Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Verbal Syntax in the Greek PentateuchNatural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference$

T. V. Evans

Print publication date: 2001

Print ISBN-13: 9780198270102

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2011

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 21 January 2019

Data and Interpretation

Data and Interpretation

Chapter:
(p.91) 5 Data and Interpretation
Source:
Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch
Author(s):

T. V. Evans

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270102.003.0005

Abstract and Keywords

This chapter supplies a statistical analysis of the MT formal matches for all 18,953 instances of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Interpretation of the data follows, focusing on the key features of independent Greek usage and Hebrew influence. The results are in general consistent with the findings of other scholars for small portions of the same material or for other parts of the LXX. But an advantage of this analysis is that it provides precise coverage of the evidence from a very large sample of text and embraces the entire verbal system. Because of this broad scope, this study demonstrates the formal matches with the MT more comprehensively than any previous analysis of the verbal system in translation Greek. It can be seen that some noteworthy patterns of usage emerge from so large a body of evidence.

Keywords:   imperfect indicatives, Greek Penteteuch, Masoretic Text, Hebrew influence, bilingual interference

5.1. Preamble

This chapter supplies a statistical analysis of the ΜΤ formal matches for all 18,953 instances of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. Interpretation of the data follows, focusing on the key features of independent Greek usage and Hebrew influence, as they are manifested in Tables 37.

It ought to be stressed in advance that my figures display no especially startling trends in Greek-Hebrew formal matches. Their results are in general consistent with the findings of other scholars for small portions of the same material or for other parts of the LXX.1 But an advantage of the present analysis is that it provides precise coverage of the evidence from a very large sample of text and embraces the entire verbal system (to the extent that the system is displayed within that sample). Because of this broad scope the present study demonstrates the formal matches with the MT more comprehensively than, any previous analysis of the verbal system, in translation Greek. It will be seen that some noteworthy patterns of usage emerge from so large a body of evidence.

(p.92) 5.2. The Data

Tables 37 treat separately the five Pentateuchal books. Each table is subdivided into a series of lists, which present the data for the various Greek verbal forms found in each book (in § 3.2 see Table 1 for concise tabulation of the frequencies of occurrence of these verbal forms and Table 2 for those of second and third person imperative forms; for the generation of Tables 37 see § 4.4.1). Each list is headed by the name of the Greek verbal form in question, together with its frequency of occurrence, and contains three columns.

The first column, ‘MT formal match’, displays the MT formal matches citable for the relevant Greek verbal form, For the seventeen categories of Hebrew formal match used in the tables see § 4.4.1. For the method of classification for verbal match categories compare the descriptive analysis of the Biblical Hebrew verbal system in § 3.3.5, with § 4.4.6 on morphological ambiguity. For the method of classification for non-verbal match categories see the explanations in §§ 4.4.24.4.4.

The second column, ‘Frequency of match’, displays the frequency of occurrence of each MT formal match represented in the first column. The sum of the figures in this second column necessarily equals the total frequency of occurrence of the Greek form, treated in each list.

The third column, ‘Match as %’, displays the frequency of occurrence of each MT formal match as a percentage of the total frequency of occurrence of the Greek form, in question. All percentages have been rounded to the second decimal place.

Table 3. The Greek Genesis: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus)

MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

3.1. Greek present indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 392

Minus

112

[T2 GP 105; T1 GP 7] 28.57

Ρronoun

69

17.60

Participle

64

16.33

Perfect

45

11.48

Particle

39

9.95

Imperfect

20

5.10

Noun

17

4.34

Adjective

12

3.06

Complex unit

9

2.30

Consecutive imperfect

3

0.77

Infinitive construct

1

0.25

Cohortative

1

0.25

3.2 Greek present subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 23

Imperfect

5

21.74

Minus

5 [T2 GP]

21.74

Cohortative

3

13.04

Particle

3

13.04

Infinitive construct

2

8.70

Participle

2

8.70

Complex unit

2

8.70

Consecutive perfect

1

4.34

3.3 Greek present optative

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Minus

1 [T2 GP]

100.00

3.4 Greek 2nd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 58

Imperative

40

68.97

Jussive

12

20.69

Consecutive perfect

3

5.17

Imperfect

2

3.45

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.72

3.5 Greek 3rd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 18

Jussive

13

72.22

Consecutive perfect

3

16.67

Imperfect

2

11.11

3.6 Greek present infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 82

Infinitive construct

62

75.60

Noun

7

8.54

Minus

5 [T2 GP 4; Τ1 GP 1]

6.10

Participle

4

4.88

Perfect

1

1.22

Imperfect

1

1.22

Consecutive imperfect

1

1.22

Complex unit

1

1.22

3.7. Greek present participle

Frequency of occurrence: 292

Participle

98

33.57

Infinitive construct

86

29.46

Noun

27

9,25

Minus

18 [T1 GP 13; T2 GP 5]

6.16

Infinitive absolute

13

445

Consecutive imperfect

12

4.11

Adjective

11

3.77

Pronoun

8

2.74

Perfect

6

2.05

Particle

4

1.37

Complex unit

4

1.37

Imperfect

2

0.68

Jussive

1

0.34

Consecutive perfect

1

0.34

Preposition

1

0.34

3.8. Greek imperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 296

Consecutive imperfect

69

23.32

Minus

65 [T2 GP 60; Τ1 GP 5]

21.96

Perfect

58

19.59

Participle

38

12.84

Particle

22

7.43

Pronoun

12

4.05

Consecutive perfect

10

3.38

Imperfect

8

2.70

Infinitive construct

8

2.70

Complex unit

4

1.35

Infinitive absolute

2

0.68

3.9. Greek future indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 527

Imperfect

270

51.22

Consecutive perfect

145

27.51

Cohortative

47

8.92

Jussive

13

2.47

Minus

12 [T1 GP 6; T2 GP 6]

2.28

Participle

11

2.09

Perfect

6

1.14

Imperative

6

1.14

Pronoun

6

1.14

Consecutive imperfect

3

0.57

Infinitive construct

3

0.57

Particle

3

0.57

Infinitive absolute

1

0.19

Noun

1

0.19

3.10 Greek future infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 2

Imperfect

2

100.00

3.11 Greek future participle

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Pronoun

1

100.00

3.12 Greek aorist indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 2.594

Consecutive imperfect

1,807

69.66

Perfect

627

24.17

Minus

69 [T1 GP 68; T2 GP 1]

2.66

Infinitive construct

40

1.54

Noun

16

0.62

Consecutive perfect

11

0.42

Participle

6

0.23

Adjective

5

0.19

Imperfect

4

0.15

Infinitive absolute

3

0.12

Jussive

2

0.08

Cohortative

2

0.08

Particle

1

0.04

Complex unit

1

0.04

3.13 Greek aorist subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 208

Imperfect

102

49.04

Cohortative

43

20.67

Consecutive perfect

20

9.62

Jussive

17

8.17

Infinitive construct

13

6.25

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

3.37

Perfect

3

1.44

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.48

Participle

1

0.48

Noun

1

0.48

3.14 Greek aorist optative

Frequency of occurrence: 22

Jussive

15

68.17

Imperfect

2

9.09

Noun

2

9.09

Consecutive perfect

1

4.55

Cohortative

1

4.55

Infinitive construct

1

4.55

3.15 Greek 2nd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 250

Imperative

217

86.80

Imperfect

10

4.00

Consecutive perfect

7

2.80

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

1.60

Jussive

3

1.20

Perfect

2

0.80

Participle

2

0.80

Particle

2

0.80

infinitive construct

1

0.40

Infinitive absolute

1

0.40

Noun

1

0.40

3.16 Greek 3rd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 38

Jussive

33

86.85

Consecutive perfect

2

5.26

imperfect

1

2.63

Cohortative

1

2.63

Imperative

1

2.63

3.17 Greek aorist infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 233

Infinitive construct

183

78.53

Imperfect

14

6.01

Perfect.

11

4.72

Noun

11

4.72

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

2.15

Consecutive imperfect

4

1.72

Imperative

2

0.86

Jussive

2

0.86

Cohortative

1

0.43

3.18 Greek aorist participle

Frequency of occurrence: 268

Consecutive imperfect

171

63.80

Participle

24

8.96

Imperative

21

7.84

Perfect

12

4.48

Cohortative

10

3.73

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

2.61

Consecutive perfect

6

2.24

Imperfect

4

1.49

Noun

4

1.49

Infinitive construct

3

1.12

Infinitive absolute

3

1.12

Complex unit

2

0.75

Pronoun

1

0.37

3.19 Greek perfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 101

Perfect.

86

85.15

Participle

4

3.96

Imperfect

3

2.97

Adjective

2

1.98

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

1.98

Consecutive perfect

1

0.99

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.99

Imperative

1

0.99

Infinitive construct

1

0.99

3.20 Greek perfect infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 3

Participle

2

66.67

Noun

1

33.33

3.21 Greek perfect participle

Frequency of occurrence: 27

Participle

18

66.67

Noun

4

14.81

Perfect

2

7.41

Consecutive perfect

2

7.41

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.70

3.22 Greek pluperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 16

Perfect

9

56.25

Participle

5

31–25

Imperfect

1

6.25

Consecutive imperfect

1

6.25

(p.93) (p.94) (p.95) (p.96) (p.97) (p.98)

Table 4. The Greek Exodus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus)

MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

4.1. Greek present indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 225

Minus

55 [T2 GP 48; T1 GP 7]

24.44

Participle

52

23.11

Consecutive imperfect

25

11.11

Pronoun

24

10.67

Imperfect

22

9.78

Perfect

20

8.89

Particle

13

5.78

Infinitive construct

4

1.78

Adjective

4

1.78

Consecutive perfect

2

0.89

Noun

2

0.89

Jussive

1

0.44

Complex unit

1

0.44

4.2 Greek present subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 45

infinitive construct

14

31.11

Imperfect

13

28.89

Pronoun

4

8.89

Minus

4 [T1 GP 3; T2 GP 1]

8.89

Consecutive perfect

3

6.67

Particle

3

6.67

Participle

2

4.44

Perfect

1

2.22

Jussive

1

2.22

4.3 Greek 2nd per sent present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 45

Imperative

33

73–34

Jussive

5

11.11

Particle

3

6.67

Imperfect

1

2.22

Consecutive perfect

1

2.22

infinitive absolute

1

2.22

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

2.22

4.4 Greek 3rd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 28

Jussive

13

46.44

Imperfect

10

35.71

Consecutive perfect

2

7.14

Imperative

1

3.57

Participle

1

3.57

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.57

4.5 Greek present infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 77

Infinitive construct

59

76.61

Minus

9 [T1 GP 8; T2 GP 1]

11.69

Noun

3

3.90

Perfect

1

1.30

Imperfect

1

1.30

Imperative

1

1.30

Participle

1

1.30

Particle

1

1.30

Complex unit

1

1.30

4.6. Greek present participle

Frequency of occurrence: 236

Participle

77

32.64

Infinitive construct

71

30.09

Noun

22

9.32

Minus

22 [T1 GP 21; T2 GP 1]

9.32

Adjective

11

4.66

Consecutive imperfect

9

3.81

Complex unit

7

2.97

Imperfect

6

2.54

Infinitive absolute

3

1.27

Pronoun

3

1.27

Perfect

2

0.85

Consecutive perfect

1

0.42

Imperative

1

0.42

Preposition

1

0.42

4.7 Greek imperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 128

Consecutive imperfect

37

28.90

Perfect

27

21.09

Imperfect

12

9.38

Consecutive perfect

12

9.38

Pronoun

9

7.03

Minus

9 [T2 GP 8; T1 GP 1]

7.03

Participle

8

6.25

Infinitive construct

7

5.47

Particle

4

3.13

Noun

2

1.56

Adjective

1

0.78

4.8 Greek future indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 956

Imperfect

439

45.93

Consecutive perfect

433

45.29

Minus

26 [T1 GP 18; T2 GP 8]

2.72

Cohortative

16

1.67

Jussive

11

1.15

Participle

10

1.05

Imperative

7

0.73

Infinitive construct

3

0.31

Noun

3

0.31

Perfect

2

0.21

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.21

Infinitive absolute

2

0.21

Complex unit

2

0.21

4.9. Greek future participle

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Imperfect

1

100.00

4.10. Greek aorist indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 1.096

Consecutive imperfect

693

63.24

Perfect

316

28.83

Imperfect

20

1.82

Minus

18 [T1 GP 17; T2 GP 1]

1.64

infinitive construct

16

1.46

Consecutive perfect

13

1.19

Participle

6

0.55

Noun

6

0.55

Infinitive absolute

2

0.18

Complex unit

2

0.18

Imperative

1

0.09

Pronoun

1

0.09

Adjective

1

0.09

Particle

1

0.09

4.11. Greek aorist subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 259

Imperfect

138

53.27

Consecutive perfect

46

17.76

Jussive

21

8.11

Infinitive construct

14

5.41

Cohortative

13

5.02

Minus

8 [T1 GP]

3.09

Participle

6

2.32

Perfect

5

1.93

Complex unit

4

1.54

Imperative

2

0.77

Infinitive absolute

1

0.39

Adjective

1

0.39

4.12 Greek aorist optative

Frequency of occurrence: 4

imperfect

2

50.00

Jussive

2

50.00

4.13 Greek 2nd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 156

Imperative

133

85.26

Imperfect

9

5.77

Consecutive perfect

8

5.13

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

1.92

Jussive

2

1.28

Infinitive absolute

1

0.64

4.14 Greek 3rd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 25

Jussive

15

60.00

Consecutive perfect

5

20.00

Imperfect

3

12.00

Adjective

1

4.00

Preposition

1

4.00

4.15 Greek aorist infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 140

Infinitive construct

116

82.87

Imperfect

5

3.57

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

2.86

Perfect

3

2.14

Consecutive perfect

3

2.14

Participle

3

2.14

Imperative

2

1.43

Noun

2

1.43

Jussive

1

0.71

Infinitive absolute

1

0.71

4.16 Greek aorist participle

Frequency of occurrence: 114

Consecutive imperfect

54

47.37

Consecutive perfect

10

8.77

Imperative

9

7.89

Perfect

6

5.26

Participle

6

5.26

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

5.26

Imperfect

5

4.39

jussive

4

3.51

infinitive construct

4

3.51

Infinitive absolute

4

3.51

Noun

3

2.63

Cohortative

1

ο.88

Preposition

1

0.88

Complex unit

1

ο.88

4.17. Greek Perfect Indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 97

Perfect

77

79 39

Participle

9

9.28

Consecutive imperfect

4

4.12

Infinitive construct

3

3.09

Imperfect

2

2.06

Noun

1

1.03

Adjective

1

1.03

4.18. Greek perfect subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 5

Imperfect

4

80.00

Cohortative

1

20.00

4.19. Greek perfect infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 4

Perfect

3

75.00

imperfect

1

25.00

4.20. Greek perfect participle

Frequency of occurrence: 118

Participle

63

53.39

Adjective

19

16.10

Noun

16

13.56

Minus

9 [T1 GP 8; T2 GP 1]

7.63

Perfect

4

3.39

Imperfect

2

1.69

Complex unit

2

1.69

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.85

Consecutive perfect

1

0.85

infinitive construct

1

0.85

4.21. Greek pluperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 7

Perfect

3

42.85

Consecutive imperfect

2

28.57

Imperfect

1

14.29

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

14.29

(p.99) (p.100) (p.101) (p.102) (p.103) (p.104)

Table 5. The Greek Leviticus: MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus)

MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

5.1. Greek present indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 245

Pronoun

98

40.00

Minus

69 [T2 GP 60; Τ1 GP 9]

28.16

Participle

29

11.83

Imperfect

19

7.76

Perfect

9

3.67

Particle

8

3.27

Complex unit

6

2.45

Noun

4

1.63

Preposition

2

0.82

Infinitive construct

1

0.41

5.2. Greek present subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 61

Imperfect

31

50.81

Minus

12 [T2 GP 10; Τ1 GP 2]

19.67

Particle

5

8.20

Consecutive perfect

3

4.92

Infinitive construct

3

4.92

Pronoun

2

3.28

Complex unit

2

3.28

Participle

1

1.64

Noun

1

1.64

Preposition

1

1.64

5.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 2

Imperfect

1

50.00

Jussive

1

50.00

5.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 22

Imperfect

18

81.81

Jussive

3

13.64

Consecutive perfect

1

4.55

5.5. Greek present infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 26

Infinitive construct

24

92.31

Imperfect

2

7.69

5.6. Greek present participle

Frequency of occurrence: 249

Participle

102

40.96

Infinitive construct

55

22.09

Adjective

35

14.06

Noun

23

9.24

Pronoun

13

5.22

Minus

7 [T1 GP]

2.81

Imperfect

6

2.41

Infinitive absolute

6

2.41

Preposition

2

0.80

5.7. Greek imperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 3

Minus

2 [T2GP]

66.67

Infinitive construct

1

33.33

5.8. Greek future indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 1,279

Consecutive perfect

641

50.11

Imperfect

574

44.87

Minus

23 [T1 GP 18; Τ2 GP 5]

1.79

Jussive

15

1.17

Pronoun

7

0.55

Infinitive construct

5

0.39

Perfect

2

0.16

Imperative

2

0.16

Infinitive absolute

2

0.16

Noun

2

0.16

Complex unit

2

0.16

Consecutive imperfect

1

0.08

Participle

1

0.08

Adjective

1

0.08

Particle

1

0.08

5.9. Greek aorist indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 333

Consecutive imperfect

181

54.36

Perfect

131

39.34

Infinitive construct

7

2.10

Imperfect

5

1.50

Noun

4

1.20

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

1.20

Consecutive perfect

1

0.30

5.10. Greek aorist subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 295

Imperfect

187

63.39

Consecutive perfect

50

16.95

Perfect

20

6.78

Infinitive construct

19

6.44

Participle

8

2.71

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

1.69

Noun

3

1.02

Jussive

2

0.68

Infinitive absolute

1

0.34

5.11. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 42

Imperative

39

92.86

Imperfect

3

7.14

5.12. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 3

Imperfect

2

66.67

Jussive

1

33.33

5.13 Greek aorist infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 85

Infinitive construct

71

83.53

Noun

8

9.41

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

3.53

Consecutive perfect

2

2.35

Perfect

1

1.18

5.14. Greek aorist participle

Frequency of occurrence: 63

Participle

26

41.28

Consecutive perfect

13

20.64

Consecutive imperfect

6

9.52

Perfect

4

6.35

Imperfect

4

6.35

Infinitive absolute

3

4.76

Noun

3

4.76

Infinitive construct

2

3.17

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

3.17

5.15. Greek perfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 23

Perfect

19

82.60

Noun

2

8.70

Consecutive imperfect

1

4.35

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

4.35

5.16. Greek perfect subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Imperfect

1

100.00

5.17. Greek perfect participle

Frequency of occurrence: 66

Participle

29

43.94

Noun

15

22.72

Adjective

12

18.18

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

4.54

Infinitive construct

2

3.03

Complex unit

2

3.03

Perfect

1

1.52

Imperfect

1

1.52

Consecutive perfect

1

1.52

5.18. Greek pluperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 3

Perfect

3

100.00

(p.105) (p.106) (p.107) (p.108)

Table 6. The Greek Numbers; ΜΤ Matches for Verbal Forms (‘T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus)

ΜΤ formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

6.1. Greek present indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 198

Minus

46 [T2 GP 40; T1 GP 6]

23.23

Participle

35

17.67

Pronoun

34

17.17

Imperfect

26

13.13

Perfect

18

9.09

Particle

17

8.58

Consecutive imperfect

7

3.54

Noun

6

3.03

Adjective

4

2.02

Consecutive perfect

2

1.01

Infinitive construct

1

0.51

Preposition

1

0.51

Complex unit

1

0.51

6.2. Greek present subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 26

Infinitive construct

7

26.92

Particle

6

23.08

Perfect

5

19.23

Imperfect

5

19.23

Pronoun

2

7.69

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

3.85

6.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 13

Imperative

8

61.54

Jussive

3

23.08

Infinitive absolute

1

7.69

Particle

1

7.69

6.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 15

Imperfect

10

66.67

Jussive

2

13.33

Adjective

2

13.33

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

6.67

6.5. Greek present infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 54

Infinitive construct

36

66.67

Noun

16

29.63

Participle

1

1.85

Complex unit

1

1.85

6.6. Greek present participle

Frequency of occurrence: 297

Participle

114

38.39

Infinitive construct

92

30.98

Minus

35 [T1 CP 32; T2 GP 3]

11.78

Noun

17

5.72

Adjective

11

3.70

Pronoun

7

2.36

Preposition

7

2.36

Infinitive absolute

6

2.02

Perfect

3

1.01

Imperfect

2

0.67

Complex unit

2

0.67

Consecutive perfect

1

0.34

6.7. Greek imperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 64

Consecutive imperfect

18

28.12

Perfect

16

25.00

Consecutive perfect

6

9.38

Participle

6

9.38

Imperfect

5

7.81

Particle

4

6.25

Minus

4 [T2 GP 4]

6.25

Noun

2

3.13

Infinitive construct

1

1.56

Pronoun

1

1.56

Complex unit

1

1.56

6.8. Greek future indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 846

Imperfect

400

47.28

Consecutive perfect

367

43.38

Minus

26 [T1 GP 21; T2 GP 5]

3.07

Cohortative

13

1.54

Jussive

11

1.30

Perfect

7

0.83

Imperative

5

0.59

Noun

5

0.59

Participle

4

0.47

Pronoun

4

0.47

Particle

2

0.24

Preposition

1

0.12

Complex unit

1

0.12

6.9. Greek future infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Imperfect

1

100.00

6.10. Greek aorist indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 1,001

Consecutive imperfect

654

65.33

Perfect

285

28.47

Infinitive construct

17

1.70

Imperfect

14

1.40

Minus

10 [T1 GP]

