[B-Greek] Fw: Aorist Subjunctive in 1 Jn 1:9
Alastair Haines
haines at alastairs.com
Sun Apr 3 00:34:18 EDT 2011
> On Apr 2 Renwick Preston wrote:
> Aorist Subjunctive in 1 Jn 1:9
> Why is the word for forgive in this verse an aorist?
>
> From: Carl Conrad
> 1 John 1:9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος,
> ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.
> [1John 1:9 EAN hOMOLOGWMEN TAS hAMARTIAS hHMWN,
> PISTOS ESTIN KAI DIKAIOS, hINA AFHi hHMIN TAS hAMARTIAS
> KAI KAQARISHi hHMAS APO PASHS ADIKIAS.]
>
> I would think it's because God's forgiveness is thought of as a single act
> rather than as an ongoing one.
>
> From: Nikolaos Adamou
> It is the 3rd structure of a hypothetical case
> ἐὰν + subjunctive , ἀόριστος (past)
> ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν - ἀφῇ + καθαρίσῃ
>
> it is used to indicate the something is repeated in the past and in the
> future
> http://users.sch.gr/papangel/sch/anc/ph10.ipothetiki_logi.pdf
CC: "rather than as an ongoing one"
NA: "repeated in the past and in the future"
At the prompting of Professor Conrad, regarding the force of the aorist for
exactly this same verb three times in Matthew 6, I checked some well-known
authorities on the subject.
Porter categorises many cases like these as OMNITEMPORAL, which is a broad
class subsuming several traditional divisions. Fanning, on the other hand,
in a discussion of gnomic aorists, refines traditional divisions into
additional classes. For example, "the aorist of similies" (not relevant
here), but also, "aorist for Semitic perfect" (following Black). Two classes
of Semitic perfect typically translated by aorists in the LXX are gnomic
perfects and stative perfects. Similar observations are made in technical
commentaries on Matthew.
In the current verse, would Porter, Fanning, Black et al. line up behind CC
"single act rather than ... ongoing" or NA "repeated in ... past and ...
future"? Perhaps these authorities may support BOTH CC AND NA in 1 John and
in Matthew. That is, the aorist could reflect John's (or Matthew's) first
language Semitic usage. Whatever precise idiomatic usage obtains, however,
the verb "to forgive" is being abstracted beyond a single TIME SITUATED
event.
In so far as Professor Conrad and Nikolas Adamou refer to the same
conception, I think the best literature supports them. That conception is
something like: PRIMARILY the state of God forgiving the remorseful viewed
as a TIMELESS UNITY, but with legitimate conotations of concrete
instantiation of this general principle, without commitment to whether it is
regular, continuous, past, present or future.
I can supply various quotes from Porter, Fanning, Black and various
commentaries if there is sufficient interest.
alastair
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list