From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Tue May 05 1998 - 14:37:52 EDT
Edgar Foster wrote:
> Dear Rich,
>
> I appreciate your comments. I have another test case, based on your
> observations.
> Consider Col. 1:19:
>
> hOTI EN AUTW EUDOKHSEN PAN TO PLHRWMA KATOIKHSAI
>
> We could translate this:
>
> "in him all fullness dwelt" (constative aorist).
Edgar ~
Just use your own translation, but change the past to the simple
present" "...in Him all fullness dwells..."
> "it pleased [God]" (punctiliar aorist).
And: "it pleases [God]" [and NOT 'is pleasing']
> An example of an ingressive aorist could be John 1:14:
>
> ESXHNWSEN EN hEMIN
>
> "the Logos became flesh."
And: "...tabernacles in us..." [or among us]
> What think ye, Rich and George? I still see no room for "timelessness"
> here (as George defines it).
You can see that the historicity of the actions is not at all affected
by translating the aorist in the simple [but not ongoing] English
present ~ Nor their 'impressivity', nor their 'punctilliarity', nor
their 'constativeness'. NOTHING is lost, yet everything is gained,
for now, instead of 'seeing' this as merely a past historical
[incidental] event, we 'see' it in terms of its 'timeless'
implications, as indeed the aorist is designed to do in narrative
usage.
You will find this to be true everywhere, my friend. The aorist
carries the grammatical life of the past into the reader's present,
you see... Such is its gift to you...
George Blaisdell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT