Help with Septuagint and Vulgate to Isaiah 42:5

[Denis Giron]

For quite some time now I have been fascinated by Isaiah 42:5,
particularly the fact that active participles "bore" and "noteh" are
employed in the original Hebrew text (as this has all sorts of
interesting possibilities in terms of exegesis). At present I am trying
to learn how ancient translators understood this verse, but my
ignorance of Greek and Latin are hindering me. One thing I do notice is
that the verb for "create/make" in Isaiah 42:5 is different from the
one employed in Genesis 1:1 for both the Septuagint and the Vulgate. So
I thought I'd ask some preliminary questions here which would help me
as I start to look into grammars of Greek and Latin. To those who will
attempt to answer my questions: please, the more specific, the more
helpful (i.e. feel free to go into intricate detail that others more
knowledgeable than me might find condescending, e.g. "first person
masculine singular perfect aorist of such and such verb/cognate/root et
cetera"). Once I know what sorts of constructions these are, I can then
more thoroughly read about them in the grammars I plan to consult.

First the Latin/Vulgate - Genesis 1:1 has "creavit" while Isaiah 42:5
has "creans". What is the difference between these two conjugations?
What sort of structure is "creans"? Is it a past/perfect tense
conjugation? An active participle? Something else? The same goes for
"extendens" in the Vulgate of Isaiah 42:5. What kind of construction is
this?

Second the Greek/Septuagint - The Same questions apply. Genesis 1:1 has
"epoihesen" while Isaiah 42:5 has "ho poihesas" [pardon these possibly
blunderous transliterations of the Greek - any correction would be
greatly appreciated!]. What is the difference between these two
conjugations? What sort of structure is "ho poihesas"? Is it an active
participle? Something else? The same goes for "pexas" in the Septuagint
of Isaiah 42:5. What kind of construction is this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron
For quite some time now I have been fascinated by Isaiah 42:5,
particularly the fact that active participles "bore" and "noteh" are
employed in the original Hebrew text (as this has all sorts of
interesting possibilities in terms of exegesis). At present I am trying
to learn how ancient translators understood this verse, but my
ignorance of Greek and Latin are hindering me.

Once upon a time, I had rather extensive notes on this, but I think they
were on the laptop that got stolen. So I can only offer less extensive notes
now.

Post by Denis Giron
One thing I do notice is
that the verb for "create/make" in Isaiah 42:5 is different from the
one employed in Genesis 1:1 for both the Septuagint and the Vulgate.

What? How did you reach this conclusion? Isa 42:5 in the LXX reads:

OUTOS LEGEI KURIOS O QEOS O POIHSAS...

This POIHSAS is the aorist participle of POIEW, Strong's G4160, the same verb
used in Gen 1:1, which reads:

EN ARXHi EPOIHSEN O QEOS TON OURANON KAI THN GHN.

But here it is aorist indicative, so it has the E augment. Is this why you
didn't recognize it?

So

Post by Denis Giron
I thought I'd ask some preliminary questions here which would help me
as I start to look into grammars of Greek and Latin. To those who will
attempt to answer my questions: please, the more specific, the more
helpful (i.e. feel free to go into intricate detail that others more
knowledgeable than me might find condescending, e.g. "first person
masculine singular perfect aorist of such and such verb/cognate/root et
cetera"). Once I know what sorts of constructions these are, I can then
more thoroughly read about them in the grammars I plan to consult.
First the Latin/Vulgate - Genesis 1:1 has "creavit" while Isaiah 42:5
has "creans". What is the difference between these two conjugations?

They are the same verb. 'creavit' is 3rd person perfect (past tense like the
preterit of Spanish).

Post by Denis Giron
What sort of structure is "creans"?

Active present singular participle in the nominative case.

Post by Denis Giron
Is it a past/perfect tense
conjugation? An active participle? Something else?

See above.

Post by Denis Giron
The same goes for
"extendens" in the Vulgate of Isaiah 42:5. What kind of construction is
this?

Also a nominative present singular active participle.

Post by Denis Giron
Second the Greek/Septuagint - The Same questions apply. Genesis 1:1 has
"epoihesen" while Isaiah 42:5 has "ho poihesas" [pardon these possibly
blunderous transliterations of the Greek - any correction would be
greatly appreciated!].

Those are pretty horrible all right;) The transcription scheme I used above is
what is used on B-GREEK. Forget about breathing marks, use upper case, Q for
Theta, C for Psi and a couple other oddities like that.

Post by Denis Giron
What is the difference between these two
conjugations? What sort of structure is "ho poihesas"?

O + aorist participle is the common expression in Greek for "he who has done
[the action of the verb]". So here, it is perfectly natural to mean "He who has
made/created".

Post by Denis Giron
Is it an active
participle? Something else?

See above.

Post by Denis Giron
The same goes for "pexas" in the Septuagint
of Isaiah 42:5. What kind of construction is this?

PHJAS is also aorist singular active participle in the nominative case.

The LXX use of aorist participles is more exact than the Latin, which does not
have an aorist participle. Latin does have a perfect participle, but that is
passive only, not active. This is probably why Jerome did not use it for these
participles.

In fact, Jerome is consistent about using present participles to translate Greek
aorist participles (or the Hebrew original, which outside of waw-consecutive is
a perfect participle) when in the active voice.

[gilgames]

<<
One thing I do notice is
that the verb for "create/make" in Isaiah 42:5 is different from the
one employed in Genesis 1:1 for both the Septuagint and the Vulgate.
The create (bara) in Isa 42:5 s the same word as in Gen 1:1, oly the
aspect of the participle is different: in Isaiah it is 'imperfect', in
the Genesis it is perfect. IMHO the participle difference is explained
if we consider that in Gen 1:1 the emphasis is on the heaven and earth
wich are in the time and and could be in perfect or 'imperfect' aspect;
Isaiah talks about God, who is above our aspect categories.

The Vulgata translates it present imperfect participle

Isa 42:5 Haec dicit Dominus Deus,
creans caelos et extendens eos,

(creator of heaven).

My source also shows that then Septuaging is using active participle
(poihsas = the one who is creating)

http://www.spindleworks.com/septuagint/septuagint.htm

IMHO the KJV is using past because in an Empire it is hard to believe
that God makes the world and the history and not the King and/or the
only superpower.

laszlo

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Denis Giron
<<
One thing I do notice is
that the verb for "create/make" in Isaiah 42:5 is different from the
one employed in Genesis 1:1 for both the Septuagint and the Vulgate.
The create (bara) in Isa 42:5 s the same word as in Gen 1:1, oly the
aspect of the participle is different: in Isaiah it is 'imperfect', in
the Genesis it is perfect. IMHO the participle difference is explained
if we consider that in Gen 1:1 the emphasis is on the heaven and earth
wich are in the time and and could be in perfect or 'imperfect' aspect;
Isaiah talks about God, who is above our aspect categories.

Even I know enough Hebrew grammar to know there is a better explanation;) In Gen
1:1, it is pefect Qal, because that is the normal way to refer to a past act now
over and done with. In Isa 42:5 it is Qal _participle_ because the main verb,
already in the Qal, is 'MR, "he said"; BWR' modifies the subject of 'MR, so it
should be a participle, which it is.

Post by Denis Giron
The Vulgata translates it present imperfect participle

How can it be "present imperfect"? There is no such tense in Latin. There is
'present' and there is 'imperfect'. The two are distinct.

Post by Denis Giron
Isa 42:5 Haec dicit Dominus Deus,
creans caelos et extendens eos,
(creator of heaven).
My source also shows that then Septuaging is using active participle
(poihsas = the one who is creating)

True. But this is aorist, not present tense.


[snip]

[gilgames]

***@newsguy.com
<<
How can it be "present imperfect"? There is no such tense in Latin. There is
'present' and there is 'imperfect'. The two are distinct.
In my latin grammar there was
past - present - future (related to speaker)
perfect - imperfect - progressive (related to the event/action)
active - passive - middle (related to the agent)
indicative - conjuctive - imperative (related to the possibility)

The English grammars for some reason (probabily because the Latin
doesn't have progressive) do not mention by name the imperfect aspect,
but that is in the English language:

I have do it, I do it, I am doing it.

Naturaly not all the 81 tenses exist in all the languages, as
grammatical formulas, but most languages could express all of them quite
exactly if necessary w/o formulas.

As for the topic the message is that Gen 1.1 talks about the world wich
is in time and was created, Isa 42:5 talks about God who is timless and
who is behind every event/action restricting the importance of any
immanent power.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
<<
How can it be "present imperfect"? There is no such tense in Latin. There is
'present' and there is 'imperfect'. The two are distinct.
In my latin grammar there was
past - present - future (related to speaker)
perfect - imperfect - progressive (related to the event/action)
active - passive - middle (related to the agent)
indicative - conjuctive - imperative (related to the possibility)

I don't know what grammar that was; you will NOT find the same description in
any of the classic Latin grammars included at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.

