A brief note on Hebrews 12.3 (contradiction by sinners).

[Ben C. Smith]

Hostility against Christ continuously existed from the time he was believed back in heaven. If not, then every men or women preached to by apostles would have become Christians: that did not happen. There is no indication that hostility ever stopped before Hebrews was written. At what event do you think "sinful" men would abstain to show opposition to Christ, opposite to what they did earlier?

You appear to be reading the perfect tense as if the event in question can never happen again. That is a mistake. I can say (both in Greek and in English) that I have come, in the perfect tense, without implying that I shall never, ever come again. I can say, I have watched Casablanca before, even if I am currently in the middle of watching Casablanca, and am planning (moreover) to watch it again tomorrow. The perfect part of the tense just implies (usually) that the specific action I have in mind is complete, not that the same (kind of) action can never be repeated. At least one viewing of Casablanca is complete, and in my past, when I use the perfect tense to describe it. But that does not mean that I am not currently watching it again.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

You appear to be reading the perfect tense as if the event in question can never happen again. That is a mistake. I can say (both in Greek and in English) that I have come, in the perfect tense, without implying that I shall never, ever come again. I can say, I have watched Casablanca before, even if I am currently in the middle of watching Casablanca, and am planning (moreover) to watch it again tomorrow. The perfect part of the tense just implies (usually) that the specific action I have in mind is complete, not that the same (kind of) action can never be repeated. At least one viewing of Casablanca is complete, and in my past, when I use the perfect tense to describe it. But that does not mean that I am not currently watching it again.

From where did you get a definition for perfect tense which would support what you write above: essentially an action completed in the past but can be repeated, not only in the past, but also the present and future. Yes it can be repeated, but the perfect tense does not indicate that. Its emphasis is on the original action, completed but with consequences in the present.

This is what I found for explanations on the ancient Greek perfect tense:

Perfect (Greek παρακείμενος "lying nearby") describes a present state resulting from a finished action:
ἀνὴρ τέθυκε βοῦν.
A man has sacrificed an ox.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_verbs#Tenses)

But the perfect tense is a primary tense because it emphasizes the present, or ongoing result of a completed action.

(http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson23.htm)

The force of the perfect indicative is simply that it describes an event that, completed in the past, has results existing in the present time (i.e., in relation to the time of the speaker).

(http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gtense.html)

According to these definitions, allusion to the hostility of "sinful man" (leading to the crucifixion) with a perfect tense would fit very well, because the crucifixion was completed in the past with, for Christians, everlasting consequences.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

From where did you get a definition for perfect tense which would support what you write above

From my undergraduate classes in ancient Greek and from the 20+ years since then of reading ancient texts in Greek.

You are overreading your discovered definitions of the perfect tense, and I am not sure how to explain to you how you are doing it without first teaching you Greek. Last attempt: the specific, one-time action described by the perfect tense is over, and its results are still around, but that does not mean that the person has never done, is not doing, or never again will do that kind of action again. A man has sacrificed an ox? Yes, and that particular sacrifice is over and done with, and that particular ox is still dead. But that does not mean that the same man may never, ever sacrifice another ox. Likewise, Jesus has endured opposition from men? Yes, and that particular instance of opposition is over and done with. But that does not mean that other men, or even the same men in different circumstances, may not oppose Jesus again. That does not mean that Jesus never again has to endure opposition.

Ben.