From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 25 1996 - 15:20:42 EST
On 1/24/96, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I have a question or two from Dt. in the LXX. 6:11 says that the
>Israelites
> will get things they did not work for. The verbs for them not working
>forthem
> are generally Aorist, but the passage has a forward perspective "You didn't
> dig the cistern, but you get to have it". This is followed by
> KAI FAGWN KAI EMPLHSQEIS. These are Aorist participles, but they refer,
>I think,
> to a future event, i.e., when you get the houses and vineyards and cisterns
> and so forth, you will eat and be filled full. Howevver, that's not how I
> learned to trasnlate participles. It would be more like "after having
>both eaten
> and having been filled full". Is it common to understand Aorist
>participles as
> future in reference?
The reference of these aorist participles is actually to what follows in
vs. 12, "Be careful not to forget ..." The reference of the main clause is
indeed to the future (in the context of the Mosaic sermon, that is), but
these aorist are, I would say past-tense in relationship to the PROSEXE
SEAUTWi, MH EPILAQHi ..., so that their force is, "and when you have eaten
and been satisfied, then give heed lest you forget ..." So it's past, but
in relationship to a future time-frame. Latin is much more precise about
this and would call for a future perfect in this context, but Greek
participles, present, aorist, and future, when used in coordination with
other tenses and when their sense is temporal rather than aspectual, are
RELATIVE to the time of the verb in relationship to which they are
construed.
> I also have a question about 6:15: MH ORGISQEIS QUMWQHi.
> It seems necessary to take MH as hINA MH "in order that not", but I've never
> run across MH with an implicit hINA in it. Also what about the translation?
> "having become angry He may become angry at you?"?
This is a Semitism, representing what I think is called the
"construct-infinitive" in Hebrew, where the infinitive in construct form is
used along with a finite verb to intensify it. Conybeare & Stock (the only
LXX resource I have ready to hand) simply call it an INTENSIVE PARTICIPLE
(#81). Translate it something like, "You must surely not become angry."
> I noticed, BTW, that some words seemed to be "defined" by LSJM with the
> KJV equivalent, like "round about"? Are they glossing a lot for the LXX or
> really trying to give a "definition"?
I'd have to have an example to comment on that. Perhaps someone else will.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:36 EDT