[B-Greek] Mt 6:15 AFHTE vs. AFIETE
Alastair Haines
afhaines at tpg.com.au
Fri Mar 25 08:58:45 EDT 2011
On Mar 25, 2011, at 5:21 AM, Alastair Haines wrote:
> It seems we agree that time is not part of the intention of the Greek,
> maybe we disagree about whether it is the Mood (subjunctive) or
> Aspect (aoristic) that communicates that intention.
From: "Carl Conrad" <cwconrad2 at mac.com>
How can we say that time is NOT part of the intention of the Greek?
We have an IF clause in the aorist subjunctive and a RESULT
clause in the FUTURE INDICATIVE:
IF you do X (now or at any time hereafter), THEN your
heavenly Father WILL FORGIVE you.
Reply from AH:
Well, actually I think the rest of us, who agree on this,
are speaking a bit loosely. I can't speak for the others, but I meant
time with regard to the protasis. The apodosis/result seems primarily
eschatalogical, as I mentioned, but I wouldn't want to restrict it to that,
hence my gravitation to the term "gnomic".
So, sure, I think there is some futurity there in the Greek.
IF you habitually do X (previously, now or hereafter),
THEN your heavenly Father will forgive you (then and eternally).
The truth will out.
Gnomic English future?
This whole topic is very interesting from a typological perspective also.
"Most languages phrase both antecedent and consequent clauses as ordinary
indicative clauses. ... Many (perhaps most) languages have strong tendencies
to use different aspects in the antecedent and consequent of hypothetical
conditionals. English uses the simple (nonprogressive) present in the
antecedent, while many other languages use a perfective. English uses a
future in the consequent, while many other languages use an all-purpose
imperfective. ... If the antecedent clause denotes gnomic eventualities, it
may appear in an imperfective form even in a language that normally has
perfective antecedents."
Heath, "Coordination", in Haspelmath, Coordinating constructions,
Typological Studies 58, (2004).
AH:
> Why can't *both* Mood *and* Aspect in Mt 6:15,
> together with *both* conditional construction *and* context,
> constrain viewing the protasis as a whole, from the outside,
> as a general condition, not piecemeal, nor from the inside,
> nor in a specific or once-off kind of way.
Reply from Prof. C.
It's not a General condition but a Future condition.
General conditions involve a protasis setting forth what
one may do at any time and an apodosis setting forth
what always happens when the terms of the protasis hold.
Reply from AH:
Agreed, it's not a PRESENT general condition, it's broader still than that,
with a weight towards the future. To call it "gnomic" is interpretation, not
grammar. There are other semantic constraints at play. Sure, the verse fit
the grammatic pattern of future conditionals, but it a gnomic reading
doesn't violate those guidelines, it nuances them.
AH:
> In any case, I don't think a single instance of unforgiveness
> satisfies the condition of the protasis in 6:15.
> So Oun Kwon has the right idea and right questions.
Prof. C.:
I'm sorry and I may be utterly dense here, but I really don't understand
what seems to me a need to dilute the forcefulness
of this Jesus-saying. It doesn't say, "If you forgive SOME sins ... " nor,
"If you do/do not forgive ALL sins ...", but
rather it says, "If you do/do not forgive people (ANQRWPOIS) their (TA)
sins ... " -- and the consequence is: God will/will not forgive you."
AH:
As chance would have it, there's a Korean film playing on TV here in Sydney
just now called Secret Sunshine (2007) about a woman who thinks she can't be
a Christian any more because she can't forgive the man who murdered her son.
She, and others in the film, read Matthew 6:15 as requiring of her prompt
and total forgiveness. Is that really in the Greek? That's what prompts my
"need to dilute the forcefulness of this Jesus-saying". What if it didn't
have that force?
If the aorists (and other cues) prompt a gnomic (or maybe generic) sense,
the condition is based on habitual or customary disposition to forgive, or
refusal to do so, with God returning in kind whichever disposition is
expressed.
Anyway, I agree with your translations above, though I think they are still
slightly ambiguous in English.
Prof. C.:
Moreover the Jesus-traditions in the gospels drive home this principle
repeatedly. Think of Peter's question about the number of times one should
forgive a brother who sins (Matt 18:21-22 and the parable that follows
immediately with its "punch line":
34 KAI ORGISQEIS hO KURIOS AUTOU PAREDWKEN AUTON
TOIS BASANISTAIS hEWS hOU APODWi PAN TO OFEILOMENON.
35 hOUTWS KAI hO PATHR MOU hO OURANIOS POIHSEI hUMIN,
EAN MH AFHTE hEKASTOS TWi ADELFWi AUTOU
APO TWN KARDIWN hUMWN
AH:
Sure, yet again agreed, the Jesus tradtions even go beyond forgiveness to
love for enemies.
But can salvation be lost on account of missing an opportunity to love an
enemy?
Fortunately, at least that tradition has no parallel to Matthew 6:15.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list