Re. The aorist!

Mark & Mary Markham markhamm at topsurf.com
Mon Nov 23 09:46:11 EST 1998


The aorist (as I understand it) is a point on a time line-- thus signifing an event. Usually it represents an action of the past and you are very correct in identifing it with the perfect. Yet what about an aorist  future? So we need to understand the aorist as an event on a timeline. Usually in the past, but no matter the action is a one shot deal that does not continue beyond that point. This, understandably, is confusing especially when we find instructions in the aorist. Any such commands need to be understood as a repepitive process............. do it  do it do it do it do it -- each an event on a timeline. Since I don't profess to be a scholar in Greek an affirmation of my understand of the aorist is welcome and desired.

Grace to you,
Mark Markham
Heidelberg, Germany

From: Paul F. Evans <evans at wilmington.net>
To: Biblical Greek <b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Monday, November 23, 1998 1:54 PM
Subject: Re. The aorist!


    List,
     
    Help me out here.  I am really afraid to ask this question for fear of striking up a re-ignition of the great aspect discussion of '96!  However, I am interested in an opinion.
     
    In taking basic first year Greek I was told that the aorist was a punctilliar (spelled correctly?) tense signifying past action completed in the past.  However, after many years of NT study (I should know more), I have come across many grammars that bill the aorist as the generic tense which says nothing particular about the action it describes.  The theory seems to be that if the writer wished to say something special about the action of a verb he would choose a tense other than the aorist.  Obviously I have discovered that the aorist is only a past tense in the indicative or imperative moods. If the aorist is a a  punctilliar tense, describing past completed action, it would be little different from the prefect, because obviously done is done and the results would persist.
     
    My question is whether the aorist is a sort of generic tense which describes nothing special about the action of the verb, and whether it is true that a writer would choose another tense when he wanted to specify something specific in that sense.
     
    If this is a dumb question forgive me!  Only,  I come across a significant body of literature that makes much about the use of the aorist for its theology and others who discount such (I am interested only in discussing the nature of the aorist here).
     
    Paul & Loala Evans
    Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness Church
    E-mail: evans at wilmington.net
    Web-page: http://wilmingtonfirst.churches.wilmington.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/attachments/19981123/f29a4e17/attachment.html 


More information about the B-Greek mailing list