From: Edgar Foster (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 22 1998 - 10:03:39 EDT
---"Carl W. Conrad" <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
> event as occurring in the past, understands it of an event
> 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
> when they do, that future reference has nothing to do with their being
> aorists, as the aorist is chosen to represent aspect rather than
> these forms.
I agree that Rom. 8:30 is more likely viewed as a gnomic aorist. I
view it in this manner, but not all grammarians do. When I used the
term "future aorist," I am calling it what those who espouse such a
view term it.
I would translate Rom. 8:30 offhand: "those he also glorified."
The event happened in the past, is happening in the present (first
century) and will happen in the future. Therefore, it is a
transcendent "event," not per se "futuristic." If I'm not mistaken
though, I think Dana and Mantey speak of the future aorist. If I'm
wrong I stand corrected. But I know that recent grammarians have also
used this term. Oh well.
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:35 EDT