NUN plus Aorist

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sat Nov 2 15:36:52 EST 2002


On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Robie wrote:

> At 04:04 PM 10/28/2002 +0000, Mark Wilson wrote:
>
>> Preliminary conclusion then: the NUN plus Aorist emphasizes the
>> long anticipation and final occurrence of an event.
> >
>> The Perfect would more so emphasize the current state of the
>> anticipated event, but the  NUN plus Aorist emphasizes the
>> long interval that builds up. Perhaps it attempts to bring
>> added emphasis on the long wait/anticipation.
>
> I've been pondering this interpretation, and it really fits some 
> passages quite well.

Note what Mark said: "the NUN plus Aorist emphasizes the long 
anticipation and final occurrence of an event." It seems to me that one 
of the problems all along has been the formula "NUN plus aorist = 
whatever." That you say Mark's above suggestion fits *some* passages 
illustrates the problem, i.e., that it is not possible to capture a 
universal "meaning" of NUN with an aorist verb in every conceivable 
context. I think this whole approach is semantically DOA.

> For instance, consider the following:
>
> Ex 32:9 KAI NUN EASON ME KAI QUMWQEIS ORGHi EIS AUTOUS
> With your interpretation, God has been wanting to destroy them 
> Israelites for a good long time, and now it's time to do it. It fits 
> the context well.

(In my edition of the LXX this is 32.10.)

I'm not sure that NUN here is temporal rather than logical. (See Deut 
9.14, where it is omitted in Moses *rehearsal* of the event.) If it 
*is* temporal, it is important to note that it modifies the aorist 
*imperative*, not indicative. Now note carefully that Mark's suggestion 
includes the "final occurrence of an event" that was long anticipated. 
You seem to take the destruction of the Israelites as that which was 
long anticipated. If I have read you right, two points need to be made 
here:

(1) An imperative verb by it very nature (even a "pronouncement" must 
be distinguished from the result of what was pronounced) does not 
indicate the *occurrence* of what it commands, exhorts, requests, etc. 
The only *occurrence* or action is that of the command, exhortation, 
request, etc., itself. Now (logical) if we take Mark's suggestion at 
face value, what Yahweh had long anticipated was *Moses' consent* to 
his request. It would also perhaps imply that God had asked him for 
permission earlier in the book, and anticipates that now at last Moses 
will relent. I think this conclusion would depend on the 
*presupposition* that NUN plus an aorist *must* indicate the long 
anticipation and final occurrence of an event, because it is not 
apparent at all on the face of it.

(2) In point of fact, the plan outlined for Moses by Yahweh was never 
carried out (cf. vv. 10 and 14). So there was no "final occurrence" of 
a long anticipated event, if that anticipated event is, as you seem to 
indicate above, God's destruction of the Israelites. As I stated above, 
applying Mark's suggestion in this case would require us to believe 
that Yahweh long anticipated Moses' consent to his request. But even 
this did not materialize, so no matter how you cut it, there was no 
"final occurrence."

> Or:
>
> Ex 18:11 NUN EGNWN hOTI MEGAS KURIOS PARA PANTAS TOUS QEOUS
>
> The light bulb just went off - after all this time, now Jethro gets 
> it. God is greater than all the Gods.

I don't think this fits Mark's suggestion at all. His conclusion was 
that NUN plus the aorist "emphasizes the long anticipation and final 
occurrence of an event." Is it credible to think that Jethro *long 
anticipated* the day when he would finally realize that Yahweh was 
greater than all the gods, and now that long awaited day has come? This 
just doesn't seem credible.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list