Loading...

The Greek Perfect Tense in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans

by Soon Ki Hong (Author)
©2020 Monographs XXVI, 266 Pages

Summary

The Greek Perfect Tense in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans is designed to resolve the confusion that has resulted from Stanley Porter’s understanding of the use of Greek perfect tense. For Porter, the perfect tense functions as a third level of "frontground" which denotes the highest prominence on a discourse. Porter has argued that the perfect tense is chosen to deliver a present state, disregarding anterior activity. This book supports the validity of a traditional understanding of the Greek perfect tense, which is rooted in a dual feature. The author argues that the perfect tense is chosen to indicate a present state that results from anterior activity and functions as background for main events or themes. The author formulates three rules to discuss the function of the Greek perfect tense in Mark and Romans. Through the discussion of the perfect tense using these rules, the author finds it appropriate to interpret all the Greek perfects in Mark and Romans in light of the perfect’s inherent dual feature. This book should prove useful for seminary students, pastors, or scholars who are struggling with how to interpret the Greek perfect tense in the New Testament.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Tables and Diagrams
  • Preface
  • Acknowledgments
  • Abbreviations
  • Introduction
  • Chapter One: Brief Understanding of the Greek Verb from Traditional to Modern Views
  • The Greek Verb
  • Verbal Aspect and Aktionsart
  • Verbal Aspect and Aktionsart Working Together
  • Aspectual Distinction (or Opposition)
  • The Perfect Tense
  • Chapter Two: An Evaluation of Porter’s Markedness and Grounding with Prominence for the Perfect Tense Form
  • Markedness
  • Binary Oppositions
  • Multiple Oppositions
  • Problem of Markedness Values
  • Various Criteria
  • Contingent on Context
  • Porter’s Markedness in the Perfect Tense Form
  • Grounding
  • Foreground as ‘Deviation from a Norm’ in Poetic Texts
  • Foreground as ‘Mainline’ in Non-Poetic Texts
  • Contents
  • Transitivity
  • Temporality
  • Cognitive Perception
  • Aspect (or Tense)
  • Foreground as ‘Deviation from Two Normal Types of Information’ in Non-Poetic Texts
  • Porter’s Grounding
  • Porter’s Foreground and Background
  • Porter’s Frontground
  • Conclusion
  • Chapter Three: The Traditional Understanding of the Perfect, Compared with Porter’s Approach
  • Dual Feature of the Perfect
  • Pendulum Movement
  • Various Categories Suggested
  • Anterior Activity
  • The Development of the Perfect towards Anterior Activity
  • Scholars Who Accept Anterior Activity
  • Scholars Who Reject Anterior Activity
  • Conclusion
  • Three Rules
  • The First Category: The Perfect Working as a Finite Verb
  • Rule 1: The Perfect Finite Verb with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative
  • Rule 2: The Perfect Finite Verb with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative
  • The Second Category: The Perfect Participle Working as an Adjective
  • Rule 3: The Perfect Participle with a Substantive
  • Chapter Four: The Perfect Tense in Mark
  • The Perfect Indicative
  • The Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative in Direct Discourse: Rule 1
  • πεπλήρωται, ἤγγικεν in 1:15
  • ἤγγικεν in 14:42
  • δέδοται in 4:11
  • σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52
  • ἐγήγερται in 6:14
  • ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29
  • ἐλήλυθεν in 9:13
  • πεποίηκεν in 7:37
  • πεποιήκατε in 11:17
  • ἥκασιν in 8:3
  • γέγονεν in 9:21
  • γέγονεν in 13:19
  • προείρηκα in 13:23
  • γέγονεν in 14:4
  • βέβληται in 9:42
  • ἡτοίμασται in 10:40
  • The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse: Rule 2
  • πεποίηκεν in 5:19
  • ἠκολουθήκαμέν in 10:28
  • ἐξήρανται in 11:21
  • The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse: Rule 2
  • The Perfect Non-Indicative
  • The Perfect Participle: Rule 3
  • ἐξηραμμένην in 3:1
  • ἐξηραμμένην in 11:20
  • ἐσπαρμένον in 4:15
  • γεγονός, ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:14–15
  • βεβλημένον, ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30
  • περιβεβλημένος in 14:51
  • περιβεβλημένον in 16:5
  • ὑποδεδεμένους in 6:9
  • πεπωρωμένην in 8:17
  • ἐληλυθυῖαν in 9:1
  • δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4
  • εὐλογημένος, εὐλογημένη in 11:9–10
  • ἐστρωμένον in 14:15
  • ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23, συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32
  • ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6
  • ἐγηγερμένον in 16:14
  • The Perfect Imperative and The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1
  • πεφίμωσο in 4:39
  • δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4
  • Individual Treatments
  • γέγραπται: Rule 2
  • οἶδα: Rule 2
  • The Non-Indicative οἶδα: Rule 2
  • The Non-Indicative Perfect Forms of ἵστημι and παρίστημι: Rule 3
  • ἑστηκότων in 9:1 and 11:5
  • ἑστηκότα in 13:14
  • παρεστηκότων in 14:47, παρεστῶσιν in 14:69, παρεστῶτες in 14:70, παρεστηκότων in 15:35, and παρεστηκώς in 15:39
  • παρέστηκεν in 4:29
  • The Pluperfect
  • The Pluperfect Active Indicative: Rule 1
  • δεδώκει in 14:44
  • πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7, παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10
  • ἐκβεβλήκει in 16:9
  • The Pluperfect: ᾔδειν and εἰώθει: Rule 2
  • ᾔδειν in 1:34, 9:6, and 14:40
  • εἰώθει in 10:1
  • The Pluperfect Periphrastic Construction: Rule 3
  • ἦν + S + ἐνδεδυμένος in 1:6
  • ἦν + S + ἐπισυνηγμένη in 1:33
  • ἦν + S + πεπωρωμένη in 6:52
  • ἦν + S+ δεδεμένος in 15:7
  • ἦν + S + ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26
  • ὃ + ἦν + λελατομημένον in 15:46
  • Passage Studies
  • Mark 5:1–20
  • δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4
  • γεγονός in 5:14
  • ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:15
  • πεποίηκεν in 5:19
  • Mark 5:25–34
  • ἴαται in 5:29
  • εἰδυῖα, γέγονεν in 5:33
  • σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52
  • Mark 7:24–30
  • ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29
  • βεβλημένον in 7:30
  • ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30
  • Mark 11:1–11
  • δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4
  • ἑστηκότων in 11:5
  • εὐλογημένος in 11:9–10
  • Mark 15:6–15
  • δεδεμένος in 15:7a
  • πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7b
  • παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10
  • Mark 15:22–32
  • ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23
  • ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26
  • συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32
  • Mark 15:42–47
  • τέθνηκεν in 15:44
  • λελατομημένον in 15:46
  • τέθειται in 15:47
  • Mark 16:1–8
  • ἀποκεκύλισται in 16:4
  • περιβεβλημένον in 16:5
  • ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6
  • Conclusion
  • Chapter Five: The Perfect Tense in Romans
  • The Perfect Indicative
  • The Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative: Rule 1
  • πεφανέρωται in 3:21
  • τέθεικα in 4:17
  • ἐπήγγελται in 4:21
  • ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2
  • ἐκκέχυται in 5:5
  • ἐκπέπτωκεν in 9:6
  • προείρηκεν in 9:29
  • ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21
  • γέγονεν in 2:25 and 11:5, γεγόναμεν in 6:5, γέγοναν in 16:7
  • πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8, κατακέκριται in 14:23
  • The Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative: Rule 2
  • κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14
  • δεδικαίωται in 6:7
  • δέδεται in 7:2a
  • κατήργηται in 7:2b
  • γέγονεν in 11:25
  • ἤγγικεν in 13:12
  • The Perfect Non-Indicative
  • The Perfect Participle: Rule 3
  • ἀφωρισμένος in 1:1
  • πεπληρωμένους in 1:29
  • ἀνεῳγμένος in 3:13
  • προγεγονότων in 3:25
  • εἰρημένον in 4:18, νενεκρωμένον in 4:19
  • πεπραμένος in 7:14
  • κατηρτισμένα in 9:22, ἠγαπημένην in 9:25
  • τεταγμέναι in 13:1
  • πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14
  • ἡγιασμένη in 15:16
  • σεσιγημένου in 16:25
  • The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1
  • εὑρηκέναι in 4:1
  • γεγενῆσθαι in 15:8
  • πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19
  • Individual Treatments
  • γέγραπται: Rule 2
  • οἶδα: Rule 2
  • Perfect Indicative of ἵστημι (Rule 2), ἐνίστημι (Rule 1), and Non-Indicative of ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι (Rule 3)
  • ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2
  • ἕστηκας in 11:20
  • ἐνεστῶτα in 8:38
  • ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19
  • ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2
  • Perfect Forms of πείθω: Rule 2
  • πέποιθας in 2:19
  • πέπεισμαι in 8:38
  • πέπεισμαι in 14:14
  • πέπεισμαι in 15:14
  • γέγονεν: Rule 1 or 2
  • γέγονεν in 2:25
  • γεγόναμεν in 6:5
  • γέγονεν in 11:5
  • γέγονεν in 11:25
  • γέγοναν in 16:7
  • ‘The One Who …’
  • δεδικαίωται in 6:7
  • τεταγμέναι in 13:1
  • ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2
  • πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8
  • κατακέκριται in 14:23
  • Passage Studies
  • Romans 4:13–25
  • κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14
  • γέγραπται, τέθεικα in 4:17
  • εἰρημένον in 4:18
  • νενεκρωμένον in 4:19
  • ἐπήγγελται in 4:21
  • Romans 5:1–5
  • ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2
  • ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2
  • εἰδότες in 5:3
  • ἐκκέχυται in 5:5
  • Romans 6:1–11
  • γεγόναμεν in 6:5
  • δεδικαίωται in 6:7
  • εἰδότες in 6:9
  • Romans 9:19–29
  • ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19
  • κατηρτισμένα in 9:22
  • ἠγαπημένην in 9:25
  • προείρηκεν in 9:29
  • Romans 15:14–21
  • πέπεισμαι in 15:14
  • πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14
  • ἡγιασμένη in 15:16
  • πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19
  • γέγραπται in 15:21
  • ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21
  • Conclusion
  • Conclusion
  • Index of biblical references
  • Index of Greek terms
  • Index

