εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

How do I work out the meaning of a Greek text? How can I best understand the forms and vocabulary in this particular text?
Forum rules
This is a beginner's forum - see the Koine Greek forum for more advanced discussion of Greek texts. 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.

When answering questions in this forum, keep it simple, and aim your responses to the level of the person asking the question.
Mitch Tulloch
Posts: 59
Joined: November 4th, 2017, 2:52 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Contact:

εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Mitch Tulloch »

καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα.

εὐδόκησα is Aorist but ESV translates it as Present i.e. "with whom I am well pleased"

If the verb here in the Greek had been in the Perfect tense then I can understand how it could be translated this way since it would mean "with whom I have been and am currently still well-pleased" which is basically what the ESV translation suggests. But Aorist should normally be translated as simple past tense, right? e.g. "with whom I was well pleased" which would mean the voice from heaven was actually saying "I like what you did back then" and not "I'm happy with everything you've done and what you're currently doing", right?

So my first question is, why isn't εὐδόκησα translated here as a past tense? Is it because (as Morpho seems to indicate) that there is no Perfect of the verb εὐδόκεω?

And second (and please keep it simple!) when is it OK to translate an Aorist as a Present (or Future)?

Thanks!
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

The verb is stative, like with βασιλευω which can mean "begin ruling as king, become king, ascend to the throne" in aorist. It has the beginning of the state in view. This of course may raise theological questions like "well, how come he wasn't pleased at some point in time, that's impossible!" But in my opinion this problem is about too rigid view of language of the questioner, not a problem in the used tense or its meaning.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote: July 27th, 2023, 3:31 pm The verb is stative, like with βασιλευω which can mean "begin ruling as king, become king, ascend to the throne" in aorist. It has the beginning of the state in view. This of course may raise theological questions like "well, how come he wasn't pleased at some point in time, that's impossible!" But in my opinion this problem is about too rigid view of language of the questioner, not a problem in the used tense or its meaning.
In other words, it's an ingressive aorist.
33.29 With atelic verbs (→33.8) such as γελάω laugh, βλέπω gaze, and particularly with stative verbs, such as πλουτέω be rich, βασιλεύω rule, ἐράω love, νοσέω be sick, ἔχω have, the aorist stem often leads to an ingressive interpretation (referring to the beginning of a state; observe that perfective aspect is concerned with the ‘boundaries’ of an action, →33.4–6): (35) καί οἱ πάντα τε ἐκεῖνα διδοῖ καὶ πρὸς ἑτέροισί μιν δωρέεται... οὕτω μὲν ἐπλούτησε ἡ οἰκίη αὕτη μεγάλως. (Hdt. 6.125.5) And he gave all those things to him and in addition gifted him with others. In this way, that family became very wealthy. διδοῖ and δωρέεται are historical presents, →33.54–5 below; for πρός, →31.6. (36) ἀποβάντες τοὺς ἀντιστάντας μάχῃ νικήσαντες τὴν πόλιν ἔσχον. (Thuc. 8.23.3) They disembarked, defeated those who met them in battle, and gained possession of the city.

van Emde Boas, Evert; Rijksbaron, Albert; Huitink, Luuk; de Bakker, Mathieu. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (p. 418). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Mitch Tulloch wrote: July 27th, 2023, 7:56 am And second (and please keep it simple!) when is it OK to translate an Aorist as a Present (or Future)?
Ingressive Aorists are a common example.

There are also gnomic aorists, e.g. 1 Pet. 1:24 - ἐξηράνθη ὁ χόρτος, καὶ τὸ ἄνθος ἐξέπεσεν. You don't translate that "the grass withered and the flower fell", you translate that "the grass withers and the flower falls".

There are other reasons to translate an Aorist with a present or future or whatever. In general, an English translation is not Greek. It's in a different language. You have to understand what it says in one language, then think about how to say the same thing in another language. It's not a matter of applying a set of simple rules mechanistically.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Devenios Doulenios
Posts: 230
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 5:11 pm
Location: Carlisle, Arkansas, USA
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Devenios Doulenios »

Jonathan R. wrote:
There are other reasons to translate an Aorist with a present or future or whatever. In general, an English translation is not Greek. It's in a different language. You have to understand what it says in one language, then think about how to say the same thing in another language. It's not a matter of applying a set of simple rules mechanistically.
Exactly so. Which is why translation is as much an art as a science. This also illustrates why the beginner should not spend much effort on translating Greek to English, IMHO. Instead, he or she should focus on learning the basics of the language and how it functions as a language. In reading, learning to read for comprehension (and in time, enjoyment, as well as spiritual value, if that appeals to you) should take priority over reading for exegesis. Until you can do the former comfortably and accurately, you cannot do the latter well. Translation has its value, but to do it properly, you need to have mastered both languages to a strong degree. As Dr. Seamas Macdonald has noted (blog, The Patrologist), translation is a higher order skill, not a lower order one. That is, it is not a skill that beginners have much of.