Post by Matthew Johnson
The English grammars for some reason (probabily because the Latin
doesn't have progressive) do not mention by name the imperfect aspect,

You are still confusing the names: in _Hebrew_ the imperfect is considered an
'aspect', where it is more often called "imperfective aspect", but in Latin, the
imperfect is a tense. As such it is mutually exclusive to other tenses.

Post by Matthew Johnson
I have do it,

That is not a proper form in English.

Post by Matthew Johnson
I do it, I am doing it.
Naturaly not all the 81 tenses exist in all the languages, as
grammatical formulas, but most languages could express all of them quite
exactly if necessary w/o formulas.

But we do NOT use names for the "81 tenses" in each language! We use the names
for tenses _only_ for those tenses that the language under discussion actually
has.

Post by Matthew Johnson
As for the topic the message is that Gen 1.1 talks about the world wich
is in time and was created, Isa 42:5 talks about God who is timless and
who is behind every event/action restricting the importance of any
immanent power.

I can't stop you from believing that; but it does NOT follow from the grammar.
Not in Hebrew, certainly not in the LXX/Vulgate translations. This means that
those translators didn't believe your theory either.

[gilgames]

<<
I don't know what grammar that was; you will NOT find the same
description in any of the classic Latin grammars included at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.
This was Jambor Kemenes Latin nyelvtan (Hungarian).

In the real world any grammar considers the other languages from his own
view. In the Hungarian grammar there is only past and present,
indicative, conditional and imperative and made up passive (present and
past); so the language writer made it up logically. However this is a
good approch, independent from the particular languages. The 81
categories are existent by the logic and the fact that your grammar did
not gave name for it will not make it nonexistent, it could only cover
the meaning: no name, so there is no such thing. This is not the truth.
God in Isa 42:5 actively influences the word now and this is a timeless
eternal truth. (I believe you agree with me in this question)

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
<<
I don't know what grammar that was; you will NOT find the same
description in any of the classic Latin grammars included at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.
This was Jambor Kemenes Latin nyelvtan (Hungarian).
In the real world any grammar considers the other languages from his own
view. In the Hungarian grammar there is only past and present,
indicative, conditional and imperative and made up passive (present and
past); so the language writer made it up logically. However this is a
good approch, independent from the particular languages. The 81
categories are existent by the logic and the fact that your grammar did
not gave name for it will not make it nonexistent, it could only cover
the meaning: no name, so there is no such thing. This is not the truth.
God in Isa 42:5 actively influences the word now and this is a timeless
eternal truth. (I believe you agree with me in this question)

Agree with you? I can't even be sure what you mean. The only thing I can be sure
of is that based on your description, I would have to say that Jambor Kemenes
Latin nyelvtan is a very bad grammar of the Latin language. For it really does
not make sense to talk about any given tense of the Latin language as being
'present' and 'imperfect' at the same time.

Perseus has been having hardward problems over the weekend. When they get this
fixed (early this week?) you should check out Allen & Greenhough (sp?). It is a
classic, even it it does take a very old-fashioned approach to grammar, totally
ignoring your "81 categories".

[gilgames]

<<
For it really does
not make sense to talk about any given tense of the Latin language as being
'present' and 'imperfect' at the same time.
Imperfect was in that grammar (since is the Latin there is no
progressive) whatever is not perfect. The perfect means 'finished' (from
perficio). Do you really think that in the present all events are
'finished' = 'already done'?

laszlo

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by Matthew Johnson
<<
For it really does
not make sense to talk about any given tense of the Latin language as being
'present' and 'imperfect' at the same time.
Imperfect was in that grammar (since is the Latin there is no
progressive) whatever is not perfect. The perfect means 'finished' (from
perficio). Do you really think that in the present all events are
'finished' = 'already done'?

Of course not. But the tense system of Latin does NOT divide all verbs into
'perfect' and 'imperfect' (the way Hebrew and Russian do). Rather, it classifies
all verbs in terms of mood, tense and voice. The tenses are perfect, pluperfect,
imperfect, perfect, future and future perfect (rare). These tenses are mutually
exclusive. So it is NOT possible to be 'present' and 'imperfect' at the same
time.

Again, see Perseus to see that I am not making this up. The grammar book you
used relies on a strangely non-standard classification of tenses.