Tables and Diagrams

Table 3.1. Three Rules. Source: Author

Table 3.2. As a Finite Verb (Diagram). Source: Author

Table 3.3. As an Adjective (Diagram). Source: Author

Table 4.1. Eighteen Perfects with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author

Table 4.2. Three Perfects with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse. Source: Author

Table 4.3. Five Perfects with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse. Source: Author

Table 4.4. Twenty-Two Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participles. Source: Author

Table 4.5. One Imperative and Three Infinitives. Source: Author

Table 4.6. Seven Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author

Table 4.7. Thirteen Cases of the Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author

Table 4.8. Five Cases of the Non-Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author

Table 4.9. Eight Non-Indicatives of ἵστημι and παρίστημι and One Indicative of παρίστημι . Source: Author

Table 4.10. Four Pluperfect Active Indicatives. Source: Author

Table 4.11. Three Pluperfects of ᾔδειν and One εἰώθει. Source: Author

Table 4.12. Six Pluperfect Periphrastic Constructions. Source: Author

Table 4.13. Mark 5:1–20. Source: Author

←xiii | xiv→

Table 4.14. Mark 5:25–34. Source: Author

Table 4.15. Mark 7:24–30. Source: Author

Table 4.16. Mark 11:1–11. Source: Author

Table 4.17. Mark 15:6–15. Source: Author

Table 4.18. Mark 15:22–32. Source: Author

Table 4.19. Mark 15:42–47. Source: Author

Table 4.20. Mark 16:1–8. Source: Author

Table 5.1. Fourteen Cases of the Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author

