From: Richard Lindeman (richlind@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Jan 18 1998 - 14:38:53 EST
>>As the verb in question here is a second aorist active indicative,
>>it cannot be a "timeless aorist" but must be a genuine aorist
>>denoting an event, now finished, in the past.
>
>>If language were always spoken "by the rules" then I might be inclined to
>>agree with you. However, it is the other way around. We form the rules
>>by the way that language is spoken and those rules are then always in flux
>>and completely dependent upon the ways that people happen to speak the
>>language. Therefore...
>>[SNIP!]
>>I've seen this kind of argument several times here on B-Greek, and it is
>>based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the "rules" in a Greek
>>grammar are.
Of course I agree that the best grammars are more descriptive than
prescriptive. And it may very well be that the first quoted statement
above
is intended to be discriptive of the state of the NT language. But I rather
read it as
containing several implied *absolute rules* such as... "no aorist indicative
can be timeless"...
"a timeless aorist is not a genuine aorist"... "a genuine aorist indicative
is always
grounded in past time". These may in fact be correct observations, but I am
reluctant to
accept such absolutes at face value without exploring the matter
personally... in spite of the
fact that the grammarian may be right and may be far more experienced in the
matter than I am.
But the real question I intended to raised is this: To what extent is the
aorist indicative taking over the
functions of the perfect tense? Is it possible that we see an example of
this here in 2 Cor 5:13?
Perhaps some of the more distinguished members of the B-Greek would be
willing to respond to this.
Rich Lindeman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT