This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 16 December 2014, At: 08:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: AnInternational Journal of Nordic TheologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sold20

What the translation of tenses tells about theSeptuagint translatorsAnssi Voitila aa Department of Biblical Exegetics , University of Helsinki , P.O. Box 33, FIN‐00014Published online: 04 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Anssi Voitila (1996) What the translation of tenses tells about the Septuagint translators, ScandinavianJournal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology, 10:2, 183-196, DOI: 10.1080/09018329608585091

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09018329608585091

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

WHAT THE TRANSLATION OF TENSESTELLS ABOUT THE SEPTUAGINT

TRANSLATORS

Anssi Voitila,Department of Biblical Exegetics

P.O. Box 33, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki

In his paper "Translators' Handling of Verb Tense in SemanticallyAmbiguous Contexts"1 Prof. James Barr has stated that the translatorsof the LXX had succeeded well in rendering the verb tense. Accord-ing to him, "the translators have found the most suitable Greek tenseand that no other would have done. Thus in historical narrative, wefind long strings of aorists; in future prophecies, long lines of futures;in circumstantial phrases, often presents and imperfects; in subordin-ate clauses, often subjunctives and other appropriate constructions."2

Prof. Barr deems that this is due to the fact that the muddling of theverb tenses would have resulted in an unusable text. Furthermore, hestates that the translators did not have grammatical rules of how theHebrew verb system worked, and that they carried out their work bythe content and the indications of the context they translated.In the following paper I intend to question the position of Prof. Barr

by presenting some cases of what we may call the "muddling of theverb tenses". His main statements — the translator did not have any"precise or comprehensive theory of how the Hebrew tensesworked"3 and thus he followed the indications given by the context —require that there are no verb forms in the translation which do notfit into their context but are nevertheless in accordance with thenormal equivalent of the Hebrew verb translated. Barr gives a hypo-thetical example of an unsuitable rendering ie. suppose that at Gen 2,6

1 Presented during the IOSCS meeting in Jerusalem 1986 and published inSeptuagint and Cognate Studies 23 (Atlanta 1987), 381-403.

2 Barr 1987, 381.3 Barr 1987, 385.

Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament vol. 10 no. 2 (1996)© Scandinavian University Press

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

184 Anssi Voitila

yiqtol nVy» had been translated in the future tense instead of the im-perfect.In addition to the cases where past and future are confused — the

question raised by prof. Barr — I will put forward examples of con-fusing present and past. I know that there are also cases where thepresent might have been intended by the Hebrew author but the fu-ture has been used in the translation or even the other way round.These cases however are very difficult since it is almost impossible toprove the intentions of the author of the source text as well as thoseof the translator. The present and the future are so related in bothlanguages that there is always the possibility that the translator hasinterpreted the context differently from us. Actually, the Hebrew didnot have a future in the way Greek does.4

The material researched includes only narrative sections in thePentateuch — of course including direct discourse. Due to the largeamount of material in Gen, Ex and Nu only certain sections are in-cluded, namely Gen 2,1-8,21; 12,1-20,18; 37; 39-50; Ex 1,1-11,20;13,17-19,25; 24; 32,1-34,9.28-35; Lv 7,37-10,20; 24,10-14.23; Nu I;9,15-23; 10,11-14,45; 16,1-17,28; 20,1-25,19; Dtn 1-3,29; 9-10,11; 31,1-8; 34,1-12.

QATALFirst of all I will discuss some cases of the qatal in which the contextwould have required a translation other than the past tense.

Gen 44,20:ronx raw IDKV naV xin irvn no mm pp D'îpt iV'i... TÖKJI — και εΐπαμεν „ καιπαιδίον γήρως νεώτερον αύτω, καϊ ό αδελφός αύτοϋ απέθανεν, αυτός δεμόνος υπελείφθη ifj μητρί αύθοϋ, ό δε πατήρ αυτόν τιγάπτισεν.

