> I'm not sure how much the above statements actually imply (and I DON"T
> REALLY want to get caught up in Paul's--Dixon's, that is--argument
about
> what IMPLIES means, although I'll agree with the common-sense people
that
> reasonable guesses may be made as to intention even where they are not
> strictly implied): they do say that considerations of aspect won't
govern
> the exegesis primarily, but they don't seem to me to rule out
secondary
> "aspects" in interpretation. The particular case in point for me is
the
> Jesus-saying in Mk 8:34par: EI TIS QELEI OPISW MOU AKOLOUQEIN,
APARNHSASQW
> hEAUTON KAI ARATW TON STAURON AUTOU KAI AKOLOUQEITW MOI. I'm not
even sure
> that the passage can be translated properly in a way that conveys the
> difference between the first two imperatives as aorist and the third
one as
> a present imperative; it is a powerful statement in any case, but I
can't
> really believe that the fact that the first two imperatives are
aorist and
> the last one progressive is a negligible one for full understanding
of what
> the Greek is saying.
The way I read Silva is: aspectual distinctions in themselves NEVER
provide any true materials for exegesis. CONTEXT must control how the
reader construes any present or aorist forms.
"In conclusion, we may say that an interpreter is unwise to emphasize
an idea that allegedly comes from the use of a tense (or some other
subtle grammatical distinction) unless the context as a whole clearly
sets forth that idea" (Silva, Moises. _God, Language, and Scripture_.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. P. 118)
E. Foster
L-R College
Classics Major
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com