Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2852
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 13th, 2012, 10:04 am

1 John 2:3 wrote:Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.
What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν? Robertson says it's an "intensive perfect." How would the meaning be different from an aorist, say ἔγνωμεν?

Stephen
0 x


Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Mark Lightman » March 13th, 2012, 10:54 am

ἠρώτησεν ὁ Στέφανος: What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν?
χαίροις, Στέφανε,

Using the so-called Method 5, I would metaphrase 1John 2:3 as

καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι καλῶς καὶ ὀρθῶς γινώσκομεν αὐτόν, ὥστε τῆν γνῶσιν αὐτοῦ μένειν ἐν ἡμῖν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.


or, if you prefer Method 2, the "perfect of enduring and life-transforming cognitive effects with verbs of knowing or perception."

πολλὰ χαίρων ἴθι.
0 x

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by cwconrad » March 13th, 2012, 11:16 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
1 John 2:3 wrote:Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.
What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν? Robertson says it's an "intensive perfect." How would the meaning be different from an aorist, say ἔγνωμεν?
I'm one of those who are skeptical of any regular clear distinction between aorist and perfect usage, unless there's a clear contextual reason for making the distinction. Granted that the perfect-tense form implies the achievement of discernment, I'm not so sure that the aorist-tense form wouldn't just as well indicate that one has gained the discernment. I think the burden of proof that there is a distinction between an aorist or perfect in a given text rests upon the one asserting such a distinction.
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by cwconrad » March 13th, 2012, 11:26 am

Mark Lightman wrote:
or, if you prefer Method 2, the "perfect of enduring and life-transforming cognitive effects with verbs of knowing or perception."
And that may also be termed the "theological perfect", akin in its own way to the "divine passive" or the "aporetic genitive." It's when metalanguage becomes φλυαρία (as does happen on occasion).
0 x
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by David Lim » March 13th, 2012, 11:27 am

Stephen Carlson wrote:
1 John 2:3 wrote:Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.
What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν? Robertson says it's an "intensive perfect." How would the meaning be different from an aorist, say ἔγνωμεν?

Stephen
I don't have any idea what an "intensive perfect" could mean, but I think the perfect fits much better than an aorist, because it is natural to describe "our knowledge of God", which should be a present state. The aorist on the other hand would suggest a past event, which isn't so suitable for describing knowing God in the way John is referring to, as he says, τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν, which is a present way of life, εν ω γινωσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Mark Lightman » March 13th, 2012, 11:43 am

CONRAD: I'm one of those who are skeptical of any regular clear distinction between aorist and perfect usage, unless there's a clear contextual reason for making the distinction.
I'm one of those guys too, and would note that George Bambas' High Modern Greek (Method 6?) has the aorist ἐγνωρἰσαμεν, whereas the TGV Modern Greek has the perfect ἔχουμε γνωρίσει.
0 x

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2852
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 13th, 2012, 11:50 am

David Lim wrote:I don't have any idea what an "intensive perfect" could mean, but I think the perfect fits much better than an aorist, because it is natural to describe "our knowledge of God", which should be a present state. The aorist on the other hand would suggest a past event, which isn't so suitable for describing knowing God in the way John is referring to, as he says, τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν, which is a present way of life, εν ω γινωσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον.
It's one of those grammatical terms I'm not particularly fond of. Basically an "intensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the state resulting from an action and an "extensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the action that brought about a resulting state.

Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Stephen Carlson
Posts: 2852
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Stephen Carlson » March 13th, 2012, 11:58 am

cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:
1 John 2:3 wrote:Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν.
What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν? Robertson says it's an "intensive perfect." How would the meaning be different from an aorist, say ἔγνωμεν?
I'm one of those who are skeptical of any regular clear distinction between aorist and perfect usage, unless there's a clear contextual reason for making the distinction. Granted that the perfect-tense form implies the achievement of discernment, I'm not so sure that the aorist-tense form wouldn't just as well indicate that one has gained the discernment. I think the burden of proof that there is a distinction between an aorist or perfect in a given text rests upon the one asserting such a distinction.
I don't know how much the context helps; the author just seems to ramble on for me.

More grist for the mill, but there's an aorist later on:
1 John 3:1 wrote:διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν.
Stephen
0 x
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia

Mark Lightman
Posts: 300
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 6:30 pm

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by Mark Lightman » March 13th, 2012, 12:14 pm

CARLSON: It's one of those grammatical terms I'm not particularly fond of. Basically an "intensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the state resulting from an action and an "extensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the action that brought about a resulting state.
Well, then, should we not call the ἐγνώκαμεν of 1 Jn 2:3 the “intensive-extensive perfect” (Method 2) or ὁ ἀποτετελεσμένος παρακείμενος χρόνος (Method 4?)

But this discussion is really out of place here on the Koine Texts Subforum, where we do not debate the value of metalanguage. As Juvenal might have said, who will moderate the moderators? :twisted:

Μᾶρκος ὁ φλυαρῶν.
0 x

David Lim
Posts: 901
Joined: June 6th, 2011, 6:55 am

Re: Force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν in 1 John 2:3

Post by David Lim » March 13th, 2012, 10:52 pm

Stephen Carlson wrote:
David Lim wrote:I don't have any idea what an "intensive perfect" could mean, but I think the perfect fits much better than an aorist, because it is natural to describe "our knowledge of God", which should be a present state. The aorist on the other hand would suggest a past event, which isn't so suitable for describing knowing God in the way John is referring to, as he says, τας εντολας αυτου τηρωμεν, which is a present way of life, εν ω γινωσκομεν οτι εγνωκαμεν αυτον.
It's one of those grammatical terms I'm not particularly fond of. Basically an "intensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the state resulting from an action and an "extensive perfect" is supposed to emphasize the action that brought about a resulting state.

Stephen
Ah I see. I suppose it is better not to categorise then; I think neither categorisation is true.
Stephen Carlson wrote:
cwconrad wrote:
Stephen Carlson wrote:What is the force of the perfect ἐγνώκαμεν? Robertson says it's an "intensive perfect." How would the meaning be different from an aorist, say ἔγνωμεν?
I'm one of those who are skeptical of any regular clear distinction between aorist and perfect usage, unless there's a clear contextual reason for making the distinction. Granted that the perfect-tense form implies the achievement of discernment, I'm not so sure that the aorist-tense form wouldn't just as well indicate that one has gained the discernment. I think the burden of proof that there is a distinction between an aorist or perfect in a given text rests upon the one asserting such a distinction.
I don't know how much the context helps; the author just seems to ramble on for me.

More grist for the mill, but there's an aorist later on:
1 John 3:1 wrote:διὰ τοῦτο ὁ κόσμος οὐ γινώσκει ἡμᾶς ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν.
Stephen
When the verb is negated, the usage of the aorist and perfect will not correspond exactly to the usage in the positive case. For the example you mention, ουκ εγνω αυτον essentially means ουκ εγνω πωποτε αυτον, so the aorist fits nicely. On the other hand, the perfect can also be used but it conveys ουκ εγνωκε αυτον εως του νυν, which is different.
0 x
δαυιδ λιμ

Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”