I'm sorry, Jonathan. You're quite right; I was, in fact, not thinking of
the Greek epistolary aorist here so much as of the Latin epistolary
imperfect, which is usually explained as envisioning the action from the
point of view of the reader, and which generally does involve simply the
verb SCRIBEBAM. Still, there seems something arbitrary to explaining the
aorists in this passage, where they are right next to present-tense forms
as "epistolary" when their function doesn't seem to differ in any clear way
from the present-tense forms.
>Some translations don't convey any distinction at all, e.g. NIV:
>
>GRAFW: I write to you
>EGRAPSA: I write to you
>
>Others do convey a distinction, e.g. NASB:
>
>GRAFW: I write to you
>EGRAPSA: I have written to you
>
>I don't think this is a very strong distinction, in Greek or in English, but
>I think that it is there. It is probably misleading to say that the author
>"puts himself in the place of the recipient at the time the letter is
>received", and therefore uses the aorist, as some grammars imply. If I say,
>in English, "I have written you because...", then you would not assume that
>I am consciously putting myself in your place and imagining it from that
>perspective, but I *have* used a different tense, and there is a shift in
>aspect.
I'll agree with this, as well as with what you go on to say below, that the
EGRAYA views the writing from the outside--I think I would rather say as a
whole, and I would certainly say "as a whole" rather than "from behind."
But I think the use of the English perfect tense here is close to that
"indefinite past"--viewing the action as a whole rather than as complete.
That is in fact what I meant to suggest in my original response:
>>I really don't think ... there's a ... difference in meaning
>>between GRAFW (present) and EGRAYA (aorist) in these statements unless it
>>is about as great as that between (a) "I'm writing to you because ...," and
>>(b) my writing you has as its reason the fact that ..." Which is to say
>>that I don't think these aorist forms EGRAYA have any past time reference at
>>all; if they have distinctive aspectual significance at all, my guess
>>is that they envision the writing as a whole act.
>And I still think that there is a shift of emphasis from the writer to the
>recipients in 2.12-.14. At the beginning, the present GRAFW is imperfective,
>with the focus on the time of the writer:
>
>GRAFW hUMIN...hOTI AFEWNTAI
>
>Of course, the perfect is also very strong here, so the emphasis might be
>50/50. In 2.14, two things shift the emphasis to the reader - the EGRAPSA
>views the writing from outside, whether or not you believe in a past time
>referent for aorist, and the three strong statements at the end clearly tilt
>the emphasis toward the recipients:
>
>EGRAYA hUMIN, NEANISKOI,
>hOTI ISCUROI ESTE
>KAI O LOGOS TOU QEOU EN hUMIN MENEI
>KAI NENIKHKATE TON PONHRON.
Here's where I can't follow you, Jonathan. You must be seeing this shift of
emphasis to the reader from the use of the aorist alone, because I can't
see any difference from the GRAFW formulations: each of these also has a
vocative and a dative hUMIN for the group addressed and a hOTI clause with
verbs in the perfect tense; moreover two of those perfects are identical
with those used with GRAFW (EKGNWKATE TON PATERA 2X, NENIKHKATE TON
PONHRON). Or perhaps you see that shift as a consequence of the different
elements in the final hOTI clauses, namely, the present tenses ISCUROI
ESTE, MENEI EN hUMIN. But I can't see how any of these features mark the
last sequence in 2:14 as MORE directed toward the readers than the previous
sequence of GRAFW formulations in 2:12-13. I can't see how the addressees
are any MORE in focus in 2:14 than they are in 2:12-13.
A very interesting problem indeed. Perhaps Rod Decker will enter these
"lists" and joust with this passage? Now that he has his dissertation
proposal all set and is ready to do serious battle with the aorist in his
own right?
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/