Part One
Introduction
“One of Porter’s major arguments is that Greek does not grammaticalize time in the form of the verb, but relies on deictic indicators to signal temporal relationships. The significant semantic factor connected with the form of the verb is not time but aspect” (1). In a footnote, Decker writes: “In this work reference will be made to verb forms rather than to verb tenses to avoid the (often unconscious) association of temporal reference with the morphological categories of present, aorist, perfect, etc. (159).
Chapter One
Verbal Aspect Theory
Traditional Approaches to Verbal Aspect
Late Nineteenth-Century Koine Grammars
“Aspect and Aktionsart are not major considerations in the primary nineteenth-century grammars. At the end of the nineteenth-century the term Aktionsart does appear but aspect is not discussed at all” (5). Previously, only the temporal relationship of tenses was taught.
Twentieth-Century Koine Grammar
A. T. Robertson advocated Aktionsart and wrote that “the term tense...is a misnomer and a hindrance to the understanding of this aspect of the verb-form....We must therefore dismiss time from our minds in the study of the forms of the tenses as well as in the matter of syntax” (8). Robertson taught that “the aorist originally timeless, it can refer to past, present, and future events” (8).
F. Blass, A. Debrunner, R. Funk (BDF) was the first grammar to list aspect and Aktinsart.
Classical Grammars made some progress
Contemporary Discussion of Verbal Aspect
“Porter made a distinction between form and function in a language. Form refers to the morphology of a word, function to that word’s use in a sentence. Infinitive, e.g., is a formal category that is identified by the infinitive morpheme added to the stem, but that form may function in several ways in a sentence, including subject, object, etc.” (13).
“M. Olsen provides one of the best, concise distinctions between semantics and pragmatics: ‘Semantics is the uncancelable meaning of a word/sentence/grammatical form, the meaning it must have, in each context of use....Pragmatics....refers to the aspects of meaning that are cancelable (without contradiction) and reinforceable (without redundancy)...These aspects of meaning depend on context interacting with the semantics” (167 in footnote 43).
“Generative grammar emphasize the form and systemic linguistics... emphasize the function” (13).
Aspect Study in General
Developments in Aspect
B. Fanning advocated two aspects: internal (= imperfective) and external (=perfective).....Aspect is distinguished from Aktionsart----Fanning prefers to call procedural character. This catergory describes ‘how the action actually occurs; reflects the external, objective facts of the occurrence...[and] is usually expressed lexically’” (19).
Porter designated three aspects: perfective, imperfective, or stative. Porter does not treat Aktionsart.
D. Wallace follows Fanning. Aspect is “the portrayal of the action (or state) as to its progress, results, or simple occurrence.” This is the unaffected meaning, that when combined with lexis, grammar, and context, results in Aktionsart. Three aspects are proposed: internal, external, and perfective-stative...Time is expressed absolutely in the indicative, relatively in the participle, and it is irrelevant in the other moods” (25).
Summary by Decker
“Aspect...is a grammatical category expressed by the form of the verb. The view is either perfective, imperfective, or stative and is expressed by the aorist, present/imperfect, and perfect/pluperfect forms respectively.
Perfective aspect views the situation in summary as a complete event without regard for its progress (or lack thereof).
Imperfective aspect views the situation as in progress without regard for its beginning or end.
Stative aspect depicts a state of affairs that exists with no reference to any progress and which involves no change.
All of these aspects are the speaker’s view of the situation.....(26).
Aktionsart is a description of the actional features ascribed to the verbal referent as to the way in which it happens or exists....It is not a grammatical category based on the form of the verb, but is a pragmatic category based on the meaning of the word (lexis as it used in a particular context”) (26)....That same word may have different Aktinsart values depending on contextual adjuncts suggests that it is not a semantic, word-level category but is a pragmatic clause-level feature” (176 footnote 120).
“Thus in the statement “he was eating with the sinners” in Mark 2:16, the lexis esthiei refers to eating (rather than, e.g., running; the context clarifies that the figurative sense of ‘destroy’ is not in view), the aspect is imperfective (present from views it as a process), and the Aktionsart is that of an activity (change, unbounded, durative, thus an action in progress without reaching completion). In this example, note that the aspect and Aktionsart have complementary, overlapping descriptions (both include some element of process). This is expressed differently, however: aspect expresses a view of the process grammatically, Aktionsart expresses it lexically and contextually” (27).
