Take the 2-minute tour ×

I've read that one of the difficulties of translating New Testament Greek is the presence of the aorist tense of verbs in Greek. I think I understand what is meant by "aorist tense" in that it seems to mean there's no indication of the action in question happening in the past, present or future. Am I understanding the meaning of aorist tense correctly?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by Dan Mar 31 '14 at 20:46



Actually, this question is actually off topic according to our About page. –  Dan Sep 6 '13 at 22:13
Tried to delete the question but I cannot. –  Onorio Catenacci Sep 7 '13 at 13:25
By the way @Dan just because there's something on Wikipedia doesn't make this totally off-topic. Reread my question: part of my question is regarding how the aorist verb impacts translation. –  Onorio Catenacci Sep 7 '13 at 17:16
True Onorio, but if you look at our About page you'll see that we don't allow questions about the Greek language. But in regards to general reference, I followed the chart in the meta post I linked to. –  Dan Sep 7 '13 at 21:03

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Wikipedia has a nice summary of the aorist and more details can be found in the the article on the ancient Greek aorist in particular.

This is from the first link.




There is disagreement as to which functions of the Greek aorist are inherent within it. Many authors hold that the aorist tends to be about the past because it is perfective, and perfectives tend to describe completed actions; others that it is essentially a mixture of past tense and perfective aspect.

Hermeneutic implications


share|improve this answer
I do not see why pasting some stuff off Wikipedia counts as an answer. When my students paste things off Wikipedia they automatically fail. –  fdb Dec 10 '14 at 0:22
@fdb I have to agree this is a bit sketchy. But the real problem is the question. This question specifically and the genre of generic language questions in general was discussed at length on meta and we've pretty much settled that they are outside the scope of the site. There is not much point in debating the merits of answers to questions that are closed for being off topic—unless they are fixed and opened the whole thing is likely to hit the recycle bin eventually. As long as new answers cannot be posted, the pros and cons of existing ones is kind of a moot point. –  Caleb Dec 19 '14 at 12:30

To the grammarian it may seem like beating a dead horse to protest that the aorist does not necessarily reflect the nature of the action or event it covers. But the horse is not dead; he is very much alive and cavorting rather freely in exegetical and theological pastures. The fallacy of "theology in the aorist tense" stubbornly persists, even in the writings of distinguished scholars.

Thus begins the article by Frank Stagg, "The Abused Aorist", Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 222-231. (It is also available online by permission at BiblicalStudies.org.uk.) This article should be required reading in seminaries everywhere.

Among other things, Stagg provides a catalogue of several pages discussing "abuses" observed in works of major commentators. Here's one example, from p. 224:

A. N. Wilder falls into the aoristic trap in his interpretation of 1 John 2:1, "But if any one does sin (i.e., commits an act of sin [aorist tense]; contrast habitual sin in the present tense, 3: 6, 9 and 5: 18....)"12 John may imply a distinction between a single act of sin and habitual sin, but the aorist tense does not require this. It permits it.
12 A. N. Wilder, "The First, Second, and Third Epistles of John," The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1957) 12, 227.

With these and many other such cases, Stagg demonstrates the "abuses" that a misunderstanding of the aorist can produce. He also has a discussion of the broader range of uses of the aorist, and surveys the main NT Greek grammars on the subject. He concludes (p. 231):

It does not follow that the aorist tense is without exegetical significance (compare, e.g., aor. subj. and pres. impv.). ... [T]he aorist may or may not be punctiliar, and the presence of the aorist does not in itself give any hint as to the nature of the action behind it.

So, to answer the question in brief: yes, the OP is essentially correct his understanding of the aorist in Koine Greek. And perhaps that means things have improved since Stagg wrote his article in 1972!

share|improve this answer

Well, I think the aorist has a specific meaning according to the circumstance and that a semelfactive perfective interpretation gives itself in many instances. The Latin perfectum is more or less the same as the aorist in the past, and for many verbs it is based on former aorist forms, especially the s-aorist. What is not continued in Latin is the true old perfectum, even though the Latin perfectum forms are partly based on this too.

share|improve this answer
