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