In this particular case the qatal, being a stative, does not denote an al-ready completed action but a continous state. This could also be con-cluded from the larger context. Both persons under discussion, theyounger brother who is loved and the father who loves, are still verymuch alive. Nevertheless the aorist indicative instead of the present is

4 The Greek future expresses time and presents the action as a fact., seeRaphael Kühner - Bernhard Gerth, Ausführiche Grammatik der Griechi-schen Sprache. 11:1-2 Satzlehre (Dritte Auflage; Hannover-Leipzig 1898-1904). The Hebrew yiqtol, on the other hand, may be used also as apresent or past tense. Yiqtol has also various modal uses, see Paul Joiion,Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique (Edition photomechanique corrigée [Rome1923], Graz 1965).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 185

used. Other corresponding occurrences appear in Gen 1,21 and 22,2.5

Gen 46,32:won on^ TOK-V31 rnpai DJXXI vn ropo '»JK-'S jxs m û'BJjxm — οι δε άνδρεςεϊσίν ποιμένες- άνδρες γαρ κτηνοτρόφοι ήσαν- και τα κτήνη και τουςβόας και πάντα χα αυτών αγειόχασιν.

The nominal and the following verbal clause are both translated intoGreek by the verb ειμί. Even though both expressions picture thesame state of affairs in the present of direct discourse — My sons, thebrothers of Joseph are shepherds and cattle breeders —, the presentindicative appears as an equivalent in the nominal clause but in theverbal clause the qatal of the verbal root ΠΤΙ is rendered by the im-perfect indicative of the same verb. Provided that the nominal clauseis translated by a verb, the equivalent used is usually the present indi-cative. Renderings of this kind indicate that the translator does notalways pay attention even to the most immediate context he has justtranslated but translates only limited segments at a time and only ac-cording to the indicators of that particular segment. In this verbalclause the indicator is the qatal which according to the normal man-ner of translating is the past tense.

Prof. Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen has developed the idea of translatorsworking only on short segments at a time.6 As a proof he has pre-sented various syntactical phenomena that become understandableonly if the segmentizing manner of translating is presumed. Thesetypes of phenomena are apodotic και, repetition of the correlate inthe relative clause, conditional clauses without a main clause, a parti-cipium coniunctum -structure i.e. a connected participle the subject ofwhich does not agree with its main verb and other anacoluthae con-

5 Friedrich Blass - Albert Debrunner, Grammatik des NeutestamentlichenGriechisch (Bearbeitet von Friedrich Rehkopf; 16. durchgesehene Auflage;Göttingen 1984), (§ 333.2.Anm.5) considers these cases as the perfectiveaorist. The grammar mentions as an example Gen 22,2: Λάβε τόν υίόν σουτον άγαπητόν, δν ήγάπησας. The way of comprehending is naturally dueto the lack of the general picture of the renderings of verb forms in theSeptuagint.

6 Ilmari Soisalon-Soininen, "Beobachtungen zur Arbeitsweise der Scptuagin-ta-Übersetzer", Isac Leo Seeligmann Vol. III (Jerusalem 1983), 319-329, alsopublished in Studien zur Septuaginta Syntax (Herausgegeben von AnneliAejmelaeus und Raija Sollamo; Helsinki 1987), 28-39. Further studies onsegmentation as acriterion of translation technique, see Raija Sollamo,Renderings of Hebrew Semi prepositions in the Septuagint (AASF Β Diss19; Helsinki 1979), 136 n 1; James Barr, "The Typology of Literalism inAncient Biblical Translation", MSU XV (1979), 294-303; Anneli Aejmela-eus, Parataxis in the Septuagint (AASF Β Diss 31; Helsinki 1982), 30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

186 Anssi Voitila

structions and so on. These phenomena show that the translators were

seldom conscious of the following context, which had not yet been

translated, and were better informed on the part of the text they had

just translated. It may, however, be concluded from my examples that

they were not always aware of the previous context either.

Ex 1,18:

orjV>n nx pnni mn -αιπ yrcvv sno pV ism mV'oV Drum "fm jnjn — έκάλεσενδε ό βασιλεύς Αιγύπτου τας μαίας και είπεν αύταΐς Τι δτι έποιήσατε τοπράγμα τοΰτο και έζωογονεΐΐε τα αρσενα.

The activity of the midwives had surely continued until Pharaoh'spreventive action and would still have been going on without it, butthe translator uses his usual equivalent for qatal. (Contrary to the pre-vious examples in Gen, the translation is suitable for the present con-text.)

Nu 9,23:

nuJB τ>3 nw <B Vy no» mn> mavo ηκ wo·· mrr 'B bm wr· nw> 'B-VS — Sti διαπροστάγματος κυρίου απαροϋσιν, την φυλακήν κυρίου έα>ολάξαντο διαπροστάγματος κυρίου εν χειρί Μωυση.

This example is part of larger section beginning with verse 16, thatcontains series of iterative-habitual yiqtol and weqatal forms in nar-rative. This section describes how the Israelites were led on theirjourney from Sinai to Canaan. Despite the iterative and above all nar-rative context the author of LXX-Numbers has mainly used the fu-ture indicative as an equivalent in these chapters, but in this particularcase qatal, which at the end of this section seems merely to state thepreceding actions as ordered by God, is translated with the normalequivalent, the aorist indicative. This rendering demonstrates that thetranslator worked on a short unit at a time and that he noticed thechange of verb form: there was qatal, qatal is past tense, and hence herendered it with the aorist indicative without considering its suitabilityto the context.

Nu 25,18:lise -at Vi ΒΛ IVSJ IWX an'Vssa osV an orra »S — δτι έχθραίνουσιν αυτοί ύμίνεν δολιότητι, δσα δολιοΰσιν ύμας δια Φογώρ.

This is also a strange case. As is indicated by the conjunction '3, this is

an explanatory clause, the explanation consisting of a past action.

What precedes, is actually a narrative of how the oppression was put

to an end. What has led the translator to think of a present verb form

is the Hebrew participle, the most usual equivalent of which is the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 187

present indicative. The rendering of qatal by the same equivalent de-monstrates that the author of the LXX-Numbers was still aware ofhis previous clause, but these two Greek verb forms together showthe translator's inability to keep in mind larger units of the text.

We may conclude from the preceding cases that at least in theseverses "the context has not selected the Greek tense for itself",7 butthat the translations are based on the Hebrew tenses of the Vorlage.The following examples all of them from Numbers will strengthenthis observation even more.

In all these examples the qatal appears in the historical narrative andis preceded by the conjunction we. According to traditional Hebrewgrammars we + qatal which follows a past tense verb form and whichdoes not indicate iterative or habitual action in the past should betaken as qatal with the copulative we, and not as consecutive tense.8

Nu 14,13:3»ϊ· bu nom (14) προ ntn nsn ηκ yvz rrVyn Ό ΟΉΧΟ røpCT πιπ·> VK ?H»D Tarn

Ό »a» ηχΐη .ρχη — και είπε ν Μωυσής προς κΰριον Και άκούσεταιΑίγυπτος δτι ανήγαγες εν ίσχύι σου τον λαόν τοΰτον εξ αυτών, 14 αλλάκαι πάντες οί κατοικοΰντες επί της γης ταύτης ακηκόασιν ότι.

The larger context is evident: the Egyptians must already have heardwhat God had done for the Israelites, but the translator does not con-cern himself with the context but renders according to the Hebrewverb form which he has understood as weqatal. Needless to say, forthe translator weqatal is used for the future. He renders it with the fu-ture indicative. The following qatal with copulative we has not re-ceived an equivalent in Greek, but already the third qatal now with-out the conjunction has been rendered by the perfect indicative. Thisshows again how much the translator is bound by the form and thedetails of his source text.Nu 14,24:

mm> win nan; K3 -TOK γικπ VK rrwam 'in« ΙΛΟΌ ins mnx mi nrrn apy 3̂ 3 Π3»ι —ό δέ παις μου Χαλέβ, δτι έγενήθη πνεΰμα έτερον εν αύτω και έπηκολού-θησέν μοι, και εισάξω αυτόν εϊς την γην, εις ην εϊσηλθεν εκεί, και τοσπέρμα αύτοΰ κληρονομήσει αυτήν.

In this sentence the first qatal and the following wayyiqtol are asusually translated by the aorist indicative, although the idea of theHebrew text is surely to describe the present state of Caleb. The third

7 See Barr 1987, 385.8 See for example S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew

(Oxford 1892), § 133.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

188 Anssi Voitila

qatal however, with copulative we, is given its usual equivalent, not

because it now suits the larger context but rather because the transla-

tor interpreted it as weqatal and translated accordingly.

In Nu 10,11-25 we are told how the Israelites for the first time left

their camp-site in the wilderness. The expression "for the first time" is

explicitly stated in verse 13. In verses 11 to 16 the qatal and wayyiq-

tol forms are used and they are translated by the aorist indicatives

into the Greek. After that sequence from verse 17 onwards there are

six cases of w+qatal. In all these w + qatal cases the future indicative

is used as an equivalent despite the past time narrative context that is

telling all along about the same event. This kind of change in tenses is

uncommon in the Hebrew. The grammarians have tried to explain it

in various ways.9 It is very difficult to believe that it simply indicates

a shift from the simple narrative to the description of what usually

happened. For the purposes of our present discussion it does not mat-

ter what the right answer is, but we may be certain that the translator

noticed the change of verbal forms and proceeded in his work accord-

ingly. For the translator the verb forms were to be taken as weqatals

and the equivalent was naturally the future indicative.

Nu 10,17:

p»an ·Ύαη nno »jai jiuha '» iswi prcisn τινη — και καθελοΰσιν την σκηνήνκαι έΕαοοΰσιν οί υίοΐ Γεδσών και οί υιοί Μεραρί αϊροντες την σκηνήν.

Nu 10,21:

ana is p©an nx wym shpon 'KOT οτιπρη won — και έΕαοοϋσιν οί υιοί ΚααθαΤροντες τα άγια και στήσουπιν την σκηνήν, εως αν παραγένωνται.

Nu 10,25:

jjrttOïV ronan W? ηοχο p ••la mna Vn 5533 — και εΕαοοϋσιν τάγμα παρεμβο-λής υιών Δαν εσκατοι πασών των παρεμβολών συν δυνάμει αυτών.

It seems that at least in the examples above the context has not

influenced the translator's decision but because he worked only on

short units at a time, he was bound by the actual wording of his

source to such an extent that the result was not always successful.

The opposite also occurs. The future indicative is also used correctly

as an equivalent of qatal in connections where qatal indicates action,

the completion of which is thought to happen during the action of

9 See Driver 1892 § 148f; W. Gesenius - E. Kautzsch, Gesenius' HebrewGrammar as edited and enlarged by the late E. Kautzsch (English editionby A. E. Cowley; Oxford 1910). § 112 e, kk; Bo Johnson, HebräischesPerfekt und Imperfekt mit vorangehendem we (CBOTS 13; Lund 1979),42ff.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 189

speaking even though it is actually realised only in the future. VersesGen 14,22; 15,18 and Le 9,4 contain the qatal forms of this type. Thistype of qatal is sometimes translated by the perfect indicative or evenby the aorist indicative, the idea being to stress the completion duringthe speaking. Renderings of this kind are not to be taken as demon-strations of the translator's inability to understand the use and mean-ing of the Hebrew tenses, but rather as evidence of his care for therequirements of the context.

On the basis of the following examples it might also be claimed thatthe context has influenced the translation process, so not only theverb forms but also the context may have brought the idea of iter-ativity to the translators mind.

Ex 16,21::oon »nein om IVSK »Μ »Ή ipoa -ip33 wx lopVi — και συνέλεξαν αυτό πρωίπρωί, έκαστος το καθήκον αύτω· ήνίκα δε διεθεομαινεν ό ήλιος, ετήκετο.

Both of these qatal forms are preceded by the copulative we and thetranslator of Exodus may have interpreted them as weqatal forms,thus he has considered them as iterative-habitual in the narrative con-text and translated them accordingly by the imperfect indicative.These qatal forms may not be interpreted as consecutive because theyare preceded by wayyiqtol. Furthermore the ipaa ipaa "every morn-ing" which may perhaps be called an iterative indicator appears in thefirst part of the verse. Further evidence that the translator handles theend of the verse as a whole is the rendering of the paratactic con-struction with the conjunction ήνίκα δε.

