From: Carlton Winbery (winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net)
Date: Mon Dec 29 1997 - 03:19:49 EST
Wes Williams wrote;
>I was hoping some of the senior members on the list could help me
>understand the grammatical reason why an aorist is sometimes translated
>with an English perfect. It seems to behave just like a PPA (present
>with extension from the past) construction except it is aorist.
>
>As one contrasting example...
>
>Present tense with extension from past time translated as English
>perfect...
>John 15:27 hOTI AP ARCHS MET AMOU ESTE
>because you have been with me from the beginning
>
>Aorist with extension from past translated as English perfect...
>John 7:48 MH TIS EK TWN ARCONTWN EPISTEUSEN EIS AUTON EK TWN FARISAIWN;
>NIV "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?
>NASB Ç*No one of *the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?
>
>Perhaps this is a constantive or complexive (not one has entered the
>state of belief and remained in that state) aorist. What would be the
>distinction if John had used PISTEUOUSI as a PPA (not one has
>believed...) in John 7:48? Anything?
>
One of the more difficult things for Greek students to learn is that while
morphology is based primarily on form, syntax is determined largely by
context.
In John 15:47 hOTI AP ARCHS MET AMOU ESTE, the present tense is used with a
clear period of time (AP ARCHS) through which the state endures (and
continues through the present moment). Hence, the translation as durative
(it endured). The key to look for in the context is a period of time.
On the other hand in John (7:48 MH TIS EK TWN ARCONTWN EPISTEUSEN EIS AUTON
EK TWN FARISAIWN;) the aorist is used because the question is whether an
event has occurred. The aorist is natural when there is an indication that
something happened. I call these culminative aorist. The action is looked
at from the view point that it happened or is over with) (or in this case
did not happen).
There is a use of the perfect that is very close to this, the perfect of
completed action (some consummative). The emphasis falls on the past
completed action rather than the existing result (intensive eg.Luke 24:46).
Eg. of consummative is John 17:6 TON LOGON SOU TETHRHKAN, "They have kept
your word." The emphasis in on the fact that they did it, but the existing
result is not totally absent, hence the perfect rather than the aorist.
Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
winbery@andria.lacollege.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT