Date: Mon May 11 1998 - 14:55:38 EDT
Williams, Wes wrote:
> > > John 14:9. When Jesus said to Phillip:
> > >
> > > TOSOUTWi CRONWi MEQ hUMWN EIMI
> > > Am I with you so long a time, or,
> > > Have I been with you so long a time
> > > (EIMI translation depends on your translation principles)
> > [For] So much time with you I am [being]. ~ Literal translation.
> > >
> > > (1) For how long a time is Jesus with Phillip in the past?
> > Marvelous question... The EIMI here has a dual focus, one temporal
> > [Phillip], and one spoken from a possibly non-temporal [originative]
> > 'time' frame. The temporal cannot be denied, and must mean the
> > historical 'normal' time of their fleshy association, eh? Yet the
> > verb is EIMI, which suggests that to Jesus, His ongoing present IS
> > historical to Phillip!! Unless, of course, the EIMI is being used as
> > an aorist present, for which there is no form. My personal opinion?
> > ~ EK ARCH!!!, but Phillip would not, imvho, be understanding it this
> > way...
> > But the reader MAY...
> Dear George,
> I am wondering if there is a resolution to this most interesting view. Let
> me present one further example and then I will be silent (maybe!). In the
> LXX of Gen 31:38, Jacob says to Laban:
> TAUTA MOI EIKOSI ETH EGO EIMI META SOU
> These twenty years I have been with you, or to use your translation
> These twenty years I am being with you
> The LXX translators used EGO EIMI to translate )aNoQiY (I with an implied
> am). This verse, too, has a temporal clause with EIMI used as a verb of
> existence. As such, I introduce it as a parallel to John 14:9.
> Let us apply your exegesis to the verse. I use your words exactly but
> replace the characters:
I would NEVER do this [least-wise as far as I can imgine now!] to any
other text than John, and even in John it carries the usual temporal
understanding. The reason for being so focused upon the present
ongoingness in John is that the second WORD of this text is ARCH,
which is a TIME word, and time, therefore, overarches the entire text,
as does Logos and Theos. [Indeed, the term/name Jesus Christ is
meaningless without Logos and Theos.] The ARCH of 1:1 is what I see
as the 'overlooked' term in traditional Christian scholarship's
approach to this gospel, and with their 'non-tensical' understanding
of the Greek verb structures [in which the focus is on aspect] it is
no wonder at all WHY this is so. The aorist is the only non-tense
indicative verb in Greek, and even that is denied generally. Tis
> The EIMI here has a dual focus, one temporal [Laban], and one spoken
> from a possibly non-temporal [originative] 'time' frame. ... Yet the verb is
> EIMI, which suggests that to Jacob, His ongoing present IS historical to
> Laban!! Unless, of course, the EIMI is being used as an aorist present, for
> which there is no form. My personal opinion? ~ EK ARCH!!!, but Laban would
> not, imvho, be understanding it this way...
> But the reader MAY...
And ONLY in John, and then very carefully. Certainly not in virtually
all the other texts, although I have not yet looked at the synoptics
closely... And I am not remembering Timaeus well [Plato's] ~ But I
doubt seriously that he would have had this focus, nor this grammatic
> George, from the point of view of grammar and not theology, is it not
> putting a lot of stress on the present form EIMI with a temporal clause to
> suggest something beyond a PPA construction?
Indeed it is, but only when an author such as John focuses on the ARCH
of time. As for the rest, it can take one!! [A rest, that is...
:-)] Grammatically you are right as rain, my friend.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:43 EDT