Aorist for Perfect - Tense/Aspect

[Brett]

A tense is selected based on how the author wants to PORTRAY an event, not how it ACTUALLY took place/unfolded. Suppose an author is reflecting on a past event that currently should ACTUALLY be written as a Perfect. Could an author chose to PORTRAY this event that ACTUALLY took place as a Perfect with an Aorist, given he wants to PORTRAY the event in a different light? Bottom line, an Aorist is chosen over the correct Perfect in order to PORTRAY the event as a simple, past occurrence. The result of this is then, one could read about a past event being portrayed by the Aorist, but "interpret" it as a Perfect tense, since the exegete wants to explain how the event ACTUALLY happened.

[cwconrad]

A tense is selected based on how the author wants to PORTRAY an event, not how it ACTUALLY took place/unfolded. Suppose an author is reflecting on a past event that currently should ACTUALLY be written as a Perfect. Could an author chose to PORTRAY this event that ACTUALLY took place as a Perfect with an Aorist, given he wants to PORTRAY the event in a different light? Bottom line, an Aorist is chosen over the correct Perfect in order to PORTRAY the event as a simple, past occurrence. The result of this is then, one could read about a past event being portrayed by the Aorist, but "interpret" it as a Perfect tense, since the exegete wants to explain how the event ACTUALLY happened.

Presumably you're talking about Hellenistic Koine Greek, where aorist and perfect tenses may very well be merging with each other as they had already merged in Latin spoken and written in that era. But your question seems very hypothetical, as if posed about a painter who can't make up his mind about whether he wants to portray an event in a realistic or in an impressionistic style. Then you seem to be saying that one tense form would be accurate while the other would not. I think that if you have some particular verb usage from a text as the basis of your question, you ought to be citing it. Otherwise it seems very much like (or not very much different from) a question about whether the moon might really be made of green cheese.

[Stephen Carlson]

The original post is too vague to understand what the point is. Perhaps an example would make it clearer?

[cwconrad]

The original post is too vague to understand what the point is. Perhaps an example would make it clearer?

Thanks, Stephen, for saying what I wanted to say in words of -- more or less -- one syllable.

[Brett]

I'm getting way too old to ask questions.

John records for us a word Jesus uttered on the Cross; it was τετλεσται (Perfect Tense). Could John have also selected the Aorist tense in stead of this Perfect, just choosing to portray it in a different Tense/Aspect?

[Stephen Carlson]

John records for us a word Jesus uttered on the Cross; it was τετλεσται (Perfect Tense). Could John have also selected the Aorist tense in stead of this Perfect, just choosing to portray it in a different Tense/Aspect?

It always helps to quote the text:

ὅτε οὖν ἔλαβεν τὸ ὄξος [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν, Τετέλεσται· καὶ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα.

I suppose you're asking what difference it would have made if he said ἐτελέσθη instead?