[B-Greek] Once For All Time - Luke 18:9-14

Richard Ghilardi qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
Tue Jul 14 01:16:58 EDT 2009


Hi Carl,

Since this is my final post on the subject, I would like to accomplish 2
things.
1) Review a couple of points.
2) Make 1 or 2 new points.

Unlike you, Carl, who never got off the dime, my thoughts on this matter
have grown and evolved over the course of this thread to the point of
almost (but not quite) agreeing with you in substance. You'll see what I
mean as I proceed.

1) The Review

A) hILASQHTI: In this case, Carl, you simply gave us the old school song
about the punctiliar aorist. There are two problems with this: a) It
misses the point of my question. You might have admitted that there are
no fresh implications for the aorist from the new school before offering
something from the old. b) The implied "at onceness" or
"in-this-momentness" of the aorist contributes NOTHING to our
understanding of the story that can't be had by simply reading the text
in ANY LANGUAGE without any reference to Greek grammar.

B) DEDIKAIWMENOS: First you tell us this verb implies "a man of
demonstrated righteousness or a man who has demonstrated his
righteousness." Then you backed away (sort of) from this formulation when
I asked for a lexicon look-up, while still clinging to its essential
meaning. This became apparent in your "clarifications" post. You passed
over with a studied silence my own suggestions for what the MV might
imply, namely, an INTENTIONAL self-involvement of the subject: "knowing
that he was right with God" or "assured of a right relationship with God"
or even "assured of his forgiveness." I cannot see any possible
objections to this understanding of the middle voice. Finally, in your
latest post you claim 

<< the middle-passive participle, in my judgment, does not involve intent
on the part of the subject but achievement of vindication. >>

This is merely a grammaticalization of non-intentionality. You have taken
those elements of the story which portray the tax-collector's humble and
contrite behavior, you have rightly inferred his non-intentionality (but
that would be obvious to any reader, in any language) and then you have
transferred that non-intentionality to the MV. Non-intentionality is not
intrinsic to the semantics of the MV. Can you provide any unambiguous
examples outside this context from the NT? But even if you could, that
would not prove your case, any more than examples of the perfect implying
"a completed action whose finished result continues to exist" would prove
the case for that tense.

C) Paul: You brought up the Paul connection several times, on each
occasion vigorously disavowing it. I said nothing. Finally, after your
latest disavowal I found my voice. I presented a brief but adequate case
for a strong prima facie presumption of Paul's influence on Luke's
thinking. That influence would extend to all that Paul taught Luke about
the doctrine of justification and the special significance of all the
*DIK- words. And when I pointed out that, in view of so strong a
presumption of influence, the burden of proof lay with you, you just blew
it off cum grano salis. If you would just take that burden of proof
seriously, we would not be discussing "hermeneutic or theological
assumptions on this list" as you intimate, but rather we would be
discussing whether there are substantive semantic differences between
Paul's use of the *DIK- words and Luke's use of the *DIK- words on this
list. That's an appropriate subject for the Biblical Greek List, n'est-ce
pas?

2) Something New

DEDIKAIWMENOS: Carl, you did indeed answer my question specifically and
appropriately about the perfect tense of this participle. But it was
nestled obscurely among your "clarifications" and lacked the terminology
associated with the "new school" of verbal aspect. So for a long time I
didn't recognize it. You said,

<< I realize and acknowledge that I opened myself up to misunderstanding
by stating that DEDIKAIOWMENOS [sic] might be Englished as "a man of
demonstrated righteousness or a man who has demonstrated his
righteousness." What I meant was simply that the tax-collector's act of
confession and contrition and his earnest plea for God's mercy had shown
clearly the stance of a DIKAIOS ANHR. >>

a DIKAIOS ANHR -- You were trying to tell us, I believe, that ANHR
DEDIKAIWMENOS = DIKAIOS ANHR! In other words that the perfect tense here
is stative! It took me so long to see this primarily because you didn't
use the word "stative." If I read you correctly, Carl, we are now in
agreement that this perfect participle expresses stative aspect. What is
the implication of stative aspect? We agree here too, I believe. The
stative aspect implies that the sinful tax-collector is in a certain
condition or has a certain status. That condition or status is one of
righteousness. Here is where we must part company, however. You go on to
tell us that the MV implies that the sinful tax-collector's righteous
status was determined by his own achievement (cf. your quote in para. B)
though this result was unintentional on his part. I have already shown in
para. B that this view founders upon the rock of grammaticalizing
non-intentionality into the MV.

May I suggest another way? It is no accident that this stative participle
(DEDIKAIWMENOS), that IMPLIES the righteous status of the sinful
tax-collector, is itself enclosed within and forms part of a statement in
which Jesus solemnly (LEGW hYMIN) DECLARES his righteous status. It is
this solemn declaration by Jesus which determines the sinner-man's
righteous status and not any "achievement" of the sinner-man himself
intentional or not. Don't believe me? Use your hand to cover vs 14 and
read the story as if vs 14 had never existed on earth. You will see that
the parable becomes obscure, the meaning uncertain and the righteous
status of BOTH characters indeterminate. It is only when Jesus makes His
proclamation about the righteousness of the sinful tax-collector and the
unrighteousness of the Pharisee that the status of both are determined
and declared. Then all is made plain. The story is laden with wisdom and
meaning. And the behavior of both men may be rightly assessed. Jesus,
through Luke, teaches that He has the power to declare sinners righteous.
Paul teaches that God declares sinners righteous. (No references are
needed.) So they teach essentially the same doctrine of Justification,
eh? Wait a mininte. What about faith? Where does faith come in? Well, the
tax-collector had faith, did he not? He was a sinner declared righteous
by Jesus (God) alone by mercy (grace) alone through faith alone. Sounds
like Paul's doctrine to me.

Yours in His grace,

Richard Ghilardi - qodeshlayhvh at juno.com
West Haven, Connecticut USA
____________________________________________________________
The strong, silent type. Click here for great looking bamboo flooring!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTJs334sifE3QZIbvck1cRfVXxhUdAIlHKDAQBk6RLmt4DaiCFPe7m/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list