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@stfx.ca
Can someone help me with the last verb in Matt 13:15. Is it unusual that it
is indicative future? I was expecting another subjunctive. Would another
subjunctive mean about the same thing if the author had chosen one? Is there
a particular semantic function to the switch in mood with the last verb? I
was thinking that perhaps the future ind. here could indicate the result of
“turning”. I appreciate your help.
—
Joseph Justiss
—
Matt. 13:15 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.
[att. 13:15 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.]
Yes, it does indicate the consequences; note that IASOMAI is first-
person indicative future, its subject is God speaking; the subjunctive
forms are all third-personal plural.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
—
Dear Joseph,
I suspect the grammatical issue you want to review is CONDITIONALS.
English and Koine have different ways of conveying the logic of “IF …
THEN” statements.
In fact, there is even variety in contemporary English usage regarding these
constructions.
For example:
* If I were to listen, then I would hear; and
* If I was to listen, then I would hear
are two alternatives in standard modern English for exactly the same logic.
The first is the traditional form (I believe still prefered in educated US
English), the second is the form recommended in ESL teaching (and I believe
pretty standard in UK English).
Both English and Koine allow for a distinction to be made between FACTUAL
and COUNTER-TO-FACTUAL conditionals. In English, the distinction sounds
something like:
* FACTUAL: Whenever I listen properly, then I always hear clearly; and
* COUNTERF’L: If only I could listen properly, then I might hear clearly.
In Matthew 13:15, the contrast between the subjunctives and indicative
reflects the intended senses that:
1. that the speaker, God, does not actually expect the people he is talking
about to actually do the things he describes–so the statements are
counter-to-fact; BUT
2. that the speaker, God, *actually would* heal, if the people *actually
did* turn–so that statement is factual (about God’s *actual disposition* to
forgive).
I think your issue is how to carry this sense into English. If you want to
translate approximately one word for one word, you will need to turn the
Koine indicative into an English subjunctive, because English wants to mark
God’s response to the hypothetical people as a hypothetical response: they
won’t turn, so he won’t forgive. It’s ALL hypothetical, so it’s ALL got to
be “irrealis” in English. However, if we want to get the full sense of the
Greek into our English, we need to be a bit more creative. For example, I
might add the word “certainly” or “actually” to modify the verb “heal”, just
as we add auxiliaries in English to render Greek tenses.
alastair
—– Original Message —–
Cc:
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:44 AM
I have a dumb friend he asked me is the last verb “turn” – converted? Our heal. “I should heal them” ’cause heal is action by God right