[B-Greek] I Tim 2:14 and GEGONEN
Eric Weiss
eweiss at gte.net
Fri Sep 19 23:39:37 EDT 2003
><Eric>
>Any help?
Doug Hoxworth dhoxworth at charter.net wrote:
> i'm still not exactly sure what you are trying to ask. i'm
> not sure whether you are asking whether the Greek is
> aorist or whether you are asking if it would best to
> translate the perfect GEGONEN with an english
> aoristic/past tense rather than perfect (e.g., has
> fallen/become). if it is morphologically perfect (which it
> is), then i don't know how it can be an aorist. perhaps it
> is best translated this way, but i don't know. there is
> more to the text that i can't figure out.
I know the Greek is perfect.
I know that many, if not most, English translations translate it as an
aorist.
I question translating this as an aorist, because 1) even Zerwick
questions whether or not it's an aoristic perfect, and 2) there is not,
to me, a contextual requirement to interpret GEGONEN, a perfect, as an
aorist here.
Just as some aorists can have a perfective/stative aspect (hHMARTON in
Romans 3:23 is often regarded as such), so some perfects can have an
aoristic aspect, or else Zerwick wouldn't suggest this here. I don't
think that morphology always must rigidly dictate the contextual aspect
of the verb.
Even Kostenberger, Schreiner, et al, in their book on I Tim 2:9-15 WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH do not address the force or sense GEGONEN has or should
have here.
I've exhausted my paltry resources here at home, and until I can next
get to the Dallas Theological Seminary bookstore or library, I turned to
B-Greek for some responses to my question, which I believe was stated
clearly enough -- including my statement that I am looking for info re:
why GEGONEN should or should not be an aoristic perfect, and that the
theological ramifications of its interpretation/translation are NOT the
subject of my question (but will be the subject of my off-line dealing
with this passage).
- - -
Eric S. Weiss
eweiss at gte.net
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list