[B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
Yancy Smith
yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Thu Mar 11 15:49:45 EST 2010
Well, this discussion is out of my depth. But I am taking the plunge,
14 καὶ ἀπεκρίθη Αμως καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς Αμασιαν Οὐκ ἤμην προφήτης ἐγὼ οὐδὲ υἱὸς προφήτου, ἀλλ̓ ἢ αἰπόλος ἤμην καὶ κνίζων συκάμινα, 15 καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με κύριος ἐκ τῶν προβάτων, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με Βάδιζε προφήτευσον ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν μου Ισραηλ.
14 KAI APEKRIQH AMWS KAI EIPEN PROS AMASIAN, "OUK HMHN PROFHTHS EGW OUDE hUIOS PROFHTOU, ALL' H AIPOLOS HMHN KAI KNIZWN SUKAMINA, 15 KAI ANELABEN ME KURIOS EK TWN PROBATWN, KAI EIPEN KURIOS PROS ME 'BADIZE PROFHTEUSON EPI TON LAON MOU ISRAEL.'"
Iver and Carl are right about not trying to squeeze too much juice out of a tense or using the wrong labels to describe a stative verb. It is so confusing when one does that. I would say that the verbal terms for actions like "perfective, imperfective, iterative, durative etc." are a category error for a state + or - denial. A state can be thought in terms of temporariness or permanence and the imperfect tense of ημην HMHN itself in Greek is no comment on either temporariness or permanence. Rather, it affirms remoteness of the state (logical or temporal) and is often used to communicate background information in narrative. It is also used to affirm hypotheticals. But it may tend to raise the issue of the relevance the imperfect about temporariness or permanence without settling it. The Hebrew text of Amos 7:14 has no verbs other than the discourse opener "Amos answered." Everything else in Amos 7:14 is background information. The same is true in Greek (with the imperfect supplied verbs supplied.) It would be weird (irrelevant) for Amos to say OUK HMHN PROFHTHS ... ALL' AIPOLOS HMHN with no further comment because the contrast between the more remote, backgrounded past state and the aorist action represents a focused change in status which resolves the issue of the relevance of the backgrounded information: καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με κύριος ἐκ τῶν προβάτων, καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρός με Βάδιζε προφήτευσον ἐπὶ τὸν λαόν μου Ισραηλ.
So it happens as well that the imperfect of HMHN is used before a perfective, to describe action for which we might use a pluperfect form.
BTW, here is a fun hypothetical, εἰ μὴ Ἀλέξανδρος ἤμην, Διογένης ἂν ἤμην, EI MH ALEXANDROS HMHN, DIOGENHS AN HMHN. "If I weren't Alexander, I would be Diogenes." Plutarch goes on to try to explain just what Alexander meant for half a page.
Here is a cool text from Cyril, Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali trinitate, dealing with a conundrum of theology arising from reading Prov. 8 Christologically:
Εἰ ἄνθρωπος ὄντως γεγενῆσθαι πιστεύεται Χριστὸς, πῶς οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον τὰ ἀνθρώπῳ πρέποντα λαλεῖν; Ἔδει γὰρ εἰπεῖν· Οὐκ ἐν ἀρχῇ ἤμην ἄνθρωπος, ὃ μόνῃ πρέπει τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, ἀλλὰ τηρῆσαι τὸ ἁρμόζον τῇ τῶν γενητῶν οὐσίᾳ. Γενητὸς δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος· διὰ τοῦτό φησι· «Κύριος ἔκτισέ με,» ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος
EI ANQRWPOS ONTWS GEGENHSQAI PISTEUETAI CRISTOS, PWS OUK ANAGKAION TA ANQRWPWi PREPONTA LALEIN? EDEI GAR EIPEIN: OUK EN ARCHi HMHN ANQRWPOS, hO MONHi PREPEI THi QEIAi FUSEI, ALLA THRHSAI TO hARMOZON THi TWN GENHTWN OUSIA. GENTOS DE hO ANQRWPOS: DIA TOUTO FHSI: "KURIOS EKTISE ME" hOTI GEGONEN ANQRWPOS.
If Christ is truly believed to have become human, how could it not be necessary for him to speak what is proper to humanity? For it was necessary for him to say, "I was not (HMHN) human in the beginning," something fitting above all to the divine nature, but [said] to keep harmony with the nature of mortals. And for this reason once born as a human, he says, "The Lord created me," because he has become a human being ...
