[B-Greek] future indicative in Jonah 1:11, Matthew 13:15, and Isaiah
Ken Penner
kpenner at stfx.ca
Thu May 19 14:53:28 EDT 2011
Randall brings the Greek translation of Isaiah into the discussion, so I'll quote the text from Isaiah 6:10 (Ziegler):
EPACUNQH GAR hH KARDIA TOU LAOU TOUTOU, KAI TOIS WSIN AUTWN
BAREWS HKOUSAN KAI TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTWN EKAMMUSAN, MHPOTE IDWSI
TOIS OFQALMOIS KAI TOIS WSIN AKOUSWSI
KAI THi KARDIAi SUNWSI
KAI EPISTREYWSI
KAI IASOMAI AUTOUS.
ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν αὐτῶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν, μήποτε ἴδωσι τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσι καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσι καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσι καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς.
For comparison, the text from Matthew 13:15 is (according to NA27):
EPACUNQH GAR hH KARDIA TOU LAOU TOUTOU, KAI TOIS WSIN
BAREWS HKOUSAN KAI TOUS OFQALMOUS AUTWN EKAMMUSAN, MHPOTE IDWSIN
TOIS OFQALMOIS KAI TOIS WSIN AKOUSWSIN
KAI THi KARDIAi SUNWSIN
KAI EPISTREYWSIN
KAI IASOMAI AUTOUS.
ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν, μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς.
Randall notes two quirks in Isa 6:10:
1. Inconsistent Greek rendering of the two Hebrew sequential verbs at the end of verse 10. They are both waw-prefixed suffix-conjugation verbs in Hebrew. They were translated as an aorist subjunctive and a future, according to Ziegler.
I wouldn't put too much weight on this difference, and I don't think Randall would either, given what he knows about Greek orthography at that time. Sinaiticus (from which I'm writing the commentary on Greek Isaiah) actually has a future for both.
2. Rendering Hebrew imperatives as Greek indicatives ἐπαχύνθη and ἐκάμμυσαν (and βαρέως!). It seems to me that the translator understood the first of these Hebrew verbs H$MN as a passive suffix-conjugation verb, naturally rendered as a Greek aorist passive. In the case of the other two verbs, HKBD and H$(, the problem is that they are singular in Hebrew, but plural in Greek. It seems to me that this is because LAOS is a collective noun; this pluralisation continues into the "MHPOTE" clause, which has singular verbs in Hebrew and plural in Greek. Am I missing something else?
Since there are other explanations for the difference between the Hebrew and Greek, I don't think we would be justified in thinking the translators must have been trying to remove the irony. There could be a simpler, if more boring, explanation.
Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
kpenner at stfx.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Randall Buth
Sent: May-19-11 5:18 AM
To: B Greek
Subject: [B-Greek] future indicative in Jonah 1:11
Justice egrapse
>I was wondering if you all can help explain the use of the future indicative
in Jonah 1:11 after the subjunctive in the sailors' question. It seems to me
the future mainly marks a result in this type of construction. Is this
something inherent within the semantics of the future, or is this a special
pragmatic use in certain types of interrogative clauses, or subjuntive
settings? I think the same thing happens in the last clause of Matthew
13:15>
Jonah, of course, is translation and here it is simply mimicking the MT as
closely as it can. the Hebrew is using pragmatics to express a purpose/
result. It fronts a verb to the vav "and" but does NOT use the sequential
tenses in order to show the special pragmatics for the verb. Here the
yiqtol becomes markedly modal, which leads to the "intended result"
interpretation of the 'and'.
so far so good.
Matt 13:15 itself is simply following our LXX.
However, the LXX has one tiny little quirk. (Yea, two. See below.)
It only shifts to the future for the last verb even though the Hebrew
text used sequential verb forms for the last TWO verbs. The OG
translators could have mimicked the Hebrew form more closely, but
they didn't. I assume that they treated the last verb similarly to how
Greek speakers were learning to use 'translationese' like in the
case of Jonah 1.11 above.
More importantly for the interpretation,
the OG translators ignored the imperatives of the Hebrew and turned
them into indicatives. That removes some of the inherent irony of
the Hebrew text where the prophet was commanded to cause such
a result. (The OG readings do not follow the consonantal text either.
Even if they read the first imperative as a passive indicative, the
following two verbs do not fit with their Hebrew subjects in ways that
could support the OG.) Apparently the OG translators didn't want to
leave things 'ironic' when it came to interpreting God's intentions.
--
Randall Buth, PhD
www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
Biblical Language Center
Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list