Similar sequences of qatal forms connected with copulative we arefound in Nu 11,8. They may not be interpreted as weqatal forms be-cause they are in turn preceded by the simple qatal. But in this casethe first qatal without the copulative we is already rendered by theimperfect indicative and another preceded by ix in the middle. In thetreatises of Driver10 and Gesenius-Kautzsch11 it is stated that weqatalmay be found also after past tenses and that this kind of sequenceshould be understood as iterative. It could also be maintained that inthis verse weqatal is used in the iterative sense after past tense verbforms. The context makes it evident that these verbs indicate anaction that is repeated every day. However, in the Hebrew languageqatal is often used when according to our linguistic instinct the action

10 Driver 1892, §114a.11 Gesenius-Kautzsch 1910, § 112h.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

190 Anssi Voitila

should be understood as repeated. So intuitively, by means of the con-text, the translator could have got the idea that this verse needed aniterative rendering.

Nu 11,8:•ηΛ DSO3 1DSD rvni nos ιηκ l im "irisa IVPJI rraioa 153 ix ovra unoi lopVi osn 10»

pufn — και διεποοεύετο ό λαός και συνέλεγον. και τίλτιθον αυτό εν τωμύλω η ετοιβον εν τη θυεία, και fiu/ουν αυτό εν τη χύτρα και έποίουναυτό έγκρυφίας, και ην ή ηδονή αύτοϋ ώσει γεϋμα έγκρίς εξ ελαίου·.

Translation technically, the initial seven mentioned cases of qatal dif-fer from the rest by appearing alone in their contexts, most of themwithout the additional conjunction we, while the rest of the examplesare found in chains of more than one qatal form connected by con-junctions. If we consider the translation process, the difference inmeaning and in time is much easier to perceive when the verb formappears in a series marked by the additional conjunction, which maysignify a change in meaning, than when the qatal appears alone sur-rounded by other verb forms with different meanings and times.

WAYYIQTOL

The wayyiqtol may also be found in a context where the normal pasttense use of wayyiqtol and the meaning of the context are in conflictwith each other. But as this phenomenon is very rare, it may be con-cluded that the wayyiqtol does not appear as often in difficult and in-terpretative connections as did the qatal. Wayyiqtol is almost exclus-ively the verb form of narration.12

In two of these cases, which appear in Exodus, the wayyiqtol isformed from the root "inx.

Ex 3,17:'jsan px bx D'-iso ·>3ΪΟ mm TUSK TOXI 17 _ Drinx 'mpo ipt> tax') — λέγωνΕπισκοπΐ) επεσκεμμαι υμάς ... 17 και είπα Αναβιβάσω υμάς εκ της κα-

κώσεως των Αιγυπτίων εις την γην τών Χαναναίων.

This verse is a part of larger speech in which God addresses Moses inorder to liberate Israel from Egypt. In verse 17 God tells what he hasjust decided, "inxi This wayyiqtol has almost the same meaning asqatal 'max, "to express actions which although really only in processof accomplishment, are nevertheless meant to be represented as al-ready accomplished in the conception of the speaker",13 which nor-mally is translated by the present indicative. It would have been more

12 For the use and meaning of wayyiqtol see Joiion 1923, § 118.13 Gesenius-Kautzsch S 106 i.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 191

appropriate here as well. The text as it now stands makes the readerthink of something that is said earlier in the text. The rendering of theprevious qatal by the perfect indicative strengthens this interpretation.

Ex 4,23:«ras'i *» m rbv T^R TOK 23 'wii»·· nsa '33 ÏIVT τηκ η nsna VK maxi — συ δεέρεΐς τω Φαραώ Τάδε λέγει κύριος Υιός πρωτότοκος μου Ισραήλ· 23είπα δε σοι Έξαπόστειλον τον λαόν μου, Τνα μοι λατρεύστ).

This wayyiqtol is used in the same manner as the previous one. God isagain ordering Moses on how he should perform and speak before thePharaoh in the immediate future. Verse 22 begins with weqatal whichis preceded by the Hebrew imperative and weqatal forms all havingthe same imperative meaning. The wayyiqtol seems unusual in thiscontext. The translator follows the Hebrew verb forms and rendersthe weqatal form by the future indicative — which has an imperativemeaning in Greek — after that the following qatal is given the pre-sent indicative as an equivalent. It is all the more surprising that thewayyiqtol is then rendered by the past tense, the aorist indicative. Thetranslation would have been correct if Moses had already spoken toPharaoh.

