Re: significance of aorist

From: KULIKOVSKY, Andrew (AKULIKOV@baea.com.au)
Date: Tue Oct 29 1996 - 10:13:44 EST


Somi,

>My concern here is if we are able to say that the aorist tense is NOT
saying
>anything special. By attributing the name, "default" or "unmarked,"
could
>we possibly be downplaying a possible exegetical significance to the
aorist
>tense. I understand that in the past there was probably too much
emphasis
>placed on the sematic significance of the aoritst. Yet, as a reaction
to
>it, could this "fresh" way of denoting the aorist actually be
eliminating
>its exegetical contribution to the task of interpretation? This is more
of
>what I am concerned about.
>
>Somi.

D A Carson has a good discussion about hanging too much
on the aorist tense in his "Exegetical Fallacies" book (see the
chapter on Gramatical Fallacies).

The way I understand it (and the scholars can correct me if I'm
wrong) is that the aorist IN ITSELF does not communicate
anything special, but the aorist in combination with other
factors such as voice, mood, context and the inherent nature
of the action being described is what is exegetically significant.

cheers,
Andrew

ps. Somi, I love the quote from Romans in your sig.
       This would have to be one of my favourite
       passages of scripture!

+------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
|
| Software Engineer
| British Aerospace Australia
| Technology Park, Adelaide
| ph: +618 8290 8268
| fax: +618 8290 8800
| email: akulikov@baea.com.au
|
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?
|
| ...Look to Jesus Christ
|
| hO IESOUS KURIOS!
+------------------------------------------------------------------------



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:54 EDT