The Translation of the Aorist Tense - Glenn Conjurske
The Translation of the Aorist Tense
by Glenn Conjurske
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 satsifaction 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.
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 priniciple 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 a-oristic 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.
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.
After the publication of the Revised Version, B. F. Westcott chimed in with the same story, saying, “The force of the aorist, which answers, in the main, to the simple past tense in English, will come before us in other connections. One or two examples will direct the English reader to consider the effect which it has in giving precision to a fact or thought.
“When the wise men ask, `Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we saw (ei[domen) His star in the east,’ they place their conviction of the Divine birth in immediate connection with a sign which had been granted to them. So the unfaithful disciples appeal to a past which rises sharply before them when they say, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by Thy name, and by Thy name cast out devils?”’
But again, all of this is exactly wrong, and the King James Version exactly right. As for the wise men, “in the east” may imply a definite time to English thought, and therefore “we saw his star” may pass, but the old version’s “we have seen his star” exactly represents the Greek aorist. And Westcott fails to inform us that “is born” is also aorist (though a participle), yet for that the revisers retain the rendering of the old version. Why did they not alter this to “was born”?
“Did we not prophecy” might pass in English, for the definite time “during our lifetime” may be understood, but this is not the meaning of the Greek. The aorist sets forth their general or habitual course, and no particular event. It is precisely the province of the aorist tense to denote habitual or characteristic action, with no reference at all to any particular act or occasion. “Have we not prophesied in thy name? Have we not cast out demons?” This is the voice of “many.” “Have we not prophesied in thy name?” Any particular event or occasion is absolutely out of the question. But this constant use of the simple past tense in English, to denote action which is obviously and necessarily habitual, compels us to wonder whether these revisers knew English any better than they did Greek. They appear to be as unaware that the simple past tense in English denotes definite time, as they are that the Greek aorist describes habitual action. Whatever the case, they have certainly put forth versions which are inferior to that which they thought to replace.
But I proceed to demonstrate the true sense of the aorist tense, by actual examples from the New Testament. I will of course give the examples in English, but assure the reader that the italicized words are rendered from the aorist tense in the Greek.
John 7:31—-“When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?” It is self-evident that the time is undefined here. There is no reference to “a point of action in the past time,” as modern ignorance defines the aorist tense, but a simple statement of the general fact, without specifying any particular time, event, or occasion. To try to introduce defined or specific time here would make confusion indeed, for Christ’s performing of miracles was habitual, and not confined to any particular occasion. To say “these signs which this man did,” as though it referred to some particular occasion, is to leave the English mind either confused or insulted. And yet we actually find “did” here in the Nestle-Marshall interlinear translation, and in Young’s so-called “Literal Translation”—-which is not a literal translation, but which is one of the fountainheads of the unsound intellectual scholarship of modern times.
II Tim. 4:14—-“Alexander the coppersmith hath done me much evil, …of whom be thou ware also,” denoting his habitual activities, and not a particular occasion. Even the King James Version errs here (followed by all others), with “Alexander did me much evil.” It is right in the next verse, however, with “he hath greatly resisted our words.” But this the RV and the NASV wrongly abandon, for the simple past tense.
John 15:9—-“As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you.” In the nature of the case such a statement cannot refer to any particular time or specific occasion. It states the abiding fact, which is as true in the present as it has been in the past. The time is, and must be, undefined—-that is, aorist. Yet even here we read in Young’s Literal Translation, “According as the Father did love me, I also loved you,” and the Nestle-Marshall interlinear gives us “loved” in both places. These two translators have at any rate the virtue of consistency. Most of the modern translations adopt the same false principle, that the aorist is equivalent to the simple past, but they are rather shy of consistently applying it, for it makes for a translation which must continually either confuse or offend English ears. Young was no doubt well aware of this, and therefore very often substituted “did” for “have” as an auxiliary. The presence of any auxiliary, where the English calls aloud for “have,” tends to reduce the harshness of the version, and it is no doubt for this purpose that Young so constantly employs “did” in the rendering of the aorist. Yet the sense which he gives remains false, for “did” is the simple past tense, and the insertion of it nothing alters the wrong sense which the simple past gives to the Greek aorist.
