προσκυνησάτωσαν
Posted: April 21st, 2012, 5:05 pm
“To summarize this point then, the present tense forms of the imperativals were chosen when the author wished to communicate a general command or exhortation to direct his readers’ general behavior whenever appropriate. An aorist imperatival, in contrast, may call for the readers to perform more than one action—the aorist is not the “once for all” tense!—but it was a call to do something in a specific, limited context, not as a general maxim governing one’s lifestyle. I have labeled this factor, the “general situation.”” (Baugh pg. 46)
As an application of this:
Hebrews 1:6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
If προσκυνείτωσαν was available then the aorist form was not a default or unmarked usage and could therefore be an instance where aspect is an intended result.
So the English word “worship” (found in the majority of translations) may give an incorrect impression of an ongoing behavior rather than “bow down before" – TCNT or “bow before” – YLT, which more clearly reflects the call to do something specific in a limited context.
Or have I popped the clutch trying to drive Baugh's Ferrari?
As an application of this:
Hebrews 1:6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ.
If προσκυνείτωσαν was available then the aorist form was not a default or unmarked usage and could therefore be an instance where aspect is an intended result.
So the English word “worship” (found in the majority of translations) may give an incorrect impression of an ongoing behavior rather than “bow down before" – TCNT or “bow before” – YLT, which more clearly reflects the call to do something specific in a limited context.
Or have I popped the clutch trying to drive Baugh's Ferrari?