Re: Test of The "Timeless" Aorist

From: Carlton Winbery (
Date: Thu May 07 1998 - 13:30:49 EDT

>I have come to the conclusion that this discussion is going nowhere. George
>is enamoured of a timeless aorist, which no grammar of ancient Greek
>supports. Carl and most others, including me, hold that the aorist in the
>indicative is a preterit tense. I would humbly suggest that this discussion
>has run its course, used an adeuate amount of bandwidth, and should be
>continued in private correspondence. I have read little new on this in the
>last few days. :-)

I often find that I am in agreement with Edgar and so to here. I have
marveled that very reasonable discussions of the use of the aorists have
been brushed aside. What more can be said? From my reading of Helenistic
Greek, I have concluded that unless there are clear indications in the
context that an aorist indicative verb is gnomic or ingressive or
culminative it should be translated as simple past. It is the default
translation for narrative of past events.

Carlton L. Winbery
Fogleman Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
Pineville, LA 71359

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT