From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Sun Jan 18 1998 - 22:17:18 EST
At 05:35 PM 1/18/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>OK... let me tell you the source of my questions on this. Nigel Turner
>writes
I am, of course, no one to argue with Nigel. But...
>about this issue in vol. 3 Syntax of the Moulton NT Grammar. On page 68f he
>discusses the relationship between aorist and perfect tenses in the NT era.
>He states, "The 'promiscuous' use increased in the first 3 cc A.D., and the
>aorist was used increasingly for the perfect, as well as vice versa, to
>such
>an extent that eventually in iv A.D. ,
This discussion seems to indicate that even Nigel believes that it was only
by the 4th c. that the aorist came into greater use than the perfect. My
statements merely suggest that when the NT writings were composed, the
aorist and perfect were quite distinct. I do not think Nigel disagrees with
me here.
> the perfect as a distinct tense is
>altogether
>eclipsed.".... and again on page 69, "Such a climax led directly to its
>ruin(the ruin
>of the perfect) since it could not compete in the popular language with the
>present
>and aorist which now seemed to fulfil all its functions."... and again on
>page 69,
>"Although in Byzantine texts it(the perfect tense) is no longer
>distinguishable
>from the aorist in meaning, care must still be taken to ascertain whether
>the
>mingling in the NT is not by design, with the distinctions correctly
>observed."
>
Now, I think, we have moved into text criticism; and I am in complete
agreement with Nigel here.
>Turner then goes on to define a "perfective" use of the aorist tense and an
>"aoristic"
>perfect within their respective sections.
>
>Rich Lindeman
Best,
Jim
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Adjunct Professor of Bible
Quartz Hill School of Theology
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT