Stephen Hughes wrote:Stephen Carlson wrote:I am a little bothered about the perfect γέγονεν. It seems to be refering to events in the narrator's remote past, which challenges at least the classical meaning of the perfect. The perfect is not a narrative tense, so the function of the fulfillment formula would have be non-narrative such as commenting upon the narrative.
The perfect is part of grammar, isn't it? Grammar is one of those things that people
talk about, and I have been meaning to get around to learning it for a while
..... Perhaps I'll do that after I finish with vocabulary.
Seriously though
, how does
John 1:3 wrote:Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν.
match or confound your expectaions about γέγονεν? To me there is much more affinity between τὸ γεγονός and (ὃ) γένονεν than is usual between a participle and indicative.
I can't speak for SC, but I've pondered the forms of γενέσθαι in Jn 1:3 for quite some time. Leaving aside the question whether ὂ γέγονεν belongs not with what precedes but rather with what follows, if construed with the traditional punctuation, I've understood this to mean, "Nothing
that has created being came into existence apart from Him." As you (SH) say, there is an obvious affinity between τὸ γεγονός and ὂ γέγονεν. Both these substantives, it seems to me, refer to something real that has a history, as when theologians speak of "the Christ event" or
Heilsgeschichte. (I don't want to discuss theology at all here; I'm just pointing to what seems implicit in the formulation). Might a phrase ὅλον τὸ γεγονός be understood in the sense, "this event in its entirety"? Then the sense of Mt 1:22 will be, "The meaning of this entire event is disclosed in the prophecy ... "
It would appear, Stephen (SH), that you're not going to finish with vocabulary nor grammar -- you're into both for the long haul, like Solon, γηράσκων ἀεὶ πολλὰ διδασκόμενος Take it from one who knows!