Well, I do think that I like "Greek Gnomes" better than I do "big Gs" and
"little Gs"--much better, in fact. I even have a necktie which I
occasionally wear that features a regularly spaced picture of a gnome
holding a lantern, which figure always makes me think of Diogenes wandering
the streets of Athens in broad daylight, looking for an honest man. How
about looking for an honest aorist instead? Figure me for that kind of a
gnome.
To the point(s):
(1) Do aorists have future reference? Mari lists Mk 11:24 ELABETE as such
and cites Brooks & Winbery's version: PISTEUETe hOTI ELABETE "Believe that
you will receive." I'd certainly say that the reference is future, although
I think I'd prefer to translate it, "Believe that you've gotten it"--I
might even say it has the force of a future perfect in this context--not so
much in the literal sense of the future perfect as a tense as in the sense
that "You can be confident of it as a sure thing."
(2) I'm not sure that I would draw that sharp line between a "gnomic" and a
"timeless" aorist, Jonathan. Yesterday you cited Robertson's definition as
pointing to a past event that recurs. Or was it Smyth? Here's Smyth, at any
rate: "The aorist may express a general truth. The aorist simply states a
past occurrence and leaves the reader to draw the inference from a concrete
case that what has occurred once is typical of what often occurs." It seems
to me that the aorist would be the appropriate aspect for the formulation
of a scientific law such as, e.g., the Newtonian "a body in motion tends to
stay in motion ..." This is an observed fact, but the point of the
assertion is not to emphasize its "pastness" but its non-restriction to any
particular time. I would suppose Newton to formulate it thus in Greek: SWMA
KINOUN EFILHSEN KINEIN (I just love that distinctive Aristotelian use of
FILEW).
(3) The verse in question:
>John 15:6 (GNT) EAN MH TIS MENHi EN EMOI, EBLHQH EXW hWS TO KLHMA KAI
>EXHRANQH KAI SUNAGOUSIN AUTA KAI EIS TO PUR BALLOUSIN KAI KAIETAI.
In terms of classical grammatical analysis, what we havehere is a present
general condition; this normally calls for AN + subjunctive in the protasis
and the present indicative in the apodosis, BUT Smyth notes (#2338): "The
gnomic aorist is equivalent to the present indicative in apodosis." He
cites Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.2, HN DE TIS TOUTWN TI PARABAINHi, ZHMIAN
AUTOIS EPEQESAN, which he translates, "but if any one ever transgresses any
one of these regulations, they always impose punishment upon them (him)."
And I'd say that's exactly what we have in this True Vine parable: a
present general condition with protasis in the present subjunctive with AN
and an apodosis in the gnomic aorist which then continues on in the
present-tense verbs BALLOUSIN and KAIETAI. This is really a pretty neat
illustration of the "timeless" aorist.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/