Basics of Verbal Aspect: 3 of 5 by Constantine Campbell

Verbal aspect and the aorist indicative

Having set up some theoretical categories in my first two posts, I’ll now offer a brief introduction to verbal aspect and the aorist indicative. The aorist tense-form is regarded as perfective in aspect. Perfective aspect is like a reporter who describes a street parade from a helicopter. It provides an all-encompassing, or summary, view of an action. This means that the aorist provides an external view of an action. It presents events in summary, from a distance, and does not view the details of how the action took place.

 Just because the action is presented in summary does not mean that it happened quickly. Contrary to the beliefs of some, aorists may portray actions that in reality took a long time. Take the example that I mentioned in my last post, from Romans 5:14.

              

The period of time set by the phrase “from the time of Adam to Moses” indicates that death’s reign occurred over a very long interval. There are many years during which this event took place. This example demonstrates that the use of the aorist does not indicate that an action occurred in an instant. Rather, the event is simply viewed from a distance in summary.

It is important, then, to dispel an old myth about the aorist. The term “punctiliar aorist” is a common one, and refers to one legitimate use of the aorist. Unfortunately some scholars have mistakenly concluded that the term “punctiliar” describes the aorist tense-form in general. They think that the aorist always depicts a punctiliar, once-off, instantaneous action. The aorist in Romans 5:6 is sometimes treated this way in commentaries.

     

Some commentators write that because an aorist is used here, Romans 5:6 proves that Christ’s death was a once-off event, never to be repeated, and therefore Christ could not be reoffered time and time again in the Roman mass. While not wanting to deny the once-for-all nature of Christ’s death (cf. 1 Peter 3:18), the aorist in Romans 5:6 does not prove the point at all. If we look ahead a few verses, we come to 5:14 (see above), where we see an aorist that plainly depicts death reigning from the time of Adam to Moses. To reiterate, this is not a once-off action. It is not punctiliar.

By understanding that the key meaning of the aorist is to express perfective aspect, we will avoid certain exegetical mistakes, like thinking that all aorists are punctiliar. I would argue that the perfective aspect of the aorist is also more important than the signalling of time. The fact is, not all aorists refer to the past, but I won’t go into that now.

Aorist Aktionsarten

Since the aorist is perfective in aspect, it is capable of a range of Aktionsart functions that flow out of perfective aspect. There are lots of factors that need to be considered when working out what an aorist is doing in the text (see my book for more details), but for now we’ll just look at some key uses of the aorist.

Summary. Aorists often depict a process or action in summary. This means that we are just told that something happened. There’s no indication of how the action took place, or how long it took. This is the most common usage of the aorist indicative, and is a natural expression of perfective aspect.

     

    

 Punctiliar. Aorists sometimes depict a punctiliar action. This is also a natural expression of perfective aspect. Perfective aspect combines with a punctiliar lexeme to create a punctiliar Aktionsart. A punctiliar lexeme is a word that describes an action that is, by its very nature, once-off and instantaneous, like punch, kick, throw.

     

     

Gnomic. Aorists can also depict gnomic actions, which are universal and timeless. A gnomic Aktionsart is created through the combination of perfective aspect and a context in which generic statements are made. Gnomic aorists are not just found in timeless contexts—they are often best translated as present in temporal reference.  

   

   

There’s much more that could be said about verbal aspect and the aorist, but that’s what the book is for! In my next post, I’ll offer a brief introduction to the present indicative.

Constantine Campbell (Ph.D., Macquarie University) is lecturer in Greek and New Testament at Moore Theological college in Newtown, New South Wales, Australia.

Comments

[John Radcliffe]

Although I have yet to read the book (Amazon UK say it might arrive next week), from what I've read here I do wonder why the aspects are dubbed "perfective" and "imperfective".

At best this is likely to cause confusion, as those terms are also applied to types of action (which aspects aren't), and are similar to tense names. More significantly, though, if I understand correctly what you've said, they don't even seem to be particularly appropriate. Is it that the understanding of aspect has shifted since the terms were first coined, but the names have stuck?

[Andrew Faris]

Sorry that this is not related to this post, but I couldn't find an email address for anyone who runs this site, so I'm going to put this in the combox: over at Christians in Context (www.christiansincontext.org) we have interviewed Ken Berding and Jon Lunde about the new book in the Counterpoints series, Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Just thought you guys might be interested in linking it.

Here's the permalink: http://www.christiansincontext.org/2008/11/interview-with-ken-berding-and-jon.html

Thanks, and sorry to do it this way!

Andrew

[Con Campbell]

Good question, John. You're right that the terminology can be confusing, and at some points is unfortunate. I have worked hard to use the most standard terms, as they are most widely understood. This helps when relating Greek aspect to wider discussions about aspect, though can be confusing to the student! One key thing to remember is that any term with '-ive' on the end, is about aspect (or Aktionsart; e.g. 'iterative'). So 'imperfect' refers to the verb form, while 'imperfective' refers to an aspectual value.

[Gordon Cheng]

Con, thanks for this series. I am not very good at Greek but I am appreciating the clarity of your explanations.

[Con Campbell]

Thanks Gordon!

[John Radcliffe]

Thanks for the response. Are you aware of the review and resulting discussion over at Ben Witherington's blog?

[Irving Salzman]

Con, thanks for the great series! I've got two questions; I actually had one until I read John's post. Any way, here goes:

1. Vis-a-vis terms and terminology, my grammar profs always defined "Perfect" as signifying completed action, and "Imperfect" as incomplete action. Does this touch on issues of aktionsart or aspect? And, is the assertion correct? I ask this knowing (1) that you have made a distinction between "perfect" and "perfective," and (2) we probably suffer from living within the transitional time between changes and shifts in our understanding of how grammar works. By analogy, perhaps we are like the disciples at the end of Acts chapter 1. They were still drawing straws to determine a replacement apostle!

2. My second question: I was just curious to know if nouveau grammarians like yourself were encountering resistance from the old guard, established, and "quickly becoming obsolete" grammarians (a la the Old [Mosaic] Covenant in the book of Hebrews).

Again, thanks for a great and stimulating series!

[Con Campbell]

Yes, I've seen the discussion over at Dr Witherington's blog, and I'm grateful to Professor Decker and others for challenging the misrepresentations and misunderstandings of my book.

All this goes to show, Irving, that there is a lot of confusion with terminology, and oftentimes Aktionsart is conflated with aspect. There's a history of this in the early grammars, and so it is no surprise that the problem lingers still.

There will always be resistance to change, but to be honest, I am generally encouraged by how accepting many of the 'old guard' are when presented with a genuine advance. I think those who desire to press on with their understanding (even if they've been teaching Greek for 30 years), are often happy to move to something better, if it can be shown that it really is better.

A good example of this is my esteemed colleague, Dr Peter O'Brien. Peter is, in my opinion, one of the best NT commentators there is, and was teaching Greek before I was born. But his new Hebrews commentary that is about to come out has fully embraced verbal aspect, and he has worked hard at not only understanding the differences it makes, but also how to apply it judiciously when reading the text. That is quite humbling, that such a great one would be so prepared to continue to learn and change. And I think his commentary will be a model for future commentaries that wish to be more linguistically savvy.

[Irving Salzman]

Thanks so much for responding, Con! These Koinonia blog postings by John Walton, Bill Mounce, yourself and others have been nothing short of sensational. And beyond that, you guys continue to bless us by responding to our questions and interaction. Thanks for your kind, considerate, and professorial concern for those of us who wish to be better expositors, teachers, and preachers of His word. May He get all the glory from it!

By the way, do you ever speak at any conferences, forums, and/or symposiums in North America?