These two positions don't even seem close

Mark Wilson emory2002 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 27 13:03:30 EDT 2000




How can this happen?

Wallace/Manning seem to see the Aorist Tense in a way radically different 
that Porter.

It seems to me that Wallace sees the Aorist Tense as the Past Tense, 
conceding that other “intrusions” can alter its fundamental, inherent “past 
tense” meaning.

But Porter does not seem to see the Aorist Tense as a  “past tense.”  He 
seems to argue that it requires grammatical “intrusions” to indicate Past 
tense, as if “past tense” is not its fundamental sense.

Do I understand this debate correctly?

If so, what can I state “for sure” about the Aorist Tense?

Thank you,

Mark Wilson



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com




More information about the B-Greek mailing list