Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4172
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jonathan Robie »

I am preparing to preach on Luke 1:39-55 this Sunday, and I was surprised by some of the verb tenses in the Magnificat. I have highlighted some verbs for discussion ...
Luke 1:45-56 wrote: 46 Καὶ εἶπεν Μαριάμ
Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν κύριον,
47  καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,
48  ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αὐτοῦ.
ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν μακαριοῦσίν με πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί,
49  ὅτι ἐποίησέν μοι μεγάλα ὁ δυνατός.
καὶ ἅγιον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ,
50  καὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ εἰς γενεὰς καὶ γενεὰς
τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτόν.
51  Ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ,
διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν
52  καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων
καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς,
53  πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν
καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐξαπέστειλεν κενούς.
54  ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ,
μνησθῆναι ἐλέους,
55  καθὼς ἐλάλησεν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἡμῶν,
τῷ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
56 Ἔμεινεν δὲ Μαριὰμ σὺν αὐτῇ ὡς μῆνας τρεῖς, καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτῆς.
I will ask different questions in separate posts below ...
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4172
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Why Μεγαλύνει, present tense, in apposition to ἠγαλλίασεν, aorist?

Καὶ εἶπεν Μαριάμ,
Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν κύριον,
καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,

And why is ἠγαλλίασεν aorist in the first place? Commentaries offer different explanations of this. Here's the Exegetical Summaries, is there a particular reason to prefer one of these three interpretations?
QUESTION—What is indicated by the aorist tense of ἠγαλλίασεν ‘rejoiced’ which follows μεγαλύνει ‘magnifies’ in the present tense?
1. It is translated in the present tense [AB, LN (25.133), NICNT, NTC, TH; all versions except HCSB, KJV, NET, REB]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God. In parallelism with the first clause, ‘rejoices’ is to be understood as a timeless aorist [AB]. This difference in tenses is influenced by Hebrew poetry style and the tense change is not significant [TH]. This may be influenced by a Hebrew construction in which a normally past tense verb takes on a present value after a present participle, and Hebrew poetic parallelism requires the translation to make both verbs present tense [NICNT].
2. It is an ingressive aorist [Arn, BECNT; NET]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God. Mary magnifies the Lord now that she has begun to find joy in her Savior God [BECNT]. Mary began to rejoice at the angel’s announcement [NET].
3. The aorist indicates past tense [Lns, TNTC, WBC; HCSB, KJV, REB]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoiced in God. While the present tense ‘magnifies’ denotes a habitual act, the aorist tense ‘rejoiced’ points to the particular past event when the angel brought the message [TNTC]. Or, it is an ordinary historical aorist that points back to the moment before she spoke [Lns]. Or, the aorist tense ‘has found gladness’ refers to the past time when God enabled her to become pregnant with the Messiah [WBC].

Blight, R. C. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Luke 1–11 (2nd ed., p. 53). Dallas, TX: SIL International.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4172
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jonathan Robie »

I had always interpreted these following verbs as prophecies of what Jesus would do in his life and resurrection, but I am doubting that now:

51 Ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ,
διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν
52 καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων
καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς,
53 πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν
καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐξαπέστειλεν κενούς.

Do these refer to past events? Or future events? If they refer to future events, what kinds of things that Luke reported would come into view as fulfilling these prophecies?

Again, the Exegetical Summaries. Which of these four interpretations is right, and what gives it away?
QUESTION—In verses 1:51–53 there are six verbs in the aorist tense. How are these aorists used in these verses?
1. This is a historic use of the aorists [AB, Gdt, Lns, NIC, NTC, Su, WBC; probably all which translate in the past tense: GW, KJV, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV]: God did this in the past. Mary tells what the Lord has done for others in the past and especially what he has done for her by being merciful to her (1:48–49) [NTC]. Although basically historical, they also indicate actions that recur over and over [NTC]. The aorist is ingressive: God began to do this when he chose Mary [Gdt, NIC].
2. This is a futuristic use of the aorists telling what will happen in the future [Alf, Arn, BECNT, Crd, ICC, My, NAC, NIGTC, Su, TH, TNTC]: God will do this. Mary is referring to the effects of her being blessed rather than to past events [TH, TNTC]. She is interested in what the coming of Jesus will mean [BECNT]. It describes the future work of God’s Son and Mary saw this as already accomplished [NAC]. This is equivalent to the Hebrew prophetic perfect tense which refers to events of the future as being already accomplished [NAC, TH].
3. This is a gnomic use of the aorists to express a general truth [EGT]: God always does this.
4. Combinations are involved. CEV translates 1:51 in the past tense and 1:52–53 in the present tense. NLT translates 1:51 in the present tense and 1:52–53 in the past tense.

