n a message dated 97-11-03 06:09:09 EST, you write:
> Your contrast between "being in the process of assuming the authority of
> Moses" and "having assumed this authority" MAY illustrate the contrast
> between an ingressive and constative interpretation of the aorist of this
> verse (I suppose you apply the concept "pefectivity" to both kinds of
> aorists and not only to the last one.). However, this contrast is only
> possible if we assume that KAQIZW is fientive when we interpret it as
> ingressive and stative when we interprete it as constative.
>
> Stativity is defined as a state which continues without any input of
> energy. Any moment of the state is similar to any other moment or to the
> whole state. Thus there are no processes going on inside a state. If we
> wiew KAQIZW as only stative, both an ingressive and a constative
> interpretation of the aorist would mean exactly the same, only the stress
> being different. We can illustrate this with BASILEUW. 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?"
>
For me, the use of the aorist in Mt. 23:2 demonstrates that less is more when
it comes to the base meaning of the aorist. That is, the external viewpoint
of a process/occurence as a whole without being specific about movement,
development or process (in contrast with the present or perfect), used for
background or support material. I suggest that if the aorist is viewed as
timeless, then the aorist can function pragmatically as constative at the time
that the clause is spoken without any further gloss. The reason that the
aorist would be used instead of the present would be because it is simple
unemphasized description, which provides the grounds for the imperatives in
23:3.
It seems that if the aorist signals a past occurence (as a whole) in one's
system, one would more or less need to see this aorist as ingressive
(therefore the "whole" beginning of a state) would be in view. Therefore, to
allow the state to be in the present at the time the clause was spoken, one
would need to see EKAQISAN as stative, and make the interpretive call.
However, if the aorist is infused with detail (e.g. dealing with the
interpretive implications of whether EKAQISAN is stative or action), it leads
to undue emphasis and overexegesis--nor does interpreting EKAQISAN as an
ingressive shed much light on how the clause would support the imperatives.
I'm not sure that the aorists that you identified in Rom 5:14 and Rev. 11:17
correspond directly to Mt. 23:2. Both EBASILEUSEN (Rom. 5:14) and EBASILEUSAS
(Rev. 11:17) are parallel with perfects, which offers some intriguing
possiblilities in regards to aspect--but these possibilities would merit their
own thread. I do see how you saw a parallel between reigning and taking the
seat of Moses, however.
The question I have is what percentage of usages for BASILEUW are aorist in
the LXX (excluding future references)? And what percentage of usages for
KAQIZW in the context of taking authority?
At any rate, I'm willing to entertain the idea that an aorist + stative =
ingressive in some or many cases, but more as a function of pragmatics, not as
an essential meaning of the aorist.
Cindy Westfall
PhD Student Roehampton