Verb – Aorist: all parts

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (1 – Past Events in Sequence)

One of the primary functions of the Aorist is to refer to past events in a sequence, such as in stories. We already saw that the present tense can have this function at times (9.4.3.2), but this is not nearly as common as the Aorist, which is the normal form used to narrate events that happen one after another. As we said with the historical present use (10.4.3.2), sequential events involve two components of meaning. First, events are referenced that occur before the speech time–in other words, past events. Second, the endpoints of events are included in the time span under discussion. This gives the effect of events happening in sequence with one event ending and then the next event occurring after it ends, and so on.

fromLesson 11.1: Verb – Aorist thematic singular

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (2 – Completed, non-sequential, event)

In 11.1.3.2, we introduced the sequential use of the Aorist as one event happening after another. While this is the most common interpretation of the Aorist in stories, the past-perfective meaning of the Aorist need not refer to events that happen in a sequence. The Aorist could also be interpreted as two events overlapping in time or as two verbal descriptions of the same event:

fromLesson 12.1: Verb – Aorist thematic plural

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (3 – Inchoative)

An inchoative is when a state begins rather than ends. This is the distinction between something like Cooper is good at running (state holds) and Cooper got/became good at running (inchoative). In Greek, the idea of coming into a state can be expressed by using the Aorist with a stative verb:

fromLesson 14.1: Verb – Aorist sigmatic plural

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (4 – Generic)

The Aorist can be used as a generic/gnomic. This is usually described as a timeless truth:

fromLesson 21.1: Verb – Aorist -μι

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (5 – Past after verb of speaking)

We said that the Aorist encodes tense, so it specifies a relationship between the time of speaking and the reference time, the time we are talking about (see 5.1.3.2 and Semantics C). However, it is well-known that a variety of factors may change the time of speaking, including after verbs of speaking or believing:

The initial imperative πιστεύετε sets the eventuality in some future time. This is then followed by an Aorist, which is supposed to be past. Why, then, would the Aorist be used here if the event of receiving is in the future? There are two possible speech times that the Aorist can anchor to in this verse. There is the time in which Jesus is speaking, and then there is the future time when the disciples believe. Verbs like πιστεύω ‘believe’ provide another anchor point for tense, so the Aorist can be interpreted as past relative to the future believing of the disciples, which is the correct interpretation here. While the verb ἐλάβετε is future in relation to Jesus’ speech time, it is past in relation to the disciples’ time of believing, the correct speech time in this context. That is Jesus’ entire point. When asking for something, believe that you received it before you get it.

This explanation also applies to the so-called epistolary Aorist. Again, a letter can have two possible speech times: either the time of composition or the time when the letter is read in the assembly. When the author writes from the perspective of the reader in the assembly, he may use the Aorist to refer to an event that is future in relation to the time of composition. In Eph 6:22, Paul says that Tychicus will inform them of his well-being, whom ἔπεμψα πρὸς ὑμᾶς ‘I sent to you.’ At the time of writing, Paul had not actually sent Tychicus. However, when the letter to the Ephesians was read in the assembly (possibly by Tychicus himself), then he would have already been sent. In this case, the speech time of the Aorist is understood to be the time of the reading of the letter rather than the time of composition.

fromLesson 24.2: Verb – Sigmatic Aorist/Elusa middle

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (6 – Performative)

The meaning of the augment has been the subject of some debate in recent New Testament Greek grammatical studies. Traditionally, the augment has been associated with past tense, and that is how we have described it as well. This view has been challenged because there are some contexts where the Aorist does not seem to be referring to the past. Probably the most famous example is Mark 1:11:

• (242) σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα You are my beloved son, I approve of you

The Aorist εὐδόκησα is best translated into English with the simple present, and it has made some call into question the semantics of the augment as referring to the past. God approves of his son at the time of speaking, and he is not saying that he approved of him at some past time.

This use of the Aorist only occurs in certain syntactic environments – specifically, it is only found when the verb is in first person singular. This gives us a strong hint about what might be going on. There is a special use of some verbs called a performative that is only compatible with first person singular. A performative both expresses something and performs something at the same time. The well-known sentence I now pronounce you man and wife is the classic example where the pronouncement also performs some action in the world. The verb must be first person singular because it is the speaker that is both speaking and performing the action at the same time. This seems to be what is going on here. God is not only speaking, but he is declaring his approval of his son at the same moment. A fuller semantic explanation for why the Aorist is used (and why this is not necessarily an argument against it being a past tense) is given in Exegesis C, but we here note the simple observational fact that the Aorist can be used this way.

fromLesson 26.2: Verb – ε-contract (lengthening)

SemanticsSemantics: Verb – Aorist (6 – Complexive)

States do not have a temporal boundary (see Semantics C). On the other hand, we have consistently described the Aorist as having a boundary in some way, such as when the end of an event is referred to. This creates a mismatch between the meaning of states and the meaning of the Aorist. In fact, the prototypical state εἰμί ‘to be’ is not found in the Aorist for this very reason – since the Aorist requires a boundary and εἰμί has none, it is only found in the Eluon form.

However, the Aorist can combine with a state to refer to its beginning in the inchoative use. Can the Aorist also refer to the end of a state when something in the context specifies that the state has an endpoint? Indeed, it can. We call this use the complexive interpretation of the Aorist, an example for which is found at the end of the Sadducees’ story about the brothers who died with the same wife and kept passing her on to the next brother in line:

fromLesson 31.2: Verb – Elusa active subjunctive