I find the Aorist εὐδόκησα surprising here. What's the force of the Aorist tense in that phrase?Mark 1:11 wrote:καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
Forum rules
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
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. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
-
- Posts: 4237
- Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
- Location: Durham, NC
- Contact:
Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
-
- Posts: 621
- Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
- Location: Finland
- Contact:
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
Con Campbell handles this in Basics of Verbal Aspect, pp. 36-38. He says: "remoteness offers the key to understanding the aorist εὐδόκησα. [...] remoteness functions together with perfective aspect to provide a bird's-eye view of the scene. As the Father speaks from heaven, he gives his assessment of his Son - he is well pleased." "...Jesus' life is viewed from afar." "...on this occasion he [Father] views his Son from afar in order to view the whole."
I find the explanation implausible and would like to learn about the alternatives.
I find the explanation implausible and would like to learn about the alternatives.
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
For what it's worth, here are the various optionσ that Burton lays out:
55. The Aorist εὐδόκησα in Matt 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; 2 Pet 1:17, may be explained -
(a) as a Historical Aorist having reference to a specific event as its basis. I was well pleased with thee, e.g. for receiving baptism. If all the instances were in connection with the baptism, this would be the most natural explanation. But for those that occur in connection with the account of the transfiguration this explanation falls, and is probably therefore not the true explanation of any of the instances.
(b) as a comprehensive Historical Aorist covering the period of Christ's preincarnate existence. Cf. John 17:5, 24; see W. N. Clarke, Com. on Mark 1:11. If the passages were in the fourth gospel, and especially if they contained some such phrase πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, this explanation would have much in its favor. The absence of such limiting phrase, and the fact that the passages are in the synoptic gospels are opposed to this explanation.
(c) as a comprehensive Historical Aorist, having the force of an English Perfect, and referring to the period of Christ's earthly existence up to the time of speaking. But against this is the absence of any adverbial phrase meaning up to this time, which usually accompanies an Aorist verb used in this sense. Cf. 18 and 52.
(d) as an Aorist which has by usage come to have the meaning which is strictly appropriate to the Perfect, I became well pleased with thee, and l am [accordingly] well pleased with thee. Cf. 47. There are a few passages of the Septuagint that seem at first sight to favor this explanation. See Ps. 101:15; Jer 2:19; Mal 2:17. Cf. also Matt. 12:18; Luke 12:32. The force of this evidence is, however, greatly diminished by the fact that all these instances are capable of being explained without resort to so unusual a use of the Aorist, that both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament there is in use a regular Present form of this verb, and that the Aorist in the majority of cases clearly denotes past time.
(e) as an Inceptive Aorist referring to some indefinite, imagined point of past time at which God is represented as becoming well pleased with Jesus. But since this point is not thought of as definitely fixed, English idiom requires a Perfect tense. Cf. 52, 54. It may be described, therefore, as an Inceptive Aorist equivalent to an English Perfect, and may be rendered, I have become well pleased. This, however, can only be a vivid way of saying, I am well pleased. If then this view is correct, the rendering of the English versions is a free but substantially correct paraphrase. A true Perfect would affirm the present state of pleasure and imply the past becoming pleased. The Aorist affirms the becoming pleased and leaves the present pleasure to be suggested. This explanation, therefore, differs from the preceding (d) in that it does not suppose the Aorist of this verb to have acquired the power of expressing an existing result, but judges the existing result to be only suggested by the affirmation of the past fact. This is rhetorical figure, on the way to become grammatical idiom, but not yet become such.
Manifestly similar is the use of προσεδέξατο in Isa 42:1, and of εὐδόκησεν in Matt 12:18. Indeed, if Matt 12:18 represents a current translation of Isa 42:1, our present passages were probably affected in form by this current rendering of the Isaiah passage. Similar also are ἐκάθισαν in Matt 23:2, and ἔμαθον in Phil 4:11. In neither case is there any clearly established usage of the Aorist for Greek Perfect; in neither is there apparent any reference to a definite point of past time; in both the real fact intended to be suggested is the present state.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia
-
- Posts: 127
- Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:52 am
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
My guess is that the reason for your surprise is that you think εὐδοκέω means "to be pleased with", a somewhat misleading translation. If instead you think of this word as meaning "consider something/someone to be good" or "approve of something/someone" then both the present and aorist uses of the word fall into place. In Mark 1:1 and parallels the voice says: "You are my beloved son. I have put my stamp of approval on you." This may reflect back to sending the Spirit as a dove. Other places in the NT we read "Today you have become my Son". It is not a birth, but a stamp of approval for Jesus as God's Son.
Similarly in Matt 12:18 we find first the aorist ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα (my son/servant whom I have adopted/chosen/approved (as my Son)), followed by εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου·(my soul has put its stamp of approval on you).
Similarly in Matt 12:18 we find first the aorist ὁ παῖς μου ὃν ᾑρέτισα (my son/servant whom I have adopted/chosen/approved (as my Son)), followed by εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου·(my soul has put its stamp of approval on you).
-
- Posts: 887
- Joined: May 12th, 2011, 7:50 am
- Location: Antigonish, NS, Canada
- Contact:
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
I'm assuming you expected a present tense.Jonathan Robie wrote:I find the Aorist εὐδόκησα surprising here. What's the force of the Aorist tense in that phrase?Mark 1:11 wrote:καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν· σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.
I'd suggest this divine statement was at first memorized in Hebrew, which would have used the suffixed (qatal) tense form רציתי. The qatal tense maps most naturally onto the Greek aorist. εὐδοκέω appears in the LXX most often in the aorist tense (see Jer 14:10 and Mal 2:17 for aorists of εὐδοκέω where we would use a present in English).
So God was speaking Biblish; he sounded like the Septuagint.
In thee am I well pleased.
Ken M. Penner
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Professor and Chair of Religious Studies, St. Francis Xavier University
Editor, Digital Biblical Studies
General Editor, Lexham English Septuagint
Co-Editor, Online Critical Pseudepigrapha pseudepigrapha.org
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
A lot of interesting suggestions in this discussion, although, with all due respect Ken, I think yours is the least likely. Let me offer mine – it's simply a perfective use of the aorist. When I read this, I always think "This would have been the perfect spot for a perfect tense" (and a not so perfect pun, pardon). Even in Classical Greek, you have the aorist used "often" for the perfect (Smyth #1940). In NT Koine, the language is in the process of losing the perfect altogether, so one would expect even more perfective uses of the aorist (and possibly that when an author does use the perfect, he really means it, or it's an idiomatic preservation, or some such).Ken M. Penner wrote: I'm assuming you expected a present tense.
I'd suggest this divine statement was at first memorized in Hebrew, which would have used the suffixed (qatal) tense form רציתי. The qatal tense maps most naturally onto the Greek aorist. εὐδοκέω appears in the LXX most often in the aorist tense (see Jer 14:10 and Mal 2:17 for aorists of εὐδοκέω where we would use a present in English).
So God was speaking Biblish; he sounded like the Septuagint.
In thee am I well pleased.
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with Barry here: that this is an aorist used for the perfect tense. I would guess that this text will continue to puzzle interpreters (who won't buy any of these suggestions) well into the future.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
Or can it be simply an "ordinary" aorist, meaning that the father was well pleased with his son, and not stating but naturally still implying that he is still pleased (unlike in English where the simple past tense usually implies a past event)?cwconrad wrote:FWIW, I'm inclined to agree with Barry here: that this is an aorist used for the perfect tense. I would guess that this text will continue to puzzle interpreters (who won't buy any of these suggestions) well into the future.
δαυιδ λιμ
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
The ordinary aorist describes action which takes place in the past as otherwise undefined (except by context). That is why most often we translate the indicative aorist with the simple past in English. What you have just described is the perfect tense, which, as I stated, would be a natural usage in this context, and so the perfective use of the aorist.David Lim wrote: Or can it be simply an "ordinary" aorist, meaning that the father was well pleased with his son, and not stating but naturally still implying that he is still pleased (unlike in English where the simple past tense usually implies a past event)?
-
- Posts: 3355
- Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: Mark 1:11 ἐν σοὶ *εὐδόκησα*
What would be the difference between a perfective use of an aorist and an ingressive aorist?
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Melbourne, Australia