Yancy
-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Mark Lightman
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Carl Conrad; Richard Lindeman
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
Hi, Richard,
I am a little confused myself, but if you put a gun to
my head, I would say either
a. The Hebrew simply means "I am not a prophet." But
by the time the LXX was written, Amos had become
accepted as a prophet, so the translators added the
verb to indicate that he HAD not been a prophet, but
he now is. They wanted to use the perfect to express this,
but because there is no perfect of EIMI they used the
imperfect. Smyth's "Imperfect for the Perfect." Wallace
and Zerwick do this too, all the time. The "genitive
for the dative," the "present for the future." That sort
of thing. The middle for the schmiddle.
OR
b. The LXX guys just wanted to jazz the text up
a little bit so they used a marked tense to do this.
Again they would have used ANY marked tense, but
all they had was the imperfect so they went with this.
If you still believe (b) I still agree with you, sort of.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
--- On Thu, 3/11/10, Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com> wrote:
From: Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
To: "Mark Lightman" <lightmanmark at yahoo.com>, "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 9:27 AM
Mark:
Now I am really confused. I have clearly wavered between several different possible takes on this text that have ranged between
iterative and non-iterative, perfective and non-perfective. So, exactly which "take on this text" are you now agreeing with?
Rich Lindeman
From: Mark Lightman
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:24 AM
To: Carl Conrad ; Richard Lindeman
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
Richard wrote:
<It may be that the question of whether HMHN is perfective here ultimately
comes down to the question of how emphatic the author is being in his
statement. Unfortunately Greek doesn't have an exclamation punctuation mark
to help us. But, in rereading the verse in context it seems to me that the
author is indeed trying to be emphatic... in which case both instances of
HMHN might then be taken as perfective.>
Hi, Richard,
This is essentially what Yancy said about the perfect. To the extent
that both the perfect and imperfect are "semantically Marked--I mean
marked" they both invite a reader's response to see the text as just
a little more emphatic if the reader chooses to do so.. The unmarked thing would
have been to use GINOMAI in the aorist, or, better yet, to leave the verb out--
again what the Hebrew did. But that would have made too much sense
because it would have left the meaning of the text too clear.
It reminds me of the recently discovered committee meeting notes of
of the LXX translation team:
DEMETRIUS: First order of business. The Roman Jews are accusing
us of being traitors. They are saying ""Traduttore, traditore."
DIONYSIUS: I say, if this be treason, let's make the most of it!
In other words, I agree with your take on this text.
Mark L
Φωσφορος
FWSFOROS MARKOS
--- On Thu, 3/11/10, Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com> wrote:
From: Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
To: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 7:49 AM
It may be that the question of whether HMHN is perfective here ultimately
comes down to the question of how emphatic the author is being in his
statement. Unfortunately Greek doesn't have an exclamation punctuation mark
to help us. But, in rereading the verse in context it seems to me that the
author is indeed trying to be emphatic... in which case both instances of
HMHN might then be taken as perfective.
Rich Lindeman
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:55 PM
To: "Richard Lindeman" <oblchurch at msn.com>
Cc: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
> On Mar 10, 2010, at 2:46 PM, Richard Lindeman wrote:
>> Let's take out the perfective sense for a moment...
>> "I was never a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I was always a
>> herdsman and a dresser of pigs."
>>
>> I don't think it says one way or the other whether he is now a prophet.
>> It just seems to be a comment on a past state of affairs.
>
> And what sort of "perfective" sense are we supposing that the verb EIMI
> should ever have?
>
> CWC
>
>> From: Mark Lightman
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:23 PM
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org ; Richard Lindeman
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
>>
>>
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>> <How about an iterative imperfect?
>>
>> "I have never been a prophet or the son of a prophet,
>> but I have always been
>> a herdsman and a dresser of figs.">
>>
>> Hi, Richard,
>>
>> Yes, that sounds good to me. My only question would
>> be, do you think the text means to indicate one way or
>> the other whether he is NOW a prophet?
>>
>> Mark L
>>
>>
>> FWSFOROS MARKOS
>>
>> --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Richard Lindeman <oblchurch at msn.com>
>> Subject: [B-Greek] A Perfect Imperfect (Was Hebrews 1:6 and 2:5
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 12:14 PM
>>
>>
>> How about an iterative imperfect?
>>
>> "I have never been a prophet or the son of a prophet, but I have
>> always been
>> a herdsman and a dresser of figs."
>>
>> Rich Lindeman
>>
>>> OUK HMHN PROFHTHS EGW OUDE hUIOS PROFHTOU,
>>> ALL? H AIPOLOS HMHN KAI KNIZWN SUKAMINA
>>> ?
>>> "I didn't used to be a prophet, nor the son of a prophet.
>>> Rather I was wont to be a herdsman and dresser of figs."
>
>
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
>
>
>
>
---
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
---
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