From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Tue Jan 20 1998 - 17:52:48 EST
Clayton Bartholomew wrote:
<In Acts 8:17 both finite verbs EPETIQESAN and ELAMBANON are imperfects.
<(Please note the setting that is established for this verse by the two perfect
<participles in 8:16). It appears that these verbs are functioning
<Imperfectively (no, this is not a tautology). I was intrigued to discover that
<the ASV (1901) translated these words perfectively, "Then laid they their
<hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." where as the NASB
<translated them Imperfectively "Then they began laying their hands on them,
<and they were receiving the Holy Spirit".
<Stanly Porter (Idioms, 2nd ed., pp. 28f) says that the Imperfective *aspect*
<indicates only the subjective choice of the author about how to represent the
<action. I have a problem with this. It seems to me that in this case the
<Imperfect from is used to describe an objective situation where the action was
<proceeding. There were not enough apostles to lay hands on all of them at one
<time so using the Imperfect was Luke's way of depicting the objective
situation.
<I suppose that I am misunderstanding Porter, which is exceedingly easy to do.
<Maybe Cindy or someone else can enlighten me on this.
Dear Clay,
The view that aspects ( in Greek and Hebrew) only indicate the subjective
choice of the author is perhaps the most important factor to realize to be
able to understand the nature of aspect. When this is not accepted, aspect
is described with Aktionsart terms, such as when imperfectivity is
described as "continuing action" or the like and perfectivity is described
as "punctual action". Given that aspect is subjective it has absolutely
nothing to do with the nature of the action. (This is contrary to Mari but
in accordance with Porter and Fanning). An action which an author wants to
describe has a particular objective nature. The aspect chosen does not
affect the action at all, but shows how the author wants to portray that
action. In many instances the choice of aspect is completely free (This is
the case to a great degree in Hebrew but to a smaller degree in Greek),
both a perfective or an imperfective aspect can be chosen, in other
instances a particular aspect must be chosen to avoid misunderstanding.
Therefore Fanning stresses that the subjective nature of the Greek aspect
is somewhat restricted.
Many situations with a durative or frequentative Actionsart can be
described adequately both by a perfective and an imperfective aspect. In 2
Cor 11:24 Paul uses the aorist ELABON to describe something which was
frequentative, and to make this visible in this case, he uses an adverb and
a number (see also v 25). If he had used two aorists in Acts 8:17, the
situation described would not have changed, but the repetitive nature of
the acts would not have been visible for the readers, if not other
explanatory words had been added. So he chose two imperfects as the aspects
which best would help the reader to understand the true nature of the
situation. So subjectivity as a description of aspects indicates that the
author can choose to describe the details of a situation or just the
situation as a whole with few if any details clearly visible. We hear of
different kinds of aorists and imperfects and so forth, as if these kinds
(progressive, iterative, gnomic ..) were classes of each "tense". But this
is to put the matter upside down. These "kinds" just represent situations
where authors OFTEN use a particular aspect to convey his or her thoughts
to the readers, but both the imperfective and the perfective aspect can be
used for some kinds of situations.
I would argue that English does not have grammaticalized SUBJECTIVE
aspects, and this is the real obstacle for understanding how Greek aspects
are subjective. Speaking schematically, what is for instance the literal
meaning (Aktionsart) of the NASB words "began laying"? Is not the act
punctual? Or rather, because of the plural subject, is it not a portrayal
of several men who BEGAN to lay their hands upon others? The English
translation does not mention any continuance? That may of course be
implied, but the truth is that very often the word "began" (with punctual
Aktionsart) is used in English to translate a Greek imperfective verb, and
the imperfective force is only IMPLIED.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:58 EDT