Chapter Two
Temporal Considerations
Discourse analysis is usually defined as the study of the meaning of a text beyond the levels of word, phrase, and sentence (53).
Verbal aspect intersects with discourse analysis at two points.
First, aspect is part of the referential component (semantics) of language which specifies the propositional content of the verb. This is the basic meaning of aspect: perfective, imperfective, and stative....
Second, aspect also performs a narrative function at the textual level. Here it may serve to indicate discourse “seams” and sections as well as to indicate prominence by either foregrounding or backgrounding various statements.
One area of pragmatics (54) is deixis which means “pointer” (195 footnote 134). Deixis may be defined as “the location and identification of persons, objects, events , processes and activities being talked about” (54).
Categories of Deixis
Personal Deixis
“Reference in the NT to Moses or David, for example, can indicate past reference even apart from other grammatical factors” (55).
Discourse Deixis
“Examples of discourse deixis include, ‘this paragraph,’ ‘that chapter,’ the ‘next story,’ and the ‘last sentence.’ “Other words indicate deictic shifts include ‘utterance-initial usages of but and therefore” (56).
Temporal Deixis
The grammaticalization of temporal relationships or events relative to the coding time (writing time) refers to temporal deixis (56). This involves several grammatical features including temporal adverbs ... in Greek, νυν, ευθυς, etc. (56).
Adverbial Indicators
Δει, always, continually
Νυν, now
Ευθυς, at once, then
Ηδη, already, now at last
Adjectival Indicators
Αιωνιος, eternal, without end
Prepositional Indicators
Καθως, when, at the time of
Conjunctive indicators
Εάν, when
Lexical Indicators: Nominal
Καιρος, time
Χρονος, time
Lexical Indicators: Verbal
Εγενετο, it came to be
Composite Indicators and Temporal Particles
Απ αιωνος, long ago
Ποτε, ever, formerly, once
Chapter Three
Deictic Indicators in Mark
The theory in chapters one and two are now applied to the following chapters.
Nominal Indicators
Wallace suggests that
1. The ‘gen. focuses on kind of time and/or time during which an extended event takes place
2. The dat., on the other hand, focuses on a point of time in which a usually instantaneous event takes place’(GGBB, 155,n.42). This is true in Mark as a general rule, but there is at least one exception for each case that is evident there in Mark 13:35”(199, n.4).
“There is a general distinction between the three cases when used of time:
1. The genitive expresses time during which (or since or until) as in Mark 13:25; 5:5; 13:18
2. The dative refers to the time at which as in Mark 2:24; 11:12
3. The accusative specifies the extent of time”(63) as in Mark 2:19; 4:26-7 (65).
Adverbial Indicators
Νυν (“now”) usually indicates present time but the semantic range includes past and future reference.
Ουπω states that a situation has not been and is not presently existing (at the time of the speaker) as in Mark 8:21 και ελεγεν αυτοις ουπω συνιετε (and he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”) (70).
Mark uses πάλιν mostly to simply express repetition as “again.” Decker notes there is a discourse use πάλιν where πάλιν provides textual cohesion at the discourse level where it links different episodes as in Mark 10:32. Decker states that πάλιν “marks a seam between two periscopes and, along with the geographical notation, serves to introduce the second” (71). In Mark 10:32, the geographic location is Marks first reference to Jerusalem in the second section and along with πάλιν introduces Jesus’ second prediction.
1. Mark’s use of εὐθύς is massive. Mark uses εὐθύς 41 of the 51 occurrences in NT narratives. Decker points out that εὐθύς can be used as an adverb. As an adverb, εὐθύς modifies a verb and expresses a short duration of time (73).
This may be either a description of the short interval prior to the beginning of an action or it may describe the rapidity with which an action is performed and can be translates “quickly,” “as soon as,” or “at once,” and perhaps “immediately” as in Mark 4:29: “But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”
2. Mark also uses καί εὐθύς and means “instantaneously...with an aorist verb (either an indicative or a participle) and never εὐθύς alone and never with a present tense verb. The perfective aspect of the aorist is particularly appropriate for describing instantaneous action...Mark in 1:42 uses καί εὐθύς to describe the instantaneous healing of a leper: “Immediately the leprosy left him.”
3. As a conjunction, καί εὐθύς simply indicates the succession of events, and at times has no more force than καί alone (73-74).
If εὐθύς occurs alone it is always adverbial and never conjunctive.
If καί εὐθύς occurs together it may be either adverbial or conjunctive which is determined by context.