Interestingly enough, the verse is continued by the Hebrew imperat-ive and copulative yiqtol, which has been understood as a final clauseby the translator. After this sequence there appears in the MT anotherwayyiqtol which in turn has received the present indicative as anequivalent, furthermore the Hebrew parataxis has been rendered witha conditional clause. The problem is why we have here the present in-dicative when the previous wayyiqtol was translated as past tense?The use of a conditional clause and present indicative here may indic-ate that the translator read a copulative yiqtol into his text.14 It mayhowever also be understood as a demonstration of the translator'sability to handle ambiguous contexts like this one where the interpre-tation of meaning of the verb whether past or present, is not going toobscure the intention of the source text. The translator rendered theseclauses as a whole, he did not simply translate individual words.

The wayyiqtol case in Ex 9,15 contains an example of the transla-tor's free interpretation of this normally past tense verb form. Theseverb forms are included in a long direct discourse where in verse 14God is threatening Pharaoh with future punishment, in verse 15 the

14 "The Septuagint translation with a conditional sentence is in keeping withthe context, the present tense being based on the unvocalized Hebrewtext.", Anneli Aejmelaeus, Parataxis in the Septuagint, 76

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

192 Anssi Voitila

qatal and wayyiqtol are meant to be understood as past tense irrealforms "I would have done this and that if 1 were not going to dosomething else". The translator has taken these verb forms to meanthe future because of the preceding context. He has not taken intoaccount the following text that makes his interpretations a little bitproblematic although not impossible. The qatal at the beginning of theverse makes it hard to claim that the translator read copulative yiqtolforms into his text.

Ex 9,15:pxn-p ironi ·α-α -pirnxi ηηιχ ;jx] τ-ηκ vnVå nns Ό — νΰν γαρ αποστείλαςτην χεΤρα πατάΕω σε και τον λαόν σου θανάτω, και έκτοιΒηστι απο τηςγης·

YIQTOL

Only in Nu and in Dtn the yiqtol of narrative contexts is translated bythe future indicative which is the most frequent equivalent of yiqtolin the LXX. This kind of yiqtol is commonly used to indicate re-peated i.e. iterative or generalising meaning.15

The following two examples are to be understood as generalising ina narration.

Nu 21,27:|Τ3Β?π 1X3 n^ainn nay p Vs — δια τοϋτο εοουσιν οί αϊνιγματισταί ̂ Ελθετεεις Έσεβών.

With this clause the Hebrew narrator wants to tell his readers thatthere still exists a poem concerning these events. The correct transla-tion would have been the present indicative. An example of a correctrendering of the yiqtol could be found in Nu 21,14 which is an intro-duction to the quotation of the Book of the Wars of the Lord. Theyiqtol introducing a paean of triumph that is presented once duringthe narration is rendered with the aorist indicative in Ex 15,1 and Nu21,17; in these cases the yiqtol is preceded by conjunction IK, markerof the preterite form. Other well rendered generalising yiqtol formsare found, for example, in verses Gen 2,10 and 50,3 where the pre-sent indicative is used.

The same sort of translations are also found in Dtn.

Dtn 2,20:catoT onV wip» cjnsni D'JJDV m α©' D'XDI xin >jx aamn CXST px — Γη 'ΡαφαΐνλοΎΐσθπσετοα· και γαρ έπ' αύτης κατωκουν οί 'Ραφαΐν ιό πρότερον, και οί

15 See Joüon 1923, § 113e-h (dans la sphère du passé le yiqtol exprime actionrépétée ou durative) and § 119 u-v (action répétée ou durative).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 193

ΑμμανΤται όνομάζουσιν αυτούς Ζορζομμίν.From the second clause of this sentence we may conclude that thesituation narrated is past (θ'»1?, τό προτερον), the yiqtol of the secondclause is rendered with the imperfect. The yiqtol of the third clausemay be also understood as it is translated, in the present indicative.This manner of rendering demonstrates again that the translator is notaware of the following context. The translation might even be under-standable, if it is taken as a part of the preceding direct discourse.

