[B-Greek] Mark 3:13, 14 - present and aorist

CWestf5155 at aol.com CWestf5155 at aol.com
Sat Jan 24 14:21:21 EST 2004


Actually, Con is in full agreement with Porter's view of the pluperfect--the 
perfect and the pluperfect are described as frontground, and the present and 
imperfect are described as foreground.  The aorist is described as background, 
but at the same time as carrying the backbone of the narrative.  I would 
prefer to say it is default, unmarked and most expected, carrying the story line 
forward.  Porter agrees with this.

Furthermore, as Porter has gone on to say, prominence in discourse is a lot 
more complex than just three layers, though the analogy from art is helpful.  I 
suggest that the use of the presents are indeed marked and used to introduce 
a new scene (pericope), so that the verbs form a variation in the text that 
marks the shift, but is not to be confused with the focus main point (in my 
opinion). The shift is reinforced with spatial deixis (EIS TO OROS).  I would 
suggest that the focus is on the list of names via repetition and detail.  

There are many other ways that such shifts are marked, but the verbal system 
is more often exploited in narrative than in other genres. On the other hand, 
a new scene is often created with the imperfect(s), sometimes in conjunction 
with a formulaic phrase or temporal deixis.

Now, Porter and I disagree on this: I suggest that the imperfect is 
marked--it has a special function.  But that function is truly backgrounding--it sets 
the stage or fills in context even when used in the middle of a pericope.

Now for honesty--the most difficult question raised for me is the patterns of 
usage of APERXOMAI.  Unlike ERXOMAI, I could not find it occuring in the 
present indicative in the GNT, LXX or Apocrypha, though it does occur in the 
pluperfect, perfect and rarely in the imperfect (of course it occurs most often in 
the aorist, and does occur as a present participle).  I'd like to check out 
the TLG, but my time is very restricted.   

The marked use of these tenses is continuing to be developed and nuanced.  I 
wouldn't rule Porter out--he's taken quite seriously in scholarly circles and 
must be given high marks for moving the discussion forward at the very least 
(and that is always his primary intention).  Also, I assert that aspect is a 
discussion drawn heavily from the general linguistic discussion, and should be 
approached linguistically (while agreeing that Greek scholars have been aware 
of the temporal problems in the verbal system for some time).

Cindy Westfall
Adunct Faculty Denver Seminary

In a message dated 1/24/2004 3:48:32 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
concampbell at netspace.net.au writes:
I for one think these categories are forced. For example, according to
Porter's planes of discourse, the pluperfect should introduce the most
significant features along with the perfect. After examining all 86
pluperfects in the GNT, I don't think it sticks (though may be true-ish for
the perfect). Paul Hopper proposes the opposite to Porter in his
discourse-schema (writing earlier than Porter), with the aorist carrying the
mainline of the narrative, and the present and imperfect being used to
convey 'offline' information. I think this fits the text better.

Con Campbell,

Canberra, Australia

-----Original Message-----
From: b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:b-greek-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Jody Barnard
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 9:38 PM
To: John Colby
Cc: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Mark 3:13, 14 - present and aorist


According to Porter's planes of discourse hypothesis
the aorist is the background tense which forms the
basis for the discourse, the present is the foreground
tense which introduces significant characters / events
or makes appropriate climactic references to concrete
situations. I got this from Porter's Idioms of the
Greek NT, but it's probably best to proceed with
caution since Porter is quite contoversial at the
moment!

Jody Barnard

--- John Colby <colby at solutions2000.net> wrote: >
Mark 3:13, 14 reads:
>
> 13. KAI ANABAINEI EIS TO OROS KAI PROSKALEITAI hOUS
> HQELEN AUTOS, KAI APHLQON PROS AUTON 14. KAI
> EPOIHSEN DWDEKA hOUS KAI APOSTOLOUS WNOMASEN hINA
> WSIN MET AUTON KAI hINA APOSTELLHi AUTOUS KHPUSSEIN.
>
> Roughly translated:
>
> 13. And he went up onto the mountain and called (to
> himself) those he desired, and they came to Him. 14.
> And he appointed twelve (whom he named apostles) so
> that they might be with Him and that He might send
> them to preach.
>
> Jesus ANABAINEI and PROSKALEITAI, but those he
> called did not APEPCONTAI but APHLQON. Then Jesus
> EPOIHSEN and WNOMASEN but then APOSTELLHi. I
> understand that Mark uses that
> vivid/dramatic/historical present quite a few times,
> but I am trying to understand why he switches
> between present and aorist, especially in verse 13.
> Is it because of the actual verb (like AP/ERCOMAI)
> or is there some other reason in this passage?
>
> Jonathan Colby
> Guyana, South America
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek

________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek mailing list
B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek



More information about the B-Greek mailing list