When Mark desired to express instantaneous action rather than simply quickness or temporal sequence, he always uses καί εὐθύς (76).
Prepositional Indicators
Conjunctive Indicators
Lexical Indicators
Καιπός and χρόνος are synonyms.
Temporal Relationships
Chapter Four
Temporal Elements of the Verb in Mark
Finite Verb Forms in Mark
(A finite verb is controlled by the number of the subject. If the subject is singular, the verb is singular. If the subject is plural, the verb is plural).
Porter’s theory does not handle past, present, future, and temporally unrestricted as part of the grammaticalized meaning of the verb form. These are viewed, rather, as pragmatic categories that are determined on the basis of various contextual factors that coordinate with the aspectual semantics of the verb.
On this pragmatic, contextual basis the verb forms found in Mark have been examined and classified as to their temporal reference
Use of the Aorist
Decker shows how the aorist is classified as past, present, future, or temporally unrestricted as to their pragmatic, contextual use (95).
An explanation of this temporal diversity based in pragmatics (rather than semantics) adequately addresses the evidence found in the text. Porter’s theory would define the semantic value on the aorist as consisting of perfective aspect. The dominance of the aorist form would then be seen, not as evidence to the past-time meaning of the aorist, but rather as the principal means of structuring the narrative and sketching the background events that carry the storyline. It is common in narrative to find lengthy sequences of past-referring aorist verbs that record, from the narrator’s perspective, what happened (98-99).
Use of the Present
Decker shows, like the aorist, the present is classified as past, present, future, or temporally unrestricted. Because the future is aspectually vague, the aorist can be used as a future to show the entire summary and the present can be used as a future to show the unfolding nature of a future event.
The present is also used for temporally unrestricted references. The present is sometimes used in parables, not to describe a situation contemporary with the speaker, but to depict typical events (101).
Historical Present
Mark uses the historical present because of the verbal aspect of the present not because of the alleged vividness of the past event portrayed as present time....The aorist is the typical form used in an historical narrative. When the writer wishes to make a narrative transition (e.g., to begin a new paragraph), one of the linguistic means the has at his disposal is the use of a form that is semantically more heavily marked: the imperfective aspect of the present form. This draws attention to the statement and its discourse function, though without necessitating a statement of vividness (104).
Use of the Imperfect
There are 293 imperfects in Mark and 97.5% have past reference. The imperfect is imperfective in aspect. Porter advocates that the imperfect is imperfective in remoteness. The imperfect is used to describe events that are more remote from the main storyline. A series of 8 imperfect forms in Mark 6:18-20 provide background information.
Use of the Perfect
There are only 46 perfect indicatives in Mark. The aspect of the perfect is stative. Most perfect forms in Mark have present references (33 of the 46 occurrences, or 71.7%) (109). A number of perfect forms have past reference in Mark (Mark 5:33). No perfect form in Mark has a future reference. A few are temporally unrestricted references (Mark 4:29).
Use of the Pluperfect
What the imperfect is to the present which provides remote information the pluperfect is to the perfect, in narrative contexts that are the main storyline, as in Mark 14:44.
Use of the Future
The future is rare in the book of Mark (only 7.7% of indicatives are future).
Wallace proposes that the future is a combination of perfective aspect (they prefer external) and future time reference (112).
Porter argues that the future is aspectually vague and that it is not a tense per se. Decker concludes “since the future form is used in Mark in both future and temporally unrestricted contexts, it is consistent to define the semantic value of that from as other than future time reference” (116). Decker agrees with Porter.
Non-Finite Verb Forms in Mark
There 199 infinitives in Mark. Only a half dozen have temporal uses.
Time Expressed by the Participle
That the participle is properly timeless is a key semantic factor in understanding the use of the participle (118). There are 541 participles in Mark (248 present, 253 aorist, and 40 perfect).
Aorist Participles
Of the 55 adverbial aorist participles in the sample sections, 85% express antecedent time and 14.5 % refer to simultaneous time. No instances of subsequent references.
Chapter Five
Temporal Expression in the Text of Mark
Pragmatics and Temporal Implicatives (127)
85% Percent of the time an aorist is past in time but not because of form or semantics but because the aorist fits well with the perfective aspect of presenting a “complete action” (128). Aorist is the most frequent form in narratives (129).
Decker contends that “it is the thesis of this work, however, that the koine Greek found in Mark’s gospel did not include temporal reference as part of the semantic meaning of the verb forms”(129).