>Now I considered the aorist form EGRAPSA in 1 Cor 5:9 and 5:11.
>BDF denies these cases to be aorists of an epistle.
>But I don't see reasons for that. But I see reasons against it:
>
>1) The NUN in 1 Cor 5:11 points to the present tense. NUN is often
>set
>in contrast to the past (1 Cor 3:2) or the future (1 Cor 16:12).
>
>2) The theory of a former letter of Paul to Corinth is nowhere
>else required in 1 Corinthians. (Compare with 2nd Corinthians,
>where there are several allusions to the first epistle.)
>
>3) The aorist of an epistle is habitual in Paul's letters
>and in letters of that period.
>
Surely, the Aorist in I Cor. 5:9 refers to a letter that Paul had written
earlier. The use of NUN with the aorist in 5:11 is natural. The grammars
I have read allow for an adverb of time with the aorist to refer to what
has happened in the recent past. The fact that they had misunderstood what
Paul meant, Paul had learned of their misunderstanding and is now
correcting their misunderstanding in the later letter surely rules out any
possibility that Paul is referring to what we know as I Corinthians.
Carlton Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu