[B-Greek] Hebrews 1:3-4 participles and verb aspect
Ken Penner
ken.penner at acadiau.ca
Thu Mar 8 14:40:33 EST 2007
> Are you saying that your analysis of Heb 1:3-4 is based on
> the morphological choices of the writer - that the tense
> forms themselves determine this reading - or that this is
> simply an aspectual way of describing your exegetical
> conclusion (based broadly on the language in its contexts)?
That is a perceptive question, Jon.
I would say yes, my analysis of Heb 1:3-4 is based on the morphological choices of the writer, and that it also fits my broadly understanding of the language in its contexts.
But I would not say no to three parts of your question. The tense forms themselves do not *determine* this reading. This is not an *aspectual* way of describing anything (it may be relative tense, but not aspect). This is not *simply* a relative-tense way of describing my exegetical conclusion.
The morphology signals which of the time sequences is to be understood in the absence of signals to the contrary. The aorist participle normally signals non-overlapping time frames (usually relative past); the present participle normally signals overlapping time frames (usually relative present).
Ken
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D. (McMaster)
Acadia/Greek&Hebrew
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list