The Translation of the Aorist Tense - Glenn Conjurske

The Translation of the Aorist Tense

When we read the old English version, we find the verb tenses, generally, to read very naturally. When we read the new versions, we find them often unnatural, sounding strange to English ears. This is especially true of the renderings of the Greek aorist tense. Yet the makers and advocates of the modern versions will defend these strange renderings on the plea that they are more accurate—a plea which I absolutely deny, and which I intend herein to disprove, to the satisfaction of anyone who knows English. And while I am at it, I intend to give an ocular demonstration of what modern scholarship is actually worth. Its first axiom is that all of our forefathers were in the dark, and it takes for granted that the old Bible version is everywhere inaccurate and inferior. Just the reverse is true, say I. The renderings of the verb tenses in the old version display real scholarship, while the departures from those renderings in the “New” versions display only ignorance.

But before proceeding to my task, I must beg those who do not know Greek to stay with me. It is they who need the instruction offered herein, and I intend to make the whole of it plain enough to anyone who knows English.

Before we undertake to translate the Greek tenses into English, it is our business to understand the tenses in both languages. To one who does not understand the tenses, the renderings of some of the modern Bibles will appear strange and unnatural, no doubt, but if he is impressed with the learning of “the scholars,” he will most likely take that unnaturalness as the badge of scholarship. That bubble I intend to burst. To anyone who understands the tenses in both Greek and English, the wooden renderings of the modern Bibles will appear as mere ignorance and incompetence.

Understanding the Aorist Tense
Now then, the aorist tense is the indefinite tense. The word “aorist” is a Greek word, ajovristo” (aoristos), which means undefined or undefinable. The word oJristov” (horistos) is defined by Liddell and Scott as definable. The prefixed alpha (in *aj-ovristo”) is equivalent to the prefixed “un-” or “in-” in English. Liddell and Scott therefore define “aorist” (*ajovristo”) as “without boundaries, undefined or undefinable, indefinite, indeterminate,” informing us also that it is used of “an indefinite noun” and “the aorist tense.” The aorist tense, then, is the indefinite tense—the tense which expresses indefinite time. What that means I shall make perfectly plain as I proceed. Suffice it to say that the old English Bible—the King James Version—generally rendered the Greek aorist tense as indefinite in English, while the modern revisions, especially the Revised Version and the New American Standard Version, have made it their principle to make the aorist tense definite. They have not consistently carried out that principle, for to do so would have made nonsense of the Scriptures, but—as in other particulars also—they have followed their false principle wherever they could do so without making nonsense, and so, without making nonsense, they have made a wrong sense, where the old version gave the right one.

Indefinite Time in English
Now if we have an indefinite tense in English, it goes without saying that we ought to use it to express the indefinite tense of the Greek. The only question is, Do we have an indefinite tense in English? To be sure we do. Do not ask me what it is called. I do not study grammar books, but I do study English, and anyone who can speak English knows instinctively that English has an indefinite tense. We all learned to use it before we went to kindergarten, though we may never have learned what to call it.

But what is it? The English indefinite tense is the past tense of the verb, aided by the auxiliary verb “have” or “has”—or “is” and its cognates in a more archaic form, common in the King James Version. To use the past tense without the auxiliary “have” expresses definite time. To introduce the word “have” makes the time indefinite. Thus:

“I have studied Greek.” The time is indefinite. The sentence says nothing about when I studied Greek. It states only the fact that I have done so, somewhere in the indefinite and undefined past.

But drop the word “have,” and all is changed. “I studied Greek.” The sentence standing thus is incomplete and un-English. The simple past tense expresses definite time, and the sentence standing thus leaves every English ear in suspense, in expectation. It calls aloud for the specification of time. To complete the thought we must have “I studied Greek at college,” or “when I was young,” or “last year,” or “when I was in Germany,” or something which makes the time definite and specific. But to say “I have studied Greek” leaves the time entirely undefined, and leaves us in no suspense for the defining of the time. Yet again, to say, “I have studied Greek last year” is a manifest mistake. The sentence is not English, and is such as none but an ignoramus would ever speak. It is mixing definite and indefinite time.

“The Comforter came” is definite, and so unfinished as it stands. It requires some specification of time, such as “on the day of Pentecost,” to complete the thought. “The Comforter has come”—or “is come” in an excellent form which has unfortunately dropped out of common use—is indefinite, and states the abiding fact, without reference to any specific occasion or historic event.

