Hello everyone,
I’ve been revisiting some New Testament passages lately and came across interesting uses of the aorist tense that don’t seem to fit the typical “punctiliar” description. For instance, in John 11:35—ἐδάκρυσενὁ Ἰησοῦς, the verb appears to express more than just a single point in time.
I’d like to open a discussion on how we should best understand the aspectual nature of the aorist—particularly in narrative contexts. Should we interpret the aorist primarily as aspectual (viewing the action as a whole) rather than strictly temporal?
I would also appreciate any recommended readings or resources on modern linguistic approaches to verbal aspect in Koine Greek (e.g., Porter, Fanning, Campbell).
Looking forward to your insights!
Understanding the Nuances of the Aorist Tense in Koine Greek
Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
Alex Hopkins
- Posts: 61
- Joined: June 10th, 2011, 7:15 am
Re: Understanding the Nuances of the Aorist Tense in Koine Greek
Nearly a fortnight ago, katyperry wrote
Just to start, the terminology can be confusing, with "punctiliar" being especially problematic; it is more a term aligned with an older Aktionsart reading of the tenses, taking the "nature of the action" to determine the choice of tense. But even those who spoke of Aktionsart in this way could cite an example such as Joh 2:20 Τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος and say simply "the whole period of 46 years is treated as a point" (as did A.T.Robertson in his grammar, p833). The aspectual approach asks whether, in choosing between the imperfect and the aorist, the author wishes us to view the action progressively (imperfect), or simply states the occurrence of the action (aorist). Thus, John 11:35 in no way disrupts an aspectual understanding of the verb.
Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia
katyperry then invites the opening of a discussion on the aspect of the aorist. It's a vast topic, so I won't say much now but will first ask if the member who posted the question is still listening and interested.I’ve been revisiting some New Testament passages lately and came across interesting uses of the aorist tense that don’t seem to fit the typical “punctiliar” description. For instance, in John 11:35—ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, the verb appears to express more than just a single point in time.
Just to start, the terminology can be confusing, with "punctiliar" being especially problematic; it is more a term aligned with an older Aktionsart reading of the tenses, taking the "nature of the action" to determine the choice of tense. But even those who spoke of Aktionsart in this way could cite an example such as Joh 2:20 Τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος and say simply "the whole period of 46 years is treated as a point" (as did A.T.Robertson in his grammar, p833). The aspectual approach asks whether, in choosing between the imperfect and the aorist, the author wishes us to view the action progressively (imperfect), or simply states the occurrence of the action (aorist). Thus, John 11:35 in no way disrupts an aspectual understanding of the verb.
Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia