cb wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 7:27 am
Hi Isaac, thanks for the references. I looked them up and still don't understand your question (let alone be able to answer it).
Thanks for your post. Let me try again. Maybe an example in English will make my question easier.
Here are two statements: (1) "The son of Mary, Jesus, dwelt
with the Father in Heavenly glory before the foundation of the World." (2) "The son of Mary, Jesus, was dwelling
with the Father in Heavenly glory before the foundation of the World."
Someone says that statement 1 can be proleptic, but statement 2 cannot be proleptic simply because of the imperfect / past continuous form "was dwelling." I would like to ask such a person what their rationale is for asserting that. Is there something about the past continuous which makes it impossible to make a proleptic statement with ?
I just read the article you mentioned: PROLEPSIS IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN by GILBERT VAN BELLE. It doesn't help me understand your question, for two reasons:
1. It's not talking about prolepsis in the context of verbs at all (which your question about εἶχον seemed to be driving at).
Not sure what you mean by that. Verbs are not proleptic in and of themselves, statements are
. We can use the phrase a "proleptic verb" colloquially but what we are really talking about when we say that is "the verb with which a proleptic statement is made"
It's talking about a completely different kind of prolepsis (the term has multiple meanings in grammar),
Could you list out these "multiple meanings" which prolepsis apparently has for me next post please ?
where a subject from a dependent clause is brought forward to the main clause. This does not therefore relate to verbs, but verb arguments.
Not sure what you mean by "completely different kind of prolepsis." Are you suggesting that by "prolepsis" Gilbert is just talking about Greek word order , where the subject of a dependent clause is brought to the front of a sentence ? And not about prolepsis which conveys the idea of anticipation as representing a thing as existing before it actually does or did so ? Even the anticipation of possible objections in a debate setting is proleptic speech in that vein.
At pp. 345–46 the author lists all the examples of prolepsis in John — neither 17:4 not 17:5 figures in the list.
And so I just can't work out how this article is relevant to your question.
Because he is talking about a specific kind of prolepsis.The article is relevant because at least one of his examples, which he considers to be proleptic, is made with an imperfect verb. By the way, could you give me a complete list of all
of the verses he considers to be proleptic in apostle John's Gospel ? I do not have that article any more. That would greatly help me with my research.
I also looked at the link to Gill's commentary you gave and the quote above. It doesn't seem to be explaining Greek at all, just a general NT commentary. I can't see how it relates to the question.
Gill is arguing that the statement "καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, Πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί" is proleptic, so obviously he understands the verb εἶχον in this statement to be denoting something in the future even though it is imperfect.
If therefore you mean prolepsis in terms of:
1. the verb frame being future, I haven't seen anything like that in any description of the imperfect (whereas I have for the aorist and perfect, as per my first post above), or
2. anticipation of the subject argument of a dependent clause in the main clause as the object, I'm not sure what this has to do with εἶχον which is a verb rather than a fronted argument.
I'd be willing to give you my thoughts but I just don't have the capacity to understand your question (let alone answer it), sorry. I've pre-ordered Whitacre's NT grammar coming out shortly and if it relates to this question, I'll let you know. Sorry I couldn't be of any help!
But I showed you Augustine, who apparently knew Greek, and who said the following about the verb εἶχον in John 17:5 :" He preferred putting the verb in the past tense, in order to show that it was already done in the act of predestination, and what was with perfect certainty yet to take place was to be accounted as already done;.." So how can you say "you haven't seen anything" ? Also I showed you John 17:12.
Οὐαὶ οἱ λέγοντες τὸ πονηρὸν καλὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν πονηρόν, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ σκότος φῶς καὶ τὸ φῶς σκότος, οἱ τιθέντες τὸ πικρὸν γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ γλυκὺ πικρόν