Dear Chris, See my comments below. Fredag 27. September 2013 19:07 CEST skrev C L <[email protected]>: > Thank you, Ken. > > I do think that, as you mention, it is valid to discuss Biblical Greek on > this forum as long as it is demonstrably tied to questions of Biblical > Hebrew. In this case, the question was, "What can we discern of the Biblical > Hebrew verbs in Isaiah 44:24 based on the Old Greek translation of this > verse?" Corollary to that: "What do the aorist verbs (and participles) tell > us about the Hebrew text?"
RF: There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the Hebrew verb forms of the Tanakh and the Greek verb forms in the LXX. Therefore, in my opinion, the use of verbs in the LXX tells us nothing about the meaning of the verbs in the Hebrew text. > > In response to your criticism of Porter, I think his theories have some > merit, but they go too far in suggesting that Koine Greek is PURELY > aspectual. His comments on the aorist as a timeless, background tense form > are often helpful to remind the reader that aorist is not simply past-tense. > > HOWEVER, his reliance on Comrie's theories of verbal aspect is a bad move, in > my opinion. Comrie described verbal aspect in terms of Russian (and similar > Slavic languages), which is very unlike Koine Greek. (Full disclosure: I have > been a professional Russian linguist for many years, so I speak from that > perspective when I opine that Porter really does not understand Comrie. As a > result, his theory is rightly to be criticized at those points where he > relies on Comrie.) RF: Your words above point to the most serious weakness in the studies of Hebrew verbs. Certain definitions of aspect (among several possible definitions) are chosen BEFORE the study starts, and the conclusion of whether or not Hebrew is an aspectual language is based on these definitions. The answer could have been different if other definitions were chosen. The only remedy to this is to use units that are "smaller" than aspects, in order to find whether there is a particular pattern in the use of verbs, which would indicate that Hebrew is an aspectual language; and in that case, what the definition of these aspects are. There are three such units, namely, event time, reference time, and deictic center. Aspects can be described by the relationship between event time and reference time. By applying these parameters (units) to different languages, we will find that aspects must be given different definitions in different languages, and some languages, such as Norwegian, do not have aspects at all. The advantage of this approach is that our definitions of Hebrew aspects are the RESULT of a careful study of a great number of Hebrew verbs, and not definitions that are randomly or haphazardly chosen BEFORE our study begins. This approach has some resemblance to the use of the hermeneutic circle in other disciplines. There is also a serious weakness in the use of the concept "tense" in the study of Hebrew verbs. Whereas Comrie's definition of aspect is unclear and misleading, because he to some extent he confuses aspect and aktionsart, his definition of tense is absolutely clear. Whether Hebrew is a tense language or not depends on whether there is a pattern between verb form and the relationship between the deictic center and reference time. Thus, tense is the function of the deictic center and reference time, and aspect is the function of event time and reference time. The problem of many studies of Hebrew verbs is that "tense" is not given a clear definition. And the result of this is that it is not possible to distinguish between tense and temporal reference. This again means that there are no attempts to find when a temporal reference, say past reference, is based on the context (conversational pragmatic implicature) and when it is an intrinsic part of the verb form (semantic meaning ). I am aware of only one study of New Testament Greek where the mentioned three parameters are used but no study of the verbs of any Semitic language, except my dissertation on Hebrew verbs. > > In response to your concern that we my be getting off topic, I have no > further comments on Isaiah 44:24, unless someone else on the forum would care > to continue the discussion. > > On a somewhat related note, Ken: Is the forum aware of your scholarly work in > Greek Isaiah? I imagine that this group would appreciate it. > > Sincerely, > > Chris Lovelace > Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway _______________________________________________ b-hebrew mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
