>> In Rom 5:14 the
>> aorist clearly is constative while it is ingressive in 1 Cor 4:8 and Rev
>> 11:17. In each case the meaning is similar, it/they/he - rule (stative),
>> but in the last two cases the entrance into the state is stressed. To enter
>> into a state is hardly viewed as a process but rather as something
>> instantaneous, and once sombody is inside, the state holds. If KAQIZW is
>> used to signal the action of taking one`s seat, we may speak of a process
>> in which the person is, as you do. So the first question we have to ask
>> when analyzing a verb is: "Is it stative or fientive?"
<But is the usage in Rom 5:14 necessarily constative rather than
<ingressive? Is it possible that Paul is thinking about the
<beginning point of the reigning in connection with the about-
<to-be-mentioned "transgression of Adam" (THS PARABASEWS ADAM)?
<It seems like the "coming to be reigning" really starts with
<Adam, and then continues on through Moses, so it may be that
<Paul is focusing on the beginning of the whole business.
The preposition APO and the improper preposition MECRI seem to define the
time which is focussed upon and this is the primary reason why I take the
aorist as constative. But your view may be right. How do others take the
aorist?
<I appreciate that context adds so much to how we convert "aspect"
<into real "Aktonsart" (if I understand what you have been teaching
<us so far), but it surely would be nice if the decisions could
<depend a little less on context and more on form.
I agree, it would have been much easier if we could say that this form
means exactly this and not that. Writing started with such a system - we
find for instance pictograms in Sumerian. When the Accadians adopted the
Sumerian writing system, the pictures were changed into cuneiform writing,
the wedges followed the contours of the pictures, but they were turned 90
degrees. The 800 cuneiform signs representing syllables (some also used as
pictograms) are extremely difficult to memorize because they are so similar
to each other and the writing is to some degree ambiguous. In Ugarit
(middle of 2 millennium BC) they also used cuneiform signs, but reduced
them to 30 combinations representing letters, but the texts are difficult
to understand because most vowels are lacking and there are no informants.
The advantage of the Greek and latin letters is just that each one can be
combined in a finite number of combinations to convey thoughts from one
person to others.
Grammatical forms can be compared to the signs of writing. If each form had
one meaning, we were close to the cumbersome Sumerian system. When they
convey different thoughts in different contexts, they may be compared with
the alphabets. Our problem is not the Greek language and the many meanings
of each form, but that we in Biblical studies are interested in details to
the extreme, and no language is made to fullfill such demands. So the
advantages of the Greek system, therefore, are several orders of magnitude
higher than the drawbacks. The disadvantages should be viewedas a
challenge.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo