Aorist Participle's in 2 Peter 2.4-6

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Post Reply
DavidR
Posts: 1
Joined: November 19th, 2022, 8:16 am

Aorist Participle's in 2 Peter 2.4-6

Post by DavidR »

Afternoon All,

Could you help me with the use of the aorist participles in 2 Peter 2.4 please?

There are 4 aorist participles in the triplet of examples in 2 Peter 2:4-6:

sinned - v4, lit. having sinned
cast down to hell - v4, lit. having thrust them down to hell
brining in the flood - v5, lit. having let loose the deluge
turning into ashes - v6, lit. having reduced to ashes

The aorist seems to point to a definite moment, not so much an ongoing action.
This is confirmed by the flood being brought in at a definite and complete moment, same with reducing Sodom to ashes. Each aorist participle seems to indicate a definite moment of completed action. It was short and sharp so to speak.

Also, the two aorist's in v4 seem to coincide, when the angels sinned, they were cast down to Tartarus. In other words, the tense seems to indicate a definite moment in time, not so much a repeated sin over a 100-year period. If the sin of the angels was inter-marriage with humans, then this took place repeatedly over about 100 years, according to the timeline in Gen 5-7. But if they were cast down to Tartarus upon their sin taking place, then it's difficult to conclude that the sin was intermarriage.

Thoughts appreciated.
David
Philip Arend
Posts: 61
Joined: October 14th, 2018, 1:15 am

Re: Aorist Participle's in 2 Peter 2.4-6

Post by Philip Arend »

Hi David,

Actually, the Cambridge Greek Lexicon translates the part of speech ἀὀριστος (aorist) as imprecise-ambiguous. Grammatically it is "unmarked", indicating that an event happened without being marked for imperfective (continuous/iterative) or for perfective (completed) action. So, it is not possible to derive the concepts you are exploring from the aorist construction itself. Perhaps it might be helpful to read an older article floating around the internet called "The Abused Aorist". Mike Aubrey's website "Koine-Greek" also has many articles on perfective and imperfective action. Blessings on your research
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4158
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist Participle's in 2 Peter 2.4-6

Post by Jonathan Robie »

DavidR wrote: November 19th, 2022, 8:28 am Could you help me with the use of the aorist participles in 2 Peter 2.4 please?

There are 4 aorist participles in the triplet of examples in 2 Peter 2:4-6:

sinned - v4, lit. having sinned
cast down to hell - v4, lit. having thrust them down to hell
brining in the flood - v5, lit. having let loose the deluge
turning into ashes - v6, lit. having reduced to ashes
Hi David - Philip gave you good counsel. I thought I'd flesh it out a bit. But first please quote the text in Greek and quote the verbs in Greek, so we are all looking at the same thing. I'll do it this time:
4 Εἰ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ἀγγέλων ἁμαρτησάντων οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ σειροῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας παρέδωκεν εἰς κρίσιν τηρουμένους, 5 καὶ ἀρχαίου κόσμου οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλὰ ὄγδοον Νῶε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα ἐφύλαξεν κατακλυσμὸν κόσμῳ ἀσεβῶν ἐπάξας, 6 καὶ πόλεις Σοδόμων καὶ Γομόρρας τεφρώσας καταστροφῇ κατέκρινεν ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς,
Now back to your post:
DavidR wrote: November 19th, 2022, 8:28 amAlso, the two aorist's in v4 seem to coincide, when the angels sinned, they were cast down to Tartarus. In other words, the tense seems to indicate a definite moment in time, not so much a repeated sin over a 100-year period. If the sin of the angels was inter-marriage with humans, then this took place repeatedly over about 100 years, according to the timeline in Gen 5-7. But if they were cast down to Tartarus upon their sin taking place, then it's difficult to conclude that the sin was intermarriage.
Theory hits reality. Philip is right here - you are looking at a good example that shows that the Aorist does not require a definite moment in time, though you might think so from some grammars.

I think the Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek is quite clear here:
  • The imperfect (or ‘secondary present indicative’) expresses an action, located in the past, that is presented as ongoing or repeated:
    ἐκτώμην I was acquiring/ I (habitually) acquired ἐπαίδευον I was educating/ I (habitually) educated
  • The aorist indicative expresses an action, located in the past, presented as a complete whole:
    ἐκτησάμην I acquired/ I have acquired, ἐπαίδευσα I educated/ I have educated
van Emde Boas, Evert; Rijksbaron, Albert; Huitink, Luuk; de Bakker, Mathieu. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek (p. 410). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Acquiring something or becoming educated can take a long time or a short time, that's not in view here. The Aorist doesn't mean that it happened instantly.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4158
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist Participle's in 2 Peter 2.4-6

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Philip Arend wrote: November 25th, 2022, 4:17 am Perhaps it might be helpful to read an older article floating around the internet called "The Abused Aorist". Mike Aubrey's website "Koine-Greek" also has many articles on perfective and imperfective action. Blessings on your research
Abused Aorist can be found here:

https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ ... _stagg.pdf

Mike Aubrey's site is here:

https://koine-greek.com/
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “Grammar Questions”