by Stephen Carlson » February 6th, 2013, 10:41 am
For 1 John 1:1, the general description of the perfect in BDF § 340 is adequate:"it denotes the continuance of completed action" (emphasis original). Specifically, it emphasizes the effect on the subject, BDF § 342(2) with note citing 1 John 1:1. Now, modern linguistics would classify this as an "experiential perfect" (Bentein 2012:179), denoting that the subject has had the experience of performing the action, and this kind of perfect is as old as Homer (e.g., Bentein's example of Iliad 24.391-392 τὸν μὲν ἐγὼ μάλα πολλὰ μάχῃ ἔνι κυδιανείρῃ / ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὄπωπα "many times have I set eyes upon him in battle, where men win glory"). Bentein (2012:182) notes that the discourse function of an experiential perfect is that it "focuses on the ascription of some present property to an agent."
So, the idea here is that the authorial "we" has the on-going status of being eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses to what they have seen (ὃ ἑωράκαμεν) and heard (ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν). The reference times for these perfects is the time of the speaker/writer (when the writer remains a witness), but the reference times for the following aorists, like most aorists, is in the past when the witnesses did the beholding and the touching. Thus, I think the shift from a perfect to an aorist in 1 John 1:1 is a shift in the reference time, from the time when the continuing effects hold to when the completed actions occurred.
Reference:
Bentein, Klaas. 2012. "The Periphrasitc Perfect in Ancient Greek: A Diachronic Mental Space Analysis." Transactions of the Philological Society 110.2: 171-211.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D. (Duke)
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Faculty of Theology, Uppsala