From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Wed May 06 1998 - 10:35:10 EDT
Richard Lindeman wrote:
> So in effect, what you have done is castrated the aorist tense of *any*
> meaning or significance. It may read well to you. And in some instances
> it may be harmless enough not lead you into a totally wrong interpretation.
> But it will certainly not be helpful in conveying to you any sense of Greek
> aspect.
Rich ~
An example that is autobiographical to me occurs is John 1:5 ~
KATELABEN.
I first read this prior to understanding the aorist as non-temporal,
and understood it to be a past tense.
So I concluded, upon reading it, that the darkness did not
comprehend/embrace/overcome the Light. Seemed reasonable at the time,
and I further concluded that this was the problem that the incarnation
of the Logos was to address. This incarnation would, I thought,
redeem the darkness, and bring light into it, and understanding, and
the darkness would 'see' the light, because the incarnate Logos would
be right there on earth where it would HAVE to be seen, and the
darkness would then HAVE to become 'enlightened'. The only problem
the darkness has is that it HAS NOT COMPREHENDED [yet] the Light.
Of course, I was wrong.
This aorist should translate "does not comprehend" or "comprehends
not" the Light, because the further reading of John utterly affirms
this fact as a characteristic of the 'darkness'. John is not saying
that the darkness DIDN'T comprehend [perfect tense] ~ John is saying
that the darkness DOESN'T comprehend [non-temporal aorist].
Perhaps this will help...
George Blaisdell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT