[B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
cwestf5155 at aol.com
cwestf5155 at aol.com
Fri Sep 15 14:01:14 EDT 2006
-----Original Message-----
From: cwestf5155 at aol.com
To: mwinzer at pap.com.au
Sent: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Matthew,
I apologize for not responding earlier, but marked your post for later attention.
I don't think that traditional theories incorporate aspect well. The proliferation of sub-categories simply label exceptions without explanatory power as to why they occur, particularly if it is a given that tense is temporal. Fanning, however, attempted to incorporate aspect into a traditional framework without adopting the linguistic basis of the discussion.
In considering Romans 5, I'm still a little confused about how you see aspect and temporal information. Aspect theory does not say that language has no temporal information. Why don't you tell me what tense applications Chrysostom draws?
As I read Rom 5 (and this is probably superficial) I see a couple of places where aspect helps. Let me give one example:
In 5:2, we have two perfects: THN PROSAGWGHN ESCHKAMEN [THi PISTEI] EIS THN CARIN TAUTHN EN hHi ESTHKAMEN.
For simplicity, let's refer to translations: NASB, NRS, NIV--they depict obtaining introduction or access to grace as past consistent with a traditional understanding of the perfect (ESCHKAMEN), but the perfect ETHKAMEN is consistently translated as an English present--the NIV even emphasizes the temporal state inferred from the contrast in the context by translating "in which we now stand".
Since two perfects are used in close context, why isn't the temporal past of the first seen as interpreting the temporal past of the second? If I read this verse with a traditional understanding of tense, I have to do some footwork or say the "standing" is in the past (some discussion of how our standing in the past now has continual results in the present so that in fact we are still standing in the present--but how would I justify an English present)--but wouldn't that equally work for having peace in 5:1 (EIRHNHN EXWMEN) which is in present tense? After all, if we have been standing in grace, we have also been standing in peace since we started standing in grace.
This is just one example that pops up early in this passage. I was talking to a woman who was awarded her PhD in biblical studies from Birmingham recently who has worked in the OpenText project. She said that she was trained to read tense as aspect from the beginning, and it has created none of these kinds of interpretive difficulties--she can't comprehend why aspect is so difficult to grasp given these kinds of examples.
You are right about an "apostle" writing to "churches". On one level they do make a difference in language that would distinguish an epistle from a Hellenistic Greek burlesque play--there are differences in register (the complex design of the context) and possibly dialect. There is a whole lot of vocabulary choices that the play writer would use that the "apostle" would not use and vice versa. But when we are talking about selections from the system network of tense (or the other grammatical systems a century ago), we don't see a significant variation synchronically or in the NT texts as a whole (as Deismann said). We may see variation with individual writers or texts, but they should be read in the context of the available system.
Cindy Westfall
Assistant Professor
McMaster Divinity College
-----Original Message-----
From: mwinzer at pap.com.au
To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
Thankyou again for taking the time to respond to my questions.
My questions are only fitted to evaluate the consistency of aspect theory
with traditional philological presuppositions; to discover what changes have
taken place in order to make it warrantable as a new approach. No doubt the
tense approach still allows for aspect, hence all of the sub-categories. But
I am wondering why tense now has to be made a matter of context and nuance,
rather than the other way around?
We could consider Romans 5 as a working example. Paul uses specific tenses,
and seems to draw specific conclusions from these tenses. If when ... how
much more. It interests me that Chrysostom draws tense applications from
this. How could this be possible if tense is not inherent in the language
Paul is using?
>>>Therefore, the grammatical systems, the syntax and the lexical choices
>>>that an NT writer utizes and selects from are no different in nature or
>>>have no more inspiration on one level than the options utilized by a
>>>Hellenistic Greek burlesque play. It the the choices from the system and
>>>from the lexis together in context that make meaning--and the meaning
>>>presumably/hopefully would be the goal, no matter what the faith
>>>commitment of the interpreter.
How do we know that the 1st century sources we possess are indicative of the
1st century sources as they existed? Even if we allow that the 1st century
sources we possess are indicative, does not the fact that an "apostle" was
writing to "churches" indicate a different setting than that provided in
much of the sources we possess?
Blessings!
Yours sincerely,
Rev. Matthew Winzer
----- Original Message -----
From: <cwestf5155 at aol.com>
To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 3:23 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Fwd: Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cwestf5155 at aol.com
> To: mwinzer at pap.com.au
> Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>
> OK Matthew,
>
> Aspect is regarded as the author's choice among tense options to depict an
> action in a certain way--the choice is motivated by the meaning that the
> author wishes to convey and the status of the "information" rather than
> the nature of the action as it occured in space and time.
>
> Now, I'm not sure by "tense" if you mean the label or the traditional
> association of tense with time. Aspect associated with tense is based on
> formal features in the same way that the traditional association of tense
> with time. We still call it "tense" and therefore don't equate the label
> tense with a temporal element
>
> The linguistic-based study of the New Testament treats the language the
> same as one would treat non-inspired literature such as Iraeneus,
> Josephus, contemporary writers apart from the Jewish and Christian
> communities, and even more to the point, the papyrii--meaning that the
> language is read and understood synchronically in the context of
> hellenistic communication--but saying that, it understands intertextuality
> within the faith communities, dialects, religious registers, the use of
> technical terms, etc. Therefore, the grammatical systems, the syntax and
> the lexical choices that an NT writer utizes and selects from are no
> different in nature or have no more inspiration on one level than the
> options utilized by a Hellenistic Greek burlesque play. It the the choices
> from the system and from the lexis together in context that make
> meaning--and the meaning presumably/hopefully would be the goal, no matter
> what the faith commitment of the interpreter. But from a faith
> perspective, I'm particularly comfortable wi
>
> So in interpreting Paul, a linguistic approach can "change the lens"
> through which a passage has been viewed and yield significantly different
> results when a certain view has been framed, say, by associating an aorist
> with punctilliar action in the past. The linguistic discussion and
> relevance theory has also been enlightening in how the context and shared
> information interfaces with the meaning--it opens the eyes to how people
> naturally "infer" or read information into the text to interpret it. It
> helps explain how we can come up with sometimes dramatically different
> interpretations of the same text--and all parties think they are being
> compleletly literal in the reading.
