[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: verbal aspect
Mari,
Interesting note on your dissertation. Just curious as to your
evaluation of the difference between Porter and Fanning the force of
various "conditional" sentences. (Pulling from memory here, so
correct me) Porter sees no difference between the force of 1st and
3rd class conditions (ei + indicative vs. ean + subjunctive).
Eg. in 1 Cor 7, Paul vacilates between these two classes. Paying
attention to these differences, one could posit that especially the
1st class conditions reflect a "real case" -- someone has at least
made a charge here ("the unmarried are continually getting involved
in imoral situations!") -- so Paul says, "If such a charge is true,
get married!" Soooo, for Porter, such differences are stylistic,
not substantive, and no such reading as I just gave is legitimate.
The standard grammars (BDF, Rob, MHT, et al) DO allow this kind of
application, and so does Fanning, if I remember correctly. This
same kind of distinction is disallowed by Porter for negative
statements (me + present impv = stop/continually avoid; vs.
me + aorist subjunctive = don't do/general prohibitive). Porter says
this is bosh, Fanning allows such distinctions, although Fanning
certainly does a better (and more specific) job outlining the differences
and the cases to which they apply than I have just done.
Sorry for the long question; hope it makes sense. Again, how do
you evaluate these two authors on these differences? Thanks.
Gary D. Collier
University of Denver/Iliff School of Theology
gcollier@du.edu
Follow-Ups: