YOUR OPINION: The Aorist or the Present should be studied first? Why?

Hey Stan, you officially win the award for the first video in response to one of my videos! Thanks for the discussion! A couple of clarifying points. First I am not advocating for starting with the Aorist form, I think doing so would be too difficult at this point, and I myself start with the present tense. However, my argument is more idealistic: that by starting with the present first we've collectively started with the wrong form (back hundreds of years ago when the modern way of teaching Greek was under construction). I don't expect dictionaries and lexicons to change, but again, what I'm saying is that the lexicons use the present tense as the lexical form by convention, not because it is right. In theory, the simplest form of the verb should be the lexical form. Similarly, the cornerstone paradigm also starts with the present tense because we teach the present tense first. Shouldn't the paradigm start with the root? From there we can develop the morphology from the root. Starting from the present tense starts with a morphological form, which is inherently more complicated. Regardless, I appreciate your work and the time you've taken to develop this response - and especially pointing out that Decker starts with the present - that is an oversight on my part! I don't think we really disagree in practice... I'm just making an idealistic argument, and I'm glad it stirred some to think a little about this subject! 😉

This is the way a difference of opinion should be discussed online without rancor or character assassination. SUBSCRIBED.

Thank you Stan. I think a respectful debate is helpful. You have helped me a lot. Daryl also has been a help as well so I thank God for you both.

I, too, once reacted to one of Darryl Burling’s videos where he said that there’s no such thing as mistranslations. He claimed that all bible translations are good. I pointed out that there are some misleading translations that are based on the translator’s *theological bias,* which are not faithful to the original Greek text. For example, there are inaccurate translations of Acts 1:11, such as the NIV, NLT, BSB, CEV, GNT, ISV, AMP, GW, NET Bible, NHEB, & WEB. All these Bible versions mistranslate the verse as if Jesus “will come back” or “will return.” However, the original Greek uses a word (ἐλεύσεται) that does not imply a “coming back” or a “return.” It simply indicates *one* single coming. Thus, this mistranslation changes the theological implications of the New Testament. The Greek text uses the word ἐλεύσεται, which simply means “will come”! So, finally Darryl agreed with me but said, who cares as long as they come to Christ. I found that to be an inappropriate response, unworthy of a scholar. We obviously should care if people butcher the text!

I'm glad you responded - I also watch his videos and I like him too, I also questioned his argument and it sounded like it would complicate things. I was really unsettled by it - thanks Stan.

To me (who knows just enough to be dangerous), learning present tense first makes sense because the room for interpretation is not as great as in the aorist. In English we do not have a clear equivalence to the ways Aorist can be interpreted/understood since it's not simply a "past" tense verb, even though it's usually translated that way in our bibles. Present tense is more direct and easier for someone new to biblical Greek to grasp and build confidence in as they learn. I'm always looking at the Greek and picking apart the different English translations that may have been rendered in such a way as to promote a theological agenda. I don't want to sound negative or claim to be some Greek expert, far from it, but the days where I accept everything I read regarding translations are long gone. That's why I studied Greek in the first place, to verify/revise/question the English translations. Keep up the good work, Stan.

I think that if nothing else it has sparked a discussion in the best way to teach things. Something always worth considering. I find it all too true that teaching the present as the base from which other tense forms are built is problematic when it is the tense form with a stem most unlike the verbal root. It is also true that the present requires the most explanation as to the changes seen when the technical personal endings combine with the connecting vowel. Should we come clean with these problems from the start or deal with them when we come to teaching the other tense forms? Unfortunately the latter can result in the mistaken belief than the aorist stem is altered from the present e.g. βαλλω looses a λ to form the aorist whereas it is the present that gains a doubling of the consonant. Should we take the easier approach of teaching combined endings for the present at the risk of causing confusion later and upset truth of their being only four sets of indicative endings? Perhaps like maths we could teach first that 5-6 you can’t do, then later introduce negative numbers then after teaching that you can’t find the square root of a negative number introduce i and unreal numbers. That is teach progressive levels of truth when the student is ready. Perhaps we should teach the simplest form first but make it clear that this is an oversimplification and that more detail will follow. Regarding lexicons, they used to have Greek verbs listed as infinitives back in the 19th century. I’m not sure when they swapped to present or what the rationale was but a change has been wrought before. What would help is if lexicons included the verbal root. My Danker’s concise does not do this, does BDAG? Mounce is very hot on roots and technically correct endings which I find very helpful. I liked your explanation of the sensible order to teach verbs Stan, adding one element at a time. Present, then add augment for the imperfect, then tense formative for the future then both for the aorist. Of course then endings go back and forth from primary to secondary in this order. Perhaps if we take ourselves out of the constraints of teaching/learning to a fixed time schedule, the whole thing becomes simpler in that we can taylor our teaching to the needs of the students and revisit the present in the light of what we learn about the aorist.

The other thing to remember is that based on the extensive work that has been done on "Order of acquisition" in most languages learners acquire first the present forms->articles->imperfect->past.

In the appendix to Decker's book he has "Morphology Catalog of Common Koine Verbs". Decker uses the Present tense form to to make the catalog and lists the other tense forms afterwards. Maybe Darryl picked up the wrong book. I watched that video last night and found it interesting but as you said Darryl seemed to backstep a little in the video. I'll have to rewatch his video and see what the other book is and if I missed something. Thanks for the video

I will say that this is the first time I’ve seen a Biblical Greek verbal instruction method controversy on KZfaq. 😂

I think Greek Scholards need a Council cause they all teach something different

You are right. Killed it!

