Gnomic Aorist / Heb 7:2a
Roe
d.roe at t-online.de
Sun Dec 10 15:12:50 EST 2000
Mark Wilson wrote (in part):
> What determines the gnomic sense is the context (this is larger than just
> the verbal idea). I think Carl's examples of the gnomic were right on; in
> each instance the context suggested the gnomic sense, not the morpheme.
>
> This is a guess on my part, but I would think that the "immortality of past
> objective fact" would be expressed by the Aorist form, but not by itself.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for writing (and for your example of ever-present enthusiasm for
Greek!)
It seems that Carl precludes the gnomic aorist for Whitehead's
"immortality of past objective fact"; so my question doesn't really
involve the gnomic (sorry for giving the post that title).
I am interested in what possibilities a Greek writer has for expressing
the "immortality of past objective fact". I had assumed it would have to
be expressed with imperfect (in the referenced passage: EMERIZEN).
Or is it also possible to express this with the aorist? And if so, is
the writer's choice of aorist a natural one, or a rare anomaly?
Thanks again!
David
D.W. Roe
Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list