Fwd: Meaning of the perfect tense

Mark Wilson emory2oo2 at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 12 14:20:36 EST 2001



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.

Mike:

You wrote:

>There seems to me to be interesting interplay going on between
>the lexical and aspectual parts of METABEBHKEN.  METABAINW is, by
>itself, not a point action.  It expresses some sense of movement,
>unlike, say, FRASSW or maybe GINWSKW.  In a sense there is a
>`lexical aspect' and a `syntactic aspect'.  So...


I think METABAINW is +dynamic, which as you say indicates
some motion or change in state. This corresponds to its
"lexical" aspect.

Next, I think your question

>Which is the more accurate in understanding
>     METABEBHKEN EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN:
>
>That the people Jesus is referring to
>1.  Moved from the state of death to the state of life.
>2.  Were in a state of transfer from death to life.
>3.  Have arrived at a final state made explicit by EIS... (barely
>     different from `1'.)

With perfective verbs of motion, I think "emergence out of" is quite 
frequently
the idea of EK (verb + EK), as opposed to stative verbs, where, for example, 
EK can denote (THREW EK) "kept from entrance into."

But the "grammatical" aspect, so indicated by the Perfect tense form, would 
denote a perfective (or stative) aspect. Hence, to me, I vote for number 1 
above. The reason I would reject 3. is because you used the expression 
"final" related to state. I do not think either the lexical or grammatical 
aspect would indicate "finality," only a transfer from state A to state B.

I think this idea of "finality" of the Perfect Tense is the result of 
theologians trying to support a theological position. I grew up hearing that 
"saved" is in the Perfect tense, which means "saved in the past, with 
results that last forever." I think after Greek 101 you are disabused of 
this idea.

Also,...

>Note that it is difficult for me to word the question (in English)
>and not implicitly refer to tense (time).

Although I do not find Porter's view of the temporal nature of the finite 
Indicative verbs convincing, I do not think you need to avoid altogether 
mentioning "time." Porter definitely sees time; he just would not relate it 
to the Indicative finite verb tense form.

My thoughts,

Mark Wilson



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list