[B-Greek] Mark 3:13, 14 - present and aorist
Con Campbell
concampbell at netspace.net.au
Sat Jan 24 14:53:12 EST 2004
I agree with Cindy's assessment of the background function of the imperfect,
but think the pluperfect also has this function; in many cases as
'background to the background'. In this sense it is marked, though I still
take issue with Porter's assessment of it as frontground along with the
perfect, especially as one of the key items for its marking (according to
Porter) is its unwieldy morphological bulk, which simply does not hold when
the actual usage of the pluperfect is taken into account - most morphemes
are not that large (due to being the pluperfect of verbs such as ORAW). And
while I recognise the significance of the pluperfect's infrequency, it seems
to me that a frontground reading of all pluperfects is an imposition on the
text. Again, a frontground reading of the perfect may be legitimate, but to
assume that the pluperfect 'piggy-backs' on the perfect (due to its sharing
of the so-called stative aspect) does not do it justice. I do, however,
value Porter's contribution and take him very seriously.
Con Campbell
Canberra, Australia
-----Original Message-----
From: CWestf5155 at aol.com [mailto:CWestf5155 at aol.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 6:21 AM
To: concampbell at netspace.net.au; B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Mark 3:13, 14 - present and aorist
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