A. Introduction to Greek Verbal Aspect
Within the Greek verbal system, Rodney Decker explains
that, “Aspect is the category that tells us how the author portrays the
situation (as a whole, as a process, or as a state). It is a subjective
category in that a writer may choose to portray the same situation either as a
complete event or as a process or as a state.”[1]
Stephen Levinsohn agrees with this understanding,
reaffirming that the “Verbal aspect is a way of portraying an event.”[2] It is the “the speaker’s
subjective view of a process or event,”[3] and it “reflects the
subjective conception or portrayal by the speaker.”[4]
In the current analysis of the narrative on the
temptation of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, there are two verbal
aspects that we encounter frequently in the discourse, namely, the imperfective
and the perfective aspects.
1. Imperfective Aspect
Levinsohn elucidates that, “When the imperfective
aspect is used to describe an event, the event is portrayed as not completed.”[5] According to Buist
Fanning, “this is the “internal” aspect, since it views the action “from a
reference-point within the action, without reference to the beginning or
end-point of the action.”[6] Steven Runge further
states that “both the imperfect and the present tenses grammaticalize
imperfective aspect, depicting action that is ongoing or incomplete.”[7]
2. Perfective Aspect
Levinsohn continues, “When the perfective
aspect is used to describe an event, the event is portrayed as a whole.”[8] Quoting Fanning, he
explains that “this is the “external” aspect, which views the action “from a
vantage-point outside the action … without reference to its internal
structure.”[9]
Runge adds, “The aorist conveys “perfective” aspect, portraying the action as
“a complete and undifferentiated process.’”[10]
B. Aspect in Narrative Discourse
In the narrative genre of the Synoptic Gospels, we
generally distinguish between mainline/offline (also known as foreground/background)
events and information. “The foreground is understood to be the main event line
of the narrative, one that often forms something of a connected chain of
events. These foreground events advance the plot of the narrative. In contrast,
background information does not advance the story; instead it fleshes out
needed detail.”[11]
Runge further explains that, “Foreground events are the mainline and advance
the plot; background information is offline and represents a pause or
interruption of the plot.”[12] Background information
may assist the reader in understanding the mainline events as the plot
advances.
In the Greek verbal system, the aorist verb conveys
the “perfective” aspect, which portrays an action or event as a complete and
undifferentiated process. “It is the default form used for the mainline of the
narrative; it is unmarked for any special features in narrative.”[13]
On the other hand, “[b]oth the imperfect and the
present tenses grammaticalize imperfective aspect, depicting action that is
ongoing or incomplete. Imperfective aspect is generally associated across languages
with offline, nonevent information in narrative. In contrast, salient main
events typically are communicated using the aorist or “perfective” aspect.”[14]
A significant natural correlation between verbal
aspect and the foreground/background distinction has been noted by Foley and
Van Valin as well.[15]
Runge writes:
“Since the perfective
conceptualizes the action as complete or as a whole, it is not surprising that
completed, past-time events are most often portrayed using perfective aspect.
This is not to say that perfective action is always past tense, but simply
notes the natural correlation. In contrast, imperfective aspect portrays the
action as incomplete, but without the same kind of natural correlation with
time. The imperfective aspect allows the writer or speaker to establish a state
of affairs in which perfective action takes place. This could be in a past- or
present-tense context.”[16]
In the following, Constantine Campbell further
elucidates upon the relationship between background and foreground events, and explains
that while the mainline events represent the foreground of the narrative, the
background or offline information typically represents a hiatus in the progression
of plot:
“The mainline of the narrative text
is concerned with the major events, actions, and developments that project the
narrative in the direction it is going. Without the sequence of mainline events
and actions, offline information, such as supplemental information, inside
information, speech and so forth, will not make sense; these require the
mainline to provide context and to enable the reader to understand how the
narrative arrived at the location where such offline material is meaningful.
Offline material is contingent and dependent upon the mainline events.”[17]
Runge concludes that “the aorist tense-form is
understood to be the default form for narrative proper, prototypically used for
mainline events to advance the storyline. In contrast, the use of the imperfect
marks the action as imperfective in nature, often providing offline description
or states-of-affair, but not advancing the narrative.”[18]
C. Verbal Tense and Time
Before we proceed to discuss the functions of the Historical
Present (HP) in the “Temptation of Jesus” narratives of Matthew’s and Luke’s
Gospels, it is appropriate to mention an ongoing debate concerning this
question: “Do the Greek verbal tense forms in the indicative mood
grammaticalize time?” Constantine Campbell has commented that “one of the
best-known debates regarding verbal aspect has been whether Greek tense-forms
semantically encode temporal reference alongside aspect.”[19]
Runge has also noted that, “[in] the last twenty years
a proposal has been popularized that Koine Greek verbs do not grammaticalize
tense in any mood, including the indicative.”[20]
So generally speaking, there is a camp of Greek
grammarians which agrees with Steven Runge that “Koine Greek is best understood
as a mixed tense-aspect verbal system, grammaticalizing both in the
indicative.”[21]
For this camp, although Greek verbs are primarily aspectual, Greek verbal tense
forms do grammaticalize time. As Runge has aptly stated, “Koine Greek is indeed
an aspect-prominent language, with kind-of-action regularly trumping matters of
temporal reference in the indicative mood.”[22] The absence of absolute
tense does not disprove presence of any tense.
There is likewise a dissenting camp of Greek
grammarians which contend that Greek verbs do not grammaticalize tense as time,
even in the indicative mood. For this camp, verbal tense forms only
grammaticalize aspect. “While this debate is not resolved, a growing number of
aspect scholars have indicated that they do not believe temporal reference to
be a core constituent feature of verbs in the indicative mood. Included in this
camp are [K. L. ] McKay, [Stanley E.] Porter, [Rodney J.] Decker, [Mari Broman]
Olsen (for some tense-forms), [Constantine R.] Campbell (except for the future
tense form), [David L.] Mathewson, [Wally V.] Cirafesi, and [Douglas S.]
Huffman.”[23]
But Christopher J. Thomson “argued that the denial by [Stanley]
Porter, [Buist] Fanning, and [Constantine] Campbell that aspect is a temporal
concept is at odds with the prevailing understanding within general
linguistics.”[24]
In this brief paper, I shall quote Stanley Porter as
the representative of this “aspect-only” camp, as he apparently holds the most
aggressive position in this regard.
For Porter, “each [Greek verbal] tense-form plays a
consistent grounding role (i.e. background aorist, foreground present, and
frontground perfect), regardless of genre considerations.”[25] According to Runge,
“Porter uses foreground/background to refer to "planes of discourse,"
which in his view are different levels of prominence.”[26]
As previously noted, Porter disagrees that verbal
tense-forms grammaticalize time, or have any temporal semantics. He believes
that “the tense-forms grammaticalize verbal aspect, and these
morphologically-based verbal aspects serve the discourse function of indicating
various levels of prominence.”[27] Therefore, “prominence is
not derived from the discourse role in a given genre, but from the unchanging
semantic characteristic of the aspect.”[28]
However, Runge is adamant that Porter’s “claim that
each tense-form is part of an unchanging cline of prominence or always conveys
a particular plane of discourse [or levels of prominence] is to be rejected.”[29] This is because grounding
roles of tense forms vary by genre and context, and prominence is derived from
the role played in a particular genre and context. Hence, the “grounding roles
and prominence are context-dependent; they are not global.”[30]
D. The Historical Present (HP)
As Steven Runge understands that Greek verbs do
grammaticalize both aspect and time, his views (or discourse explanations) of
the HP is radically different from Porter’s.
For Runge, the present grammaticalizes present time and
imperfective aspect. Hence, the “present tense-form is differentiated from the
aorist by virtue of its aspect, and from the imperfect tense-form by virtue of
its tense/proximity.”[31]
With regard to verbs with the imperfective aspect,
Runge explains that the imperfect “is the default means of signalling the
offline information in a past-time setting, freeing the present-tense form for
use as a prominence marker.”[32] This is especially so since
the imperfect-tense form is already associated with past time, and the present
tense form with present time.
Furthermore, “the HP represents a mismatch of aspect
compared to the perfective aorist. The HP also stands out in narrative proper
because of its tense/proximity.”[33] The HP, therefore, stands
out in a historical narrative for two reasons: 1) present time is used within a
past-time context, and 2) an imperfective aspect is used to describe a
perfective action. Contra Porter, Runge denies that the prominence of the HP is
due to some hidden semantic meaning of the Greek verb form.
In historical and Gospel narratives, Runge argues that
the HP is used as a prominence marker, and “the function of HP is to highlight
an event or speech that follows.”[34] He writes:
“I contend that the use of the
present tense-form in narrative proper is always intended to mark the presence
of a pragmatic feature of discourse, namely highlighting the presence of a
natural discontinuity. … Use of the present tense-form in narrative proper is a
non-default usage of the form.”[35]
In his critique of Porter’s understanding of the HP, Runge
reiterates that for Porter, “the HP stands out not because of the mismatch with
the “historical” context, but based on the inherent markedness and prominence
of the present tense-form compared to the background aorist and
less-foregrounded imperfect.”[36] Therefore, according to
Porter’s model, “the inherent prominence of the present brings about the
pragmatic effects, not the mismatch of the form to the context. … [Porter]
appeals to the foregrounding prominence of the present to explain the effects
associated with the HP, not the contextual mismatch of the non-remote form in
the remote context. This conclusion leads him to claim that the present
tense-form is always inherently more marked than either the aorist or
imperfect.”[37]
Runge concludes that Porter’s “failure to recognize
the mismatch in aspect and remoteness/tense leads Porter to describe the
effects associated with the historical usage as prototypical.”[38]
A note must be made here to distinguish “present time”
from “proximity,” and “past time” from “remoteness.” For grammarians who
believe that Greek verbs do not grammaticalize tense in any mood, including the
indicative, some of them adopt a spatial approach in place of tense or time.
Campbell writes, “Remoteness refers to the
metaphorical value of distance. This fits nicely with perfective aspect, in the
way we have already described the perfective aspect as the view “from afar.” It
goes hand in hand with viewing the parade from the helicopter; the view is a
summary view precisely because the parade is viewed from a distance.”[39] So according to Campbell,
the aorist does not represent past time, but remoteness – a summary view of a
parade which an observer has as though he is viewing the parade from far.
For Campbell, the present tense form does not
represent present time, but rather non-remoteness or proximity. He explains
that “nonremoteness, which is absence of remoteness, should be replaced by proximity.
Proximity is not simply the absence of remoteness, but is a positive value of
its own, which is opposite to remoteness.”[40] Hence, Campbell regards
the present as representing proximity – a view of a parade which an observer
has as though he is standing right before it.
E. The HP and its Function in the Gospel
of Matthew and Luke
Runge has noted that “Matthew, Mark, and John are best
known for using the HP, while in Luke-Acts HPs are only sparsely found.”[41] Indeed, in the temptation
of Jesus, Matthew (Matt. 4:1-11) uses four non-speech HPs and two speech HPs,
whereas Luke (Lk. 4:1-13) uses none.
1. Processing Function of the HP:
Segmentation for Easier Processing.
Runge explains that HPs are often associated with
discourse boundaries or paragraphing by virtue of their “processing function.” He
elucidates further that “[most] discourse boundaries are identified based on
thematic discontinuities—for example, changes in time, place, participants or
action. Generally speaking, the more discontinuities that are present, the
higher the level of the discourse boundary.”[42] HPs can assist in
segmenting “the discourse into smaller chunks for purpose of easier processing
by the reader or hearer.”[43] In these cases,
functioning as a processing device, the HPs enable “the discontinuity that
naturally existed stand out even more as a guide to the reader or hearer.”[44]
Stephen Levinsohn notes that, “In Matthew’s Gospel,
nearly every non-speech HP occurs at a generally recognized paragraph
boundary.”[45]
Runge adds that Matthew “regularly utilizes the HP at discourse boundaries to
aid the reader in recognizing the transition.”[46]
Where HPs are found at discourse transitions, “HPs
tend to highlight some kind of discontinuity in the discourse. Usage of the HP
at a boundary attracts extra attention to it, helping the reader process the
transition to a new topic or pericope. Usage before a significant event or
speech accomplishes the same processing task.”[47] Runge emphasizes that “HPs
do not create a discontinuity; they simply accentuate what discontinuity is
already present. The break in the discourse would exist with or without a
marker.”[48]
Levinsohn also observes that “… the non-speech HPs
that are found at the beginning of episodes and subsections … indicate that the
events concerned are part of a larger whole.”[49] In fact, “HPs are used at
the beginning of episodes only when the episode concerned is a new
subsection of a larger episode.”[50]
Therefore, in lieu of what we have just discussed
concerning the processing function of HPs at discourse boundaries, we find
non-speech HPs at Matt. 4:5 (παραλαμβάνει), Matt. 4:8 (παραλαμβάνει), and Matt.
4:11 (ἀφίησιν), but no HP at Matt. 4:3 where the devil tempted Jesus to command
stones to become bread. It is because Matt. 4:3 begins the first round (out of
three rounds) of the Temptation of Christ pericope. Levinsohn affirms that,
“This explains the absence of a HP in the first round of … [the] three-round
episode [of] … the temptation of Jesus by the devil.”[51]
In other words, a HP is used at the beginning of the
second round of the temptation of Jesus when the devil took (παραλαμβάνει) him
to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple (Matt. 4:5). At this
point, there is a clear discourse boundary of a change in scene (place), time,
and action of the participants. Participants, however, remain the same.
Another HP is used at the beginning of the third round
of temptation of Jesus when the devil took (παραλαμβάνει) him to a very high
mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Again,
we find here a change in place, participants action, and time at this new round
of temptation, marking a discourse boundary within the pericope. And finally,
at the close of this pericope, another HP is used when the devil left (ἀφίησιν)
him.
Levinsohn also notes that non-speech HPs “move
activated participants to the location of the next significant events.”[52] This is true of
παραλαμβάνει used at the beginning of Matt. 3:5 and Matt. 3:8, where the HP is
used to move Jesus and the devil to a new scene of temptation.
Levinsohn explains, “Sometimes, when Jesus has been
interacting with other people, a HP is used to bring all the participants
to the location of the next significant events in which they are involved. The
HP gives prominence to the following events that take place at that location,
or even to the location itself because of its significance for subsequent
events.”[53]
This provides another clue as to why Matthew didn’t use a HP in Matthew 4:1.
Just prior to the “temptation of Jesus” pericope, John the Baptist was at the
baptism of Jesus. But “in 4:1, a HP is not used to move Jesus to the wilderness
because he goes alone, leaving John behind.”[54] A simple aorist verb ἀνήχθη
is used instead, which is the default aspect (perfective) in narratives for
mainline events.
Luke, on the other hand, does not use HPs at the
boundaries of the three-round episode of the temptation of Jesus. At the
beginning of all three rounds, aorist verbs are used (Lk. 4:3 Εἶπεν, Lk. 4:5 ἔδειξεν,
and Lk. 4:9 Ἤγαγεν) instead. An aorist verb (ἀπέστη) is likewise used in Lk. 4:13
to describe the devil departing from Jesus “until an opportune time.”
2. Discourse-Pragmatic Function of the HP
In addition to its processing function, the HP acts as
a forward-pointing device, namely, highlighting or prominence marking. It has a
cataphoric function. Runge explains that the HP “highlight[s] a significant
speech or event that immediately follows. It is not the action of the HP verb
itself that is prominent, but that which follows.”[55]
The non-speech HP can also be used to “activate a participant
who has a significant role to play by introducing him or her to the scene of a
previous interaction between participants.”[56] However, this function of
the HP is not found within the “temptation of Jesus” pericope.
Runge clarifies, “Usage that is unneeded for
processing serves the pragmatic function of highlighting the speech or event
that follows. It directs the reader to pay closer attention to something
important. The HP achieves this effect by standing out in its context, on the
basis of both temporal reference and aspect.” In other words, the HP is marked
on the basis of both tense (proximity) and aspect.
A non-speech HP is used in Matt. 4:5 (παραλαμβάνει)
when the devil took (HP) him to the holy city. This serves to point forward to
the subsequent temptation event when Jesus was set on the pinnacle of the
temple; it also serves to highlight the devil’s actual speech which follows in
Matt. 4:6.
It is also noteworthy to mention that the non-speech
HP in Matt. 4:5 (παραλαμβάνει) is unnecessary for processing function, as the
development marker τότε is present. Τότε confirms
the presence of a discourse boundary with the added constraint of indicating a
generic change in time.
It is interesting to note that in Matthew, “τότε as an
adverbial conjunction is used both at subsections of an ongoing story and “at a
peak in a paragraph or as a concluding event.’”[57] The τότε in Matt. 4:5
thereby indicates the boundary of the second subsection of the current pericope.
Levinsohn continues, “Most commonly, τότε occurs at
subsections of an ongoing story. However, it is used also to introduce
conclusions that achieve the goal of one of the participants involved in the
episode.”[58]
This is significant when we discuss the concluding event described in Matt.
4:11.
In Matt. 4:6, we also find a speech HP (λέγει) used to
introduce the devil’s speech. Runge observes that “HP verbs of speaking
typically introduce direct discourse in contexts where they are semantically
required, such as changes of speaker or at the beginning of shorter speeches. …
More broadly speaking, HPs predominately recount mainline action rather than
offline action characterizing the imperfect indicatives.”[59]
Levinsohn further notes that “[such] speech HPs are
cataphoric, in that they point forward to one or more significant events that
are the result of or follow from the speech.” This speech HP (λέγει) serves to
highlight the devil’s speech itself, and points forward to Jesus’ answer to him
in Matt. 4:7 (“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test”). In Matt. 4:7,
Jesus’ speech is introduced with an aorist verb (ἔφη), which is the default
aspect in narratives.
In Matt. 4:8, a non-speech HP (παραλαμβάνει) is used at
the transition to a new scene of interaction between Jesus and the devil,
namely, a very high mountain. Παραλαμβάνει points toward the next action by the
devil, that is, when the tempter showed (HP) him all the kingdoms of the world
and their glory. Δείκνυσιν (HP), in turn, highlights and points forward to the
devil’s speech in Matt. 4:9, which was introduced with a default aorist (εἶπεν).
In Matt. 4:10, a speech HP (λέγει) is used in
conjunction with the development marker τότε. “The use of the HP in combination
with narrative τότε helps the reader identify the boundary in the discourse by
attracting more attention to it than it would otherwise have received.”[60] It must be noted that
Jesus’ reply to the devil in Matt. 4:10 closes the verbal exchange in this
pericope. The devil leaves him in the next verse.
Levinsohn, quoting Callow, points out, “While most
speech HPs are cataphoric … when a speech HP closes off a verbal interchange …
the content is important in itself.”[61] The speech HP (λέγει)
highlights the actual content of Jesus’ final rebuke and answer to the devil.
John Nolland, commenting on Jesus’ final rebuke of the
devil, writes:
“Matthew marks a climax as Jesus
speaks for the last time in the account using τότε (‘then’) and a historic
present (‘says’). He will mark the departure of the devil in v. 11 in the same
way. The devil is now called ‘Satan’, using a Grecized form of the Hebrew or
Aramaic word for ‘adversary’. In line with the sense of climax noted above for
this third temptation, here we find Jesus’ decisive repudiation of Satan: ‘Get
away, Satan!’”[62]
Matt. 4:10 marks the climactic closure to the verbal
exchange between the two participants. It indicates Jesus’ ultimate victory
over Satan’s temptations. Satan, the tempter, is decisively defeated, and the
“command to Satan to begone is the announcement of victory on the part of
Jesus. Satan is ordered to begone because he has been utterly vanquished.”[63]
Furthermore, Levinsohn argues that, “even in such
instances, the HP continues to have cataphoric overtones.”[64] The speech HP (λέγει)
also points forward to the concluding event of the pericope (Matt. 4:11), when
the devil leaves the scene with the proverbial tail between his legs.
The τότε used in Matt. 4:10 is also significant,
especially in conjunction with the speech HP (λέγει). Levinsohn notes that
“τότε is used also to introduce the concluding event or speech to which an
episode has been building up, even though the conclusion does not constitute a
separate subsection. This may be thought of as a marked (rhetorical) usage of
τότε, treating the conclusion as though it were a separate subsection in order
to highlight it.”[65]
So, according to Levinsohn, the τότε in Matt. 4:10 has
a marked usage, just like the speech HP (λέγει). The “τότε introduces and
highlights a concluding speech, while the speech HP points forward to the
result of that speech.”[66]
He continues, “Sometimes the first verb of a
subsection that begins with τότε is λέγει. A speech that is introduced in this
way is significant in its own right in that it represents a new initiative on
the part of the speaker, usually in the light of the preceding events. At the
same time, the resulting event(s) are even more significant than the speech.”[67]
Therefore, in Matt. 4:10, the τότε highlights Jesus’
concluding speech, treating it as though it were a separate subsection, while
the speech HP (λέγει) highlights the content of Jesus’ answer to the devil and points
forward to the concluding event of the pericope in Matt. 4:11.
The current pericope ends in Matt. 4:11 when “the
devil left (HP) him,” and subsequently “angels came and were ministering to
him.” Here, we find another τότε plus non-speech HP (ἀφίησιν) construction.
Levinsohn has noted that non-speech HPs in Matthew can be used to “describe the
conclusion of an interaction between participants when significant event(s) are
still to follow.”[68]
Here, besides being a development marker and
indicating the presence of a discourse boundary with the added constraint of a
change in time, τότε is also used “to introduce conclusions that achieve the
goal of one of the participants involved in the episode,” namely, the defeat
and departure of Satan.[69] Also, “τότε is used also
to introduce the concluding event or speech to which an episode has been
building up.”[70]
Thus clearly, the non-speech HP ἀφίησιν is not needed
for processing function. Levinsohn reminds us that “[on] two occasions, a HP is
used in Matthew in connection with the concluding event of an interaction
between participants. In both, the HP appears to be used not to highlight the
concluding event itself but to point forward to and give prominence to the
events that follow.”[71] The conclusion to the
current “Temptation of Jesus” pericope constitutes one of those two episodes
(Matt. 4:11), with the other episode found in the “Baptism of Jesus” pericope
(Matt. 3:15).
The non-speech HP ἀφίησιν therefore “concludes the
interaction between the devil and Jesus, and points forward to the arrival of
the angels to serve him.”[72]
In contrast, Luke does not use any historical present
in this pericope. As a matter of fact, there are only 3 non-speech HPs in the
entire Gospel of Luke (Lk. 8:49; 16:23; 24:12).[73] In the current pericope,
Luke uses an aorist verb (ἀπέστη) in the concluding event (Lk. 4:13) to
indicate the devil’s departure from Jesus.