Table 5.2. Seven Cases of the Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative. Source: Author

Table 5.3. Fourteen Cases of the Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participle. Source: Author

Table 5.4. Three Cases of the Infinitive. Source: Author

Table 5.5. Sixteen Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author

Table 5.6. Sixteen Cases of οἶδα (Twelve Indicatives, Three Participles, One Pluperfect). Source: Author

Table 5.7. Four Perfect Indicatives ἑστήκαμεν, ἕστηκας, ἀνθέστηκεν, and Two Non-Indicatives ἐνεστῶτα, ἀνθεστηκότες. Source: Author

Table 5.8. One Case of πέποιθας and Three Cases of πέπεισμαι. Source: Author

Table 5.9. Five Cases of γέγονεν. Source: Author

Table 5.10. Six Cases of ‘The One Who …’. Source: Author

Table 5.11. Romans 4:13–25. Source: Author

Table 5.12. Romans 5:1–5. Source: Author

Table 5.13. Romans 6:1–11. Source: Author

Table 5.14. Romans 9:19–29. Source: Author

Table 5.15. Romans 15:14–21. Source: Author

←xiv | xv→

Preface

Stanley E. Porter’s suggestions for the perfect tense-form have challenged traditional understandings of the perfect. The traditional understanding is that the perfect tense (also called ‘the perfect’) is chosen to indicate the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity, functioning as background for main events or themes on a discourse level. However, Porter has argued that the perfect tense is chosen to deliver the author’s stative conception of a process, disregarding anterior activity. He has also argued that the perfect tense functions as a third level of ‘frontground,’ which denotes the highest prominence on a discourse. In order to prove the third level of ‘frontground’ on a discourse level, Porter adopts a certain understanding of the theories of markedness and grounding.

This book explores the theories of markedness and grounding in order to evaluate Porter’s suggestions for the perfect tense and argues that the theories of markedness and grounding are not solid foundations for explaining the perfect tense. It finds that there is no unified understanding of markedness values. It demonstrates that Porter mismatches the concept of foreground of ‘deviation from a norm’ in poetic texts to ‘supportive material’ in non-poetic texts, and he mismatches ‘a foreground device (or a prominence device)’ in poetic texts to ‘the perfect tense form’ in non-poetic texts (ch. 2). Thus, this book shows that it is unlikely that the perfect tense is chosen to indicate the highest prominence on a discourse level.

←xv | xvi→

This book supports the validity of a traditional understanding of the perfect, which is rooted in a dual feature, especially pointing out that the perfect tense had developed towards anterior activity from Homeric Greek to Koine Greek. Based on a traditional understanding of the perfect, Three Rules are formulated as a means of discussion for the perfect tense in actual Greek texts (ch. 3).

Three Rules are created with two bases. One is based on the frame of a binary opposition between the perfect tense and the present tense or between the perfect tense and the aorist tense. The other is based on the assumption that the author or writer chooses the perfect tense to express its dual feature. With these two bases, Rule 1 and Rule 2 are formulated for the perfect tense working as a finite verb. Rule 3 is formulated for the perfect participle working as an adjective.

The Three Rules are applied to the perfects in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans. With them, I demonstrate that the perfect tense is chosen to indicate the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity in an immediate context, functioning as background for main events or themes in a larger context (chs. 4 and 5). This book concludes that a traditional understanding for the perfect tense has more explanatory power than Porter’s suggestions of ‘frontground’ (the highest prominence) in a larger context.

This book was revised from my dissertation. The original title of my dissertation was ‘An Evaluation of Stanley E. Porter’s Suggestions of a Third Level of “Frontground” for the Perfect Tense-Form: Case Studies in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans.’ I changed the original title to a shorter title for readers: ‘The Greek Perfect Tense in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans.’ Although this book discusses the Greek perfect tense arguing over Porter’s view, my main purpose is to find out how to exegete the Greek perfect tense in the NT correctly. Finally I conclude that the traditional understanding of the perfect is the best way for interpreting the Greek perfect tense in the NT.

←xvi | xvii→

Acknowledgments

It has been a long journey to finish my work. The process of my work has been the process of my spiritual growth and character development. I have been shaped to trust more in God and endure more in any circumstances. Looking back on the long process, I confess that it has been God’s grace and a privilege to get through this period. There are so many people who have encouraged and helped me along the way. However, here I would like to reflect on some who are directly related to my book.

This work would not have been possible without Dr. Steve Chang, who is professor of Torch Trinity Graduate University in Korea. He is the first one who sowed a seed for making me pursue the PhD program at Dallas Theological Seminary. He challenged me to get interested in Biblical Greek and in the debate of non-temporality of the Greek verb.

I would like to thank five professors in DTS. Dr. Buist M. Fanning, who is the supervisor for my dissertation, introduced the debate of the Greek perfect tense. He has helped me to know the issues and debates of the perfect tense providing their related resources. Moreover, he has endured my slow process and has waited for me to finalize my work. Dr. Joseph D. Fantin has been so kind to me. He was on my side when I was emotionally unstable because of some difficulty in the midst of the process. He helped me to overcome it, spending his precious time. Dr. Richard A. Taylor helped me with formatting. Dr. Brian L. Webster checked over my entire dissertation. Dr. Daniel B. Wallace challenged me to see the difference ←xvii | xviii→between holistic-Asian understanding and analytical-western understanding of the Greek perfect tense when I was taking his class on Advanced Greek Grammar. He led me to rethink the Greek perfect tense, finally causing me to take a position of holistic understanding on the Greek perfect.

Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of my dissertation than the members of my family. I give thanks to my husband, my son, my daughter-in-law, and my daughter. They have been patient watching me going through the long journey of my work. I appreciate their support and encouragement. Especially I would like to give special thanks to my husband. He has been all the time near to me providing me with emotional and physical support along the way. Without him, it would not have been possible for me to finish this work.

←xviii |
 xix→

Abbreviations

AJT American Journal of Theology
BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research
BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, 1999
BDF Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
BKC The Bible Knowledge Commentary
CEC A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
ch. chapter
chs. chapters
ESV English Standard Version
ExpTim The Expository Times
FN Filologia Neotestamentaria
IJAL International Journal of American Linguistics
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JGL Journal of Greek Linguistics
JL Journal of Linguistics←xix | xx→
JLS Journal of Literary Semantics
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
JTT Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics
KJV King James Version
LXX Septuagint
Mark Gospel of Mark
MT Masoretic Text
NA28 Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland, 28th edition.
NAC New American Commentary
NAS New American Standard Bible
NBC New Bible Commentary
NET New English Translation
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIV New International Version
NLT New Living Translation
NovT Novum Testamentum
NT New Testament
OT Old Testament
R 1 Rule 1
R 2 Rule 2
R 3 Rule 3
Romans Epistle to the Romans
S subject
SL Studies in Language
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapid, 1964–1976
Three Rules Rule 1, 2, and 3
TPR The Philosophical Review
TPS Transactions of the Philological Society
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
←xx | xxi→

Introduction

In 1989, Stanley E. Porter published a monograph that presented an understanding of the sense of the ancient Greek perfect tense that departed significantly from previous treatments by other grammarians.1 He challenged the traditional understanding of the perfect tense (also called ‘the perfect’), which denotes a present state resulting from anterior activity. He argues that ‘the traditional conception lacks explanatory power’ and suggests that the perfect tense ‘grammaticalizes2 the author’s stative conception of a process.’3 Although the phrase ‘a process’ implies anterior activity that is temporally anterior to the present, Porter focuses on the author’s viewpoint of the perfect tense’s present resultant state because he believes that ‘the verbal system in Greek is not essentially temporally based.’4 He excludes the temporal notion from the semantics of the perfect tense itself, looking for temporal information within the perfect tense’s context.5

