Matthew 3:17

I do not want this to be considered an interpretive question. I am looking at the syntax and morphology of the Greek text of Matthew 3. The verse in question is v. 17.

καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. Matthew 3:17

εὐδόκησα is Aorist but ESV translates it as Present i.e. "with whom I am well pleased"

I can see how this translation could have happened if the Greek verb had been in the perfect tense, as that would have meant "with whom I have been and am currently still well-pleased," which is essentially what the ESV translation says. However, the ordinary translation of Aorist is simple past tense. Why is this translation of εὐδόκησα not in the past tense? Is it because the verb εὐδόκεω lacks a perfect form, as the morphology seems to suggest? I have read a few grammars to only find one talk about this usage (Herbert Weir Smyth, Mounce, Steven Runge, Rodney A. Whitacre, Merkle and Plummer, Beginning with New Testament Greek, John Dobson's Learn New Testament Greek, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics Moises Silva, Wallace's The Basics of New Testament Syntax).

Could it be benefical to read Greek dictionaries on this word to find my answer? Also does Wallace's big Greek Grammar discuss this topic? I could not find anything in his basics text. AT Robertson's was the best grammar to explain this term. But I am still not pleased with this.

A. T. Robertson discusses this under gnomic aorist, saying "It is not certain that εὐδόκησα (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; Lu. 3:22) belongs here. It may be merely an example of the timeless aorist used in the present, but not gnomic. See under (ε). Burton (N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 29) finds it difficult and thinks it originally "inceptive" (ingressive)."

I do not have Burton's work. Does anyone on the forum have it?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Don Awalt

Are you referring to "Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek"? I have it, here you go re: Matt 3:17...

---

The Aorist Indicative. Burton §54–55

55. The Aorist εὐδόκησα in Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22; 2 Pet. 1:17, may be explained — (a) as a Historical Aorist having reference to a specific event as its basis. I was well pleased with thee, e.g. for receiving baptism. If all the instances were in connection with the baptisms this would be the most natural explanation. But for those that occur in connection with the account of the transfiguration this explanation fails, and is probably therefore not the true explanation of any of the instances. (b) as a comprehensive Historical Aorist covering the period of Christ’s preincarnate existence. Cf. John 17:5, 24; see W. N. Clarke, Com. on Mark 1:11. If the passages were in the fourth gospel, and especially if they contained some such phrase as πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, this explanation would have much in its favor. The absence of such limiting phrase, and the fact that the passages are in the synoptic gospels are opposed to this explanation. (c) as a comprehensive Historical Aorist, having the force of an English Perfect, and referring to the period of Christ’s earthly existence up to the time of speaking. But against this is the absence of any adverbial phrase meaning up to this time, which usually accompanies an Aorist verb used in this sense. Cf. 18 and 52. (d) as an Aorist which has by usage come to have the meaning which is strictly appropriate to the Perfect, I became well pleased with thee, and I am [accordingly] well pleased with thee. Cf. 47. There are a few passages of the Septuagint that seem at first sight to favor this explanation. See Ps. 101:15; Jer. 2:19; Mal. 2:17. Cf. also Matt. 12:18; Luke 12:32. The force of this evidence is, however, greatly diminished by the fact that all these instances are capable of being explained without resort to so unusual a use of the Aorist, that both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament there is in use a regular Present form of this verb, and that the Aorist in the majority of cases clearly denotes past time. (e) as an Inceptive Aorist referring to some indefinite, imagined point of past time at which God is represented as becoming well pleased with Jesus. But since this point is not thought of as definitely fixed, English idiom requires a Perfect tense. Cf. 52 (p. 27), 54. It may be described, therefore, as an Inceptive Aorist equivalent to an English Perfect, and may be rendered, I have become well pleased. This, however, can only be a vivid way of saying, I am well pleased. If then this view is correct, the rendering of the English versions is a free but substantially correct paraphrase. A true Perfect would affirm the present state of pleasure and imply the past becoming pleased. The Aorist affirms the becoming pleased and leaves the present pleasure to be suggested. This explanation, therefore, differs from the preceding (d) in that it does not suppose the Aorist of this verb to have acquired the power of expressing an existing result, but judges the existing result to be only suggested by the affirmation of the past fact. This is rhetorical figure, on the way to become grammatical idiom, but not yet become such. Manifestly similar is the use of προσεδέξατο in Isa. 42:1, and of εὐδόκησεν in Matt. 12:18. Indeed, if Matt. 12:18 represents a current translation of Isa. 42:1, our present passages were probably affected in form by this current rendering of the Isaiah passage. Similar also are ἐκάθισαν in Matt. 23:2, and ἔμαθον in Phil. 4:11. In neither case is there any clearly established usage of the Aorist for Greek Perfect; in neither is there apparent any reference to a definite point of past time; in both the real fact intended to be suggested is the present state.

Christian Alexander

Thanks Don. That is what I wanted, partially. I wanted to get a deeper view of this verse and its tense and position in morphology. I cannot wait to see how this goes.

MJ. Smith

Could it be benefical to read Greek dictionaries on this word to find my answer?

Consider the possibility that the answer is better considered by syntax and semantics than by vocabulary and grammar.

Christian Alexander

I do not understand what you mean MJ. Can you explain? I always have believed syntax refers to grammar, while semantics refers to meaning. I have read commentaries but I do not see anything on the Greek form of Matthew 3:17.

MJ. Smith

I do not understand what you mean MJ. Can you explain? I always have believed syntax refers to grammar, while semantics refers to meaning. I have read commentaries but I do not see anything on the Greek form of Matthew 3:17.

Syntax is a narrower field than grammar -- syntax emphasizes context which contributes more to the understanding of the meaning. My experience is that grammar books are used from the beginning in classes for dead languages; syntax books are introduced in the 2nd or 3rd year.

In linguistics, the grammar of a natural language is its set of structural rules on speakers' or writers' usage and creation of clauses, phrases, and words. The term can also refer to the study of such rules, a subject that includes phonology, morphology, and syntax, together with phonetics, semantics, and pragmatics. There are, broadly speaking, two different ways to study grammar: traditional grammar and theoretical grammar. . . .

Outside linguistics, the word grammar often has a different meaning. It may be used more widely to include rules of spelling and punctuation, which linguists would not typically consider as part of grammar but rather of orthography, the conventions used for writing a language. It may also be used more narrowly to refer to a set of prescriptive norms only, excluding the aspects of a language's grammar which do not change or are clearly acceptable (or not) without the need for discussions. Jeremy Butterfield claimed that, for non-linguists, "Grammar is often a generic way of referring to any aspect of English that people object to".

For syntax, I'd fault the Wikipedia for including constituency structures but not dependency. But note it's intermediary role between form (pure grammar) and semantics.

In linguistics, syntax (/ˈsɪntæks/ SIN-taks) is the study of how words and morphemes combine to form larger units such as phrases and sentences. Central concerns of syntax include word order, grammatical relations, hierarchical sentence structure (constituency), agreement, the nature of crosslinguistic variation, and the relationship between form and meaning (semantics). There are numerous approaches to syntax that differ in their central assumptions and goals.

Semantics (from Ancient Greek σημαντικός (sēmantikós) 'significant') is the study of reference, meaning, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines, including philosophy, linguistics and computer science.

My point was that grammatical form of a word is a small sliver of the meaning - look at the tools that will provide the most useful information. Or, put another way, how much time in your high school study of Canterbury Tales or Beowulf or even Shakespeare did you spend discussing the case form of the word?

Christian Alexander

I understand MJ and I am going back to my same question. Is this question un-answerable due to the Greek language? Or can we find similar situations of it? It seems that many of my 'why' Greek questions cannot be answered. I am not sure why.

[quote]

Why is this translation of εὐδόκησα not in the past tense? Is it because the verb εὐδόκεω lacks a perfect form, as the morphology seems to suggest?