>----------
>From: Jonathan Robie[SMTP:jwrobie@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 1997 9:52 AM
>To: b-greek@virginia.edu
>Subject: Attention aspect geeks: John 15:6 EBLHQH, EXHRANQH
>
>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.
>
>Look at the tense and voice of the verbs in this - this seems like
a
>very
>interesting verse for aspect hackers. How should I interpret the
use of
>aorist for EBLHQH and EXHRANQH? In particular, how should I
interpret
>the
>shift from present subjunctive (MENHi) to aorist (EBLHQH, EXHRANQH)
to
>present (SUNAGOUSIN, BALLOUSIN)? Do the aorists have future
reference?
>
>I know that Robertson treats EBLHQH, EXHRANQH as gnomic aorist, and
>others
>treat them as a timeless aorist. Let me give it a try, and let
y'all
>jump in
>and correct me:
>
>MENHi: Sets the condition: if anyone should not remain in me
>EBLHQH, EXHRANQH: The view shifts to the withered branches that did
not
>remain in him, as Carl suggests, pointing out that they *do*
wither;
>alternatively, I guess they could be seen as having future
referent,
>which
>I'm very reluctant to do...
>SUNAGOUSIN, BALLOUSIN: The view shifts to the workers in the act of
>picking
>them up and casting them on the fire
>
>How do the other Greek Gnomes see this?
>
>Jonathan
>
I won't speak for myself, but I would like to volunteer Prof. Kenneth
McKay (I regard him loosely in my mind as "Mr. Aspect") as a Greek Gnome
along with the the other Scholar-Gnomes on the list.
He writes in "A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek," p.47
under the subheading "Timeless (Gnomic) Aorist:"
The aorist tense is often used to express general truth in contexts with
no particular time reference. The present is the tense most commonly
found in timeless statements, as habitual activity is an imperfective
realization, but when the completeness of an action is to be stressed in
such a context the aorist is used. This aoristic completeness may in
some contexts imply suddenness or decisive action, in others
inevitability, but being a deviation from the norm in such contexts it
always involves a degree of emphasis. A clause containing AN (including
EAN, hOTAN, etc.) with a subjunctive depending on an aorist indicative
is usually a clear indication that the context is timeless: see 20.3.1,
20.6.3, 21.3.1. The timeless aorist is often called *gnomic* because it
has been most readily recognized in proverbial sayings and maxims
(GNWMAI), but is not confined to them. Some examples are:
Jn 15:6 EAN MH TIS MENH EN EMOI, EBLHQH hWS TO KLHMA KAI EXHRANQH, if
anyone does not remain in me he is cast out like a branch and withers
(the present tenses which follow describe the less urgent tidying up
process);
Jas 1:11 ANETEILEN GAR hO hHLIOS SUN TWi KAUSWNI KAI EXHRANEN TON
KORTON, once the sun rises with its scorching heat it withers the grass;
Mt 5:28 PAS hO BLEPWN (<-- hOS AN BLEPH) GUNAIKA PROS TO EPIQUMHSAI
AUTHN HDH EMOIKEUSEN AUTHN EN TH KARDIA AUTOU everyone who looks at a
woman to the point of desiring her in his heart (has already committed
... would more naturally represent the perfect in sich a context);
1Co 7:28 EAN DE GAMHSHS, OUK hHMARTES, but if you do marry you do not
commit a sin (that is not a sinful act)
Sincerely,
Wes Williams