A Bum Steer.Because "verb aspect" is not a formal feature of English.
postscript: Verb Aspect has a cult following in biblical studies.
A Bum Steer.Because "verb aspect" is not a formal feature of English.
...On the other hand, it is often stated that Greek had no proper means to express relative time that the stems are really aspect stems, aspect being defined as 'the speaker's view of the internal constituency of the state of affairs'. Thus, the speaker would be free to choose between, for instance, a present stem form and an aorist stem form, a choice simply depending on whether he would view the state of affairs as 'not-completed' or 'completed'. In general, this opinion is untenable. For one thing, an important function of, for instance, the imperfect and aorist indicative in temporal clauses is neglected: they serve to establish the order of events, a function especially significant in historical narrative. In other words, it is not taken into account that 'not-completed' and 'completed' should in principle be understood as 'not-completed' and 'completed' with regard to a certain point of orientation. For another, the choice between tense stems is highly determined by the context. Substitution of one form for another usually changes the information and thus influences the way in which a speaker may proceed with, for instance, a narrative. This is not to say that notions like simultaneity etc. are always of primary importance...
English does express aspect, and like modality, it is expressed periphrastically.C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Because "verb aspect" is not a formal feature of English.
Practically speaking, I agree with this. There are numerous intitutions offering excellent courses in Classical Greek (usually concentrating on Attic) and a great quantity of learning and reference material that is readily available.Barry Hofstetter wrote:1. I definitely would advise any one learning ancient Greek to learn Attic.
I'm happy to answer your questions. I certainly don't believe that Koine Greek is represented only by the NT. If I gave that impression about my personal beliefs than I have done so in error, and I apologize. However, there do exist some people who, from their point of view, feel that the only thing written in any form of Greek that interests them is the NT. In fact, at any one time, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the majority of people in the United States who are in their first year of Greek study feel this way. Personally, I lament the extent to which this is true, but it is either true or not regardless of how I feel on the topic. Again, personally, I've enjoyed reading selections from the NT, Patristic authors, the apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, Appian, Aelian, and other authors from this period as well as Attic authors.mwh wrote:To contribute something to “the (sadly neglected in this day and age) process of inquiry”: why are you talking as if biblical Greek were the NT alone? Don’t we also have what Christians call the OT in “biblical Greek”? It’s a different sort (or several different sorts) of biblical Greek, to be sure. More fundamentally, what is biblical Greek anyway? All (and only) Greek that’s included in the bible? (What bible anyway?) The constituent books even of the NT are not all written in the same kind of Greek. Is there any such thing as New Testament Greek? (Answer: no.)
Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, but if I read Barry and ἑκηβόλος correctly, they would seem to disagree with this, even though I would come down on your side of the debate.Of course I agree that if anyone is so narrow-minded as to want to read nothing but the NT there’s no need to learn Attic. Hasn’t everything that can possibly be said on the subject been said?
There is always the linguistic tension between defining language by "proper use" vs "actual use" which can never be completely resolved, and that's well taken. But that's different from saying the "Porter school is just wrong" and equating those who purport aspect theory to be cult members. These are very strong statements that I'm trying to understand. If, instead, the thread had started, for example, with "We may never understand everything the Greek speaking world meant by the aorist. Certainly, it appears to have some aspectual function, but it also has a temporal sense, and folks like Porter (and Campbell, and others) have taken their aspectual focus too far," I wouldn't have chimed in on this, but that's not what was said.As to aorist tense, why suppose there’ll ever be a satisfactory definition of what it “represents” (whatever that means)? People have been reading Greek for many centuries, and taking the aorist in their stride. Isn’t it enough to observe how it’s used? It’s aspectual use is well understood. NT linguists (for want of a better term) always argue with one another, and always will.
This is just silly. Anybody who can read Attic can read "the vast body of literature written in Koine." There seems to be an assumption that the differences between Attic and Koine are so great that there is a learning curve. Well, there is, but if you start with Attic that learning curve is a downhill grade, not an uphill climb.ἑκηβόλος wrote:Practically speaking, I agree with this. There are numerous intitutions offering excellent courses in Classical Greek (usually concentrating on Attic) and a great quantity of learning and reference material that is readily available.Barry Hofstetter wrote:1. I definitely would advise any one learning ancient Greek to learn Attic.
Idealistically speaking, asking somebody to learn Attic when what they want is Koine overlooks the vast body of literature written in the Koine. That body of literature is not the usual starting point for learners, however, and untill recently has not had the same sort of "school text" resources that would have made it accessible to autodidacts.
I really don't understand this sentiment. I mean, let's say I'm a freshman in college who wants to learn structural engineering. If someone says to me, "Well, if you major in physics first and then go back to learn structural engineering, it will be a breeze," that's a true statement, but not a good use of my time if all I want to learn is structural engineering.Barry Hofstetter wrote: This is just silly. Anybody who can read Attic can read "the vast body of literature written in Koine." There seems to be an assumption that the differences between Attic and Koine are so great that there is a learning curve. Well, there is, but if you start with Attic that learning curve is a downhill grade, not an uphill climb.
Your reply seems confident.Barry Hofstetter wrote:This is just silly.ἑκηβόλος wrote:Practically speaking, I agree with this. There are numerous intitutions offering excellent courses in Classical Greek (usually concentrating on Attic) and a great quantity of learning and reference material that is readily available.Barry Hofstetter wrote:1. I definitely would advise any one learning ancient Greek to learn Attic.
Idealistically speaking, asking somebody to learn Attic when what they want is Koine overlooks the vast body of literature written in the Koine. That body of literature is not the usual starting point for learners, however, and untill recently has not had the same sort of "school text" resources that would have made it accessible to autodidacts.
Yes. Agreed. The skills of adaptation to new authours and works that is fostered in reading Ancient Greek can be applied to one's reading of Koine Greek. So, Attic is a possible option.Barry Hofstetter wrote:Anybody who can read Attic can read "the vast body of literature written in Koine."
I'm saying that ideally, the (potential or competent) readers of the New Testament could be (initially or further) schooled in the Koine. There are plenty of contemporaneous works to read that share the styles and idioms that are variously used in the New Testament corpus. Not reading outside the narrow confines of one's interest is at best limiting, in the middle unbalanced and at worst dangerous.Barry Hofstetter wrote:There seems to be an assumption that the differences between Attic and Koine are so great that there is a learning curve. Well, there is, but if you start with Attic that learning curve is a downhill grade, not an uphill climb.
I've been meaning to get Rijksbaron for a long time now. This citation pushed me over the edge, and I placed my order today!jeidsath wrote:Rijksbaron has a discussion of the aspect/tense debate. "The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek" pg.2 Note 1:
It's sound more and more like you have a strong opinion on this, rather than just fostering an academic discussion on the subject. Interestingly enough, this same topic came up on the B-Greek forum. Randall Buth responded:npc wrote:I really don't understand this sentiment. I mean, let's say I'm a freshman in college who wants to learn structural engineering. If someone says to me, "Well, if you major in physics first and then go back to learn structural engineering, it will be a breeze," that's a true statement, but not a good use of my time if all I want to learn is structural engineering.Barry Hofstetter wrote: This is just silly. Anybody who can read Attic can read "the vast body of literature written in Koine." There seems to be an assumption that the differences between Attic and Koine are so great that there is a learning curve. Well, there is, but if you start with Attic that learning curve is a downhill grade, not an uphill climb.
As I learn Greek, I'm going back and forth between Attic texts and Koine texts, and it's certainly true that the time I spend on Attic texts helps me understand Koine texts, and by comparison the latter are a breeze, but I spend a lot of time struggling through the Atticisms in Plato and Xenophon and the like, and while I enjoy that, it wouldn't be the most efficient way to spend my time if all I wanted to do with my Greek was to read the NT.
Again, I'm fine with the suggestion of "try it, you might like it", and certainly I don't think studying Attic sources is a waste of time for those interested in the NT, but there are really good reasons that seminaries don't scrap their first year Greek programs and replace them with the Attic Greek programs of schools with high quality classics departments. To think that this is a mistake on their part seems to me to be projection on a fairly astonishing level.
Randall then goes on to discuss how people have to learn ancient Greek more like learning a modern language, which is his big thing. Aside from that, however, experience indicates that people who start with Attic have an easier time reading Koine than people who start with Koine and then move to Attic. And what, precisely is Koine? The Koine of the NT is quite different from the Koine of an author like Epictetus, and one will find Atticism in varying degrees even in authors who are not consciously trying to imitate Attic. Michael mentioned how within the pages of the NT different authors reflect different styles. Luke is certainly more Attic than Matthew, Mark and John and the Greek of the writer to the Hebrews is a high literary Koine with Asiatic tendencies. Starting with Attic certainly helped me through these differences in my first reading through the NT.Randall Buth wrote: Attic Greek and Koine Greek are the same language and tightly connected dialects. It doesn't matter where one starts.
Yes, I did make the claim confidently based on my own experience and the observed experience of others. Anecdotal, but I've never personally found an exception. As for your second sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about or its relevance to the topic. Don't feel you have to explain -- I'm not that interested.ἐκηβόλος wrote:
Your reply seems confident.
I mean confident as a past tense noun - a noun used with past reference. If somebody also guesses the outcome of an action then the present can be the past of a supposed future.
No matter your own or other's experience, throwing around strong statements like your "This is just silly" probably means that you have not understood something or some part of something. I am saying that there is merit in learning Attic, as there is in learning other non-contemporaneous forms of the language, but for thoses that don't want to go further than the New Testament, there is more of immediate relevance in the Koine literature.Yes, I did make the claim confidently based on my own experience and the observed experience of others. Anecdotal, but I've never personally found an exception. As for your second sentence, I have no idea what you are talking about or its relevance to the topic. Don't feel you have to explain -- I'm not that interested.ἐκηβόλος wrote:.Your reply seems confident.
I mean confident as a past tense noun - a noun used with past reference. If somebody also guesses the outcome of an action then the present can be the past of a supposed future.
Two quite different examples of why it is not a good idea to only read in the New Testament are Titus and Hebews.npc wrote:Again, I don't mean to offend anyone, but if I read Barry and ἑκηβόλος correctly, they would seem to disagree with this, even though I would come down on your side of the debate.mwh wrote:Of course I agree that if anyone is so narrow-minded as to want to read nothing but the NT there’s no need to learn Attic. ...