[B-Greek] Re. Aspect of the Aorist!
Kimmo Huovila
kimmo.huovila at kolumbus.fi
Sat Feb 13 03:50:33 EST 2010
On torstai 11 helmikuu 2010, Paul F. Evans wrote:
> I am curious, because (and I am not raising a theological question), in NT
> studies older commentaries often hinge their views on a supposed once-
> and-for-all aspect in the aorist.
>
>
>
> If the aorist aspect is undefined, how did the notion of a once-for-all
> aspect arise in the first place? (assuming the answer to this question is a
> grammatical one, albeit with historical overview!)
>
The idea of the aorist as an undefined aspect was promoted by Frank Stagg in
1972 in his article The Abused Aorist (Journal of Biblical Literature 91:222–
231). It served as a correction to "aoristitis", that is theologians' misuse
of the aorist. Stagg claimed that aorist says nothing of the action itself
(only of the representation).
He basically claimed that the aorist is semantically unmarked, that is, it
does not limit in any way the situation that can be truthfully described. I
think this misunderstands the aorist in a fundamental way. The aorist is
semantically marked (but not with punctual verbs), which is the exact opposite
of what Stagg claims. If I say that EGRAYA EPISTOLHN (aorist, I wrote a
letter), then the letter was finished, but if I use the imperfect (EGRAFON
EPISTOLHN) no such claim is made. The aorist is used for the stronger claim.
There are other views on the aorist besides Stagg's as well.
1) Instantaneous aspect. This view is demonstrably wrong. For example Rev.
20:4 the duration expressed by the aorist is defined as a thousand years. Many
grammarians are aware of these counter-examples, and they resolve the tension
by claiming that here the representation of the situation and the situation
itself differ. However, in light of the fact that the aorist is used in
connection with the duration of the event (even a long one), even the
representation of the event as instantaneous is not plausible.
Many grammarians use terminology that hints at the aorist representing an
instantaneous aspect, even though they do not fully subscribe to the view.
2) Completed aspect. This view is close to truth. However, states and
processes can use the aorist with no natural completion, but rather
termination of the state or process.
3) Perfective aspect. This is the view that many aspectologists and Greek
grammarians think of as correct nowadays (and there are earlier
representatives of this view as well). There are disagreements among NT
scholars about the nature of the perfective aspect and sometimes differing
terminology is used. However, according to this view, the aorist is not
undefined or unmarked for aspect, but a clearly marked perfective aspect.
The idea that the results of the action described by the aorist must be once
and for all is the result of eisegesis, not grammar. But the aorist does imply
that something was completed, stopped or finished, as the aorist is
perfective. How that actually works out in language use would require a much
longer email to explain.
You asked how the view that the aorist is a once-and-for-all verb form arose.
I have not seen such a view outside of NT studies. If a once-and-for-all event
is described, the aorist (or perfect) suits perfectly. The opposite is not
true: aorists and perfects can describe other situations as well. Perhaps some
exegetes or theologians wanted grammar to answer their research questions even
though the answer was not grammatical, and this lead to a distorted view of
the aspect. But this is speculation on my part.
The 1990's saw a renewed interest in aspect studies for ancient Greek. Stanley
Porter wrote his dissertation (1989) on the Greek aspect, claiming also that
Greek has no (aboslute) tense. The idea was defended by Rodney Decker in his
dissertation (1998). Others disagree, some strongly, and his view has not
gained general acceptance, even though it has some popularity amongst some NT
scholars. Buist Fanning's dissertation (1990) claims both aspect and tense for
the Greek verb.
If the idea of the aorist as undefined is claiming popularity (I don't know if
it is, but such is implied by the Paul's question), it may be because of the
influence of Stagg's article. However, I am not aware of it being defended by
more recent grammatical studies. To me, it seems that the perfective view is
the majority view among recent grammatical studies. Perhaps this is a case
where popular representations (or Greek pedagogy) and scholarship have gone in
different directions.
Kimmo Huovila
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list