[B-Greek] Mt 6:15 AFHTE vs. AFIETE
Carl Conrad
cwconrad2 at mac.com
Fri Mar 25 09:00:52 EDT 2011
On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Alastair Haines wrote:
>> "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).
I think you're trying to read more into it than it says. But maybe not. Maybe we can chip away at it: some sins, or maybe one or two, we won't forgive; surely that failure or those failures won't be held against us when we seek forgiveness? Or in the LP itself, Mt 6:12 KAI AFES hHMIN TA OFEILHMATA hHMWN, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN,
does this mean that we ask God's forgiveness of our sins in the manner that we ourselves sometimes, or usually, or most of the time forgive our debtors? And, supposing that AFES and AFHKAMEN are "gnomic" or in some sense pointing at "general" validity, does that mean that we pray to be forgiven "generally" or "most of the time"? -- or does it mean that we forgive our debtors "ordinarily" or "most of the time." Does it mean, in other words, that we may sometimes slip up and fail to forgive -- and perhaps God may somehow slip up and fail to forgive us?
Again, as I've said before, I don't understand the urgency to dilute what the text seems (to me, at least) to be saying pretty clearly.
> 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.
Is "the right idea" an idea about what the Greek text (and, of course, an appropriate English equivalent) actually says?
And I must say, I don't understand why the questions begin with how the Greek is translated into English; I should think that the meaning of the Greek text is the primary question.
> 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.)
It's true, EAN (and hOTAN and hOSTIS AN) + subjunctive need not have future reference; when the RESULT clause is present indicative, we have a GENERAL condition. Of course, what we have in Mt 6:12 is not a condition at all, but a petition in the imperative and a dependent adverbial clause, hWS KAI hHMEIS AFHKAMEN TOIS OFEILETAIS hHMWN. I've already said what I think about reading 6:12 as a generalizing proposition: we want God to forgive us our sins "generally" just as we "generally" forgive our debtors.
Incidentally, AFHKAMEN is, as was mentioned earlier, a kappa aorist. There doesn't seem to be a distinct perfect tense for this verb, although I'd guess that this form serves the purpose of a perfect tense well enough. I really think that the Koine perfect and aorist are in the process of merging in the same manner as aorist and perfect earlier merged in Latin.
But does the aorist tense-form of AFHKAMEN imply that we should consider it a "gnomic aorist"? Again it seems to come around to the question: Do we "generally" or "usually" forgive our debtors?
> 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.
Gnomic propositions (from GNWMH, Greek for "truism") are about what does ordinarily, regularly occur -- e.g. the sun rising in the morning, the postman always ringing twice, the things that Ecclesiastes enumerates as "vanities." That is the province of the indicative mood; the subjunctive, optative, and imperative, on the other hand, concern probability, desirability and urgency.
> 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."
Nor does Wallace offer any instances of non-indicative gnomic aorists. The question is then whether a "gnomic" form can or does set forth a statement about what generally or normally or usually happens, but need not happen all the time; there may be occasions when what the "gnomic" statement says is not applicable. We may sometimes fail to forgive (and God may ...?).
> 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.
These should perhaps be discussed. You mention that the paper has been put online, but you don't say where. Is there a URL?\
> 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.
This really ought not even to have been mentioned, as it suggests that the interpretation being argued here is theologically motivated. I would hope that additional discussion of this question could steer completely away from such considerations and focus on the grammar of the text in question. A further exploration of supposed non-indicative "gnomic" aorists might well be instructive.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list