Rev. 3:3a Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Apr 1 00:08:23 EST 2002
1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative) on 3/31/02 8:30 PM, Mark Wilson at emory2oo2 at hotmail.com wrote:> Rev. 3:2> GINOU GRHGORWN KAI STHRISON TA LOIPA hA MELLEI APOQANEIN> OU GAR EURHKA SOU TA ERGA PEPLHRWMENA ENWPION TOU QEOU> > Rev. 3:3> MNHMONEUE OUN PWS EILHFAS KAI HKOUSAS KAI THREI KAI METANOHSON> > > How should we understand the Perfect EILHFAS followed by> the Aorist HKOUSAS ?> > The sequence of these 2 verbs seems odd to me.In this context, in light of MNHMONEUE (which calls for reflection on pastactions) I think EILHFAS is used in an extensive sense, stressing thecompleted action, and HKOUSA has a constative sense, placing the stress onthe FACT of occurrence. Since both are objects of MNHMONEUE (which, as Ihave stated, calls for reflection on past actions) and both modified by theinterrogative adverb PWS (which seems to call for reflection on the mannerof those actions), it is hard (IMO) to ascribe the idea of “ongoing result”to EILHFAS in this case, especially in light of the fact that the peopleaddressed appear to have “lost” some of what they had received, at leastpractically speaking (cf. v. 2). So I think EILHFAS is here constrained bythe semantical situation. I’m not sure there is an abundance of differencein this case between the perfect and aorist.> Is PWS the Direct Object of each of the following four verbs?No, PWS, an interrogative adverb, modifies EILHFAS and HKOUSAS. EILHFAS KAIHKOUSAS is the compound object of MNHMONEUE. As a verb of perception,MNHMONEUE in this case has an indirect question as its object, as is clearfrom the interrogative adverb PWS. The question the addressees are to ask isPWS EILHFA KAI HKOUSA? (“How did I receive and hear?”). THREI KAI METANOHSONare imperatives, indicating the course of action to be followed uponreflection of how they had received and heard.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WIslovullo at mac.com
1 Cor 3:15 (The force of the future indicative)
Rev. 3:3a Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon Apr 1 03:33:57 EST 2002
Participant Reference in John 18:15 Rev. 3:15 > Rev. 3:2> GINOU GRHGORWN KAI STHRISON TA LOIPA hA MELLEI APOQANEIN> OU GAR EURHKA SOU TA ERGA PEPLHRWMENA ENWPION TOU QEOU> > Rev. 3:3> MNHMONEUE OUN PWS EILHFAS KAI HKOUSAS KAI THREI KAI METANOHSON> > > How should we understand the Perfect EILHFAS followed by> the Aorist HKOUSAS ?> > The sequence of these 2 verbs seems odd to me.Yes, the sequence is odd for a Western, linear thought pattern. Revelationis clearly Semitic in its thought pattern, so the two words complement oneanother without suggesting that “receiving” occurred before “hearing”. Anidiomatic English translation would change the order to fit Englishexpectations (NLT and others do so.)I think the aorist just looks at the fact that they did hear the word,whereas the perfect indicates that they not only heard it, but obeyed it andacted upon it. They saw some results, at least for a time in the beginning.ISTM that the plea is for them to return to the kind of living and activefaith they had in the beginning. 3:1 says they used to be alive, but havenow lost that vibrant life.Iver Larsen
Participant Reference in John 18:15Rev. 3:15
Scott Lawson wrote: At Revelation 3:19 the aorist is used and I note that BDAG gives the gloss μετανόησον = take counsel with yourself but I wonder if “show yourself repentant” or “show repentance” are possible so as to reflect the active voice? I realize that BDAG’s gloss seems to reflect a middle voice. How does the voice affect the force of the imperative whether present or aorist?
The verb μετανοεῖν appears only in the active in the GNT; LSJ doesn’t indicate any middle-passive usage either. There’s no need to imagine any middle notion here; the verb itself implicitly indicates mental transformation. I note that NET gives simply “repent” for μετανόησον in Rev 3:3. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 18th, 2012, 3:02 pm
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 18 Sep 2012 08:11 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/PPBgeMQxQ3w/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
At Revelation 3:19 the aorist is used and I note that BDAG gives the gloss μετανόησον = take counsel with yourself but I wonder if “show yourself repentant” or “show repentance” are possible so as to reflect the active voice? I realize that BDAG’s gloss seems to reflect a middle voice. How does the voice affect the force of the imperative whether present or aorist? Statistics: Posted by Scott Lawson — September 18th, 2012, 11:11 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 18 Sep 2012 05:07 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/fenhUaXhgJo/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Alan Patterson wrote: Carl,
Where exactly do we disagree? I believe I am in agreement with your answer. I agree they are to get started (Present Tense Imperative). Here are my words: all of you get started immediately.
I did not get the sense that Stephen was asking about the definition of μετανοεῖτε. However, I can see where we disagree on this. A “radical reorientation” is closer to the finish line. The first step, at the starting line, is an act of the volition to chose a different course of action. I guess we are getting off the subject at hand… sorry.
You’re right; I think we do come down on the same side of the question of the present imperative. My reaction to your response was perhaps a reaction to your “There is no time to waste!” — which is indeed, I think, the implication of ἤγγικεν ὁ καῖρος. I get “radical reorientation” from μετανοεῖν; although it’s said to represent Hebrew shuv, it’s so often Englished as “repent” — which suggests to me more a confession of sin and recommitment. I think what’s implied here is, if I may borrow the phrasing, an “extreme makeover” of a person’s orientation toward everything. Granted that it’s a long-term process, what’s called for is a start of a long and painstaking process. I thought that both the start and the process should be emphasized in an understanding of the present imperative; an aorist can, I think, have an inceptive force for a long-term process, while the imperfective emphasizes the ongoing process as much as its start. Statistics: Posted by cwconrad — September 18th, 2012, 8:07 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// New Testament Re: Matt 3:2 μετανοεῖτε
Posted: 18 Sep 2012 04:17 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/o_gWtsNmbMs/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Carl,
Where exactly do we disagree? I believe I am in agreement with your answer. I agree they are to get started (Present Tense Imperative). Here are my words: all of you get started immediately.
I did not get the sense that Stephen was asking about the definition of μετανοεῖτε. However, I can see where we disagree on this. A “radical reorientation” is closer to the finish line. The first step, at the starting line, is an act of the volition to chose a different course of action. I guess we are getting off the subject at hand… sorry. Statistics: Posted by Alan Patterson — September 18th, 2012, 7:17 am
/////////////////////////////////////////// What does this text mean? Re: ANGELO of Rev 2:1
Posted: 18 Sep 2012 03:35 AM PDT http://feedproxy.google.com/~r//~3/JhFwQAYy45c/viewtopic.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email
Why make this so complicated? You have the word γράφω. It is often used with the dative of indirect object, the one to whom you write. Human agency is normally represented with a preposition, such as διά. I simply can’t imagine anyone reading this of any other construction here. Statistics: Posted by Barry Hofstetter — September 18th, 2012, 6:35 am