From: Richard Lindeman (richlind@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Jan 19 1998 - 13:35:34 EST
>>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.
>
Whether or not Nigel would agree is difficult to say. There are certainly
many
examples in the NT where aorist and perfect are clearly distinct. But
Turner suggests
that even in the NT era we should consider the possibility of a "perfective
aorist" being used
in those verb forms which have a tenedency to focus upon completion (e.g.
shut, persuade,
hide, fall, hinder, learn, save, escape...) I don't think that you will
deny that there are actually a
fair number of N.T. aorists which do indeed have an emphasis on completion.
In these cases
it becomes more difficult to distinguish between the two tenses.
Rich Lindeman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT