From: Carlton L. Winbery (winberyc@linknet.net)
Date: Sun Oct 29 1995 - 21:02:57 EST
Jim McGuire wrote:
>In a message dated 95-10-28 20:38:17 EST, Carlton L. Winbery writes:
>
>>The periphrastic aorist consist of the imperfect of EIMI with the aorist
>participle.
>>Robertson is right that the only one is a variant reading in John 18:38.
>
>Just three comments:
>
>1) Where is the rule that the periphrastic aorist consists of the imperfect
>of EIMI with the aorist participle? Cannot the present of EIMI be used?
> There may be one, but I am unaware of any such rule.
Do you know of an instance when the present tense of EIMI is used with an
aorist participle in a periphrastic construction? "Rules" in languages are
our observations of what happens. In Robertson's observation the only
aorist periphrastic he cites is with HN plus the aorist participle.
>2) Robertson does not cite John 18:38, but quotes Blass for Luke 23:19 as the
>only one. However, Blass does not say this in Blass-DeBrunner's grammer
>which also gives John 18:38.
The verse is Jn. 18:30 not 38. And the citation was from Blas-Debrunner.
I did not take time to look at my note on this.
>3) 2 Cor. 5:19 is not an Aorist participle, but a present: hWS hOTI QEOS HN
>EN XRISTW KOSMON KATALASSWN hEAUTW, ....
Keep on reading and you will find QEMENOS which many translators interpret
with HN as prephrastic. HN KATALASSWN is an imperfect periphrasis which is
much more common. Luke 23:19 is an aorist passive periphrastic
construction. Another possible passive construction is in Acts 8:13 but
BAPTISQEIS is probably an advervial participle.
Carlton Winbery
Prof. NT & Greek
LA College,
Pineville,La
winberyc@linknet.net
fax (318) 442-4996
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:31 EDT