Discourse function of Imperfective Tense (Mark: 1:4-8)

Alex / Ali alexali at surf.net.au
Tue Dec 31 06:33:37 EST 2002


I'd like to add something to the discussion under the recent thread,
Discourse Function of the Imperfective Tense, which Moon commenced;  I begin
with an apology that I'm a little behind the times, as I hadn't checked my
email for some days.  However, I hope that what follows may be of some use
either to others, or to myself in corrections others may offer.

The discussion seemed to me to centre around differences in meaning and
implicature between the imperfect and aorist.  What follows discusses both
tenses.

Moon referred to 'the standard treatment of reference time' according to
which 'whenever a sentence with the aorist describes an event, the reference
time of the next sentence is considered to be the time point or interval
after that event'.

It is often true that when a sentence with the aorist describes an event,
the following refers to the time point or interval after that event.
However, it may be helpful to consider an instance where this is not the
case.

Matthew 14:2-3 KAI *EIPEN* TOIS PAISIN AUTOU, hOUTOS ESTIN IWANNHS hO
BAPTISTHS. AUTOS HGERQH APO TWN NEKRWN KAI DIA TOUTO hAI DUNAMEIS ENERGOUSIN
EN AUTWi. hO GAR hHRWiDHS KRATHSAS TON IWANNHN **EDHSEN** [AUTON] KAI EN
FULAKHi **APEQETO** DIA hHRWiDIADA THN GUNAIKA FILIPPOU TOU ADELFOU AUTOU
[Herod] *said* ktl.   For he **had** bound John and imprisoned him.

The verbs EDHSEN and APEQETO follow EIPEN, but their action precedes what
Herod said, so that the word 'had' is used in English translation.  But
importantly, the use of this 'had' in translation does not highlight a
difference in the nature of the two aorists EDHSEN and APEQETO as opposed to
the aorist EIPEN, but rather highlights a difference between Greek and
English in treating relative time, which English marks but Greek does not.
The Greek simply says, (Herod) said ...,  For he bound (John);  it is the
English marking of relative time that requires our translating 'He said ...
.  For he *had* bound'.

(In the parallel passage at Mark 6:16-17, Herod's words are introduced by an
imperfect, ELEGEN;  EKRATHSEN and EDHSEN follow that imperfect, yet their
action precedes what Herod was saying;  and then follows EGAMHSEN, the
action of which precedes both EKRATHSEN and EDHSEN.)

This difference in Greek and English idiom in handling relative time is
quite commonly seen in relative clauses:

Matthew 27:60 KAI *EQHKEN* AUTO EN TWi KAINWi AUTOU MNHMEIWi hO
**ELATOMHSEN** EN THi PETRAi KAI PROSKULISAS LIQON MEGAN THi QURAi TOU
MNHMEIOU APHLQEN.   Joseph *put* the Lord's body in the tomb which he
**had** hewn.

John 4:46a *HLQEN* OUN PALIN EIS THN KANA THS GALILAIAS, hOPOU **EPOIHSEN**
TO hUDWR OINON.  The Lord *came* again into Cana, where he **had** changed
the water into wine.

Acts 14:26 ... *APEPLEUSAN* EIS ANTIOCEIAN, hOQEN HSAN PARADEDOMENOI THi
CARITI TOU QEOU EIS TO ERGON hO **EPLHRWSAN**.  They *sailed* back to
Antioch where they had been committed to God's grace for the work which they
**had** completed.

Such verses exemplify how the Greek does not mark relative time in the way
we do in English.  In English, the word 'had' is almost obligatory in such
cases as the above because we like to spell out the temporal relationships
of the actions.  In Greek this is not so, and the essential feature of the
aorist is simply to posit an action as having taken place (without affirming
anything as to the nature of the action or its completion).

By contrast, the use of the imperfect invites the reader/hearer to view the
process of the action.  (This is not to say that the action is marked by the
imperfect as being different in nature from that which would be marked by
the aorist, but that the distinction is in how the action is presented to
our view.)  I think Iver's terminology is useful in his speaking of the
imperfect as implying 'a descriptive mode'.  Quite often, it seems to me,
the imperfect slows down the pace of a narrative;  A, B, C happened
(aorists), D was happening (imperfect, inviting us to be attentive to the
process of the action rather than its simple occurrence).  Another pattern
which takes advantage of the imperfect's highlighting process is that of hWS
+ imperfect followed by an aorist (while A was happening, B occurred), eg,

Acts 10:17  hWS DE EN hEAUTWi DIHPOREI hO PETROS TI AN EIH TO hORAMA hO
EIDEN, IDOU hOI ANDRES hOI APESTALMENOI hUPO TOU KORNHLIOU DIERWTHSANTES THN
OIKIAN TOU SIMWNOS EPESTHSAN EPI TON PULWNA...   (NRS "Now while Peter was
greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly
the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon's house and
were standing by the gate."  Incidentally, note, in the translation of the
relative clause hO EIDEN, the 'had' correctly used according to English
idiom; but the Greek says simply 'he saw', not 'he had seen'.)

(By contrast, hWS + Aorist, followed by aorist, generally seems to mean
'When A *had* happened, then B occurred'.)

The descriptive force of the imperfect's bringing process into view makes it
the appropriate tense for a layering effect.

John 7:40 EK TOU OCLOU OUN AKOUSANTES TWN LOGWN TOUTWN ELEGON, hOUTOS ESTIN
ALHQWS hO PROFHTHS.  ALLOI ELEGON, hOUTOS ESTIN hO CRISTOS, hOI DE ELEGON,
MH GAR EK THS GALILAIAS hO CRISTOS ERCETAI?   Some were saying ..., others
were saying ..., others again were saying ... .  The imperfect is far more
suited to the description of this scene than the aorist, which would usually
imply (but not mean) that first this was said, then that, then something
else.  The imperfect gives a much richer vividness to the confused and
argumentative scene described here: what the speakers are saying, they are
saying insistently and repetitively and concurrently. (See verses 12-13 of
the same chapter for a similar effect, or John 9:8-10.)

Similarly, at Acts 28:24 KAI hOI MEN EPEIQONTO TOIS LEGOMENOIS, hOI DE
HPISTOUN.  "Some were convinced by what he had said, while others refused to
believe." (NRS).  The actions are concurrent, and the imperfects more easily
imply this than two aorists would have.

I'm conscious of having taken longer to say the above than I had intended,
but will try to to be brief in indicating its relevance to the earlier part
of the discussion in this thread.

Moon asked, in relation to Mark 1:35-37, 'If Jesus's praying were described
by the aorist, then would it imply that the prayer was completed before
Simon got up and tried to find him?'  My own answer is 'Yes', it would
*imply* this, but that it would not *mean* this.  The aorist is so commonly
used in narrative in the pattern A happened, (then) B, (then) C that this
pattern may be implied in/inferred from the use of consecutive aorists;
this is why such examples as those cited above are, to me, helpful.  They
serve to indicate that the aorist of itself does not imply a temporal
relationship with the the preceding or following verbs, and that Greek is
not concerned to mark relative time as English is.  I would be wary of
suggesting that 'the aorist tense moves the reference time of the discourse
forward';  a pattern of repeated aorists and an understanding of the context
may well move the reference time of the discourse forward, but this is
somewhat different from the forward movement being generated by the aorist
tense of itself.  (In the examples given above, the GAR in Mat 14:3 and the
relative clauses are perhaps sufficient variations from a standard sequence
of aorists in narrative as to signal that there may be a variance from the
usual pattern of relative time of the verbs.)

Finally, to turn back to the start of the thread, I also agree with you,
Moon, that at Mark 1:7a, KAI EKHRUSSEN LEGWN, ERCETAI KTL, the imperfect
does imply the sort of repetition you mentioned, 'John's preaching would
have been repeated day after day'.  Again, I think this is at the level of
implicature, not meaning, but is nevertheless a valid understanding of the
pragmatics of the imperfect.

Best wishes to all for the New Year,

Alexander Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia




More information about the B-Greek mailing list