From: George Blaisdell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 03 1999 - 10:41:47 EST
>From: "Carl W. Conrad"
>Text of 2 Jn 7: hOTI POLLAI PLANOI EXHLQON EIS TON KOSMON, hOI MH
>hOMOLOGOUNTES IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI: hOUTOS ESTIN hO PLANOS
>One thing immediately evident is that the participle in the
>phrase, hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES, although present, is appositional to the
>subject of a verb in the aorist; another noteworthy factor is that
>ERCOMENON, though present, is itself part of a sort of indirect
>dependent upon hOMOLOGOUNTES.
>It's a general statement about "deceptions" and "deceivers." Although
>might argue that hOI MH hOMOLOGOUNTES refers to one group of concrete
>persons held in mind by the author of 2 John, presumably that majority
>left the Johannine community about which he says so much in 1 John,
>nevertheless the real problem here is the phrase that seems to function
>the object-content of the negated substantival participle, hOI MH
>hOMOLOGOUNTES: "those who do not confess/agree/admit ..."
>IHSOUN CRISTON ERCOMENON EN SARKI could, I guess, mean "the fact that
>Christ COMES in flesh." In which case, what's the temporal reference of
>present participle ERCOMENON? I think one naturally wants to take it in
>reference to a past coming and read it "the fact that Jesus Christ CAME
>flesh"--which does seem to be one central concern of the author of the
>three Johannine letters. My own inclination, however, is not to see the
>reference in ERCOMENON so much as pointing to time present, past, or
>so much as to the event of Christ's coming as an entrance into durative
>time--which would incline me to want to translate this into English as
>coming of Jesus Christ in flesh" rather than as "Jesus Christ coming in
>flesh." Which is to say, I guess, that I see no reason why ERCOMENON
>may NOT refer to what is in fact an event of past history, but I also
>see an emphasis on that so much by virtue of the durative/progressive
>aspect of ERCOMENON as I see emphasis on the reality of a manner of
>entrance into the temporal sequence, namely EN SARKI.
Hall Harris, in his Commentary/Exegesis of 2 John [on Bible.Org] likes
to understand this passage in reference to the similar construction
using the perfect in 1 John, which does indeed place it in the past.
The result would seem to be to give greater urgency in 2 John.
Your take of the present participle as the 'manner of entrance', [rather
than the time of entrance] seems to me to be right on point, and one
which Hall seems to not have addressed. I'll post Hall's comments
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:15 EDT