Chapter 12 of Exegetical Gems is about verbal aspect, and the Bible verse for discussion is Matthew 16:24 (WH): Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.
This passage contains two aorist imperatives and one present imperative. Why does Matthew switch when recording the third imperative given by Jesus here? To answer these questions, it's important to know something about verbal aspect and verbal Aktionsart. Merkle gives a brief discussion of aspect, which I'll now supplement.
Two influential and competing types of aspect theory are those developed by Stanley Porter and Buist Fanning. To see numerous criticisms of Porter's approach, consult Chrys Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2006).
Concerning aspect, Richard A. Young explains: "Although the thesis that time is not grammaticalized in Greek may sound extreme, it seems to be the logical conclusion one draws from the study of the nuances of Greek 'tenses' " (Young, Intermediate NT Greek, 105). However, Young qualifies this initial observation:
"Nevertheless, there is still merit in the traditional view that temporal distinctions are grammaticalized in the indicative mood, even though it results in a greater number of anomalies. This does not necessarily indicate a flaw in the analysis, since all languages have forms which overlap into the semantic domain of other forms" (ibid., 107).
S. M. Baugh (A First John Reader, 52) argues that "the function and force of tense forms varies with the different moods." Therefore, "An author chooses the tense form of a participle and the tense form of a complementary infinitive for different reasons" (ibid.). He then illustrates this principle with the example of 1 John 3:9.
Grammarians and linguists use the term Aktionsart in disparate ways, but older grammars often employ Aktionsart as a reference to action delineated by the verbal stem. Porter writes that K. Brugmann in 1885 was the first writer to use the German term Aktionsart for the purpose of describing "the kind of action indicated objectively by the verb" (Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the NT, Stanley Porter, 29). So when I talk about "kind of action" in this context, I am referring to action in terms of completed, durative, ingressive or conative (inchoative) activities that are objectively signaled by the respective verb stem (root + affix) or in some other fashion.
Merkle defines verbal aspect as "the viewpoint or perspective by which an author chooses to portray an action or state" (53). That is, on this view, a writer has the option to present an action as imperfective (present or imperfect morphology), perfective (aorist morphology) or stative (perfect morphology). The pluperfect morphology is also stative and Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 501) classifies the future tense as perfective or "external" aspect. But how does this information about verbal aspect relate to Matthew 16:24?
Before aspect theory bloomed into its current form, scholars argued that the aorist "tense" (morphological form/morphology) signified a once-for-all-time kind of action while the present tense indicated that action was ongoing or continuous. However, that has now largely changed: Greek grammarians/scholars now contend that verbs are only punctiliar or continuous based on markedness or some kind of factor besides a verb's morphology (Merkle, page 54). Hence, Matthew 16:24 in all likelihood is not contrasting punctual and continuous action. Exegetical Gems quotes R.T. France who still offers what seems like an older explanation of Jesus' words but Merkle thinks the exegesis of France is not solidly based on the most current understanding of aspect theory. Yet I'm sure that France's take on Matthew 16:24 is not the only outdated view since another interesting target for Merkle, one whom he appears to correct, is Stanley Porter. Does Porter read too much into the aorist imperatives and the present imperative? Exegetical Gems gives that impression.
Merkle maintains that some verbs with a "natural terminus" usually occur in the aorist tense -form (morphology) but verbs that do not have a natural end-point tend to appear in the present tense-form (page 55). ἀπαρνησάσθω and ἀράτω are putative examples of verbs that have a natural terminus; on the other hand, we would expect a verb of motion like ἀκολουθείτω to occur in the present tense-form.
Near the end of the chapter, Merkle demonstrates that the once-for-all-time action versus the continuous action distinction will not hold up under scrutiny: see Acts 12:8 and Luke 9:23.
For an excellent critique of the aorist as a once-for-all-time action, see Frank Stagg. "The Abused Aorist." Journal of Biblical Literature. June 1, 1972. 91 (2): 222–231.
9 comments:
"If, as indicated by the primitive nature of its stem, the aorist is the oldest
Greek tense, it is understandable that it is also the simplest. It simply points to
the action without describing it. To stress such matters as duration or state of
completion, other tenses were developed. Consequently, these later tenses are
more significant for the nature of the action than is the aorist. To state it otherwise, departure from the aorist is exegetically more significant than the presence
of the aorist." - Stagg.
So it all depends. The one answer no one likes. LOL.
Thanks Brother Foster, I enjoyed digging down this little rabbit hole.
I'd like your thoughts on the following article:
https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=1950766&srctype=wol&srcid=share
Cheers!
Terence
Greetings Terence my brother. I appreciate your thoughts and I will provide more input later about the WT article, which I liked. For n, I'm going to provide links and just point out that Greek verbs do portray action as happening once or continuously, but I've become convinced that outside of the indicative mood especially, punctual action or durative action are indicated by not only verbal morphology (tense-form) but other marked features like context. Please check out the links and later on, I will give thoughts on the WT. Cheers!
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/06/present-tense-clarification-1-john-39.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/07/aorist-verbs-vis-vis-present-tense.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/05/max-zerwick-on-tense-or-aspect.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-greek-aorist-and-its-diverse-uses.html
Thanks for the links...particularly like your Johannine discussion of 1 John 3v9. I agree that context would likely play a big part in defining what is meant.
In your opinion, should one of the considerations in rendering certain aorist verbs be the greater context of scripture taken as a whole, or would you say this goes beyond the proper bounds of a translator? For example, I would not say that the scriptures taken as a whole present the idea of perfectionism, i.e that Christians CANNOT sin, therefore I would reject the rendering of that particular verbal construction on that basis.
Strangely enough, in my personal study a few weeks ago, with the aid of Vincent's Word studies I stumbled across the use of the present and the aorist within the same verse but didn't realise the controversies surrounding the aorist. See Romans 6:13 for "Yield" (JKV) or "present" vs "go on presenting" (NWT). Vincent holds the view that the aorist is a "once and for all time" kinda gig, stating Romans 12:1 as support. The cross reference in the NWT also takes you to Romans 12:1.
So I would in one sense agree that in one's private prayer of repentance, conversion and dedication, one would "once and for all" be done with sin, but this would not inherently mean that his battling sin within his members would automatically stop just because of his renewed, justified, dedicated, sanctified standing with God.
The entirety of my knowledge of the scriptures and my own subjective relationship to sin would teach me this.
Once your eye is trained to see it, like how one can pretty quickly spot withing the NWT the tense/aspect/timing element of a verb by the way it is rendered, whether you agree with it or not. Romans 6:13 in is ESV has "present" for both.
TK
You're welcome, Terence.
I liked the WT article as I indicated earlier but it was written in 1950 (I think), and that was before Stan Porter, Buist Fanning, Chrys Caragounis, Dan Wallace or C. Campbell and other aspect theorists.
There are different translation approaches, and I hate to be dogmatic about which one is the bet, but if I'm trying to figure out the Aktionsart of a verb, it might be best to consider the immediate context of the scriptural passage at hand. But when trying to understand Scripture (i.e., when studying or doing exegesis), it's certainly appropriate to take the whole of Scripture into account.
That the aorist denotes a once-for-all-time action has now gone by the wayside in Greek grammars: now to be clear, there may be times when an aorist is used for an action that clearly happened once. I guess what the grammarians and linguists are contending is that the tense-form of the verb doesn't tell you the action is punctual in the case of the aorist. Rather, other factors come into play. See Hebrews 7:27 as an example.
Regarding Romans 6:13, here's what one of the more recent commentaries written by Thomas Schreiner says: "Verse 13 more specifically explains how the reign of sin can be defeated in the lives of believers. One must choose to 'present' oneself to God. The verb in the sentence 'do not present one’s members to sin' (μηδὲ παριστάνετε, mēde paristanete, do not present) is in the present tense, while the command to present oneself (παραστήσατε, parastēsate) to God is aorist. The difference between the two should not be pressed; the aorist should not be understood to refer to once for-all or decisive action (contra Dunn 1988a:338). Most likely, the two
different forms are simply synonyms here."
That is the standard view found in current grammars and monographs.
From Daniel B. Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (p. 499):
"In general, we can say that aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features. Thus, the present tense views the action from within, without respect to beginning or end (aspect), while some uses of the present tense can be iterative, historical, futuristic, etc. (all of these belong to Aktionsart and are meanings of the verb affected by other features of the language). This is the same kind of distinction we have called ontological vs. phenomenological (terms that can be applied to ANY morpho-syntactic category, not just the verb tense)."
Also, from GGBB, p. 2:
"Along the same lines, a careful distinction needs to be made between the unaffected or ontological meaning of the construction and the affected or phenomenological meaning. By 'unaffected' is meant the meaning of the construction in a vacuum--apart from contextual, lexical, or other grammatical intrusions. By 'affected' is meant the meaning of the construction in its environment--i.e., 'real life' instances."
On the aorist versus present imperatives, see also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/05/1-peter-58-morphology-and-syntax.html
Thanks for taking your time out to explain. This exercise has sharpened my need for discernment in cross-checking my references, for sure. I'm currently relying on a work that is out of date, or at least not in-line with more modern theories. Keeps me humble, for sure.
Could you give an example of an "unaffected or ontological" meaning vs an "affected"?
Thanks also for your patience with me, as I'm very new to the nuances of Greek grammar.
You're welcome, Terence. Aspect theory is not easy and there are conflicting theories in the field. But an example of unaffected meaning would be that an aorist tense-form portrays action as a whole. In other words, the aorist in an affected sense does not focus on the beginning, middle or end of an action. However, in its affected sense, an aorist may be punctual, constative, inceptive, etc. For instance, a common way to understand the aorist in John 1:14 is to construe it as inceptive, which would be its affected meaning (its Aktionsart).
Post a Comment