Re: 'default' aorist

From: Somi Chuhon (
Date: Wed Oct 30 1996 - 00:34:01 EST

At 08:52 AM 10/29/96 -0800, you wrote:
>Let me ask a hypothetical question about the default aorist then.
>If a NT writer wanted to say that someting happened in the past, and it
>was important that it happened once in the past, what would one expect?
> A Perfect? If NT authors use an aorist, does that mean we cannot say
>that they "intend" (yes, I know all the problems about intention) to say
>that the event took place completely in the past?
>Ken Litwak

It's a valid point, Ken. Yet, Greek has other ways of indicating time
instead of using the verbs. The use of conjuctions and particles as well as
time related phrases (in the evening, on the Sabbath, after the crowd had
dispersed, etc.) to indicate time wieh it is necessary for interpreting the
passage (i.e. understanding what the author is trying to say).


P.S. Admittedly, I have still a ways to go in my research and understanding
of verbal aspect, but it is a much more convincing argument than the use of
grammatical catagories such as "historical presents", etc., to explain meaning.
Graduate Student (Old Testament)
ACTS Seminary (Langley, B.C.)

-----------oooO-(. .)-Oooo--------------------------------
For I am convinced that neither death nor life,
neither angels nor demons,
neither the present nor the future,
nor any other powers,
neither height nor depth,
nor anything else in all creation,
will be able to seperate us from the love of God
that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:38,39

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:55 EDT