See the problem I see is his interpretation of the verse. That present tense is the problem. Again, here is Tony's version:
Rom 5:20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
Here is the version from Young's Literal Translation:
Rom 5:20 And law came in, that the offence might abound, and where the sin did abound, the grace did overabound,
Now if the meaning is present tense then Young's Literal Translation would use the word "does" instead of did. Here is the Greek parsing based on WH:
Paul
trettep, it is not in error but shows the aorist:
"In "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research" Prof. Robertson has this to say regarding the
translation of the Aorist into English: "The Greek Aorist ind., as
can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in
any other language. It has {nuances} all its own, many of them
difficult, or well nigh impossible to reproduce in English. We
merely do the best we can in English to translate in one way or
another the total result of a word, context and tense. Certainly
one cannot say that the English translations have been successful
with the Greek Aorist...(Page 847). The English past will
translate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer `have'...
(Page 848). The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly
correspond....The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the
English past...The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the
English labors and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the
Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense
except the imperfect..." Again, "The aorist is, strictly speaking,
timeless."
"As this is the latest and most authoritative work on the
grammar of the New Testament, it is evident that Dr. Weymouth's
suggestion has not been deemed a satisfactory solution and that
the translation of the aorist into English is in a most
unsatisfactory state notwithstanding all the efforts of modern
scholarship.
"In view of this self-confessed failure, any attempt at the
solution of so grave a defect in our method of translation should
be welcomed and examined on its own merits.
"Dr. Weymouth, in his pamphlet "On the Rendering into English
of the Greek Aorist and Perfect" criticizes the Revised Version
for its treatment of the aorist. Falling in with the prevailing
tendency, they had changed
p188 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
as a Rendering of the Aorist
many renderings which are in the "perfect" (using HAVE) to the
past tense. In fact they, generally speaking, regarded the aorist
as referring to the past. Dr. Weymouth noted how often it makes
poor English, and felt, in an indefinite way, that the aorist must
not be confined to the past. He would have it rendered by the
"perfect," as it often is in the Authorized Version, at the same
time translating the perfect in this way as well. But if the
aorist is I-HAVE-LOVED and the Perfect also is I-HAVE-LOVED, what
is the difference between them? After all, the chief function of a
translation is to preserve the distinctions of the original. If a
painter should copy a picture of sheep and goats and draw them all
alike, he may produce a pretty picture, but an abominable copy.
There are sharp boundaries between all the forms of the Greek verb
as we shall see, and they should be distinguished as far as
possible.
"Weymouth pleads for the perfect, as a rendering of the Greek
aorist because it has a bearing on the present, which the past has
not. He protests that "it is too commonly believed and taught that
the Greek Aorist Indicative...is equivalent to the Simple Past
Tense in English (I {wrote}, I {loved}, I {brought}...) "He
affirms that "the English Past, used according to the {true
English idiom}, will largely fail to coincide with the Aorist..."
He makes the startling discovery that we give the English Present
the force of a Future, giving the following examples: "We {start}
tomorrow," "The king {comes} here tonight." He might have added
the fact that this same "present" is used of the past also, as in
"The king {comes} here since he was crowned."
"He was on the verge of discovering that the English "Present"
is not a present at all but a true past-future indefinite. He even
gives examples where the Present must be used, as, "The Chronicle
{states}--," "Clarendon {records}--," "Gibbon {informs} us--." The
one instance he gives for the past in narrative is found in Acts
25:14: "Festus {declared}." But the Greek word here used has none
of the characteristics of the true aorist at all-
p189 Weymouth Prefers the Perfect
as a Rendering of the Aorist
except the sign of the past. {Etheto} is a simple past, and should
be rendered "Festus {submitted} Paul's case to the king."
"To prove that the aorist is not a simple past he gives the
following instances in which both the A. V. and the Revisers
render it by the perfect: We add the C. V. rendering to show that
it can usually be still better rendered by the so-called English
"present."
Matt.5:21,27 Ye {have heard} that it was said
C. V. You {hear} that it was declared
Mark 10:20 All these things I {have observed}
C. V. I {maintain} all these things from
Rev.14:8 Babylon is fallen, is fallen
C. V. It falls! It falls! Babylon
"The perfect limits the {action} to the past just as much as
the past tense does. In these and all other instances of the
aorist the action is not confined to the past.
"Weymouth then makes the welcome admission that "{aorist}
means {indefinite}, and we must bow to the authority of the Greek
grammarians who held that name to be a suitable one...." This is
precisely the point for which we contend.
"He then gives examples where he thinks the aorist should be
rendered by the pluperfect and the translators have so given it.
Matt.1:24 As the angel {had bidden} him
C. V. As the messenger {bids} him
Matt.11:1 When {he had made} an {end}
C. V. When Jesus {finishes}
Matt.27:31 When they {had mocked} Him
C. V. And when they {deride} Him
Matt.26:19 As Jesus {had appointed} them
C. V. As Jesus {instructs} them
Mark 1:32 When the sun {had set}
C. V. When the sun {sets}
"The following is a step in the right direction: "{The Aorist
is often used where our idiom demands the Present}...but this
Gnomic Aorist (as in James 1:11, "for the sun {rises}." etc.) and
the Epistolary Aorist (2 Cor.
p190 The Concordant Method of Solving the Problem
8:18, we {send} with him the brother") need not here be enlarged
upon." Weymouth touches the true sense of the aorist here, but,
alas, he did not enlarge upon it! He recognizes its use in the
statement of general truths or proverbs (the Gnomic Aorist). The
very fact that it can be used of things which are true at all
times and that English uses the "present" for this purpose is
sufficient to identify them.
"Those who suppose that the English of our versions is beyond
reproach will be shocked when he states that "the persistent
rendering of the Greek Aorist by the English simple Past in the R.
V. of the N. T. has one very undesirable effect--that {the
translation is not English}." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.13)
