From: Rod Decker (rdecker@accunet.com)
Date: Mon Aug 07 1995 - 20:08:40 EDT
>David Willis here,
>
>I have read in A.T. Robertson's Historical Grammar of the NT that while the
>present indicative is ambiguous as to its state of completed action (it may
>be either punctiliar or durative), this "defect" (as he puts it) is not also
>found in the subjunctive and optative moods. The present subjunctive is
>always durative.
>
>Question 1:
>
>Is this true? Do other "authorities" differ on this point?
...
>
>So, question 2:
>
>In a subjunctive clause with the present, are BOTH the protasis (the "if"
>clause) and the apotasis (the "then clause") to be considered always
>unambiguously durative, or does that apply only to the protasis?
...
The terminology and discussion from ATR are that of 50+ years ago. This
entire issue takes a very different form these days in light of the work of
Stan Porter and Buist Fanning on verbal aspect. Using Porter's appraoch,
the verb form only grammaticalizes aspect: how the speaker chooses to
portray the action. It is not an objective statement of how the
action/condition actually exists/happens in reality. (That is closer to
Aktionsart, which is based on context and lexis.) As such, the present
tense in any mood grammaticalizes imperfective aspect; i.e., the speaker
chooses to portray it as a continuing, ongoing event. That does _not_ mean
that it could not also be described in its totality (perfective aspect,
aorist form). Fanning would phrase it somewhat differently.
Since your question, in part, asked:
>what (if anything) can be said authoritatively from a purely Greek
>grammatical argument,
you'll have to decide if you want to continue working with the old system
or be willing to consider more recent research. (Most have choosen to stay
with the old at this point--but that's largely because "most" (whoever they
are!) aren't aware of the more recent work on verbal aspect, and if they
are, haven't read either Porter or Fanning. For those that want to, here
are the refs.:
Fanning, Buist. _Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek._ Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. (This is one of the
major works on aspect. It is the published version of Fanning's
dissertation.)
McKay, K. L. _Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of
Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb._ Canberra:
Australian National University, 1974; 2d ed., 1977. (This is probably the
seminal work on aspect in recent years.)
________. _A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An
Aspectual Approach._ Studies in Biblical Greek, 5. New York: Peter Lang,
1994.
Porter, Stanley E. _Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New
Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood._ Studies in Biblical Greek, 1.
New York: Peter Lang, 1989. (This is the major work; it is the published
version of Porter's dissertation.)
________. _Idioms of the Greek New Testament._ Sheffield: JSOT,
1992. (This is an intermediate level grammar.)
Silva, Moisˇs. _God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in
the Light of General Linguistics._ Foundations of Contemporary
Interpretation, 4. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990. (See esp. 111-18.)
Silva will provide the "easiest" introduction to the subject, followed by
Porter's _Idioms_. The best treatment of these listed is, IMHO, Porter's
_Verbal Aspect_ (it's only $50 in pbk.!). Also worth reading for your
original question in D. A. Carson's _Exegetical Fallacies_ (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1984).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:25 EDT