The Greek Perfekt Tense in the Gospel of Marc and the Epistle to the Romans [New ed.] 1433170701, 9781433170706

Citation preview

Soon Ki Hong

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

“Soon Ki Hong’s book on the discourse function of the NT Greek perfect tense fills an important gap. Stanley Porter’s suggestion (1989) that the perfect provides a ‘frontground’ of prominence in relation to the aorist’s background and the present’s foreground was a distinct departure from the assessment of others working on aspect and discourse, and it has been critiqued but at a mostly theoretical level. What was needed was an analysis of a larger body of NT usage to assess its validity. Hong’s book has now supplied that analysis in a careful and competent study of the full text of Mark and of Romans. She calls Porter’s hypothesis into question and suggests guidelines for the perfect’s discourse function that promise greater usefulness for the study of other NT texts.” — Buist M. Fanning, Senior Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas “In this technical yet practically-minded study of the Greek perfect, Soon Ki Hong seeks to clear up the confusion over verbal aspect in Biblical Greek for those training in exegesis for ministry. In her search for clarity, she ably evaluates the conception of the Greek perfect by one of the leading verbal aspect grammarians and concludes that on balance the Greek perfect is best understood in the more traditional sense. I hope Dr. Hong’s careful study will inspire many majority-world scholars of Biblical Greek to contribute to the discussion.” — Steven S. H. Chang, Professor of New Testament, Torch Trinity Graduate University, Seoul, South Korea 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. 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.

www.peterlang.com

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

This book is part of the Peter Lang Humanities list. Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production.

PETER LANG

New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Soon Ki Hong

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

PETER LANG

New York • Bern • Berlin Brussels • Vienna • Oxford • Warsaw

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Hong, Soon Ki, author. Title: The greek perfect tense in the gospel of Mark and the epistle to the Romans / Soon Ki Hong. Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2020. Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019032435 | ISBN 978-1-4331-7070-6 (hardback: alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-4331-7071-3 (ebook pdf ) ISBN 978-1-4331-7072-0 (epub) | ISBN 978-1-4331-7073-7 (mobi) LCSH: Bible. Mark—Language, style. | Bible. Romans—Language, style. | Greek language, Biblical—Tense. | Greek language, Biblical—Verb. | Porter, Stanley E., 1956– Linguistic analysis of the Greek New Testament. Classification: LCC BS2585.52 .H63 2019 | DDC 226.3/0487—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019032435 DOI 10.3726/b15773       Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/.            

© 2020 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com   All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited.

Contents

List of Tables and Diagrams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3 4 5 6

17 18 20 20 21 22

vi 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 26 29 31 32 32 32 33 33 34 35 37 38 39 44 69 69 70 71 71 72 73 74 77 78 79 79 80 80 80 93 93 94 94

co n t e n ts  | vii

ἤγγικεν in 14:42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 δέδοται in 4:11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 ἐγήγερται in 6:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 ἐλήλυθεν in 9:13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 πεποίηκεν in 7:37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 πεποιήκατε in 11:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 ἥκασιν in 8:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 γέγονεν in 9:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 γέγονεν in 13:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 προείρηκα in 13:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 γέγονεν in 14:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 βέβληται in 9:42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 ἡτοίμασται in 10:40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . 109 πεποίηκεν in 5:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 ἠκολουθήκαμέν in 10:28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 ἐξήρανται in 11:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse: Rule 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 The Perfect Non-Indicative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 The Perfect Participle: Rule 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ἐξηραμμένην in 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 ἐξηραμμένην in 11:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 ἐσπαρμένον in 4:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 γεγονός, ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:14–15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 βεβλημένον, ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 περιβεβλημένος in 14:51. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 περιβεβλημένον in 16:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 ὑποδεδεμένους in 6:9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 πεπωρωμένην in 8:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 ἐληλυθυῖαν in 9:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 εὐλογημένος, εὐλογημένη in 11:9–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 ἐστρωμένον in 14:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23, συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 ἐγηγερμένον in 16:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 The Perfect Imperative and The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

viii 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

πεφίμωσο in 4:39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Individual Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 γέγραπται: Rule 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 οἶδα: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 The Non-Indicative οἶδα: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 The Non-Indicative Perfect Forms of ἵστημι and παρίστημι: Rule 3. . . . . 130 ἑστηκότων in 9:1 and 11:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 ἑστηκότα in 13:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 παρεστηκότων in 14:47, παρεστῶσιν in 14:69, παρεστῶτες in 14:70, παρεστηκότων in 15:35, and παρεστηκώς in 15:39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 παρέστηκεν in 4:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 The Pluperfect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 The Pluperfect Active Indicative: Rule 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 δεδώκει in 14:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7, παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 ἐκβεβλήκει in 16:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 The Pluperfect: ᾔδειν and εἰώθει: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 ᾔδειν in 1:34, 9:6, and 14:40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 εἰώθει in 10:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 The Pluperfect Periphrastic Construction: Rule 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 ἦν + S + ἐνδεδυμένος in 1:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 ἦν + S + ἐπισυνηγμένη in 1:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 ἦν + S + πεπωρωμένη in 6:52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 ἦν + S+ δεδεμένος in 15:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 ἦν + S + ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 ὃ + ἦν + λελατομημένον in 15:46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Passage Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Mark 5:1–20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 γεγονός in 5:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 πεποίηκεν in 5:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Mark 5:25–34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 ἴαται in 5:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 εἰδυῖα, γέγονεν in 5:33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Mark 7:24–30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 βεβλημένον in 7:30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

co n t e n ts  | ix

ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Mark 11:1–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 ἑστηκότων in 11:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 εὐλογημένος in 11:9–10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Mark 15:6–15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 δεδεμένος in 15:7a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Mark 15:22–32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Mark 15:42–47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 τέθνηκεν in 15:44. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 λελατομημένον in 15:46. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 τέθειται in 15:47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Mark 16:1–8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 ἀποκεκύλισται in 16:4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 περιβεβλημένον in 16:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Chapter Five: The Perfect Tense in Romans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 The Perfect Indicative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 The Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative: Rule 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 πεφανέρωται in 3:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 τέθεικα in 4:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 ἐπήγγελται in 4:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 ἐκκέχυται in 5:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 ἐκπέπτωκεν in 9:6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 προείρηκεν in 9:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 γέγονεν in 2:25 and 11:5, γεγόναμεν in 6:5, γέγοναν in 16:7. . . . . . . . . . . . 184 πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8, κατακέκριται in 14:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 The Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative: Rule 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 δεδικαίωται in 6:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

x 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

δέδεται in 7:2a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 κατήργηται in 7:2b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 γέγονεν in 11:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 ἤγγικεν in 13:12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 The Perfect Non-Indicative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 The Perfect Participle: Rule 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 ἀφωρισμένος in 1:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 πεπληρωμένους in 1:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 ἀνεῳγμένος in 3:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 προγεγονότων in 3:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 εἰρημένον in 4:18, νενεκρωμένον in 4:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 πεπραμένος in 7:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 κατηρτισμένα in 9:22, ἠγαπημένην in 9:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 τεταγμέναι in 13:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 ἡγιασμένη in 15:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 σεσιγημένου in 16:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 εὑρηκέναι in 4:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 γεγενῆσθαι in 15:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Individual Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 γέγραπται: Rule 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 οἶδα: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 Perfect Indicative of ἵστημι (Rule 2), ἐνίστημι (Rule 1), and Non-Indicative of ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι (Rule 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 ἕστηκας in 11:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 ἐνεστῶτα in 8:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Perfect Forms of πείθω: Rule 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 πέποιθας in 2:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 πέπεισμαι in 8:38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 πέπεισμαι in 14:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 πέπεισμαι in 15:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 γέγονεν: Rule 1 or 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 γέγονεν in 2:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 γεγόναμεν in 6:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 γέγονεν in 11:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 γέγονεν in 11:25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

co n t e n ts  | xi

γέγοναν in 16:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 ‘The One Who …’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 δεδικαίωται in 6:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 τεταγμέναι in 13:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 κατακέκριται in 14:23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Passage Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Romans 4:13–25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 γέγραπται, τέθεικα in 4:17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 εἰρημένον in 4:18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 νενεκρωμένον in 4:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 ἐπήγγελται in 4:21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Romans 5:1–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 εἰδότες in 5:3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 ἐκκέχυται in 5:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 Romans 6:1–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 γεγόναμεν in 6:5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226 δεδικαίωται in 6:7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 εἰδότες in 6:9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 Romans 9:19–29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 κατηρτισμένα in 9:22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 ἠγαπημένην in 9:25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 προείρηκεν in 9:29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Romans 15:14–21. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 πέπεισμαι in 15:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 ἡγιασμένη in 15:16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 γέγραπται in 15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 Index of biblical references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Index of Greek terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Tables and Diagrams

Table 3.1. Table 3.2. Table 3.3. Table 4.1. Table 4.2. Table 4.3. Table 4.4. Table 4.5. Table 4.6. Table 4.7. Table 4.8. Table 4.9. Table 4.10. Table 4.11. Table 4.12. Table 4.13.

Three Rules. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 As a Finite Verb (Diagram). Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 As an Adjective (Diagram). Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Eighteen Perfects with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Three Perfects with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Five Perfects with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Twenty-Two Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participles. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 One Imperative and Three Infinitives. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . 123 Seven Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Thirteen Cases of the Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . 128 Five Cases of the Non-Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . 130 Eight Non-Indicatives of ἵστημι and παρίστημι and One Indicative of παρίστημι . Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Four Pluperfect Active Indicatives. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . 136 Three Pluperfects of ᾔδειν and One εἰώθει. Source: Author. . . . . . 138 Six Pluperfect Periphrastic Constructions. Source: Author. . . . . 140 Mark 5:1–20. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xiv 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.14. Table 4.15. Table 4.16. Table 4.17. Table 4.18. Table 4.19. Table 4.20. Table 5.1. Table 5.2. Table 5.3. Table 5.4. Table 5.5. Table 5.6. Table 5.7. Table 5.8. Table 5.9. Table 5.10. Table 5.11. Table 5.12. Table 5.13. Table 5.14. Table 5.15.

Mark 5:25–34. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 7:24–30. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 11:1–11. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 15:6–15. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 15:22–32. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 15:42–47. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark 16:1–8. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourteen Cases of the Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Seven Cases of the Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fourteen Cases of the Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participle. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Cases of the Infinitive. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixteen Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sixteen Cases of οἶδα (Twelve Indicatives, Three Participles, One Pluperfect). Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four Perfect Indicatives ἑστήκαμεν, ἕστηκας, ἀνθέστηκεν, and Two Non-Indicatives ἐνεστῶτα, ἀνθεστηκότες. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . One Case of πέποιθας and Three Cases of πέπεισμαι. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Five Cases of γέγονεν. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six Cases of ‘The One Who …’. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 4:13–25. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 5:1–5. Source: Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 6:1–11. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 9:19–29. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Romans 15:14–21. Source: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148 150 153 155 157 160 163 181 185 190 197 200 202 205 208 212 216 219 222 225 229 233

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.

xvi 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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.

