In The Original Greek -- By: G. C. Neal

Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 12:1 (Apr 1963)
Article: In The Original Greek
Author: G. C. Neal


In The Original Greek

G. C. Neal

A CLASSICIST WRITING to theologians about the Greek of the New Testament will be greeted with a pitying smile. Greek to him is the sophisticated, literary language used in Athens 500 years before Christ, a far cry from the straightforward colloquialism of ordinary people reflected in the apostolic writings. It is only to be expected that he will read non-existent subtleties into New Testament grammar, treat the etymology anachronistically, and in short assume a Peter to have possessed knowledge as abstruse as Sophocles. He will cut a pathetic figure, just as Dr. Johnson would if he were to come to life and castigate the spelling of an advertisement for milk.

The purpose of this article is to turn exactly this charge against the theologians. It is they who murder language. Too often they treat their ‘straightforward’ koine with a rigour which no classicist would apply even to his ‘sophisticated’ Attic. Preachers and commentators offend most, and so I want to draw attention to some linguistic methods of exegesis in common use which are of doubtful validity or of doubtful relevance.

Present And Aorist

A deeply ingrained theory is the supposed distinction between the present and aorist tenses of the Greek verb in the infinitive, imperative, and subjunctive. The duplication of these forms seems redundant to an English speaker, but an explanation is given that the present has a continuous or frequentative reference, while the aorist applies to instantaneous or particular actions. (Notice that the distinction itself is not unambiguous.) This rule appears in all the grammars, (see, for example, Moule, Idiom-book of New Testament Greek, p. 135; Blass-Debrunner, 11 p. 206)

It is invoked extensively in practice. On page 1135 of The New Bible Commentary we read this comment on I Peter 2 :13 : ‘Peter seems to prefer the aorist imperative to the present in commands, pointing rather to the definite decision to submit than to the continual act of submission.’ From this it is easy to imagine the frequent appeals made to a convenient aorist to prove that sanctification is a matter of crisis and surrender, or to a convenient present tense to prove the opposite view. One party cites Romans 12:1; the others concentrate on Romans 12:2!

Unfortunately, the distinction is a debated one. Grammarians usually state it dogmatically, but they are concerned to produce clear-cut rules. Professor Moule, however, does admit that usage is fluid, and cites several examples that defy the principle...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()