Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

[RandallButh]

I'm not sure why someone would bring in Latin, or any language. Poetry is "meaning plus form" and can never be fully translated. The Hebrew tense phenomenon cannot be meaningfully and "literally" duplicated in a language that does not use such a device as a known poetic option, including Greek.

As for Latin, please note that in Psalm 2 all four initial verbs are future. That is a translator's choice, although the opposite of the LXX choice of putting all four verbs in the aorist indicative (=past). Both translations level the poetic phenomenon, striving to preserve their sense of primary meaning. However, at Luke 1:46-47 the Vulgate has a present and a perfect (= past, "aorist"), apparently restricting poetic license and assuming that it would be more prudent to preserve the semantic time reference(s). FTR, the Syriac Peshitto also duplicates the Greek with a participle (present) and suffix-tense (past). Again, those are translators' choices. As I mentioned, I think that people need to understand and internalize what is outlined in the 1984 article above if they want to evaluate Luke 1.46-47, and the rest of Miryam's poem, for that matter.

And to make explicit--I do not think that Miryam's poem was an original Greek composition and the canard of "Luke was imitating the LXX" does not explain what we have in Luke 1:46-55. Luke may very well have altered pieces of the poem, but he received a poem whose origins were Hebrew. I assume that he did not translate it himself but received a Greek version of the Hebrew poem. And finally, there are little data like this that would behoove NT commentators to have internalized Hebrew and be fully fluent in the language, something that is generally not in evidence.
Sadly, comments in the Mendez article reflect a lack of control of Hebrew, too [e.g., "Ps 46:10 קשת ישבר' וקצץ חנית' עגלות ישרף באש
(piel impf. 3rd sg.) (piel pf. 3rd sg.) (qal impf. 3rd sg." — RB: the "piel pf." of Mendez is actually a we-qatal tense form whose tense-mood semantics match the yiqtol tense forms of the "impf" so it is not antithetical semantic parallelism. The same mistake occurs in Mendez following example "Isa 60:16 וינקת חלב גוים' ושד מלכים תינקי (qal pf. 3rd sg.) (qal impf. 3rd sg.)" — RB: In fact, the LXX followed default semantics in putting both verbs in the Greek future. The source of his error is here "an alternation of qṭl and yqṭl exhausts all possible forms in this category." — RB: In fact, there are four, yea five, categories that may be played: yiqtol, qatal, ve-qatal, vayyiqtol and hu qotel, without bringing in imperatives and infinitives] However, in spite of a sub-expert control of Hebrew, the Mendez article makes many good points and is recommended reading for those who will not be tripped up by the occasional misuse of the languages.

[Jean Putmans]

"I'm not sure why someone would bring in Latin, or any language."

One of the starting points of the discussion was the translation into English ...

As Jerome knew very well Hebrew and Greek his Latin translation at least could give us an idea of his interpretation of these poetic forms, couldn't it? Or do You think, his view on the case is completely meaningless?

A translator (and I have been all my working years as a professional translator, be it not in classical languages) always tries to be as close to the meaning (in all respects) of the original. So one might expect Jerome to have done exactly the same. That's why I bring in his Latin version.

[RandallButh]

The point on translation meant no disrespect to Jerome or translators, but pointed out the ambiguity of translation as evIdence for this particular poetic phenomenon. The LXX and Vulgate to Psalm 2 illustrate how someone can correctly translate the Hebrew as Greek pasts, or Latin futures. And neither one fully captures what is going on in the Hebrew. The same is also true when one imitates the form, like the Vulgate at Luke 1.46-47.

[Jean Putmans]

Your point is taken, but the problem is: The Luke-Gospel was written in Greek (we don't have proof, that there were Hebrew copies), so every translation (and interpretation) should take the text as given in Greek, not in Hebrew. The Greek-Luke-Gospel was meant to be read/heard by people, that probably not knew any Hebrew, so they could and would not take Hebrew into their interpretation (and Luke must have known that), hence we also best should interprete the text as if we don't know any Hebrew (That's easy for me: my hebrew-knowledge is nill!).

The same goes for the Interpretation of the LXX : A Greek translation was necessary, not because the audience knew Hebrew, but because they didn't know Hebrew.

I doubt, it's correct to take the Hebrew into the calculations, when we are interpreting/translating the Greek text. The only use for the Hebrew therefor would be, to be able to value the quality of the Greek translation, but not in the interpretation/translation of that same Greek text. The Greek text should be interpreted as if we were Greek speaking people of that time, without hebrew-knowledge.

[RandallButh]

I agree with your main point and half of your claim. We must read and interpret Luke according to Greek and ask what a Greek audience would hear, think and interpret. And would they think it normal Greek, or something with an aftertaste of dissonance? And if with dissonance, how would it factor in to an interpretation according to Relevance theory?

We also want to know how we got our Lukan text, how was Luke crafting his text, and what kind of historical weight to put on it. Language bears on this issue. Is it normal Greek, or something else? The sociolinguistic framework for a Jewish girl in the first century included Hebrew and there is always the question of the tri-lingual environment, Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek. For those who are not up-to-date on Mishnaic Hebrew studies in the 20th century, they have sometimes reduced the linguistic environment to Aramaic-Greek, which would simplify things by removing Hebraisms as probable or direct linguistic influences. Much of NT gospel secondary literature is based on such an assumption, even if now rejected within Mishnaic Hebrew scholarship.** Understanding Miryam's poem becomes a case in point. A more complicated point is to weigh the difference between how Miryam's poem would be read in the Land of Israel in a tri-lingual environment and how it would be read in a mono-lingual Greek environment, or environment without any access to Hebrew.

Translation itself is quite complicated when multi-cultural, multilingual sources and multi-cultural, multilingual audiences are involved. Many legitimate options are available. Genre affects this, too: is the text a business document, a literary piece, ancient or modern biography?

[** For an egregious example, one well-known scholar threw out the punch line/scripture of the parable of the Tenants, Son, and Vineyard because the wordplay "stone" "son" was based on Hebrew and not Aramaic. His unfamiliarity with first century Hebrew and with Jewish practice with parables (100% of the hundreds of ancient Jewish story parables are in Hebrew, 0% in Aramaic, even in Aramaic literary contexts) gave him a false confidence in his atomistic interpretation. And many in the academy will quote his conclusions as if they were legitimate or solid, further complicating things for students and possibly discouraging them from pursuing the very studies and skills that would allow them to see through this. A person needs to feel gravity in order to fully appreciate the leaning tower of Pisa.]

καλά εἴη τὰ γενέσια τοῦ Χριστοῦ
חג המולד שׂמח

[Barry Hofstetter]

Your point is taken, but the problem is: The Luke-Gospel was written in Greek (we don't have proof, that there were Hebrew copies), so every translation (and interpretation) should take the text as given in Greek, not in Hebrew. The Greek-Luke-Gospel was meant to be read/heard by people, that probably not knew any Hebrew, so they could and would not take Hebrew into their interpretation (and Luke must have known that), hence we also best should interprete the text as if we don't know any Hebrew (That's easy for me: my hebrew-knowledge is nill!).

The same goes for the Interpretation of the LXX : A Greek translation was necessary, not because the audience knew Hebrew, but because they didn't know Hebrew.

I doubt, it's correct to take the Hebrew into the calculations, when we are interpreting/translating the Greek text. The only use for the Hebrew therefor would be, to be able to value the quality of the Greek translation, but not in the interpretation/translation of that same Greek text. The Greek text should be interpreted as if we were Greek speaking people of that time, without hebrew-knowledge.

First of all, this has been an excellent discussion with a number of thought provoking comments from all participants. I signal my agreement here -- with the way languages work in general, and that includes the variables listed by Randall in his response, getting behind the Greek when there is no other-language Vorlage (as there is with the LXX) is nigh near impossible. We have to take the Greek as composed and work from there. Yes, a lot of other hermeneutical factors, not the least Luke's audience, and the pesky Hebraisms/Septuagintalisms. Personally, I think Luke is deliberately imitating at points certain aspects of the LXX in order to make connections with his more biblically literate audience, while at the same time writing smooth upper register Koine so that all readers are included.

[RandallButh]

Luke is deliberately imitating at points certain aspects of the LXX

I wonder what people have learned about Hebrew poetic tense shifting in this thread?
[Perhaps someone could share a copy of “Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat,” JSNT 21 (1984): 67–83, if they have it. I don't have access to a copy currently.]

And did Luke know about poetic tense shifting and how did he learn it?

And if one may ask a parallel question, what percentage of our Hebrew teachers are aware of it and how did they learn it?

[RandallButh]

PS: making sure that we are all sufficiently flexible in our discussions:

The Luke-Gospel was written in Greek (we don't have proof, that there were Hebrew copies)

Yes, Luke was written in Greek and he had access to sources, all, or at least most, in Greek. Period. No one here or pretty much anywhere is claiming that Luke's Gospel is a translation but there is certainly a potential for pieces of material to reach Luke in Greek that were themselves translations. And there are significant Hebraisms in Luke's Greek Gospel. Period.
Furthermore, in NT criticism (secondary literature) there are widely circulated mistakes about this. A primary example: Turner's (Moulton vv. 3-4) NT Grammar and Fitzmyer's Anchor Bible Luke claim that the Hebraic ἐγένετο-structures occur in Acts, too, thereby rending that item as irrelevant for determining the origin of Hebraisms in the Gospel, or stated positively, becoming partial evidence that Luke himself generated the structure based on the LXX. That false datum is one of the main evidences supporting the "Luke imitated the LXX" idea. (The other main pillar is that Luke worked directly off of Mark, so that his ἐγἐνετο structures were generated by himself since he doesn't take them from Mark.) But there are ZERO Hebraic ἐγένετο structures in Acts. Zero. Somehow that mistake has tainted NT research throughout the 20th century and continues to this day. (Shame on us, since the non-Hebraic distinction was already recognized in the 19th century.) For a non-Hebraic ἐγἐνετο structure, see Luke 3:21ff. έγένετο δὲ . . . ἀνεωχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανόν or "and it happened ... that the heavens opened" or Acts 5:7 Ἐγένετο δὲ . . . διάστημα "and there was . . . an interval." The Hebraic structures use an impersonal ἐγἐνετο without any explicit subject or infinitive clause as "subject". Those only occur in the Gospel and never in Acts, a datum generally overlooked or mistakenly denied in much gospel research.

The point of the PS is that explanations must cover all of the data. The fact that the Gospel is not a translation does not mean that pieces or sources could not come from Hebrew compositions, nor does the fact that most (but not all!) of the Hebraisms and Semitisms can be found and recognized in the LXX mean that Luke was creating Septuagintalisms in mass. Any semi-literal translation from high-register Hebrew or low-register Hebrew into Greek would produce a plethora of "Septuagintalisms", though the longer the texts, the more chance of finding non-Septuagintalisms.

Meanwhile, since this is the western Christmas Day, and this thread focuses on Luke's birth narrative:

καλὰ εἴη τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ γενέσια
[PPS: I would personally read the καλα with a high-tone on the end καλά, reflecting a pragmatic that got leveled when the accent marks were added to our texts according to default "non-focal" pragmatic reading rules.]