Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this?

Post Reply
Alan Patterson
Posts: 158
Joined: September 3rd, 2011, 7:21 pm
Location: Emory University

Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this?

Post by Alan Patterson »

Luke 8:49 ετι αυτου λαλουντος ερχεται τις παρα του αρχισυναγωγου λεγων οτι τεθνηκεν η θυγατηρ σου μηκετι σκυλλε τον διδασκαλον
Luke 8:50 ο δε ιησους ακουσας απεκριθη αυτωμη φοβου μονον πιστευσον και σωθησεται (WH)

Parallel to Luke 8:50
Mark 5:36: ο δε ιησους παρακουσας τον λογον λαλουμενον λεγει τω αρχισυναγωγω μη φοβου μονον πιστευε (WH)

Comment:
If I understand him correctly, Darrell Bock seems to say... that the parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark 5:36 ( = Luke 8:50) uses a present imperative for the call to believe (πιστευε)... while... Luke has an aorist imperative... [Luke's usage] is slightly more urgent in force and emphasizes the need for faith... Also, Nolland suggests that the aorist is used because the faith Jesus calls for here is of a new order. (BECNT, Gospel of Luke by Darrell L. Bock, p 800)

Would anyone agree/disagree with such implications of the aorist πιστευσον used in Luke?
χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη,
Alan Patterson
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 620
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Certainly aorist in itself doesn't imply such things. However, in largers context it may be compatible with such ideas. Now I'm interpreting the interpreters: the present tense would mean believing in general, gnomically, while aorist could mean even "come to faith", "begin to believe". The comment about the "new order" is difficult to understand otherwise. It would then mean that having the old kind of faith isn't enough. But again, it's contextual interpretation and not part of the verbal semantics.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 620
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

... but would such interpretation be correct? We should first know for example how Luke and Mark use aorist/present imperatives, especially in parallel passages.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4228
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Do you have Robertson's big grammar? Page 855 has a really good, but dense description of Aorist imperatives, about 1 1/2 pages long.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Louis L Sorenson
Posts: 711
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 9:21 pm
Location: Burnsville, MN, USA
Contact:

Re: Does the Aorist (compared to the Present) imply all this

Post by Louis L Sorenson »

You can download a MSWord edition of ATRobertson's grammar at http://www.letsreadgreek.org/resources/ ... ongrammar/

TENSE (ΧΡΟΝΟΣ) 855
(d) The Aorist Imperative. In Homer the aorist imperative,
as already stated, is not so common as the present, while in the
N. T. it is remarkably frequent.1 This frequency of the imper.
is characteristic of the κοινή generally,2 though in the end the
subj. came to be used in positive commands like the Latin.3
There is no complication in the positive command, like the ban
put upon μὴ ποίησον from the beginning of our knowledge of the
Greek language.4 Hence in the positive imperative we are free
to consider the significance of the aorist (and present) tense
in the essential meaning. Here the distinction between the punc-
tiliar (aorist) and the durative (present) is quite marked.5 In-
deed Moulton (Prol., p. 129) holds that to get at "the essential
character of aorist action, therefore, we must start with the other
moods" than ind. It is easier, for the time element is absent.
Cf. περιβαλοῦ τὸ ἱμάτιόν σου καὶ ἀκολούθει μοι (Ac. 12:8). It is ex-
actly the distinction between the aorist and imperf. ind. (cf.
ἐξελθὼν ἠκολούθει in verse 9). The constative aorist, περιβαλοῦ, is
like the preceding, ζῶσαι καὶ ὑπόδησαι τὰ σανδάλιά σου. In Jo. 5:8
note ἇρον τὸν κράβαττόν σου καὶ περιπάτει (the ingressive aorist and
the durative, 'walking,’ ‘went on walking’), and the same tense-
distinction is preserved in verse 9, ἦρε---καὶ περιεπάτει (cf. further
5:11). In ὕπαγε νίψαι (Jo. 9:7) the present ὕπαγε is exclamatory
(cf. ἔγειρε ἆρον in 5:8). Cf. Mk. 2:9, 11. In the midst of the
aorists in Jo. 2:5-8 (the effective ποιήσατε, γεμίσατε, ἀντλήσατε νῦν)
the present φέρετε stands out. It is probably a polite conative
offer to the master of the feast. In the Lord's Prayer in Mt. (6:9-
11) note ἁγιασθήτω, γενηθήτω, δός, ἄφες and εἴσελθε--πορ<σευξαι in
6:6. In opposition to δὸς σήμερον in Matthew we have δίδου τὸ
καθ’ ἡμέραν in Lu. 11:3, a fine contrast between the punctiliar
and the linear action.6 So τῷ αἰτοῦντι δός (Mt. 5:42) and παντὶ
αἰτοῦντι δίδου (Lu. 6:30); χάρητε ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (Lu. 6:23) and.
χαίρετε (Mt. 5:12); ἄρατε ταῦτα ἐντεῦθεν, μὴ ποιεῖτε (Jo. 2:16, a,
very fine illustration). In Ro. 6:13 a pointed distinction in.
the tenses is drawn, μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ
ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἀλλὰ παραστήσατε ἑαυτούς (one the habit of sin forbidden,
the other the instant surrender to God enjoined). Cf. also νῦν

