concampbell at netspace.net.au
Tue Feb 10 12:04:40 EST 2004
Not to be contrary, but Ken McKay has argued extensively that OIDA does not
imply past action, even though past action may have brought the present
result about. I think he is correct.
'Probably the verb whose perfect is used most consistently without specific
reference to the action by which the perfect state was constituted is oida,
usually regarded as equivalent to the English present I know.' From 'On the
Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri'. Bulletin of the
Institute of Classical Studies 27 (1980): 25. (Though this article is not on
New Testament Greek per say, it represents his view across Greek usage).
As any lexicon will tell you OIDA is the perfect from * EIDW which derives
from the same source as the Latin video "to see". As such it represents the
present result of the event of having seen and therefore knowing. This is
generally considered to be the function of the perfect -- a past action with
a present result. I am reminded in this case of the passage from Numbers 24
The oracle of Balaam the son of Beor,
the oracle of the man whose eye is opened, the oracle of him who hears the
words of God, who sees the vision of the Almighty.
Unfortunately, the perfect is not used here in the LXX though I still think
it conveys the sense -- he saw, he heard, therefore he knows.
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
More information about the B-Greek