imperfect and preterite in biblical Greek

I have been spurred to define some key terms in biblical Greek. I read a document given to me by a freind online. https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=184 I find it difficult to distinguish between imperfect and preterite in biblical Greek. I see that the imperfect tense has the same kind of action as does the present tense. Porter says a narrator will use the imperfect “when an action is selected to be dwelt upon” (Stanley Porter, Idioms, 34). I know aspect is the way in which a writer uses it to portray the action. I have read many Greek textbooks (Mounce, Wallace, Learn to Read New Testament Greek by David Alan Black and The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. In Greek, how do I use these tenses? I am aware that one way to "set the stage" for a story is to utilize the imperfect to give background information. I have read that the imperfect is frequently interrupted by the preterite in the textual studies. How can I see this in action to better understand the conceptual meaning through a textual and biblical analysis?

Porter, Stanley E.. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. New York, Bloomsbury Academic, 1992.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

David Thomas

How can I see this in action to better understand

order this book - https://www.logos.com/product/248388/basics-of-verbal-aspect-in-biblical-greek-2nd-ed

if you can't wait for the 2nd edition to be complete, get https://www.logos.com/product/41545/basics-of-verbal-aspect-in-biblical-greek

Once again, you are posting a "help me learn" question instead of what these forums are intended - "How do I use the Software?"

To preclude the request for "send me free pages", I will not undermine the purchase of resources which keep this fine company in business so they can continue to assist in my Bible study.

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293174#Comment_1293174

I have the 1st edition of Campbell's book but it did not quite give me enough depth after looking at it.

Dave Hooton

Porter says a narrator will use the imperfect “when an action is selected to be dwelt upon” (Stanley Porter, Idioms, 34). I know aspect is the way in which a writer uses it to portray the action. I have read many Greek textbooks (Mounce, Wallace, Learn to Read New Testament Greek by David Alan Black and The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis by Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch. In Greek, how do I use these tenses?

Well, you will get as many opinions as there are authors:

"The Greek Aorist corresponds to the English simple Past (or Imperfect or Preterite, loved, heard, etc.) more nearly than to any other English tense".
Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed.

"The “Aoristic” Present Perfect. The Present Perfect is here conceived as a mere punctiliar preterit like the aorist ind. We have seen how in some verbs the punctiliar idea drops out and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like οἶδα)." A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research

"Many grammarians make no distinction between the iterative and the customary imperfect. However, while the customary is repeated action in past time, it has two elements that the iterative imperfect does not have: (1) regularly recurring action (or, action at regular intervals), and (2) action that tends to take place over a long span of time." Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics

So why does Wallace not use the term "preterite"? In fact only 3/17 (3 out of 17) Greek Grammars use the term. All use "past" in conjunction with "imperfect" and also throw in Aorist and Pluperfect.

Finally, NET Bible Notes only compares the two (preterite/imperfect) in the OT. It compares past/imperfect in the NT, and also associates past with aorist.

I find it difficult to distinguish between imperfect and preterite in biblical Greek.

So do I, given the limited use by grammarians. Did you also understand that "preterit" is an alternative. Did you take account of the use of "past"?

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293251#Comment_1293251

Thanks Dave for the quotes by Burton and Robertson. Those are very valuable. I did not understand that preterit is an alternative. I also did not take into account of the use of 'past.' It is like the grammarians do not take this into consideration, kind of brushing it under the mat.