1 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244 f.; Apr., 1909, p. 235.
2 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451.
3 Ib., p. 449.
4 Moulton, Prol., p. 173.
5 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 29.
6 Moulton, Prol., p. 129.

856 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

παραστήσατε in verse 19. In Lu. 7:8, πορεύθητι — πορεύεται, ποίη-
σον—ποιεῖ, the presents are also aoristic. As with the ind. the
aorist (constative) may be used with a durative word. So μείνατε
ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ (Jo. 15:9). The action, durative in itself, is
treated as punctiliar. Cf. Mt. 26:38, μείνατε ὧδε καὶ γρηγορεῖτε
μετ’ ἐμοῦ (Mk. 14:34). So with μακροθυμήσατε ἕως τῆς παρουσίας
τοῦ κυρίου (Jas. 5:7); τὴν παραθήκην φύλαξον (1 Tim. 6:20. Cf.
2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jo. 5:21); ταῦτα παράθου (2 Tim. 2:2); συνακο-
πάθησον (2:3); σπούδασον (2:15). Cf. the aorists in Jas. 4:9.
Most of them call for little comment. Cf. Jo. 4:16, 35. Ab-
bott1 notes the avoidance of the aorist imper. of πιστεύω, possibly
because mere belief (aorist) had come to be misunderstood. The
pres. imper. presses the continuance of faith (cf. Jo. 14:11).
The real force of the effective aorist is seen in λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦ-
τον (Jo. 2:19). In Mk. 15:32, καταβάτω νῦν, the "perfective"
force of the preposition is added. Moulton2 notes that 1 Peter
shows a marked liking for the aorist (20 aorists to 5 presents in
commands, H. Scott), while Paul's habit, as already noted, is just
the opposite. Moulton3 has an interesting comment on the fact
that "in seven instances only do the two evangelists [Mt. 5-7
and Luke's corresponding passage] use different tenses, and in all
of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for
the differences in a way which shows how delicately the distinc-
tion of tenses was observed." There may be variations in the
translation of the Aramaic original (if the Sermon on the Mount
was spoken in Aramaic?), "but we see no trace of indifference to
the force of the tenses." In the imperative also different writers
will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist,
another of the present. Note the impressive aorists, ἄρατε τὸν
λίθον, λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἄφετε αὐτὸν ὑπάγειν (Jo. 11:39, 44). Abbott4
rightly calls the aorist here more authoritative and solemn than
the present would have been. The aorist here accords with the
consciousness of Jesus (11:41, ἤκουσας). The aorist imper. oc-
curs in prohibitions of the third person, like μὴ γνώτω (Mt. 6:3);
μὴ καταβάτω (24:17); μὴ ἐπιστρεψάτω (24:18). This construction
occurs in ancient Greek, as μηδέ σε κινησάτω τις, Soph. Ai. 1180.
But μή and the aorist subj. was preferred. In the N. T. this is
rarely found (1 Cor. 16:11; 2 Th. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:16).
Post Reply

Return to “Syntax and Grammar”