Question about Verb Tense in Koine.

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
FaloMoG
Posts: 1
Joined: May 5th, 2025, 9:56 am

Question about Verb Tense in Koine.

Post by FaloMoG »

Could someone clarify the subtle differences in nuance between the aorist and imperfect tense in a specific passage of Koine Greek?
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4223
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Question about Verb Tense in Koine.

Post by Jonathan Robie »

FaloMoG wrote: May 5th, 2025, 9:57 am Could someone clarify the subtle differences in nuance between the aorist and imperfect tense in a specific passage of Koine Greek?
Oversimplifying just a little: The aorist sees the action completed (like a whole event at once), the imperfect sees it while it is happening (like an action in progress).

Let's try some examples:

1. βαίνω ("to go")

Aorist: Mark 6:10
Ὅπου ἐὰν εἰσέλθητε εἰς οἰκίαν, ἐκεῖ μένετε ἕως ἂν ἐξέλθητε ἐκεῖθεν.
  • ἐξέλθητε (aorist subjunctive of ἐξέρχομαι) = "whenever you go out."
  • NOT: "whenever you are going out" (ongoing).
  • Meaning: One complete act — you leave.


Imperfect: John 5:9
καὶ εὐθέως ἐγένετο ὑγιὴς ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ἦρεν τὸν κράβαττον αὐτοῦ καὶ περιεπάτει.
  • περιεπάτει (imperfect of περιπατέω) = "he was walking."
  • NOT: "he walked" (simple fact).
  • Meaning: He was in the process of walking.
2. λέγω ("to say")

Aorist: Luke 9:33
εἶπεν ὁ Πέτρος πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν...
  • εἶπεν (aorist of λέγω) = "Peter said."
  • NOT: "Peter was saying."
  • Meaning: His statement is a completed event.
Imperfect: Mark 6:50
καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμι· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.
  • ἔλεγεν (imperfect of λέγω) = "he was saying."
  • NOT: "he said" (once and done).
  • Meaning: He was in the act of speaking to them.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4223
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Question about Verb Tense in Koine.

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Part of what is hard to grasp about this difference is really more about the different ways of describing this than the way the language works.

When grammarians say the aorist presents an action "viewed as a whole," they mean the action is seen from the outside, without focusing on its internal development. It is like taking a snapshot of the entire event rather than recording a video of it unfolding.
The imperfect, by contrast, zooms in: it shows the action in progress, unfolding over time, or repeatedly happening.

In modern linguistics, these ideas are called aspect.
The aorist shows perfective aspect: it presents the action as a complete whole.
The imperfect shows imperfective aspect: it presents the action as ongoing, incomplete, or habitual.

Different grammarians, writing in different eras, describe this contrast with slightly different vocabulary — but they are mostly talking about the same basic idea. Here is how they often put it:
  • Smyth (1920) says the imperfect expresses "continued or repeated action," while the aorist expresses "a single act or simple fact."
  • Robertson (1914) says the imperfect shows "process" (what was happening), while the aorist shows "occurrence" (what happened).
  • Funk (1973) says the imperfect highlights "internal unfolding," and the aorist presents the event "in summary."
  • Cambridge Grammar (2019) says the imperfect describes "an event in progress," and the aorist describes "a past event as a complete whole."
  • Modern Linguistics says the imperfect shows "imperfective aspect" and the aorist shows "perfective aspect."
Older grammars like Smyth and Robertson tend to use storytelling terms — "single act" versus "continuous action."
Newer grammars like Funk and Cambridge, and modern linguists, use aspectual terms — "perfective" versus "imperfective."

This shift partly reflects how linguistics has changed over the last 200 years. Earlier grammarians mainly used logical and narrative categories (facts, acts, continuity). Modern grammarians use aspect theory, where verb forms show how an action is viewed, not just when it happened.

But despite the changes in vocabulary, the core idea remains the same:

The aorist sees the action completed (like a whole event at once); the imperfect sees it happening (like an action in progress).
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”