[B-Greek] question about Matthew 17:5
MPAymerNYC at aol.com
MPAymerNYC at aol.com
Thu Feb 3 07:48:47 EST 2005
In a message dated 2/3/2005 2:51:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gfsomsel at juno.com writes:
Are you saying that you think it is saying "I was pleased with him (but I no
longer am)"? It
That is precisely the question--and the question is only theological insofar
as I will be using the text to teach seminarians.
I do not believe I'm trying to engage in a theology of tenses. I'm trying to
understand how a generally past and punctiliar tense functions in this
particular sentence (and in its parallels in the Synoptics: the other transfiguration
narratives, the baptismal narratives, and the quote of the same in 2 Peter).
I have, and have read, Wallace's book and am not particularly convinced by
his arguments--which is why I posed the question in the first place.
The question is one of "are" versus "were"--and I have just not run into many
aorists that are translated with a present--that is linear-- meaning. In
fact, in all of the examples that have been proffered--by you OR by Wallace, the
text may be translated in the past/punctiliar sense without detracting from
what appears to be the intent of the redactor.
So either the intent of the synoptic redactors was the strangely
past/punctiliar "In whom I delighted; in whom I was content; in whom I was well-pleased"
--in which case the command that follows "akouete autou" seems to makes little
sense (I was pleased in him; I may or may not be pleased any longer; but
listen to him anyway); or else the case must be--contra to typical practice--taking
on some kind of linear/continuous meaning or, as I suspect, a more "perfect
tense" kind of meaning (past with implications on the present--thus in whom I
have been well pleased, content, etc.).
This latter would seem to fit Bailey/Vanderbroek's argument that the text is
a commissioning story (which I don't really buy) or at least the commendatory
nature of the text.
>From what I have read of Wallace, I have not seen exempla that could either
be translated in a present, linear fashion (the closest he gets is "just now I
was..."--which is still past-tense (and punctiliar)) or in a perfect,
implications on the present, fashion.
Re. tense, an examination of the narrative of the section is telling:
1) it is the ONLY time in the entire pericope when a speaker reverts to the
aorist tense (unless one argues for the aorist subjunctive in Peter's use of
poihsw--but that need not be aorist nor subjunctive--the simple reading of FAI1s
will work to establish meaning)
2) it is framed by two verbs in the PAI: estin (this is my son); and akouete
(listen to him)
Within such a context the aorist stands out rather starkly.
So, my question
1) could the aorist be being used in a past-with-implications-for-the-present
sense, and are there indisputable exempla of the aorist functioning in this
way in other texts?
2) Is this cultural--simply a turn of phrase or what was called at one point
a "Semiticism"? Certainly it has become a turn of phrase in the early
ekklhsia by the time of the Petrine corpus.
3) Is it a direct quote from the LXX in which eudokew IN THE AORIST must be
translated either in a present/linear fashion or in a
perfect/past-with-implications-on-the-present fashion?
4) Is there some other reasonable explanation? Remember, I OWN both the
Wallace and the Blass-Debrunner-Funk. I'm asking because I have already consulted
my resources to no avail and I have been fascinated by the discussion on this
list of Ioudaios--a discussion that impacted my review of Philip Esler's
newest commentary (Romans) due out in RBL in a few months.
My suspicion is not that I'm engaging in a theology of the tenses but rather
than Wallace--through Zondervan, which is becoming increasingly overly
theological (note the Mounce text, which I will not use for my students)--is
attempting to defend a difficult text. I don't actually care whether the text MUST be
past-tense or not theologically--my question is contextual, narratological,
text-critical, structural (oh, and there are theological implications for every
biblical critical move--did I mention that?).
Cheers,
M. Aymer
Rev. Margaret Aymer, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of New Testament
The Interdenominational Theological Center, Atlanta, GA
404-527-7731
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depricate agitation, are men who
want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and
lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This
struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both
moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglas, New York, 1857
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list