NUN plus Aorist
Jonathan Robie
jonathan.robie at datadirect-technologies.com
Sun Nov 3 07:20:20 EST 2002
At 02:36 PM 11/2/2002 -0600, Steven Lo Vullo wrote:
>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.
Hi Steve,
I do not understand what you are saying is DOA about the approach. I am not
trying to find an explanation that fits only some passages, but I have not
yet analyzed all passages where this pattern occurs. I am also not saying
that the context has no bearing on the interpretation of NUN+Aorist, but I
am saying that I would expect NUN+Aorist to have a meaning, and that this
meaning would be interpreted in context.
In other words, I am positing that the Aorist has a meaning with respect to
time, and that NUN also has a meaning with respect to time, and in the
combination, the way that these two times interact - with each other and
with the context - tells us something about the meaning of the two
constructs. On the other hand, I am *not* presenting the results of a study
that I have done, I have spent a little time exploring this, but have not
done what I would call serious research.
Mari is assuming that the past time meaning of the Aorist is pragmatic -
implied, but capable of being overruled. Mark, as I understand it, is
assuming that the past time meaning of the Aorist is definitional, and
proposes a meaning consistent with that. Most of the passages I have looked
at so far can plausibly be read either way. I'm not likely to reach my own
conclusion on this question quickly.
>(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.
I may not have said this clearly, but I agree that this meaning is not
forced by the passage. What I was trying to note was that Mark's
interpretation, which seems to fit other passages, would also give a new
interpretation to this particular passage, one I had not anticipated. If
Mark's right, then his approach changes the way I read this passage in an
interesting way. Mari's interpretation is also consistent with this
passage, but doesn't change the way I would have read it. Either
interpretation is going to change the way I read some passages.
>> 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.
"All this time I just didn't get it, but now I have finally understood!"
Jonathan
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list