>The standard wisdom is that the
>aorist augment in the indicative is a sign of past time. That is where we
>should start in interpreting this construction, and the evidence for this
>view of the augment is voluminous and has been around for a very long time.
If that is your starting presupposition and you aren't willing to even
consider that it might be an invalid or at least not sufficiently nuanced,
then the discussion won't get very far. A lot of other theories have been
defended like this (a lot of evidence, long tradition, etc.)--theories that
have no credibility these days. I might argue that the argument is strictly
a morphological marker for secondary endings. The evidence is voluminous...
But I don't have time to pursue a debate on the issue since I'm preoccupied
with writing a dissertation (on aspect, BTW).
Rod
_________________________________________________________________
Rodney J. Decker Asst. Prof./NT
rdecker@bbc.edu Baptist Bible Seminary
http://www.bbc.edu/DeckrPHP.htm Clarks Summit, PA
_________________________________________________________________