[B-Greek] Once For All Time - Luke 18:9-14
Richard Ghilardi
qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Fri Jul 10 19:48:16 EDT 2009
Hi Carl,
> > RG: I trust I have stated my questions more clearly now.
>
> CC: Well, yes, after a fashion. It's almost as if you've said, "I'm
> going
> to tell you a shaggy dog story, as follows ... " -- and then, after
>
> you've finally finished telling it, you say, "But my question
> doesn't
> co;ncern the shaggy dog story, really. What I want to know is, if
> you
> ignore the shaggy dog story, what do you by calling it a shaggy dog
>
> story?" Almost, but, of course, not really.
RG: I really don't know what this "shaggy dog story" business is all
about. And the penultimate question of your paragraph is particularly
opaque. Are you saying that my questions are not relevant to the
quotation that I gave and/or the Biblical text that it deals with? I
flatly reject a positive answer to that question. In fact, this opening
paragraph looks like a distraction to me, meant to color what follows in
your response. Your "shaggy dog story" characterization is a "red
herring."
> CC: You say, "We are now (or mostly) agreed that the implications
he/she
>
> drew from the use of those specific tenses are wrong (probably)
> based
> on a newer and presumably better theory of verbal aspect." That is
> to
> say, you hem and haw and hint
RG: What you took to be "hemmin' 'n' hawin'" I intended as scholarly
caution - not that I claim to be a scholar, of course. (OOPS! There I go
again "hemmin' 'n' hawin'.") I wanted to avoid the inevitable distraction
attendant upon the use of absolute universal statements. If I had
written, "We are now all agreed that the implications he/she drew from
the use of those specific tenses are certainly wrong based on a newer and
unquestionably better theory of verbal aspect," I would have been called
on the carpet for painting with too broad a brush. As it is, I got called
for "hemmin' 'n' hawin' 'n' hintin'." I cant't win. I'm caught between
Scylla and Charybdis. Either way, this sort of response is nothing short
of a distraction from the central question I was asking. I will now
restate that question again:
What are the exegetical implications of Luke's use of the aorist
hILASQHTI and the perfect DEDIKAIOMENOS, given the newer view of verbal
aspect, for this Biblical text (Lk 18:13-14)?
CC: in such a way as to challenge the rest of us
RG: Were you really challenged by my words, Carl? Not that there's
anything wrong with a good challenge, eh?
CC: to demonstrate that the tense-aspect usage here does NOT mean
> what your exemplary commentator claims, as if to suggest, maybe
> that's the way it ought to be understood after all.
RG: You, sir, are inferrin' where I ain't implyin'.
CC: I'm not sure that a
> challenge of that sort can be answered to your satisfaction.
RG: But, Carl, you HAVE answered my questions below in your own exegesis
of the parable. Thank you! I simply don't agree with your answers. And
I'm even a little troubled by them. But I'll get to that shortly.
> CC: I don't think that there' are especially NEW and DIFFERENT
> implications of the tense-aspect usage of the verbs in question that
>
> weren't there all along. It is not as if our understanding of this
>
> parable hinges upon the tense-aspect of these two verbs.
RG: Well, of course, Carl. The implications were always there (I think).
(OOPS!! There I go again, hemmin' 'n' hawin'.) It's only our
understanding that has changed and evolved. I never claimed anything
else.
CC: We're dealing
> with a parable portraying contrasting attitudes or spiritual
> commitments of "Pharisee" and "Publican," figures which are almost
>
> caricatures in Luke's gospel for the self-righteous practitioner of
>
> ostentatious piety and for one who displays authentic self-abasing
>
> penitence. The parable exaggerates and caricatures the two stances/
>
> attitudes and comments on them. The tax-collector asks for God's
> mercy
> because he is repentant; Jesus pronounces a judgment upon the tax-
> collector' and his prayer: it is the prayer of a man whose worship
> is
> not tainted by hypocrisy and self-exaltation who asks for God's
> mercy
> in this moment (hILASQHTI):
RG: On the whole, a tolerable fine piece of exposition. And now to the
details.
This is one of the possible answers I expected.
Let me make two points:
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you telling us that this is a
punctiliar aorist? That's what it appears you are saying when you
characterize the aorist verb as of the "in-this-moment" sort. But that's
the rejected old school view! How about something new? From McKay or
Fanning or Porter or Wallace? Or even you, Carl?
2) If "in this moment" is what is implied by the aorist, then it is
superfluous. In what other "moment" could the tax-collector want God to
be merciful? It is not necessary to invoke the Greek to see this
implication. The ordinary reader of a translation can, almost
effortlessly and without knowledge of the Greek aorist, gather what the
"moment" is when the tax-collector wants God to be merciful. It is the
"moment" when the appropriate distance is reached. It is the "moment"
when the eyes are downcast. It is the "moment" when the hand is beating
the breast. It is the "moment" when the mouth audibly articulates the
words, hO QEOS, hILASQHTI MOI TWi hAMARTWLWi. It is then, in that long
"moment," that he wants God to have mercy on him. Don't get me wrong,
now. I'm not saying that the aorist is inappropriately used here. But
rather that the knowledge that the verb used here is in the aorist tense
contributes nothing to exegesis beyond what can be gathered by the
ordinary reader of a translation -- if you are right about what the
aorist implies.
CC: he is a man of demonstrated
> righteousness
> or a man who has demonstrated his righteousness (DEDIKAIOMENOS). We
> are commended to be like the tax-collector and not like the
> Pharisee.
RG: I am appalled, Carl! Did you just make this up? In what lexicon did
you find this definition of DIKAIOUMAI -- "I am demonstrating my (own)
righteousness"? I realize that you are taking -MENOS as a M form rather
than a P. And I'm OK with that. The M implies the self-involvement of the
subject. Well and good. But you go well beyond the pale when you make the
tax-collector the sole agent of his own justification -- "a man who has
demonstrated his righteousness." This is just too much! Your
interpretation virtually banishes God's activity from the parable. What's
God's role in this scene? Your interpretation removes the active response
of God from the story. He remains only in the hypocritical silence of the
Pharisee and the plaintive supplication of the tax-collector. Those
'Gods' could hardly be taken out for cultural reasons, at least. Yet God
remains silent (like the Pharisee), inactive and unresponsive. Truly
you've recast this story as a parable tailor-made to find acceptence in
our secular world. I would allow that a MV implication might be Englished
as, "knowing that he was right with God" or "assured of a right
relationship with God" or even "assured of his forgiveness." The
"demonstration" is an interior one in keeping with the middle voice
interpretation. The "stage" is the tax-collector's heart and mind. The
"Demonstrator" is God. The "assured" and "knowing" elements can be
justified (no pun intended, really) on the ground that it is hardly
possible to receive God's forgiveness or justification without knowing
it.
One more point needs to be made. Earlier in Luke's gospel we read these
vss:
10:29 - hO DE QELWN DIKAIWSAI hEAYTON EIPEN PROS IHSOYN, KAI TIS ESTIN
MOY PLHSION;
16:14-15 - HKOYON DE TAYTA PANTA hOI FARISAIOI FILARGYROI hYPARXONTES,
KAI EKSEMYKTHRIZON AYTON. KAI EIPEN AYTOIS, hYMEIS ESTE hOI DIKAIOYNTES
hEAYTOYS ENWPION TWN ANQRWPWN
These warnings (in the case of the former, it is implied) against
self-justification - AYTODIKAIWSIS - need to be given their due weght
when we start to think about a middle voice interpretation for
DEDIKAIOMENOS. Now it's true that Luke has DIKAIWSAI hEAYTON rather than
DIKAIWSASQAI and hOI DIKAIOYNTES hEAYTOYS rather than hOI DIKAIOYMENOI
because the MV is broader in it's implications than AV + reflexive
pronoun and Luke wanted to focus in on that reflexive meaning.
Nevertheless, the reflexive meaning is always lurking about somewhere in
the background of the MV even when it's not prominent. So rather than
risk coming under the charge of self-justification I would prefer to read
DEDIKAIOMENOS as a straight passive with God as the agent and leaving the
question of the tax-collector's self-involvement indeterminate. The NIV
does an adequate job.
I note that you have nothing to say about the fact that DEDIKAIOMENOS is
perfect. My author made a big deal out of it. I guess that's another case
where knowing Greek grammar makes no contribution to exegesis. The KOINH
reader has no advantage over the translation reader.
CC: > I don't think that an appreciation of Paul's exposition of Romans 3
> is
> required for the proper understanding of this parable.
RG: I never mentioned Romans 3. Why do you bring it up?
Yours in His grace,
Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA
=========================================================================
> Carl W. Conrad
> Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:43:05 -0400 Carl Conrad <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
writes:
>
> On Jul 9, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Richard Ghilardi wrote:
>
> > Hello Folks,
> >
> > Carl Conrad wrote:
> >
> >> (1) hILASQHTI. It's true that more recent aspect theory (and I
> think
> >>
> >> this applies to all flavors, whether "vanilla" or "plain brown
> >> wrapper"or Porter or Fanning or Campbell) looks with disfavor on
> the
> >>
> >> notion that the aorist indicates a "once for all time" act. In
> fact,
> >>
> >> however, we need only consider such standard aorist imperatives
> as
> >>
> >> EIPE MOI or ASPASASQE AUTHN to discern actions that are to be
> >> accomplished in a particular instance.
> >
> > RG: Fine. I agree.
> >
> > CC: > (2) DEDIKAIWMENOS. I've expressed my opinion previously that
> the
> >> Koine
> >> aorist and perfect tenses are in process of assimilation; I'm
> not
> >> convinced that DEDIKAIWMENOS carries a meaning differing
> >> substantially
> >> from that of DIKAIWQEIS. Perhaps Richard's friend thinks
> similarly,
> >>
> >> since he speaks of the perfect participle implying "a once for
> all
> >>
> >> time justification." But we can readily find instances of the
> >> perfect
> >> wherein completion is clearly implicit but there's no indication
> of
> >>
> >> the permanence of the action completed: Mk 3:1 tells of
> >> an?????p?? ????aµµ???? ???? t??
> >> ?e??a [EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA]. EXHRAMMENHN indicates the
> >>
> >> state of the man's hand, but subsequent verses tell of the
> >> restoration
> >> of the man's hand (3:5 ???e? t? ?????p?·
> >> ??te???? t?? ?e??a. ?a? ???te??e?
> >>
> >> ?a? ?pe?atest??? ? ?e?? a?t??. LEGEI
> >>
> >> TWi ANQRWPWi: EKTEINON THN CEIRA. KAI EXETEINEN KAI APEKATESTAQH
> hH
> >>
> >> CEIR AUTOU]. (We may note in this verse also that the command to
> >> hold
> >> out the hand hardly implies that the hand should be held out
> >> forever.
> >
> > RG: Agreed. (But I implicitly agreed with all of the above in my
> > original
> > post. cf. below)
> >
> > Evidently I stated my question so unclearly that the only answers
> I
> > got
> > were non-responsive. So let me try it this way.
> > 1) Repeat my question.
> > 2) Elaborate a bit.
> > 3) Rephrase my question.
> >
> > 1) Repeat my question.
> > If the author's claims about the aorist and
> > perfect cannot be substantiated, what CAN we claim about these
> two
> > verbal forms that will help us understand what Jesus is teaching
> in
> > this
> > parable?
> >
> > 2) Elaborate.
> > My author (he/she shall remain nameless) made explicit certain
> > meanings
> > of the aorist of hILASKOMAI and the perfect of DIKAIW that he/she
> > BELIEVES are implicit in the Gospel writer's use of those tenses
> for
> > these verbs in this context. We are now all (or mostly) ageed that
> the
> > implications he/she drew from the use of those specific tenses are
>
> > wrong
> > (probably) based on a newer and presumably better theory of
> verbal
> > aspect. So I should think it would be possible to draw new and
> > different
> > implications from Luke's use of aor. hILASTQHTI and perf.
> > DEDIKAIWMENOS
> > so as to form a partly new basis for exegesis. My author used
> English
> > paraphrase to draw out the implicit meaning of the aorist and
> > perfect. It
> > should be possible to do the same under the newer verbal aspect
> > theory.
> >
> > 3) Rephrasing the Question.
> > What are the NEW and DIFFERENT implications of Luke's use of
> aorist
> > and
> > perfect tenses for the verbs in question in this text? How do they
>
> > alter
> > the exegesis? Can they be put into English paraphrase just as my
>
> > author
> > has done?
____________________________________________________________
Get your dream car or truck. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTLa8uCGKH09Vw8xArdwDjXL0hFgEAQ1ZsvwVbpbsXEI2q0mwkW512/
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list