1.00

Participle

7

0.70

Consecutive perfect

5

0.50

Noun

5

0.50

Complex unit

2

0.20

Jussive

1

0.10

Adjective

1

0.10

6.11. Greek aorist subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 200

Imperfect

104

52.00

Consecutive perfect

26

13.00

Infinitive construct

17

8.50

Jussive

14

7.00

Perfect

13

6.50

Consecutive imperfect

8

4.00

Cohortative

5

2.50

Noun

5

2.50

Participle

3

1.50

Complex unit

2

1.00

Minus

2 [T1 GP 1; T2 GP 1]

1.00

Infinitive absolute

1

0.50

6.12. Greek aorist optative

Frequency of occurrence: 14

Jussive

9

64.28

Imperfect

2

14.29

Particle

2

14.29

Infinitive construct

1

7.14

6.13. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 132

Imperative

109

82.57

Imperfect

9

6.82

Consecutive perfect

5

3.79

Minus

4 [T1 GP]

3.03

Infinitive absolute

3

2.27

Jussive

1

0.76

Participle

1

0.76

6.14. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 19

Jussive

12

63.15

Imperfect

5

26.32

Consecutive perfect

2

10.53

6.15. Greek aorist infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 123

Infinitive construct

99

80.47

Noun

10

8.13

Minus

5 [T1 GP]

4.07

Imperfect

3

2.44

Perfect

2

1.63

Jussive

2

1.63

Consecutive perfect

2

1.63

6.16 Greek aorist participle

Frequency of occurrence: 114

Consecutive imperfect

53

46.50

Participle

24

21.05

Perfect

11

9.65

Imperfect

4

3.51

Infinitive construct

4

3.51

Infinitive absolute

4

3.51

Noun

4

3.51

Consecutive perfect

3

2.63

Imperative

2

1.75

Adjective

2

1.75

Complex unit

2

1.75

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

0.88

6.17. Greek perfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 68

Perfect

55

80.88

Participle

8

11.77

Noun

2

2.94

Consecutive imperfect

1

1.47

Imperfect

1

1.47

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.47

6.18. Greek perfect participle

Frequency of occurrence: 123

Participle

94

76.43

Noun

17

13.82

Adjective

6

4.88

Perfect

4

3.25

Infinitive construct

1

0.81

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

0.81

6.19. Greek pluperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 6

Participle

4

66.67

Perfect

2

33.33

(p.109) (p.110) (p.111) (p.112) (p.113)

Table 7. The Greek Deuteronomy; MT Matches for Verbal Forms (T1 = Type 1; T2 = Type 2; GP = Greek Plus)

MT formal match

Frequency of match

Match as %

7. 1. Greek present indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 280

Participle

140

50.00

Minus

39 [T2GP35; T1 GP 4]

13.93

Pronoun

26

9.28

Perfect

22

7.85

Imperfect

18

6.43

Particle

18

6.43

Adjective

6

2.14

Noun

4

1.43

Complex unit

4

1.43

Jussive

1

0.36

Consecutive perfect

1

0.36

Infinitive construct

1

0.36

7.2. Greek present subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 60

Imperfect

37

61.66

Noun

4

6.67

Minus

4 [T1 GP 3; T2 GP 1]

6.67

Infinitive construct

3

5.00

Adjective

3

5.00

Perfect

2

3.33

Consecutive perfect

2

3.33

Complex unit

2

3.33

Cohortative

1

1.67

Participle

1

1.67

Particle

1

1.67

7.3. Greek 2nd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 51

Imperative

33

64.72

Jussive

6

11.76

Imperfect

5

9.80

Consecutive perfect

2

3.92

Infinitive absolute

2

3.92

Infinitive construct

1

1.96

Particle

1

1.96

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

1.96

7.4. Greek 3rd person present imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 16

Jussive

11

68.75

Adjective

3

18.75

Imperfect

1

6.25

Consecutive perfect

1

6.25

7.5. Greek present infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 141

Infinitive construct

118

83.67

Imperfect

6

4.26

Noun

6

4.26

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

4.26

Consecutive perfect

2

1.42

Perfect

1

0.71

Imperative

1

0.71

Preposition

1

0.71

7.6. Greek present participle

Frequency of occurrence: 243

Participle

115

47.33

Infinitive construct

65

26.75

Adjective

17

7.00

Noun

16

6.58

Infinitive absolute

10

4.12

Minus

7 [T1 CP 6; T2 GP 1]

2.88

Pronoun

4

1.65

Perfect

2

0.82

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.82

Particle

2

0.82

Imperfect

1

0.41

Preposition

1

0.41

Complex unit

1

0.41

7.7. Greek imperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 52

Perfect

22

42.30

Consecutive imperfect

11

21.15

Participle

6

11.54

Minus

5 [T2 GP 3; T1 GP 2]

9.62

Particle

3

5.77

Infinitive construct

2

3.85

Adjective

2

3.85

Pronoun

1

1.92

7.8. Greek future indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 1,087

Imperfect

520

47.84

Consecutive perfect

469

43·15

Jussive

22

2.02

Minus

22 [T1 GP 20; T2 GP 2]

2.02

Cohortative

19

1.75

Participle

8

0.74

Consecutive imperfect

7

0.64

Particle

5

0.46

Perfect

4

0.37

Noun

4

0.37

Imperative

3

0.28

Infinitive absolute

2

0.18

Infinitive construct

1

0.09

Adjective

1

0.09

7.9. Greek future participle

Frequency of occurrence: 1

Participle

1

100.00

7.10. Greek aorist indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 680

Perfect

400

58.81

Consecutive imperfect

213

31.32

Imperfect

25

3.68

Infinitive construct

14

2.06

Participle

9

1.32

Minus

8 [T1 GP]

1.18

Consecutive perfect

4

0.59

Noun

4

0.59

Jussive

1

0.15

Infinitive absolute

1

0.15

Particle

1

0.15

7.11 Greek aorist subjunctive

Frequency of occurrence: 426

Imperfect

238

55.87

Consecutive perfect

101

23.71

Infinitive construct

40

9.39

Jussive

15

3.52

Cohortative

9

2.11

Noun

6

1.41

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

1.41

Perfect

4

0.94

Participle

4

0.94

Consecutive imperfect

2

0.47

Complex unit

1

0.23

7.12.Greek aorist optative

Frequency of occurrence: 39

Jussive

17

43.60

Particle

12

30.77

Imperfect

8

20.51

Consecutive perfect

1

2.56

Imperative

1

2.56

7.13. Greek 2nd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 78

Imperative

62

79.48

Infinitive absolute

4

5.13

Imperfect

3

3.85

Consecutive perfect

3

3.85

Minus

3 [T1 GP]

3.85

Perfect

1

1.28

Infinitive construct

1

1.28

Particle

1

1.28

7.14. Greek 3rd person aorist imperative

Frequency of occurrence: 18

Jussive

11

61.10

Imperfect

3

16.67

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

11.11

Cohortative

1

5.56

Adjective

1

5.56

7.15 Greek aorist infinitive

Frequency of occurrence: 185

Infinitive construct

164

88.66

Perfect

6

3.24

Minus

6 [T1 GP]

3.24

Noun

4

2.16

Imperfect

3

1.62

Cohortative

1

0.54

Preposition

1

0.54

7.16. Greek aorist participle

Frequency of occurrence: 120

Consecutive perfect

33

27.50

Participle

19

15.83

Consecutive imperfect

18

15.00

Imperfect

17

14.16

Perfect

9

7.50

Infinitive construct

9

7.50

Imperative

5

4.17

Jussive

2

1.67

Infinitive absolute

2

1.67

Complex unit

2

1.67

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

1.67

Cohortative

1

0.83

Noun

1

0.83

7.17. Greek perfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 64

Perfect

51

79.68

Participle

7

10.94

Imperfect

4

6.25

Minus

2 [T1 GP]

3.13

7.18. Greek perfect infinitiveFrequency of occurrence: 5

Infinitive construct

5

100.00

7.19. Greek perfect participle

Frequency of occurrence: 65

Participle

44

67.68

Noun

14

21.54

Adjective

2

3.08

Particle

2

3.08

Perfect

1

1.54

Infinitive construct

1

1.54

Complex unit

1

1.54

7.20. Greek pluperfect indicative

Frequency of occurrence: 9

Perfect

7

77.78

Participle

1

11.11

Minus

1 [T1 GP]

11.11

(p.114) (p.115) (p.116) (p.117) (p.118)

5.3. Analysis of the Data

5.3.1. Preliminary comments

The data collected in Tables 37 demonstrate the practical results for the LXX translation of those major structural differences between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems which were described in Chapter 3. The Greek verbal usage is obviously natural in many respects. On the other hand, the data also show clear influence from the underlying Hebrew on choices of Greek forms. The two factors of natural Greek usage and Hebrew influence (and the tensions between them) control all syntactical phenomena in translation Greek. The purpose of the following discussion is to clarify the effects of these factors on verbal aspect, tense, and mood in the Greek Pentateuch, to the extent that they are brought out by the statistical analysis.

The treatment of this section involves a systematic assessment of significant trends in usage demonstrated by the Greek—Hebrew matches. It should be read in conjunction with the relevant lists from Tables 37. Illustrative examples have been chosen from all five books and unless otherwise stated it can be assumed that they demonstrate characteristic Pentateuchal usage of the features in question. Except in certain special cases, which will be clear from my commentary, the intention is not to provide exhaustive references on particular usages. In addition, percentages cited in the discussion are mostly approximate. For precise percentages see the tables.

(p.119) 5.3.2. Present indicatives

The present indicative (Tables 3.1; 4.1; 5.1; 6.1; 7.1), well represented in all the Pentateuchal books, shows no consistent tendency to match any one Hebrew construction. Biblical Hebrew has no single tense form or construction which this Greek form, might naturally render. Rather, it can approximate a variety of Hebrew expressions. Chief among its matches throughout the Pentateuchal books are Minus, Pronoun, and Participle.

The category Minus is the most common match in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, accounting for over 28 per cent of examples in Genesis and over 23 per cent in all the other books except Deuteronomy. The other two categories are somewhat less well represented in general, but Pronoun is the most common match in Leviticus, where it accounts for 40 per cent of examples, and Participle the same in Deuteronomy, giving 50 per cent of that book's examples. The common copulative use of εỉμí, for which Hebrew has no verbal equivalent, is largely responsible for the high frequencies of Minus and Pronoun and also for the notable minority match Particle (§§ 4.4.2, 4.4.4). The match with Participle is due to the frequent use of the Hebrew participle as predicate in a nominal sentence, a usage very often rendered by a Greek present indicative, e.g. Deut. 4: 14 ἐπì τἣς γἣς, εỉς ἣν ὑμεἳς εỉσπορεύσθε ἐκεἳ for בארץ אשׁר אתם עברים שׁמה‎. Note that these four matches—Minus, Pronoun, Participle, and Particle—share a common feature, since they all represent elements of Hebrew nominal sentences.

In all books Perfect and Imperfect are significant minority matches for the present indicative, which to a limited degree overlaps functionally with both the perfect and the imperfect tense forms in Hebrew. Thus, ἐπíσταμαι for ידעחי‎ at Exod. 4: 14 and 9: 30; κατακαίεται for יבער‎ at Exod. 3: 3. The idiolect preference of the Exodus translator for the historic present explains the comparatively high frequency of the match Consecutive Imperfect—25 instances representing 11 per cent of all matches—in that book.2 (p.120) The Hebrew consecutive imperfect is characteristic of past narrative contexts. Of the 26 examples (according to my count) of the historic present in Exodus, 24 correspond to Consecutive Imperfect. The two remaining examples render והנה‎4.4.2 and n. 37).

5.3.3. Imperfect indicatives

The Greek imperfect indicative (Tables 3.8; 4.7; 5.7; 6.7; 7.7) shows varying match patterns, perhaps linked partly to varying frequencies of occurrence, in the different books. Given this form's natural associations with past narrative, the counts for Perfect and Consecutive Imperfect are not surprisingly most frequent. Together they provide almost 43 per cent of the 296 occurrences in Genesis, (p.121) 50 per cent of the 128 in Exodus, 53 per cent of the 64 in Numbers, and 63 per cent of the 52 in Deuteronomy. The statistics from Leviticus are negligible, since by my reckoning that book contains only three occurrences of the Greek imperfect (see App. 1, § 1(c) and the relevant lists of App. 2, §§ 1, 2).

On the other hand, the functional composite of Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect is a noteworthy minority match in the Exodus and Numbers samples, providing 18 and 17 per cent of matches respectively. The Greek imperfect might appear prima facie to be a sensitive rendering for the pragmatic effects of the Hebrew imperfect and consecutive perfect in past contexts.3 But we must wonder to what extent the Exodus and Numbers translators were attuned to such subtleties, since the aorist indicative is occasionally also employed in translating these Hebrew forms. The rendering by the Greek imperfect, though aspectually appropriate, is probably merely accidental, motivated by natural Greek contextual requirements (see further § 5.5.3 on translators’ awareness of the formal semantics of the Hebrew verb). For Infinitive Construct as a rare match for the Greek imperfect see below on the aorist indicative.

As with the present indicative, the copulative use of εἰμί influences the frequencies of the matches Minus, Particle, and Pronoun for the Greek imperfect. However, these are much more common in the large Genesis sample, where Minus alone provides almost 22 per cent of occurrences, than in the following books. Hebrew nominal sentences in past contexts can naturally motivate a Greek imperfect, and for this reason the match Participle is also a notable minority equivalent.

5.3.4. Future indicatives

High frequencies of the Greek future indicative (Tables 3.9; 4.8; 5.8; 6.8; 7.8) are found in all books and the form displays notably regular match patterns throughout the Pentateuch. It corresponds to the functional composite of Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect—a predictable equivalency since these forms are characteristic of Hebrew expressions of futurity—in over 90 per cent of cases in all books but Genesis, where in a comparatively small sample their combined frequency is a little under 80 per cent. Numerous other match types occur, but are mostly very rare. The Hebrew oblique (p.122) moods are significant among these, especially in Genesis, where Cohortative provides almost 9 per cent and Jussive a further 2.47 per cent of all matches. This is another natural enough match, involving a difference only in definiteness. Instances of the match Minus mostly represent Greek additions of the more or less free type, except in Genesis, and are not very significant for the present purpose.

5.3.5. Aorist indicatives

Even more clear-cut are the figures for the heavily attested aorist indicative (Tables 3.12; 4.10; 5.9; 6.10; 7.10), This form matches the Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect composite in over 90 per cent of its occurrences in all five books, in samples ranging from the 333 instances of Leviticus to the 2,594 of Genesis. The motivation for this regular equivalency is precisely the same as in the case of the Greek imperfect. It is only to be expected that Hebrew perfects and consecutive imperfects, characteristic forms in past narrative contexts, should usually be rendered by Greek forms typical of similar environments.

Like the future indicative form., the aorist displays various rare match types. Of these the category Minus, occasional in all books, may seem, significant from, a glance at the tables, but it almost always reflects free Greek pluses here and accordingly tells us little about formal correspondences. As already remarked (§ 5.3.3), the aorist indicative, like the imperfect, sometimes corresponds to the Hebrew imperfect or consecutive perfect where these occur in past narrative contexts.

The other notable minority match for the aorist indicative is Infinitive Construct. The translators sometimes use a subordinate clause instead, of an infinitive to render Hebrew genitival infinitive constructs or expressions involving infinitive construct plus preposition. In past narrative contexts this method, of translation characteristically yields an aorist (or imperfect) indicative, e.g. καὶ ἐγένετο ἡνίκα εῒδεν τὰ ἐνώτια καὶ τὰ ψέλια for כראת את־הנזם ואת־הצמדים‎ and καὶ ὅτε ἤκουσεν τὰ ρήματα ‘Ρεβέκκας for וכשׁמעו את־דברי רבקה‎, both, in Gen. 24: 30 (the כראותו‎ of the Samaritan Pentateuch for MT כִּרְאׂת‎ in this verse is an example of a verbal variant not relevant to the present enquiry; cf. § 4.3); καὶ ἐγένετο ᾑ ἡμέρα συνετέλεσεν Μωυσἣς (p.123) ὥστε ἀναστἣσαι τὴν σκηνήν for ויהי ביום כלות תשׁה להקים את־המשׁכן‎ in Num. 7: 1.4

5.3.6. Perfect indicatives

The Greek perfect indicative (Tables 3.19; 4.17; 5.15; 6.17; 7.17) is a less frequent form, occurring only 353 times in the whole Pentateuch. Its regular match is Perfect. The frequency for this equivalency is generally around 80 per cent of cases, and it accounts for over 85 per cent in Genesis. Interestingly, the match Consecutive Imperfect is very rare.5 This is due to the typical use of the Greek perfect indicative in speeches rather than past narrative (§§ 6.2.5, 6.2.6). The Hebrew consecutive imperfect, as already noted, is especially common in the latter linguistic environment.

The match Participle is a significant minority equivalent for the Greek perfect indicative, accounting for around 10 per cent of occurrences in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, It is less common in Genesis, where the figure is rather smaller in a large sample, and is not represented in the small Leviticus sample (which has only 23 examples). This match tends to arise from the occasional use of the Greek perfect indicative to translate Hebrew nominal clauses with predicative participle, as in Exod. 5: 8,6 16; 17: 6, 9; Num. 22: 34; 27: 7; Deut. 28: 52.

(p.124) 5.3.7. Pluperfect indicatives

The pluperfect indicative (Tables 3.22; 4.21; 5.18; 6.19; 7.20) has very low frequencies of occurrence in all books, so that few firm statements can be made on the frequencies of its match types. However, the regular match is clearly the Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect composite.7 In addition, it is interesting that among the 16 occurrences of the pluperfect in Genesis 5 match Participle, while the same match corresponds to 4 of the 6 examples in Numbers. One may well wonder about the relationship of the Masoretic vocalization to the reading tradition influencing the LXX translators in one or two of these examples, e.g. ᾒδει for ידע‎, which the MΤ vocalizes יֹדֵעַ‎, but which might have been read as יָדַע‎, in Gen. 3: 5.8

5.3.8. Subjunctives

The statistics for the different tenses of the Greek subjunctive mood are complicated and possibly skewed by their frequencies of occurrence. There are 1,388 examples of the aorist subjunctive in the whole Pentateuch, only 215 examples of the present, and 6 (all from οἶδα) of the perfect. Certain differences in frequency of match types between the aorist and present tense forms are thus probably insignificant, while the perfect subjunctive sample (Tables 4.18; 5.16) is too small to be instructive.

The samples of the present subjunctive (Tables 3.2; 4.2; 5.2; 6.2; 7.2) are rather small in all books and do not yield consistent results. They are affected to varying extents by copulative εἰμί, with the matches Minus, Particle, and Pronoun fairly well represented in the different books. Only in the Deuteronomy sample are all three rare or absent. More noteworthy is Infinitive Construct, which is the most common match in Numbers (almost 27 per cent of 26 examples) and represents 31 per cent of 45 occurrences in Exodus (where Imperfect and Consecutive Perfect account for over 35 per cent in combination). When Hebrew infinitival constructions are rendered by a Greek subordinate clause in primary sequence, that (p.125) clause tends to require a subjunctive, e.g. ἡνίκα ἂν εἰσπορεύησθε εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν τοὓ μαρτυρίου for בבאכם אל־אהל תוער‎ in Lev. 10: 9.9

The Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect composite is a frequent equivalent for the present subjunctive throughout the Pentateuch. It accounts for 55 percent of 61 occurrences in Leviticus and 65 per cent of 60 occurrences in Deuteronomy, these books providing the two largest samples of the present tense form. For this match too, the common use of the Greek subjunctive in subordinate clauses in primary sequence is largely responsible.

The much larger samples of the Greek aorist subjunctive (Tables 3.13; 4.11; 5.10; 6.11; 7.11) provide clearer evidence of characteristic patterns. Here the Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect composite match is responsible for a little under 60 per cent of occurrences in Genesis and rather higher figures in the other books, up to 80 per cent in Leviticus. These frequencies, together with those for the present subjunctive in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, shorn?” that the larger the sample, the more clearly Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect is revealed as the regular match for the Greek subjunctive.

The match Cohortative represents 20 per cent of occurrences of the aorist subjunctive in Genesis, though less common or absent elsewhere. In addition, Jussive represents over 8 per cent of matches in both Genesis and Exodus, and is only really rare in Leviticus. The jussive functions of the Greek subjunctive explain both matches. A notable minority match in all books is Infinitive Construct, already discussed as a match for the present subjunctive form, which is most common in the large Deuteronomy sample, supplying over 9 per cent of 426 occurrences. Occasional instances of the Hebrew perfect or consecutive imperfect in subordinate clauses are rendered by subjunctives, usually aorists, according to Greek contextual requirements, e.g. γενηθἣ for נעשׂתה‎ in Num. 15: 24. This phenomenon is most commonly represented in Leviticus, where the match Perfect accounts for nearly 7 per cent of all occurrences.

5.3.9. Optatives

The samples of the optative mood (Tables 3.3, 14; 4.12; 6.12; 7.12) are small, so observations on characteristic formal equivalencies must be advanced with caution. Of the 80 Pentateuchal instances (p.126) all but one (copulative εἴη at Gen. 23: 15, for which the match is Minus) are aorists, and nearly half (39) of these occur in Deuteronomy. The regular match is Jussive, which will be seen to be a match between the volitive functions of the Hebrew jussive and Greek optative (§ 7.6). The match with Imperfect–Consecutive Perfect is also represented as a minority equivalent in the three books where the optative occurs in significant numbers (there are only 4 examples in Exodus and none in Leviticus). The match Particle for 30 per cent of the Deuteronomy occurrences and for 2 of the 14 instances in Numbers is a special case, namely γένοιτο translating אמן‎, a lexical formula affecting the verbal statistics (cf. §§ 4.4.2, 7.6.1). For an extended treatment of the Pentateuchal optative see Chapter 7.

5.3.10. Imperatives

The tables clearly demonstrate the usual patterns of match types for the Greek imperative mood. They also show the importance of supplying separate figures for second and third person forms, which are quite distinct in their characteristic Hebrew matches. For both forms there are few discrepancies between the counts for the present and aorist tense forms (there are no Pentateuchal examples of the synthetic perfect imperative, but see § 9.4.10 for some doubtful periphrastic forms). Those oddities which do manifest themselves can be ascribed to different frequencies of occurrence or to the effects of translational formulas on. small samples.

The Greek second person imperative (Tables 3.4, 15; 4.3, 13; 5.3, 11; 6.3, 13; 7.3, 13) is fairly well attested, in the Pentateuch, with a frequency of 827 occurrences. It has similar functions to the Hebrew imperative and accordingly Imperative is the regular match, throughout. In the small, samples of the present imperative, of which there are 169 examples, this match represents from nearly 65 per cent of instances in Deuteronomy—discounting the negligible Leviticus sample of 2 occurrences—up to 73 per cent in Exodus. For the much more common aorists (658 instances) the lowest frequency is 79 per cent of 78 occurrences in Deuteronomy. The figure is over 85 per cent in Genesis and Exodus and 82 per cent in Numbers, in larger samples, while it is nearly 93 per cent in the limited Leviticus sample (42 occurrences).

The Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect composite is a consistently notable minority match, arising through simple modal shift in (p.127) translation, e.g. εἰσάγαγε for תקח‎ in Gen. 7: 2.10 The minority match Jussive is a more frequent equivalent to the present than to the aorist in the second person imperatives. The major cause for this equivalency with the present form is the rendering of Hebrew אַל‎ plus second person jussive in prohibitions by μή plus present imperative—the aorist subjunctive is of course normal if the perfective aspect is employed—according to regular Greek idiom,11 e.g. μὴ φοβεîσθε for אל־תירא‎ in Dent. 1:21; μὴ ἐχθραίνετε αὐτοîς for אל־תצרם‎ in Dent. 2: 19. Other instances of the match Jussive arise from change of construction in the Greek.

The Greek third person imperative (Tables 3.5, 16; 4.4, 14; 5.4, 12; 6.4, 14; 7.4, 14) is infrequent in the Pentateuch. There are 202 occurrences, comprising 99 presents and 103 aorists. The samples from the individual books are accordingly small. They show clearly enough, however, that Jussive, which in most samples accounts for high percentages of occurrences (e.g. nearly 87 per cent of the 38 aorist forms in Genesis), is the regular match for this form. This is due to the functional overlap of the Greek third person imperative with the Hebrew jussive.

Exceptional are the figures for present tense forms in Leviticus and Numbers, where the regular match is Imperfect. These cases illustrate the effects a lexical formula can have on the statistics in some samples (see further § 5.5.4). Of the 18 instances matching Imperfect in Leviticus (out of 22 examples), 12 are from the one verb θανατώ. They represent θανάτῳ θανατούσθω/θανατούσθωσαν rendering the formulaic expression מות יומת(ו)‎ (9 of these instances are from Lev. 20, the other 3 from Lev. 24; note incidentally that in 1 example, Lev. 24: 21, the Hebrew lacks מות‎). Similarly, among 10 instances matching Imperfect in the Numbers sample of 15 present tense forms, 5 represent θανατούσθω rendering the same formula (4 of these 5 instances occur in Num. 35). As with the second person imperative, modal shift in translation yields the equivalency with (p.128) Imperfect (and Consecutive Perfect). This composite is the significant minority match in the other third person imperative samples from the Pentateuch.

The third person imperatives νιψάτωσαν at Gen. 18: 4 and πορευέσθωσαν at Exod. 10: 11 correspond to Imperative, while παρελθάτω at Gen. 30: 32 and άκονσάτωσαν at Deut. 4: 10 correspond to Cohortative. These matches might cause surprise, since the Hebrew imperative is restricted to the second person and the cohortative to the first person. However, Greek syntactic recasting explains all 4 instances.12

5.3.11. Infinitives

The Greek present (Tables 3.6; 4.5; 5.5; 6.5; 7.5) and aorist (Tables 3.17; 4.15; 5.13; 6.15; 7.15) infinitives display impressive consistency in their formal matches.13 Once again, the sample of the perfect tense (Tables 3.20; 4.19; 7.18) is too limited—there are 12 instances in the Pentateuch14—to be very revealing.15 There are a mere 3 examples of the future infinitive (Tables 3.10; 6.9).16

The regular match for both the present and aorist forms throughout the Pentateuch is Infinitive Construct. This is a natural equivalency, since the Greek infinitive and the Hebrew infinitive construct are functional equivalents in certain common uses. In the case of the (Jreek present infinitive. Infinitive Construct represents from 66 per cent of occurrences in Numbers, up to 92 per cent in the small Leviticus sample of 26 instances. In the large aorist samples (p.129) this match represents from 78 per cent of occurrences in Genesis up to 88 per cent in Deuteronomy.

As a verbal noun, the Greek infinitive can be an easy equivalent for other types of Hebrew noun apart from the infinitive construct, e.g. τοû εἰδέναι for הדצת‎ in Gen. 2: 9; μιανθήναι for טמאה‎ in Num. 5: 19. Thus, the match Noun is a notable minority in all books except Exodus, where it is rare. Some instances of this match are due to Greek syntactic recasting, e.g. ᾖρκτοι θραύειν τὸν λαόν for החל הנגף‎ at Num. 16: 46 (MT 17: 11). Rare matches with Hebrew finite verbal forms also tend to reflect free Greek syntax. So ᾖ εἰδέναι βούλει for הטרם תדע‎ at Exod. 10: 7.17

5.3.12. Participles

Very interesting variations appear in patterns of matches between the tense forms of the Greek participle. As already mentioned (§ 3.2), their frequencies of occurrence are strikingly different from those of the oblique moods and the infinitive. There are 1,317 examples of the present participle (Tables 3.7; 4, 6; 5.6; 6.6; 7.6), 679 of the aorist (Tables 3.18; 4.16; 5.14; 6.16; 7.16), and 399 of the perfect (Tables 3.21; 4.20; 5.17; 6.18; 7.19). Only the future participle (Tables 3.11; 4.9; 7.9) provides too small a sample (3 instances) to exhibit clear trends in match patterns.18

The functional elasticity of the Greek participle allows it to render a variety of Hebrew forms and constructions. Accordingly, a broad range of match types is exhibited in the tables.19 For the (p.130) present and perfect forms Participle, representing a natural enough equivalency, is the most common match. In the case of the present participle it accounts for a low of around 33 per cent of occurrences in Genesis and Exodus, with a highest frequency of 47 per cent in Deuteronomy. For the smaller samples of the perfect participle it is generally even more frequent, representing from almost 44 per cent in Leviticus up to 76 per cent of the 123 Numbers examples (the largest count in any of the Pentateuchal books). For the aorist participle the equivalency with Participle is also well represented, but mostly as a minority match and less commonly in Exodus than elsewhere. It is the most frequent match only in the case of Leviticus, where it represents 41 per cent of all occurrences.

The match Infinitive Construct is second in frequency only to Participle for the Greek present participle. It represents around 30 per cent of matches in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers, 26 per cent in Deuteronomy and 22 per cent in Leviticus. By contrast, this equivalency is rare for both the aorist and perfect participles. Largely responsible for the high frequencies matching the Greek present form is the use of the present participle of λέγω as a formula of translation for the very frequent Hebrew expression לאמר‎.20

It is notable that the important use of the Greek participle as a clause equivalent mostly involves the aorist tense form in the Pentateuch. The aorist participle very commonly corresponds to the Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect and Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect (p.131) composites. The comparative frequencies of these two composite matches fluctuate within each book, depending very much on linguistic context (for the effects of which on match patterns see further § 5.5.2).

Thus, the match with Perfect-Consecutive Imperfect is much more common in Genesis (representing 68 per cent of the 268 aorist participles) than that with Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect, which represents less than 4 per cent. This is due to the fact that Genesis is largely composed of past narrative. Exodus and Numbers, both of which also have large past narrative elements, display a roughly similar distribution. In Exodus 52 per cent of the 114 aorist participles represent Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect, while 13 per cent represent Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect, In Numbers the figures are 56 per cent and 6 per cent respectively, out of 114 aorist participles. The laws and directions comprising the bulk of Leviticus and Deuteronomy yield a different result. In Leviticus Imperfect—Consecutive Perfect accounts for some 27 per cent of the 63 aorist participles, and Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect for less than 16 per cent. In Deuteronomy the figures are 42 per cent of 120 aorists for the Imperfect-Consecutive Perfect match and 22 per cent for Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect.

These matches are rare for the present participle, and even more so for the perfect participle, but the present tense form does exhibit similar trends to the aorist in the comparative frequencies of the two composite match types. Notable also as representing the clause equivalent usage of the Greek participle is Imperative, which accounts for almost 8 per cent of examples of the aorist participle in both Genesis and Exodus.

Given the substantival and adjectival functions of the Greek participle, it is hardly surprising that Noun and Adjective are well represented minority matches. Rather more noteworthy is the fact that these equivalencies, like the much larger samples of the match Participle and also the small samples of Infinitive Absolute (see n. 19 above), involve the present and perfect participles far more frequently than the aorist (for further illustration see the relevant lists in the tables of Appendix 3).

Thus, the following patterns of tense usage in the Greek participles are revealed. In all Pentateuchal books there is a greater tendency for the present and perfect participles to be used in rendering Hebrew participles, other adjectives, and nouns (including (p.132) the Hebrew infinitives), but for the aorist participle to render Hebrew finite verbal forms.21 This phenomenon requires further study.

A full investigation of the distribution would be very interesting. This will not be pursued in the present study, but one surely important contributing factor, the effects of translational formulae on the frequencies, has been noted above with regard to the present participle of λέγω rendering לאמר‎ and will be seen again in relation to the perfect participle (§ 6.3). Another partial cause may be that fully adjectivized or substantivized participles cease to manifest the perfective/imperfective aspectual opposition, appearing characteristically in the present or perfect tense forms. On this possibility, which also needs to be tested, see § 9.4.1.

5.3.13. General tendencies

The analysis of Greek—Hebrew matches reveals certain obvious patterns of formal alignment. Pentateuchal matches appear to be based largely on pragmatic functional agreement, rather than mechanical translation equivalencies. It can be seen that a single Hebrew form may be rendered by a variety of Greek verbal forms, while in all but the very smallest samples Greek verbal forms translate a variety of Hebrew forms or constructions. On the other hand, it is clear that most Greek verbal forms characteristically render particular Hebrew forms or constructions. In the majority of cases one or two regular matches account for the great bulk of occurrences of each Greek form, (the notable exception is the present indicative, though even here there is a certain unity, since its various common matches are all associated, with Hebrew nominal sentence structure).

This regularity may be further illustrated by a brief description of the equivalencies from the Hebrew–Greek viewpoint. For a comprehensive portrayal, of Hebrew–Greek verbal matches in the Pentateuch reference should be made to Tables 1519 in Appendix 3.22 These tables demonstrate remarkably consistent tendencies in (p.133) Greek verbal renderings of the 10 Hebrew verbal forms throughout the Pentateuchal corpus.

It is not intended to enter into translation-technical detail here, but in summary: (1) the Hebrew perfect is regularly translated by the aorist indicative; (2) similarly the consecutive imperfect; (3) the Hebrew imperfect is regularly translated by the future indicative, with the subjunctive (mainly the aorist) a common minority rendering; (4) similarly the consecutive perfect, though the percentages for the subjunctive are generally rather smaller here; (5) the Hebrew imperative is regularly translated by a Greek imperative; (6) the infinitive construct is regularly translated by a Greek infinitive, with the present participle a common minority rendering (on this match see § 5.3.12 n. 20); (7) the Hebrew participle is regularly translated by a Greek participle, with the present indicative a common (in Deuteronomy very common) minority rendering.23 For the mixed renderings of the jussive, cohortative, and infinitive absolute forms, which tend to appear in small samples, see the relevant lists in the tables of Appendix 3.24

(p.134) As Barr observes, Hebrew–Greek analysis also brings out the characteristic range of exceptional minority matches, which usually represent individually less than 10 per cent of occurrences. These can be as instructive for assessing independent Greek usage as the regular matches, whether or not they arise through recasting of the Hebrew.

The largely descriptive analysis so far offered is only a first step. We have already seen the value of more detailed interpretation of the matches in parts of the preceding treatment. More precise examination of particular features is necessary to appreciate properly the relationship between Pentateuchal Greek verbal forms and the underlying Hebrew. Assemblage and analysis of complete data for all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch allow reliable identification of the general tendencies towards regular match patterns for these forms. This process already reveals much concerning the character of both natural Greek and Hebraistic phenomena, which will be defined in the following sections. The discussion will, however, be in part preliminary. The crucial evidence provided by frequency of occurrence can be demonstrated fully only through extended analyses of the type to be found in Part III.

5.4. Natural Greek Usage

The considerable scope for natural Greek verbal usage in the LXX was outlined in Chapter 3. Some of its results have also been observed previously by other writers.25 Given the linguistic coding differences between the Greek and Hebrew verbal systems described in § 3.4, the fact that the Greek system is so fully manifested in the Pentateuch is itself a sign of independence. Employment of the rich stock of moods and tenses, including thorough manifestation of the perfectiνe/imperfectiνe aspectual opposition, involves numerous features free of specific Hebrew influence.

A good example is the Exodus translator's idiolect preference for the historic present (§ 5.3.2), as is the clause-equivalent function of the participle (§ 5.3.12). These features of course derive an oblique motivation from the original Hebrew context (see § 5.5.2), but within that context their use is entirely independent. The (p.135) Hebrew text components they render have other far more predictable Greek renderings.

Further features demonstrating free Greek verbal syntax will be brought out in the detailed studies of Part III. Strongly indicative of independent usage are the Pentateuchal employment of the perfect indicative (§ 6.2), the potential optative (§§ 7.77.8), and the μέλλω periphrases (§ 9.3.2). These features will be seen to provide valuable evidence regarding the history of the Greek verbal system, in particular on the survival of the Classical values of perfect tense forms and the optative mood. Of special interest is a possible sign of Homeric stylistic influence in the comparative use of the potential optative (§ 7.8).

5.5. Hebrew Influence

5.5.1. Two levels of Hebrew influence

Hebrew influence manifests itself at two levels, obliquely at that of the broad context and more directly at the level of specific underlying forms and constructions.26 The contextual influence is inevitably remote and imprecise in its effects. The second type is of far greater significance for the study of Pentateuchal Greek verbal syntax, since it extends to bilingual interference in the Greek usage.

This interference is difficult to isolate without assembling very full data. The importance of specific influence from the formal semantics of the Hebrew verb (i.e. the semantic content of the grammatical form as opposed to a particular word's lexical semantics) on choices of LXX verbal tense forms has in fact been downplayed by Barr (see § 5.5.3). But it will be argued here that the Greek Pentateuch provides clear evidence of such influence, with broad implications, manifested through frequencies of occurrence of Greek verbal forms.27 Indeed, bilingual interference from Hebrew text components involves factors additional to the formal semantics of (p.136) the verb. A distinction will be drawn in the following discussion between lexical interference, where a formulaic translation equivalent for a particular Hebrew lexical item yields apparent distortion of a Greek verbal form's frequency of occurrence, and formal interference, which derives from the formal semantics of Hebrew items or from Hebrew clausal structure.

Several syntactic features Hebraistic in their frequency of occurrence have been isolated in the present study. It is important to note, however, that no new features Hebraistic in their syntactic function have been observed. This supports the general assertion that verbal syntax in the Greek Pentateuch is essentially idiomatic Greek, excepting a small group of well-known features like the participle translating the Hebrew infinitive absolute (§ 5.3.12 n. 19) and ποιῶ plus infinitive rendering Piel or Hiphil forms (§ 4.4.5 n. 54).

5.5.2. Contextual influence

Linguistic context exercises a natural control over the frequencies of occurrence of verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. It also manifests oblique influence from the original Hebrew, which necessarily establishes the contextual framework of the Greek translations. The Hebrew context is usually reproduced with a high degree of accuracy in the Pentateuch, though not always so in the occasionally obscure case of poetic language.

The linguistic contexts of the Pentateuch vary from book to book, also within each book, and even within short passages of text. Separate types of context represented can be identified clearly enough for the present purpose by a basic classification into past narrative and allied types (e.g. genealogies and other listings) on the one hand, and direct speech and allied types (e.g. laws and directions; poetic passages) on the other.

Thus, Genesis is largely a mixture of past narrative and similar contexts interspersed with limited quantities of direct speech, including scattered poetic passages (e.g. in Gen. 4, 9, 25, and 27, with a longer poem in Gen. 49). Exodus has similar contents in its first half (with an extended poetic passage in Exod. 15), but in the second half displays mainly direct speech and similar types. Leviticus contains almost exclusively material of this latter sort (p.137) (there is past narrative in Lev. 8–10). Numbers has much direct speech, but also extended past narrative passages (Num. 9–25, 27, 31–3) and poetry (especially in Num. 21, 23, 24). Deuteronomy is largely composed of direct speech types, but has some extended past narrative (Deut. 1–4, 31, 34) and poetic passages (Deut. 32–3).

This characterization is not meant to ignore the fact of subtle contextual shifts (thus the dialogue in Gen. 24, where the speeches of Abraham's servant sometimes develop the flavour of narrative, rather than direct speech), but attempts at more precise classification tend to encourage uncertain and subjective results.28 The classification employed here, aiming only to identify the general character of passages, is sufficiently sensitive to explain certain features of the Greek Pentateuchal verb counts.

An obvious example is provided by the comparative frequencies of aorist and future indicatives. There are many more aorists than futures in Genesis (2,594 aorists to 527 futures), roughly similar counts in Exodus (1,096 aorists to 956 futures) and Numbers (1,001 aorists to 846 futures), and far higher frequencies of futures in Deuteronomy (1,087 futures to 680 aorists) and especially Leviticus (1,279 futures to 333 aorists). These counts are to be linked directly to the distribution of linguistic contexts described above. Aorist indicatives are characteristic of past narrative, future indicatives of laws and directions prescribing future conduct. Hebrew contextual effects on the regular MT matches of these two forms, Perfect–Consecutive Imperfect and Imperfect–Consecutive Perfect respectively, have already been observed in §§ 5.3.4, 5.3.5 (cf. the comments on MT matches for clause-equivalent Greek participles in § 5.3.1 2).

So the demands of context tend to support regular match patterns. Conversely, they may also influence departure from a characteristic match. The rare minority matches of Tables 37 often demonstrate dynamic equivalence as a feature of the Pentateuchal translators’ methods,29 whereby the use of characteristic renderings is not extended to the point of distorting the perceived sense of the Hebrew context.30 Greek requirements according to the (p.138) translators’ interpretation of context seem to motivate matches such as that of Gen. 15: 18 τῷ σπέρματί σον δώσω τὴν γἣν ταύτην for לזרעך נתתי את־הארץ הזאת‎, i.e. Greek future indicative for Hebrew perfect, and Exod. 15: 1 τότε ᾖσεν Mωυσἣς for אז ישׁיר־משׁה‎, i.e. Greek aorist indicative for Hebrew imperfect. This point brings us to the crucial question of specific influence from underlying Hebrew forms and will be modified in § 5.5.3.

The influence of the underlying Hebrew context is remote from the subtleties of Greek verbal usage and by no means precise in its effects. Choices of Greek tense and mood forms are governed to a large extent by the independent requirements of the Greek language.31 The Hebrew context, as interpreted by the translator, may motivate an appropriate Greek form, but because of the relative complexity of the Greek verbal system a choice usually remains between two or more idiomatically suitable Greek renderings.

Options open within past narrative contexts were touched on at § 3.4. By way of further illustration, a Hebrew imperfect or consecutive perfect in a main clause with future reference might be appropriately rendered by a Greek present or future indicative, or by an imperative, subjunctive, or optative, according to the nuance the translator chose to stress, or perhaps stylistic considerations (cf. Wevers's discussion of εἷσάγαγε in Gen. 7: 2, as cited in § 5.3.10 n. 10; also §§ 7.67.7 on the volitive and potential optative functions). In the non-indicative options mentioned here the choice of Greek form involves greater independence. The future indicative might be seen as the default form (cf. § 7.7 on τίς δώη and τίς δώσει), as is the aorist indicative for Perfect—Consecutive Imperfect in past narrative (§ 8.5.1).

Aejmelaeus's interesting observation that variations in translators’ linguistic usage may be linked to contextual influences also deserves brief mention here. Laws and listings, dry and repetitive in content, invite and appear to have received a somewhat mechanical treatment, by comparison with pure narrative and in particular direct speech.32 See further the comments on frequency of the Greek imperfect indicative in § 8.5.2.

5.5.3. Translators' awareness of formal semantics of the Hebrew verb

As mentioned in § 5.5.1, Barr has raised doubts over the degree of influence from the formal semantics of the Hebrew verb on choices (p.139) of LXX verbal forms.33 The issue needs to be addressed here, since it has implications for assessment of bilingual interference. Barr argues that it is mainly the general sense of Hebrew passages which affects these Greek verbal choices. He observes the LXX translators’ generally effective treatment of Hebrew verbal tenses and notes the importance of that effectiveness for the overall success of the translation. But judging from limited examples in temporally ambiguous contexts in Psalms and 2 Kingdoms,34 he concludes that the LXX translators were not particularly alert to the special nuances of Hebrew verbal forms.

Barr's assessment requires much more comprehensive testing than he supplies, however, both in individual books and in the entire LXX corpus.35 In fact Sailhamer's detailed translation-technical analysis of Psalms 3–41 leads that writer to the assumption that the Psalms translator had ‘a reasonably well-informed knowledge of the Hebrew verb’.36 Nor does Barr address adequately the heterogeneous nature of the LXX. The effects of varying qualify of the reading tradition for different parts of the corpus are likely to be considerable, while differences of genre, style, authorship, and date of composition are also important factors.

The impression gained from the present treatment of the Pentateuchal books is that their translators had a sound knowledge of the Hebrew verb. They appear to have been better informed than the sometimes misled Psalms 3–41 translator, who normally translated Hebrew verbal forms accurately, but sometimes resorted to a form's characteristic rendering at the expense of making sense in context, apparently through failure to comprehend a particular function of that verbal form. This translator's understanding thus ‘had both a wide breadth and a discernible boundary’.37 Voitila has now identified at least two cases of similar confusion in Numbers. Hebrew imperfect and consecutive perfect forms motivate Greek futures (the regular match; see § 5.3.4) inappropriate to their contexts in Num. 9: 18–23; 10: 17–25.38 These, however, are isolated examples (p.140) within the Greek Pentateuch.39 They perhaps reflect confusion arising from the repeated switches between narrative and direct speech in Num. 9–10 and contrast with the Pentateuchal translators’ usual command over their material.

This is not to suggest that these translators possessed a precisely formulated grammatical awareness of the Hebrew,40 but that they were supported by a strong reading tradition of the Torah— certainly plausible given its religious and cultural significance, Barr implies a remoteness from Hebrew linguistic structures which for the Pentateuch at least seems improbable. Though its translators are indeed unlikely to have had, for instance, a developed understanding of the ‘preterite’ function of the imperfect or of Hebrew aspectual oppositions,41 it is difficult to believe they were reduced to mere guesswork when they met instances like the already cited ישׁיר‎ in Exod. 15: 1. Though guided by pragmatic implicature, they were probably fully alert to the fact that the semantics of the Hebrew tense forms fluctuate in different temporal spheres.

Thus, the generally accurate capturing of Hebrew nuances of meaning in the verbal forms of the Greek Pentateuch appears to depend not just on the context, but also on strong awareness of formal semantics in the Hebrew verb.42 Cases where the translators seem to render modal nuances of ambiguous Hebrew forms with genuine sensitivity are especially persuasive. The major illustration of this in the present study will be seen in the common translation of Hebrew volitive jussives by Greek volitive optatives (§ 7.6.1), the regularity of which can hardly be due to context-guided chance.

5.5.4. Bilingual interference from Hebrew text components

The evidence identified in the present study of lexical and formal interference, manifested through frequencies of occurrence of verbal forms, may now be summarized.

(p.141) The match Jussive for the volitive optative which was mentioned above, as well as showing the translators’ alertness to the nuances of Hebrew verbal forms, demonstrates bilingual interference. The formal motivation for the match provides a partial explanation for the high frequency of the optative's volitive function in the Pentateuch relative to its potential force. We shall see that these relative frequencies contrast sharply with the evidence of extra-Biblical Koine documents. It is probable that the observation applies to optative frequencies in all translation Greek portions of the LXX. For full details see §§ 7.3, 7.6.

Another manifestation of formal interference in the Greek Pentateuch involves Hebrew clausal structure. It will be shown that the repetitive paratactic structures of Biblical Hebrew syntax influence certain typical Greek renderings (§§ 3.4, 8.5.1), restricting the flexibility of Greek sentence structure and thus natural Greek verbal usage, though the constructions employed in the translations are idiomatic in their actual function. This type of Hebraism is to be taken as a result of easy translation technique (§ 8.5.1). For a detailed analysis of the effect on imperfect and aorist indicative frequencies in both the Pentateuchal books and the LXX in general see the treatment of Chapter 8.

A less common Hebrew clause structure, היה‎ plus participle, will be shown to affect the frequency of periphrastic verbal tense forms in the Greek Pentateuch, though conclusions regarding verbal periphrases must be advanced with particular caution. See the treatment of Chapter 9 (especially §§ 9.5, 9.6).

Two cases of Hebrew lexical interference have already been observed, explaining respectively the interesting frequencies of the match Imperfect for the third person present imperative in Leviticus and Numbers (§ 5.3.10) and of the match Infinitive Construct for the present participle throughout the Pentateuch (§ 5.3.12). Further examples of such interference affecting frequencies will be demonstrated in Part III, pertaining to the perfect participle (§ 6.3) and the aorist indicative (§ 8.5.3).

It seems highly probable that much more evidence of Hebrew lexical interference in frequencies of occurrence of LXX verbal forms remains to be identified. In particular, the Greek participles are likely to prove a very fertile field for investigation. But the need to treat large samples for adequate testing of frequencies must be stressed.

(p.142) 5.6. Conclusion

The analysis of Part II assembles and interprets complete data for the MT formal matches of all verbal forms in the Greek Pentateuch. It clearly shows that aspect, tense, and mood usage in the Greek Pentateuch is in many respects independent of the underlying I lebrew and deserves to be considered as a natural sample of Koine usage. However, the data also demonstrate two levels of Hebrew influence on the Greek verbal forms. A more remote influence from the broad context is operative, as well as a direct influence from specific Hebrew text components. The latter type, which may be lexical or formal, can extend to bilingual interference in the Greek verbal usage.

A small number of syntactic Hebraisms in LXX verbal usage, relatively easy to identify, have long been known. Voitila has recently identified an additional instance (§ 5.5.3). The new examples treated in the present study, to be fully brought out in Part III, are manifested through the frequencies of occurrence of Greek forms. These examples can be assessed adequately only by testing large bodies of data, in a manner similar to the present analysis. Because a form's frequency of occurrence in translation Greek can be shown to be highly significant, LXX verbal forms require careful analysis for signs of Hebrew interference in their frequency, whether or not their actual function appears natural, before their evidence for Koine usage and for the general history of the Greek language can safely be exploited. The detailed studies of Part III will show that such analysis is a very worthwhile undertaking.

Notes:

(1) See Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive; T. P. Schehr, ‘Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb in Septuagint Genesis 1–15’ (diss. Hebrew Union College, Ohio, 1990); and A. Voitila, ‘La technique de traduction du Yiqtol (l'imparfait hébreu) dans ll'Histoire du Joseph grecque (Gen. 37, 39–50)’, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991), 223–37, as cited in § 4.2 n. 9; also J. H. Sailhamer, The Translation Technique of the Greek Septuagint for the Hebrew Verbs and Participles in Psalms 3–41 (New York;. Peter Lang, 1991), on the entire verbal system with the exception of the infinitive in Psalms 3–41. There are brief remarks on. tense usage in. 1 and 2 Chronicles at L. C. Allen, The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of I and II Chronicles to the Μassoretic Text, pt. 1. The Translator's Craft (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974), 42, and cf Sailhamer's survey of scattered comments in the literature on LXX treatment of the Hebrew verb (Sailhamer, Psalms, 11–16).

(2) On the high frequency of the historic present in Exodus, both by contrast with the other Pentateuchal books and within the whole LXX, see Sir J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of tin Synoptic Problem, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 215–14: cf. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 237n. 85. Hawkins finds 24 instances in Exodus: 17 front λέγω, 7 from όρω̂. I count 26 examples of the usage in this book; 19 from λέγω and 7 from όρω̂. The disagreement between these figures can probably be ascribed to differences of text. Wevers, however, notes 20 examples from λέγω (including ο in Exod. 32–3) at Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18, but gives the figure as 22 (including 7 in Exod. 32–3) at Wevers, Exodus Text, 228. The discrepancies between his two counts and mine must be due to human error. The 19 examples I find are: Exod. 2: 13; 4: 18; 5: 3; 10: 7, 9, 28, 29; 18: 14, 15; 20: 20; 32: 1, 2. 17, 18, 23, 27; 33: 14, 15, 18 (a list which agues with Wevers, Exodus Notes, on the count of 9 instances in Exod. 32–3). The frequency of forms from λέγω in Exodus clearly contradicts, for that book at least, the assertion of H. St. J. Thackeray, ‘The Greek Translators of the Four Books of Kings’, JThS 8, 1907), 262–78 at 273–4, that ‘In the LXX the historic present is not frequent with verbs of saying: in the Pentateuch it is found chiefly with verbs of seeing’ (incidentally, the statement at Thackeray, Grammer, 24, is accurate, but the incorrect view of Thackeray, ‘Greek Translators’, is repeated at Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 235 n. 78). Apart from these minor statistical inconsistencies, Wevers's observation that ‘There seems to be no particular reason for the [Exodus] translator's occasional lapse into the historical present’ (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18; cf. Wevers, Exodus Text, 258) seems unsatisfactory. This ‘occasional lapse’ represents a stereotyping stylistic preference for the historic present in the use of certain verbs of saving and seeing; cf. Thackeray, Grammar, 24; and note that Wevers, Exodus Text, 224–5, does recognize the stylistic significance of the historic present λέγονσιν at Exod. 5: 3, though he seems to confuse the motivation for this form with that for έξαποστέλλοω, a present with a different function, in the previous verse. The fact that the use of λέλει/λέγονιν as a translation for (ויאמר(ו‎ is rare in Exodus—accoiding to Wevers's first count it occurs 20 times, against 158 occurrences of εἶπεν/εἶπαν (Wevers, Exodus Notes, 18)—would be significant only if we assumed the translator employed a mechanical method in rendering verbal forms. The usage is in my view a natural Greek phenomenon, without Hebrew motivation (so H. G. J. Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina Libri iii Erlangen, 1841), 187; against my interpreration A. Voitila is developing a theory, as yet unpublished, arguing Hebrew motivation for some historic present forms). On the distribution of the historic present in Ancient Greek in general and its apparently fluctuating stylistic value see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 235–9. But does the Exodus translator have ‘no aspirations to literary style’ (ibid. 237)? This interesting question lies largely outside the scope of the present study, but cf. § 7.8 and n. 92. Another matter again is the problem of semantic coding in the historic present. Is its key feature one of temporal transfer (so Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 226–31) or aspectual effect (so Porter, Verbal Aspect, 189–98; cf. Porter, ‘Defence’, 40)? According to the interpretation of temporal reference in Greek offered in § 2.7, I would suggest that time value is of increasing importance diachronically.

(3) On the Hebrew imperfect in past contexts see in general WO, Syntax, 502–4; Gibson, Syntax, 73–4; JM, Grammar, § 113ek.

(4) For discussion and additional Pentateuchal examples see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, especialy 24–5 (on clausal renderings of the gemtiv al infinitive construct); 85–6, 87 (on the infinitive construct with the prtposition ב‎); 95–6 (on the infinifive cotistruct uith the preposition ב‎). These infinitival constructions, characteristic of Pentateuchal Hebrew usage, show signs of decay in later Biblical Hebrew and art lost in Mishnaic Hebrew (R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Ηebrew Prose (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press for Harvard Semitic Museum, 1976, 45–6 60–1; Segal, Grammar, 165–6). The Samaritan Pentateuch somenmes replaces such infinitival constructions with a Hebrew perfect (or other finite) form, e.g. הכיתי‎ against MT הַכּתִי‎ in Num. 3: 13: 8; 17: הוקם‎ against MT הֶקִים‎ in Num. 9: 15 (cf. B. K. Waltke, ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Text of the Old Testament’, in J. B. Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1970), 212–39 at 216, on this modernizing tendency). Their Greek renderings with finite verbs do not, however, provide any evidence for this type of ν arrant in the LXX Vorlage, since these renderings represent a natural Greek reflex of the MT's infinitival constructions.

(5) A. Voitila, ‘Some Remarks on the Perfect Indicative in the LXX’, BIOSCS 26 (1993), 11–16 at 15

(6) On the independent character of this Greek renelering cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 63·

(7) Voitila, ‘Perfect Indicative’, 14–15qatal

(8) See Wevers, Genesis Notes, 38; cf. ibid. 450 on ἐπεστήρικτο for נצב‎ in Gen. 28: 13. But cf. ibid.244–5 on the contextual appropiateness of εἱστήκεισαν rendering a participle in Gen. 18: 2 and ibid.249 on that of παρειστήκει in Gen. 18: 8. I would suggest that the translator's interpretation of contextual requirements could explain both the Gen. 3: 5 and 28: 13 examples (espectallv the latter) as well. We are not compelled by the Greek evidence to assume a variant leading tradition of its Vorlage in these places.

(9) § 5.3.5Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitiven. 4

(10) On parallelism with εἴσελθε for the imperative בא‎ in the preceding verse as the specilic motivation here, see Wevers, Genesis Note, 89.

(11) Cf. SD, Syntax, 343; SM, Grammar, § 1840. B Use of the second person aorisr imperative in prohibitions, though not unknown, is vers unusual (Chantraine, Grammaire, ii. 230–1; J. P. Louw, ‘On Greek Prohibitions’, A Class 2 (1959), 43–57 at 43; A. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles (Leiden: J. Brill, 1982), 221; on some late. instances in the papyri see Mandilaras. Verb, §§ 568. 1–3, 705). There are no examples in Wevers's edition of the Greek Pentateuch, though I note in his apparatus a single case occurring as a variant for the present imperative (γίνεσθε for γίνεσθε at Num. 14: 9).

(12) Genesis NotesExodus Notesואשׁמעם את־דברי‎καì ἀκουσάτωσαν τὰ ρήματά μουWevers, Deuteronomy Notes, 72§ 4.4.6

(13) For detailed translation-technical analysis of the Greek infinitive reference shoulcl be made to Soisalon–Soininen, Infinitive (on this monograph see also § 4.2 n. u. 9

(14) εἰδέναι, ἑστάναιπεποιθέναιSoisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 151–2§ 6.4

(15) ibid. 152

(16) Genesis NotesSoisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 150–1

(17) On this rendering cf. Wevers, Exodus Notes, 148.

(18) The instances of the future participle, which like those of the future infinitive are motivated by natural Greek requirements, are in Gen. 41: 31; Exod. 2: 4; Deut. 22: 27. On tltese examples note respectively Wevers, Genesis Notes, 689; id. Exodus Notes, 14; id., Deuteronomy Notes, 361–2.

(19) Note, however, the artificial character of the usage represented by the occasional match Infinitive Absolute, e.g. φυλάσσωυ φυλάξῃ for שׁמור תשׁמרון‎ at Deut. 6; 17. This well-known Hebraism employs the present participle more frequently than the aorist in most of the Pentateuchal books (Genesis has 13 present participles and 3 aorists, Exodus 3 and 4, Leviticus 6 and 3, Numbers 6 and 4, Deuteronomy 10 and 2), and never the perfect or future. On the usage see H. St. J. Thackeray, ‘Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute in the LXX’, JThS 9(1908), 597–601; Thackeray, Grammar, 47–50; R. Sollamo, ‘The LXX Renderings of the Infinitive Absolute Used with a Paronvmous Finite Verb in the Pentateuch’, in N. Fernández Marcos (ed.). La Septuaginta en la investigación contemporánea (V Congreso de la IOSCS) ( Madrid: Instituto ‘Arias Montano’, 1985), 101–13; Schehr, ‘Syntax’, 48–52, 254–61; cf. M. S. Krause, ‘The Finite Verb with Cognate Participle in the New Testament’, in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Question in Current Research (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 187–206. Schehr argues from unconvincing Classical examples that it should not be regarded as unidiomatic Greek and is a Hebraism only in terms of its frequency (Schehr, ‘Syntax’, 48–9, 260–1, 263). The earlier statements to the contrary of Thackeray and Sollamo remain for me more satisfying; see especially Thackeray, ‘Infinitive Absolute’, 587–8, 601 (the usage is ‘purely “translatese” and does not appear to have been adopted in the colloquial or the literary language’); Sollamo, ‘Infinitive Absolute’, 103–5.

(20) The present participle of λέγω occurs 90 times in Genesis and in 72 of those occurrences renders לאמר‎, thus accounting for 83.72% of the 86 instances of the Infinitive Construct match for the present participle in that book. For Exodus the figures are 71 occurrences of the present participle of λέγω, of which 49 render לאמר‎, accounting for 69.01% of the 71 instances of the Hebrew infinitive construct/Greek present participle match. The respective figures for Leviticus are 49 occurrences, of which 48 render לאמר‎ and represent 87.27% of 55 instances of the infinitive construct/present participle match; for Numbers 95 occurrences, of which 82 render לאמר‎ and represent 89.13% of 92 instances of the infinitve construct/present participle match; for Deuteronomy 43 occurrences, of which 40 render לאמר‎ and represent 61.54% of 65 instances of the infinitive construct/present participle match. On LXX renderings of לאמר‎ in general see Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, (18–75; cf. Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 88, 101, 103.

(21) Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 101participium coniunctum

(22) Tables 1519 provide statistical analysis of all MT Hebrew verbal forms which are translated In Greek verbal forms. The Hebrew–Greek figures were developed on the basis of the Greek—Hebrew data of Tables 37, but do not reflect the same level of accuracy and completeness. They do not represent complete counts for Hebrew verbal forms in the Pentateuch (cf. § 4.2 and n. 10). Since they have been generated mechanically from the lists of Greek—Hebrew matches, they also contain very minor inaccuracies through double counting of Hebrew hums involved in Greek verbal doublets and complexes (see § 4.4.5). In addition, the Hebrew category Complex Unit, which in a few cases has νerbal components, has been omitted (on the frequency of the Complex Unit category see § 4.4.3 n. 43). Nevertheless, taken as close appioximates of actual frequencies they should prove reliable.

(23) J. Barr, ‘Translators’ Handling of Verb Tense in Semantically Ambiguous Contexts’, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VI Congerss of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Jerusalem 1986, (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1987), 381–403 at 384, has stated that ‘A Hebrew participle will mostly be a [Greek] present [indicative], or in circumstantial clauses, in past narration, an imperfect’, but has in mind only what he terms the Hebrew participle tense (ibid.), not the participle's full range of functions, in a description restricted to Hebrew ‘tense’ forms (even so, except in Genesis the Greek imperfect indicative is a less common match for the Hebrew participle than Barr's characterization suggests). There is no genuine ‘participle tense’ in Biblical Hebrew. Barr is referring to the use of the Hebrew participle as predicate in a nominal sentence, a usage which has developed into a present tense formation in Mishnaic Hebrew (WO, Syntax, 623–8, esp. 624–5; Segal, Grammar, 155–6).

(24) With these general observations cf. Schehr, ‘Syntax’, 73, noting in Gen. 1–15 ‘the- extended sequences of aorist forms connected by the coordinating conjunction for Hebrew prefixed forms with waw [sic] consecutive … the predominance of aorists for suffixed forms, future indicatives for prefixed forms, future indicatives for suffixed verbs + waw [sic] consecutive, and nominal clauses for the same in Hebrew’. Note also the similar findings of Sailhamer, Psalms, 173–8. on Psalms 3–41; Voitila, ‘Yiqtol’, as cited at § 4.2 n. 9 above; and the results of Heller's limited soundings, which are based only on renderings throughout the LXX of the verbs כתב‎ and זבת‎ (J. Heller, ‘Grenzen sprachlicher Entsprechung der LXX: Ein Beitrag zur Übersetzungstechnik dei LXX auf dem Gebiet der Flexionskategorien’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschuug, 15 (1969), 234–48 at 244–7). Barr's theoretical scheme of normal LXX renderings of Hebrew finite verbal forms suffers from the lack of supporting statistical analysis, but is largely accurate as far as it goes with regard to Pentateuchal usage (Barr, ‘Verb Tense’, 384).

(25) See e.g. Soisalon-Soininen, Infinitive, 147–52; id., Studien, 17 (quoted in § 4.2).

(26) Voitila, ‘Yiqtol’. 234–5

(27) Frequency of occurrence as a sign of Hebrew (or other Semitic) influence on the language of the LXX and other Greek documents has been noted previously, Cf. T. P. Sche[h]r, ‘The Perfect Indicative in Septuagint Genesis’. BIOSCS 24 (1991), 14–24 at 24, referring also to Martin's syntax criticism, i.e. analysis of Greek syntactic features potentially betraying through their frequencies of occurrence Semitic sources for Greek compositions. For an application of Martin's approach to the LXX see R. Martin. ‘The Syntax Criticism of Baruch’, in C. E. Cox (ed.), VII Congress of the International Organisation for Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Leuven 1989 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1991). 361–71. For a critique of Martin's methods see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 160–1. Only one of the 17 Greek syntactic features which Martin analyses (Martin, ‘Baruch’, 362–3), namely the adverbial use of the participle, involves the Greek verb.

(28) On the difficulties of precise classification cf. McKay,‘Perfect in NT’, 293.

(29) Of. Schehr, ‘Syntax’, 17–18, 74: on the term dynamic equivalence see also E. A. Nida and C. R. Taher, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). 22–8, 202.

(30) Sailhamer, Psalms, 209§ 5.5.3

(31) Voitila, ‘Yiqtol’, 223–4, 233–5

(32) Aejmelaeus, Parataxis, 172–3

(33) Barr, ‘Verb Tense’passim

(34) ibid. 583–4

(35) Voitila, ‘Yiqtol’, 234

(36) Sailhamer, Psalms, 209

(37) ibid.

(38) A. Voitila. ‘What the Translation of Tenses Tells about the Septuagint Translators’, SJOT 10 (1996), 183–96 at 186–7, 188, 193–4: id., ‘The Translator of the Greek Numbers’, in B. A. Taylor (ed.), IX Congress of the International Organization for Siptuagint and Cognate Studies, Cambridge, 1995 (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997), 109–21 at 111–13.

(39) Voitila proposes other examples of interference from Hebrew verbal forms in choice of Greek verbal forms in the papers cited in n. 38. They seem to me open to alternative explanations and so to weaken his explanatory theory of short segment translation.

(40) Barr, ‘Verb Tense’, 385–6, 387

(41) ibid. 387–8§ 5.3.3

(42) Voitila,’Yiqtol’, 233–5