> (...)
> The use of NUN with the aorist in 5:11 is natural.
No! I looked for NUN + aorist (indicative), and did find only very
few
examples in the NT (e. g. Mat 26:65, Joh 21:10 Rom 5:11; 11:31),
non of them being similar to 1 Cor 5:9.
As a comparison: NUN + present (indicative, active) is used
about 40 times in NT; and it is used with perfect as well.
> The grammars I have read allow for an adverb of time
> with the aorist to refer to what has happened in the recent past.
Adverbs of time pointing to the past (like EXQES or PALAI) are
naturally connected with the aorist. That's not astonishing.
But I'm speaking, here, of the adverb NUN.
And NUN is naturally not going with the past but
- due to its main meaning - to the present. I don't deny
that it may go with aorist sometimes. But that's not regular.
> 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.
Sorry, but I don't see any force in your argument.
Where do you get from, that the clarification of 1 Cor 5:10-11
is an answer to a prior misunderstanding ?
In his letters, Paul often gave statements and then explained,
what he thought and what was not meant by his words.
So, 1 Cor 5:9 may be a statement, and V. 10 - 13 a
clarification without any reference to a prior letter.
In accordance with my former arguments No 2 and 3
(which you did not mention nor refute) let me add, that
4) The expression article + EPISTOLH by Paul
regularly refers to the present letter he is writing,
not to any past letter: Rom 16:22; Col 4:16;
1 Thess 5:17; 2 Thess 3:14 (2 Cor 7:8 seems to
be an exception, but there the reference is
totally clear by the connected sentence,
where it is hH EPISTOLH EKEINH)
regards
______________________________
| |
| Martin Arhelger |
| D-53121 Bonn |
| Germany |
| martin.arhelger@metronet.de |
|______________________________|