[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