I wish the Bible would never translated to other languages so everyone would have to learn Greek since our childhood

Being involved in the spoken, conversational method of teaching Koine Greek (like any language), introducing early the Aorist Imperatives (command forms) introduces the Aorist stem. This is a great segway to introduce Aorist infinitive Aorist indicative past verbs ...but still agree start with Present Tense, Indicative mood, Active voice verbs. Soon after, add the Present tense infinitive and form lots of sentences. There's some thoughts. Appreciate you, my brother from another mother.

The best point made, in either video, is your fourth point, that the present-active-indicative can be used as the cornerstone of the paradigms. Unless someone has a better case to make, I have to agree with you.

"Greek for all " host.........The Man........The Myth.........The Legend !!!

I'm still new to Greek but I agree with all the points of argument presented by Stan..always start with the simple forms first..Thank you Stan for being a great Greek Coach..

Fantastic response Stan.

Thanks for your analysis. It was kind and clear and I think that Dr. Burling would agree with much of what you say. I think that Dr. Burling is making an argument for the "best possible world Greek" and you are recognizing the practical problems in a world that is not the "best possible." In my own practice, I encourage students to compare all verbs to their lexical forms. This simplifies the process and allows students to begin with simple questions like "does the form have an augment." This allows them to begin narrowing down the choices. I compare it to a murder investigation; by looking at the crime scene and narrowing down the suspects. It seems to help my students but your mileage may vary. 😀

Stan, you are the best. I just started the last (#25) lesson in your Greek for All teaching series. I am reading the Bible in Greek! Thank you! Yes, the Present Active Indicative is the best way to start to learn the verb paradigms. Learn Greek, Love God.

I don’t see any compelling reason to change way verbs are taught. I ordered your verb chart and received it today. Sadly, the mailman folded it in half to put it in mailbox so now I have a damaged chart. You may want to consider protecting the chart in the mail with a heavier cardboard stock on one or both slides of it so it can’t be folded.

Question. In John 3:36 is “believing” speaking of a one time faith? Or a ongoing continuous faith?

You asked. I have taught elemental pre-grammar pre-Seminary Koine Greek (my COVID-version video class is on KZfaq) to complete novices. I discovered after teaching it with five test classes over the years that the Present Active Indicative makes learning all the REGULAR verb declensions much easier. My methodology focuses on roots/stems for helping novices at least get the drift of the meaning of words and prepares them to have a fighting chance with Seminary-level Greek. Knowing the root/stem is crucial. Then, adding past-tense prefix and -sa- and -ka- modifiers in a later week turns on the mental light bulb for novices. While it is true the aorist tense has high frequency, it does not enable the novice student to see the stem as easily as Present Active Indicative. Every Greek student will eventually learn the breadth of verbs, but I would err on the breaking out the PIA stems as the first step. Yes, it was how Seminary taught me, but I think it was the correct move for novices.

You are correct, Stan. When learning any language, you lay a foundation and add to it, build on it moving to the more difficult parts of it adding to it. Otherwise, you will get lost and probably quit because it will become so confusing.

IMHO: The present tense is not the "cornerstone." And it is not so simple. It is an error to consider it the starting point & other tenses derived from it as variations on present tense. Emphasize morphs (erroneously called "morphemes") more than paradigms. There are 4 indicators of present stem: 1) addition of o/e to the root before the pronominal endings, 2) reduplication with iota, & 3) present tense infixes, 4) absence of augment. They might have spoken of 1st Present & 2nd Present (like 1st Aorist & 2nd Aorist). Luo verbs use o/e suffix for present markers. The 3 major -mi verbs could be called 2nd Present: They do not use o/e suffix, but employ reduplication with iota to indicate present stem. Then there are infixed present tense verbs that use an infix to indicate present tense, including ablaut, -nasal infix, geminated lambda (ll), -an, & (i)sk. Example: lambano: the m & the an are present tense infixes. Take gi(g)nosko: The gi is present tense reduplication with iota, & the sk is an inchoative present infix. To ignore the present tense morphology and pretend that the present tense is the base form cornerstone from which the others are derived, is a blunder. I don't think would hurt anything to start with aorist in learning the language. Maybe one should start with the general morphology of Greek: demonstrate how all the tenses are made without memorizing any paradigms in first lesson. Teach basic morphs (sa Aorist active & middle, theta eta for aorist passive, se/so future active & middle, ka for perfect active, # for perfect passive; augment, reduplication; etc.).

I an an elderly person, and finding the Greek not that easy to learn. We all know the present and can identify with the present, so for me I support the present tense. Thanks for your commitment Stan

Hey, that's the book that I have. Is it going to be a problem? Also, what does this word mean that you keep using: aorist?

Great work. Agree totally.

I posted a video response to this response for fun 😊

Thanks, I really like your videos.

More great content!

Nice, some KZfaq controversy to spice things up a bit. 😀 The discussion is valuable though, questioning everything is helpful.

Hi Stan! At what email can I contact you?

The only reason I’m finding it impossible to learn Greek is because of all the categories with crazy names that require more crazy words to explain them… such as aorist: what the heck is that? You never told us. Present: that means right now. Past: that means what’s already gone. Future, etc. etc. but aorist? No idea. I have several charts with all the strange categories but I just can’t understand the categories: what does indicative mean? Or why do we have three declensions? What the heck is a participle, or athematic, or indicative…or liquid indicative? I think I have grammatical dyslexia, because try as I might, these mean nothing to me. Nothing sticks because their definitions are just as muddy as the name of it. Why can we just use understandable words to describe each category? Why is the Subject the Nominative? What the heck is nominative? Why is the Object always in an argument about whose fault it is? Accusative? Really? Are we just trying to make this hard?

Interesting!

I don't agree with anyone who makes money putting other peopkle down.

Keep it the way it is. Makes more sense.