Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - re: Ex nihilo? Was Raqiyah

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: re: Ex nihilo? Was Raqiyah
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:52:31 +0200

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page