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

xviii 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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 daughterin-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.

Abbreviations

AJT BBR BDAG

American Journal of Theology Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A GreekEnglish 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

xx 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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

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

xxii 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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

i n t r o d u c t i o n  | 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.

xxiv 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

notes 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. Porter uses the verb-form ‘grammaticalize’ to mean ‘represent[s]‌a meaning by choice of a wordform.’ 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. 3. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 270. 4. Ibid., 257. 5. Ibid., 259. 6. Ibid., 246–247. Porter understands the perfect tense as having distributional markedness, material markedness, implicational markedness, and semantic markedness. 7. This idea comes from Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. His method first considers the words and grammar of texts. Then, he considers social semantics, or semiotics. He argues that the study of texts is the fundamental step toward semantic structure and that a text is the embodiment of its social environment, which is comprised of ‘social activity-structures’ that are performed by social agents on a discourse level. The author combines social activity-structures with thematic formations on a text level. See Paul J. Thibault, ‘With Paul J. Thibault,’ in Interviews with M. A. K. Halliday: Language Turned Back on Himself, ed. J. R. Martin (London: Bloomsbury, 1985), 85–86; Paul J. Thibault, Social Semiotics as Praxis: Text, Social Meaning Making, and Nabokov’s Ada (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), 119, 137. For social factors, Fairclough, Mulderring, and Wodak, who suggest CDA (critical discourse analysis), state that language and society are closely related because ‘discourse is socially constitutive and socially shaped.’ See Norman Fairclough, Jane Mulderring, and Ruth Wodak, ‘Critical Discourse Analysis,’ in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. Teun A. van Dijk (Padstow, Cornwall: TJ International, 2011), 358. 8. This is called ‘Koine Greek’ and was used among common people as well as by most of the NT writers. For more information of major characteristics of Koine Greek, see David Alan Black, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995), 156–162; Geoffrey C. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers, 2nd ed. (Singapore:  Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 147–150; Bradley W. Root, First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 44–91; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959; reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 1–4.

i n t r o d u c t i o n  | xxv

bibliography Black, David Alan. Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek:  A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. Fairclough, Norman, Jane Mulderring, and Ruth Wodak. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis.’ In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. Teun A. van Dijk, 357–378. Cornwall: TJ International, 2011. Heine, Bernd. ‘Grammaticalization.’ In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ed. Brian Joseph and Richard Janda, 575–601. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. 2nd ed. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Moule, Charles Francis Digby. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:  Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Root, Bradley W. First Century Galilee:  A Fresh Examination of the Sources. Tübingen:  Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Thibault, Paul J. ‘With Paul J. Thibault.’ In Interviews with M. A. K. Halliday: Language Turned Back on Himself, ed. J. R. Martin, 73–94. London: Bloomsbury, 1985. Thibault, Paul J. Social Semiotics as Praxis: Text, Social Meaning Making, and Nabokov’s Ada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991.

C HAPTER ONE

Brief Understanding of the Greek Verb from Traditional to Modern Views

Over time, the function of the Greek verb has been actively discussed among grammarians and linguists because the single Greek verb form can be morphologically integrated to convey a temporal idea or lexical meaning as well as indicate person, number, voice, and even mood. Grammarians and linguists have attempted to categorize the Greek verb tense-form into two or three semantic functions. Until the nineteenth century,1 it was said that the Greek verb divides the two functions of time and aspect (here ‘kind of action’), which work closely together.2 Since the twentieth century,3 the understanding of Greek grammar has been influenced by comparative and historical linguistics, as well as structural linguistics,4 all three of which are called ‘modern linguistics.’ Some modern linguists try to distinguish the function of the Greek verb by three categories: time, Aktionsart, and aspect (here ‘the author’s viewpoint’). Stanley E. Porter and Buist Fanning have taken an interest in the aspect of the three functions of the Greek verb. Porter and Fanning published books nearly simultaneously that focused on verbal aspect and brought semantic function to the fore of Greek grammatical studies.5 Porter and Fanning have almost the same view of the understanding of verbal aspect but differ greatly regarding whether the Greek tenses grammaticalize temporal meaning when the action or state occurs. Porter argues that the Greek verb grammaticalizes the viewpoint of the author,6 departing from the temporal function of the Greek verb even in the indicative. He argues that the Greek tense forms ‘are not primarily time based, i.e., tense is not grammaticalized in Greek’ but ‘they are aspectually based.’7 Thus Porter focuses on

2 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

verbal aspect. He attempts to interpret the Greek verb with aspectual oppositions between the binary pairs that he described.8 He defines the Greek verbal aspect as ‘a synthetic semantic category (realized in the forms of verbs) used of meaningful oppositions in a network of tense systems9 to grammaticalize the author’s reasoned subjective choice of conception of a process.’10 On the contrary, Fanning maintains the traditional view of the temporal function of the Greek verb. When he discusses the Greek verbal aspect, he argues that aspect closely interacts with other features such as ‘tense, procedural characteristics of verbs and actions, structural oppositions among the aspects, and discourse-functions.’11 Positively, Porter and Fanning’s different approaches have caused others to rethink the temporal function of the Greek verb. Negatively, a non-temporal view of the Greek verb has caused confusion in terms of its interpretation, especially in the indicative.

THE GREEK VERB Traditional grammar from the Stoics, as well as modern linguistics, admits that the Greek verb has two connotations of time and aspect.12 Present modern linguists have accepted that the Greek verb in the indicative indicates the time element directly, while in the non-indicative the temporal idea functions in a relative way. The augment is a clear sign of a temporal element.13 The imperfect and pluperfect, which have the augment or past time indicator, do not appear in the non-indicative mood. The augment of the aorist is lost when it appears in the non-indicative.14 Although aspect or ‘kind of action’ has priority over time in semantics, traditional grammar and modern linguists have not given up a temporal notion in the indicative. On the other hand, there are some modern linguists15 who disregard a temporal notion and suggest other theories for interpretation. They focus on the macro perspective of a discourse or hierarchical understanding of a text, neglecting the micro perspective of words and sentences or a linear understanding of a text. Thereby, they suggest that the Greek verb is chosen to indicate markedness, grounding, and prominence without having temporal relations. Their suggestions will be dealt with in the following chapters in an examination of the actual Greek texts. Porter, who is a main figure in the application of modern linguistics to NT Greek studies, argues that tense forms do not grammaticalize temporal values.16 However, Porter knows that any language should convey when an event occurs. He mentions, ‘I do not mean to say that Greeks did not have a means of conveying when an event might have occurred.’17 However, he does not agree that the Greek tense form itself grammaticalizes time. Instead, Porter looks for temporal information in other features outside the tense forms.18

brief understa n d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 3

Porter argues that the tense form is chosen only to indicate verbal aspect. As will be argued, I, however, believe that this misses the fact that the function of the tense is to indicate two temporal situations and that the author of the text views two temporal situations together and chooses a particular tense form from that viewpoint. Paul Friedrich believes that ‘aspect and tense both refer to temporal values.’19 Friedrich mentions that tense locates ‘the relative anteriority or posteriority of an action with reference to the speech situation’ in time and ‘temporal values inherent in the activity or state itself, on the other hand, are coded by aspect categories.’20 Rodney J. Decker, a follower of Porter, explains temporal relation as the idea of ‘remoteness.’ For example, in the contrastive use of imperfective aspects (present and imperfect), the present indicates ‘–remoteness,’ and the imperfect ‘+remoteness.’21 He is unwilling to use temporal terms such as ‘present and past’ or ‘now and then’ because he follows Porter’s position of the non-temporality of the Greek verb.22 Also, in the same way as Porter, Decker assesses the temporal function of the verb according to pragmatic value and not semantic value. Decker states, ‘The semantic value of a verb form involves aspect and remoteness, but the pragmatic value of a verb form in a specific context suggests that a speaker may select (in the case of the imperfect form) imperfective aspect and remoteness to describe a process in past time.’23 Although Decker prefers the term ‘remoteness’ because he wants to embrace broader categories such as logical or conditional remoteness, it appears that Decker’s way of explaining remoteness is not much different from a traditional view of temporal notion.24 However, he seems to intend this to be different from the traditional notion, trying to explain why ancient Greek has the present and imperfect tenses if there is no time value in the Greek indicative tenses.

VERBAL ASPECT AND AKTIONSART From the nineteenth century on, aspect began to be studied in more detail.25 There are two facets to aspect: the author’s viewpoint and the kind of action. The author’s viewpoint has been dealt with under the name of verbal aspect. The kind of action has been worked on under the name of Aktionsart.26 The difference between verbal aspect and Aktionsart has been explained in various ways. The most common distinction between the two is that verbal aspect refers to the grammatical aspect or the subjective aspect and that Aktionsart refers to the lexical aspect or objective aspect.27 Based on this common view, various explanations have been suggested. Campbell explains that aspect refers to viewpoint— how the action is viewed, and Aktionsart refers to how an action actually takes place—what sort of action it is.28 Wallace distinguishes aspect from Aktionsart by

4 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

saying, ‘Aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features.’29 Fanning defines Aktionsart as ‘the procedural character or nature of the occurrence itself ’ and as ‘more objective, since it is dictated by the actual character of the action or state described.’ He defines aspect as ‘more subjective, involving a free choice by the speaker to view the occurrence however he or she chooses.’30 According to Carl Bache, ‘Aktionsart concerns the prodedural characteristics, i.e., the “phrasal structure,” “time extension,” and “manner of development,” ascribed to any given situation referred to by a verb phrase, whereas aspect reflects the situational focus with which a situation is represented.’31

V E R B A L A S P E C T A N D A K T I O N S A R T W O R K I N G TO G E T H E R Most scholars consider the two facets of aspect as semantically working together and recognize that both verbal aspect and Aktionsart have inherent meanings, although they distinguish verbal aspect from Aktionsart at the theoretical level. K. L. McKay admits that lexical types influence the meaning of verbal aspect.32 Comrie looks at aspect as one broad category, including the inherent meanings of Aktionsart. He puts Aktionsartlich features of ‘habitual and continuous’ and ‘nonprogressive and progressive’ in the subdivisions of the ‘imperfective’ aspect.33 John Lyons uses a different term, ‘aspectual character,’ instead of Aktionsart. He explains that aspect is grammaticalized, covering a variety of oppositions ‘based upon the notions of duration, instantaneity, frequency, initiation, completion, etc.’34 Östen Dahl argues that aspect is to be understood by various contextual situations of events, processes, states, etc. and based on inherent aspectual meaning or lexical meaning (called ‘Aktionsart’).35 Dahl also argues that it is difficult to distinguish inherent aspectual meaning from contextual influences because an event or a situation that is expressed in a verb is tied to its own context.36 Carl Bache argues that it is not possible to clearly distinguish Aktionsart from verbal aspect. The subjective choice of the author between a perfective or an imperfective viewpoint of a particular situation cannot be separated from the actual situation which involves lexical and temporal features.37 When the author views an objective activity, his freedom of choice can be suppressed with its lexical features or other contextually grammatical features.38 As to aspectual functions, Bache says, ‘Aspect is basically subjective but may have various objectively determined functions.’39 Mari Broman Olsen discusses grammatical aspect and lexical aspect separately. However, she admits that grammatical aspect cannot be separated from lexical aspect. She states, ‘Grammatical aspect acts as an overlay on lexical aspect.’40 She finds that ‘many properties accorded to imperfective and perfective

brief understa n d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 5

categories, such as ‘incompleteness’ and ‘resultativity’, respectively, may be seen to result from the interaction between grammatical and lexical aspect.’41 Fanning argues, ‘Understanding the aspects requires an interpreter to understand both the basic meaning of the aspects themselves and their function in combination with other linguistic features.’42 Fanning does not separate verbal aspect and Aktionsart in terms of interpretation, although he has argued that there should be a clear distinction between aspect and Aktionsart. Thus, he believes that the Greek verb should be understood to express, not only the author’s viewpoint, but also the verb’s interaction with the lexical meaning, temporal meaning, and contextual grammatical features.43 Daniel B.  Wallace views aspect and Aktionsart as combined and working together, although theoretically he distinguishes between aspect and Aktionsart.44 Wallace suggests that three features of Aktionsart determine the author’s choice of the tense: the lexical nature of the verb, context, and other grammatical features.45 As shown previously, most scholars believe that verbal aspect is closely intertwined with Aktionsart semantically. However, Porter and his followers argue that the Greek verb grammaticalizes only the viewpoint of the author, which is aspect, minimizing the inherent function of the lexeme of the Greek verb.46 On a discourse level, they try to explain the aspectual choice in a network of systemic oppositions. To verify their views, they present different means of interpretation, utilizing the concepts of markedness, grounding, and prominence on a discourse level. However, their approaches have caused confusion in the interpretation of the actual meaning of the Greek text. In ch 2, I  will evaluate their theoretical approaches. Then in chs. 4 and 5 I will apply my Three Rules (suggested in ch. 3) to actual Greek texts to determine if these approaches are valid.

A S P E C T UA L D I S T I N C T I O N ( O R O P P O S I T I O N ) Aspectual distinction or aspectual opposition occurs between two aspects. Comrie observes that in many languages the aspectual distinction occurs mainly in the past tense, between imperfective meaning and perfective meaning (between the imperfect and the aorist in the Greek verb).47 Roman Jakobson found that in Russian verbs the classes of the verb are formed by means of two aspect correlations, which are imperfective and perfective.48 Friedrich suggests that the ‘durative’ and ‘nondurative’ aspects formed the basic aspectual opposition in Homeric Greek and Proto-Indo-European.49 He thinks that the biblical Greek aspect is akin to the Homeric aspect. Thus, for exegesis, he prefers the ‘durative and nondurative’ opposition of Homeric Greek to the ‘imperfective and perfective’ of Slavic.50 In recent scholarship, the terms ‘imperfective and perfective’ are preferred to ‘durative and nondurative’ or ‘linear and punctiliar.’

6 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

For Greek verbs, in the indicative (where there is a clear temporal element), aspectual distinction occurs between the aorist and the imperfect, especially in narrative.51 In the non-indicative (where there is dominant aspect), aspectual distinction occurs between the aorist and the present.52

THE PERFECT TENSE For Greek verbs, the use of the perfect tense has been actively discussed because it has a unique character in terms of aspect and temporal relations. Since aspectual distinction occurs between the two aspects of the imperfective and perfective, the perfect tense has no place in terms of aspect. In the earliest grammar the perfect tense did not find a stable place. The Stoics (300 BC) recognized two clear basic aspects—‘incomplete’ and ‘complete’—and one ambiguous aspect or undefined aspect.53 The perfect tense was regarded as having a complete aspect and was put under the category of present time.54 Unlike the Stoics’ grammar, Dionysius Thrax (100 BC) put the perfect in the category of the past tense.55 This difference in understanding the perfect tense between the Stoics and Thrax shows that the nature of the perfect tense was not clear to ancient grammarians in terms of aspect and time. In the nineteenth century, most grammarians who held to the idea of aspectual distinction between two aspects tried to determine the aspect (type of action) of the perfect. Some grammarians who understood the aspect as a ‘type of action’ explained the perfect as indicating two kinds of actions or two kinds of times simultaneously. J. H. Moulton states that the perfect has a variety of action capable of being either punctiliar or durative.56 C. F. D. Moule understands that the perfect indicates the nature of a punctiliar event in the past related in its effects on the present.57 A. T. Robertson determines the perfect as a ‘continuance of perfected or completed action.’58 There are other grammarians who understand the aspect as the portrayal of action. They also explain the perfect as having two features of the present state as well as completed action. Maximilian Zerwick understands the perfect as indicating ‘a completed action resulting in a state of affairs.’59 Ernest De Witt Burton puts the perfect into the aspect of ‘completed,’ which implies the present state completed from a past event.60 K. L. McKay understands the perfect as ‘the state consequent upon an action.’61 Their explanations of the aspect (kind of action) of the perfect, although slightly differing from each other, demonstrate that the perfect indicates two features: either ‘punctiliar and durative’ or ‘the present state and completed action in the past.’ Recent grammarians have begun to see aspect from the viewpoint of the author, trying to separate it from the objective ‘kind of action (Aktionsart).’ This

brief understa n d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 7

group of scholars proposes various explanations of the perfect. Some still admit that the perfect indicates two features of aspect perceived in aspectual distinction. Wallace holds aspectual distinction between internal portrayal and external portrayal. Based on these two aspects, Wallace explains the perfect tense as indicating a combination of ‘the external and internal aspects.’62 Fanning (1990), who holds to two aspects (imperfective and perfective), thinks that the perfect tense is partly aspectual, that is, a sub-type of the aoristic or perfective aspect, which he names as ‘summary viewpoint.’ Thus, Fanning suggests that the perfect tense ‘combines three elements within its invariant meaning: the Aktionsart-feature of stative situation, the tense-feature of anteriority, and the aspect of summary viewpoint concerning the occurrence.’63 Unlike Fanning, who considers the perfect tense the summary viewpoint on an action, Constantine R. Campbell, who holds to two aspects (imperfective and perfective), considers it the ‘imperfective aspect.’ Campbell believes that the perfect tense is not related to the author’s viewpoint; rather, it is a category of Aktionsart because stativity belongs to Aktionsart.64 Porter (1989) places the aspect of the perfect tense according to the author’s viewpoint. Thus, for Porter there are three viewpoints of the author: imperfective, perfective, and stative. Porter strongly argues that the aspect of the perfect tense is ‘state,’ which is viewed as a condition or state of affairs in existence. Porter regards the perfect tense not as an action of dual features but as a single sense of ‘the subjective conception of a process,’ which is stative, regardless of anterior activity related to the present state.65 On a discourse level, Porter argues that the perfect tense, which expresses the ‘stative’ aspect, is chosen to indicate frontground prominence. For his argument, Porter develops correlations between three aspects through a systemic network of tense oppositions.66 According to Porter, the Greek verbal aspect67 is a synthetic semantic category, which means that two sets of binary oppositions work in a network of tense systems.68 He relates this synthetic network of tense systems to the concepts of markedness, grounding, and prominence from a discourse perspective.69 Thus, the aorist tense form is the least marked, functioning as a background. The present and imperfect tenses are more marked, functioning as a foreground. The perfect tense form is the most marked, functioning as a frontground, which is the most prominent tense. Thus, for Porter the perfect is a single feature of a present state of the subject, regardless of prior events, functioning as a frontground (in the highest prominence) on a discourse level. Recently, Crellin suggested that the Greek perfect retains a unitary semantic feature, which implies the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. In his study, he finds that non-state verbs refer to a prior event. State and change-of-state verbs indicate their resultant states, which subsume past references regardless of ‘direct reference to a prior culminating event.’70 With his study,

8 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Crellin challenges Porter’s argument that the perfect tense form itself does not refer to an anterior event while quoting Porter’s summary that if there is an indication of anterior activity, ‘this is a matter of lexis in context’ because the semantics of the perfect ‘represents the state or condition of the grammatical subject.’71 Crellin proposes that except for the case of a predicate itself describing a state for the subject in a single form, ‘all instances of the perfect are in principle capable of anterior denotation.’72 In ch 2, I  will evaluate Porter’s markedness and grounding along with the notion of prominence for the perfect in order to argue that the perfect is not chosen to indicate frontground (the highest prominence) on a discourse level but rather chosen to indicate background for main events or themes. The perfect is used to indicate the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity in an immediate context. notes 1. Before the twentieth century, the term ‘aspect’ had been understood to mean ‘kind of action,’ which was differentiated from ‘time.’ Later the phrase ‘kind of action’ was replaced with the term ‘Aktionsart,’ which was coined by Germanic linguists. This term has been distinguished from the term ‘aspect’—in general, the word ‘Aktionsart’ is used to denote lexical aspect and the word ‘aspect’ is used to denote grammatical aspect. Refer to Jadranka Gvozdanović, ‘Pefective and Imperfective Aspect,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnick (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2012), 781–802; Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics (New York: Garland, 1997), 3–8; Francis G. H. Pang, Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart: A Corpus Approach to Koine Greek Event Typology (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 1–9. 2. Plato (429–347 BC) and Aristotle (384–322 BC) distinguished between nouns and verbs, and Aristotle recognized the Greek verbal tense system. The Stoics (300 BC) found the verbal tense system and recognized the semantic categories of time and aspect. See John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 10–12. See also Robert Henry Robins, A Short History of Linguistics (London: Longman, 1997), 29. Dionysios Thrax (100 BC) mentioned four past tenses for verbs: imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist. See Dionysios Thrax, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, trans. Thomas Davidson (St. Louis, MO: P. P. Studley, 1874), 11–12. 3. From the twentieth century, comparative and historical linguistics deal with similarities in vocabulary or grammatical structure between languages and look for historical or ‘genetic’ relationships in language-families. For more information, see Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 21–22. As for the function of the Greek verb, some began to discuss the Greek verb with three categories of time, Aktionart, and aspect. 4. Structural linguistics started with Ferdinand de Saussure. He was interested in structural relations between words, sounds, and constructions. He made a ‘distinction between diachronic linguistics and synchronic linguistics, giving priority to the latter.’ He challenged comparative and historical linguistics and influenced Leonard Bloomfield in America and the Prague School

brief understa n d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 9

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

(including Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy) in Europe. See Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Wade Baskin (New  York:  McGraw-Hill, 1966); Leonard Bloomfield, An Introduction to the Study of Language (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914); Josef Vachek, Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics, ed. Libuše Dušková (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003); M. P. Sinha, Modern Linguistics (New Delhi: Atlantic, 2005). Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989); Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Porter, Verbal Aspect, 83–97. Ibid., 107. The binary pairs are arranged in two oppositions using the concept of markedness. The first binary pair works between ‘+perfective’ (aorist tense) and ‘–perfective.’ The second binary pair works between ‘+imperfective’ (present tense) and ‘–stative’ (perfect tense). See ibid., 90. Porter presents a network of tense systems in a chart. In the chart, the Greek tense is realized through a process, which implies activity. He divides a process into two:  ‘aspectuality’ network and ‘finiteness’ network. Each is explained with meaningful oppositions. Porter focuses on the ‘aspectuality’ network and rarely discusses the ‘finiteness’ network (including ‘attitude’ and ‘remoteness,’ which can be involved in activity and temporal notion). The ‘aspectuality’ network begins with ‘+expectation’ and ‘+aspectual.’ Porter does not work on the ‘+expectation’ network because ‘+expectation’ is related to future forms and has ‘its odd formal paradigm and limited distribution.’ Porter develops the other branch of ‘+aspectual’ into two oppositional networks. One network is the oppositional relation between ‘+perfective’ and ‘–perfective.’ The other, under ‘–perfective,’ is the oppositional relation between ‘+imperfective’ and ‘+stative.’ See ibid., 109. Ibid., 107. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 77. In general, Greek grammarians agree that aspect has priority over time in the function of the Greek verb. History shows that the Greek verb was first understood to express mainly temporal ideas, and then gradually the Greek verb was understood to indicate ‘kinds of action’ or ‘aspects.’ In the fourth century BC, Aristotle found temporal notions in the Greek verb forms. See Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 10. In the second century BC, the grammatical work of Dionysios Thrax shows that the Greek verb was based on a temporal idea. Dionysios mentioned that the past tense of the Greek verb had four sub-tenses (imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist) and, therefore, had six tenses in total. These four sub-tenses were used in three respective relations with a temporal idea. ‘The Present is related to the Imperfect, the Perfect to the Pluperfect, and the Aorist to the Future.’ See Dionysios Thrax, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, trans., Thomas Davidson (St. Louis, MO: Studley, 1874; reprint, Journal of Speculative Philosophy), 11–12. In grammars from Winer to the present, the Greek verb indicates ‘kinds of action’ (or ‘aspects’) and temporal notion especially in the indicative. Traditional grammar did not give up temporal notion in the indicative. See Georg Benedikt Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis, trans. W. F. Moulton, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870), 330; Alexander Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, trans. J. H. Thayer (Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1876), 195; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 166; Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898; reprint,

10 

13.

14.

15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 6; James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I. Prolegomena (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), 108; A. T. Robertson, A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New  York:  Hodder & Stoughton, 1908), 824; William Douglas Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1941; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), 67; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959; reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 5; A. N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London: Macmillan, 1897), 433; James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 75–76; B. L. Gildersleeve and C. W. E. Miller, Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes, 2 vols. (New York: American Book Company, 1900–1911), 79; James Allen Hewett, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986), 13. The traditional approach typically labels the augment as a past time indicator, pointing to the fact that the overwhelming amount of imperfect usage is in past-referring contexts. See Moulton, Prolegomena, 128–129. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 177–178. D. D. Schmidt, ‘Verbal Aspect in Greek: Two Approaches,’ in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 71. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 240–241. Porter and McKay have challenged this position. Porter argues against the augment’s temporal associations on the basis of its omission in Homeric Greek. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 208–209; K. L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974), 223; T. A. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 45–50; Rutger K. Allan, ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 83–100; Peter J. Gentry, ‘The Function of the Augment in Hellenistic Greek,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016), 353–375. Chamberlain states, ‘The time element appears directly only in the indicative mode. In the subjunctive, optative and imperative modes and in the infinitive and participles, it is only relative.’ ‘This is why the indicative uses all of the tenses forms and the other modes are confined largely to the present and the aorist.’ See Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 67. David Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse, Linguistic Biblical Studies 4 (Leiden:  Brill, 2010), 1–18; Rodney J.  Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, Studies in Biblical Greek 10 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 31–49, 56–59; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 25. Porter mentions only one temporal situation that is the time of occurrence of an event. Porter may have overlooked that tense includes the time of speaking or writing. See Porter, Idioms, 25–26. Ibid., 25. Ibid. Paul Friedrich, ‘On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect,’ IJAL 40, no.  4, Part  2 (October 1974):  S35. Friedrich argues that there are three universal categories of verbal systems:  time,

brief understan d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 11

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

voice, and mood. The three categories work together in Homeric Greek although aspect is the most powerful and tense occurs only in the indicative mood. Ibid. In the contrastive use of stative aspects (perfect and pluperfect), the perfect indicates ‘–remoteness,’ and the pluperfect indicates ‘+remoteness.’ See Decker, Temporal Deixis, 107. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 106. Comparative and historical linguistics in the early nineteenth century challenged the earliest verbal system and began to think about ‘kind of action,’ which was first named ‘kind of time’ (Zeitart) by Georg Curtius, then changed to ‘kind of action’ (Aktionsart) and developed by Brugmann. From the 1920s linguists began to make a distinction between aspect and Aktionsart. Refer to Evans, Verbal Syntax, 14–19. Aktionsart is related to actions themselves. Curtius first mentions the kind of time (Zeitart) to which three actions belong: going on, momentary, and completed. See Georg Curtius, A Grammar of the Greek Language (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1872), 273–274. The term Zeitart is later changed to Aktionsart. Moulton recognized ‘kinds of action’ of the Greek verb, which is Aktionsart: a ‘punctiliar’ action (the aorist tense), a ‘durative’ or ‘linear’ action (the present tense) and a variety of actions of the past and present continuance (the perfect tense). See Moulton, Prolegomena, 109. Robertson studied Aktionsart of the verb stem. He focused on the verb root and argued that there were originally two verb-types: durative or linear action and momentary or punctiliar action. See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 823. Verbal aspect concerns the author’s viewpoint regarding the action. The author subjectively grammaticalizes his viewpoint on the action in the Greek verb, regardless of the actual action. Aktionsart concerns the objective description of the actual action that is expressed in lexis along with matters of the movement of an action and its temporal notion. See Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model; Snezana Milovanovic, ‘Grammaticalization of Aktionsart in Ancient Slavic: A Comparison with Aspect in Ancient Greek and Latin’ (PhD diss., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1995). Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 22. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 499. Buist M. Fanning, ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method,’ in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 48. For his definition more in detail, see Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 31. Carl Bache, ‘Aspect and Aktionsart: Towards a Semantic Distinction,’ JL 18 (1982): 70. K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, Studies in Biblical Greek 5, ed. Donald Arthur Carson (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 28. Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 25. John Lyons, Semantics, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 705. Östen Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 27. Ibid., 26. Bache, ‘Aspect and Aktionsart: Towards a Semantic Distinction,’ 67–68.

12  38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46. 47.

48.

49.

50. 51. 52. 53.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Ibid., 68. Ibid., 67. Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 16. Ibid., 10. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 86. Fanning, ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek:  Issues in Definition and Method,’ 54. Fanning contends that there should be a clear distinction between aspect and Aktionsart but at the same time the combination with other features needs to be analyzed. To do so, Fanning adopts the Vendler-Kenny taxonomy. For more information, see Zeno Vendler, ‘Verbs and Times,’ TPR 66, no. 2 (April 1957): 43–60. Anthony Kenny, Action, Emotion and Will (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963), 151–186. Wallace states, ‘Aspect is the unaffected meaning while Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical, or contextual features.’ See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 499. Wallace mentions, ‘Lexical meaning of the verb is related to the kind of action which is expressed through the verb stem such as a terminal or punctual act, a state, etc. Grammatical features are related to mood, voice, transitiveness, etc.’ See ibid., 504. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 83–97. Comrie explains why the aspectual distinction occurs predominantly in the past. The present denotes progressive action in non-stative verbs or states in stative verbs. Typically, non-stative verbs in the past express a single complete action. There may be a need to express a progressive action in the past. In this case, the imperfect tense is used. This is a possible reason why the aspectual distinction between the imperfect tense and the aorist tense occurs only in the past. Comrie’s observation and explanation implies that the imperfect tense and the aorist tense are used in temporal situations. See Comrie, Aspect, 72. Dahl also presents in his study that the oppositional members of the perfective and imperfective occur in about 45 languages. He mentions that ‘there is a strong tendency for perfective categories to be restricted to past time reference’ because ‘single, completed events will in the “typical cases” be located in the past.’ Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems, 69, 79. Jakobson explains that the perfective indicates the absolute limit of the action, and the imperfective denotes repeated inceptions or completions of iterative actions while the actions remain imperfect. See Linda R.  Waugh and Morris Halle, eds., Roman Jakobson:  Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 1931–1981 (Berlin: Mouton, 1984), 3. Friedrich provides more information about the aspectual opposition. For two aspects, there are the ‘preterite and imperfect’ opposition in Romance, the ‘perfective and imperfective’ of Slavic, and the ‘progressive and perfective’ and ‘progressive and indefinite’ in English. See Friedrich, ‘On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect,’ S1 and S6. It is said that the distinction of ‘perfective’ and ‘imperfective’ was made in the inflexion of verbs in Russian and other Slavonic languages with use of the term ‘aspect,’ which is a translation of the Russian word vid. For more information, see Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, 313. The present in the indicative is used without aspectual distinction, rather as a function of vivid description. The future also appears not in aspectual distinction but in temporal distinction. The imperfect does not appear in the non-indicative. The future is used to indicate temporal distinction. Robins, A Short History of Linguistics, 29. According to the Stoics, the present tense and the imperfect tense belong to ‘incomplete.’ The perfect and pluperfect belong to ‘complete.’ The aorist and the future belong to ‘undefined.’

brief understan d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 13

54. Ibid. 55. Dionysios Thrax (100 BC) did not mention the terms such as ‘incomplete’ or ‘complete.’ See Thrax, The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax, 12. 56. Moulton, Prolegomena, 109–110. Moulton divides ‘type of action’ into two: ‘a durative action’ and ‘a punctiliar action’ according to the verb stem. 57. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 5–6. Moule divides ‘type of action’ into two: a linear action and a punctiliar action. 58. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 823. Robertson suggests three kinds of action: ‘momentary or punctiliar,’ ‘linear or durative,’ and ‘continuance of perfected or completed,’ although he believes, ‘there were originally two verb-types, the one denoting durative or linear action, the other momentary or punctiliar action.’ 59. Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, trans. Joseph Smith, 7th reprint ed., Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, vol. 114 (Rome:  Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963), 77. He determines the aspect according to whether activity in progress or habitual, or a simple realization without reference to continuation or repetition. 60. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, 6–7. Burton based himself on two actions on ‘in progress’ or ‘a simple event without reference to progress or completion.’ 61. K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ NovT 23 (1981): 290. McKay sees the aspect with how the progress is viewed. He supports two basic actions: an activity in process and a whole action or simple event. However, he divides the aspect into four categories: two basic actions, the perfect (the state consequent upon an action), and the future (intention). 62. The combination of two aspects means, ‘The action is presented externally (summary), while the resultant state proceeding from the action is presented internally (continuous state).’ See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 573. 63. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 119–120. Fanning explains that, regarding three elements, one of three can be highlighted over the others according to contextual factors in individual texts. 64. Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Greek 15 (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 27. 65. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 259. His argument for the perfect tense is as follows: ‘It is appropriate to reassert that the Perfect grammaticalizes the state or condition of the grammatical subject as conceived by the speaker. Whether a previous event is alluded to or exists at all is a matter of lexis in context and not part of aspectual semantics. Such a determination is in effect concerned with the objective nature of an event (Aktionsart), but aspect is concerned with the subjective conception of a process. Therefore, the objective nature of the event itself—whether it has durative, punctiliar, or iterative value—does not come into semantic consideration.’ 66. Ibid., 90. 67. Cirafesi supports Porter’s theorization of verbal theory. See ch. 2 and 3 in Wally V.  Cirafesi, Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent Tense-Form Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2013). 68. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 88. 69. Ibid., 90–92; Porter, Idioms, 23–24. First, Porter attempts to explain the function of the Greek verb with the idea of verbal opposition in terms of marked pairs. Second, he attempts to explain it with the idea of the author’s grammaticalized ‘conception’ of process, which is the perspective of visualization. Third, he tries to explain it with the idea of planes of discourse, taking the term ‘grounding.’

14 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

70. Robert Crellin, ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek,’ JGL 14 (2014): 30–39. 71. Ibid., 10; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 259. 72. Robert Crellin, ‘The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.  Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 454. Crellin describes the semantics of the perfect as follows: ‘The perfect of a predicate derives a homogeneous atelic eventuality from the predicate for the grammatical subject and includes Topic Time in the Situation Time of this derived homogeneous atelic eventuality.’ See ibid., 451.

bibliography Allan, Rutger K. ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 81–121. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Bache, Carl. ‘Aspect and Aktionsart:  Towards a Semantic Distinction.’ Journal of Linguistics 18 (1982): 57–72. 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. Bloomfield, Leonard. An Introduction to the Study of Language. London: G. Bell and Sons, 1914. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979. Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Buttmann, Alexander. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Translated by Joseph Henry Thayer. Andover, MA: Warren F. Draper, 1876. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2008. Campbell, Constantine R. ‘Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament.’ Studies in Biblical Greek. 15 vols. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Chamberlain, William Douglas. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New  York: Macmillan, 1941. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979. Cirafesi, Wally V. Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent TenseForm Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek.’ JGL 14 (2014): 5–42. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 430–457. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Curtius, Georg. A Grammar of the Greek Language. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1872. Dahl, Östen. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. Dana, H. E., and Julius. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New  York: Macmillan, 1957.

brief understan d i n g o f t h e g r e e k   v e rb  | 15

Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. Studies in Biblical Greek 10. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Evans, T. A. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch:  Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Fanning, Buist Martin. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Fanning, Buist Martin. ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method.’ In Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson, 46–62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Friedrich, Paul. ‘On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect.’ IJAL 40, no.  4, Part  2 (October 1974): S1–S44. Gentry, Peter J. ‘The Function of the Augment in Hellenistic Greek.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 353–375. Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2016. Gildersleeve, Basil Lanneau, and Charles William Emil Miller. Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. 2 vols. New York: American Book Company, 1900–1911. Gvozdanović, Jadranka. ‘Pefective and Imperfective Aspect.’ In The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect, ed. Robert I. Binnick, 781–802. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Hewett, James Allen. New Testament Greek:  A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986. Jannaris, Antonius Nikolaus. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London: Macmillan, 1897. Kenny, Anthony. Action, Emotion and Will. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Lyons, John. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Mathewson, David. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. Linguistic Biblical Studies 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. McKay, Kenneth L. Greek Grammar for Students:  A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb. Canberra: Australian National University, 1974. McKay, Kenneth L. ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.’ NovT 23 (1981): 289–329. McKay, Kenneth L. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 5. ed. Donald Arthur Carson. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. Milovanovic, Snezana. ‘Grammaticalization of Aktionsart in Ancient Slavic:  A Comparison with Aspect in Ancient Greek and Latin.’ PhD diss., Memorial University of Newfoundland, 1995. Moule, Charles Francis Digby. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I.  Prolegomena. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906. Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland, 1997. Pang, Francis G. H. Revisiting Aspect and Aktionsart: A Corpus Approach to Koine Greek Event Typology. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

16 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages: Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934. Robins, Robert Henry. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman, 1997. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. ed. Charles Bally, Albert Sechehaye, and Albert Reidlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Schmidt, D. D. ‘Verbal Aspect in Greek: Two Approaches.’ In Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson, 63–73. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Sinha, M. P. Modern Linguistics. New Delhi: Atlantic, 2005. Thrax, Dionysios. The Grammar of Dionysios Thrax. Translated by Thomas Davidson. St. Louis, MO: P. P. Studley, 1874. Vachek, Josef. Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics. ed. Libuše Dušková. Amsterdam:  John Benjamins, 2003. Vendler, Zeno. ‘Verbs and Times.’ TPR 66, no. 2 (April 1957): 143–160. Wallace, Daniel Baird. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Waugh, Linda R., and Morris Halle, eds. Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 1931– 1981. Berlin: Mouton, 1984. Winer, Georg Benedikt. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek:  Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Translated by William Fiddian Moulton. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1870. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Translated by Joseph Smith. 7th reprint ed. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 114 vols. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963.

C HAPTER T W O

An Evaluation of Porter’s Markedness and Grounding with Prominence for the Perfect Tense Form

Stanley E.  Porter applies the concepts of markedness and grounding found in general linguistics to the Greek verb. In general linguistics, the concept of markedness is explained with the binary terms ‘marked and unmarked’ or ‘more marked and less marked,’1 while the concept of grounding is explained with the binary terms ‘foreground and background.’2 To these binary terms, Porter adds one more term—‘the most heavily marked or frontground.’ Porter attempts to explain a cline of markedness values in the total network of the Greek verbal system using mainly formal marking, and he associates this cline of markedness values with a hierarchical understanding of grounding in discourse. In other words, Porter connects the formal marking situation of each tense (markedness) to its function of distinctive emphasis on a discourse level (grounding and prominence). With the concept of markedness, Porter suggests that the aorist is the least marked, the present or imperfect is more marked, and the perfect or pluperfect is the most heavily marked.3 Concerning the concept of grounding, the aorist is background, the present or imperfect is foreground, and the perfect or pluperfect is frontground.4 With regard to ‘the most heavily marked’ or frontground, Porter argues that the perfect tense form in the NT was chosen to function as a third ground (frontground) in discourse and indicate ‘prominence.’ Porter’s argument, that the perfect tense form is chosen for frontground (the highest prominence) with no consideration for anterior occurrence, has been challenged by NT scholars.5 It has also caused me to rethink the function of the perfect tense form on a discourse level. The issue in question is whether, in actual Greek

18 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

texts, the perfect tense form functions as frontground (the highest prominence) regardless of anterior activity, or whether it functions as background, supporting the main events or themes, while expressing the present state resulting from anterior occurrence. His problem regarding the perfect tense form is that he rigidly holds to the thought that the perfect tense form itself indicates the highest prominence in discourse, without considering other contextual features that bring about prominence values. Benjamin L. Merkle and K. L. McKay describe Porter’s weakness as ‘too little attention to context.’6 J. A. Barnard, who argues that verbal aspect is not the only prominence indicator, challenges Porter’s argument that prominence values are determined only through verbal aspect.7 However, Porter recently reaffirmed his argument, stating, ‘Greek has the ability to differentiate supporting (aorist) and highlighted material to the exposition (what I have called frontground, realized in the perfect tense form and stative aspect, which is also available for further highlighting in narrative).’8 In this chapter, I will first demonstrate that various scholars have discussed the concepts of markedness and grounding without a unified opinion. Therefore, the two concepts may not be solid foundations for explaining the semantics of the Greek verb, especially the perfect tense form. I will contend that markedness values are not just generated from formal marking of the Greek verb but possibly from various elements. Porter gave a distinct markedness value that is similar to the notion of prominence, to each tense that is formally marked with its own feature. He formulated a cline of three markedness values (least, more, and most) based on each tense and connected the markedness values of individual Greek tense to three groundings (background, foreground, and frontground) on a discourse level. Accordingly, I will also demonstrate that groundings in discourse are determined not with the verb itself but with other factors such as grammatical, informational, and contextual features. With the result of my research, I will argue that the concept of markedness is not appropriate for describing the prominence of the perfect tense and that the perfect tense is not used for frontground (the highest prominence) but for background for main events or themes, including temporal relations.

MARKEDNESS The concept of markedness is examined through three lenses of grammatical categories:  ‘formal marking of two correlated items,’ ‘their invariant distinctive semantic features,’ and ‘various criteria for markedness values.’9 The concept of markedness begins with the observation of the formal marking of correlated items. Two items are contrasted to express their invariant distinctive semantic features

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 19

with markedness values. Formal marking and invariant distinctive meanings are objective and substantial because they are already fixed in the grammatical system of a particular language. However, markedness values are subjective and flexible and affected by various criteria and contextual factors. The term ‘markedness values’ in this book is used to denote prominence values that can be distinguished, based on certain criteria, between two or three correlated items. The reason that I  pick up the issue of markedness values is that Porter explains the perfect’s markedness with the meaning of prominence values. Porter believes that the formal marking of two or three correlated items delivers markedness values (prominence force). Porter suggests his own criteria to determine markedness values. He makes a cline of three aspects for prominence values. Accordingly, Porter puts the perfect in the place of the highest prominence, which is a problematic issue this book will address. Runge mentions the problem with Porter’s criteria ‘for establishing the relative markedness of the tense forms, followed by his correlation of markedness to prominence.’10 Runge points out that Porter’s problem comes from his confusion between symmetrical and asymmetrical markedness, stating that ‘asymmetrical markedness claims are regularly treated as though they are symmetrical, scalar rankings.’11 Runge suggests that Porter’s cline of markedness values, or ‘scalar quality,’ should be based on symmetrical markedness, where more than two members have common features on which hierarchy can be based.12 Symmetrical markedness is well explained in phonetics.13 However, Porter’s cline of three aspects is based on asymmetrical markedness, where it is impossible to make a scalar ranking because there is no basis of comparison for common features. The only two possibilities to indicate ‘marked and unmarked’ are ‘the binary signaling or non-signaling of a feature.’14 Porter strongly responds to Runge, saying that Runge misses the complexity of markedness that has been formulated with both symmetrical and asymmetrical features, arguing that ‘hierarchy is both symmetrical and asymmetrical.’15 Based on his understanding of markedness, Porter tries to interpret the perfect tense as giving the highest prominence, disregarding the traditional semantic feature of the perfect tense, which is a present state resulting from anterior activity. The ultimate goal of this book is to evaluate Porter’s understanding of the perfect as the highest prominence in actual Greek texts, showing that his markedness values are invalid. My hypothesis is that Porter’s markedness value of the perfect tense form may not be valid if it is true that markedness values are best understood in light of two contrastive items and are differently determined by various criteria and contextual factors. Based on my hypothesis, I will argue that markedness values are to be discussed in binary oppositions, that markedness values could be differently determined depending on different criteria of markedness, and that the already determined markedness values of individual items could change according

20 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

to various contextual factors, such as the grammatical structure, social environment, human tendency, inherent meaning of the verb, and so on. I will conclude that the concept of markedness is not solid enough to apply to the Greek verb in a wholesale manner, especially to the perfect tense form.

Binary Oppositions Roman Jakobson and N.  S. Trubetzkoy introduced the concept of markedness in binary oppositions.16 The concept of markedness began with the recognition of two phonological linguistic items correlated in binary oppositions. Later, Trubetzkoy proposed three types of semantic relations:  privative, gradual, and equipollent.17 Trubetzkoy suggested that in gradual relations there were different degrees among three phonetic sounds—[i]~[e]~[æ], which are in symmetrical relation to each other.18 Trubetzkoy’s gradual degrees of markedness relations seem to be a harbinger of Porter’s scalar markedness.19 However, the idea of binary opposition has become a mainstay for most linguists who explain the concept of ­markedness.20 Binary oppositions imply that two items are contrasted in one particular property. Contrast between two items can be perceived in any area, such as phonology, morphology, and grammatical or lexical categories.21 Phonological opposition can occur in two relative sound systems. Morphological opposition can occur in the presence or absence of an affix. Grammatical oppositions can occur in any grammatical category. All of these examples show the contrast between two items with regard to a particular property.22 Since this book does not have sufficient space to deal comprehensively with all kinds of binary oppositions, it will be limited to grammatical categories, especially to the Greek verb.

Multiple Oppositions Binary oppositional relations of verbs have been categorized into multiple oppositional relations. For example, in the aspect of the Russian verb, the primary correlation of marked and unmarked is observed between perfective and imperfective. Another correlation of marked and unmarked is observed between determinate and indeterminate within one of the primary correlations, which is imperfective. A third correlation is examined between iterative and non-iterative within one of the secondary correlations, which is indeterminate, and so on.23 In this way, the verbs can have multiple oppositions. However, as we will see, a single opposition works to show the contrast between two items with regard to a particular property. In other words, each opposition works within its own territory, expressing its own distinctive feature.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 21

For the Greek verb, Porter suggests two binary oppositions. The primary binary opposition occurs between –perfective and +perfective. The other binary opposition occurs between +imperfective and +stative within –perfective of the primary opposition.24 Then he attempts to synthetically arrange multiple oppositions on a cline, giving a gradual degree of markedness values. Accordingly, he uses three terms ‘the least marked, more marked, and the most heavily marked’ in contrast to the common usage of two terms: ‘marked and unmarked,’ or ‘more marked and less marked.’25 Porter attempts to exegete Romans 6:7–10, where three tenses appear all together, according to the view of trinary opposition.26 However, he in fact deals with two items in single binary opposition, using the terms ‘more’ and ‘less.’27 I will evaluate his explanation in detail in ch 5. Cynthia Long Westfall suggests trinary, tetradic, or greater opposition in one category28 and tries to make a scale for markedness values from the least to the most. She seems to revise or develop the multiple oppositions of Porter.29 For example, she categorizes the Greek verb into five tenses in regard to markedness or prominence, and provides each with distinctive markedness values, and orders them—from the aorist, to the imperfect, to the present, to the perfect and, finally, to the pluperfect.30 However, only two items tend to be contrasted in a binary opposition in the actual text.31 There has been some question of whether all linguistic items are in binary oppositions. Edwin Battistella observes that there are cases of serial or cyclic oppositions such as ‘Sunday, Monday, …, Saturday.’32 However, he states, ‘our ordinary conceptualization of this cycle is more binary than we think,’ which means that human beings have a tendency to take and contrast two items out of many for dialogue.33 He believes that the existence of ‘polar oppositions’ in any linguistic system is ‘one of the hallmarks of human language.’34 Thus, we can say that markedness values are recognized and understood in binary oppositions in the actual text because of the limited human perception for both the reader and the author. The reader may not be able to perceive the various strata of markedness values beyond the range that he can grasp. It is doubtful that an author would choose words for the purpose of conveying multiple strata of markedness values.

Problem of Markedness Values There is a problem for markedness values because the unmarked item determined can be observed as marked under specific circumstances of a particular language.35 Scholars are aware that the distinctive criteria for markedness values are not reliable for indicating prominence values because there is no unified view on determining markedness values, although they all suggest their own criteria and provide

22 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

their own understanding.36 I see various criteria which can be contingent on context and describe them as follows.

Various Criteria Bernard Comrie suggests four criteria:  semantics, morphology, frequency, and context.37 However, he finds that some criteria often conflict with other criteria and so he argues that one has to decide which member is marked or unmarked case by case.38 For example, the aorist is the unmarked member morphologically, but it can be marked contextually.39 He also admits that in some cases all members can be equally marked.40 Comrie concludes that even though markedness values characterize ‘aspectual opposition within the aspectual system as a whole, it may function relativized to certain contexts’ and ‘the degree of markedness of a marked form need not always be the same.’41 Edwin Battistella presents six criteria for identifying markedness values: optimality, breadth of distribution, syncretization, indeterminateness, simplicity and prototypicality.42 He mentions that markedness values can be determined ‘by a coalescence of properties.’43 Thus, determining markedness values is complicated, and ‘the various diagnostics of markedness are not perfect.’44 Martin Haspelmath presents twelve senses of markedness values, but he argues that the term ‘markedness should be abandoned by linguists’ because of ‘an abstract notion of markedness.’45 He recommends more straightforward and less ambiguous terms than ‘markedness,’ such as ‘phonetic difficulty,’ ‘frequency effects,’ and ‘regularity of sound change.’46 Östen Dahl believes that the marked member has an extra morpheme. In grammatical opposition, one unmarked member is ‘a zero-marked member with less specific interpretation,’ and the other is ‘an overtly marked member with more specific interpretation.’47 However, he points out that there is the situation of ‘paradoxical’ cases of marking where the marked member can function as unmarked because it can express more fully a general idea and situation in a particular context.48 Laura A. Janda explains markedness values from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. She uses a radial pattern to explain markedness values as related to their central or peripheral positions. ‘The least marked elements’ are ‘closest to the center,’ and ‘the most marked elements’ are ‘in the most peripheral positions.’49 In other words, central prototype members are unmarked and peripheral members are marked.50 She believes that markedness is ‘a natural by-product’ within the framework of cognitive linguistics.51 However, she admits that markedness functions as ‘signposts’ for theoretical principles and the principles of markedness themselves do not work as satisfying factors.52 J. H. Greenberg argues that the role of frequency is the most important indicator to determine markedness values.53 His understanding of markedness values

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 23

is based on a quantitative concept, so he connects ‘less frequent or more frequent’ to ‘marked or unmarked.’54 Greenberg generalizes that unmarked grammatical categories occur more frequently than marked ones.55 Moreover, he suggests the scalar view of markedness values based on frequency, connecting it to the idea of a hierarchy of ‘from the least to the most.’ For example, the nominal number ‘singular’ is the most frequent (the most unmarked), ‘plural’ is less frequent (less marked), and ‘dual’ is the least frequent (the most marked).56 Some linguists have challenged Greenberg’s view of frequency. Henning Andersen argues, ‘Markedness values motivate changes in frequency, and not vice versa.’57 He also mentions that frequency can be the result of a historical development that has now become the system of the language and a stylistic variation.58 John Lyons states, ‘Differences in distribution are a matter of grammar, which can be correlated with markedness values.’59 Laura A. Janda says, ‘The distributional phenomena of markedness are merely symptoms, not defining properties.’60 T. Givón mentions that frequency distribution is ‘genre-dependent.’61 Although Greenberg’s view of frequency has been challenged, his criterion frequency is a favorite among most scholars.62 In 1989, Porter suggested four criteria for determining markedness values:  material, implicational, distributive, and semantic.63 In a binary opposition between the aorist and the present (or imperfect), the latter is more marked than the former in that the present (or imperfect) is morphologically bulkier (material), has fewer irregularities (implicational), shows syncretism (implicational), and is less frequent (distributional).64 However, in a binary opposition between the aorist and the present (or imperfect), Porter hesitates to use frequency as a criterion for markedness values because he finds that the statistics do not show a clear numerical distinction between the aorist and the present (or imperfect).65 For semantic markedness, Porter provides other theoretical explanations such as verbal opposition, visualization, planes of discourse, and systemic network for prominence ­values.66 In 2009, Porter revised the criteria for determining markedness values,67 although he continues to hold to his systematic structure of semantic oppositions based on markedness. ‘Positional’ and ‘cognitive’ were added and ‘semantic’ excluded so that the criteria became material, implicational, distributional, positional, and cognitive markedness.68 Positional markedness is related to word order.69 Cognitive markedness concerns which one has greater markedness, for example, ‘genitive over other cases.’70 We wonder why Porter excludes the criterion of semantic markedness because, for Porter, semantic complexity and delicacy are important features in determining the highest prominence for the perfect tense form.71 For the Greek verb, Buist M.  Fanning is interested in the types of aspectual relationships, rather than markedness values, between two members. He deals with three types of oppositional relations:  ‘contradictory,’ ‘contrary,’ or ‘mixed’

24 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

opposition.72 Fanning argues that in mixed opposition, there is the possibility that one member could be marked for durativity and unmarked for totality because the procedural character (duration) and the author’s viewpoint (totality) cannot be separated. He points out that, depending upon their different criterion, some scholars see the present tense as marked, while others see the aorist tense as marked.73 Thus, he supports equipollent opposition because both aspects, e.g. duration and totality in a binary opposition have their positive marking rather than ‘one being merely the neutral or negative foil for the other.’74 He seems to say that it would be better to focus more on inherent semantic features of two members than on markedness values. Thus, Fanning does not use the term markedness to explain the function of the Greek verb. We have seen that various scholars suggest different criteria for determining markedness values according to their different understandings. This situation reveals that there is no unified standard for determining markedness values, so it appears that markedness values are not reliable for explaining the semantic function of the Greek verb or determining the author’s intention.

