Re: 2 Cor 5:13

From: Richard Lindeman (richlind@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Jan 18 1998 - 18:35:40 EST


-----Original Message-----
I wrote:
>
>>But the real question I intended to raised is this: To what extent is the
>>aorist indicative taking over the
>>functions of the perfect tense? Is it possible that we see an example of
>>this here in 2 Cor 5:13?

Jim West quoted here:
>Most likely not. In fact, I don't think that when we are speaking of NT
>grammar it is possible to say that the perfect is being "taken over" by the
>aorist. There are more than enough examples of the perfect in the NT to
>show that it was alive, well, and thriving when the NT documents were
written.
>Paul himself uses the perfect numerous times in 2 Cor.
>

OK... let me tell you the source of my questions on this. Nigel Turner
writes
about this issue in vol. 3 Syntax of the Moulton NT Grammar. On page 68f he
discusses the relationship between aorist and perfect tenses in the NT era.
He states, "The 'promiscuous' use increased in the first 3 cc A.D., and the
aorist was used increasingly for the perfect, as well as vice versa, to
such
an extent that eventually in iv A.D. , the perfect as a distinct tense is
altogether
eclipsed.".... and again on page 69, "Such a climax led directly to its
ruin(the ruin
of the perfect) since it could not compete in the popular language with the
present
and aorist which now seemed to fulfil all its functions."... and again on
page 69,
"Although in Byzantine texts it(the perfect tense) is no longer
distinguishable
from the aorist in meaning, care must still be taken to ascertain whether
the
mingling in the NT is not by design, with the distinctions correctly
observed."

Turner then goes on to define a "perfective" use of the aorist tense and an
"aoristic"
perfect within their respective sections.

Rich Lindeman



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT