Re: Re. The aorist!

From: Mark & Mary Markham (
Date: Mon Nov 23 1998 - 09:46:11 EST

<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=GENERATOR>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2>The aorist (as I understand it) is a
point on a time line-- thus signifing an event. Usually it represents an action
of the past and you are very correct in identifing it with the perfect. Yet what
about an aorist&nbsp; future? So we need to understand the aorist as an event on
a timeline. Usually in the past, but no matter the action is a one shot deal
that does not continue beyond that point. This, understandably, is confusing
especially when we find instructions in the aorist. Any such commands need to be
understood as a repepitive process............. do it&nbsp; do it do it do it do
it -- each an event on a timeline. Since I don't profess to be a scholar in
Greek an affirmation of my understand of the aorist is welcome and
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Grace to you,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Mark Markham</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Heidelberg, Germany</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B></B></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>From: </B>Paul F. Evans &lt;<A
</B>Biblical Greek &lt;<A
</B>Monday, November 23, 1998 1:54 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re. The
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT>
    <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>List,</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>Help me out here.&nbsp; I am really afraid to ask this
    question for fear of striking up a re-ignition of the great aspect
    discussion of '96!&nbsp; However, I am interested in an
    <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>In taking basic first year Greek I was told that the
    aorist was a punctilliar (spelled correctly?) tense signifying past action
    completed in the past.&nbsp; However, after many years of NT study (I should
    know more), I have come across many grammars that bill the aorist as the
    generic tense which says nothing particular about the action it
    describes.&nbsp; The theory seems to be that if the writer wished to say
    something special about the action of a verb he would choose a tense other
    than the aorist.&nbsp; Obviously I have discovered that the aorist is only a
    past tense in the indicative or imperative moods. </FONT><FONT size=2>If the
    aorist is a a&nbsp; punctilliar tense, describing past completed action, it
    would be little different from the prefect, because obviously done is done
    and the results would persist.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>My question is whether the aorist is a sort of generic
    tense which describes nothing special about the action of the verb, and
    whether it is true that a writer would choose another tense when he wanted
    to specify something specific in that sense.</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2>If this is a dumb question forgive me!&nbsp; Only,&nbsp; I
    come across a significant body of literature that makes much about the use
    of the aorist for its theology and others who discount such (I am interested
    only in discussing the nature of the aorist here).</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Paul &amp; Loala Evans</FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Wilmington First Pentecostal Holiness
    <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>E-mail: <A
    href=""></A><BR>Web-page: <A


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:08 EDT