Actually, you are quite correct in your assessment, and you’ll find no difference between “NT Greek” and Classical here.
Thanks Barry for your post. I don’t want this thread to turn into a discussion of who has correctly understood GILBERT VAN BELLE versus who has not, as it is derailing the purpose of my thread. So for the purpose of discussion and of keeping on the straight and narrow, let us ignore that van Belle article.
I’m trying to find out why anyone would argue that prolepsis cannot occur in the way that I’m suggesting that it is occurring at John 17:5, simply because the tense of the verb which frames the statement as being proleptic is imperfect. Is there a rational and grammatical reason for so suggesting? John 17:12 seems to contradict your strange (sorry) thesis:
ὅτε > ἤμην > μετ’ αὐτῶν, ἐγὼ > ἐτήρουν > αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι,
and the same type of prolepsis in the related statement in the same verse but this time in the aorist:
καὶ > ἐφύλαξα, > καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀπώλετο εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.
Although I do not wish to use “Type 1 prolepsis” ( van Belle examples, also known as “writers perspective” ) to prove my point concerning the prolepsis at John 17:5 in this thread ( even though those who understand it would immediately recognize that I aught to be able to use it), I would still like to educate the readers to it. “Writer’s perspective” is more than just a “syntactical phenomenon,” it infact speaks ( from the writer’s perspective) of a future event in the past tense , just like “ Type II prolepsis.” The principle is the same in both. . This is very important to understand. When cb failed to recognize this about Tyoe I prolepsis in his discussion with me, I knew then that he was confused. Perhaps the following article will help him:
http://lhim.org/blog/2013/11/24/the-idiom-of-prolepsis/
Prolepsis type 1: > “Writer’s perspective”
In one case, a writer will speak of a future event in the past tense, simply because at the time the author wrote the passage, the event had already occurred. I> n other words, from the writer’s perspective, the event is in the pas> t. However, from the passage’s perspective, the event is still in the future> .….
Prolepsis type 2: “God’s Promise> ”
There is another, completely different reason why prolepsis is used as well. Basically, in some cases, a future event will be spoken of in the past tense, because God has explicitly promised that the event will occur. > As a result, the Hebrews will refer to that promised event in the past tense – because since God has promised it, it is “as good as done”, so to speak.
In other words, since God is true to His word, when God promises an event, it is guaranteed that the event will occur. As a result, the Hebrews refer to that event in the past tense – to express their confidence that God will bring about the event in question.
Here are a couple of examples of this type of prolepsis:
It is not difficult to recognize that Type I prolepsis is fundamentally the same as Type II prolepsis in function, both are defined in the same way. The only difference is that in the former the writer is “playing God,” as it were( speaking of future events as though they are in the past) because he already knows how the story unfolds. In the latter, it is God himself doing that , or else his commissioned prophet with insight from God into the future. To argue that the imperfect is allowable for the one but not for the other is quite frankly just not a serious argument.
Also cb was wrong to suggest that prolepsis “has multiple meanings in grammar .” It in-fact has one definition, it is just divided into two types.
Cheers,