[B-Greek] I Tim 2:14 and GEGONEN
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon Sep 22 09:49:49 EDT 2003
After re-reading this correspondence (or should I rather call it "this
dialogue"), I continue to be puzzled at the notion of an "aoristic present"
(as evidently was Zerwick, who, as Eric pointed out in his initial post,
parsed GEGONEN in 1 Tim 2:14 as that but marked it with a question mark). I
looked up this curious term and found that Wallace (GGBB, p. 578 hWDE
EGRAYEN:
"C. Aoristic Perfect (a.k.a. Dramatic or Historical Perfect)
"1. Definition : The perfect indicative is rarely used in a
rhetorical manner to describe an event in a highly vivid way. The
aoristic/dramatic perfect is "used as a simple past tense without concern
for present consequences. . . ."(Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 301)
"In this respect, it shares a kinship with the historical present.
There are but a handful of examples of this in the NT, occurring only in
narrative contexts. Thus this use is informed by contextual intrusions
(narrative). The key to detecting a dramatic perfect is the absence of any
notion of existing results.
"2. Clarification :Robertson suggests that "here an action
completed in the past is conceived in terms of the present time for the
sake of vividness"(Robertson, Grammar, 896). Its very paucity in the NT
makes it difficult for students to grasp its force. It may be best to think
of it as intensive extensive perfect used in narrative (i.e., it is an
intensive use of the extensive perfect). That is to say, it focuses so much
on the act that there is no room left for the results. It occurs in
contexts where one would expect the aorist, giving rise to the speculation
earlier in this century that the perfect was poorly understood by some
writers of the NT."
So this category is introduced in Wallace's account in the fashion of a
police account of a suspicious character, and rightly so, it seems to me,
if its force is difficult for students to grasp owing to the fact that
examples of it are too few and obscure. I think it would be more
appropriate to note two rather simple facts: (1) The perfect is used in two
basic ways: (a) to indicate that an action has been completed; (b) to
indicate that the effect of completion is a continuing present fact
(stative function): hESTHKEN TO MHNMA SHMERON: "The monument (once having
been set up) still stands today"; (2) In the NT era the aorist has come to
assume generally that first function of the perfect tense, i.e. to indicate
that an action has been completed. To me this means that an aorist may be
and quite commonly in the Koine is used like a perfect tense to indicate
completed action: like the French tense which bears the name "passé
indéfini" in tribute to the Greek aorist, the Greek aorist may be
translated into English with "has + past-participle of any verb: HLQEN hO
BASILEUS = "The king has come."
Now, turning to the text in question, I'll cite it:
1 Tim 2:10 ALL' hO PREPEI GUNAIXIN EPAGGELLOMENAIS QEOSEBEIAN, DI ERGWN
AGAQWN. 11 GUNH EN hHSUCIAi MANQANETW EN PASHi hUPOTAGHi; 12 DIDASKEIN DE
GUNAIKI OUK EPITREPW OUDE AUQENTEIN ANDROS, ALL' EINAI EN hHSUCIAi. 13 ADAM
GAR PRWTOS EPLASQH, EITA EUA. 14 KAI ADAM OUK HPATHQH, hH DE GUNH
EXAPATHQEISA EN PARABASEI GEGONEN; 15 SWQHSETAI DE DIA THS TEKNOGONIAS, EAN
MEINWSIN EN PISTEI KAI AGAPHi KAI hAGIASMWi META SWFROSUNHS.
We are particularly concerned with verse 14 where we are told, hH GUNH
EXAPATHQEISA EN PARABASEI GEGONEN. BDAG s.v. GINOMAI 5.c seems to point to
the right usage here:
c. w. EN of a state of being (Stoic. III 221, 16; Diod. S. 20, 62,
4 EN ANESEI G.; Plut., Tit. Flam. 378 [16, 1] EN ORGHi G; Lucian, Tim. 28;
PPetr II, 20; III, 12 [252 BC] EN EPISCESEI G..; BGU 5 II, 19 EN NOSWi;
POxy 471 IV, 77f; 4 Km 9:20; 1 Macc 1:27 v.l.; Sus 8 Theod.; Jos., Bell. 1,
320, Ant. 16, 372; Mel., P. 18 EN PONOIS ... EN PLHGAIS etc.) EN AGAWNIAi
Lk 22:44. EN EKSTASEI Ac 22:17. EN PNEUMATI under the Spirit's influence Rv
1:10; 4:2; AcPl Ha 6, 28. EN hOMOIWMATI ANQRWPWN be like human beings Phil
2:7. EN ASQENEIAi, FOBWi, TROMWi 1 Cor 2:3. EN DOXHi 2 Cor 3:7. EN hEAUTWi
G. come to one's senses (Soph., Phil. 950; X., An. 1, 5, 17; Polyb. 1, 49,
8; Chariton 3, 9, 11) Ac 12:11; G. EN CRISTWi be a Christian Ro 16:7.
We should, therefore, understand our text to mean "and Woman (or 'the
woman' = Eve) has come to be in a state of transgression." I think that if
we were to judge that what is being said refers to Eve in particular rather
than to Woman in general, we might be tempted (and deceived so as to
transgress) by that strange notion of an aoristic perfect and suppose that
the event in Eden is being vividly represented in the present: 'Eve has
just now, as we look on, entered into transgression.' But in the context,
our author is pretty clearly generalizing about the state of WOMAN, about
why SHE cannot be trusted to teach or exercise authority over a male; in
verse 15 the remarkable change of verbal number makes this generic focus
upon WOMAN crystal clear: SHE will be saved .. if THEY abide ...
That being the case (that hH GUNH is generalized) it would seem that the
explanation of the choice of the perfect tense form GEGONEN is evident: it
is the stative function of the perfect: indication of the abiding
consequence of the action: "she has come to be--and therefore IS--in
transgression."
I guess what this amounts to is agreement with Doug Hoxworth: "if he could
have used either, why did he pick the perfect form? to me, it seems that he
uses the perfect because he's relating a past even to a present situation
..."
--
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list