Re: Romans 8:30-Future?

From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Wed Apr 22 1998 - 06:52:04 EDT

At 10:13 PM -0500 4/21/98, Edgar Foster wrote:
>Is TOUTOUS KAI EDOXASEN better understood as a futuristic aorist? Is
>there any reason why we should view it as such?

I think it's generally viewed as a gnomic aorist, by which (in this
instance, at least) I mean a verb which although it refers to a specific
event as occurring in the past, understands it of an event transcending any
specific moment in time and therefore universally applicable.

For my part, I would carefully avoid such a term as "futuristic
aorist"--particularly for an indicative--although, of course, a
subjunctive, optative, or imperative may have future reference. Yet even
when they do, that future reference has nothing to do with their being
aorists, as the aorist is chosen to represent aspect rather than time in
these forms.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:35 EDT