From: Steven R. Lo Vullo (doulos@chorus.net)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 06:50:03 EST
On 12/5/00 9:47 PM, Mark Wilson wrote:
> To me, the Aorist simply "identifies" an action or event, but does not
> "assert" that the action or event has been, or ever will be, complete.
> Certainly, lexis may require that a particular action be complete if
> undertaken, but "completion" is related to the lexis, not the Aorist.
There are a couple of thing the above comments do not take into account.
First, we are dealing here with a participle, not an indicative verb, and
that the time of the participle is determined by the finite verb to which it
is related. In the case of the aorist participle with a future indicative,
the action is done *before* that of the future indicative. "Aorist
participles usually suggest antecedent time to that of the main verb (i.e.,
past time in a relative sense). There are exceptions to this general
principle, of course, but they are due to intrusions from other linguistic
features vying for control" (Wallace).
> Would the Aorist in the following denote completion:
>
> I loved him dearly.
>
> I trusted in the Lord.
Neither one of the above illustrations contains a participle in relation to
a finite verb. It's also impossible to tell whether these examples reflect a
Greek aorist or imperfect. As to whether they denote completion, I think you
may be confusing time with aspect. For example, if you said, "I loved him
dearly, but now I hate him," the very fact that the love is in the past and
no longer viable indicates that the action is completed. Or if you said, "I
trusted in the Lord that time I was sick," the act of trusting is viewed as
completed, since it is confined to a specific event in the past. Though the
*aspect* of the loving and trusting may not be clear, the completion of the
acts is not in doubt.
> In other words, I was under the impression that the Aorist denoted an action
> or event, but whether or not it was ever complete(d), is unstated by the
> Aorist. In fact, I didn't think that the author was even portraying that
> action as complete; s/he was simply identifying the particular action or
> event in question.
It's true that the aorist itself, unrelated to contextual indicators, gives
us no clue as to the *aspect* of the action. I think the fallacy you are
trying to combat is that of the "once-for-all" aspect of the aorist that
until recently was pretty popular in preaching/teaching circles. But while
the aorist tense ³presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole from
the outside, without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence²
(Fanning), this says nothing about the time reference of the aorist
participle or about the type of action that may be discernable when
contextual features are taken into account.
> And because it does NOT denote COMPLETION, I thought grammarians had
> invented all kinds of Aorists: GNOMIC, CONSTATIVE, CULMINATIVE,
> INGRESSIVE...
I think when you use the word "completion" you may be confusing time with
aspect. For example, the aorist indicative is routinely (although not
exclusively) used to portray action that took place in past time. "In the
indicative, the aorist usually indicates past time with reference to the
time of speaking (thus, 'absolute time')" (Wallace). The very fact that an
action took place in past time indicates that it was completed. What the
aorist does not tell us in these cases is the *aspect* of the action that
occurred. The action is viewed from the outside rather than from the inside,
and so is seen as a whole. The type of action that occurred must be deduced
from contextual and lexical considerations. But this does not mean the
action wasn't completed. Even in the case of words that denote an *attempt*
to do something, the attempt is viewed as completed. Likewise the aorist
participle in relation to a future indicative verb. There may be some
question as to the aspect of the aorist participle, but this in no way
diminishes the fact that it was performed before the action of the main
verb. Regardless of the *kind* of action, the action is viewed as completed
before the action of the main verb. In the case of Gal 3.12, "all things
written in the book of the law" (v. 10) must be performed *before* the doer
will receive life, since the context shows that they are the means to
attaining that life (if, of course, that is the route one chooses to take to
eternal life). One failure to perform any of the precepts of the law puts
one under a curse and disqualifies one from life. The one who actually
*does* them (i.e., gets them done) will live by means of them. So the time
element involved with the participle in relation to the verb, along with the
context, supports the idea that the action indicated by the participle must
be completed *before* the action of the main verb takes place.
Steve Lo Vullo
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:43 EDT