From: Dale M. Wheeler (dalemw@teleport.com)
Date: Wed Aug 23 1995 - 14:43:12 EDT
Carlton Winbery wrote:
>I still
>think that the present subjunctive in John 20:20 is more likely the original.
> If the aorist is original, the combination of the aorist and the present
>would surely indicate "coming to faith" (ingressive) and possessing life. If
>the present indicates "state" then combined with the aorist (or present)
>would almost function as perfected action. I would think that either way the
>result is the same. Coming to faith issues into possessing life.
I agree that if the aorist is original (which is what I'm inclined to read;
but I think my "rating" would be "D" not "C") then ingressive makes the most
sense here, mainly because of the contigent relationship established by the
ina clause, i.e., one must read the Gospel before one can believe it; thus
"belief" starts after "reading." This is consistent also with what Fanning
says about states (and he lists pisteuw as a state "verbs of passive
cognition, mental attitude, or emotional state: no focus on exertion to
maintain knowledge/attitude or to act in keeping with it") when they are in
the aorist, viz., they normally are ingressive. If the present is original,
then it seems to me to be more problematic; but perhaps it should be
understood simply as parallel to exw, i.e., John's sees his message as so
compelling that he doesn't entertain the idea of rejection and thus doesn't
address the idea of entrance into the state of believing/having life, he
just simply explains the state(s) one will be in without reference to their
obvious acceptance of his message ???
**************************************************************
Dale M. Wheeler, Th.D.
Chair, Biblical Languages Dept. Multnomah Bible College
8435 NE Glisan Street Portland, OR 97220
Voice:503-251-6416 FAX:503-254-1268 E-Mail:dalemw@teleport.com
**************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT