[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #24
b-greek-digest Friday, 1 December 1995 Volume 01 : Number 024
In this issue:
Re: Bible Software
Re: Bible Software
Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
Re: Junia/Junias nochmals und weiter ... und weiter
Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
katargeo and pauo
Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
Re: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
Textual Problems in Mark 7:24, 28
Re: review Palmer 1995
Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
Re: Junias Redivivus!
Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:11:48 -0800
Subject: Re: Bible Software
Several items have recently appeared on B-Greek concerning software
published by The GRAMCORD Institute that require some clarification or
ellaboration:
>Michael is quite right -- a lot of the Bible software out there is next
>to useless for any serious work. This is why I'll be saving my pennies
>for the Gramcord Institute's acCordance programme. It contains the most
>powerful search engine I have seen for a Bible programme and is able to
>perform multiple levels of lexical and grammatical searches using Boolean
>patterns.
However, as we like to point out, precisely what makes GRAMCORD/acCordance
so powerful is its ability to do MUCH MORE THAN mere Boolean AND/OR/NOT
searches. Language scholars do not think in terms of Boolean logic so our
programs are not primarily geared toward that approach. True, we made
provision for Boolean searches in both our Mac and Windows systems but that
was a secondary concession more than a primary goal. We wanted to do
searches in a template format such as: find pairs of participles joined by
KAI which differ in tense but share the same lemma, etc. (Plus, the user can
define "word families", determine the position of the construction within
the sentence or clause, whether certain punctuations or word types can
intervene, precede, or follow . . . and all sorts of other "non-Boolean"
concepts that can be quite important.) Moreover, what, for example, if the
scholar wants two words to be adjacent with one another EXCEPT when
interrupted by a certain type of word? That is also virtually impossible to
do using Boolean logic alone. If I am looking for Granville-Sharp examples,
I rarely think in terms of Booleans; most of our users just fill in a
GRAMCORD search template. (Our original DOS GRAMBUILD approach has been
significantly enhanced within our Macintosh and Windows GRAMCORD's.)
For more detail about these kinds of search issues, consult Harry Hahne's
paper from last year's ETS meeting that is posted on the CHORUS website.
>Yet one thing is lacking in acCordance 1.1: the ability to read
>the PHI and TLG disks. The Gramcord people tell me this is something they
>are looking into, but not to hold my breath.
I have responded to this elsewhere. We are indeed working on it (but hope
everyone will continue normal respiration patterns -- not doing so may lead
to bad exegesis).
>Since it uses the
>Friberg text, ambiguous forms will be found by any of the parameters that
>match (the last time I used it, Gramcord did not include ambiguities in
>the database itself.
This observation perplexes me because even the original mainframe GRAMCORD
that I wrote in 1976 made provisions for ambiguities in the database (and
every version since that time has done likewise). For example, if one is
looking for something trivial such as imperatives in the Acts of the
Apostles, GRAMCORD specially flags a number of second person plural present
active imperatives as perhaps being indicatives. (GRAMCORD has always run
"ambiguous sentences" using each possible permutation of classifications so
that the user can determine whether to accept or reject each set of
presuppositions in the database. In fact, Harry Hahne's review of
grammatical programs recently published in the Religious Studies Newletter
specifically praises GRAMCORD for being unique among the cited programs in
clearly stating its search strategy presuppositions.)
>BTW, Bible Windows is also
>considerably less expensive than Gramcord, but there is no Mac version of
>Bible Windows).
We have a number of different GRAMCORD programs for all three major
platforms: DOS, Windows, and Macintosh. Our most popular GRAMCORD module is
$125 and groups often order it for less than that so I am unclear about this
statement. (The smaller market and some of the cost issues we deal with on
the Macintosh side has lead to the price of our Macintosh bundles being
greater than the price of some of the programs on the IBM side.
Nevertheless, the differences in capabilities, etc. make cost comparisons
somewhat inapplicable. With so many software "bundles" available, it takes
some diligence to avoid comparing "apples with oranges." Different programs
have different goals and target different kinds of users. What is "best"
depends on many factors.)
Other than clearing up some basic information here, I don't want to clog the
forum with further software details that may not be of interest to everyone.
Therefore, please contact the Institute directly if you need more
information. (Moreover, if you like your current software, great! We get
emails that want to pursue the Mac vs IBM debate, the superiority of certain
word-processors, Company A vs Company B, etc. That is not our interest here.
We are just a bunch of tired professors with deadlines to meet and projects
to finish! The Syntactical Concordance volume I am doing with D. A. Carson
for The University of Chicago Press has to be ready for the next stage of
processing by March 1 and I'm running behind. Yes, it was in order to
prepare that volume that I wrote GRAMCORD in the first place. Let us not
lose sight of the fact that our tools are just a means to an end! :)
*************************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626; Homepage: http://www.GRAMCORD.org
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Paul A. Miller" <pmiller@gramcord.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 14:11:36 -0800
Subject: Re: Bible Software
>To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
>From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <mauros@iol.ie>
>Subject: Re: Bible Software
>
> "Alan D. Bulley" <s458507@aix1.uottawa.ca> wrote:
>
>>>Yet one thing is lacking in acCordance 1.1: the ability to read
>the PHI and TLG disks. The Gramcord people tell me this is something they
>are looking into, but not to hold my breath.<<
>
>Maurice A. O'Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]
>mauros@iol.ie
>
I am not certain what is meant by "not to hold my breath." :)
Our acCordance system continues to evolve and we have been releasing new
databases for it every few months.(I admit that we have not been able to
produce new add-on titles as fast as we would like, but our users seem to
appreciate what we have released.) Accordingly, the TLG CD-ROM is on the
list but other major projects are underway as well. In part the TLG has not
been on the very top of our priority list because the Associate Scholars of
The GRAMCORD Institute tend to concentrate on grammatical/syntactical
research and the TLG material is not presently grammatically tagged. Also,
there are a number of public domain programs available for using the TLG
CD-ROM (on both IBM and Mac) and so we haven't had as much demand for
TLG-compatibility as we have for various other items.
In general it is worth noting that the Institute's project priorities depend
upon the interests of our Associate Scholars, the availability of staff time
and expertise for a given project, available funding, and the nature of the
vast array of requests coming from our consortium of institutions and
individual users. The GRAMCORD Institute is a non-profit organization. As
such, our Board of Directors makes project decisions based upon criteria
quite different from the average commercial publisher who is by necessity
responding to stockholders and market demographics.
Furthermore, unlike most commercial publishers, we are VERY HEAVILY involved
in database creation and editing. Because of the expense and staff hours
involved, we must set priorities. (Until, at least, someone decides to
donate such a large sum that we are able to undertake all of our proposed
projects concurrently!) At present, we are actively doing major revisions of
three grammatical databases. The Revised Westminster/GRAMCORD Institute
Morphologically Tagged Hebrew Masoretic Text Database will be released in
the spring; this joint project between the Institute and Dr. Grove's
Westminster team incorporates many important enhancements including the
lemmatization of homographs. (This Institute-funded revision will be
published exclusively by The GRAMCORD Institute.) The Revised LXX Morph.
Database and the new GRAMCORD Expanded Greek New Testament database should
be announced soon after that time. (The Revised LXX Morphological Database
is particulary important because the original version distributed by CCAT et
al was largely "machine-tagged" and most users have discovered that there is
plenty of room for improvement in the tag data. I hope to post more details
concerning these revisions in early 1996.)
At any rate, I mention all of this to reiterate that almost everyone
associated with The GRAMCORD Institute is indeed interested in the TLG
material -- particularly the extra-Biblical Koine -- but we do not plan to
announce TLG support till next year. We prefer to delay projects until we
can "do them right" rather than just release something in order to list
another title in our list of add-on databases. (I should also mention that
editing/expanding the standard databases -- something most commercial
publishers do not do -- is very expensive. Our Revised Westminster/GRAMCORD
Institute HMT Database project is already "way into" the five figure range.)
While we do not claim to be "all things to all men", we are apparently
filling some important needs within the academic community. AcCordance
continues to receive favorable reviews. (Since others have "blown their own
horn" in this forum, I will cautiously do likewise. The last issue of
Biblical Archaeology Review described it as "the best Biblical studies
software on ANY platform." Christianity Today and Old Testament Abstracts
have recently published similar reviews.) Our software is not meant for
everyone -- and is certainly not targeted for the general "marketplace" --
but if someone is doing the kinds of research we are doing, he/she will
probably appreciate what we are trying to accomplish in sharing our tools
with our colleagues.
I make these digressions in responding to this thread just to provide a
little bit of balance to the recurring discussions of Biblical studies
software. Also, I have seen a few forum postings and received several emails
that indicate that a certain amount of misinformation has sometimes been
unintentionally propagated.
At any rate, everyone interested in Biblical language software would do well
to consult the CHORUS homepage at the University of Toronto. (The WWW
address for it is rather long, so you may want to visit the "under
construction" GRAMCORD Institute homepage at http://www.GRAMCORD.org and
simply follow the link to Harry Hahne's excellent paper posted on the CHORUS
site.) Mr. Hahne does a great job of pointing out critical factors one
should consider in relying upon original language concordance software.
Those of you with additional questions or comments are encouraged to contact
us "off list" via our email address or through our under-construction WWW
page. (see below)
*************************************************************************
Prof. Paul A. Miller (Email: pmiller@GRAMCORD.org)
The GRAMCORD Institute
2218 NE Brookview Dr., Vancouver, WA 98686, U.S.A.
Voice (360)576-3000; FAX (503)761-0626; Homepage: http://www.GRAMCORD.org
Computer-Assisted Biblical Language Research (IBM & MAC)
*************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 14:29:08 +0800
Subject: Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
Yes, Carl, Porter would argue otherwise. He argues that the aorist
imperative commonly has durative significance, or that it refers to
something that is already happening and is used to urge readers to
continue it. As an example, he quotes Paul "greet one another with a
holy kiss", which has an aorist imperative, but urges, according to
Porter, that this has been going on in the church already, so the
aorist imperative cannot be understood as a command to do something
right now in one moment of time. He has other examples where it
appears, he argues, to have a more continuous force (I don't think
he argued that this particular verse used the aor. imper. is a continuous
sense -- unless of course it is a very long kiss).
Ken Litwak
GTU
Bezerkley, CA
------------------------------
From: Joni L Crawford <jonic@u.arizona.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 16:45:36 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Junia/Junias nochmals und weiter ... und weiter
On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Michael Holmes wrote:
> RE the current thread about Junia/Junias:
> In his first message a few days ago, Carl Conrad pointed out that as a
> Greek form of a Latin name, the masculine ought to be JuniOs. Recently an
> article appeared making precisely this point, and demonstrating that Junias
> as a shortened form of a man's name is a phantom form. However, at the
> moment the reference is not available to me (sorry for the lack of
> specificity). Has someone else seen this article, or have the reference?
>
> Mike Holmes
> Bethel College
>
It might be that the article you are thinking of was in a recent edition
of _Journal of Biblical Literature_. I do not now have access to it to
verify, but I think there was such an article in the last year.
Good Luck
David Crawford
------------------------------
From: Carlton Winbery <winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 18:13:57 +0400
Subject: Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
Ken Litwak wrote;
> Porter in his Idioms book makes the case that tense is irrelevant
>to the meaning of the non-indicative moods. Present negated imperatives
>do not mean "Stop doing x" and aorist negated imperatives don't mean
>"don't do x". They have no clear distinction that I can tell from
>what I've read so far. This both trashes everything I learned about
>the non-indicative moods and much that I have read in commentaries,
>leaving me wondering if I understand Greek at all if he's right and
>wondering what to make of tenses and moods since he seems to be
>reducing them all into one pot of "verbs" with no meaningful
>distinctions that I can see in understanding them, execept
>whether something is complete or not. Is this understanding of the
>non-indicative moods generally accepted by modern grammarians and if so,
>what of all the works that revolve around such distinctions? Does that
>mean that there aren't any rules left for distingushing tenses or moods
>in verbs, such that futures and pluperfects are the same? I'm not
>trying to use hyperbole. Poerter argued against any tense having any
>time relation, so that leaves one wondering what good six tenses
>are.
>
I quickly checked the negated imperatives in Matthew and Mark. First,
there are few negated aorists (only 7 in Mt. & Mk and four of those are in
parallels). In every case the negated aorist from the context must mean
don't ever do something. It is clear that the beginning of the action is
forbiden.
Matt. 6:3 MH GNWTW hH ARISTHRAN SOU TI POIEI hH DEXEAN SOU. Don't let
your right hand know what your left hand is doing.
Matt. 6:8 MH hOMOIWQH AUTOI. Don't be like them.
Check also Matt. 7:6; 24:17; 24:18 Mark 13:15; and 13:16.
There are in Matt. & Mark dozens of negated present imperatives. In most
of the contexts some thought about not continuing to do or go on not doing
is suitable. Though in some context the distinctive function of linear
action is very weak.
Matt. 19:14 Jesus said allow the children and do not forbid them (MH
KWLUETE AUTA). It is clear in the context that they were already forbiding
them. Several of the negated present imperatives concern commands not to
fear where it is in fearful context. Surely these have a context where the
effort is to stop something already in progress. An exception to this is
Mark 13:21 where the disciples are told not to believe those who say the
Messiah is here or there (MH PISTEUETE). There is not present the hint
that they were already believing. From my study of the negated imperatives
(and I have looked at every one in the NT, I would say that negated aorists
imperatives forbid the beginning of an action and that most of the time
negated present imperatives seek to stop an action in process.
Calton L. Winbery
Prof. Religion
LA College, Pineville, La
winberyc@popalex1.linknet.net
------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 1995 17:29:48 -0700 (MST)
Subject: katargeo and pauo
I am doing a study on katargeo and pauo in 1 Cor. 13:8. katargeo
is in the passive voice here and pauo is in the middle. I notice
that katargeo never occurs in the middle in the NT and pauo never
occurs in the passive. I do not have access right now to other
Greek literature. Could someone tell me if katargeo ever occurs
in the middle voice and if pauo ever occurs in the passive?
Also BAGD indicates that pauo in the middle and katargeo in the passive
are synonyms. Would anyone comment on this? Do you believe they are
synonymous in 1 Cor. 13:8? Is Paul simply using stylistic variation here
or does he intend a distinction?
Please send your replies to my email address below as I am not
currently subscribed to b-greek. Thanks
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <tmclay@atcon.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 21:41:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
>At 8:08 PM 11/30/95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
>> Porter in his Idioms book makes the case that tense is irrelevant
>>to the meaning of the non-indicative moods. Present negated imperatives
>>do not mean "Stop doing x" and aorist negated imperatives don't mean
>>"don't do x". They have no clear distinction that I can tell from
>>what I've read so far. This both trashes everything I learned about
>>the non-indicative moods and much that I have read in commentaries,
>>leaving me wondering if I understand Greek at all if he's right and
etc.
Carl, Ken,
That is exactly what Porter argues. Although the aorist and present impv
sometimes hold these distinctions, he would argue that more often tense
makes no difference. For the statistics, James Boyer did an article in
Grace Theolog J. in the late 80's (I believe) where he examined all the
cases and concluded that it is misleading to use such a generalization.
Tim
>
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McLay tmclay@atcon.com
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada
------------------------------
From: Nichael Lynn Cramer <nichael@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 21:25:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Re: 1 Tim. 2:15--"get safely through"
At 2:43 PM 30/11/95, Timster132@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 95-11-26 Will Wagers writes:
>
>>In this vein, can anyone point to any evidence for there being two paths to
>>salvation - one for males and one for females in the NT?
>
> Not NT, but in 2 Clement there is that strange notion of the female having
>to become male in order to have salvation. It's not a literal passage, but
>some kind of allegory. I think it is referring to females needing to become
>celibate in order to be saved-- the opposite of Paul's advice.
>
>Tim Staker
>Timster132@aol.com
Likewise, G of Thomas, Log 114 is pretty explicit in making exactly this point.
Nichael "... and they opened their thesaurus
nichael@sover.net and brought forth gold,
http://www.sover.net/~nichael and frankincense and myrrh."
------------------------------
From: Timster132@aol.com
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 21:27:45 -0500
Subject: Textual Problems in Mark 7:24, 28
Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com> asks:
<< I'm wondering about a couple of textual problems I'm looking at in
Mark 7. The presence of "Sidon" in 7:24 and nai in 7:28 in many
important, Alexandrian-type witnesses, leads me to really wonder about the
rejection of these words in NA27. While Metzger has a point that these
could be due to harmonization with Matt 15, I wonder if that's reasonable
given the substantial evidence for their presence in both verses. In
7:28, the only major witnesses that omit nai are P45 W and Theta.
While P45 is important, I don't think we want to take it as superior to
Aleph, A, B, 33 etc without other reasons. Furthermore, I can't see how
the Alexandrian reading in v.28 could have arisen from the version in
P45. So in both of these instances, I am inclined to go against the
NA27, even though the issue in v.24 might be influenced by the dictum of
taking the shorter text. I would like to know what others think. Thanks.>>
In Metzger's Textual Commentary (2nd ed), he says of Mk 7:24:
"The words KAI SIDWNOS seems to be an assimilation to Mt 15:21 and Mk 7:31.
If they had been present originally, there is no reason why they should have
been deleted. The witnesses in supoort of the shorter text include
representatives of the Western textand other types of text."
It appears that in Mk 7:24 the committee is going with Lectio brevio. And
they considered the diversity of the text types of the mss that omit it--
that points to either a very early variant (pre-text type) or an original
reading. The P45 reading confirms this.
I can also see how a scribe who is used to hearing "and Sidon" would
harmonize this verse.
About 7:28, Metzger says that similar considerations apply in evaluating
the evidence for this verse. NAI is not found anywhere in Markan word (8x
in Mt, 4x in Lk). And it is harmonized from Mt 15:27.
The Alexandrian witnesses, as valuable as they are, have their share of
variants, such as harmonizations and especially itacisms.
Tim Staker
Timster132@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Micheal Palmer <mpalmes@email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 22:42:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: review Palmer 1995
On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Rod Decker wrote (in response to Bruce Terry):
> >Rod, thanks for the review. Just what is the cost of Micheal's book?
> >
>
> I think it was about $30. Micheal could tell us, but I haven't seen any
> sign of him on b-greek in quite a while--unusual after his active
> participation last year.
The book costs $24.95 from Lang.
Yes, I have been rather inactive on the list for the past few months.
Having returned to Bluefield College after my research leave last year, I
am overwhelmed with work. I read most of what is posted to B-GREEK, but
have very little time to respond. I hope that will change soon.
By the way, I appreciate the recent interest in my book. I enjoyed Rod's
review. I was temporarily unsubscribed from the list when Vincent sent
his review, and have been unable to get a copy, though I would certainly
like to read it.
Micheal Palmer
Bluefield College
------------------------------
From: Mike Adams <mikadams@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 19:17:29 -0800
Subject: Re: Dative Direct Objects, Heb 1:6
You wrote:
>
>I am trying to confirm some study I have been doing on dative direct
>objects in the NT. As I understand it, when grammarians speak of a
>transitive verb "with the dative" or "with the accusative," etc., they are
>saying that the transitive verb takes an accusative or dative direct
>object. For example, note these quotations from Robertson:
>
>"With verbs in particular which were transitive the accusative was the
>obvious case to use unless there was some special reason to use some
>other. The other oblique cases with verbs (gen., abl., loc., instr., dat.)
>came to be used with one verb or the other rather than the accusative,
>because the idea of that verb and case coalesced in a sense." (p.
>454[d].)
..omit....
>
>There are many other instances where, as I understand it, proskyneO
>takes a dative direct object. To list a few that are similar to Heb 1:6
>(i.e., proskyneO with the dative autO as its direct object): Matt 2:2, 8,
>Matt 28:9, and John 9:38.
>
>Could someone please comment on these points to clarify if I have
>misunderstood this matter.
>
>Ray Mattera
>
Vaughan and Gideon make this comment in their Greek Grammar:
"Certain verbs take their direct object in the dative case rather than
the accusative...Verbs that express close personal relations (e.g.
hupakouw, to obey: diakonew, to serve; proskunew, to worship; akolouQew,
to follow; pisteuw, to believe, etc.) MAY" (my emphasis) "take their
objects in the dative case."
The use of a personal dative direct object is not that uncommon.
In Spanish, I can have a daughter: Tengo una hija.
and I can have a pocketbook: Tengo una bolsa.
If I misplace them, I look FOR my daughter: Busco A mi hija,
but I seek my pocketbook: Busco mi bolsa.
With most verbs the dative preposition "A" is used when a person is the
direct object, but not used before a non-personal direct object.
May I mention also that Moule in his Idiom Book of N.T. Greek says this in
a footnote: "The Dative and Accusative also overlap mysteriously"?
I like the word "mysteriously." No matter what the extent of our study and
scrutiny and knowledge of a language, some things still remain a mystery.
As to why N.T. writers chose one case over the other, we can only speculate.
Why one writer (or editor?) would use the dative direct object in one spot
and accusative form immediately after, as in Rev 13, who can know for sure?
Perhaps they sought a slightly different emphasis, i.e. "give honor to" vs.
"honor".
Several hundred years from now linguists might well wonder why someone today
says, "It's me." rather than "It is I," or why that same person would say,
"That was sent in behalf of my wife and I" rather than "my wife and me."
If we, with television, radio, libraries, and required and standardized
education in English have such variation in actual usage, how much more
should we expect variations in usage during the Koinh Greek era. If anything,
I am more amazed by the overall consistency of N.T. Greek writing than
the exceptions.
For what it's worth.
Ellen Adams
Housewife and mom
------------------------------
From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <emkrentz@mcs.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 22:30:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Junias Redivivus!
Carl, The Concordia Seminary Fuerbringer Libraryk has photographkic
facsimiles of Codex Sinaiticus, A, D, D, W, 33, the Chester Beatty Papyri
and the Bodmer Papyri. A glance at them would be interesting. [Or see the
specimen pages in Aland's *Text of the NT* or Metzger's corresponding book.
The papyri are especially interesting because no later corrector inserted
accents.
And tell Fred to check the Junias entry in BAGD 3!
>>
>> Heaven knows, we have enough problems with male chauvinism, without
>>having to INSERT them into the text!
>
>Thanks, Edward. I knew we'd discussed this before (repeatedly atque ad
>nauseam!), but I don't recall our having talked about the accents before.
>
>I'll call Danker tonight and tell him about the scotch-drinking sessions!
>He still makes his home here.
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics, Washington University
>One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
>(314) 935-4018
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Edgar Krentz, New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 E. 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Tel: 312-256-0752; FAX: 312-256.0782
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@inf.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 22:49:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Tense in non-indicative moods
This may be dangerous, but let me comment on Ken's question w/o having
_Idioms_ at hand. So, from memory...
Ken Litwak wrote:
> Porter in his Idioms book makes the case that tense is irrelevant
>to the meaning of the non-indicative moods.
Slightly overstated. He does not say that it is "irrelevant"--only that
tense is not the determiner of time relationships. Tense/form is one factor
in the "temporal implicature" mix (along with lexis, deixis, context, etc.)
>Present negated imperatives
>do not mean "Stop doing x" and aorist negated imperatives don't mean
>"don't do x". They have no clear distinction that I can tell from
>what I've read so far.
You will have greater problems trying to make an artificial rule such as
"stop..." or "don't..." work. It produces odd exegesis. (E.g., Eph. 5:18
would require assuming that the adressees were _both_ drunk and filled with
the Spirit at the same time?!) Present imperatives MAY have this meaning,
but it must be established from the context, not automatically assumed by
the form. Present imperatives would be the more natural form for saying
"stop doing..." than an aorist, but it is not required by that form.
The aorist imperative is best treated as the default form for a command or
prohibition, with the speaker using the more heavily marked present for
various reasons.
>This both trashes everything I learned about
>the non-indicative moods and much that I have read in commentaries,
>leaving me wondering if I understand Greek at all if he's right and
>wondering what to make of tenses and moods since he seems to be
>reducing them all into one pot of "verbs" with no meaningful
>distinctions that I can see in understanding them, execept
>whether something is complete or not.
Your last statement, in particular, doesn't reflect Porter's explanation of
verbal aspect at all. Aspect does not say whether or not something has been
completed. Instead it specifies whether or not the writer chooses to refer
to the action as a whole (perfective aspect: aorist form) or to describe it
as a process (imperfective aspect: present and imperfect forms). That is
not what you find in many commentaries, but then one reads a lot of
questionable things in commentaries.
>Is this understanding of the
>non-indicative moods generally accepted by modern grammarians
This discussion has been developing for over a century. The terminology and
definitions have evolved from the first treatments in the late 19th C.,
through the early and mid 20th C. (seen partic. in ATR and BDF and referred
to there as Aktionsart), to the current work of Porter and Fanning that
distinguish Aktionsart and aspect. You will find such discussions among
modern grammarians as follows: Porter, Fanning (some diffs. with P., but in
substantial agreement on the majority of issues), Ken McKay (numerous
journal articles as well as his '95 grammar), Moises Silva (_God, Language
& Scripture), D. A. Carson, and Richard Young (_Intermediate NT Greek_,
Broadman, '94), and Bill Mounce (first yr. grammar: _Basics of Biblical
Greek_). I don't know of any intermediate/ advanced koine/hellenistic
_grammars_ published in this decade that do not address the issue of
aspect.
>and if so,
>what of all the works that revolve around such distinctions? Does that
>mean that there aren't any rules left for distingushing tenses or moods
>in verbs, such that futures and pluperfects are the same?
Do I sense some frustration and maybe over-reaction to traditional
assumptions being challenged? Porter is quite explicit re. the rules of the
verb game. (If you aren't satisfied with his treatment in _Idioms_, then by
all means read his big one: _Verbal Aspect_. It isn't really fair to pass
judgment of his system on the basis of his 20-page summary in an
intermediate grammar w/o interacting with his full defense--which is over
600 pgs. of small print. (That is something all doctoral students in NT
ought to be required to do--I was last year and it was one of the most
valuable 'aspects' of my residence work [pun intended!].) I have never
heard anyone suggest that the future and pluperfect are the same! Porter
certainly doesn't say that.
>I'm not
>trying to use hyperbole. Poerter argued against any tense having any
>time relation, so that leaves one wondering what good six tenses
>are.
Now you've introduced another topic: "any tense having any time
relation"--not just the non-indicative moods. I'll not attempt to tackle
that in a msg. already too long, but very briefly: the function of
tense/form is not viewed as temporal in Porter's system (ATR said some very
similar things in that regard, BTW!). Their significance (in all moods,
incldg. ptcp. & inf.) is verbal aspect. There are three aspects
(perfective, imperfective, stative) expressed by the three main forms
(aorist, present, perfect). Imperfect and pluperfect are sub-categories of
the latter two. The future is not aspectual and is closer to a mood than a
tense/form. Their function is both varied and significant even if they do
not express time relationships directly.
I have a 40-page summary/analysis of the most crucial parts of Porter's
_Verbal Aspect_ (covers most of the first half of the book) that I will
mail to anyone who requests it for $3.00 (US address; US$5.00 outside the
US). Due to the heavy formatting, charts, and graphics, I can't
realistically e-mail it unless someone runs MS Word 5 (Mac) or 6 (Win or
Mac) AND has either the Graeca, SuperGreek, or SSymbol Greek font--all from
Linguist's Software. (It's formatted in Graeca, but Word 6 would allow
substituting any other font with the same key map; Alexandria might work as
well.) If you can handle that format (or the same in RTF), I can send it as
a Eudora attachment to an email msg. on request (and for free in that
format). Otherwise you're better off dropping me a check and I'll put it in
the snail-mail system. (Send such requests in private e-mail, not on the
list please.)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
rdecker@inf.net Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #24
****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu