[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: An Aoristic Perfect Tense?
Regarding aorist vs perfect, Maximilian Zerwick (Biblical Greek
Illustrated by Examples) says:
It is to be noted that the choice between aorist and perfect is
not determined by the objective facts, but by the writer's wish
to connote the special nuance of the perfect; if this be not
required, the aorist will be used. The use of the perfect in the
NT thus shows that the author had in mind the notion of a state
of affairs resultant upon the action.
This has indeed been questioned, because the perfect in later Greek
use lost its specific sense and became a <b>simple narrative tense</b>
like the aorist, so that the question arises, whether there are
not traces of this evolution in the NT. IT IS MORE COMMONLY
ADMITTED THAT THERE ARE NOT, FOR THE EXAMPLES ALLEGED NEARLY ALL
ALLOW OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS. {emphasis mine}
James K. Tauber, Undergraduate Student
Centre for Linguistics, UWA, Australia
E-mail: jtauber@tartarus.uwa.edu.au
WWW: ftp://tartarus.uwa.edu.au/pub/jtauber/main.html
References: