I would say that your explanation for 1 Pet 2:17 (and Rom 13:7) is possible, but I am not convinced that the assumption that there must always be a difference between the two forms holds, especially because of Luke 10:5,10, though in light of the old B-Greek email I must now agree that at least sometimes there will be a difference.MAubrey wrote:MAubrey wrote:David Lim wrote:I think Mike's view ... However I think his view about the generalness and specificity of commands is the opposite of what Baugh mentioned that I listed as (4)Well, yes and no. I'd like to revise my thoughts in light of what Baugh has said here--at least partially. I also think that Baugh's discussion has more in common with my (tentative) suggestions than you suggest, but I would also say that my initial suggetions were based on too small of a data sample (i.e. specifically the texts you were asking about). I would be inclined to say that the terms "general" and "specific" are not categories themselves, but results of the aspectual features themselves. So generalized commands *can* be imperfective when they refer, as Baugh notes, to repeatable actions. And when an action should only be done once in a very specific situation, the perfective imperative also makes perfect sense. But it seems rather clear to me that in light of examples like 1 Peter 2:17, Baugh would also need to revise his view. The very nature of the perfective as making no reference to an action as a whole makes it ideal for imperatives that commands that are general at a far more abstract level. "Honor everyone" is more general than "Honor the king." This is also clear in Romans 13:7 ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν τὰς ὀφειλάς.David Lim wrote:(4) General injunctions (behavioural, iterative) tend to call for the present while specific injunctions (situational) call for the aorist
But again, I should say that I haven't studied imperatives very closely, but I do know a thing or two about aspect. My larger point is that whether general or specific, whatever reason a command is in the aorist or the present is going to arise from a combination of the lexical features of the verb in question and the nature of the aspectual category itself. The tendency toward general vs. specific however they work out in specific examples is a result of that combination.
Verbs of saying in the Imperative
Re: Verbs of saying in the Imperative
δαυιδ λιμ