John 6:35
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Polycarp66 at aol.com
Fri Aug 23 21:05:57 EDT 2002
In a message dated 8/23/2002 8:22:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
babc2 at attbi.com writes:
EIPEN AUTOIS hO IHSOUS: EGO EIMI hO
ARTOS THS ZWHS: hO ERCOMENOS PROS EME OU
MH PEINASHi, KAI hO PISTEUWN EIS EME OU MH
DIYHSEI PWPOTE.
The last part of this verse puzzles me. The two clauses
hO ERCOMENOS PROS EME OU MH PEINASHi kai
hO PISTEUWN EIS EME OU MH DIYHSEI
seem to me completely parallel, but why is the verb in the first
clause in the aorist subjunctive while the verb in the second clause
is future indicative?
I'm sure it's something that ought to be obvious, but it isn't to
me.
_________________________________________
Note that the aorist is a subjunctive while the future is an indicative. In
his GGBB Wallace notes
_____________________________________________
I. Predictive Future
A. Definition
The future tense may indicate that something will take place or come to pass.
The portrayal is external, summarizing the action: “it will happen.” The
predictive future is far and away the most common use of this tense.
____________________________________________
One of the passages he cites to illustrate this is the partly very similar Jn
4.14.
In another place he notes
____________________________________________
Except in indirect discourse, time is not seen with these moods. Thus an
aorist subjunctive would have a futuristic (or potential) flavor, while in
the indicative it would have a past idea. We can say, then, that for the most
part time is irrelevant or nonexistent in the oblique (nonindicative) moods.
To sum up: In general, time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the
participle, and nonexistent in the other moods.
_____________________________________________
In other words, the aorist is virtually equivalent to the future here since
the time element is not a factor.
gfsomsel
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list