>
> Cindy Westfall
> Associate Professor
> McMaster Divinity College
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mwinzer at pap.com.au
> To: B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 10:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>
> Thankyou, Cindy Westfall, for your answer. Please feel free to call me
> Matthew. To follow up, may I ask, can "aspect" be regarded as something
> subjective which the reader understands because he has the feel of the
> language, whereas "tense" is construed on specifically philological
> principles? Another related question -- how does "aspect" work in the
> context of argument where "tense" plays a pivotal role? This question
> would
> be especially relative to the Pauline writings.
>
> One final question -- as Protestant scholasticism believed in the divine
> inspiration of Scripture scholars tended naturally to believe that NT
> Greek
> would always be grammatically pure. At one stage they considered it was a
> distinctive language. This shows that presuppositions affect the way we
> deal
> with the language. Does the evolution from the philological approach rest
> on
> particular presuppositions concerning the nature of the NT writings? I am
> not seeking to open a theological question here, but only to explore how
> biblical Greek is approached in the modern day.
>
> Thankyou for your patience and help.
>
> Yours sincerely,
> Rev. Matthew Winzer
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <cwestf5155 at aol.com>
> To: <B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:25 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Fwd: Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cwestf5155 at aol.com
>> To: mwinzer at pap.com.au
>> Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 8:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>>
>> Dear Rev. Winzer,
>>
>> Yes. All of these things weighed in.
>>
>> Aspect studies were being conducted and theories posited in the
>> linguistic
>> field.
>>
>> In lexicography and grammer, people started asking "What is the minimal
>> semantic contribution of the form or lexis that accounts for all of the
>> occurences?"
>>
>> Biblical scholars noticed that the sub-categories for tenses argued
>> against the temporal contribution as the minimal semantic contribution
>> (especially since context made the temporal element clear--which required
>> the qualifications).
>>
>> Cindy Westfall
>> Assistant Professor
>> McMaster Divinity College
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mwinzer at pap.com.au
>> To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>> Sent: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 6:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>>
>> May I ask, did a move away from tense theory emerge because of the
>> constant
>> need to invent new sub-categories for tenses, e.g. epistolary aorist? Or
>> was
>> it simply a case of linguistics evolving from its philological roots? Or
>> other factors?
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>> Rev. Matthew Winzer
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
>> To: "b-greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:11 AM
>> Subject: [B-Greek] Imperfect and Aorist Aspects
>>
>>
>>> Con egrapsen:
>>>>I think it is worth noting in this discussion, that it should not be
>>>>about
>>> whether or not aspect exists. The existence of aspect in Greek has been
>>> acknowledged by most grammars for the last 100 years at least. Though
>>> the
>>> terminology was confused and conflated with Aktionsart, Zeitart etc.,
>>> especially up until 1925. The real question is: how important aspect is
>>> in
>>> relation to 'tense', and whether or not tense exists.
>>>
>>>>I have just completed a PhD thesis on verbal aspect in Greek (it is
>>>>being
>>> examined at the moment), and my opinion is (since Brian is taking a poll
>>> on
>>> the issue) that the existence of aspect is undeniable. Personally I
>>> agree
>>> with McKay, Porter and Decker that tense does not exist. ...>
>>>
>>> I think that you've overstated the case for McKay. If I remember
>>> correctly he believed that aspect was the primal distinction in Greek
>>> but that it included tense.
>>>
>>> As an aside,
>>> sometimes I find Greek people getting comfort from a supposed sister
>>> Biblical language "that does not have tense", as though Hebrew was
>>> such. (Porter, for one, explicitly used such a supporting argument.)
>>>
>>> I like to ask Hebraists how to say approximately "tomorrow I will
>>> come" in Biblical Hebrew.
>>>
>>> I would accept MAHAR AVO, UVATI MAHAR, ANI BA MAHAR,
>>> but I would not accept *MAHAR BATI (* asterix marks unacceptable form).
>>> they didn't say that in biblical Hebrew. Ever.
>>> Kind of curious: if adverbs marked time relationship and verbs only
>>> marked aspect,
>>> why no *MAHAR BATI? Partial Ans: Ancient biblical Hebrew writers
>>> hadn't read 19th century non-Hebrew Hebrew grammars. Bottom line:
>>> Hebrew had both aspectual and temporal features within its binary
>>> TENSE-ASPECT-MOOD system. (PS: *MAHAR BATI would correspond in greek
>>> to *AYRION HLQON. I'm afraid I don't accept that either for 'tomorrow
>>> I will come'.)
>>>
>>> ERRWSO
>>> Randall Buth
>>>
>>> --
>>> Randall Buth, PhD
>>> www.biblicalulpan.org
>>> χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη
>>> שלום לכם וברכות
>>> ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
>>> randallbuth at gmail.com
>>> ---
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date:
>>> 7/09/2006
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> 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
>> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
>> and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and
>> IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>> ---
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/441 - Release Date: 7/09/2006
>>
>>
>
> ---
> 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
> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email
> and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and
> IM. All on demand. Always Free.
> ---
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.2/442 - Release Date: 8/09/2006
>
>
---
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
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list