[B-Greek] question about Matthew 17:5
Eddie Mishoe
edmishoe at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 3 09:25:43 EST 2005
Sir:
> I do not believe I'm trying to engage in a theology
> of tenses. I'm trying to
> understand how a generally past and punctiliar tense
> functions in this
> particular sentence (and in its parallels in the
> Synoptics: the other transfiguration
> narratives, the baptismal narratives, and the quote
> of the same in 2 Peter).
I have a better suggestion concerning your teaching
the aorist as a "generally past and punctiliar tense."
Don't. THis is one of my pet peeves when I read
statements like this.
The aorist tense is "generally past," if not always,
but NOT when a non-temporal statement is uttered.
Tenses only function temporally when statements are of
a temporal nature. And statements of a temporal nature
are no more common than those of a non-temporal
nature. Context must first express its temporality.
I would avoid characterizing the aorist as
"punctiliar." You would serve your seminarians better
by saying the aorist is "not punctiliar." The fact of
the matter is that the aorist refrains from exactly
that, or exactly any other aspect. Its purpose is to
avoid such. It simply wants to identify some
act/event/state without reference to its duration
(hence, not punctiliar). If the other grammatical
features contextually show the event to be of a
punctiliar nature, then all is well and good. But
certainly at the seminary level you would not teach
the aorist as being "punctiliar." (Check the archives
out here for many interesting discussions on this very
topic.)
=====
Eddie Mishoe
Pastor
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list