This is the common usage of the English people, and it is precisely this which is set at defiance by the modern Bible versions. That there are apparent exceptions to this usage I grant, while I yet contend that many of those exceptions will prove upon scrutiny to be more apparent than real. That there may be real exceptions also, I would not pretend to deny. There are also undoubtedly many sentences which we might speak either with or without the auxiliary “have,” depending upon whether we intend to express definite or indefinite time. When the auxiliary “have” is not used, the time must be either expressed in the sentence or the context, or it must be understood by the context, or from the nature of the case.

So we may say either “God created man” or “God has created man,” but the two do not mean the same thing. The latter is indefinite, and merely states the fact. The former is definite, and implies a specific time. That specific time need not be explicitly stated, for it is universally understood. When time is explicitly specified, as “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we then must use the simple past tense, “God created.” To say “In the beginning God has created the heavens and the earth” is manifestly wrong. It is not English. It is mixing definite and indefinite time, and is such a solecism as a little child would hardly commit.

Aorist in the Old English Bible
Now the translators of the old English Bibles apparently understood the properties of the indefinite tense in both Greek and English, and they commonly rendered the Greek aorist with an auxiliary “have” or “hast” (and sometimes “is” or “am”) in English. So it ordinarily appears in the King James Version. Well, but knowledge has no doubt increased since the making of the old version. Unfortunately, wisdom has not increased with it, but just the reverse. Men may know more facts than they used to, but they have less understanding of the significance of those facts. Knowledge puffs up, and about the middle of the nineteenth century an intellectual scholarship began to prevail, the primary characteristic of which was pride of present attainment, accompanied with an impatience of everything which belonged to the past. Under the delusion that the human race had at last arrived, old landmarks were recklessly overturned. That which was formerly held sacred was presumed to be deficient or defective, because, perforce, it was not the product of “modern scholarship.” This spirit prevailed in textual criticism, in Bible interpretation, and in Bible translation. Its operation was deleterious in all fields, for that intellectual scholarship possessed but little of spirituality, nor was it half so competent as it was confident. Hasty and ill-formed conclusions and principles gained ready acceptance everywhere, if they but overturned received or traditional standards.

With such a spirit prevailing, it is little wonder that the old method of translating the Greek aorist fell into disrepute, and when the clamor arose about the middle of the nineteenth century for a revision of the Bible, one of the most often heard objections against the old Bible concerned its rendering of the aorist tense.

Criticism of the Old Bible’s Translation of the Aorist
R. C. Trench complained of the old version in 1858, “Aorists are rendered as if they were perfects; and perfects as if they were aorists. Thus we have an example of the first, Luke i.19, where ajpestavlhn [aorist] is translated as though it were ajpevstalmai [perfect], I am sent,' instead of I was sent.’ Gabriel contemplates his mission, not at the moment of its present fulfilment, but from that of his first sending forth from the presence of God.” Just the contrary, say I. Trench explicitly refers the aorist to definite time, and insists upon rendering it as definite in English. This is wrong. The old version is right. Trench continues, “Another example of the same occurs at 2 Pet. i.14: Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.' By this hath shewed me,’ we lose altogether the special allusion to an historic moment in the Apostle’s life, which would at once come out if ejdhvlwsev moi had been rendered, `shewed me.”’ But again, this is exactly wrong. So far from any “allusion to an historic moment” in Peter’s life, the aorist tense exactly excludes any such allusion. The word “aorist” means “indefinite”—“undefined”—and “hath shewed,” which the old version has, is exactly right.

Lightfoot and the Confusion of the Aorist and Perfect Tenses
On the eve of the revision, in detailing the supposed faults of the old version, J. B. Lightfoot wrote, “Under the head of faulty grammar, the tenses deserve to be considered first. And here I will begin with the defect on which I have already touched—the confusion of the aorist and the perfect.” By the confusion of the aorist and the perfect he refers primarily to the use of the auxiliary “have” in the rendering of the aorist. In the midst of many examples which he gives, he says, “If I read S. Paul aright, the correct understanding of whole paragraphs depends on the retention of the aoristic sense, and the substitution of a perfect [with an auxiliary `have’] confuses his meaning, obliterating the main idea and introducing other conceptions which are alien to the passages.” So say I also, but maintain that the aoristic sense is precisely the non-definite sense. The old version did retain the aoristic sense, while the new versions have introduced the confusion, by introducing definite time into the indefinite tense. I suggest also that these “scholars” would not have been so quick to adopt a principle so obviously false, if they had not been so determined to prove the old version defective.

Conclusion
As for what Lightfoot calls the “confusion” of the aorist and perfect tenses, there is more of pedantry than of wisdom or scholarship in this. It is true that we must often translate the Greek perfect with an auxiliary “have” in English, but this nothing alters the fact that this is also the proper English rendition of the Greek aorist.