From: Steven Craig Miller (scmiller@www.plantnet.com)
Date: Thu Dec 02 1999 - 12:42:46 EST
<x-flowed>To: David A Bielby,
<< The other day my inlaws pulled up in front of the house and my kids
called out..."they're here!".......but they were still in the street in
their car....still 'coming near'. Much like the sense of the perfect in
Matt 24:46. With EGGIZW it seems like the Perfect tense overlaps with
commonly used phrases like the illustration above. >>
It seems to me that you are suggesting that (a) because "here" can be
stretched to refer to something "near," (b) thus "near" can be stretched to
refer to something "here." Logically, it is not clear to me that "a"
necessarily implies "b."
Of course, "here" (like "there") and "near" (like "far") are relative
terms. The same distance can be deemed by one person to be "near" and by
another to be "far." For example, if the Pope flies into New York City,
someone on the west coast could say, "The Pope is here" (i.e., in the
USofA). While a person at the convention center where the Pope is scheduled
to speak might wonder why the Pope, who is at the airport, or on his way,
is not yet "here" (at the convention center).
As for the perfect verb at Mt 24:46, I wonder if this was a typo? Perhaps
for Mt 26:46?
The verb EGGIZW seems to be used with the perfect tense 14 times in the NT
(at: Mt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 26:45,46; Mk 1:15; 14:42; Lk 10:9,11; 21:8,20; Rom
13:12; Jam 5:8; & 1Pet 4:7).
In a number of these examples, it is absolutely clear that the perfect
tense of EGGIZW does not mean that the subject of the verb is "present."
For example: "The end of all things is near" (1Pet 4:7 NRSV) & "When you
see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come
near" (Lk 21:20 NRSV).
As for Mt 26:46, Matthew writes: << "Get up, let us be going. See, my
betrayer is at hand." While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the
twelve, arrived ... >> (Mt 26:46-47a NRSV; cf. Mk 14:42-43a). The Matthean
Jesus says that his betrayer is "near" (or "at hand") right as Judas
himself "arrived." But I would suggest that what we have here is simply
part of the storyteller's art. In fact, to translate this passage as "my
betrayer has come" would spoil (part of) the story. The point of the story
IMO is that Jesus' betrayer arrives just as Jesus tells his disciples that
his betrayer is on his way here. In my opinion, this passage does not
suggest that the prefect tense of EGGIZW was being used so as to imply that
the subject of the verb is present. Does this make sense to you, or no?
-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller@www.plantnet.com
"Words are like people. To know them well one must meet them on their own
level, in their own environment. In different circumstances they react
differently. Like a face they take on varying expressions. Some of them
move from place to place; some never return to their earlier familiar
surroundings. But to know their past is to know a little better what makes
them act as they do in the present" (Frederick W. Danker, "Multipurpose
Tools for Bible Study," 1993:135).
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu</x-flowed>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:47 EDT