15: 31 272 16: 26 272 16: 27 171 16: 34 272 16: 46 (MT, Rahifs 17: 11) 129272 16: 47 (MT 17: 12) 172173 20: 3 267, 273 20: 21 229 43 21 137 21:7 273276 21: 9 276 21: 17 272 22 216 22: 4 191273 22: 6 195 92272 22: 7 268 22: 11 195 92265276 22: 12 232244247 22: 14 229 43 22: 16 273 22: 17 272 22: 20 272 22: 22 172273276 22: 22–35 216 22: 28 149166276 22: 34 123 22: 36 159 42161 22: 38 159 42 23: 137 23: 3 272 23: 6 171273 23: 7 195 92

23: 8 195 92276 23: 9 272 23: 11 149153 23: 17 171273 23: 20 272 23: 24 272 24: 83137 24: 1 161 24: 10 150153 27 137168 27: 7 123 27: 10 83 28 169 28: 20 276 31–3 137168 32: 6 275 31: 27 276 32: 30 272 33: 1–49 217 33: 5 217 p. 326

33: 56

172272

35 127 35: 23 238253254 35: 34 232272 Deut. 1–4 137 1: 11 268 1: 16 277 1: 20 273 1: 21 127273 1: 22 273 1: 26 229 43 1: 27 276 1: 29 273 1: 31 191277 1: 33 273 1: 40 276–7 1: 41 276 1: 42 273276 1: 44 191 2: 4 273 2: 10 276 2: 12 277 2: 14 276 2: l8 276 2: 19 127 2: 30 229 43 2: 36 84 3: 9 276 3: 16 277

3: 27 273 4: 1 277 4: 10 128 and 12 4: 14 119 4: 24 84 4: 31 276 4: 35 171277 5: 5 171 5: 14 276 5: 29 (MT 5: 26) 189 and 63 6: 15 277 6: 17 129 19 8: 3 171277 8: 5 191 8: 16 171277 9: 7 238250 9: 10 172 9: 19 1 9: 22 238247251 9: 24. 238247250251 10: 8 171 10: 10 229 43277 11: 7 277 11:8 277 11: 10 277 11:17 277 12: 9 159 42 13: 3 171 13: 6 171 13: 13 171 13: 14 (Rahifs 13: 15) 276 15: 8 276 15: 10 276 15: 16 277 16: 15 241251 17: 18 273 17: 20 276 18: 4 276 18: 5 171 87277 18: 18 273 19: 3 273 19: 4 238251 127 19: 5 273277 19: 6 238252276 3 19: 8 273 19: 11 227273 19: 14 277 19: 15 277 20: 3 273

20: 10 273 20: 16 276 21: 5 171 21: 10 276277 22: 1 276 22: 6–7 195 92 22: 23 227 22: 26 192 22: 27 129 18273 23: 5 (MT 23: 6) 229 43 23: 17 232 23: 21 (Rahifs 23: 22) 273 23: 22 (MT 23: 23) 229 43 24: 8 277 24: 11 273 25: 2 276 25: 7 229 43 25: 18 200273 26: 3 276 26: 5 276 26: 16 277 27 83 27: 15 185 27: 16 185 27: 17 185 27: 18 185 p. 327

27: 19

185273

27: 20 185 27: 21 185 27: 2 2 185 27: 23 185276277 27: 24 185 27: 25 185 27: 26 185 28 175186–7197 28: 1 189 63276277 28: 3–6 244 28: 7 186 51277 28: 7–36 186 28: 8 184 38268 28: 9 268 28: 11 186 51187 28: 12 187 28: 13 184 28: 20 186 51 28: 20–36 186 51 28: 22 273 28: 24 186 50 28: 27 273

28: 28 273 28: 29 186 and 51191241–2 and 97247248251273 28: 31 186 50 28: 33 241246247248251254 28: 35 273 28: 52 123251 28: 63 277 28: 65 186 51 28: 66 242247251 28: 67 186 47188189 and 62196 92 29: 4 171 29: 18 (Rahlfs 29: 17) 273 29: 19 (MT 29: 18) 184185229 43 30 186187 30: 10 276 30: 11 276 30: 12 232 30: 13 232265276 30: 18 276 30: 19 273 31 137 31: 14 273 31: 19 276 31: 20 277 31: 27 238239247251 32–3 137 32: 11 191273 32: 17 159 42171 32: 20 232 32: 28 232 32:37 172 32: 39 88 54 32: 43 276 32: 46 273 33: 2 159 42 33: 6 185273 33: 7 188 33: 24 277 33: 27 184185273 34 137 Judg. 9: 15 B 180181 9: 29 189 63 14: 6 A 190 64192 72 16: 9 B 190 64192 72 2 Kgd. 19: 1 189 63 Ps. 3–41 91 n.133 24137 30139 52: 7 (MT 53: 7) 190 63 54: 7 (MT 55: 7) 190 63 82: 15 (MT 83: 15) 190 64192 72

89: 5 (MT 90: 5) 190 64192 72 89: 6 (MT 90: 6) 190 64 Prov 23: 7 190 64 25: 26 190 64 Cant, 8: 1 189 63 Job 19: 23 190 63 31: 31 190 63 31: 35 189 63 31: 40 A 180181 Isa. 11:9 190 64 21: 1 190 64 66: 20 190 64192 72 Jer. 8: 23 190 63 9: 1 189 63 Ezek. 1:16 190 64192 72 New Testament Matt. 3: 1 43 124 19: 8 162 55 21: 4 162 55 26: 56 162 55 Mark 5: 33 160 48 11: 14 176 3 15: 44 160 48 p. 328

15: 47

160 48

16: 4 160 48 Luke 1: 22 160 48 John 11: 8 44 Acts 8: 31 189 62 22: 29 161 51 1 Cor. 15: 32 43 124 Hebrew Gen. 1: 26 89 2: 18 89 55 9: 27 183 37 16: 5 183 37 22: 17 89 27: 28 183 37 28: 3 183 37 28: 4 183 37 30: 31 89 30: 32 89 31: 49 183 37 43: 14 183 37 43: 21 6689 43: 29 183 37 48: 16 183 37 48: 20 183 37 49: 6 183 37 Exod. 5: 21 183 37

15 184 39 Num. 3: 13 123 4 5: 21 183 37 8: 17 123 4 9: 15 123 4 6: 24 (LXX 6: 25) 183 37 6: 25 (LXX 6: 26) 183 37 6: 26 (LXX 6: 27) 183 37 23: 10 183 37 Dent. 1: 11 183 37 28: 7 183 37 28: 8 183 37 28: 9 183 37 28: 12 183 37 28: 20 183 37 28: 21 183 37 28: 22 183 37 28: 24 183 37 28: 25 183 37 28: 27 183 37 28: 28 183 37 28: 35 183 37 28: 36 183 37 32 7889 33: 16 65 60183 37

329Index Nominum et Rerum accent, Greek 47 adverbs, temporal 4043–5 Aejrnelaeus, A. 138216 Aerts, W. J. 220221–2230240247–8249256 Aeschines 35 Aeschylus 185 44194266 5 Aktionsart 1617–1819–2223 and a

xal elements 2021

and Hebrew 64 grammatical expression of 21–229–30 See also lexical semantics, See also Vendlerian classi cation Amarna letters 6162 analytic tense form  See periphrasis aorist imperative 126127 aorist indicative 48–9121122–3 133137149198–219 and ‘aoristie’ perfect 150–3163–5 ‘epistolary’ 208 favoured in narrative 165214–16 function of 199–202 futuristic 41 gnomic 4149 aorist in nitive 128–9 aorist optative 125–6182–3 ‘jussive’ 186–7 aorist participle 129–32 aorist subjunctive 3454124–5127180 sigmatic 266–7 Apocalypse of Moses 232 Apple, Rabbi R. 152 20 Arabic 5964 54 Aramaic 1214217 Aristophanes 194 Aristotle 14193 80 Armenian 45 Arrian 203205 aspect 13–2628–3236–742–3 and ancient, grammatical tradition 14–15 and aspectual marking 21 and aspectual, tense forms 25–6 and fully adjectivized participles 231 and Greek verbs of saying 24 44223 10 and internal temporal constituency 1418–19 and markedness theory 23–4 and periphrasis 223–4 as viewpoint feature 141723 de nition of 18–19 developing in future tense 34 89 ‘durative’ 1416193637 94

in Hebrew 58–6062–3 in Latin 15 in Slavonic languages 151624 39 ‘punctiliar’ 1416193637 94 subjectivity of 17–1824 See also imperfective aspect, See also perfective aspect aspectual, choice 17–1824229 aspectual vagueness 222–3225233 Atticism 54 8176 augment 45–50 and pluperfect 46–7172 decline of 46–7 Homeric omission of 4648 auxiliary verbs 33–4222–4225–6227229 Bache, C. 18 Barr, J. 133 23 and 24134138–40215 Bergsträsser, G. 62 Binnick, R. I. 59 binyamm 57 14 Björek, G. 230 Brooke, A. E. 268 Brugmann, K. 1516 Carson, D. A. 42 CATSS databases 7265–7269270 CATSS parallel alignment 8086 Chantraine, P. 26 50145 2151 15 p. 330

Chariton

208269

Classical rhetoric 195 89 Classical versi cation. 195 cohortative 65–66768 Collins, N. L. 8–9 colloquialism 194–5196 comparative frequencies  See relative frequencies Comrie, B. 171819 consecutive imperfect 60–3133153215 consecutive perfect 60–2133138139184201 contextual meaning  See pragmatics contingency 38 102177 11 Conybeare, R. C. 179244247 copulative εἰμί 82–386119121124126 Curtius, G. 1525 Daniel (Theodotion) 156 David Qimhi 158 deixts 1959 deliberative questions 35266 Demosthenes 35193268 denials for the future 35 deontic modality 38 desideratives 33–4 Dionysius Thrax 14

direct speech 136–7138 Drewitt, J. A. J. 47–8 dual number 65 dynamic equivalence 137 easy translation, technique  See translation technique energic 65 59 English 2034147 epexegetic genitive 240 epistemic modality 38 Epistle of Jeremiah 213 Euripides 35194195 87224266 5 Ewald, G. H. A. von 5859 Ezekiel (dramatist) 158 39195 87 Ezekiel (biblical book) 156 Fanning, B. M. 22–52629 and formal ambiguity  See morphological ambiguity formal interference 135–6138–41 and aorist/imperfect frequencies 214–16 and perfect indicative 153–8165 and periphrasis 249–50 and potential optative 189–90 and volitive optative 183–7 See also frequency of occurrence formulaic expressions 176178179 Foucault, J.-A. de 209 Frankel, Z. 3 6263 frequency of occurrence 55–7135–6140–2167–71198256–7260–2 and context 5357 See also relative frequencies Friedrich, P. 2930 future indicative 121–2133137186–7 as inappropriate translation, equivalent 139–40 See also periphrastic tense forms future in nitive 128 future optative 34184–5 41 future participle 129 future perfect indicative 515354 future tense 32–40 and developing aspectual, distinctions 34 8937228–9 and middle in ection 34 and oblique moods 32–637 as an aspect 2636–7 as expressing expectation 394043 Latin 33 mixed origin of 32–4 of ἔχω 36–7 futurity 37–839 genitive construct 242 Gerth, B. 160 Gilder sleeve, B. L. 158162 Gonda, J. 38 Goodwin, W. W. 35

grammaticalization 46–749223224 graphic construction  See perfect indicative, See present indicative Greek Pentateuch: authorship of 3263–4 date of 8–954174190197263 text of 7–876 11 Hawkins, Sir J. C. 119 n.207268 p. 331

Hebraism:

136139–40142186–7218–19249

Hebrew in uence 135–41259 contextual 135136–8 from text components  See formal interference, See Hebrew interference, See lexical interference Hebrew interference 259–62 Hebrew matches 79–142 Adjective 131 Cohortative 89122125 Complex Unit 83 3984–5 Consecutive Imperfect 89119–20123 Consecutive Perfect 87–8 Imperative 126128131 Imperfect 119127–8 Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect composite 121124–5126–7128130–1137 In nitive Absolute 129–30 19131 In nitive Construct 122–3124125128–9130 Jussive 89122125126127 Minus 85–7119121122124126252 133 Noun 129131 Particle 81–3119121124126 Participle 119121123130131 Perfect 88119123 Perfect-Consecutive Imperfect composite 120–1122130–1137138 Preposition 8283–485 Pronoun 84119121124 Hebrew Pentateuch, text of 76–9 Herodotus 193194195203224 Hiphil 6488 54157–8 Hithpael 64 Hittite 31 73177 12 Homer: language of 21394648203220 and Homeric reminiscence 194–7 and similes 192 71 and 74193 Hophal 64–5157 35158 participle 170 hybrid forms 159 42177 7267 idiolect 24206 idiolect preference 119190223 10264 IE languages 1521263132–3177 12 imperative, Greek 126–8133 in Deuteronomy 56

in prohibitions 127 second person 56126–7 third person 5667126–8 See also aorist imperative, See also present imperative imperative, Hebrew 6568128133184 imperfect indicative, Greek 120–1122198–219 and subject matter 216 ‘aoristic’ 208–9 decline in frequency of 202–9 ‘epistolary’ 208 function of 199–202 inceptive 16 in conditional sentences 49 replacing present 160–1 imperfect, Hebrew 59–6388–9121133138139148184–5 imperfective aspect 1318–19 in Greek 21222425–628–930–2222–4 in Hebrew 59 indicative: and aspectual function 42 expressing assertion 3338 in similes 192193196 See also aorist indicative, See also future indicative, etc. Indo-Iranian 3345 in nitive, Greek 75 9128–9 in Deuteronomy 5675 9 See also aorist in nitive, See also future in nitive, etc. in nitive, Hebrew: absolute 6667129–30 19239 construct 66122–3124133242 Ionic 21194196 itacism 177 9180 Jenni, E. 63 Jespersen, O. 37 Jewish grammarians 58157–8 ‘Jewish’ Greek 4 Job 195 89 John 207268 19 p. 332

Joosten, J.

8

Josephus 203205 jussive, Arabic 65 59 jussive, Hebrew 6061–365–66789–90127 volitive function of 126183–7 ‘jussive optative’  See aorist optative 2 Kingdoms 139 Kühner, R. 160 Latin 153345230 Lee, J. A. L. 89 lexical, formulae 126127168–71182185217 lexical interference 135–6140–1 and aorist/imperfect frequencies 217 and perfect indicative 153–6157

and perfect participle 168–71 and present participle 130 and third person, present, imperative 127 See also frequency of occurrence lexical semantics 1628 and actions 27 and aspectual, choice 206 and objectivity 17–18 and states 2729–30 See also Aktionsart, See also Vendlerian classi cation lexical vagueness 222225–6233 linguistic context 535456 n.5768136–8206 literalism  See translation technique Louw, J. P. 2930 Lust, J. 1259 Lyons, J. 173743 Lysias 2728193268 1 Maccabees 213 2–4 Maccabees 213 4 Maccabees 54 8179 McKay, K. L. 26374954146151 McLean, N. 268 McWhorter, A. W. 266 Mandilaras, B. G. 151164207–8 Mark 206268 Martin, R. 135–6 27 Masoretic vocalization 76–779124 Matthew 207209 Mayser, E. 178179182–3194266 Menander 194 Miller, C W. E. 205209268 Mishnatc Hebrew 5859123 4 Modern Greek 4247177 7 and 8202 5 morphological ambiguity: Greek 88220265–7 Hebrew 8088–90183–5 Moulton, J. H. 36157175188–9 Mycenaean Greek 3946 natural Greek usage 134–5262–3 Neogrammarians 15 Niphal 64156157 nominal exclamations 83 nominal sentences, Hebrew 86119121123132 O'Connor, M. 63–4 optative 54 8125–6175–97268 and Hebrew interference 179–80183–7 comparative 190–7 conditional 178179194 85 decline of 175–8 nal 179 fossilized survivals of 176–7

oblique (marking historic sequence) 160 48161 52178179 potential 176178–83188–90 volitive 140141176178–87 when God is subject 186–7 See also aorist optative, See also future optative, etc. optative particle, ὄφελον as 189267 papyri 47 145207–8 later 127 11203 Ptolemaic 178–9182–3187194–5225 21252266 parallelism 127 10 parataxis 67–8141214 in Aramaic 217–18 32 parfait résultatif 145–6147 participle, Greek 6784129–32133 anacoluthic 232 anarthrous 237 as adverbial modi er 232240 determining aspectual character of periphrases 223–4227 ἐχόμενος 84 40267 fully adjectivized 131–2227231–2244 of Aeycu rendering 130‫לאמר‬ p. 333

substantivized

131–2231–2234241

participle, Hebrew 66133200 as predicate in nominal sentences 119133 23251 nominal 152 past narrative 120122131136–8206208214 perfect, English 147 perfect, Hebrew 59–63122133148149215 and direct speech 153 perfect indicative, Greek 123147–66 and direct speech 153158–61165–6 and Hebrew interference 153–8 aoristic 31–2145–6150–3163–5 epistolary 164 gnomic 41 historic 152 in graphic construction 159–60246 in occurrences extending from past into present 162 in parenthetic comment 161–3 vivid 160 48 with God as subject 165–6 See also periphrastic tense forms perfect in nitive 128171–2 perfect participle 129–32166–71 and Hebrew interference 168–71 distribution of 167–8 perfect subjunctive 124171180–1 perfect tense 26–32145–74 and Hittite hi-conjugation 31 73 and hybrid conjugation of ἥκω 30159 42163267 and imperfective aspect 30–2223–4

and prior occurrence 27147150 as an aspect 192225–628–9 criterial meaning of 27–8 desystematization of 145–6 from lexically stative verbs 28 5829–30 instability of 26 stative force of 2228–32 perfective aspect: 1418–19 in Greek 222425–628–930–1 in Hebrew 5963 ‘ perfectivizing’ pre xes 21 perfactum intensivum 27 perfactum praesens 27147 Pericles 193 80 periphrasis: accidental 239 and ‫ היה‬plus participle construction 141250–1256 and Hebrew interference 230256–7261 and oblique moods 224 aspect in 223–4227 de nition of 221–4230–3256 double 241–2254 elliptical 237–8253 expressive 221–2 in IE languages 223 14 ‘progressive’ 230249 124 ‘situation- xing’ 230 substitute 221230233250–3 suppletive 221230233253–4 with γίνομαι plus participle 224–7 with εἰμί plus participle 230–48 with ἒχω plus participle 224 with, θέλω plus in nitive 229 with μέλλω plus in nitive 227–9 periphrastic tense forms 53–4220–57 future indicative 34 8953–4227–9239–42 future perfect indicative 242246–7 imperfect indicative 203226–7234–9 perfect imperative 244–5 perfect indicative 242 perfect subjunctive 243–4 present imperative 234 present indicative 233–4 present subjunctive 234 pluperfect indicative 226–7245–6 PHI 7 databank 7 Philo 187 54 Phrygian 45 Piel 6488157260

Pindar 203 Plato 14193195 pluperfect indicative 124171–2 and augment 46–7172 pluses: Greek 85–7148149155157217 Hebrew 76250 poetic language 189 62195 Polel 157 Polybius 202203209213 Porter, S. E. 22–528–940–547–50222–4225–6230–3 and pragmatic implicature 41 113435963140148 p. 334

pragmatics

1627–84259–60121

pre-aspectual structure 21–2222 present imperative 126127 present indicative 119–20133 gnomic 41 historic 41119–20216263264 in graphic construction 160–1 in occurrences extending from, past into present 162 present in nitive 56128 present optative 125–6182–3 present participle 129–32 inceptive 16 present subjunctive 54124–5 present tense, and hybrid, conjugation of ἥκω 30159 42267 procedural characteristics  See Aktionsart prohibitions 36127 pronominal su

x 828384252

pronouns, Greek 251–2 Proverbs 195213 Psalms 139 Pseudo-cohortative 66 pseudo-Plato 193 Pual 64–5157158 Qal 64157–8 passive participle 66241–2244254 perfect 246 quasi -preposition, ἐχóµεvoϛ as 84 40267 Qumran fragments 76 Rahifs, A. 80179 and relative frequencies: of aorist and future indicatives 137 of aorist and imperfect indicatives 198–219 of tenses of the participle 56129 of volitive and potential optatives 178–80 remoteness 4347 149 Revelation 207 19209 Robertson, A. T. 152218

Russian 1517 13 Saadia Gaon 58157–8 Sailhamer, J. H. 89 56139 Samaritan Pentateuch 76–883 3786122123 4245 Sanskrit 15 53146178 Vedic 31 7233 8346 Schehr, T. P 146153163–5198 Schlachter, L. 268 Schmidt, D. D. 45 semantic bleaching 21 semiprepositions 83 39 Sicking, C. M. J. 30 Suva, M. 45 similes 190–7 simplex and compound 161 51195–6 92 Slavonic languages 1516 Soisalon-Soininen, I. 74–5 Sophocles 194203224266 5 Stock, St. G. 179244247 Stoic grammarians 14 Stork, P. 30 style 2448–9138195–6176206n.10263 subjunctive, Greek 32–33435–6124–5133 deliberative 189 59 exhortative 180 in similes 192193196 replacing optative 177180–1 short-vowel 33 See also aorist subjunctive, See also perfect subjunctive, etc. subjunctive, Arabic 65 59 suppletion 21222–3 Susanna 213 syntax criticism 135 27 Taylor, B. A. 267270 Taylor, V. 160 48 temporal reference 40–50 and Greek grammatical tradition 14–15 and Hebrew grammatical tradition 58–9 and tense 40 in Semitic languages 59–60 rise of 42–3 See also augment tense  See temporal reference Thackeray, H. St. J. 255474 2175180–1190 Thompson, S. 63156–7225260 Thucydides 35193203 Thumb, A. 177 9 Time-deictic indicators 43–5 time values  See temporal reference TLG databank 7193 79 p. 335

Tobit

217–18

Torah, reading tradition of 140 translation technique 5–668–973–6192249–55 easy 141189 63190214–15 free and literal combined 228239241–2 literal 52179217235 Treloar, A 63 47 Turner, N. 178–9192193247268 Ugaritic 6162 variants: Greek 77–8180189 63192 75200 n.226–7228–9 Hebrew 77–879122–3 variatio 195–6 92 Varro 14 2 Vendlerian classi cation 19–2024–5 abstract lexical classes of 2025 and actions 202564 and states 202564 applied to Arabic 64 54 verbal adjectives 53 3 verbal stems, Hebrew 63–4156–8 Vita Aesopi G 268–9 vivid, future condition 35 voice 5363 Voitila, A. 8120 n.139–40146153160163165266 volition, in Hebrew 65–6 Vorlage 76–9123 4124 8233237 di erent from MT 8687 51255 Wackernagel, J. 26 50145 2267 Walters, P. 178186–7189 63260 Waltke, B. K. 63–4 waw-consecutive constructions 60–3 Wevers, J. W. 867 and Wisdom 195213 word order 1232–3237259–60 Xenophon 35193203205–6 Yehuda Hayyuj 158 Zeitart 15 Zeitstufe 15 p. 336

zero form

63