[B-Greek] On the Perfect Tense

waldo slusher waldoslusher at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 25 21:01:00 EST 2004


Con:

I was trying to reference the article on the Perfect
at this website that was suggested for people to read.
In the article we read:

+++++
"Fanning argues that the general meaning of the
perfect form involves the combination of three
elements: "there is an Aktionsart-feature of stative
situation, an internal tense-feature of anteriority,
and an aspect-feature of summary viewpoint concerning
an occurrence. Put together, these result in a sense
usually described as denoting "a condition resulting
from an anterior occurrence"". In the indicative
forms, adds Fanning, the result of the past occurrence
should be understood as the expression of
present-time, or the time of speaking.

<snip>

In 3:24, Paul uses the perfect GEGONEN in a further
comment about the law, stating, hWSTE hO NOMOS
PAIDAGWGOS hHMWN GEGONEN EIS CRISTON ("Therefore the
law was our tutor until Christ"). It is difficult to
maintain that GEGONEN expresses a dual temporality
because of what has already been said about the law
previously in vv. 17 and 19, where the law is
restricted by deixis to a certain time frame (i.e. 430
years after the covenant until the coming of the
seed). Furthermore, the past pragmatic use of the
perfect may also be indicated by the temporal use of
EIS which can be translated as "until [Christ]". Any
other use of the preposition would be inconsistent in
the context where Paul is arguing for the displacement
of the period of the law by the coming of Christ (cf.
vv. 19, 23 and 25) . Although the aorist EGENETO would
have been suitable grammatically and contextually, the
perfect form was probably chosen to express the
special significance of the law as a PAIDAGWGOS."
++++

Throughout this article I think the author
misunderstands the nature of the Perfect Indicative
Form. Without commenting on the whole article, I am
using the above example to show what I tried to say in
my earlier post.

The Perfect GEGONEN would not address any temporal
sphere BEYOND the termination point of the
contextually developed deixis, which he has identified
as "until Christ." That is, AFTER Christ, the Perfect
Indicative makes no temporal assessment. All one can
say is that from the Beginning Point (giving of Law)
to the End Point (until Christ), a certain situation
held (obtained) from beginning to end. The Law
obtained the state of "tutor" during the period
indicated by the contextually developed deixis. The
Perfect tense form usage makes no temporal statement
or implication BEYOND the EIS CRISTOS. The temporal
duality of the Perfect states what occurred in the
past (the giving of the law) and the state that
obtained until the end point (until Christ). 

The Galatians were not to draw any temporal
implications BEYOND the set limits of the contextually
developed deixis. All Paul is PORTRAYING is a state
that held from the beginning to end. He was not
commenting on the current state (the temporal sphere
beyond "until Christ:) of the law and Christ with this
usage. 

And without commenting on the merits of Fanning, I
think if he does hold to this dual tempora reference
(which I am not familiar enough with his views to
comment on), then I would say that his dual
temporality is quite evidently correct if one
understands how a deictic point is contextually
developed. The deictic point is an ever-shifting
temporal focal point. The deictic point need not be
the time of writing or speaking. The deictic point can
be any time along the temporal spectrum. 

This author seems to argue from the standpoint that
the state that obtains "in the present" is unrelated
to the deictic points. The Perfect need not refer to a
PRESENT STATE if the deictic point has limits (in the
above example, "until Christ")




=====
Waldo Slusher
Calgary, AB

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools



More information about the B-Greek mailing list