From: April Van Bibber (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 10 2000 - 21:11:44 EDT
Thank you for your valuable input.
> Dear E.A. (Can I call you E. :o )
Actually, you may call me Al
I read carefully the responses to my inquiry regarding the seeming
interchangeability of usage between the present and aorist imperatives.
Thank you. However, it seems clear to me that a universal language like
Greek (if you will allow me to consider the Mediterranean world in itself
2000 years ago) was clear enough in its syntax so that a merchant in Rome
could understand a letter from Corinth. The Greek language was first "an end
in itself", and secondly "a means to an end". The language gives meaning to
the context, not the context meaning to the language. So a person who used
an aorist imperative was painting a clear picture. And, it would be a
differeont one than the picture painted by a present imperative. We must
never forget THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LANGUAGE IS TO CONVEY IDEAS.
So, looking at the third gospel we see in Luke 5:4-10 the use of four
5:4 put out (EPANAGAGE) into the deep
5:4 let down (CALASATE) the nets
5:8 depart (EXELQE) from me
5:10 Simon, fear not (FOBOU), from now on you will be taking men alive.
As I expected, the first three are aorist imperatives. It is clear this is a
one time event in each case. And, the last is a present which I would render
"Simon, don't ever be afraid..." Fear should have no place in your life.
Could it just be that Luke has a better use of the Greek language than Mark?
Lytle Creek, California
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:35 EDT