[B-Greek] MH PEPISTEUKEN in John 3:18
Marty Cauley
Marty.Cauley at sfrep.com
Mon Sep 26 09:59:53 EDT 2005
Hey Carl,
Thank you for your clarification. I'm in agreement with you that the
durative nature of the participle has been overdone. I had concurred with
this conclusion as expressed by Dale Wheeler's in the archives before I made
my original post. (I particularly liked his post at
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1998-03/24188.html.) But
that discussion focused on the participles and then turned theological. I
would prefer to just clarify the grammatical options and terminology for the
perfect.
You apparently acknowledged that MH + VERB "might well be" semantically
equivalent to an ALPHA PRIVATIVE + VERB.
But you were hesitant to affirm that Jn 3:18 could fall into the category of
a stative alpha privative for a number of reasons:
1. Jn 3:18 uses MH rather than OU. You said, "The question in my mind
would be whether we ought to consider this PEPISTEUKEN as a stative at all,
especially as it is negatived by MH and is hypothetical. I can conceive of a
stative OU PEPISTEUKEN -- theoretically -- although even that seems somewhat
odd: "he does not stand in a state of belief"
a. In response, I note that Robertson makes a similar distinction as
you between the hypothetical MH and actual OU (found in 1Jn 5:10). I have no
disagreement here.
b. Like you, I would find the durative sense odd with OU PEPISTEUKEN.
So I'm certainly open to your aoristic approach for the perfect in Jn 3:18.
(I would still prefer stative in Jn 11:27, as does Robertson apparently. But
that is not in a negative construct and so may not be applicable to
discussion of 3:18.)
2. You stated your preference for aoristic perfect in 3:18 by saying,
"I really think that there's little difference in John 3:18 between
PEPISTEUKEN and EPISTEUSEN."
a. I assume that you are not making this a sweeping statement for all
perfects but only for this context. If so, I have reason to agree with your
assessment. But clarification would be helpful as to when to expect aoristic
perfects.
b. Wallace and Robertson, as I recall, only acknowledged aoristic
perfects in narrative contexts. Others, such as Brooks and Winbery, make a
distinction between aoristic perfects and dramatic perfects. Would you make
a distinction and not limit aoristic perfects to narratives?
3. Another point you mentioned was, "KEKRITAI does seem to have stative
force ("he stands condemned"), I don't think that PEPISTEUKEN does."
a. I agree that this is very strong possibility. HDH is added in 3:18
to bring out the stative for KEKRITAI, but PEPISTEUKEN has no such adverbial
amplification.
b. All in all, I certainly find your aoristic perfect to be an
attractive option. But it would still appear that the aoristic understanding
does not render a stative understanding unreasonable or incompatible.
4. You noted, "APISTEW is not a Johannine word." And that although its
perfect, HPISTHKA, is "not in the GNT," it would be "easy enough to
conceive."
a. True. For that mater I did not find HPISTHKA in the LXX either.
Nevertheless, I did find reference to HPISTHKA in Liddell-Scott. So I assume
it does occur outside of biblical Greek. Is there any software/web site by
which I might look up these occurrences?
b. Granted, this is a point against my taking MH PEPISTEUKEN as
semantically equivalent to HPISTHKA. If John had meant HPISTHKA, he could
have used that form. But I'm not necessarily dissuaded by this observation.
The fact that GJ does not use these alpha privatives to express MH
PEPISTEUKEN does not seem to be a considerable reason for rejecting them as
conceptually semantic equivalents for several reasons.
i. John does not use APISTEW, but he does use an adjectival contrast in
20:27 between APISTOS and PISTOS. A similar contrast between verbal
counterparts would not beyond the realm of reason.
ii. John uses a verbal contrast in 3:36 between APEIQEW and PISTEUW.
(But no APEIQHS, which further suggests that the contrast is simply between
belief and unbelief.)
iii. It would seem that APEIQEW would have been another alpha privative
possibility in Jn 3:18 for MH PEPISTEUKEN.
c. If we do not agree on this matter, would it at least be possible to
agree that if a stative result is conveyed by a perfect in 3:18, the
negation of that perfect may denote the fact that the action "never"
happened? That is, if MH PEPISTEUKEN conveys a stative result, it could
accurately be expressed by, ""He stands condemned on grounds that he NEVER
believed."
d. It would seem that the negation of a perfect by MH could mean
never/ever, even if speaking hypothetically. I would find a durative notion
for this construction in Num 5:19 (LXX) to be out of the question: (1) "If
no man has continually lain with you and if you have not continually gone
astray into uncleanness.be immune." This is obviously not the intention of
the negation of the perfect. Nor is the alternative any better: (2) "If man
has lain with you and but does not continue to do so and if you have gone
astray into uncleanness but are continuing to do so.be immune." Neither
durative rendering is acceptable.
e. Rather, she is immune if only if she has "NEVER" been guilty of the
offense. If she had "EVER" lain with another man, then she would still stand
condemned.
f. A conceptually semantic parallel might be: "If she has been chaste,
she is immune." Now, suppose I had substituted an alpha privative that meant
"caste." It would have conveyed the same point.
g. It appears that the perfect of APISTEW or APEIQEW would have
accomplished much the same thing as MH PEPISTEUKEN: "He stands condemned on
the grounds that he has NEVER believed." So I'm still open to the
possibility that MH PEPISTEUKEN might mean that they stand condemned because
they disbelieved and as a result continue to disbelieve up to the present
rather than because they simply did not believe. The exegetical difference
would be mute. I'm just exploring the aspectual possibilities.
h. If you disagree regarding this aspectual conclusion in connection
with APEIQEW, would it be because you do not find PEIQEW sufficiently
synonymous with PISTEUW?
i. If you disagree regarding this aspectual conclusion in connection
with APISTEW,
i. WOULD it be because APISTEW is an alpha privative derived from
APISTOS rather from PISTEUW itself? Would it be technically inaccurate to
describe APISTEW as an alpha privative of PISTEUW? They are used in
antonymous juxtaposition in Mk 16:16 and 1Pet 2:7. So how do I describe
their relationship? If APISTEW is not an alpha privative of PISTEUW, would
it still be considered a cognate? Is the most I can say is that APISTEW is
an alpha privative that is an antonym of PISTEUW?
ii. If my semantically-equivalent-alpha-privative argument is rejected
on the basis of the above technicality over derivation, would it at least be
agreed that OU PISTEUW (which is a common Johannine term) is equivalent to
APISTOS (which is also Johannine) and thus to APISTEW?
Thanks
Marty Cauley
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list