Perfect tense in 1 Cor 7:15
Harry W. Jones
hjbluebird at aol.com
Fri Dec 7 17:16:40 EST 2001
Dear Carl,
I seems to me that there would be a difference to saying
"not" to an aorist vs saying "not" to a perfect. Please
clarify?
Thanks,
Harry Jones
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 12:51:20 -0600 "Carl W. Conrad"
> <cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>
> > No, it does not say that (that would be something like OUDE
> > DEDOULWTAI
> > OUPOTE); what it says is "the non-believer is not in a state of
> > bonded
> > obligation." or "the non-believer does not stand obligated." The
> > perfect
> > tense form is not concerned at all with past action (that would get
> > expressed with an aorist: EDOULWQH) but with the state currently
> > holding.
>
> Carl:
>
> I think what you meant to say was, "the believer does not stand
> obligated."
>
> But, when you say the "perfect tense form is not concerned at all with
> past action ... but with the state currently holding," don't you mean
> that in this particular instance the stress is upon the state currently
> holding, as per the intensive nuance of the perfect? If so, is it still
> best to say the perfect tense (here) is not concerned at all with the
> past action? Doesn't the perfect tense generally carry both the concept
> of completed past action and the concept of continuing results to the
> present, even though the nuances may vary from past to present?
>
> The way you state it seems to be over-playing the present tense aspect of
> the perfect, as though there may be no difference between the two tenses
> here. It seems the OU + perfect tense communicates both a time past when
> the believer was set free from the bonds, as well as the continuing and
> resulting state to the present, even if the stress is intensive.
>
> Paul Dixon
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list