Now I considered the aorist form EGRAPSA in 1 Cor 5:9 and 5:11.
BDF denies these cases to be aorists of an epistle.
But I don't see reasons for that. But I see reasons against it:
1) The NUN in 1 Cor 5:11 points to the present tense. NUN is often
in contrast to the past (1 Cor 3:2) or the future (1 Cor 16:12).
2) The theory of a former letter of Paul to Corinth is nowhere
else required in 1 Corinthians. (Compare with 2nd Corinthians,
where there are several allusions to the first epistle.)
3) The aorist of an epistle is habitual in Paul's letters
and in letters of that period.
| Martin Arhelger |
| D-53121 Bonn |
| Germany |
| email@example.com |