My dear Brother,
Mere grammar will not do without the usus loquendi; nor do languages answer to one another in their habit of thought. I had purposely put " has," " have," etc., where aorists are, very often, and as yet I think I am right. I have seen——-'s book, not read it through; but it is grammar, not Greek. Take ἐσταύρωσαν, (Gal. 5:2424And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. (Galatians 5:24).) as an example: he spoils the whole matter by his principle. The aorist means very often the future, as no one can doubt. Again, in many cases the imperative aorist has a sense impossible to give in English. The present is Do, or Do not, something now; the aorist, Do not be in the state of one who has done it. Perhaps I express it imperfectly, but it is the idea. The aorist is of no time; but we have not properly a tense with no time. Hence we must put the aorist often into a time tense in English, future, historic, or what is called perfect; but the Greek perfect is much more defined than the English-more distinctly the subsistence of what has been done. A Christian " crucified the flesh " is not a present continuance, and indeed has no sense. It is about some Christian somewhere. It is more the French perfect. Je fus ά Paris. They that are Christ's crucified the flesh. What does that mean? I repeat, there is no aorist in English. In the participle you must often say " having." It is in fact with undetermined time; which, where it is instant, may be translated present; when consequent on another, must be future in English, and when it is not simply a past historical fact, in the air, but, brought into present bearing and relationship, must be " has." Συνεσταύρωμαι " was and am"; ἐσταύρωσαν, " they have " done it. In John 15:66If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6), the sense is future, but, as it is a constant fact, present would serve in English, a certain fact is looked at as a fact, so James 1:22My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; (James 1:2); but there are cases where you must in English translate in the future. In Mark 10:3, 43And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. (Mark 10:3‑4), I prefer " has," because it is a present obligation; but in the two last you must make it present-habitual without time. In Matt. 10:44Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. (Matthew 10:4), ὁ καὶ παραδούξ αὐτόν is mere description, and one can say, in English, who also betrayed Him; but we say it in English because it is past now or supposed so to be. Nor do I think that the aorist means simply a future as such; but there are cases where in English,we must put a future, because English cannot always abstract and put it in no time.
In page 15 (2 Cor. 5:1414For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: (2 Corinthians 5:14)) the Authorized Version gives the right sense but freely, the " five " no sense at all. All died because Christ died; and it is not all believers, for those who live are distinguished; but I question if he be not right as to the τῷ, verse 15, applying to both. But I have not had time to examine it. Died, as to Christ, is an historical fact, one died: so rightly. Ἀπέθανον is a consequence. Perhaps " had died " were better than " have." I cannot say, judging this is an historical fact in itself.
I think in result the making the aorist a mere historical fact, as " crucified," a great mistake in grammar and in intelligence.
I cannot at this moment give you an example where, in English, the aorist must be given as a future, but I met one the other day. I am glad, I trust, to learn anything and willing to learn from anybody. But my critics, amongst them, have not as yet convinced me. In looking over John and pan of Matt. 1 have put out " has " in one case and put it in in another.
As to James 4:55Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? (James 4:5), Ι cannot see it now, but I have found it so difficult that I shall be glad of light from anyone; weigh it I did, but never was satisfied. Forgive haste.
Your affectionate brother in Christ.
Dear——-,
———had proposed to me to do what you suggest. I have no objection. Since this question was raised, I have paid attention as I passed along preparing for the new edition of the New Testament; and it is clear to me it is wholly impossible to make an English aorist which has no time. It may be very often translated as an historical tense, and here I have often hesitated between the historical tense and the auxiliary verb. In the passive form it is often impossible to use either. Sometimes the perfect future," will have," may serve. But see in Matt. 24:22And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. (Matthew 24:2) ἀφεθῇ: still it is the aorist. But the English looks at it from the time of the speaker. It may be alleged that a prophecy looks at fulfillment as already there; but you must say " there shall not be left one stone upon another." When another event is named or supposed, it is imperfect in its sense, and so has to be expressed. Very often, as I have said, the historical sense is in the participle; in English, you must put the perfect form or present; " having called " (or " calling ") the disciples, he said to them. In the imperative I have no doubt there is a difference of sense; but how to be expressed in English? " If thy hand offend thee, cut it off," is an aorist; have it cut off, have it in that state, not properly do it. This is very common: so of the eye, " pluck it out and cast it from thee." In English, present and aorist are alike, τοῦτο ὅλον γέγονεν " took place." There is a perfect which in English must be made what they call an aorist, because it is historical.
Take Matt. 1:24, 2524Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:24‑25); you have a row of tenses where the imperfect becomes historic: no doubt in Greek it is habitual in sense, but in English must be historic or aorist. In chapter 2: 2 " we have seen " is far better in English than the historic tense " saw." Then you get a whole string where it is historical, as to which English uses imperfect or aorist, " saw," " came," etc., in verse 2 ἤλθομεν is " have " or " are come." If I say " came," it is a history of what had happened before. In the passive, nothing at all answers in English to aorist. Chapter 2:16, " was mocked," " had been mocked "; so verse 17, ἐπληρώθη " then was " is imperfect; so verse 18 ἠκούσθη. What tense in English is verse 19, τελευτήσαντος? But the grammarians say it is used. Thus Jelf. The aorist, in all the moods except the indicative and the participle, is usually expressed in Latin and English in the present, etc. And the consequences of aorist are often supposed to continue (that is, where it is not merely historic), and then we must say " has," or the like. So with participles of time, " when," etc., he says, as I have already said, it has the sense of futurum exactum. John 18:2424Now Annas had sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. (John 18:24) it is pluperfect, which is very common. In John 15:66If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6) it is present or future. Luke 1:11Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, (Luke 1:1): it is far better as " have." In Mark 3:2121And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. (Mark 3:21) ἐξέστη, it is perfect, or present; " he has gone out of his mind," or " is beside himself." So in infinitives (and imperfect) it has no past sense, as here κρατῆσαι. In Mark 3:2626And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. (Mark 3:26) ἀνέστη, " have," or " be," or " rise up," στήναι in English present. I have no doubt to a Greek mind there is a difference, and, when I read Greek, I feel it. The mistake is in thinking that we have an aorist.
I repeat, habitually the historical tense answers to it. " He saw," " went," " came," but when? The rest of the sentence requires to an English mind a time: we English are obliged to give it. Nor do I see that it is in this sense less future than perfect or pluperfect. It is never any of them really; it is the rest of the sentence attaches its time force to the undefined fact of existence which the aorist expresses. In general in English we date grammatical time from our speaking, pluperfect, imperfect, future perfect (exactum), from some other noticed event. These always refer to, and compare the act as to time with some other stated or supposed fact. " He was doing it when," etc. He had done it already then. " He will have been at Rome three weeks to-morrow." This seems to me the secret of so-called tenses in Hebrew. They think from the first fact mentioned, " he went and ate," " ate " goes into so-called future, because it is after " went," and then a Vau conversive: only it goes out into details. All, save as excepted, apply time to present time of speaking.
Excuse such a long grammatical disquisition, but it is in reply to your suggestion as to the elements of the case. At any rate, you will see that, though more instinctively than from grammatical research, it has not been overlooked; and the researches made did not find me without a judgment, though of course I may have failed in applying it, and in some cases have much hesitated. But the sense is different. " We saw his star in the east and came," is historical of the past; we " have run " is a fact (and much more an aorist than " saw," though the fact of " having seen " cannot cease, and so far hence perfect). Then you must say " and have," or " are come," and it is really a present, even if I say " have "; and " have " and " are " are the same-both perfects in Greek. You will find, let me add, the tenses, aorist or future or perfect, interchanged in the same sentence. For this reason the mind may define more naturally or purposely.
Ever yours sincerely in the Lord,
J. N. D.
I should fear a little for use a perpetual marginal calling in question of text.