[B-Greek] Matt 3:17 - import of 1 per sing aorist EUDOKHSA
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Nov 30 19:17:41 EST 2007
On Nov 30, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Elizabeth Kline wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Randall Buth wrote:
>
>> καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν
>> λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ
>> ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.
>> KAI IDOU FWNH EK TWN OURANWN LEGOUSA: hOUTOS ESTIN hO hUIOS MOU hO
>> AGAPHTOS, EN hWi EUDOKHSA.
>>>
>>
>> This is a Greek word that was popular in the LXX and Jewish religious
>> contexts. However, Josephus, Philo, and Plutarch do not use the word.
>>
>> The aorist is easily explained as a carryover from Hebrew where
>> ratsiti and Hafatsti (he`avar, typically past tenses) were used for
>> present situations (like the Greek perfect PARAKEIMENOS). One could
>> call these Semitisms or perfective aorists.
>>
>> A contributing factor in the choice of the aorist is the irregularity
>> and rarity of the perfect form of this verb.
>> would one say EYDEDOKHKA? EYDEDOGMAI? HUDOKHKA?
>> The simple choice for the ancient author was to use a form in current
>> use in their circles and this was the aorist.
>
>
> The verb aspect terminology that seems to be generally in use among
> NT linguists these days (R.A. Young 1994:106, McKay 1972:44, Porter
> 1989:208-209) breaks down the asepctual system into:
>
> perfective - aorist
> imperfective - present, imperfect
> stative - perfect, pluperfect
Just a note here: I think it is questionable whether the Koine perfect
is stative only; I think that the perfect is in the process of
coalescing with the aorist in the Koine and that the aorist is quite
often used where one might have expected a perfect. No doubt there's
considerable difference between ESTHN and hESTHKA, but how much
difference is there between EGRAYA and GEGRAFA?
> When R.Buth says "One could call these Semitisms or perfective
> aorists." I suspect that he is not using aspect terminology as it is
> defined above. What he seems to be saying is that the greek aorist is
> functioning like a semitic perfect, contra Porter (Idioms 2nd ed.
> 1994:39, 1989:126-129) in regard to EUDOKHSA in Mk 1:11. These issues
> have been discussed before many times.
>
> What can we say about the lexical semantics of EUDOKHSA in:
>
> 2PET. 1:17 LABWN GAR PARA QEOU PATROS TIMHN KAI DOXAN FWNHS
> ENECQEISHS AUTWi TOIASDE hUPO THS MEGALOPREPOUS DOXHS: hO hUIOS MOU
> hO AGAPHTOS MOU hOUTOS ESTIN EIS hON EGW EUDOKHSA,
>
> Does EUDOKHSA refer to an action or a state? R.Bauckham (2Pet/Jude
> WBC p220) reads it as an action that takes place in the past "on whom
> I have set my favor". It seems that two issues need to be resolved
> with regard to EUDOKHSA, one having to do with the referent (action/
> state) and another having to do with the aspect (perfective/stative/
> imperfective). A decision about the referent would appear to
> constrain the decision about the aspect or the other way around.
>
> Danker BDAG p404 on this word group. Under EUDOKIA the first two
> definitions begin "state or condition of being ...". Under EUDOKHSIS
> we read "the quality or state of being ... ". Under EUDOKEW 2 "to
> take pleasure or find satisfaction in someth., be well pleased, take
> delight ..." with examples found in MT 3:17, 12:18, 17:5, Mk 1:11, Lk
> 3:22, 2PET. 1:17 and so forth.
>
> The Hebrew verb found in Isa 42:1 ratzeta (rtzh) HALOT p1281 #1 to
> take pleasure in, to be favorable to someone, be well disposed a.
> with God (Yahweh) as a subj. (28 times) i. with acc. of the person
> (individual or the people) 2Sam24:13, Isa 42:1 and so forth.
>
> It seems that both the greek and hebrew verbs can refer to either an
> action or a state. Picking up on Bauckham's suggestion, we might
> understand EUDOKHSA as an action taking place in the past "I have set
> my favor" the result of this action may be understood as a state of
> favor toward the person current at the time of speaking but the verb
> refers to an action in the past.
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Carl Conrad wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Carl,
>
> This is interesting in light of Bauckham's reading. We have an act of
> choosing in the past with a resultant state of favor implied, but the
> verb refers to the past action not the state.
>
> Elizabeth Kline
>
>
>
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
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