Both are regularly translated by the English present tense.
Although Turner in MHT 3 seems to think it is an ingressive aorist (but I
don't think so) What say ye?
At 07:24 PM 9/8/96 -0700, you wrote:
> Most translations take the aorist active indicative 1st sing EUDOKNSA
>and render it in a present fashion, i.e., ASV, NRSV and NIV -- "I am well
>pleased." BAG has a suggestion regarding the aorist: (s. BWBacon, JBL 20, '01,
>28-30). I rendered this verse as follows: "You are my beloved son. In you I
>took delight." or, alternatively, "I have delighted in you." Could someone
>tell me why this aorist verb should stand in the present in most translations
>(26+)? My own suspicion has to do with the charybdis (apologies to Carl if my
>classical buffoonery is showing) of an adoptionist reading, but, there is a
>great deal I don't know and would welcome any insights from folk who are better
>prepared to address the present state of most renderings.
>A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging;
>it is the skin of living thought and changes from day
>to day as does the air around us. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Kevin W. Woodruff
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX)