[B-Greek] PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Wed Jun 6 06:16:03 EDT 2007


----- Original Message ----- 
>
> On Jun 5, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Iver Larsen wrote:
>
>> For some verbs the semantic content will allow the perfect to
>> indicate a stative aspect, but I don't
>> think that applies to POIEW. There are 18 perfect forms of this
>> verb in the NT, and none of them can
>> reasonably be described as stative. However, the perfect does seem
>> to have a ring of finality about
>> it. It might be called an "emphatic past". That this event has
>> happened cannot be argued against.
>>
>> For instance, Paul says in 2 Cor 11:25 that he has spent a night
>> and day in the deep (ocean):
>> NUCQHMERON EN TWi BUQWi PEPOIHKA.
>>
>> Paul is not in a stative position in the deep, nor is the "day and
>> night" in any way stative. He is
>> emphasizing that he actually did spend a day and night in the deep
>> waters. One might say that he is
>> in the position of having had this experience, but IMO that is
>> stretching the idea of "stative"
>> beyond its normal usage.
>
[E. Kline:]> Iver,
>
> I agree with you about 2Cor 11:25.
>
> I am not going argue over the stative in PEPOIHKEN in Heb. 11:28. I
> was just reporting on Ellingworth, not agreeing with him. Porter's
> framework perfective-imperfective-stative is just a general way of
> dealing with aspect, exceptions abound (as always).
>
> Zerwick(Roma 1963, #285-291) claims the perfect indicates "not the
> past action but the present <<state of affairs>> resulting from the
> past action." I suspect (??) this is the sense in which Porter
> (Idioms 2nd ed. p.23ff) is using the word stative. Zerwick is aware
> of those who read the perfect in the GNT in light of Modern Greek and
> he admits that there are places in the GNT where the perfect
> **appears** to be used like the aorist but he claims these can be
> explained without giving up the distinctive semantics of the perfect
> (see Zerwick #289, BDF #343).
>
> In light of this, lets take a look at PEPOIHKEN in 1Jn 5:10
>
> 1JOHN 5:10 hO PISTEUWN EIS TON hUION TOU QEOU ECEI THN MARTURIAN EN
> hEAUTWi, hO MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON, hOTI OU
> PEPISTEUKEN EIS THN MARTURIAN hHN MEMARTURHKEN hO QEOS PERI TOU hUIOU
> AUTOU
>
> It seems to me that YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON could be understood as
> describing a state of affairs resulting from a past action without
> inflicting irreparable damage on the "stative" semantic category. I
> would read this as one state of affairs MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi
> (presented aspectually as an imperfective) resulting in a second
> state of affairs YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON (presented aspectually as a
> stative). It seems to me that John is presenting MH PISTEUWN TWi QEWi
> and YEUSTHN PEPOIHKEN AUTON not as events but as states. However, it
> isn't very difficult to see how this statement might be inverted.
>
A verb like PISTEUW readily lends itself to a stative sense, and when we deal with participles, they 
are normally descriptive and stative. So I accept that hO PISTEUWN describes a person in a on-going 
state of believing just like hO MH PISTEUWN describes someone who does not believe (God and his the 
testimony). Similarly OU PEPISTEUKEN seems to indicate a person who is in the state of not having 
believed, because of the event of unbelief/rejection in the past. However, I still prefer to see 
PEPOIHKEN and MEMARTURHKEN as emphatic pasts. I don't think there is much disagreement, just a 
slightly different focus. It is because it is a definite and completed event in the past, a fait 
accompli, that it has implications for the present state. We actually translated the perfect 
PEPOIHKEN here in Danish with a present tense construction (they think/believe that God is lying), 
because it would not be clear or natural to say in my language that "he has made God a liar".

As Webb has pointed out (and this is generally accepted, I believe) the better translation of a 
perfect form into English is often by using the auxiliary "have". However, I would also translate 
many aorists the same way, so for me it is more a matter of context and pragmatics than strict 
grammatical rules. And sometimes a perfect is best translated by a present form.

Iver Larsen 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list