A couple of observations on the Imp'v and the IAOMAI discussions under
these threads...
The Imp'v...Imp'v chain "feels" very semitic to me; and with these types
of constructions the relationship of the second imp'v to the first can be
quite a variety of things; I don't have Waltke/O'Connor with me here in
sunny LA, but the second imp'v supporting or being the consequence of the
first doesn't seem unlikely to me; something like "Go...because you are
well!", or "If you go, you will be okay.", or (more likely) "Go, and you
will be well!" (2 and 3 being statements that the healing would not
evaporate as soon as she got away from him). It seems unlikely
to me that Jesus is commanding this lady to maintain her health ("eat
plenty of fruits and vegetables, drink 8 glasses of water each day, don't
smoke or drink alcohol to excess, get some daily exercise," etc.)--unless
there is an implied "Don't sin anymore, and you'll stay fine!"; but the
context of her illness doesn't seem to support such an idea.
On the second discussion, Mk 5:29--not defending BDF, NA, LJS, per se.
First, its a *bit* of an overstatment that the old mss don't have *any*
markings on them at all (Edward and Carl understand this; I fear that some
beginners may take this a bit too literally), and sometimes these markings
may in fact make *tense* distinctions, as well as other things. I doubt
that this passage is marked, however. But that brings up another issue;
the text editors don't make these decisions in a vacuum. Most of the time
there is a history which stretches back a long way as far as punctuation,
etc. on the texts; it'd be interesting to see what the history of this
passage is in the Greek mss as soon as there started to be any markings
on this word.
Second, my *guess* is that the editors, etc., decided to follow the
"Perfect" history because this statement is in an indirect discourse
clause (ie., Greek, unlike English, retains the tense of the original
statement when "indirectly quoting"; whereas English backs up the tense
one time frame or uses the subjunctive), thus the original thought that
the woman had was "I have been made well.", not "I am well.", which
seems appropriate (the "past" time form of the Greek statement
translated into English is *not* an indication of backing up a time
frame, but the time frame of the original--sorry about the lengthy
discussion, but I find this difference between Greek and English to be
one of the hard ones for beginners to get at first).
I must however confess that the fact that IAOMAI never occurs in the
Perfect Passive surprises me (didn't anyone else ever say, "I've been
healed !"?) and leads me to believe that, if Edward is correct (as he
usually is) then perhaps the present is the original and the tense of
the woman's original thought (ie., "I am healed."). Thus the English
"she knew in her body that she was/had been healed.") backs up one
time frame to indicate the indirect discourse.
One final note--which is why I got into this thread to begin with--;
someone asked me why the GRAMCORD database parses this one as a Perfect,
in light of the previous discussions. The answer is simple; the NA
text has *clearly* written/accented the Perfect form and GRAMCORD is
parsing the NA text.
XAIREIN...
***********************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Research Professor in Biblical Languages Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice: 503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail: dalemw@teleport.com
***********************************************************************