Blight, R. C. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Luke 1–11 (2nd ed., p. 56). Dallas, TX: SIL International.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jean Putmans »

Some Commentaries on the use of the Aorist in the Magnificat:

Plummer (1920: A Critical And Exegetical Commentary Gospel According To St Luke)
"47. ήγαλλίασαν. Α word formed by Hellenists from αγάλλομαι, and freq. in LXX (Ps. xv. 9, xlvii. 12, lxix. 5; Is. xxxv. 2 ; Jer. xlix. 4). The act is rare; perhaps only here and Rev. xix. 7; but as v.l. 1 Pet. i. 8. The aor. may refer to the occasion of the angelic visit. But it is the Greek idiom to use the aor. in many cases in which we use the perf., and then it is misleading to translate the Grk. aor. by the Eng. aor. Moreover, in late Grk. the distinction between aor. and perf. had become less sharp. Simcox, Lang. of N.T. pp. 103-106."

Marshall, I. Howard New International Greek Testament Commentary Commentary on Luke Grand Rapids 1978 has another explanation: (Page 82):
"The change to the aorist may reflect a Hebrew 'waw consecutive'construction, whereby a verb which normally refers to the past can take on a present value after a participle with that value".
Marshall also refers to a scholar Joüon, who "finds the influence of an Aramaic stative perfect".

So also Zerwick, Biblical Greek, § 259:
"Hebrew influence is to be suspected in the Magnificat Lk I,5l ff: εποιησεν κρατοσ... διεεσκορπισεν θπερηφανουσ .. . καθειλεν δυναστασ etc., for the Hebrew perfect is used also for the expressions of a universal truth, and is rendered in poetical passages by the LXX in the aorist (DEBR. ed. 8, 333A). Cf. the song of Hannah 1 Sam 2,41.

Culy - Parsons - Stigall 2010, Luke A Handbook on the Greek Text Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testamen, page 42 gives the main views for the use of the Aorist:
"ἠγαλλίασεν. Aor act ind 3rd sg  γαλλιάω. There has been much debate regarding Luke’s use of the aorist tense here (cf. 3:22; 7:35; 15:24). Fitzmyer (1:366) translates the aorist as an English present, calling it a “timeless aorist,” noting that it is parallel with μεγαλύνει in the previous verse (cf. BDF §333.2 and Porter 1989, 131–33, who regard the timeless Semitic perfect as having influenced the aorist). Nolland (1:69) regards it as ingressive. Plummer (31–33) translates the aorist tenses in 1:47-55 as English perfects (with the exception of ἐλάλησεν in 1:55), noting that in late Greek the distinction between the two tenses had become less sharp. He reads the six aorist tenses in 1:51-53 as proleptic, speaking of the future as already
past (cf. Wallace, 563). Bovon (1:64) suggests that the aorist tenses in this passage may be ingressive, but believes a final solution is
impossible. Campbell (2007, 125) may be correct in suggesting that such uses of the aorist could simply be for “perfective contrast” with
the dominant imperfect aspect (present tense) in reported speech."
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3353
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: December 17th, 2021, 8:10 pm And why is ἠγαλλίασεν aorist in the first place? Commentaries offer different explanations of this. Here's the Exegetical Summaries, is there a particular reason to prefer one of these three interpretations?
QUESTION—What is indicated by the aorist tense of ἠγαλλίασεν ‘rejoiced’ which follows μεγαλύνει ‘magnifies’ in the present tense?
1. It is translated in the present tense [AB, LN (25.133), NICNT, NTC, TH; all versions except HCSB, KJV, NET, REB]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God. In parallelism with the first clause, ‘rejoices’ is to be understood as a timeless aorist [AB]. This difference in tenses is influenced by Hebrew poetry style and the tense change is not significant [TH]. This may be influenced by a Hebrew construction in which a normally past tense verb takes on a present value after a present participle, and Hebrew poetic parallelism requires the translation to make both verbs present tense [NICNT].
2. It is an ingressive aorist [Arn, BECNT; NET]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit has begun to rejoice in God. Mary magnifies the Lord now that she has begun to find joy in her Savior God [BECNT]. Mary began to rejoice at the angel’s announcement [NET].
3. The aorist indicates past tense [Lns, TNTC, WBC; HCSB, KJV, REB]: my soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoiced in God. While the present tense ‘magnifies’ denotes a habitual act, the aorist tense ‘rejoiced’ points to the particular past event when the angel brought the message [TNTC]. Or, it is an ordinary historical aorist that points back to the moment before she spoke [Lns]. Or, the aorist tense ‘has found gladness’ refers to the past time when God enabled her to become pregnant with the Messiah [WBC].
The fundamental difficulty with interpreting this aorist is that the reference period within which to construe the event hasn’t been clearly established for it so that it can refer to a definite time in the past. I think the reference period is established in the following lines, however, so TNTC is probably on the right track in option 3 in seeing it as a reference to the time when the angel brought the message to Marry.

Option 1 over-reads the parallelism in my opinion. There’s no reason not to use a present if the same reference time is in view. In fact it is expected. Plus there’s every reason to think the Magnificat is a Greek composition.

Option 2 is out because ingressive aorists occur when the relevant reference time (in the past) is too short to hold the entire event (see Bary’s dissertation). This is easy to set up in narrative, but the Magnificat is not narrative. Rather the problem is that the reference time for the aorist has not (yet) been set up, rather than being so short as to coerce the construal of the event to an ingressive.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Stephen Carlson
Posts: 3353
Joined: May 11th, 2011, 10:51 am
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Stephen Carlson »

Jonathan Robie wrote: December 17th, 2021, 8:15 pm I had always interpreted these following verbs as prophecies of what Jesus would do in his life and resurrection, but I am doubting that now:

51 Ἐποίησεν κράτος ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ,
διεσκόρπισεν ὑπερηφάνους διανοίᾳ καρδίας αὐτῶν
52 καθεῖλεν δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων
καὶ ὕψωσεν ταπεινούς,
53 πεινῶντας ἐνέπλησεν ἀγαθῶν
καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐξαπέστειλεν κενούς.

Do these refer to past events? Or future events? If they refer to future events, what kinds of things that Luke reported would come into view as fulfilling these prophecies?

Again, the Exegetical Summaries. Which of these four interpretations is right, and what gives it away?
QUESTION—In verses 1:51–53 there are six verbs in the aorist tense. How are these aorists used in these verses?
1. This is a historic use of the aorists [AB, Gdt, Lns, NIC, NTC, Su, WBC; probably all which translate in the past tense: GW, KJV, NCV, NET, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV]: God did this in the past. Mary tells what the Lord has done for others in the past and especially what he has done for her by being merciful to her (1:48–49) [NTC]. Although basically historical, they also indicate actions that recur over and over [NTC]. The aorist is ingressive: God began to do this when he chose Mary [Gdt, NIC].
2. This is a futuristic use of the aorists telling what will happen in the future [Alf, Arn, BECNT, Crd, ICC, My, NAC, NIGTC, Su, TH, TNTC]: God will do this. Mary is referring to the effects of her being blessed rather than to past events [TH, TNTC]. She is interested in what the coming of Jesus will mean [BECNT]. It describes the future work of God’s Son and Mary saw this as already accomplished [NAC]. This is equivalent to the Hebrew prophetic perfect tense which refers to events of the future as being already accomplished [NAC, TH].
3. This is a gnomic use of the aorists to express a general truth [EGT]: God always does this.
4. Combinations are involved. CEV translates 1:51 in the past tense and 1:52–53 in the present tense. NLT translates 1:51 in the present tense and 1:52–53 in the past tense.

