From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Thu Feb 29 1996 - 16:22:14 EST

On 2/29/96, Dale M. Wheeler wrote:

> >In my rapid survey of the two lists (I didn't even look at your third
> >paragraph until I'd checked the rfcs), I would deem every single instance
> >an aorist, some of them in terms of the parallel verb in the aorist, others
> >because they are quite clearly in secondary sequence, but all of them, and
> >especially the three most questionable ones--those from the Parable of the
> >Wicked Husbandmen--because the aorist clearly yields the more appropriate
> >aspect in the context.
> I agree...but you don't see any formal reason that they couldn't be parsed,
> in the abstract, as Present Subj, do you ??

No, certainly not. And I guess it ought to be admitted (I'm the one who
harps on Mark's sloppy Greek) that NT writers are not "above" violating
grammatical "rules."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT