I've been steering clear of these discussions mostly because I have not had
time to read them all, but also because the aspect question is being
handled at what I consider largely a speculative level, not unlike the
issues in source criticism. The problem is that some seem more than willing
to let their interpretations of difficult passages dictate the guidelines
or rules of Greek grammar. In the case of the gnomic aorist, an English
point of view is something we just can't seem to rid ourselves of (pardon
the dangling prep). I very seriously doubt that this aorist indicative is
really timeless, and we do not make it so by merely translating it this
way, even though a timeless translation sounds so good *in English*.
McKay's statement, "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..." indicates to me
that he is just beginning to study conditional sentences, and his
interpretation of 1 Cor 7:28 suggests that he has taken a wrong turn. Like
others who have similar view points, he is ignoring the fact that the
aorist in question is in the indicative and has the augment.
After studying Greek now for what seems many years, I still have many
unanswered questions, included among which is the exact meaning of the
"gnomic" aorist and the various forces of "mixed" conditions like that in
John 15:6. However, in regard to the former I suspect that our own concept
of gnomic situations is flawed. If you think about it, the concept
logically must be based on past experiences, producing the assumption that
what has been true in the past will continue to be true in the future.
Perhaps the Greek has at least two ways of describing "gnomic" events: one
using the present tense (as in the present general condition) as we would,
and another which looks at a past event(s) and leaves it to the
reader/listener to draw some conclusion.
As to the condition in John 15:6, please, gentlemen, let's do our homework
before we attempt to dicipher what is going on. This includes, inter alia,
searching elsewhere for examples of the same thing (using exhaustive
computer searches etc. wherever possible) and refraining from conclusions
until (if ever) we have sufficient evidence to back them up. I realize that
those who have the time and opportunity to write Greek grammars feel
obligated to provide answers to such questions as these, and my hat's off
to them for tackling such a difficult job; but I would personally find it
most refreshing to see a few "ignoramus's" here and there instead of
speculation presented as a fact or viable theory. When my physician tells
me that this or that *seems* to work in dealing with a headache, but that
modern medicine really doesn't understand the causes of headaches
adequately, I respect him for his honesty and am really better prepared to
deal with my headaches than I would be given some supposed "cure" that
isn't. I'm sure most of us feel the same way about Greek, and we need to be
very discerning in our methods of study.
Don Wilkins
UC Riverside