From: Alex / Ali (alexali@surf.net.au)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 01:33:35 EST
The recent post on the use of the perfect by Mike Sangrey is directed to the
very matter which I find most interesting, but until now have not had time
to respond to.
John Boyd's original post concerned 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.
The aspect of the perfect is often called stative, a term which lays
emphasis on the use of the perfect to denote a state rather than an action.
Thus, we translate OIDA as 'I *know*', rather than 'I have seen'; TEQNHKEN
hH QUGATHR SOU, 'your daughter *is dead* (Luke 8:49); hO PAIS MOU BEBLHTAI,
'my servant *is lying*' (Mat 8:6).
Now, as Mike pointed out, METABAINW 'expresses some sense of movement'. META
in compounds often expresses change, BAINW has the idea of movement, and
their combination speaks of moving, changing place, changing from one
position to another.
If the perfect, however, is (purely) stative, what METABEBHKEN refers to is
the state that is the consequence of motion. When a person's movement is
complete, they come to a state of rest.
This is where a tension arises between the stative aspect of the perfect and
the prepositions used with this particular example, for where we might have
expected rest EN + dative (for example), what we do have is EK ... EIS ...
EIS in the NT does muscle in on the sense of EN; one of the Grammars I use
most, Zerwick's 'Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples' has several pages
on the inroads EIS made into the province of EN, both in local and
metaphorical senses.
But that is not of relevance here, where we have both a verb of motion and
the working of the two prepositions together, EK ... EIS.
So the meaning of *METABEBHKEN* EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN is not purely
stative, but also has in view the action that precedes the state.
This, in fact, is to go no further than McKay, who writes 'the event
producing the state may be implied strongly enough for the addition of an
adverbial attachment which applies particularly to the event: e.g. 1 Cor
15:4 KAI hOTI EGHGERTAI Thi HMERAi Thi TRITHi, 'and that he rose on the
third day (and remains risen).' The emphasis is still on the state rather
than the event, but the flexibility of the language permits the addition of
an adverbial phrase which would usually accompany the aorist which might
have been used here.'
[McKay, 'A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek', p32; note that
the paragraph quoted is not the first point he makes in regard to the
perfect, but it is the most relevant for the example we are working through.
And as Rod Decker mentioned, the bibliography at his site includes other of
McKay's writings that are worth reading.]
To my mind, the active issue in regard to the perfect is not whether it
denotes a state that is permanent and unchanging. When the centurion says,
hO PAIS MOU BEBLHTAI, 'my servant *is lying*' (Mat 8:6), there is no
implication that the servant never again rose from his bed. Cindy Westfall's
criticism of Reinecker's statement (in relation to 1 John 3:14, where the
same phrase METABEBHKEN EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN appears) that 'The
perfect tense indicates the permanency of the step of salvation' reminds us
that some commentators do claim permanence for the condition denoted by the
perfect. That claim is invalid.
Rather, it is how far the perfect tense has moved along the cline towards
the use of the aorist, denoting an action rather than a state or condition,
that is of interest. McKay's work is of importance in indicating the
priority of the state rather than the action, which action is, nevertheless,
sometimes also in view.
Wallace writes (p573): ' The force of the perfect tense is simply that it
describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the
perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e., in
relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect
tense is used for 'indicating not the past action as such but the present
'state of affairs' resulting from the past action' '. It seems to me that
what Wallace posits as alternative views of the same thing are in fact *not*
equivalent, and that Zerwick's is the more accurate formulation.
In summing up, it may be of interest that some of these questions have long
been asked:
'It lay with the writer's *mode of viewing* [my 'italics' - how modern such
a phrase sounds] the event he narrates, and indeed frequently with his habit
of mind, whether he used the aorist or perfect. For the aorist by no means
implies that the consequences of the event do not remain to the present. And
if the context made it sufficiently clear that the consequences continue, or
if it was needless to call special attention to them, the aorist was used.
Only when the consequences demanded attention was the perfect used. Nor does
the Greek perfect imply that all the consequences of the past event remain.
Lazarus was properly spoken of as hO TEQNHKWS, even when coming from the
grave. For his death, although its bands were broken, had left an abiding
mark upon him ...
'But although the significance of the perfect sometimes sank towards, or
even sank to, the level of the aorist, the significance of the aorist never
rose in the least degree towards that of the perfect. ... In conclusion, I
may add that we have no nobler monument of the thoughtfulness of the Greek
mind than the Greek perfect tense.'
And in a subsequent article, the same writer wrote what might still have
relevance on B-Greek today:
'To some persons our long discussion of a Greek tense will seem to be little
better than learned trifling. But the careful student of Holy Scripture will
judge otherwise. No one who earnestly desires to learn all he can from the
Bible, and who, with this aim in view, strives to follow the train of
thought of its writers, will count any labour superfluous which enables him
to understand more exactly and fully the meaning of their words.'
The author of these words was Joseph Agar Beet, writing in what I gather
must have been a series of articles; I have them as cuttings from their
original magazines or journals, cuttings made by my grand-father or
great-grand-father perhaps a hundred years ago or more. There is an
indication that the original title was 'The Greek Aorist, as used in the New
Testament'; if any list member could let me know of the full bibliographic
details, I would be most grateful.
Dr Alex Hopkins (Melbourne, Australia)
---
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:47 EDT