Contingent on Context Markedness values can be contingent on various contextual factors even after they have been already decided by certain criteria. Edwin Battistella observes that markedness values change in different languages depending on context. For example, the Russian nominative case is unmarked, while the English nominative is marked.75 Even in a particular language, he finds that markedness values are contextualized according to their culture and linguistic structure.76 We will see that there are various contextual factors that change or affect universal markedness values. T. Givón observes that markedness values can be changed according to various types of grammatical structures such as ‘discourse types, i.e., genre (narrative vs. non-narrative), clause types, nominal modalities, and verb modalities.’77 For example, regarding the discourse type, passive forms can be marked in the context of ‘everyday oral communication’ but not in the context of ‘academic discourse.’78 In written-formal discourse, subordinate clauses more frequently occur than conjoined ones so subordinate clauses are unmarked. In oral-informal discourse, conjoined clauses more frequently occur than subordinate clauses so conjoined clauses are unmarked.79 Thus, Givón argues that markedness values ‘cannot be determined in an absolute fashion’ because they depend on their grammatical context.80 Social factors affect markedness values. Martin Haspelmath presents a good illustration for social or cultural factors. In a situation in which people wear bathing suits, naked bathing is the marked case. When there are nudists, wearing a bathing suit becomes marked.81 Human tendency affects markedness values. The author’s or speaker’s choice is affected by human tendency.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 25

If markedness is chosen by the author or speaker, there may be various reasons for him to choose formal linguistic items and semantic categories according to human tendency. Haspelmath gives interesting examples. ‘The present tense is more frequent than the future, not because few events occur in the future, but because we cannot talk about most of them. The singular is more frequent than the plural, not because the world consists of more individuals than groups, but because humans tend to focus on individuals.’82 Human psychological conceptions affect markedness values. For example, passive clauses tend to be chosen less than active clauses because they are grammatically more difficult expressions; thus, they are used less frequently. Haspelmath argues that this phenomenon is not due to the concept of markedness but to human tendency.83 Thus, he notes that the terms ‘marked and unmarked’ can mean ‘uncommon and common, abnormal and normal, unusual and usual, unexpected and expected,’ which are clearer terms.84 The inherent meaning of a verb in a particular context affects markedness values. Peter Meijes Tiersma argues that the first person may be locally unmarked in verbs of perception and emotion because those verbs are used frequently when referring to oneself. According to Greenberg, in cross-linguistics, the third person is unmarked because the third person in most languages is frequently used. The difference between Tiersma and Greenberg depends on whether one has a general perspective or a local perspective. Tiersma’s argument is that the general theory of markedness for cross-linguistics cannot be applied to a local situation of a particular language.85 Greenberg, also, is aware that markedness is changeable according to immediate context so he states, ‘markedness is not an absolute property, but is often relative to a given context.’86 We have seen that various factors affect markedness values. We feel that it is not desirable to apply the concept of markedness to the Greek verb as if it were the best or the only answer to knowing the author’s prominent idea. To conclude, we have found that there are two problems with using markedness values to determine the function of a verb. One is that there are no unified criteria to determine markedness values. The other is that the determined markedness values can change according to various contextual factors, such as the grammatical structure, social environment, human tendency, inherent meaning of the verb. This brief study has shown that the concept of markedness cannot be considered a stable tool for understanding the function of the Greek verb because it is flexible according to situations. Battistella, who seems to hesitate to accept the concept of markedness as a solid theory, asks doubtfully, ‘How much of a common core exists between various markedness?’87 I think that using the term ‘markedness’ can cause more confusion than not using it. In grammatical categories such as the Greek verb, the confusion can get worse when the distinctive features of markedness values supersede the inherent

26 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

meanings of each Greek verb that already have enough distinction power in binary oppositions. As Haspelmath says, ‘The term “markedness” is superfluous,’ the concept of markedness may not be helpful in understanding the author’s intention.88

Porter’s Markedness in the Perfect Tense Form For Porter, the perfect tense form is the most heavily marked, thus indicating the highest prominence. As we have seen, in 1989 Porter suggested four categories of criteria to determine markedness:  material, implicational, distributional, and semantic.89 Although later in 2009 Porter suggested five criteria (material, implicational, distributional, positional, and cognitive),90 I will discuss his original four criteria since they are considered the foundation of his argument that the perfect tense is the most heavily marked. According to the criterion of material,91 Porter argues that the perfect tense form has ‘the greatest morphological material’ which comes from ‘its unthematic root, endings and reduplication,’ thus indicating the highest prominence.92 However, the unthematic root of the perfect (which means that there is no connecting vowel93) looks shorter in terms of morphological bulkiness. And the perfect’s morphological size in personal ending94 is not much different from those of the active form of the first aorist and of the middle (or passive) form of the present. Finally, the morphological size of its reduplication is almost like the augment of the aorist in the case of vocalic reduplication. Porter himself admits that reduplication is insignificant because it becomes an integral part of the stem and so does not affect morphological bulk.95 In fact, there are many cases in which the perfect tense form is not much bulkier than other tenses, e.g. ἀποστέλλω (present), ἀπέστειλα (aorist), ἀπέσταλκα (perfect). Most morphological marking has been formed through historical development, restricted by grammatical or lexical convention. Implicational markedness looks on regularity.96 Porter argues that the perfect is the most heavily marked because it has the least amount of irregularity. Porter seems to pick up the word ‘regularity’ from Curtius’ presentation of the historical progress of reduplication.97 However, the aorist and present forms also have lots of regularity in morphology such as the way of augmentation, their endings, and other features. Thus, regularity cannot be absolute evidence for the perfect to be the most heavily marked or of the highest prominence. Porter also presents the defectivation of the perfect tense form as the reason that the perfect tense form needs to be the most heavily marked. This means that the perfect tense form does not appear fully in other moods.98 However, regularity and defectivation result from the process of morphological formation and its use in history. According to distribution,99 the perfect has the least occurrence and thus is the most heavily marked tense with the highest prominence.100 Porter provides historical background to show that the perfect was least used in ancient extra-biblical

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 27

writings.101 Again, like morphological bulkiness, regularities, and defectivation, the least frequency is related to its grammatical use in history. J. H. Greenberg, who believes that frequency is the main indicator for markedness, points out that frequency distribution can be merely a historical resultant of markedness relations.102 Henning Andersen argues, ‘Relative text frequency cannot be expected to correlate with markedness values.’103 Wally V. Cirafesi supports all of Porter’s criteria except for the distributional criterion. Cirafesi admits that the distributional criterion is not reliable because the frequency of the usage varies according to the author.104 Considering semantic markedness,105 Porter addresses complexity using Ruipérez’s explanation, ‘The perfect expresses the present state (C) resulting from action (AB): A___B … … C … …’106 Based on this diagram, Porter mentions that the reason for the perfect being semantically more complex than the other aspects is that it has the meanings of both of the present and aorist tenses.107 Porter’s statement sounds like the traditional semantic view of the perfect, which is that the present state results from anterior occurrence, although he insists, ‘The resultant state is different from the action itself.’108 Porter connects the semantics of the perfect to a hierarchical understanding of the perfect in discourse, thus giving the perfect the highest prominence. Porter uses the conceptual description (visualization) of a parade to explain semantic markedness. In his picture, three types of viewers look at the parade: a television correspondent, a spectator, and the parade manager.109 The illustration of the process of the parade simply reveals three different viewpoints of the same thing. Porter connects the view of the parade manager to the function of the perfect. The manager sees all the processes of the past and the present. Thus, Porter puts the perfect (stative aspect) in the first rank because it describes all of the parade from the past to the present (a complex description), while the imperfective is in the second rank and the perfective is the third rank.110 The whole process of the parade, which points from the past of the parade to the present state of the parade, alludes to the traditional understanding of the perfect. Porter does not seem to completely depart from the traditional understanding of the perfect, although he denies the fact that the ‘perfect conveys past or antecedent action with present or current consequences.’111 In addition to semantic complexity, Porter suggests that the semantic delicacy of the perfect is evidence of what is most heavily marked, which has the highest prominence. He uses the illustration of ‘planes of discourse,’ in which the perfect is depicted like a single book that is chosen from a shelf in a bookcase.112 The single book represents ‘frontground’ (the perfect), the shelf represents ‘foreground’ (the present), and the case of books represents ‘background’ (the aorist). Through this depiction, Porter thinks that the perfect expresses semantic delicacy since a single book (the perfect) is selected from among many books. Based on this illustration, Porter describes distinctive semantic delicacy as a ‘discrete, well-defined and

28 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

contoured feature.’113 The illustrations of a parade manager and of a single book are persuasive illustrations of Porter’s understanding of complexity and delicacy. However, it is questionable if they are applicable to the function of the perfect tense form which indicates the highest prominence. As we will see in the next section, there is a high likelihood that the perfect can be used as background. I will deal with this issue in greater detail in chs 4 and 5. To conclude, Porter determines the markedness value of the perfect with four criteria: the greatest morphological material, regularity, the least distribution, and semantic complexity and delicacy. Most of these, however, are not satisfying for verifying the perfect’s heavy markedness. Morphological bulkiness, regularity, and the least distribution can result from the historical process of formation. The use of the perfect tense form is constrained by grammatical convention. Positional and cognitive criteria, which Porter added later in 2009 in place of semantic criterion, also are not effective to verify the perfect’s heavy markedness. As we will see in chs 4 and 5, the perfect does not seem to be placed in pre-positional order, thus making its associated verb less prominent. Moreover, the perfect does not seem to be chosen in order to cognitively demonstrate its prominence to its associated verb. In conclusion, I  approached markedness by grammatical categories, especially for the Greek verb, through the three lenses of the ‘formal marking of two correlated items,’ ‘their invariant distinctive semantic features,’ and ‘various criteria for markedness values.’114 Linguistic items have formal marking and invariant semantic features. When they are correlated in a binary opposition, they can have markedness values with various criteria that indicate why they are considered ‘marked or unmarked’ or ‘more marked or less marked.’ Formal markings and invariant distinctive semantic features of two correlated items in the Greek verb have been settled in current language through the historical progress and development of grammatical convention. However, various criteria for markedness values are not stably fixed because scholars understand markedness values differently according to their different criteria and contextual factors. I attempted to present how varied the concept of markedness is among scholars so that I  can show that the concept of markedness is not necessary to understanding the function of the Greek verb, especially the perfect tense. First, I argued that only two items are correlated in a binary opposition in an immediate context. The original concept of markedness operated in a binary opposition, so ‘marked and unmarked’ or ‘more marked and less marked’ were used.115 However, Porter suggests a trinary opposition of multiple oppositions—the synthetic working of the total network of the Greek verbal system with a gradual degree of markedness values—and uses three terms to describe this opposition: ‘the least marked, more marked, and the most heavily marked.’ I have observed that Porter also deals with two correlated verbs in a binary opposition in actual texts.116

