[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
Rolf Furuli
furuli at online.no
Sat Sep 16 00:38:50 EDT 2006
Dear Mich,
You have several good points here, and you focus on the core issue.
In most cases the vantage point from which an action is described (the
deictic center) is speech time/the time of writing.
In order to show that the deictic center is not speech time, one has to
point to evidence
from the context. And here is the crictial point: many of those claiming
that the
deictic center of Jude 1:14 is not speech time do not do so on the basis of
the context, but on the basis of theory. They have already decided that the
aorist cannot have future reference. Therefore, when an aorist occurs in a
future setting, they must claim a shift of the deictic center. But this is
circular reasoning! (I will add that some interpret the aorist of Jude 1:14
as non-future because they have seen so many aorists with past reference,
but evidently without having made a systematic study of all aorists.)
Circularity can to a great extent be avoided by the following approach:
1) Consider all the aorists of the NT and a represantative number of
classicl texts.
2) In each case make an analysis of whether the action/state comes before or
after the deictic center or is contemporaneous with it. (Remember that the
default position of the deictic center is speech time, and that evidence is
necessary to account for another position).
3) If a verb is past tense (grammaticalized past location in time), the
action occurs before the deictic center. Thus, if you find a reasonable
number of examples where the action of an aorist verb either coincides with
the deictic center (situations translated by English present and present
perfect) or come after the deictic center (situations translated by English
future), you have demonstrated that the aorist is not a past tense.
I would also like to comment on a concept that recently has been mentioned
several
times, namely the socalled "prophetic perfect". I suppose that most of those
who use the term do not know its origin or basis. "Prophetic perfect" is the
example par excellence of a circular grammatical idea. Its origin is Hebrew
grammar of
the last half of the 19th century. Aspectual views were in their infancy,
and the view of that time was that the perfective aspect represented
"completed action" (Some still subscribe to that view, but others,
following Comrie use "complete action"). However, as more and more sections
of the Hebrew Bible were studied, more and more examples of perfects in a
future setting turned up. In order to save the theory, these were explained
as "prophetic perfects"; the action was completed in the mind of the prophet
(See A. B. Davidson (1894) "Hebrew syntax"). I have never seen a single
piece of evidence in favor of "prophetic perfect", it is solely based on
theory. Hebrew
perfects with future reference are found both in the prophetic and
non-prophetic parts of the Hebrew Bible. The prophets often use both
imperfects and perfects with future reference in the same context. no one
has claimed that the
imperfects are "prophetic," in the sense that the idea is completed in
the mind of the prophet. If the perfects with future reference were
"prophetic," one should be able to show a semantic difference between them
and the imperfects in the same context, but no one has done that.
(Recently M. Rogland wrote a Ph.D dissertation discussing Hebrew perfects in
a future setting. He decided before he started that perfect does not
represent future future time/tense. Therefore he uses a lot of different
categories to explain the non-future references of the perfects. He does not
give evidence for the "prophetic perfect".)
It is very important in studies of Greek grammar that the answer is not
given before one starts to study.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Larramore" <mitchlarramore at yahoo.com>
To: "Con R. Campbell" <con.campbell at moore.edu.au>; "B-Greek at Lists. Org"
<B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Tense-Aspects
> Con
>> I think the major reason that thousands of future
>> referring aorists are not
>> found is that the future indicative is a FUTURE
>> AORIST.
>
> It looks like you are saying FUTURE (as to tense)
> AORIST (as to aspect).
>
>
>> Perfective aspect views an action
>> as a whole, rather than complete,
>
> If it is viewed as whole, then the beginning and end
> have to be in view, which is exactly what I call
> complete.
>
>
> Strangely enough, nobody disagrees about Jude 14, 15
> in this respect: 14 is future to the time of ACTUAL
> writing, and 14 is past from the ACTUAL time of 15.
> Even those who hold to Greek grammaticalizing tense
> (and that Aorists refer to the past) agree that Jude
> 14 is future to the time of when the words were
> ACTUALLY written. I'm still trying to see the critical
> issue with this deictic center thing. As far as I see
> it, how one views grammatical tense is FIRST
> determined by how one understands where deictic
> centers are located. And it seems to me that there is
> leeway in where one decides to understand where the
> deictic center is.
>
> Mitch Larramore
> Sugar Land, Texas
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list