Blight, R. C. (2008). An Exegetical Summary of Luke 1–11 (2nd ed., p. 56). Dallas, TX: SIL International.
I think the reference to God’s past actions for Israel is explicit, but there is the implication that he will do the same for Israel again with Mary’s child. SO I’m inclined to read this as the NTC.
Stephen C. Carlson, Ph.D.
Melbourne, Australia
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4172
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:51 pm The fundamental difficulty with interpreting this aorist is that the reference period within which to construe the event hasn’t been clearly established for it so that it can refer to a definite time in the past. I think the reference period is established in the following lines, however, so TNTC is probably on the right track in option 3 in seeing it as a reference to the time when the angel brought the message to Marry.

Option 1 over-reads the parallelism in my opinion. There’s no reason not to use a present if the same reference time is in view. In fact it is expected. Plus there’s every reason to think the Magnificat is a Greek composition.

Option 2 is out because ingressive aorists occur when the relevant reference time (in the past) is too short to hold the entire event (see Bary’s dissertation). This is easy to set up in narrative, but the Magnificat is not narrative. Rather the problem is that the reference time for the aorist has not (yet) been set up, rather than being so short as to coerce the construal of the event to an ingressive.
This was very helpful. I agree. Thanks.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4172
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Carlson wrote: December 18th, 2021, 4:57 pm I think the reference to God’s past actions for Israel is explicit, but there is the implication that he will do the same for Israel again with Mary’s child. SO I’m inclined to read this as the NTC.
Yes, I agree.

Both these posts were helpful for me, and in time for the sermon last Sunday. Thanks.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
RandallButh
Posts: 1105
Joined: May 13th, 2011, 4:01 am

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by RandallButh »

Plus there’s every reason to think the Magnificat is a Greek composition.
NT/Greek people need to be able to read and appreciate psalm 2 if they are going to evaluate the magnificat.
(That would apply to the Marshall quote and other commentaries above.)
[[E.g., The following statement is simply incorrect for Hebrew: "The change to the aorist may reflect a Hebrew 'waw consecutive'construction, whereby a verb which normally refers to the past can take on a present value after a participle with that value." Why not true? A Greek aorist would suggest Hebrew wayyiqtol, but that would not follow the "rule" quoted by Marshall. And if weqatal, that would fit with a Hebrew participle but it would not suggest a Greek aorist indicative, but a future (cf. Is 7.14).]]

See Randall Buth, “Hebrew Poetic Tenses and the Magnificat,” JSNT 21 (1984): 67–83,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 8400602104. or http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0142064X8400602104

The poetic tense analysis is accepted and discussed in JBL 2016 (Hugo Méndez, "Semitic Poetic Techniques in the Magnificat: Luke 1:46–47, 55," Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 135, No. 3 (Fall 2016), pp. 557-574) by someone I've not had the pleasure of meeting (I trhink) [SBL's on jet-lag are hard on memories.]

[The 1984 article is recommended to be read first, to appreciate and establish the not-widely-taught Hebrew phenomenon, before reading the 2016 article, which deals more extensively with NT scholarship since then.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.156 ... bd66670a65

PS to clarify a point that Mendez missed: I did not say that all examples of the Hebrew tense-shift poetic phenomenon were leveled in the Greek OT, but that the Greek OT did not consistently mimic and "teach" such a phenomenon so that a Greek could learn and imitate it. In that sense it is also a non-LXX-Hebraism, one of many in the Gospel. The fact that this thread exists strongly supports this point.
Jean Putmans
Posts: 153
Joined: August 3rd, 2018, 1:01 am
Location: Heerlen; Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Aorist verbs in the Magnificat

Post by Jean Putmans »

The Vulgate (Jerome and the Nova) have the perfect, also the Vetus Latina, be it with some variants (all perfect).

How does the Latin perfect relate to the Greek Aorist/Hebrew Perfect?
Jean Putmans
Netherlands
gotischebibel.blogspot.com
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”