The Proleptic Aorist revisited

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Sun Jun 2 07:44:45 EDT 2002


Dear Mark,


>Rolf:
>
>You wrote:
>
>-----
>>I agree that the examples given by Mark's have future reference, and
>>are good examples of such. But I wonder if you take "past time" and
>>"past tense" to mean the same thing. It is generally agreed that
>>"tense" is a "grammaticalization of location in time", but "past
>>time" needs not be the same as "past tense". Aorist cannot be half a
>>tense and half an aspect.  If it signals past tense this will
>>*always* be so, except for possible special examples that can be
>>explained. Because a reasonable number of aorist verbs have futrue
>>reference, it is excluded that it can signal past tense, although in
>>most cases an aorist has past reference.
>------
>
>I think we have way too many terms being tossed around, and
>surely Wittgenstein was right when he said, "There are no
>genuine disputes, only vague and undefined terms."

I try to reduce the terms and make clear definitions. For example, I 
take "past tense" to mean "grammaticalized past reference", but "past 
time" simply mean any past reference, whether it is grammaticalized 
or not.


>
>Based on your above comments, I am not sure if you are agreeing
>with any of my comments. So, I'll clarify things a bit.... I use
>that term "clarify" loosely  :o )
>
>My argument is that NO Aorist Indicative Verb refers to a
>point AFTER the DC in temporal statements. All such Aorists refer
>to a point, time, or distance PRIOR TO the DC.
>
>Yes, the event being referenced certainly can be future to
>the time of writing or speaking, but this is unrelated to the DC.
>
>The example of Rev. 10:7 is a good example to visualize:
>
>hOTAN MELLHi SALPIZEIN KAI ETELESQH TO MUSTHRION TOU QEOU
>
>This event being described is future as of today. That is, the
>mystery is still in operation today. However, when, in the future,
>this trumpet sounds, the mystery will have ceased PRIOR TO it
>being sounded (hence, the Aorist ETELESQH).
>
>So, here is an Aorist used in a sentence that references some
>future event, but from the perspective of when the event actually
>takes place, the Aorist denotes a past event. Remember, the Aorist,
>as I am arguing, ALWAYS refers to a point, time, or distance that
>is PRIOR TO the contextually developed DC.


What you describe above is what in English is called future perfect. 
When such forms are used, a deictic point different from speech time 
is established, as you also have shown. How is such a point 
established? Please consider (1) below where I put the "undecided" 
verbs in capitals:


(1a) When I come tomorrow morning, Peter will already SING his song

(1b) When I come tomorrow morning, Peter will SING his song.

I accept the possibility that aorists can be used  as future perfects 
in Greek. However, in order to demonstrate such a use, we need to 
point to something indicating this force. In (1a) we have the 
adverbial "already", and that indicates a clause like (2a), but 1b 
has no such indicator, so we take it as a simple future.


(2a) When I come tomorrow morning, Peter will already have sung his song

(1b) When I come tomorrow morning, Peter will sing his song.

There is no particular adverbial or another indicator in Rev 10:7, so 
you establish the future perfect on the basis of exegesis of the 
meaning of the "mystery", and probably on the basis that you do not 
think that aorist can have simple future reference. This is quite 
risky.

In Hebrew, it is still believed that perfect does not have future 
reference, so an ad hoc explanation called "prophetic perfect" has 
been established, but it has never been substantiated with data. In 
order to say something definite about aorist I need to look at *all* 
aorist verbs. I have not done this, so I can only say that a 
reasonable number of aorists have future reference. For Hebrew I have 
analyzed all the perfects and I have a list of about 1.000 examples 
(8 % of all perfects) with future reference.


I see little evidence that the aorists are used as future perfects in 
your other examples. For example, in Jude 1:14 there is no dependent 
clause to establish a new deictic point. Jude's diectic point is 
speech time. From this point he looks back into the past and tells 
that Enoch prophesied (spoke about the future). And what he said 
was,"The Lord will come (aorist) with thousands upon thousands of his 
holy ones." A very plain statement with simple future!

>
>
>Also:
>
>-------
>>An example which is best taken as stative but can be taken as
>>actional, is seen in (3)
>>
>>  (3) Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless, death reigned (AORIST) from the time
>>of Adam to the time of Moses
>>
>>There is no doubt that death continued to reign also after the time
>>of Moses, but here the focus is in the beginning and on a great part
>>of the state (or the actions, if the take the rule as such).
>------
>
>I think it simpler to take reigned as iterative, even though
>the author has personified death. The point is simply that
>during the entire time from Adam to Moses, everyone died.
>
>
>Finally:
>
>-----
>>It is true that the end very often is included in the aorist verb,
>>and this is the reason why it is believed to be an uncancelable
>>characteristic of the aorist. However, the inclusion of the end in so
>>many cases is *pragmatic*, it is due to the context and not to an
>>intrinsic property of the aorist. So I see no reason to include any
>>certainty or any end in an aorist with future reference,it simply
>>refers to the future without any restrictions.
>-----
>
>How then do you distinguish a future indicative verb from an
>aorist indicative verb in such future referenced contexts?


A verb with future reference behaves as simple future when nothing to 
the contrary is said.  It behaves as a future perfect when this is 
clearly indicated by the context. The important sides of a verb are 
connected with its lexical meaning and its Aktionsart, aspects have 
just a minor importance since they function just to make particular 
sides of the event visible. Due to the nature of future, there need 
not be any difference in meaning between a verb with Furure "tense" 
and an aorist with future reference.

>
>I agree that an Aorist need not imply the end, that is perhaps why
>both Porter and Wallace use the parade analogy. The Aorist is looking
>at the event from way up high, EVEN AS THE PARADE IS STILL IN PROGRESS!
>They would argue that the event is to be viewed without reference
>to its internal procedures, but from the vantage point of seeing the
>whole event in general. I think "in general" might better convey
>that the event need not be terminated (as opposed to IN SUMMARY, which
>I think of as an event having ended).
>
>More thoughts,
>
>Mark Wilson
>

Regards

Rolf


Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo








More information about the B-Greek mailing list