[B-Greek] Matt 3:17 - import of 1 per sing aorist EUDOKHSA
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Nov 30 14:59:45 EST 2007
On Nov 30, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Eddie Mishoe wrote:
> Carl:
>
> I agree with your statements. But, your "completed"
> concept deals with Event time, not reference time. The
> intent of the statement is not to say I loved my son
> in the past in a complete way. Rather, the love of the
> father for the son lacks nothing. It makes no
> statement about WHEN this love is/was/will be
> expressed. Some call this a Gnomic Aorist, but
> Gnomicity is an element of the proposition, not the
> tense, hence we have the mislabeled 'Gnomic' Presents
> as well.
I don't think it's "gnomic" at all, nor that it's timeless. I think
that EUDOKEW (which appears 21x in the GNT (3x present, 1x imperfect,
17x aorist) is essentially a verb of royal determination, indicating
approval of a course of action or of a person.
What do you make of the usage of EGRAYA in 1 John 2:14, 2:21, 26, and
5:13 -- after GRAFOMEN in 1:4 and GRAFW in 2:1, 2:7, and 2:12-13?
What do you make of the usage of the aorist verb in Gen 22:2 LABE TON
hUION SOU TON AGAPHTON hON HGAPHSASWHA or the usage of the aorist verb
in Isaiah 42:1 Is. 42:1 IAKWB hO PAIS MOU, ANTILHMYOMAI AUTOU ISRAHL
hO EKLEKTOS MOU; PROSEDEXATO AUTON hH YUCH MOU; EDWKA TO PNEUMA MOU
EP' AUTON. Ιακωβ ὁ παῖς μου ἀντιλήμψομαι
αὐτοῦ; Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου
προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου ἔδωκα
τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν.
My own thinking, and I confess that I don't actually find this stated
in what I've read, is that the phraseology of the utterance in Matthew
3:17 is intended to suggest the language of coronation psalms and the
acknowledgement of the Lord that this new scion of the lineage of
David is indeed the one whom He has chosen.
> I think a major mistake Porter makes in his analysis
> is his failure to first identify the temporal nature
> of a proposition before he makes statements regarding
> the temporal nature of the verbal network. To him, the
> statement about "the grass withers" need to count for
> Aorists that are non-past referring. The is partly why
> Olsen says Porter's analysis is an oversimplified
> model. The normal/natural non-temporal statements are
> not excluded in Porter's model, rather he ascribed the
> temporal nature first to tense forms and concluded, of
> course, that many Aorists are non-past
> referring...something we knew all along.
>
> Eddie Mishoe
> Pastor
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better pen pal.
> Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at ioa.com or cwconrad2 at mac.com
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list