[B-Greek] Why is the aspect of the historic present 'against itsgrain'?
Bryant J. Williams III
bjwvmw at com-pair.net
Thu May 12 11:08:12 EDT 2011
Dear Jim,
You are making the mistake of making "Mamre" to refer to something in the
environs of Bethel by using the names of other cities near Bethel. There is no
Biblical evidence for doing so. This is an assumption that you have tried to
propagate on this list for several years now. It is still found wanting. The
"oaks of Mamre" are always presented to be near Hebron. Hebron is NOT in the
north or central Israel either.
Regarding the finds of the LMLK seals found in the Shephelah and in Hebron.
Hebron was the seat of government of David for his first seven years. It was one
of the major royal cities of the Israelite monarchy. It would also make sense
for the LMLK seals to be more in number in the Shephelah because of its
closeness to Jerusalem and also to the Northern Kingdom as well.
Rev. Bryant J. Williams III
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Buth" <randallbuth at gmail.com>
To: "B Greek" <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 2:55 AM
Subject: [B-Greek] Why is the aspect of the historic present 'against itsgrain'?
> >From another thread there was a note whose significance may
> be easily overlooked.
>
> Consider
> Albert Rijksbaron,
> "Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek", 3rd ed,
> 2002, p. 24
> "The historic present is only found with terminative (telic),
> not with stative (atelic) verbs."
>
> This is a telling observation. (No comments on punning, Mark!)
> It hints as to why and how the 'historic present' is able to function
> pragmatically against its grammatical aspect.
> Yes, the present indicative can commonly be used
> PRAGMATICALLY against its SEMANTIC aspect.
>
> The present indicative is aspectually 'imperfective'. However, when
> used in past contexts it gets part of its rhetorical force by being
> used against its semantic meaning.
> Cf. Mark 8:22-23
> ERXONTAI 'are coming' >> as if 'still on the way'
> but contextually this is complete 'came'.
> FEROYSIN 'are carrying' >> as if 'still bringing',
> but contextually complete 'brought'.
> PARAKALOYSIN 'are begging' >> as if 'in the process of begging'
> but contextually complete 'begged'.
> (Then with a new, central subject)
> EPILABOMENOS ... EKSHNEGKEN
> 'he (having taken) ... brought out' >> this is definitely after
> all of the events in the above sequence,
> and these events contextually complete and presented
> as contextually complete.
>
> EKSHNEGKEN becomes the first main-line, foregrounded, act of
> story, followed by a backgrounded conversation introduced by
> imperfects (also against their aspectual 'grain' for demotion, in
> order to lead up to the main events)
> and leading on to main line, foregrounded, aorist pasts for the
> healing and other main points of the story (including an
> imperfect correctly describing the situation 'open-endedly') .
>
> Now what is important about Rijksbaron's comments is that
> it explains how the historic present is able to function.
> Stative verbs do not have any obvious 'endpoint' or telic
> completion. Consequently, they are not candidates for
> use as historic presents, since they cannot show themselves
> as 'against the grain'. Their grammatical irony would not be
> visible.
>
> Telic verbs and telic verbal constructions, on the other hand,
> have a natural completion and they can be evaluated in a
> context. 'Coming' can have a natural, telic interpretation as
> arrival to a particular place. By mentioning the place of arrival
> and implying that the arrival 'happened' and author can extract
> extra rhetorical effect by putting the verb in an aspect that
> implies that the arrival had not yet happened.
> It is a kind of grammatical irony.
> To repeat, it is a "telic" verb, a verb with an 'endpoint', that
> can be seen whether or not the endpoint was achieved.
> Because of that, a telic verb can be used with ironic aspect.
> They can be presented as if they did not yet achieve their
> endpoint even though it is obvious in the context that they did.
>
> Greeks loved it.
>
> People following Porter don't get it. This lack of understanding
> of a basic Greek grammatical irony is a relatively new
> digression in NT interpretation, fortunately limited to the
> last two decades and to a minority of practioners. This lack
> of appreciation of the historical present will eventually clear
> itself up and disappear.
> And all the practioners reading the GNT will once again
> appreciate the grammatical irony and rhetoric.
>
> ERRWSQE
> IWANHS
>
>
> --
> Randall Buth, PhD
> www.biblicallanguagecenter.com
> Biblical Language Center
> Learn Easily - Progress Further - Remember for Life
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/696 - Release Date: 02/21/2007
3:19 PM
>
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list