From: Wes Williams (WesWilliams@usa.net)
Date: Mon Dec 29 1997 - 00:12:10 EST
I was hoping some of the senior members on the list could help me
understand the grammatical reason why an aorist is sometimes translated
with an English perfect. It seems to behave just like a PPA (present
with extension from the past) construction except it is aorist.
As one contrasting example...
Present tense with extension from past time translated as English
perfect...
John 15:27 hOTI AP ARCHS MET AMOU ESTE
because you have been with me from the beginning
Aorist with extension from past translated as English perfect...
John 7:48 MH TIS EK TWN ARCONTWN EPISTEUSEN EIS AUTON EK TWN FARISAIWN;
NIV "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him?
NASB Ç*No one of *the rulers or Pharisees has believed in Him, has he?
Perhaps this is a constantive or complexive (not one has entered the
state of belief and remained in that state) aorist. What would be the
distinction if John had used PISTEUOUSI as a PPA (not one has
believed...) in John 7:48? Anything?
Thanks,
Wes Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:41 EDT