Re: INA + aorist subjunctive

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Sat Jan 17 1998 - 07:54:36 EST


At 1:28 AM -0600 1/17/98, Steven Cox wrote:
> Hello b-greekers
>
> INA KATARGHSHi ..TON DIABOLON (Heb2:14)
>
> INA ELEHMWN GENHTAI KAI PISTOS ARCIEREUS (Heb2:17)
>
> I think I understand the difference between
> INA + present subjunctive = resultant repeated action/event
> INA + aorist subjunctive = resultant single action/event
>
> However is it correct that the aorist subjunctive also
> indicates completed action?
>
> For example what grammatical structure would one use
> to distinguish between:
>
> (a) In order to destroy the devil (an action completed with that
> act)
>
> (b) In order to destroy the devil (an action to take place at
> some future point)
>
> Can INA KATARGHSHi TON DIABOLON mean both (a) and (b)?
>
> If not then can someone help by filling in the blank for
> (a) or (b) INA KATARG___ TON DIABOLON
>
> Is it true that "There is no grammatical reason found in 2:14
> that the Devil must be read as destroyed already"?

I suspect that there will be alternative views expressed, but for my part I
think it IS true. It seems to me that the purpose clause is fundamentally
with reference to the future, and although the subjunctive in it may be
aorist and the aorist may be understood as indicating the intent that the
action be completed, I don't see how a statement that one action is
performed with the purpose that another should be completed necessarily
indicates that the second action HAS BEEN completed at the point in time
when the statement is made.

NT eschatological assertions are going to be problematic, I think, with
respect to assertions of fulfilment. One can readily point to a verse like
John 12:31 NUN KRISIS ESTIN TOU KOSMOU TOUTOU: NUN hO ARCWN TOU KOSMOU
TOUTOU EKBLHQHSETAI EXW and one can construct an argument (one with which I
tend to agree) that the time reference implied by the NUN and the future
perfect EKBLHQHESETAI in John's gospel is the crucifixion and resurrection
of Jesus envisioned as a single whole event. BUT, I don't think one can
rely upon that alone; I think one must consider the gospel of John as a
whole, and it seems to me that if one considers the gospel of John as a
whole, one finds in it assertions,both (a) that the key eschatological
event has ALREADY taken place, and (b) that it REMAINS to be consummated
fully in the FUTURE. And my own sense of the NT literature is that this
bipolarity of an ALREADY and a NOT-YET is pretty consistent and to be found
throughout the NT, regardless of whether there's an emphasis on realized or
upon futuristic eschatology in any particular text.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:57 EDT