[B-Greek] Mt 6:15 AFHTE vs. AFIETE
Alastair Haines
afhaines at tpg.com.au
Fri Mar 25 07:46:05 EDT 2011
> "If you don't forgive men, neither will your Father forgive your
> transgressions."
> gfsomsel
>>I honestly don't believe there's a bit of ambiguity here.
Professor Conrad
In English, does the above imply that a single instance of withholding
forgiveness brings consequences? It's the first thing that comes to my mind,
but not the only one; and, for me at least, the second thought seems the
better one--if I'm not IN THE HABIT of forgiving men (plural), then I can't
expect forgiveness (eschatalogically).
So I disagree with Professor Conrad about the English, anyway. I think it's
ambiguous. If it's not ambiguous, then Oun Kwon has the right idea, and my
second thought is the right one.
But that's just English, is the Greek any clearer? The Greek seems to be
more grammatically marked (or at least inflected) than the English, though
perhaps it's just differently marked.
We have three references to human forgiveness, all aorist at 6:12
(AFHKAMEN), and 6:14-15 (AFHTE x2). The first is indicative, the others
subjunctive. I mentioned that "the subjunctive
is sufficiently explained by the conditional." Prof. C. specified which
conditional, so we agree there.
(Though, of course, EAN + subjunctive in the protasis need not have future
reference, e.g. 1 Cor 7:11, Mark 7:11, or James 2:7. The conditional classes
are guidelines according to many grammarians.)
However, I'm not sure where Prof. C. gets the idea that "The 'gnomic' aorist
is fundamentally an Indicative category." Perhaps this depends on what one
means by "gnomic", but I can't see how gnomic semantic propositions, are
necessarily or fundamentally indicative.
I'm not sure how Wallace (GGBB:562) helps, who doesn't explicitly exclude
aorist subjunctives.
"The aorist indicative is occasionally used to present a timeless, general
fact. When it does so, it does not refer to a particular even that _did_
happen, but to a generic even that _does_ happen. Normally, it is translated
like a simple present tense."
In fact Wallace provides a note that suits our verses in Matthew 6 very well
imo.
"The aorist, under certain circumstances, may be used of an action that in
reality is iterative or customary. In this respect it is not very different
from a customary _present_, but is quite different from a customary
_imperfect_. The gnomic aorist is not used to describe an event that "used
to take place" (as the imperfect does), but one that "has taken place" over
a long period of time or, like the present, _does take place."
Perhaps Prof. C. wants to follow the sense of the gnomic usage as explained
by Smyth.
"The aorist may express a general truth. The aorist simply states a past
occurrence and leaves the reader to draw the inference from a concrete case
that what has occurred once is typical of what often occurs".
If gnomic usage is a usage to "express a general truth", it may work as
described in the indicative, with marked past tense. But when past tense is
not marked, as in the subjunctive, it might be explained in other ways.
For other gnomic aorists in the subjunctive I'm endebted to Scott A.
Starker, for putting online a paper submitted to Don Carson. Just from
Matthew: Mt 6:14,15; 12:11; 12:29; 16:26; 18:12,13; 22:24.
Matthew 6:12 doesn't appear, possibly because Starker is only looking at
conditionals.
I should offer one final thought to Oun Kwon, though, and that is, even if
Oun, Scott and myself (inter alia) are wrong here, Oun doesn't need to give
up on the theological principle of unconditional salvation, considering
Augustines famous "command what you will, but give what you command." But
here is not the place to elaborate on that.
alastair
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list