In the New Testament there is a verse in the letter of 1 Peter that reads “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” And the verb “be” is in the second aorist. And the verb “am” is in the present. Would this properly read “you should have already been holy, for I am always holy.” ? Would need to add more words in English because “been holy, for I am always holy” doesn’t read well
Ian, please could you help me with the following question around Ephesians 2v8 which is apparently Aorist verb. Eph 2v8 in some translations say "have been saved" whereas others contained "being saved". Which does the Aorist verb indicate to you when looking this up? In the one translation this is a "done deal", whereas the other is "ongoing". How do you see this, being an expert on this part of the language? Many thanks for your anticipated input.
The aorist is unmarked in the sense that its aspect doesn't emphasize anything in particular about the action. This is where aspect theory departs significantly from older models of Greek verb tense that claimed the aorist stressed the "punctuliar" nature of the action, etc. According to aspect theory, the aorist simply presents the action without any stress on one dimension of the event or another. If we want to stress some feature of the action (e.g., its repeated nature, its timelessness, or its completion) we choose another tense like the present, imperfect, or perfect. So those tenses have a "marked" aspect. They do draw attention to some specific dimension of the event. This all explains why the aorist is treated as the default tense for non-indicative verbs (participles, infinitives, imperatives).
Good explanation man. Ilike it
Thanks and God bless
Thank you for the helpful videos!
In the New Testament there is a verse in the letter of 1 Peter that reads
“Be ye holy, for I am holy.”
And the verb “be” is in the second aorist.
And the verb “am” is in the present.
Would this properly read
“you should have already been holy, for I am always holy.” ?
Would need to add more words in English because “been holy, for I am always holy” doesn’t read well
Ian, please could you help me with the following question around Ephesians 2v8 which is apparently Aorist verb. Eph 2v8 in some translations say "have been saved" whereas others contained "being saved". Which does the Aorist verb indicate to you when looking this up? In the one translation this is a "done deal", whereas the other is "ongoing". How do you see this, being an expert on this part of the language? Many thanks for your anticipated input.
In the aorist stem of εσχ why the vowel ε is not lengthened after the addition of the augment?
What do you mean by "unmarked" aspect?
The aorist is unmarked in the sense that its aspect doesn't emphasize anything in particular about the action. This is where aspect theory departs significantly from older models of Greek verb tense that claimed the aorist stressed the "punctuliar" nature of the action, etc. According to aspect theory, the aorist simply presents the action without any stress on one dimension of the event or another. If we want to stress some feature of the action (e.g., its repeated nature, its timelessness, or its completion) we choose another tense like the present, imperfect, or perfect. So those tenses have a "marked" aspect. They do draw attention to some specific dimension of the event. This all explains why the aorist is treated as the default tense for non-indicative verbs (participles, infinitives, imperatives).
@@TheMonotasker εὐχαιριστῶ!