F. The Usage of Multiple HPs in the
Temptation of Jesus Pericope of Matthew’s Gospel
There are three rounds within the “Temptation of
Jesus” pericope. We have noted the absence of any HP in the first round in
Matthew’s Gospel, whereas two HPs are found in round two, and three HPs are
found in the climactic third round. The episode ends with a non-speech HP (ἀφίησιν)
which marks the departure of the defeated tempter.
Runge explains that the “repeated use of the HP here
has the effect of building to a dramatic peak. … The net effect is to slow the
discourse flow and build anticipation. Each one also highlights the next event,
only to have the resolution deferred by the presence of another HP.”[74] The gradual increase in
the number of HPs used by Matthew indicates a deliberate overuse of the device
by the author, and serves to build the episode to a crescendo.
Even Stephanie Black, applying Porter’s model of
verbal aspect, observes a similar discourse pragmatic effect of the multiple
usage of HPs in this pericope. She writes:
“In Jesus’ temptation in the
wilderness, Matthew moves from fewer to more instances of the historic present
in subsequent sections of the passage to convey increasing drama as the narrative
builds to a climax. In the first exchange between Jesus and the devil, no
present tense-forms are used; in the second exchange two appear; in the
climactic third exchange, three present tense-forms appear. Intermixed with
other tense-forms in a balanced structure, these make his storytelling more
vivid.”[75]
G. The Temptation of Jesus Pericope in
Luke’s Gospel
As noted above, Luke does not use any HP in the “Temptation
of Jesus” pericope. The mainline events are advanced mainly through the use of
the default aorist verb with its perfective aspect and past-time (or
remoteness). Excluding discourse proper, there are a total of 13 aorist
indicative verbs used in the mainline (foreground) events.[76]
However, we notice that Luke uses two redundant quotative
frames (ἀποκριθεὶς) as forward-pointing devices, one in Lk. 4:8, and the other
in Lk. 4:12. “The pragmatic effect [of the redundant quotative frame] is to
accentuate a discontinuity or transition in the dialogue, thereby directing
attention to the speech that follows.”[77] Also, the “choice to use
a second verb has the effect of slowing the discourse like a speed bump,
attracting attention to what follows.”[78]
In both occurrences of the redundant quotative frames
in Luke, there is a change in speaker from the devil to Jesus. In comparison,
Matthew uses τότε with a speech HP (λέγει) in Matt. 4:10, while Luke uses a
redundant quotative frame in Lk. 4:8.
Likewise, while Luke uses a redundant quotative frame
in Lk. 4:12, Matthew uses an aorist verb (ἔφη) to introduce Jesus’ reply to the
devil.[79]
H. Conclusion
Matthew has a preference for the use of the HP within
narrative literature to bring out discourse pragmatic effects as discussed
above. The HP also has the processing function of accentuating discourse
boundaries within the narrative genre.
It is also remarkable that, despite the marked usage of
the HP, neither the tense nor aspect of the present is cancelled. “It is these
very things that make [the HPs] stand out as marked in the first place.”[80] Usage of the present
tense-form in narrative genre is the non-default usage of the form.
Luke, on the other hand, does not choose to use the HP
in the current pericope. Using mainly aorist verbs – which is unmarked for any
special features in the narrative genre – to advance the foreground events, he
chooses to utilize the narrative default of the aorist verb with its perfective
aspect and past-time (remoteness) reference.
In this paper, I have not explored “the suspicion of
scholarship that the HP is one strategy for indicating thematic prominence,”[81] for example, in the
clustering of HPs in Matthew’s Gospel. Elizabeth Robar explains,
“At least in Matthew, the HP is an
editorial device to indicate thematic prominence: an aid to the reader or
listener to discern the hierarchy of themes present, and in particular to know
which themes are of intrinsic interest to the author himself. It is a simple
strategy that does not require additional words, such as discourse-pragmatic
adverbs or particles, but instead modifies the form of a verb that is required
anyway. It takes advantage of the nature of a narrative in which the tense and
aspect are already clear and so do not need to be specified again, which frees
up the form of the verb to other, nontemporal and nonaspectual, information.”[82]
An understanding of the “scope of an HP” and its
relationship to thematic prominence would assist exegesis.[83] This would be an
interesting area for future research and study with regard to the Temptation of
Jesus narrative.
In closing, Runge reminds us that “the HP is best
construed as non-typical usage” of the present.[84] Also, the “pragmatic
effects derived from the historical use of the present tense-form in Greek are
also consistent with HP usage in older Indo-European languages, making Porter’s
claims of the present’s global prominence all the more implausible.”[85] I therefore believe that
Runge is correct to say that Koine Greek is undeniably best understood as a
mixed tense-aspect verbal system, grammaticalizing both in the indicative,
contra Porter, Decker and Campbell, amongst others.
However, with Campbell, I would also like to maintain
a stance of epistemological humility. As Campbell has aptly stated:
“The issue of whether Greek verbs
are tenses remains unresolved. Do Greek verbs encode temporal reference at the
semantic level, or is temporal reference a pragmatic category created through
the combination of semantic features and context? How many aspects are there?
Everyone agrees that there are at least two (perfective and imperfective), but
what about a third (stative) aspect?”[86]
Indeed, I look forward eagerly to the future
contributions from linguists and scholars in this area of verbal aspect.
Selected
Bibliography
Campbell, Constantine R. Advances in the Study of
Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2015.
____________________. Basics of Verbal Aspect in
Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.
Decker, Rodney J. Reading Koine Greek: An
Introduction and Integrated Workbook.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St.
Matthew’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.
Levinsohn, Stephen H. Discourse Features of New
Testament Greek: A Coursebook on the Information Structure of New Testament
Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas: SIL International, 2000.
Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary
on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005.
Robar, Elizabeth. “The Historical Present in NT Greek:
An Exercise in Interpreting Matthew.” In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh
Approach for Biblical Exegesis. Edited by Steven E. Runge and Christopher
J. Fresch. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New
Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Logos Bible Software, 2006.
Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New
Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Bellingham,
WA: Lexham Press, 2010.
_____________. “Verbal Aspect and Discourse
Prominence: A Reassessment of Porter’s Linguistic Model.” Paper presented in
the “Greek Grammar and Exegesis” Section of the ETS Annual Meeting, Atlanta,
GA, Nov. 17-19, 2010. Accessed October 21, 2019. http://ntdiscourse.org/docs/Verbal
Aspect and Discourse Prominence-presentation.pdf.
_____________. “The Verbal Aspect of the Historical
Present Indicative in Narrative.” Discourse Studies & Biblical
Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn. Edited by
Steven E. Runge. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2011.
[1] Rodney
J. Decker, Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014), 223.
[2] Stephen
H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of the New Testament: A Coursebook on the
Information Structure of New Testament Greek (Dallas: SIL International,
2000), 173.
[3] Jeffrey
Reed and Ruth A. Reese, “Verbal aspect, discourse prominence, and the letter of
Jude,” Filologia Neotestamentaria IX (1996):183. Quoted in Levinsohn, Discourse
Features, 173.
[4] Buist
Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 31. Quoted in Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 173.
[5] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 173.
[6] Fanning,
Verbal Aspect, 84-85. Quoted in Levinsohn, Discourse Features,
173.
[7] Steven
E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical
Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press,
2010), 129.
[8] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 173.
[9] Buist
Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 84-85. Quoted in Levinsohn, Discourse
Features, 173.
[10] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 129. Quoting Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the
Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999), 21.
[11] Steven
E. Runge, “The Verbal Aspect of the Historical Present Indicative in
Narrative,” in Discourse Studies & Biblical Interpretation: A
Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2011), 208.
[12] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 208.
[13] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 129.
[14] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 129-130.
[15] See
William A. Foley and Robert D. Van Valin, Functional Syntax and Universal
Grammar. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 38 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984), 371. Quoted in Runge, “Historical Present,” 209n43.
[16] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 209.
[17] Constantine
R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in
the Greek of the New Testament (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 116. Quoted in
Runge, “Historical Present,” 210.
[18] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 213.
[19] Constantine
R. Campbell, Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the
New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 114.
[20] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 196.
[21] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 191.
[22] Steven
Runge, “Verbal Aspect and Discourse Prominence: A Reassessment of Porter’s
Linguistic Model,” Paper presented in the “Greek Grammar and Exegesis” Section
of the ETS Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Nov. 17-19, 2010, accessed October 21,
2019, http://ntdiscourse.org/docs/Verbal Aspect and Discourse
Prominence-presentation.pdf, 7.
[23] Campbell,
Advances, 114. Concerning his
position in this debate, Campbell writes, “I follow McKay, Porter, and Decker
on the issue of tense: it is not regarded as a semantic value of verbs in the
indicative mood (except for the future indicative), even though each tense-form
has a characteristic temporal reference on the pragmatic level.” Campbell, Advances,
112–113.
[24] Christopher
J. Thomson, “What Is Aspect? Contrasting Definitions in General Linguistics and
New Testament Studies,” in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for
Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch
(Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 70.
[25] Runge,
“Verbal Aspect,” 2. Emphasis mine.
[26] Runge,
“Verbal Aspect,” 5. Emphasis mine. Campbell
explains further, “Porter argues that the aspects contribute to planes of
discourse in text, in which three planes may be discerned: background,
foreground, and frontground. Porter’s model accordingly attributes least
significance to perfective aspect (aorist tense-form), which provides background
information; greater significance to imperfective aspect (present and
imperfect), which provides foreground information; and greatest
significance to stative aspect (perfect and pluperfect), which provides frontground
information.” Campbell, Advances, 127.
[27] Stanley
E. Porter, “Prominence: An Overview,” in The Linguist as Pedagogue, ed.
Stanley E Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix
Press Ltd, 2009), 57. Quoted in Runge, “Verbal Aspect,” 5.
[28] Runge,
“Verbal Aspect,” 5. Emphasis mine.
[29] Runge,
“Verbal Aspect,”7.
[30] Runge,
“Verbal Aspect,” 7.
[31] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 213.
[32] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 130.
[33] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 213.
[34] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 130.
[35] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 214.
[36] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 197.
[37] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 198.
[38] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 199.
[39] Constantine
R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2008), 37.
[40] Campbell,
Basics, 41–42.
[41] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 141.
[42] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 135.
[43] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 132.
[44] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 133.
[45] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 202.
[46] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 134.
[47] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 142.
[48] Runge, Discourse Grammar, 134.
[49]
Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 245.
[50]
Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 245. Emphasis mine.
[51] Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 245.
[52]
Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 204.
[53]
Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 205. Emphasis mine.
[54]
Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 245.
[55] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 137.
[56] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 204.
[57] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 94. Quoting R. Buth, “’Edayin/Τότε – Anatomy
of a Semitism in Jewish Greek,” Maarav 5-6 (1990):46.
[58] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 96.
[59] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 202.
[60] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 135. Runge also notes, “There are twenty-four other
instances in Matthew’s gospel where the HP and τότε co-occur, all used in
narrative proper.” Runge, Discourse Grammar, 135.
[61] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 203. Quoting John Callow, The Historical Present
in Mark, Seminar Handout, 1996.
[62] John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI;
Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2005), 168.
[63] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s
Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 157.
[64] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 203.
[65] Levinsohn, Discourse Features, 97.
[66] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 97.
[67] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 97.
[68] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 204.
[69] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 96
[70] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 97.
[71] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 206.
[72] Levinsohn,
Discourse Features, 206.
[73]
It is interesting to note that Matthew’s gospel employs a total of 89 HPs,
while Luke has only 12 HPs. See Campbell, Advances, 138-139.
[74] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 141
[75]
Stephanie L. Black, “The Historic Present in Matthew: Beyond Speech Margins,”
in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed.
Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; JSNTSup 170; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999), 135. Quoted in Runge, “Historical Present,” 198-199.
[76] “Discourse
proper consists of direct discourse, which reports speech as though it is
unfolding in real time; indirect discourse, which reports the content of speech
or thought; and authorial discourse, which consists of the direct communication
of the author to the reader by way of appeal or explanation.” Campbell, Advances,
125. Aorist verbs in Luke 4:1-13, excluding discourse proper, are as follow:
Luke 4:1 ὑπέστρεψεν; 4:2 ἔφαγεν, ἐπείνασεν; 4:3 Εἶπεν; 4:4 ἀπεκρίθη; 4:5 ἔδειξεν;
4:6 εἶπεν; 4:8 εἶπεν; 4:9 Ἤγαγεν, ἔστησεν, εἶπεν; 4:12 εἶπεν; 4:13 ἀπέστη.
[77] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 150.
[78] Runge,
Discourse Grammar, 154.
[79]
In Matthew 4:7, Jesus’ answering, ἔφη, is parsed as an aorist active indicative
3rd person singular of φημί (I say, affirm), and not an imperfect.
Robertson writes, “If one is surprised to see this verb put under the list of
second aorists, he can turn to Blass, who says that it is “at once imperfect
and aorist.” It is common in the N. T. as aorist (Mt. 4:7, for instance, ἔφη).”
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Logos Bible Software, 2006), 310–311.
[80] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 220.
[81] Elizabeth
Robar, “The Historical Present in NT Greek: An Exercise in Interpreting
Matthew,” in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical
Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2016), 341.
[82] Robar,
“The Historical Present,” 350.
[83] Robar
defines “the scope of an HP as the discourse unit which it opens.” Robar, “The
Historical Present,” 350.
[84] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 219.
[85] Runge,
“Historical Present,” 219.
[86] Campbell,
Advances, 130.
