Verbal Aspect: What is it and is it important?

Подписаться 40 тыс.

Просмотров 5 тыс.

50% 1

What is verbal aspect in Greek? Does it really matter? In this video, we’ll look at the discussion around verbal aspect, how it arose, what’s at stake and why it is worth knowing about.
Recommended Resources:
Constantine Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek
* Amazon: amzn.to/2XNLXnV
* Logos: mntg.me/bvacamp...
Campbell’s is a highly readable summary of the argument and its significance - this is a great place for an overview
Rodney Decker, Reading Koine Greek
* Amazon: amzn.to/32pJ6jT
* Logos: mntg.me/decker
Decker’s is an excellent introductory grammar that takes verbal aspect into account in his discussion of verbs
Free: Get your roadmap to mastery: ==== mntg.me/roadmap
Question: What were you taught about aspect in your Greek training? Leave a comment below!

Опубликовано:

12 сен 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 53

@colorado7bill 5 лет назад

Great summation of the issues involved in verbal aspectual theory. My Greek training was quite tense-oriented back in the 1960s. However, once I started teaching, I became aware of an older work (first published in 1892) by Ernest De Witt Burton: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the Greek New Testament. That introduced me to the concept of aspects and helped open the door to a better understanding of the Greek verbs.

@bma 5 лет назад

Thank you for your comment, Dr Barrick! I remember your explanation of aspect in Hebrew Exegesis, which made me be more open to verbal aspect in Greek!

@dannorris8478 2 года назад

I took Koine in 76-77, we learned tense and time not aspect. It is is quite confusing, it seems to add a great deal of complexity and nuance to an already challenging endeavor. It appears that it will raise as many questions as it answers. Thanks for the videos and your educational ministry.

@geraldpolmateer3255 Год назад

30 years ago when I was 39 I started seminary. During the time I was taking Hebrew a couple told me that if I wanted to learn Greek to take a certain professor. They also told me that a C with him was better than an A with anyone else. Under that professor we learned about verbal aspect. While that was not in the grammars he used he wrote materials he used to teach us the details. It was not only verbal aspect but other details.

@TK-ys2du 5 лет назад

I was trained with tense including the idea of time. I'm glad I discovered your videos. When I began my masters studies in Greek New Testament a few years ago, we had Dr. Stanley Porter teach on verbal aspects of the New Testament at our university. That was a defining moment for me, and it resulted in me dropping my studies so that I can invest time into these developments that I was hearing about for the first time. Over the past 3 years or so I have been reading the works of the men you mention in your video and I feel ready to commence my studies again next year, taking a different route that I initially planned. I needed a little bit more convincing on verbal aspects because my training was largely based on Dr. Mounce's Greek works. I'm watching this from the middle of South Africa, in a town called Bloemfontein.

@bma 5 лет назад

Great to hear! I learned Greek using Mounces resources too and still use Mounce for beginning Greek. I really value his work and contribution!

@19king14 3 года назад

Here’s a curious question;.. Today in the English language, we take a sentence and break it down grammatically, subject, verb, predicate, prepositional phrases, etc...We create “rules of grammar” on how to structure sentences.. That said, Is there any indication whether the Greek speaking people in biblical times did the same sort of thing? Did they have “rules of grammar” to be followed or did they just sooner speak/write what was needed to be said in a way that simply made the point they had in mind? Also, can it happen, we English speaking people may apply our English “rules of grammar” into the Greek writings/translating that would make the thought differ from the Greek writers intent? Many of our English “rules of grammar” have exceptions. How can we be sure the Greek writers thoughts were also ‘exceptions to the rules’? Ray Morris

@theoglossa Год назад

True. “The term tense… is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb-form… We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax. It is too late to get a new name, however.” - A.T. Robertson (Grammar, 343-44)

@dooglitas 3 года назад

My Greek training was in the 1970s. I was taught about both aspect and tense. It was much clearer to me back then. Now with all this discussion of "action taken as a whole" and words like "stative" and use of terms like "remoteness" and "proximity," it has all now become confusing and nearly impenetrable to me. I have no idea what it means to say that an action is "seen as a whole" when talking about verbal aspect. It seems very vague and nebulous. Back when I studied Greek, I was taught that the aorist indicated an action that was punctiliar, or took place at a definite point in time. Though that concept is now considered invalid, at least it was something definite and understandable. Now, with the idea of "action seen as a whole," it has become muddy and impenetrable to me when I try to understand it in practical examples of verbs in actual sentences and try to figure out what the meaning actually is. I have seen the example of a parade being viewed close up vs. from a helicopter before, and I do not find that helpful at all. A sentence is not a parade, and a verbal tense form is not a helicopter or me standing on the curb watching a parade. So I don't find that illustration helpful. Likewise, I find the use of the word "stative" in the context of verbal tense/aspect to be even more confusing. The word is not being used in the way that the word is usually applied, i.e., regarding the kind of action of certain classes of verbs, such as verbs of knowing, etc., as opposed to more active verbs, such as going and coming. To say that the perfect tense shows a "stative" aspect of an action is vague and imprecise. It seems the more I read what scholars currently say about Greek verbal aspect the more confused and frustrated I get.

@bma 3 года назад

Thanks for your comments again! It may be that my explanation is the problem. I think it is fairly straight forward, but it may take time to work it out. Perhaps if you picked up a copy of Campbell's book it might help? Thanks again for watching and commenting!

@dooglitas 3 года назад

@@bma I'm reasonably sure that your specific explanation is not the problem. I have the same problem with all the other explanations I have heard or read. In fact, just before I saw your comment, I was reading a passage out of Frederick Long's grammar where he is discussing a passage in Matthew where Jesus uses a long string of imperative verbs, some in present tense, some aorist. His explanation of the present imperatives is straightforward and easy to understand. He simply says that in the present-tense commands Jesus is telling the disciples to continually be doing (or not doing) those things. That I can understand. But when he "explains" the aorist, suddenly it all becomes muddy and confused. He says that the aorist imperatives simply apply to "general" commands and are "undefined." I have no idea what to make of "undefined." He then further says that the commands are to do something "timelessly." To me, to say that the command is "timeless" is the same thing as saying that it is to be "continuous." After all, to say that a command is "timeless" is basically saying that it is something that should always be done, which to me, seems to be saying the same thing as saying that one should "continuously" be doing those things. So ultimately, it sounds like the author is saying that the aorist and present tense imperatives are actually the same thing--i.e., there is no difference. Anyway, I have been considering buying the book you suggested. I have little money for buying books, but I do have a gift card on file on Amazon. I am probably going to use that to buy that book. There are so many books I would like to buy. It's hard to choose just one. But thanks anyway for your taking time to respond to my comments. I really appreciate it.

@dooglitas 3 года назад

Just to let you know, I ordered both Campbell's book and Long's book. If it had not been for your YT channel, I would not have known about them. Thanks again.

@bma 3 года назад

You’re welcome! Enjoy!

@dooglitas 3 года назад

@@bma I'm sure I will!

@keithsurland5856 Год назад

I read A T Robertson’s Grammar Of The Greek New Testament In The Light Of Historical Research cover to cover 6 times. Interestingly he used the term verbal aspect but I think he meant in terms of quality of action. I read Burton’ Mood and Tenses 8 times. Wallace for the 11th time. Porter on his intermediate 2 times and Mathewson once. Once on Going Deeper. My thinking is with Wallace. I am a fluent reader and memorized the 5,000 plus lexical stock. I read the other grammars too. Perhaps it’s me but I was never won over by Campbell or Porter. I doubt the arguments will ever be settled. But I read my Greek Bible with confidence trusting in the divine author

@DrJosephFMatos 5 лет назад

Hello, I was trained with the idea that in the indicative mood there is still some sense of time built in to the tense. Aspect was called Kind of Action. Outside the indicative, time is either relative to the time of the main verb (i.e. with participles) or non-existent and is entirely aspect. I teach today similarly with emphasis on aspect in both my elementary and intermediate Greek courses so it will always be top of mind. I value greatly the matter of aspect.

@bma 5 лет назад

Thanks Joseph! How long ago did you learn Greek?

@DrJosephFMatos 5 лет назад

Master New Testament Greek My first year studying Greek was 1987/88 school year. My senior year of college. I picked up with formal study again in seminary starting 1991/92 and have studied and/or taught it since. I began teaching at the college level in 2000/01 year.

@bma 5 лет назад

+Joseph Matos awesome! Thanks. What are your thoughts on the current discussion of Verbal Aspect? What prevents you from teaching, for example, Rodney Decker’s approach?

@s3cr3tandwh1sp3r 5 лет назад

Hey thanks for the video. It was a really helpful breakdown of the issues and positions.

@bma 5 лет назад

You are welcome! Thank you for the suggestion!

@rogerlau4932 2 года назад

My Greek training was with tense form. Used H. Fred Nofer's text for first year, then Machen and Dana-and-Mantey for second and third years of Greek. This was in the 1970s.

@lllllAcunhalllll 3 года назад

Mind-blowing

@shawnshell5961 3 года назад

Excellent discussion. At about the 5:13 mark of the discussion you are explaining the imperfective aspect, but the caption reads: Perfective Aspect = the action as in progress.

@bma 3 года назад

Thanks. Not much I can do about it now, but I appreciate you pointing it out! Blessings!

@TheJesusNerd40 3 года назад

I was taught tense and time, not temporality and verbal aspect. I learned these later on and still have problems with it. I believe it confuses the reader and complexes the grammar. What are the best resources on verbal aspect, tenses, time, and temporality?

@Scobyland 2 года назад

I had two semesters of Greek at Biola College in 1977-1978, with Dr. Harry Sturz. We did not look at verbal aspect, but tense (time-temporal), voice, mood. No emphasis on verbal aspect. It is confusing. Apparently, if it is so, in ancient times people didn’t always think in terms of time like we do today. Is this why in Hebrew there is no “past tense”? Did the writers of the New Testament, being Jewish, write in Greek with a Jewish or Hebrew mind set? Or did the Holy Spirit “bear them along “ in this way? I’m sure they valued time, but not like most languages today. Seems to make learning Greek more challenging than it should be.

@trinityschoolforministryon4741 5 лет назад

Thanks for this, and for all your work. Have you seen any cross-pollination between the newer understandings of Aspect in Koine Greek and the understanding of Aspect in Biblical Hebrew?

@bma 5 лет назад

I’m not sure about cross pollination, but there is agreement between the view I articulate in this video and how many OT professors view aspect in Hebrew.

@paulakahn9384 4 года назад

Thank you so much for the video! It's very helpful.

@bma 4 года назад

You’re welcome! Thanks for watching!

@leonardisaksson9993 3 года назад

In 1990 we did not deal much with the idea of aspec i, in beginning Greek. t. Fannings book and Porters book were beginning to be read.

@bma 3 года назад

The Fanning and Porter books were only published around that time, so it's not surprising it wasn't really discussed then. Thanks for watching!

@j.burgess4459 9 месяцев назад

My (admittedly very non-expert!) understanding of verbal aspect is this: Imperfective aspect views an action as _ongoing and taking place_ (either as a continual process or a repeated series of actions over time) with no emphasis on either the beginning or the end of this. Perfective aspect, by contrast, views an action as _having happened_ and then somewhat emphasises either the finality or the accomplishment or the result/consequence of the action. That has always seemed pretty clear to me. But where Koine Greek gets funky is with the aorist. Is this merely a kind of simple past tense? Is it perfective aspect? Or is it (as its Greek name implies) non-defined as either perfective or imperfective? But then, what exactly does THAT mean...?? When it comes to participles, the aorist does seem to be used in many situations where one might instinctively expect the perfective - with a sense of "having done X", etc. But maybe where an aorist participle differs is that there is no emphasis on finality or result, rather it's just about sequence - "first X then Y"...? Either way, the aorist and its exact meaning seems to me to be one of the subtleties of Koine Greek.🤔

@kingjames5527 4 месяца назад

The comments here have been very enlightening and refreshing. Verbal aspect seems like much Ado about nothing. It is utterly confusing and it seems like gnat straining nonsense half the time. It caused me to put down my study of Greek from Black's Greek grammar, because the explanations are confusing regarding aspect, and so when I cross reference with mounts, decker, and others, it's still confusing and it seems ridiculous. The examples that are given to demonstrate aspect are minimal, and the value of all of this confusion and splicing of verbs seems like striving about with words to no profit, something which Paul warned Timothy and other future ministers not to get bogged down in If aspect is so important, and these Greek scholars should be able to give us 50 crore and doctrinal examples of why knowing this maintains orthodoxy and is essential for proper interpretation. Black gives one example and it's lame as far as I'm concerned. I read all of Campbell's book that you can preview on amazon, and the examples he gives aren't that powerful.

@arbitrary_inquiry Год назад

Skip to 4:35 if you want your question answered in a timely manner.

@marcosmiranda1811 Год назад

Excellent video! what is your perspective? Do you follow any line?

@bma Год назад

Thanks! From my perspective I look for explanatory power, and Campbell's view has the best explanatory power - the best ability to explain what we see in the New Testament. But this is not a hill to die on. ;)

@phesperanto 3 года назад

I was trained in the tenses and I didn't know about the aspects of a verb. May it was good for me because it was already much to learn the method I used to learn Greek was intuitive, not analytical. just as the grammar "Learn New Testament Greek: with Accents" John Dobson.

@bma 3 года назад

This is a tension that can be difficult to manage in a Beginning Greek Grammar. In some ways I like to teach it afterwards too, though it is hard to let students think about verbs using time during beginning Greek.

@rinkevichjm 2 года назад

Verbal aspect is either perfective that is a complete(d) action, or imperfective that is an continuous action. See Lithuanian verbs. Especially the use of the future to express the past, that statal stuff only occurs in a past (Lithuanian) or perfect verb (Greek) particularly in the passive. For example the imperfective eiti in Lithuanian eik! Walk! And paeiti a perfective verb paeik! Do a Walk! Or walk a bit! Greeks of course failed to keep their aspects properly and messed up something in some verbs.

@rinkevichjm 2 года назад

In Greek the aorist is clearly perfective but unlike Lithuanian where paeina mean doing a walk, the Greek verb in aorist would mean a completed walk not doing a walk. So in that way it become a past action. In Lithuanian paėjo means did walk, ėjo means was walking so aorist is a (normally past) perfective while the imperfect is a (normally past) continuous. And the perfect active in Greek is a continuous perfective that is an ongoing result of a complete action. And the perfect passive is a statal the result of a past action in English e.g. the shut door for the door has been shut.

@jonb8602 2 года назад

Thankyou for your videos Dr. Please can you help me understand: does a present tense in the greek mean a continuous action in every mood or is the indicative an exception where it just is a simple statement/fact? For example the verb "save" in 1Cor 15:2 is a present verb in the indicative mood, yet the ESV, LEB, CSB & YLT1898 translate it "you are being saved" (emphasising the continuous/progressive kind of action) where as the NKJV, NASB, HCSB & NIV translate it "you are saved" (as a simple statement/fact, without indictating wether it is a continuous/progressive kind of action or not). Please can you help me understand this as simply as you can? Thankyou.

@bma 2 года назад

Sounds like a great idea for a video, thanks!

@user-tw4fy8oh5d Год назад

Брат Дэррэл скажите. В грамматике Will Maunse видовая часть глагола описана по новым понятиям как предполагает Faning или по старым?

@tglinsley 3 месяца назад

1964. Aorist was the past tense. Unfortunately, in Attic or Homeric Greek this leads to confusion and more memorizing..The reason,as the nuns and brothers said:”It’s a mystery.” 😂

@kingjames5527 4 месяца назад

Notice in this video explanation the plu perfect is also an imperfective. So something that has the word perfect in it, is imperfective! Can you see that from an outsider's point of view, someone who's trying to learn Greek by purchasing a half a dozen Greek grammars and studying at home finds this ridiculous, stupid, and straight-up contradictory? Why would you call something perfect that's imperfect? Are Calvinists writing these grammars? Are we going to have to resort to mystery and antimony?

@globalrevival Год назад

Is there a verbal aspect understanding that brings light to Acts 5:32? It seems important doctrines can hinge on verb tense, and verbal aspect introduces yet another level of complexity to understanding what a text is saying. When does one apply the plain text encoding to derive meaning versus looking beyond that encoding? Doesn’t this open oneself up for novel private interpretations (or justifications of bias toward a particular viewpoint) rather than letting the text speak for itself? Is it not dangerous to dissect with such gradients of meaning? I’d like you take on Acts 5:32 and why English translations vary in which tense is used and what are the theological implications for the change of meaning because of change of tense. See article titled: “Q. I thought we received the Holy Spirit by grace. Why, then, does Acts 5:32 say that God gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him? - Word of His Grace” At this link below: ( www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/acts-532-qa/ ) Thanks.