This is not meant as a criticism, rather to help focus on best practices and understandings to help you progress.
Dewayne Dulaney
Δεβένιος Δουλένιος

Blog: https://letancientvoicesspeak.wordpress.com/

"Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάτου."--Διδαχή Α, α'
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4167
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Devenios Doulenios wrote: July 28th, 2023, 2:45 pm As Dr. Seamas Macdonald has noted (blog, The Patrologist), translation is a higher order skill, not a lower order one. That is, it is not a skill that beginners have much of.
And it often requires thinking about our own language at a level most of us don't.

For instance, in English, would we really say "the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of the Lord endures forever"? Almost all translations seem to have "the" here, which is present in the Greek. But to me, it's much more natural to say this: "Grass withers, flowers fade, but the Word of the Lord endures forever." That's how I would say it in English, at any rate.

So when you look at Young's Literal Translation, for instance, does it really convey the Greek with more precision than a less literal translation would?
because all flesh [is] as grass, and all glory of man as flower of grass; wither did the grass, and the flower of it fell away, and the saying of the Lord doth remain -- to the age; and this is the saying that was proclaimed good news to you.
"Grass withers" conveys the meaning of the Greek. "Wither did the grass" does not, at least, not to me.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

It's worth noting that Campbell discusses the parallel Mark 1:11 in Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. He applies his notion of "remoteness" as basic semantic value of aorist to this utterance, and it would be the "metaphorical value of distance" which is applied as "a bird's eye view of the scene. As the Father speaks from heaven, he gives assessment of his Son - he is well pleased."

There are two or three problems with this. First is the rejection of temporal value of Koine tense forms, which is far from undisputed and not in line with wider field of linguistics. "Remoteness" itself is not widely accepted.

The second problem is that it mixes theological reality (world outside language and even outside our normal human-physical realm which is the base of language) with linguistic reality. We should rather see this as normal language usage, as if it was a human being speaking. Using this word this way feels natural, it doesn't need any special explanation. With human beings being pleased starts from past and continues. Aorist with a stative verb expresses a beginning and implies continuing at least for some time (because a state can't begin without continuing). It resembles perfect, and indeed aorist is sometimes used in Koine where perfect would seem to be a good choice.

A. T. Robertson, on the other hand, discusses this under gnomic aorist, saying "It is not certain that εὐδόκησα (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; Lu. 3:22) belongs here. It may be merely an example of the timeless aorist used in the present, but not gnomic. See under (ε). Burton (N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 29) finds it difficult and thinks it originally "inceptive" (ingressive)."

Robertson's (ε) is "The so-called Dramatic Aorist [...] This aorist is used of actions which have just happened. The effect reaches into the present. [...] Εὐδόκησα (Mt. 3:17 and parallels) is a possible example also. Cf. ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου (12:18, LXX). It is a "timeless" aorist and may be gnomic, as already pointed out."

Robertson is usually worth consulting, although it's not suitable for a beginner. It's available in https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/project/ ... rammar.pdf ; Tense begins from page 821.
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

And, by the way, because you wrote "But Aorist should normally be translated as simple past tense, right?" etc. and it already stirred further discussion... I'll quote Roberson's number 1 under Tense in full:
1. THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPARING GREEK TENSES WITH
GERMANIC TENSES.
"The translators of our English version have
failed more frequently from their partial knowledge of the force
of the tenses than from any other cause."1 Ignorance, one may
add, both of English and Greek still stands in the way of proper
rendering of the Greek. The English, like the other Germanic
tongues,2 has only two simple verb-forms. We have a great
wealth of tenses in English by means of auxiliary verbs, but they
do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses.3 It is the com-
monest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation
into English and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the
Greek tense on the basis of this translation.4 Burton5 indeed justi-
fies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek.
But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help.
"The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English
Pluperfect" Burton urges as "a pertinent illustration." But that
method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing
to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure
basis of operation. Winer6 laments that "N. T. grammarians
and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes" here,
though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to
his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least
point to note in judging a tense.
Pure gold.
Mitch Tulloch
Posts: 59
Joined: November 4th, 2017, 2:52 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Mitch Tulloch »

Thanks all for your feedback. I've just received my copy of The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek and will defer commenting on this issue further until I've read the relevant chapters on verbal syntax.
Cheers,
Mitch Tulloch
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 611
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: εὐδόκησα in Matthew 3:17

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

Despite its size CGGoCG is a basic grammar and quite terse about many subjects, especially for our purposes because many of the most difficult details to be explained in the NT aren't basics of the Classical grammar.

Siebenthal (Ancient Greek Grammar, which is basically a NT grammar but widely informed) treats Mt 3:17 under gnomic aorist but says about this and some other passages,

"it is possible, however, to interpret the indicative aorist forms not in terms of the gnomic (indicative) aorist but as overly literal renderings of the Biblical Hebrew "perfect" in its timeless use".
Post Reply

Return to “What does this text mean?”