This way verse 20 could be divided into two, maybe even three seg-ments, the borderline being between the first yiqtol and the conjunc-tion ηχ. The translator noticed when rendering the second clause thatthe whole sentence should have been understood as past and he trans-lated the second yiqtol by the imperfect indicative. A very similarsituation is met with in Dtn 2,11 and a slightly different one in (theκηρ' is a generalising yiqtol rendered by the future indicative) 3,13.

Earlier in this paper we studied cases in which the qatal attached tothe copulative we was translated by the future indicative in narration.Again in Nu 9,16-23 in narration there appear iterative/habitual yiq-tol-forms that are rendered with the future indicative. The sequencebegins with Tan nvp Ό translated by ούτως έγίνετο δια παντόςmeaning "so it was continually". The translator, having noticed this,correctly uses the imperfect. In the next verse the yiqtol forms arerendered with the aorist indicative, which is useful Greek alternativefor the translation in the contexts of this type. Beginning from verse18 the translator uses as an equivalent the future indicative. Evidentlyhe does not pay any notice to his preceding translation, he has com-pletely forgotten the context and translates according to the Hebrewverbs. And as we have already noticed in the last verse of this se-quence, verse 23, the translator returns to the narrative, translatingverb forms in the past tense, not because he suddenly remembers thecontext but because there is also a change in the verb form in thesource text.

Nu 9,16-18:

V3 wp ΠΙΓΡ SD-VSI VKni»·" •>» wt£ πιπ* Ό bv 18 _ n W E?K ΠΚ-ΙΜ woy p»n -ran ΤΓΓΓ ρ

un' pràn bs psn pi»' -νάκ ·>α·< — ούτως εγινετο δια παντός· η νεφέλη έκά-λυπτεν αυτήν ημέρας και είδος πυρός την νύκτα ... 18 δια προστάγματοςκυρίου παοεμβαλοΰσιν οί υιοί Ισραήλ, και δια προστάγματος κυρίουάπαοοΰσιν- πάσας τάς ημέρας, εν αΤς σκιάζει ή νεφέλη επί χής σκηνής,παοεαβαλοϋσιν οί υίοΐ Ισραήλ.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

194 Anssi Voitila

Nu 9,23:TWO το mm "»s bs nov mm mowD nx wo; mm <s Vsi w mm Ό Vy — οτι διαπροστάγματος κυρίου απαοοϋσιν. την φυλακήν κυρίου εουλάξαντο διαπροστάγματος κυρίου εν χειρί Μωυση.

Examples of long strings of iterative/habitual yiqtol forms areinfrequent in the Pentateuch at least in the material studied in thispaper. The yiqtol used to indicate iterative/habitual meaning is trans-lated correctly by the imperfect indicative in Ex 33,7-11.

The yiqtol in direct discourse is in some rare cases translated by theaorist indicative. Examples of this phenomenon may be found in Gen47,25 and Ex 4,11. In both connections the yiqtol concerned is pre-ceded by the qatal that is rendered with the past tense verb form, inthe former the perfect indicative and in the latter the aorist indicative.Thus the context is interpreted as past by the translator.

Gen 47,25::?ISÏD^ onas O'Tii T « TS3 in-jnraj lamnn værn — και εΤπαν Σέσωκας ημάς,ευοομεν χάριν εναντίον τοΰ κυρίου ημών και έσόμεθα παίδες τω Φαραώ

Ex4. l l :_©ΤΠ ϊκ chu aàr va ix tnxV ns oto — Τις εδωκεν στόμα άνθρώπω, και τιςέποίτισεν δΰσκωφον και κωφόν...;

A more problematic case is found in Nu 16,5 where the Hebrew textbegins with a nominal temporal clause "ij?3 "the morning [is]" in thefollowing clause the copulative jussive appears, then two more yiqtolforms follow. The beginning of a direct discourse is rendered so thatthe noun npa is seemingly considered as a qatal verb (the perfect in-dicative used) and the following jussive with the copulative conjunc-tion we as wayyiqtol (the aorist indicative). This translation processdemonstrates that the translator does not know what the followingcontext is and that he takes the whole sentence as a narrative, hencehe is able to render the following yiqtol forms with the same pasttense verb forms. This kind of sequence, ie. the nominal temporalclause — this time an» "evening" — plus we + yiqtol is correctly trans-lated again in Ex 16,6.

Nu 16,5:rVx anjr» n -ny ni« nxi vVx anpm »npn nxi îV nwx nu mm jm nip Vx w i —και έλάλησεν προς Κόρε _ Έπέσκεπται και εγνω ό Θεός τους δνταςαύτοΰ και τους αγίους, καϊ προσηγάγετο προς εαυτόν, και ους εΕελεΕατοέαυτω προσηγάγετο προς εαυτόν.

There are cases where instead of the past tense the future is used andthe past instead of the present. Naturally, in the Greek, the present

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

What the Translation of Tenses tells 195

may be used instead of the past, since with the so called historicpresent there is no unambiguous way to recognise the confusion ofpresent and past. Consequently these cases are not dealt with here.

The cases studied above demonstrate that the context did not alwaysselect the suitable Greek tense for itself. It may not be argued thatthe context did not have any effect on the translation process of thetenses, but its influence was limited because of the habit of translatingonly short segments at a time and according to the so-called "easytechnique" — the concept introduced by Barr16 — which meanstranslating by the usual equivalent without an exhaustive study of thecontext. Of course, the influence of the context on the translationvaries with the different translators. The translator of Nu and to someextent also that of Dtn followed more closely the form of theirsource text than the translators of Gen and Ex, the latter being themost free also in this respect. Naturally, the material is too limited fordetailed descriptions of every translator's abilities or inabilities in thismatter. For example, in the studied parts of Gen there are no longstrings of iterative/habitual yiqtol/weqatal forms in the historicalnarrative. But, judging from the material discussed, it is obvious thatthe translator of Nu had difficulties in handling verb forms that didnot occur in their usual environment. He was able to render themcorrectly when they were marked with sufficient indicators of theiterativity but if the strings, in which they appeared, were too long, helost the preceding context completely, and translated them incorrectlyby the future indicative.

The fact that the translation was usable depended to a large extenton the fact that the Hebrew tenses were used according to their nor-mal usage; there are long strings of wayyiqtol and qatal forms in nar-ration, and in discourses yiqtol and weqatal forms are found. Whenthe qatal appeared in discourse, the translator was normally able todeal with it correctly, but yiqtol and weqatal caused occasional diffi-culties.

According to Barr, the literalism may not be claimed to concern thetranslation of verb tense. Nevertheless, I would use the term stereo-typing tendency in connection with the manner of translating dis-cussed above, when weqatal, yiqtol or w + qatal in historical narrativeare rendered with the future indicative, as well as when the qatal used

16 J. Barr, "The Typology of Literalism in Ancient Biblical Translations", 26.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

196 Anssi Voitila

to indicate present action, is given the aorist indicative as an equi-

valent. Furthermore when in the same immediate context the nominal

clause is rendered with the present indicative of the verb εϊμι but in

the verbal clause with the qatal of the verb rrn, the equivalent used is

the imperfect indicative of the same Greek verb.

The segmentizing manner of translating demonstrates also that the

translators did have a basic understanding of the use and meaning of

the tenses, even if they did not have the help of our grammatical and

linguistic historical knowledge. When they did not or could not resort

to the context, they rendered according to the tenses and the know-

ledge they had of them — in this respect the poetic parts are an ex-

ception but they are an exception already at the level of the source

text.

Abstract

In his paper read at the IOSCS meeting in Jerusalem 1986, Prof. James Barrhas stated that the translators of the LXX has succeeded well in renderingthe verb tense. His main statement — the translator did not have any "pre-cise or comprehensive theory of how the Hebrew tenses worked" and thushe followed the indications given by the context — require that there are noverb forms in the translation which do not fit into their context but arenevertheless in accordance with the normal equivalent of the Hebrew verbtranslated. I intend to question the position of Prof. Barr by presenting somecases of what he may call the "muddling of the verb tenses" which demon-strate that the context did not always select the suitable Greek tense foritself. It may not be argued that the context did not have any effect on thetranslation process of the tenses, but its influence was limited because of thehabit of translating only short segments at a time and according to the so-called "easy technique" which means translating by the usual equivalentwithout an exhaustive study of the context.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

41 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014