A "Timeless" Aorist?
Carl W. Conrad
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Sep 13 19:19:53 EDT 2002
Forwarded for George Somsel:
>In a message dated 9/13/2002 3:52:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>UnknownSender at UnknownDomain writes:
>
>>I do have a question regarding Mark's use of Isaiah in Mark 1:3. I'm
>>wondering about the significance of the verb hETOIMASATE (1 Aorist
>>Active Imperative, 2 Person Plural) and the following verb POIEITE
>>(Present Active Imperative, 2 Person Plural). My question is why would
>>the aorist tense be used initially followed up by a present tense verb?
>>That both are imperatives is likely the most important consideration to
>>note; but why an aorist tense followed by the present? I have not
>>checked to see if the quote is taken from the Septuagint (which I
>>presume it likely is) and whether that has something to contribute to
>>the question (i.e. a type of Semiticism etc). I also realise that on
>>occasion the aorist tense can denote a decisiveness (emphasis on the
>>decisiveness of the action also leads to emphasis on the finality and
>>timelessness of the action). Is the aorist here indicative of the action
>>"Prepare" as more of a whole and as timeless? Further, I also
>>understand that in some cases the aorist can actually have some affinity
>>with the perfect tense in emphasizing a completed action with continuing
>>results (not that this has any relevance to the situation in Ancient
>>Greek grammar, but apparently in Modern Greek the aorist can function as
>>the perfect since this latter tense has been done away with). Therefore,
>>might this aorist be considered timeless---a "Timeless Aorist" perhaps?
>>Or should the perfect tense of POIEITE have followed the aorist tense of
>>hETOIMASATE? I know these thoughts are affected considerably given any
>>emphasis upon verbal aspect as opposed to tense and time, but are they
>>still valid? May I thank you all ahead of time for any thoughts, ideas,
>>or direction you might give regarding my question.
>Mention has already been made of the fact that time is not the
>consideration here. I would not, however, make too much of a distinction
>between the two verbs. I would not maintain that this is strictly
>speaking a semitism, but we are dealing with Hebrew poetic structure which
>means that the two stichs are related to one another is one of several
>ways. Rather than going into detail regarding the various relationships,
>let's just say that the two are nearly synonymous with only a slight
>degree of progress in the second (prepare a way -- make it straight).
>gfsomsel
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list