On the use of the tenses generally. see Vol. 1., Introduction, “Or.
Methods of Rendering.” The aorist seems to be used with full
of meaning; there are comparatively few cases in which the
‘gnomic’ use, with those of the ‘immediate past’ and ‘indefinite
cannot be made to cover the ground; but sometimes even a liberal use
of these explanations hardly satisties Leaving aside the question how
best to render into English, such tenses as εἶδον, vi. 5; κατίσχυσεν,

 
xxiv. 20; ἐπένθησεν, xxxiii. 9; ἀπέστησαν, xxxiii. 14: ὑψώθη, lii. 8
ελάλησεν, lix. 3; εὗρεν, lix. 4; ἔγνω, lxiii. 16, present difficulties which
are seldom felt in reading the classical Attic authors. Many other
aorists are found which, though not in themselves impossible, are
difficult in consideration of their context and probable meaning. In Isaiah, the future causes little difficulty: it may have sometimes
been wrongly chosen by the translator, but his intention is seldom
doubtful. ln clauses after ὃν τρόπον it is, however, awkward. The
idea seems not so much to represent the Heb. imperf., which is not
always found in the original, as to assimilate the tense to the corresponding
clause. Most instances of the perfect in lsaiah are natural enough; and
the tense is fairly common: but see above on liii. 5 for cases where it
occurs in parallel clauses with the aorist. From Prof. Moulton's discussion
of the matter (Grammar of N.T. Greek, p. 140 foll.) we see
that the best modern authorities are inclined to recognize the possibility
of the aoristic use of the perfect in some N.T. writers, accepting them,
however, with extreme caution. Prof. Moulton himself limits them,
apparently, to a few in Revelation, and three instances of ἔσχηκα, as a
special form, in ’s Epistles. This ἔσχηκα, with ἀπέσταλκα—for
which see Acts vii. 35, 2 Cor. xii. 17, Exod. iii. 13—15, lsai.
certain forms not simply reduplicated, to which Mozley (p. 148) draws
attention, are suSpected of aoristic force. Mozley also points out the
use of the perf. in titles of Pss. xciiii., xcvi., after ὅτε, and a few others,
such as B's εἴρηκε in 2 Kings vi. 7. ὁπότε and ἡνίκα, rather than ὅτε,
seem to be used in titles of Psalms with unmistakable aorists: cf. in
Isaiah, xvi. 13, xx. 1, xxxviii. 9; but this is not invariable, see lxiii. 19. As to aoristic perfects in the LXX., we have to remember first, that
the translation Is not homogeneous: and Prof. Moulton says (p. 143),
“We are entirely at liberty to recognise such perfects in one writer
and deny them to another, or to allow them for certain verbs and
negative the class as a whole.” Secondly, the question may be
whether it is the form of the one tense or the meaning of the other that
prevailed; or rather, whether it was not made easier for the perfect to
be used where we might have expected an aorist, by the aorist having
already extended its limits, so as almost to encroach upon what was
the territory of the perfect. (The perfect form, that is, is perhaps
regaining for the tense some of the ground which the aorist had
previously extended its meaning to cover.) On the coupling of the
two, as in liii. 5, we may again quote Prof. Moulton, speaking (p. 143)
of “aorist and perfect joined with καί and with identical subject.

 
When the nexus is so close, we might fairly suppose it possible for the
tenses to be contaminated by the association, even where a perfect
would not have been used aoristically by itself.” Hence no
surprise need be felt at the coordinate aor. and perf. in our Isaiah
passages, while on the other hand there seems to be no instance of an
isolated aorist perfect in the book. There are, it is true, some where
the aorist, according to some of its uses in the book, would appear
equally possible. Compare e.g. ἤκουσεν, vai. 8, with ἀκηκόασιν below,
ver. 19, or ἠρήμωται, i. 7, with ἠρημώθη, xxiv. 10; also xlvii. 13 with
lvii. IO. According to my view, as expressed in Vol. I. “ On Methods
of Rendering,” the extended use of the aorist in Isaiah is largely
to its being the ’ choice as the normal tense to represent the
Heb. perfect. The rest of the prophetic, lyric, and poetic passages of
the Ο.Τ. are, so far as I can see, not unlike Isaiah in this respect.
Plain narrative, introducing the help of a continuous story or context,
stands on a different footing. The rendering of the LXX. into English has of course difficulties of
its own, of which these tenses form not the least important. The
English translator has to determine what the Greek translator meant,
and to judge (see § 1) how far to render in the light of the original,
and how far by the ordinary rules of the Greek language. As a hostage
has been given to fortune in Vol. 1., no more need be said here. But
on the question of the aorist and perfect especiallynit must be remembered
that the use of tenses is not a fixed quantity, either as between
two languages (though with obviously corresponding forms) or between
two stages of one language. The English tenses themselves have
undergone much change in usage. Again, the French past tense
with avoir (I avoid the terms ‘definite’ and ‘indefinite’) corresponds,
evidently, in form to the English tense with ‘have,’ and jaimai on the
whole to I loved; but the usage often differs considerably. I choose,
almost at random, a quotation from MM. Erckhmann-Chatrian's
Waterloo, chap. ix.:
 ” Cette montre...je Lai regue du prince ène pour une action éclat.’ 
And one from Racine (Athalie, Act II. Sc. V. l. 511 foll.)
 “Mais lorsque revenant de mon trouble funeste J'admirais sa douceur, son air noble et modeste, Ƒai senti tout à coup un homicide acier.’