Porter argues that the perfect is chosen to highlight the author’s viewpoint on the present state without relating to anterior activity. To support his argument, Porter adopts the theories of markedness and grounding on a discourse level. He defines the perfect as indicating the heaviest markedness and as functioning as frontground in discourse.6 Porter is the one who coined the term ‘frontground’ for the perfect tense form, adding it to the commonly recognized ‘foreground’ and ‘background.’ Most scholars have questioned his suggestion of frontground as a ←xxi | xxii→third level for the perfect tense form because this suggestion has caused confusion regarding how to interpret the NT perfect.

There has been confusion among scholars, students, teachers and pastors due to Porter’s new theory of frontground, which results from his view of the non-temporality of the Greek verb. The purpose of this study is to attempt to clarify what the perfect means and suggest that the traditional approach explains its usage more accurately. Accordingly, I evaluate Porter’s views and attempt to see if his understanding of the perfect tense form has explanatory power in exegesis.

The argument of this book is that ancient Greek authors chose the perfect, not to deliver the highest prominence on a discourse level but to indicate a present state that results from anterior activity and functions as background for main events or themes. Thus, Porter’s term ‘frontground’ is invalid for interpreting the perfect. My additional argument is that the Greek verb in the indicative cannot be separated from temporality. The perfect’s temporality appears in the indicative and even in the non-indicative.

The grammatical study of NT texts is essential for discerning the divine meaning revealed through the texts. My presupposition is that the authors of the NT grammaticalized their thoughts using a grammatical system that had been set over time and was accepted by most people during the period of the first century. When considering grammatical systems of the first century, texts need to be dealt with on the micro-level perspective of their immediate context as well as on the macro-level perspective of the larger discourse structure.7 Therefore, I utilize ‘discourse and grammar-integrated methodology,’ a phrase I coined to describe that grammar and discourse are intertwined in texts when evaluating Porter’s interpretation of the perfect in Greek texts.

As for grammatical analysis of the inter-textual situations between an immediate context and a larger context, I examine the form and function of the individual perfect tense form in the micro-context of verbal phrases, sentence structure, or clauses and investigate the perfect tense form in the macro-context of paragraphs, chapters, and so on. I also research the distribution of the perfect tense and its frequency so that I may observe the conventional behavior of the language use of the author.

For the discourse level, based on the grammatical analysis, I evaluate markedness values, groundings, and prominence in order to know whether the perfect tense form is chosen to emphasize an action’s prominence or ‘frontground’ on a discourse level or to describe the present result of a prior action as ‘background.’ Through this methodology, this study explains and defends the traditional understanding of the perfect tense form, showing that it is superior to Porter’s understanding and leads to correct exegesis.

This study is limited to first century Greek which the NT writers used in their writing.8 While a synchronic view is presented, I understand that first century ←xxii | xxiii→Greek had already undergone the diachronic dynamics of language from Homeric Greek to Koine Greek. I focus on grammar, mainly the Greek perfect tense form. The scope of the study of NT texts is limited to the perfect tense form appearing in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans.

The first chapter briefly surveys how the Greek verb has been understood by traditional grammarians and modern linguists. I assess the modern understanding of discourse level, compared to the traditional understanding of the Greek verb. The second chapter evaluates Porter and his followers’ theoretical suggestions and the applications of these suggestions to the Greek text of the NT. I consider Porter’s theories of markedness and grounding and the relationship of those theories with prominence. I present evidence showing that the unstable criteria of markedness values for each linguistic item, especially for the Greek verb, do not provide a firm foundation for the determination of prominence. I also present the case that Porter’s understanding of grounding for main events or themes leads to different levels of prominence in discourse and that individual Greek verbs may function to help indicate prominence for main events or themes but are restrained by their context. I analyze the interpretation of some examples of the perfect that Porter and his followers cite so that I can prove that their approaches do not have sufficient explanatory power for exegesis. The third chapter demonstrates the validity of the traditional understanding of the perfect, compared with Porter’s understanding of the perfect, focusing on anterior activity (since Porter argues that the perfect is chosen to indicate a present state). I suggest three rules as a means of interpreting the perfect. In the fourth and fifth chapters, I apply my Three Rules to the perfects found in the Gospel of Mark (ch. 4) and the Epistle to the Romans (ch. 5). Both of these books were chosen to demonstrate how the perfect works in different genres. These applications demonstrate whether the traditional understanding of the perfect is more suited for exegesis than Porter’s understanding. They also demonstrate whether the perfect is chosen to deliver the highest prominence (frontground) in a larger context or to indicate the dual feature of a present state and anterior activity in an immediate context functioning as background for main events or themes. The sixth chapter restates overall conclusions.

This study answers the confusion that has been caused by Porter and his followers. It helps scholars, pastors, and seminary students who are confused and uncertain about how to understand the perfect tense form as they work toward correct exegesis. This study recover the traditional understanding of the perfect, which has been proved valid by many grammarians throughout history, in spite of Porter’s modern linguistic approach. My research shows that the perfect was chosen by NT authors in order to support main events or themes by describing a present state resulting from anterior action in narrative and non-narrative.

←xxiii | xxiv→ ←xxiv | xxv→

NOTES

1 1. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989).

2 2. Porter uses the verb-form ‘grammaticalize’ to mean ‘represent[s]; a meaning by choice of a word-form.’ Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 21. I use the term ‘grammaticalize’ with the idea that the speaker or writer utilizes grammatical choices to express his thoughts. The term ‘grammaticalization’ has been used in the field of general linguistic studies from the twentieth century on. It involves the historical process of grammaticalization. Various definitions of grammaticalization have been suggested. For example, Hopper and Traugott define grammaticalization as ‘the change whereby lexical items and constructions come in certain linguistic contexts to serve grammatical functions and, once grammaticalized, continue to develop new grammatical functions.’ Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), xv. For more information, read ibid., 19–30. Heine describes grammaticalization ‘as a process which is hypothesized to be essentially unidirectional.’ Bernd Heine, ‘Grammaticalization,’ in The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. Brian Joseph and Richard Janda (Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 575.

Details

Pages
XXVI, 266
Year
2020
ISBN (PDF)
9781433170713
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433170720
ISBN (MOBI)
9781433170737
ISBN (Hardcover)
9781433170706
DOI
10.3726/b15773
Language
English
Publication date
2020 (May)
Published
New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Oxford, Wien, 2020. XXVI, 266 pp., 2 b/w ill., 36 tables

Biographical notes

Soon Ki Hong (Author)

Soon Ki Hong earned her PhD in New Testament studies from Dallas Theological Seminary. She was a former Greek teacher at Torch Trinity Graduate University in Seoul, and is now a professor of New Testament at the Southern Reformed Theological College and Seminary in Houston.

Previous

Title: The Greek Perfect Tense in the Gospel of Mark and the Epistle to the Romans
book preview page numper 1
book preview page numper 2
book preview page numper 3
book preview page numper 4
book preview page numper 5
book preview page numper 6
book preview page numper 7
book preview page numper 8
book preview page numper 9
book preview page numper 10
book preview page numper 11
book preview page numper 12
book preview page numper 13
book preview page numper 14
book preview page numper 15
book preview page numper 16
book preview page numper 17
book preview page numper 18
book preview page numper 19
book preview page numper 20
book preview page numper 21
book preview page numper 22
book preview page numper 23
book preview page numper 24
book preview page numper 25
book preview page numper 26
book preview page numper 27
book preview page numper 28
book preview page numper 29
book preview page numper 30
book preview page numper 31
book preview page numper 32
book preview page numper 33
book preview page numper 34
book preview page numper 35
book preview page numper 36
book preview page numper 37
book preview page numper 38
book preview page numper 39
book preview page numper 40
294 pages