[B-Greek] Re. Aspect of the Aorist!

Mark Lightman lightmanmark at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 11 15:47:29 EST 2010


Paul wrote:
 
<When I first took NT Greek in college 30 years
ago, we used Machen as a text.  I remember the aspect of the aorist being
taught rather categorically as defined, specifically punctilliar.   However,
modern grammars, Bill Mounce (excellent text book for beginning Greekers)
comes to mind, teach the aspect of the aorist as "undefined."  Has there
been a shift in viewpoints in scholarship?>
 
Hi, Paul.
 
No, there has been no shift.  Telling introductory students that
the aorist is punctiliar or once-and-for-all is what Plato would
call a "noble lie."  It is not going to cause a beginner to 
fundamentally misunderstand a made up sentence.  It's not
even exactly untrue.  It's an okay way for beginners to 
distinguish the aorist from the imperfect until they 
get into lots of reading Greek.  By then they will have long forgotten
what they read about the aorist in a first year text book 
 
 <...in NT studies older commentaries often hinge their views on a supposed once
and-for-all aspect in the aorist.> 
 
The problem with using Greek grammar to make theological 
points is not that the underlying grammar is wrong.  The problem 
with using Greek grammar to make theological points is...well,
we all know what it is.  It's just not I think, ever a good idea.

Mark L


FWSFOROS MARKOS

--- On Thu, 2/11/10, Paul F. Evans <PastorPaul1957 at bellsouth.net> wrote:


From: Paul F. Evans <PastorPaul1957 at bellsouth.net>
Subject: [B-Greek] Re. Aspect of the Aorist!
To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2010, 9:21 AM


Group,



In spite of my fear of raising objections of being tiresome and redundant, I
have a question about the aorist and aspect.  It is basically about the
"history" of the grammar.  When I first took NT Greek in college 30 years
ago, we used Machen as a text.  I remember the aspect of the aorist being
taught rather categorically as defined, specifically punctilliar.   However,
modern grammars, Bill Mounce (excellent text book for beginning Greekers)
comes to mind, teach the aspect of the aorist as "undefined."  Has there
been a shift in viewpoints in scholarship?  I know from intermediate
grammars that there always what appear to be "exceptions" in the aorist
aspect if you take Machen's view seriously.  Or maybe I have misread or
misunderstood Machen.



I am curious, because (and I am not raising a theological question), in NT
studies older commentaries often hinge their views on a supposed once-
and-for-all aspect in the aorist.  



If the aorist aspect is undefined, how did the notion of a once-for-all
aspect arise in the first place?  (assuming the answer to this question is a
grammatical one, albeit with historical overview!)



Pastor Paul Evans

Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness Church

PastorPaul1957 at bellsouth.net

http://www.wilmingtonfirst.org



---
B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/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