Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Title: re: Ex nihilo? Was Raqiyah

Dear Dave,

There is evidence that the aorist does not signal past tense, but only the perfective aspect, even though it has in most cases past reference. Two recent dissertations have argued for that. One example of an aorist with future reference is Jude 1:14 in the NT. As far as I am aware, there is no example of Greek imperfect with non-past reference, so I conclude that it signals both past tense and the imperfective aspect.

Regards

Rolf

Rolf Furuli

University of Oslo

> Bill,
> When I was studying advanced Greek grammar, we called these
> principles "first-year lies."  Which is to say, in the
> first year profs
> often over-simplify things, then have to go back and explain
> what's
> really going on later.  I don't know of a single case of the
> type you
> describe in the NT; there are some of the reverse, such as Mark's
> omnipresent "historic present," but that seems to be more a
> case of
> one writer's idiolect than anything else.  Outside the
> indicative mode,
> it's possible that the "tenses" were aspect-based, though
> even this
> can be questioned.  In the indicative, however, as in Gen 1:1,
> the
> present tense was not an option.  Had the translator
> understood
> some sort of "linear" aspect in addition to the past tense,
> s/he would
> likely have used an imperfect.  In the indicative, the aorist
> (as its
> name suggests) is the simple past tense.  In English I can say
> "I
> went to the kitchen" or "I went to Paris" and only the
> context -
> specifically the pragmatic fact that I live in Boise, Idaho, can tell
> a
> listener that the latter event took much longer than the
> former. 
> Again, I recommend reading Stagg before making too many
> sweeping comments about the aorist.
> > Dave,
> >
> > Since the discussion is really about Gen. 1:1 I won't dwell on
> the finer
> > points of Greek.  And some real Greek scholar might correct
> me. And this
> > comment does not really deal with the use of aorist in Gen.
> 1:1.  However as
> > far as Greek tenses are concerned they are less time specific
> than aspect
> > specific.  In other words the Greek writter used aorist in
> some cases
> > because it was "punctiliar" rather than because it
> represented a "past"
> > event.  The use of the present tense in Greek more often
> meant an act in the
> > present time that is in process. I believe there are cases in
> the New
> > Testament at least where the writer used the aorist to express
> an event in
> > "present time (at least to the mind of the English
> speaker)" with
> > "punctilar" action.
> >
> > Bill Burks