[B-Greek] Mark 9:42

Elizabeth Kline kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Sep 12 14:55:38 EDT 2006


On Jul 8, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Norman Wood wrote:

> I am somewhat confused by the perfect tense in
> EI PERIKEITAI MULOS ONIKOS PERI TON TRAXHLON AUTOU KAI BEBLETAI EIS  
> THN QALASSAN.
> Wallace suggest generally that the perfect aspect is completed in  
> the past with continuing results, so is the sense that it is  
> something that should already be done and if so why not have  
> PERIKEITAI in the perfect as well.

MARK 9:42 KAI hOS AN SKANDALISHi hENA TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN TWN  
PISTEUONTWN [EIS EME], KALON ESTIN AUTWi MALLON EI PERIKEITAI MULOS  
ONIKOS PERI TON TRACHLON AUTOU KAI BEBLHTAI EIS THN QALASSAN.

LUKE 17:1 EIPEN DE PROS TOUS MAQHTAS AUTOU: ANENDEKTON ESTIN TOU TA  
SKANDALA MH ELQEIN, PLHN OUAI DI' hOU ERCETAI:  2 LUSITELEI AUTWi EI  
LIQOS MULIKOS PERIKEITAI PERI TON TRACHLON AUTOU KAI ERRIPTAI EIS THN  
QALASSAN H hINA SKANDALISHi TWN MIKRWN TOUTWN hENA.

The same tense sequence of present followed by perfect is found in  
Luke 17:2 where ERRIPTAI is found for BEBLHTAI. Codex Bezae D* (first  
hand) reads PERIEKEITO ... ERIPTO  in Lk 17:2  and PERIEKEITO ...  
EBLHQH in Mk 9:42. This suggests that some scribe had a problem with  
the tense sequence.


The aspect sequence in the received text (USB3/4 NA26/27) of Mk 9:42  
Luke 17:2 is imperfective ... stative. If we follow the "standard"  
aspect theory PERIKEITAI would be imperfective "incomplete action"  
and BEBLHTAI ERRIPTAI would be a stative "a given state of affairs".

Now a question for the aspect theorists. In what sense is PERIKEITAI  
incomplete?




Elizabeth Kline







More information about the B-Greek mailing list