From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Fri Apr 03 1998 - 11:57:08 EST
Jim West wrote:
> It seems to me that John uses the perfect tense first because he intends it
> to be understood in a durative sense, i.e., we have heard and that hearing
> continues to have an impact on us- we have seen and that seeing continues to
> influence us...
>
> Then he uses the aorist to indicate a real historical reality: i.e., the
> historical aorist, so that my little expanded translation would now run
> something like,
>
> "and indeed, in contrast to our gnostic opponents, we really have looked at
> him in the flesh and our hands really did touch him in the flesh...."
>
> John's use of the perfect then indicates past action with present
> significance while his use of the aorist signifies a historical (and not
> merely spiritual) reality. Thus, these tense changes are extraordinarily
> significant.
Jim ~
This terminology is a bit stumbling for me. Are you saying that the
perfect refers to a particular event [that did happen] and that the
aorist refers to an historical series of events that arose as a
consequence of that [durative, perfect] event[s]? Is the effect
parallel to the statement? "He saw [perfect] this event, and therefore
he sees [historical(?) aorist] it every day [yesterday, today, and
tomorrow]."
Thank-you ~
George
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:21 EDT