[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