Jim says:
> 2) The use of hHN rather than ESTIN, in conjunction with the
> perfective GEGONEN. The perfective (so I am told) indicates
> an effect that continues to the present. If it were to go
> with hHN, wouldn't we expect a pluperfect instead?
>
> Regards,
> Jim Vellenga
>
Jim, I have recently spent some time trying to visualize these
verses. The aspectual as opposed to the actionstart model, if
I understand the terms, would cause one to consider the perfect
as an indicator of a 'complex state of affairs'. The aspect of
the imperfect tense form would be considered imperfective, the
same as the present tense form.
Joh 1:3 PANTA DI AUTOU EGENETO KAI XWRIS AUTOU EGENETO OUDE EN .
O GEGONEN 4 EN AUTW ZWH HN KAI H ZWH HN TO FWS TWN ANQRWPWN.
That which came into existence, EGENETO from verse 3, is then further
explained by a definition in verse 4. That which was made [O GEGONEN],
this complex phenomena, therefore begs for an explanation. First it
is life [ZWH] and that light is further described as the light of
men [FWS TWN ANQRWPWN]. In fact, the end of the prologue describes
how the revelation through that light in turn allows mankind to come
to know the Almighty God, who no man has ever seen because he explains
Him [ECHGHSATO]. (John 1:18) This knowledge of the Father, through the
the light [FWS] thus delivers eternal life [ AIONES ZWH ]. (John 17:3)
Even if the verbs are considered to have an intrinsic time built
into them, I don't see a conflict, although some manuscript
variations do indeed have EIMI in the present (according to my
Nestle/Aland critical apparatus).
Also, even if the perfect does indicate a perfective or completed event
which has a continuing significance in the future (I would also consider
this to be a complex state of affairs), I don't see a conflict between
this view and the imperfect tense form HN, following it, because even
in a strict time-based interpretation, would not the time of the HN
be in relation to the O GEGONEN, with both being from the viewpoint
of the reader, both past events ? And do not both HN and ESTE have a
continuous aspect which is more important that any time sense, even
in the conventional model ?
I am not sure if John 3:19 is parallel to John 1:3-4, but I'll throw
it out for consideration and let someone correct me if I am wrong. Here
an event described in the perfect tense form (ELHLUQEN) is described in
the past and subsequent events in the imperfect tense form (HN), by
someone in the present.
AUTH DE ESTIN (present tense form) H KRISIS
Now this is the basis for judgment,
OTI TO FWS ELHLUQEN (perfect tense form)
that the light has come
EIS TON KOSMON
into the world
KAI HGAPHSAN (aorist) OI ANQRWPOI MALLON TO SKOTOS H TO FWS
but men have loved the darkness rather than the light,
HN (imperfect tense form) GAR AUTWN PONHRA TA ERGA
for their works were wicked. (They still are, are'nt they ?)
In my mind, when I read the prologue, and especially when I try to
visualize when the tense forms change, it seems perfectly natural
to use HN after GEGONEN , since it appears in John 1:1-2. When the tense
form changes from aorist (background noise) to perfect (whoa, pay attention!)
and then back to the imperfect tense form (HN) it seems to have made
a complete circle, tying in the thought back as a reference to the
existence of the Logos at John 1:1.
These are my current thoughts on visualizing the text. Due to my
inexperience in Greek, please take what I have said with a grain of
salt, and as always, I am most interested in any errors I have made
or other viewpoints as to the discourse analysis.
Sincerely,
Larry Kruper