[B-Greek] Re.. Imperfect and Aorist Aspects!

Wounded Ego woundedegomusic at gmail.com
Wed Sep 6 10:40:59 EDT 2006


It seems to me that it is incorrect to refer to the aorist as the "simple
past tense" as it does not always refer to events in the past. In fact, it
can even refer to the future. For example, the aorist infinitive of GINOMAI
seems to always refer to the future. Here just a few of the many examples:

KJV
Re 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew
unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass [GENESQAI]; and he
sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Re 4:1  After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and
the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me;
which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be
[GENESQAI] hereafter.
Re 22:6  And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the
Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the
things which must shortly be done [GENESQAI].

By the way, because of this character of the aorist infinitive of GINOMAI, I
am inclined to translate its occurrence in John 8:58 as future:

EIPEN AUTOIS IHSOUS AMHN AMHN LEGW hHUMIN PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI

This is my informal translation:

Jesus said to them "I am telling all of you accurately that my being born is
BEFORE Abraham will be born."

Perhaps this is a suggestion that Abraham himself being reborn.

William Ross
VGB, Argentina

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Paul F. Evans
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 10:13 AM
To: 'B-Greek'
Subject: [B-Greek] Re.. Imperfect and Aorist Aspects!



 Elizabeth,
 
 Thank you for your reply.
 
 <Cut>
 Some linguists use the terms marked/unmarked to identify forms that
 are default    (unmarked) in contrast with forms that carry
 additional significance (marked). I suspect that "undefined" is
 probably a synonym for unmarked.
 <Cut>
 
 Machen calls the aorist the "simple 'preterit' (simple past tense)."  He
 says that the aorist and imperfect both refer to past time. While the
 imperfect refers to continuous past action, the aorist refers to simple
 past action.  He goes on to observe, as Mounce, that the present tense
 does not distinguish aspect, by which he means continuous or simple
 action. But he asserts that "...in past time the distinction, is very
 carefully made; the Greek language shows not tendency whatsoever to
 confuse the aorist with the imperfect."
 
 I can read that two ways...
 1.  "Simple" means unmarked or undefined (probably the correct way)
 2.  That the imperfect and aorist refer to continuous and non-continuous
 aspect.
 
 My point is that Machen seems to use "simple" in the sense that the aspect
 of the aorist is usually quite different from the imperfect in that it is
 decidedly not continuous.  I know the aorist can and does sometimes refer
 to continuous action.  I guess I want to know if the aorist in and of
 itself seems to carry some definite aspectual weight, since undefined, and
 unmarked imply an absence of any aspectual emphasis.
 
 I have known (theological and hermeneutical) arguments to be made to hang
 on the aspectual weight of the aorist (specifically the idea of non-
 continuous action in the past0.  Some of these have been made by popular
 preachers, but others have come from reputable scholars.
 
 Remember, I am just a novice, so you folks who deal with this
 continually... please be gentle!
 
 Paul F. Evans
 Pastor
 Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness Church
 http://www.wilmingtonfirst.org
 PastorPaul1957 at bellsouth.net

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006
 





More information about the B-Greek mailing list