From: Mark Wilson (emory2oo2@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 12 2001 - 14:20:36 EST
<x-flowed>
John 5:24
AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI hO TON LOGON MOU AKOUWN KAI PISTEUWN TWi
PEMYANTI ME ECEI ZWHN AIWNION KAI EIS KRISIN OUK ERCETAI, ALLA
*METABEBHKEN* EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN.
Mike:
You wrote:
>There seems to me to be interesting interplay going on between
>the lexical and aspectual parts of METABEBHKEN. METABAINW is, by
>itself, not a point action. It expresses some sense of movement,
>unlike, say, FRASSW or maybe GINWSKW. In a sense there is a
>`lexical aspect' and a `syntactic aspect'. So...
I think METABAINW is +dynamic, which as you say indicates
some motion or change in state. This corresponds to its
"lexical" aspect.
Next, I think your question
>Which is the more accurate in understanding
> METABEBHKEN EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN:
>
>That the people Jesus is referring to
>1. Moved from the state of death to the state of life.
>2. Were in a state of transfer from death to life.
>3. Have arrived at a final state made explicit by EIS... (barely
> different from `1'.)
With perfective verbs of motion, I think "emergence out of" is quite
frequently
the idea of EK (verb + EK), as opposed to stative verbs, where, for example,
EK can denote (THREW EK) "kept from entrance into."
But the "grammatical" aspect, so indicated by the Perfect tense form, would
denote a perfective (or stative) aspect. Hence, to me, I vote for number 1
above. The reason I would reject 3. is because you used the expression
"final" related to state. I do not think either the lexical or grammatical
aspect would indicate "finality," only a transfer from state A to state B.
I think this idea of "finality" of the Perfect Tense is the result of
theologians trying to support a theological position. I grew up hearing that
"saved" is in the Perfect tense, which means "saved in the past, with
results that last forever." I think after Greek 101 you are disabused of
this idea.
Also,...
>Note that it is difficult for me to word the question (in English)
>and not implicitly refer to tense (time).
Although I do not find Porter's view of the temporal nature of the finite
Indicative verbs convincing, I do not think you need to avoid altogether
mentioning "time." Porter definitely sees time; he just would not relate it
to the Indicative finite verb tense form.
My thoughts,
Mark Wilson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@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 - 15:36:47 EDT