Luke 1:46-47—-“And Mary said, My soul doth magnify [present] the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced [aorist] in God my Saviour.” To say “My spirit rejoiced in God my Saviour—-besides being bald, unnatural, and un-English—-is plainly wrong. This is no reference to any historical event, but to a characteristic fact, and the time is necessarily general and undefined. The whole Magnificat follows, with a full array of aorist tenses, all of them designating facts which are general, habitual, or characteristic, and certainly not definite occasions or specific events, so that we would strike much nearer the truth to translate them all by the simple present tense, than to use the simple past. Yet Young’s Literal Translation must dutifully pervert these aorists, giving us “He looked on the lowliness of His maid-servant—-He scattered abroad the proud—-He brought down the mighty—-He exalted the lowly—-The hungry He did fill with good,” thus destroying both the properties of English and the meaning of the Greek. All of these are exactly wrong, while the King James Version is exactly right. I note also that the frequent use of the aorist in conjunction with the present tense (as “doth magnify” and “hath rejoiced”), or present adverbs, disallows the idea of any reference to historical events, or to any specific time. For this reason there are examples enough where it is quite legitimate—-or even necessary—-to translate the Greek aorist by an English present, for the time is entirely undefined, and the fact stated habitual, or characteristic, and always true. Thus:
Matthew 3:17—-“This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This statement, with slight variations, appears six times in the New Testament, and the tense is always aorist. It states a fact, which cannot refer to any defined or specific time. Those who regard the Greek aorist as equivalent to the simple past in English must of course regard this case as an exception, but it must remain a puzzling exception, for which they can give no satisfactory account. Some of them have wrestled with it, endeavoring to turn it into what they regard as an aorist, but with little success. Young’s “in whom I did delight” is plainly wrong, for there can be no reference whatever here to time either past or definite. Marshall’s “I was well pleased” is also plainly wrong. Darby’s “in whom I have found my delight” displays some ingenuity, but it is entirely a work of supererogation. He unnecessarily thrusts the time into the past, and he is yet obliged to make it indefinite, by the use of the auxiliary “have.” And “have found” implies a beginning, which cannot be right—-unless Darby means to apply the statement solely to the manhood of Christ. Most of the modern versions have simply yielded to the plain necessity of the case, and rendered the aorist as a present, though they must abandon their principle to do so, and cannot tell why they must.
John 13:31—-“Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” This the Revised Version, the New American Standard Version, and the New King James Version are all obliged to retain, in spite of their false notions concerning the aorist. Yet both RV and NASV give us “was” in the margin, indicating what damage they would do to the passage, were they not deterred by the word “now.” Young’s Literal Translation has no such scruples about murdering the English tongue, and so dutifully renders, “Now was the Son of Man glorified, and God was glorified in him.”
Matt. 22:2—-“The kingdom of heaven is likened to a certain king,” which the RV is obliged to retain, though Young dutifully presents us with “was likened,” and the NKJV and NASV, determined always to abandon the old version, though the changes introduced are needless and useless, give us “is like” and “may be compared to”—-both in the present tense.
Luke 14:18-20—-“I have bought a piece of ground—-I have bought five yoke of oxen—-I have married a wife.” The time in all of these is obviously indefinite, and the new versions yield to the force of necessity, and retain the rendering of the old one.
Matt. 3:7—-“Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” The bald “who warned you” of the RV and NASV robs the aorist of its undefined time, and implies some particular occasion, when they were all warned at once. It is wrong, and the old version right.
I John 2:18—-“Ye have heard that antichrist shall come.” They may have heard this individually at a hundred different times, yet the RV and the NASV pervert the aorist to “ye heard,” as though the apostle had some specific event or occasion in mind. The old version is right, the new ones wrong. And in I John 2:24 the NASV and the NKJV conspire together to undo both the Greek and the English, with their twice repeated “you heard from the beginning.” “From the beginning” is as necessarily indefinite as “in the beginning” is definite, and it calls aloud for “have heard” in English. The Greek aorist calls for the same. Kenneth Wuest (of course, and as usual) mistranslates the aorist in the same way in Galatians 1:13, rendering, “you heard of my manner of life aforetime in Judaism,” against even the RV, which there retains the auxiliary “have.”
I Cor. 1:27—-“But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world…, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world…, and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen.” These—-along with “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world?” (James 2:5)—-are all statements of general fact. So far as we might suppose them to contain any reference at all to historic events, that reference can only be to the habitual, characteristic, or general acting of God, and the nature of the statements themselves excludes any reference to anything specific. Such statements of general fact or habitual action amount in essence to statements of principles—-changeless and abiding principles, which are above and independent of particular events. The principle enunciated here is that God chooses the poor, that he chooses the foolish and the weak and the base and the despised. Yet the RV manifests its ignorance of both Greek and English by rendering “God chose the foolish things…, and God chose the weak things,” etc. In this place the NASV does not follow suit—-it being in general much less consistent than the RV in applying its false principle.
I Cor. 2:9-10—-“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us.” Could anything be more obviously general and indefinite? Yet the RV turns them all to the simple past tense, making stilted English, and falsifying the meaning of the Greek.
James 2:6—-“Ye have despised the poor.” A dash of common sense, I should suppose, would make it clear enough that this is habitual or characteristic action. It describes their general course, and not some particular incident. Hence “have despised” is exactly right, so far as the tense is concerned. Yet Marshall gives us “ye dishonoured the poor man,” and Young’s Literal Translation, “ye did dishonour the poor one.” I should remark that in the rendering of the aorist tense Marshall’s interlinear and Young’s Literal Translation are by far the worst of any which I have consulted. But observe, they are bad precisely because they are consistent. The other modern versions, while adhering to the same false principle, had less of the courage of their convictions, and so more often yielded to common sense or plain necessity, and deserted the principle which produced the unnatural jargon of Young and Marshall.
James 5:4—-“the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields.” This is an aorist participle, expressing indefinite time. The King James Version is exactly right, while RV, NASV, and NKJV all give us the bald, unnatural, and incorrect “who mowed your fields.” Yet in the next verse they all follow the old version in the correct rendering of the aorist, for “Ye lived in pleasure…, and were wanton…, ye nourished your hearts,” would have been too bald and unnatural to endure. But again, in the tenth verse all three of them are back to the wrong way, replacing the correct rendering of the old version, “the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord,” with the unnatural and incorrect “the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord,” (so NASV and NKJV; “spake” in RV), as though this referred to some historic event or particular occasion. Yet it is perfectly plain that this speaking denotes a long course of prophetic utterance, and no single event or occurrence, such as the simple past tense would suggest. But these modern translators seem as unaware of the sense of the English tense as they are of the Greek.
Romans 10:16 & 18—-“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? … But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound has gone into all the earth.” Here, it will be observed, even the King James Version is wrong in the last instance, having “went” for “has gone.” Yet it is perfectly plain that there is no reference whatsoever to any specific time here, but all is general, habitual, and characteristic. Common sense would require this, regardless of Greek. Even the “New” versions have yielded to the force of it, and replaced the old version’s “went” with “has gone.” Not so the old RV, which used the simple past in all of these instances.
Well, but are there not exceptions to all of this? To be sure there are, and those who know anything of the Greek Testament, and who are disposed to dispute my claims, have no doubt found exceptions enough already to disallow my rule altogether. To this I will say, if I cannot give a satsifactory account of those exceptions, then let my rule be disallowed. But bear in mind, those who adopt the opposite rule, holding the Greek aorist to be equivalent to the simple past in English, must wrestle with exceptions also, a great host of them in fact, and they can give no satisfactory account of their exceptions. As a matter of course they must continually abandon their principle in practice, and yet cannot explain why they must.
Now there are two sorts of exceptions to the principle which I advocate. There are real exceptions, and exceptions which are only apparent. The real exceptions consist of a great host of examples in which the aorist is used in historical narrative. The tense of historical narrative in English is the simple past, for, to English thought at least, the time is always definite in historical narrative. But—-for reasons which I cannot pretend to divine—-it is otherwise in the Greek. Whether the Greek thought is different from the English, or whether this is an improper usage of the aorist tense, I am unable to say, but it is a certain fact that the aorist tense is the tense of narrative in Greek. Not that Greek uses the aorist alone for this purpose. It frequently employs the present, as English does also—-though this is usually regarded as slang or improper in English. Occasionally the Greek uses the perfect tense in narrative, and we might suppose the perfect the proper tense for the purpose, for the perfect is the definite tense in Greek. We may see an example of both in John 1:15, where we read, “John testifies [present] concerning him, and cried [perfect], saying, This it was of whom I spoke,” etc. Both the present and the perfect here are quite properly rendered by the simple past in English, for the simple past is our tense for narrative. To endeavor to thrust “has cried” into this setting would be a palpable blunder.
The aorist, however, is the usual tense of narrative in Greek, and since narrative occupies so large a portion of the New Testament, this no doubt accounts for the majority of the appearances of the aorist tense. It may be this fact which has blinded modern scholarship to the true sense of the aorist. But regardless of the number of examples, the use of the aorist in narrative is certainly an exception—-a real departure from the proper meaning of the tense. Thus in the only sound thing which I remember to have seen on the aorist tense—-not that I have read much on it—-Weymouth says, “In short the one and only use in which our Simple Past is equivalent to the Aorist is its use in narrative as a Past Definite.”
There are also numerous apparent exceptions, examples in which the indefinite tense in Greek may be very properly translated by the definite—-the simple past—-in English. “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son.” Both of these are aorist—-indefinite, that is—-in the Greek. How is it that we properly translate them as definite in English? This question may perhaps be best answered by another: How is it that we can translate them as definite in English? The answer is very simple:
There are certain historical events which—-in English thought at least—-are always definite in time. Such are the creation, the incarnation, and the crucifixion. We may therefore say almost indifferently, “God created man,” or “God has created man.” Or—-“Christ died for our sins,” or “Christ has died for our sins.” Nevertheless, in cases of this nature, the thought of a definite historical event so pervades the English way of thinking that it seems generally more natural to say, “Christ died for us,” than “Christ has died for us.” Yet the two do not mean precisely the same thing, nor can anything in the English way of thinking in any way affect the meaning of the Greek aorist. It is proper enough in English to say, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,” but this does not change the fact that in Greek the meaning is more strictly “God has so loved the world that he has given his only-begotten Son”—-referring to the characteristic facts rather than to any historical events. God’s loving the world is not a historical event, but an unchanging fact, yet the thought of the historical event so prevails in the English mind as to make it quite legitimate, and perhaps more natural, to translate the aorist here as a simple past. Not that it is necessary to do so. In II Thes. 2:16 we have the same two words in the same (aorist) tense, and read quite rightly in the English Bible, “God, even our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation.” Here there is no clear reference to any definite historical event, as God’s giving of his Son, and thus the aorist in Greek may naturally remain indefinite in English.
But again, in John 10:10, “I am come that they might have life.” This—-or “have come”—-is the correct rendering of the aorist, yet the RV and the NASV must alter it to “I came.” This illustrates their principle, which is to render the aorist by the simple past wherever the English will allow it—-that is, wherever they may so render without making nonsense. The English may allow a simple past here, because the coming of Christ is a familiar historical event, and yet such a rendering alters the sense of the Greek.
We may grant too that there are places where it is purely a matter of interpretation whether the aorist is intended as a historical definite, or an aorist in the proper sense, and in such cases we may translate either way with no violence to either the Greek or the English.
We grant further that there are many places where, regardless of the meaning of the Greek, it is practically indifferent which tense we use in English. Such are the cases, for example, where the time is specified, and yet indefinite—-as it is when we employ such words as “ever” or “always.” It is nearly indifferent in English whether we say, “This is the best book he ever wrote,” or “the best book he has ever written.” Yet this indifference in English determines nothing of Greek usage. And even in English, if the writer is dead, we must have “wrote,” for then the thought of a definite period, now ended, prevails.
So again, in Hebrews 1:1. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers.” I have insisted above that the time is indefinite in James 5:10, where we read of “the prophets who have spoken in the name of the Lord,” and I equally insist that the aorist tense indicates indefinite time here also. Yet by some peculiarity of English thought, the specifying of that indefinite time—-“at sundry times . . . in time past”—-calls naturally for the use of the definite tense. There is, of course, no danger of its being misunderstood to refer to any specific occasion.
No doubt hundreds of further examples could be given of both the rule and the exceptions, and some of them probably more convincing than the ones which I have used—-for I have spent but little time hunting for them—-but I must have done. I wish only to turn further to a couple of important doctrinal passages, where the mistranslation of the aorist tense has been much insisted upon in order to establish doctrine which is false.
And first, in Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned.” I hope by this time that I have abundantly proved that this is the correct, and the only correct, rendering of the Greek aorist. Most of the versions translate this correctly—-except that the NASV gives “all sinned” in the margin—-but many of the commentators insist explicitly upon the wrong translation. Among these are Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, William Kelly, and William R. Newell. To take one of them as a sample of the whole, W. G. T. Shedd says on the verse, “`all sinned:’ the aoristic meaning is to be retained. The apostle has in his mind a particular historical event: the same, namely, with that alluded to in pavnte” h{marton of v. 12, the sin in Adam. It is the one original sin of apostasy, more than any particular transgressions that flow from it, that puts Jew and Gentile upon the same footing, so that there is no `difference’ between them. The fall in Adam, like the recovery in Christ, is a central and organizing idea in the Epistle to the Romans, and therefore it is alluded to here under the historical tense.”
But this is all mistake from beginning to end. We “retain the aoristic meaning” indeed, but that meaning is “all have sinned,” as the old version has it. The doctrine that “all sinned” in Adam’s transgression you may salvage if you can, but you must salvage it on some other basis than this. The aorist tense in Romans 3:23 has nothing to do with it.
Romans 6 is another doctrinal passage in which the newer versions (RV, NASV, and NKJV) abandon the old renderings of the aorist, adopting the simple past in their place. I say nothing about the doctrines which are made to rest upon the mistake, but only point out that to exchange “we that are dead to sin” for “we that died” is a mistake, which serves only to undermine the actual sense of the aorist. This is not scholarship, but ignorance. If some prefer “have died” to “are dead,” I have no objection to that. Nevertheless, it is the abiding fact which the Greek aorist denotes, and no historic event.
But to conclude. I set out to do several things in this article: to demonstrate the true sense of the Greek aorist, to demonstrate further that the old English Bible is generally correct in translating it, while the modern versions are often mistaken, and thus to demonstrate how little modern scholarship is to be trusted. Modern scholars know some things, no doubt, but “knowledge puffs up,” and pride blinds the eyes. The modern stories about the “New” versions being more accurate than the old one are largely only fairy tales.
But mark, I am far from ascribing the “New” versions to Jesuits or New Age conspiracies. Such charges are foolish, if not wicked. The versions which I have mentioned in this article are no doubt the work of sincere and well-meaning men, but alas, they themselves are the victims of the unspiritual and unscholarly scholarship of modern times. The false renderings of the aorist tense display but one facet of modern incompetence. I may speak of other facets in the time to come, if the Lord will.
Glenn Conjurske