[B-Greek] historical present tense in romans

Carlton Winbery winberycl at earthlink.net
Fri Oct 7 18:57:30 EDT 2005


>The question of Paul's reference in Romans 7 is a genre and rhetoric
>question. It will be decided outside of grammar. That may give you some
>comfort or support for your position. I hesitate to even begin a discussion
>here since so much has been written in the last twenty years on Romans,
>Paul, the law, and Paul's personal experience. See the commentaries,
>especially some of the special-study commentaries like Stowers and Mark
>Nanos.
>
>Having said the above, let me add a comment on one response:
>>  Your definition should probably be refined a little. I
>wouldn't call it a present tense verb expressing a
>"past" action. It is a present tense verb used in a
>historical context (the temporal reference point is
>the historical event itself, not the time of
>writing/speaking). And, it does not express PAST
>action, but rather CONTEMPORANEOUS action within its
>surroundings. The Present Tense denotes "in progess"
>action. So, the HPT describes some other event that is
>"in progress" DURING the historical event.>
>
>I would say just the opposite, though I agree that the historic present
>does not "express" [i.e. signal] the PAST. If you read through the
>contexts in the gospels, not to mention other literature, you will find
>that the historic present is used for PERFECTIVE events, that is events
>that are completed within their context. They are not contemporaneous in
>a technical sense and are not "in progress" during the surrounding events.
>The historic present cuts AGAINST its aspectual grain, as well as against
>its temporal grain. It is a literary feature that is best described as an
>emotive device for making the story 'real, actual'. Like in English: he
>goes [=he said], . . .  and then the other guy goes ". . . "  In other
>words, the historic present in Greek takes a completed, past action and
>describes it AS THOUGH it were in progress.
>OUTWS AUTW EXRHSANTO KAI OUTWS EGRAPSAN AUTON.
>
>ERRWSQE
Randall

I agree with Randall about the special use of the "present tense used 
in narrative" (imho, a better way to describe these presents). For 
the writers who use this device, it seems to make the narrative more 
vivid. I do not want to raise the discussion of gospel sources, but 
for those who accept use of Mark as a source for Matthew and Luke, it 
is interesting that there are over 140 such uses in Mark, 71 or 72 in 
Matthew and one in a quote in Luke. Did Luke feel that this was 
improper use of the language? Yes, I am aware that some of these 
instances are in places where there are no parallels but many are and 
appear to be deliberately "corrected" by Matthew and especially by 
Luke. My question would be, "Are these usuages in Mark 'marked' so as 
to emphasize vividness or to aid memory, etc.?"

-- 
Carlton L. Winbery
Retired Professor of Religion
Louisiana College
318-448-6103
winberycl at earthlink.net
winbery at lacollege.edu



More information about the B-Greek mailing list