Dwayne Green wrote:Does the perfect passive κέκριται imply that the judgement is the unbelief itself?
Dwayne Green wrote:Stephen Hughes wrote:When you say "judgement" do you mean what someone has been found guilty of, like in a sort of outcome of a trial process?
Hi Stephen, when I say judgement, I am referring to the "sentence passed" upon a guilty person. Perhaps this is the wrong idea here?
I'm still struggling to understand what you are asking in this question.
By "the sentence passed", do you mean that unbelief (ἀπιστία) is the punishment (τιμωρία) of which the condemned man is deemed worthy in a condemnation (κρίσις - in the sense of where a guilty verdict is reached), rather than the charge (ἔγκλημα) for which somebody needs to stand trial for, and in this case the crime for which trial has already been stood?
Is your question a sort of geek (sic.) question like, does 2 + 3 = 3 + 2 ? That is to say, does ὁ δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, = ὁ δὲ αἴτιος (guilty) ἀδικήματος (a bad deed) οὐ μὴ πιστεύετω. That is to say are you asking whether the perfect can place the articular participle to
a place in the sequence of the verbs action, which comes after the end of the perfect's effect? That is to say is not believing the thing that comes after the judgement not before... If that is what you are asking, then I'm sorry, I don't know. My Greek is really rather poor - and especially the grammar of the perfect and sequences of tenses - but I hope that by working on it day by day, I might see some improvement in it over time.
To understand the things around this question, it might be useful to give some attention to some small details (
λεπτομέρεια - but not in that "
consisting of small particles" sense given in LSJ, but in the sense of meaning 2 of the related adjective
λεπτομερής), which when I do it often perhaps ends up with making insignificant things bigger than they deserve to be in a given context (ie. λεπτομεριμνία), but still it might be interesting to note:
The word κρίνειν... The word κέκριται here can, but does not
necessarily, imply a guilty verdict. Look at this interesting verse
Deuteronomy 25:1 wrote:ἐὰν δὲ γένηται ἀντιλογία (dispute) ἀνὰ μέσον ἀνθρώπων καὶ προσέλθωσιν εἰς κρίσιν καὶ κρίνωσιν καὶ δικαιώσωσιν τὸν δίκαιον καὶ καταγνῶσιν τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς
A classical parallel could also be useful to contextualise the ἤδη used in this verse;
Lysias 27:3 (last phrase) wrote:καὶ οὐ νῦν πρῶτον ὤφθησαν ἀδικοῦντες, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρότερον ἤδη δώρων (genitive of the crime for which they were condemned) ἐκρίθησαν.
And this is not the first time that they have been caught in criminal acts: they have been tried before now for taking bribes. (Lamb's translation from the Loeb)