From: Moon-Ryul Jung (moon@saint.soongsil.ac.kr)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 07:09:54 EST
[Mark]
> > The often quoted Gnomic Aorist passage does appear to cancel one or more of
> > these characteristics:
> >
> > 1 Peter 1:24
> >
> > EXHRANQH hO CORTOS KAI TO ANQOS EXEPESEN
> >
> > (The grass withers and the flower falls away)
> >
> > Here, I would say that "countable and bounded" are not semantically related
> > to THIS use of the Aorist.
>
[Kimmo]
> Why not? The grass is (in a timeless context) described as
> 'reaching/having reached the
> conclusion of becoming withered', not just 'engaging in the process of
> withering'. Similarly flowers will fall away, not just engage in the
> process of falling away.
>
[Moon]
I think there are three ways to describe the situation, not just two:
(1) 'reaching/having reached the conclusion of becoming withered'
(2) 'engaging in the process of withering'
(3) passes through the process of withering
(1) looks at the conclusion of the process, (2) into the middle, and (3)
upon the process as a whole.
I am inclined to take the above verse to belong to the third category.
The present tense and the perfect tense refer to the present.
The present tense covers (2) and (3), while the perfect tense covers (1).
In the case of the past time, the imperfect tense covers
(2), while the aorist covers (1) and (3).
What do you think? Is there any evidences that the aorist only covers (1)
not (3)? If so, how does Greek describe the situation of type (3)?
[Mark]
> >
> > Kimmo, am I misuderstanding your concept of PERFECTIVE? The reason I
> > understand your attributing the "countable and bounded" to the Aorist is
> > based on this statement you make: God only once "so-loved" (I almost get the
> > sense that because God's love finally attained this level, that he gave.)
>
[Kimmo]
> Some things I see differently, but I do attribute these to the aorist,
> but with no implication of God's
> love finally attaining a level. This 'so-loving' is actually expressing
> God's love. The verb AGAPAW in this context does not speak of abstract
> love, but a concrete expression. Or we could say, the verse speaks of
> 'God loving in the manner as to give...', which is an active expression.
[Moon]
It seems to make more sense to take "God loved the world so" to refer to
God's (abstract) mood in the past time, rather than as God's active
expression.
What would be wrong with it? If I say " Now I realize that my parents
loved
me so much" (in Greek), in what sense does it refer to "a concrete
expression or action"? For me, it simply summarizes what has been in the
hearts of my parents all along.
So, I think we need to posit atv least three ways of looking at
situations,
not just two.
Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Associate Professor
Sogang Univ,
Seoul, Korea
The two statements do not express the same idea at least in English.
---
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 - 15:36:44 EDT