From: Eric Weiss (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Jul 22 1997 - 09:07:17 EDT
Thanks for your comments re: perfect passive participles and perfects. Smythe
didn't have much to say re: my question, and BDF indicated, I believe, as do
most of my grammars, that the perfect passive periphrastic was equivalent to
the perfect passive indicative. Daniel Wallace I believe said a little about
slight differences between the usage of the periphrastic participle versus
the indicative - I need to reread it.
Since you mentioned TETELESTAI in John 19:30, I had noticed in reading it the
other day that TETELESTAI occurs two verses earlier in 19:28. I'd read
somewhere that TETELESTAI was found among the papyri and means "paid in full"
as a receipt for a bill - hence Jesus, according to the author of the article
who pointed it out, was saying in 19:30 that the payment owed God for man's
sins was "paid in full" by his death. I still think based on the word's
occurrence in identical form in 19:28 (and perhaps even considering the
related(?) word TELEIWQHi in 19:28) that the usual "It is
finished/accomplished" is probably a better translation, and the meaning of
"paid in full" was not primarily or even secondarily intended by the author
of the gospel - but I suppose Raymond Brown would have some comment about
this (I have not read his commentaries).
Another "interesting" thing I noticed was in reading I John 2:3-5. The author
uses the phrase EN TOUTWi four times in these three verses - the first and
fourth time to mean "by this," the second and third time to mean "in him" -
kind of a chiasm. I guess he didn't use EN AUTWi the second and third time
because of possible resulting confusion due to his using AUTOS for Jesus
several times in these verses.
Thanks again for your comments.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:23 EDT