From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 06 1999 - 19:53:41 EST
At 2:48 PM -0600 12/6/99, Mr. Gary S. Dykes wrote:
>As Conrad points out two connotations exist for "keep", and his suggestion
>seems probable. The verb "keep" exists as an aorist form or as a perfect
>tense form here, both variants are well supported. If Conrad's notion of a
>type of observance is correct, then the perfect tense would seem best to
>me. But if she is pouring it all out then and there, then the aorist form
>seems best, and it would favor the semantic meaning of "kept" (she kept it
>for this occasion, and it was all poured out).
>
>The perfect (if original here) would favor her retaining some of the
>ointment, and using it later (or donating it later) for the proper Jewish
>burial ritual. The verbal context with AFES (let her alone) perhaps has
>some impact here upon the words of Jesus, -- as the action of the aorist
>imperative (AFES) MAY need to occur before the act of her keeping can
>become a reality, if the perfect is considered. On the basis of this
>relationship of the two tenses the aorist and the perfect, I opt for the
>perfect tense, and would also propose a translation which retains her
>"retaining" of some of the ointment for later (final) purposes. Thus, the
>true impact of the perfect tense would be resolved.
>
>But keep in mind, that I think the aorist form of "keep" would also be the
>more difficult reading here, and would be subject to change to the easier
>(grammatically) perfect. The differences between the two verb forms are not
>due to phonetic (aural) errors, they are intentional. So Wieland, does this
>move your gray matter around? Still I opt for the perfect tense as the
>inspired original form.
I confess I am wanting in the skills of an authentic textual critic, but is
it really true that both hINA EIS THN hHMERAN TOU ENTAFIASMOU MOU THRHSHi
AUTO and EIS THN hHMERAN TOU ENTAFIASMOU MOU TETHRHKEN AUTO can be said to
be "well supported"? Certainly, from what I read in NA27, there is support
for both, but support for the reading adopted by the editors (hINA ...
THRHSHi) is particularly strong coming from p66 and p75, isn't it? It's not
even contested sufficiently to be noted in the UBS4 edition or discussed by
Metzger. And this usage of the perfect strikes me as odd; it seems to me
that in the sense required an aorist indicative, ETHRHSEN, would be more
likely. This is again gut feeling; I don't really know that this is so.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
--- 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:48 EDT