[b-greek] Re: Meaning of the perfect tense

From: CWestf5155@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 11:56:45 EST


Alex, Mike and Mark,

I'm glad that I have a chance to read Alex's post before replying, since I
was debating on whether to include paragraphs such as he included in my
response to Mike. Instead, I'll concentrate on the application of theory to
Jn. 5:24, in response to Mike.

As Alex noted, these issues have been discussed for a long time. And it is
interesting to note that in the history of the discussion of the perfect, Jn.
5:24 has been one of the 'problem' verses that some believe conflict with the
traditional view (that it means the past event and the present [permanent]
consequences).

First of all, both Mark and Alex have discussed the significance of the use
of the prespositions EK and EIS with METABAINW, and I'm not sure that one
should place too much significance on this collocation, since it is used
elsewhere to denote changing residence (Lk. 10:7, and others such as
Josephus), which is parallel to the change of domains in view here, as
opposed to the travel verses that METABAINW normally occurs with in the NT
(and usually in the aorist).

As far as the idea of 'movement' being included in the lexis--definitely, but
the state rather than the movement is the focus in the force of the perfect
tense.

Also, the focus is not on the preceding state/condition of death in the past,
but the results of the action (so the place of departure doesn't get equal
focus to the destination).

So, the perfect grammaticalizes a state of affairs (the result of the action
of the verb) or the state or condition of the grammatical subject.

In Jn. 5:24:

    The one (who hears Jesus' word and believes on the one who sent him)
    has eternal life (present/process)
    and does not come into judgment (present/process)
    but has/is moved/transferred/changed residence from death to life
        ie. is in a 'state of life' as a result of transferring from death

Here's an analogy:
    

    My brother is transferring from SC to UCLA (present/process)
    My brother transferred from SC to UCLA (aorist/complete action)
    My brother has/is tranferred from SC to UCLA (perfect/state)
        (in the sense that my brother is a UCLA transfer student--the English
perfect is not in perfect correspondance to the Greek)

So I am closest to Mikes #3 "have arrived at a *final* state made explicit by
EIS" but I would leave the word "final" out, or use destination, or
something, to avoid the implication of permanence.

The difference between the above view and #1 that Mark favored is that there
is equal focus on both states in #1.

The reason that Jn. 5:24 caused such problems for the traditional view, is
that it is difficult to see this content as past action with present
consequences. Many have seen the reference to to coming into judgment and the
move from death to life as being future. I tend to think it is all
omnitemporal, which, as Fanning says, 'could be applied on numerous
occasions'.

Cindy Westfall
PhD Student, University of Surrey at Roehampton

In a message dated 01/12/2001 11:35:08 PM Mountain Standard Time,
alexali@surf.net.au writes:

> The recent post on the use of the perfect by Mike Sangrey is directed to the
> very matter which I find most interesting, but until now have not had time
> to respond to.
>
> John Boyd's original post concerned John 5:24.
>
> AMHN AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI Ho TON LOGON MOU AKOUWN KAI PISTEUWN TWi PEMYANTI
> ME ECEI ZWHN AIWNION KAI EIS KRISIN OUK ERCETAI, ALLA *METABEBHKEN* EK TOU
> QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN.
>
> The aspect of the perfect is often called stative, a term which lays
> emphasis on the use of the perfect to denote a state rather than an action.
>
> Thus, we translate OIDA as 'I *know*', rather than 'I have seen';
TEQNHKEN
> hH QUGATHR SOU, 'your daughter *is dead* (Luke 8:49); hO PAIS MOU
BEBLHTAI,
> 'my servant *is lying*' (Mat 8:6).
>
> Now, as Mike pointed out, METABAINW 'expresses some sense of movement'.
META
> in compounds often expresses change, BAINW has the idea of movement, and
> their combination speaks of moving, changing place, changing from one
> position to another.
>
> If the perfect, however, is (purely) stative, what METABEBHKEN refers to is
> the state that is the consequence of motion. When a person's movement is
> complete, they come to a state of rest.
>
> This is where a tension arises between the stative aspect of the perfect
and
> the prepositions used with this particular example, for where we might have
> expected rest EN + dative (for example), what we do have is EK ... EIS ...
>
> EIS in the NT does muscle in on the sense of EN; one of the Grammars I use
> most, Zerwick's 'Biblical Greek illustrated by Examples' has several pages
> on the inroads EIS made into the province of EN, both in local and
> metaphorical senses.
>
> But that is not of relevance here, where we have both a verb of motion and
> the working of the two prepositions together, EK ... EIS.
>
> So the meaning of *METABEBHKEN* EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN is not purely
> stative, but also has in view the action that precedes the state.
>
> This, in fact, is to go no further than McKay, who writes 'the event
> producing the state may be implied strongly enough for the addition of an
> adverbial attachment which applies particularly to the event: e.g. 1 Cor
> 15:4 KAI hOTI EGHGERTAI Thi HMERAi Thi TRITHi, 'and that he rose on the
> third day (and remains risen).' The emphasis is still on the state rather
> than the event, but the flexibility of the language permits the addition of
> an adverbial phrase which would usually accompany the aorist which might
> have been used here.'
>
> [McKay, 'A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek', p32; note that
> the paragraph quoted is not the first point he makes in regard to the
> perfect, but it is the most relevant for the example we are working
through.
> And as Rod Decker mentioned, the bibliography at his site includes other of
> McKay's writings that are worth reading.]
>
> To my mind, the active issue in regard to the perfect is not whether it
> denotes a state that is permanent and unchanging. When the centurion says,
> hO PAIS MOU BEBLHTAI, 'my servant *is lying*' (Mat 8:6), there is no
> implication that the servant never again rose from his bed. Cindy
Westfall's
> criticism of Reinecker's statement (in relation to 1 John 3:14, where the
> same phrase METABEBHKEN EK TOU QANATOU EIS THN ZWHN appears) that 'The
> perfect tense indicates the permanency of the step of salvation' reminds us
> that some commentators do claim permanence for the condition denoted by the
> perfect. That claim is invalid.
>
> Rather, it is how far the perfect tense has moved along the cline towards
> the use of the aorist, denoting an action rather than a state or condition,
> that is of interest. McKay's work is of importance in indicating the
> priority of the state rather than the action, which action is,
nevertheless,
> sometimes also in view.
>
> Wallace writes (p573): ' The force of the perfect tense is simply that it
> describes an event that, completed in the past (we are speaking of the
> perfect indicative here), has results existing in the present time (i.e.,
in
> relation to the time of the speaker). Or, as Zerwick puts it, the perfect
> tense is used for 'indicating not the past action as such but the present
> 'state of affairs' resulting from the past action' '. It seems to me that
> what Wallace posits as alternative views of the same thing are in fact
*not*
> equivalent, and that Zerwick's is the more accurate formulation.
>
> In summing up, it may be of interest that some of these questions have long
> been asked:
>
> 'It lay with the writer's *mode of viewing* [my 'italics' - how modern such
> a phrase sounds] the event he narrates, and indeed frequently with his
habit
> of mind, whether he used the aorist or perfect. For the aorist by no means
> implies that the consequences of the event do not remain to the present.
And
> if the context made it sufficiently clear that the consequences continue,
or
> if it was needless to call special attention to them, the aorist was used.
> Only when the consequences demanded attention was the perfect used. Nor
does
> the Greek perfect imply that all the consequences of the past event remain.
> Lazarus was properly spoken of as hO TEQNHKWS, even when coming from the
> grave. For his death, although its bands were broken, had left an abiding
> mark upon him ...
>
> 'But although the significance of the perfect sometimes sank towards, or
> even sank to, the level of the aorist, the significance of the aorist never
> rose in the least degree towards that of the perfect. ... In conclusion,
I
> may add that we have no nobler monument of the thoughtfulness of the Greek
> mind than the Greek perfect tense.'
>
> And in a subsequent article, the same writer wrote what might still have
> relevance on B-Greek today:
>
> 'To some persons our long discussion of a Greek tense will seem to be
little
> better than learned trifling. But the careful student of Holy Scripture
will
> judge otherwise. No one who earnestly desires to learn all he can from the
> Bible, and who, with this aim in view, strives to follow the train of
> thought of its writers, will count any labour superfluous which enables him
> to understand more exactly and fully the meaning of their words.'
>
> The author of these words was Joseph Agar Beet, writing in what I gather
> must have been a series of articles; I have them as cuttings from their
> original magazines or journals, cuttings made by my grand-father or
> great-grand-father perhaps a hundred years ago or more. There is an
> indication that the original title was 'The Greek Aorist, as used in the
New
> Testament'; if any list member could let me know of the full bibliographic
> details, I would be most grateful.
>

---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu




This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:47 EDT