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 29

Thus, I believe that the use of trinary (or more complex) oppositions to determine markedness values is only possible as a theoretical approach.117 Second, I described the lack of fixed criteria to determine markedness values. Various scholars have suggested a variety of criteria for markedness values, such as distribution, optimality, syncretization, indeterminateness, simplicity, prototypicality, morphology, regularity, defectivation, and so on;118 but this only shows that there are no unified criteria. Furthering the difficulty is the fact that various contextual factors can change the determination of markedness values in any individual valuing system. Markedness values can be affected by grammatical structures, discourse type, social context, human tendency, human psychological conceptions, the inherent meaning of the verb, and other factors.119 Moravcsik and Wirth state, ‘There is considerable variation in precisely how markedness is used and understood …,’ also noting, ‘Claims that one linguistic structure is more marked than another one range over a wide domain of diverse phenomena. Thus, markedness theory—if theory is the correct word—is really a family of hypotheses.’120 Thus, I argued that the concept of markedness could not be a solid theory because of contingency. Third, I evaluated Porter’s criteria of markedness values for the perfect. His four criteria are ‘the greatest morphological material,’ ‘the least amount of irregularity,’ ‘the least distribution,’ and ‘semantic delicacy and complexity.’ Most of them (except for ‘semantic delicacy’) are related to the historical background of either word-formation or grammatical conventional systems. Porter’s ‘semantic complexity’ alludes to the combination of the aorist and the present, which is a traditional view of the perfect, which expresses the dual feature of a present state and anterior activity. In order to properly deal with Porter’s ‘semantic delicacy,’ it remains for me to examine whether in actual Greek texts the perfect tense form stands out from the rest of the text in order to convey the author’s prominent intention with delicate description. I will discuss this in chs 4 and 5 from the opposing perspective that the NT authors chose the perfect tense form to assist other elements of the text in an immediate context. So far, overall Porter’s argument that the perfect is the most heavily marked among other tenses is not sustainable because the concept of markedness itself is not a stable idea.

GROUNDING Stanley E. Porter uses the concepts of markedness and grounding to explain the semantic function of the Greek verb on a discourse level. In the previous section, I discussed how the concept of markedness is not a solid theory for the Greek verb because there is no unified understanding of markedness values. In this section,

30 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

I will give an overview of the concept of grounding in general linguistics in order to evaluate Porter’s third ground place for the perfect tense form, that is, frontground. The concept of grounding came from the concept of ‘foregrounding’ in poetic texts.121 The idea of background followed the idea of foreground by default. Foregrounded features were found in deviation or parallelism in poetic texts, which was understood as standing out from normal texts, thus conveying prominence to the reader.122 Later, this concept of foreground began to be applied to non-poetic texts. In non-poetic texts, the terms ‘foreground’ and ‘background’ have been adopted  to explain two kinds of mainline and supportive information, especially in  narrative discourse.123 Thus, the concept of foreground in non-poetic texts has been understood differently from that in poetic texts. The foreground in non-poetic texts refers to ‘mainline events or themes’ whereas the foreground in poetic texts refers to ‘deviation from a norm.’124 The goal of the use of ‘deviation from a norm’ in poetic texts is to draw the reader’s attention, delivering prominence. However, in non-poetic texts, the goal of the description of main events or themes is to deliver mainline information to the reader. Poetry’s foreground definitely contains the idea of prominence in terms of abnormality but the non-poetry’s foreground can denote prominence because it is ‘thematically central material.’125 In non-poetic texts, the foreground is correlated with the background—the foreground is prominent in delivering a central message to the reader while the background supports that central message. Scholars observe that non-poetic texts contain additional information to the mainline and supportive information. The additional information is found to function like the ‘deviation from a norm’ in poetic texts. They explain it as evaluative information,126 extra words,127 peak information,128 and pivotal information.129 These types of additional information can help scholars distinguish the binary opposition of foreground and background. For example, ‘evaluation information’ is supporting material, thus background.130 However, to those who consider the additional information separated from two normal types of information, the additional information can have the notion of prominence because they believe it attracts the reader’s attention. Thus, the additional information can be placed on a third ground, which implies deviation from a norm, indicating prominence.131 Porter appears to accept this idea of a third ground. Porter coins a new term, ‘frontground,’ for this third ground, suggesting three separate grounds in discourse:  background, foreground, and frontground. He argues that Greek verb forms play major roles in determining these three grounds. He connects the three grounds to three levels of prominence values. Finally, he claims that Greek tense forms contain their own inherent prominence values. He illustrates the relation between the three grounds and their prominence values using three planes depicted by a case of books.132 Accordingly, he suggests that the aorist is the background tense with least significance or prominence, the present

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 31

and imperfect are the foreground tenses with more significance or prominence than the aorist, and the perfect and pluperfect are the frontground tenses with the highest significance or prominence.133 In order to assess Porter’s suggestions134 regarding the relationship between the three levels of grounds and prominence, I researched three different understandings of foreground relating to prominence. The first understanding is ‘deviation from a norm’ in poetic texts. The second is ‘mainline’ in two kinds of information (mainline and supportive) in non-poetic texts. The third is the kind of ‘deviation from two normal types of information (mainline and supportive)’ in non-poetic texts. Then, based on this research, I assessed Porter’s grounding. To clearly show his concept of grounding, I will present the discussions of scholars who are associated with Porter. Throughout the process, I will point out two issues. One issue is that Porter mismatches the foreground and background in poetic texts to the mainline and supportive information in non-poetic texts.135 He then inverts the terms ‘foreground and background’ for mainline and supportive, believing that supportive information departs from a norm. Thus, for Porter supportive is foreground and mainline is background. The other issue is that Porter mismatches a foreground device (a prominence device) in poetic texts to the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts. It seems that he considers the perfect tense form to be a foreground device (a prominence device or indicator). Therefore, he argues that the perfect tense form is the highest prominence-indicator. I suggest that if there is a third ground, it may be ‘deviation from a norm’ expressed with various prominence devices or indicators (foreground devices),136 which draw the reader’s attention. I argue that the Greek perfect tense form is not used for deviation from a norm but for supporting main events or themes. Thus, the perfect tense form is not chosen to indicate prominence. Prominence, if it exists, may come from other prominence devices or indicators (foreground devices) appearing around the perfect tense form. As someone who supports that there are basically two types of information in non-poetic texts, I feel that the perfect tense form is used as background where it expresses its inherent meaning (the present state resulting from anterior activity).

Foreground as ‘Deviation from a Norm’ in Poetic Texts The term ‘foreground’ is understood as having the notion of prominence because foregrounded portions of text stand out in some way for the reader’s perception. A Russian Formalist, Viktor Shklovsky, first observed the concept of foreground in poetic texts.137 The portions of foreground were recognized as linguistically prominent items that stand out from the normal use of expression. Jan Mukarovsky, who belonged to the Prague School, understood the concept of foreground as the

32 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

‘departure from a norm.’138 Roman Jakobson, who also belonged to the Prague School, worked on a foreground device, ‘parallelism (or repetition),’ which is sort of a deviation from a norm.139 The foregrounded item in poetic texts draws the reader’s attention to itself, although it cohesively works with other contextual features.140 Porter may have thought that the formal marking of the perfect is deviated from normal tenses of the aorist and present, thus drawing the reader’s attention.

Foreground as ‘Mainline’ in Non-Poetic Texts Foreground in non-poetic texts, especially in narrative discourse, is understood as one of two types of information. Most scholars agree that narrative discourse basically consists of two types of information: mainline and supportive.141 Based on this idea, they use various terms to describe the contrast between the two types of information: ‘mainline and offline,’142 ‘figure and ground,’143 ‘backbone and supporting material,’144 and ‘foreground and background.’145 I will frequently use the terms ‘foreground and background’ because they are related to the thesis of this present work. Following Paul J. Hopper, I believe that foreground refers to mainline material and background refers to supportive material.146 With a binary distinction between mainline and supportive information, the following scholars have tried to make a distinction between the foregrounded and backgrounded portions in non-poetic texts in various ways. In analyzing these two types of information, they consider contents, transitivity, temporality, cognitive perception, and aspect (or tense) along with grammatical structure.

Contents Grimes uses the term ‘thread’ to distinguish between two different types of information based on a text’s content.147 He considers events, participants, and settings to be the primary information, delivered through independent verbs in independent clauses. Explanations and comments about the events and participants are the secondary information148 and appear embedded in sentences.149 Grimes also considers grammatical structure. Campbell uses the terms ‘mainline and offline.’ ‘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.’150 The offline is concerned with supplemental information or speech. Campbell also mentions the correlation between the two—without the mainline information, offline information does not make sense.151

Transitivity Based on transitivity, Hopper and Thompson divide discourse into foreground and background. Foregrounded clauses contain transitivity features more than

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 33

backgrounded clauses.152 DeLancey also finds that perfective clauses are more highly transitive than non-perfective clauses on a clause level.153 He believes that transitivity in clauses and foreground in discourse are associated with each other semantically. Both function to deliver salience or prominence to the hearer or observer.154 Martín-Asensio studies transitivity in Acts. He finds that transitivity features play an essential role in foregrounding.155

Temporality William Labov divides information into two types based on the binary opposition temporal and non-temporal. The portions of temporal sequence are narrative, appearing in independent or main clauses. They are considered the skeleton of a narrative discourse, which refers to foreground.156 Non-narrative material, which is not in temporal sequence, appears in subordinate clauses, which refers to background. For Helen Aristar Dry, the foreground sentences refer to points sequenced on a timeline; she categorizes these points as ‘important,’ ‘essential,’ and ‘propelling,’ saying that each point ‘triggers the illusion of temporal movement.’157 On the other hand, the background sentences do not refer to a single point or to temporal sequence.158 For Tanya Reinhart, temporally ordered events are foreground because events alone move the reference time forward.159 Non-temporal material, which contains the states (situations and conditions) of the events, is background, displayed in subordinate clauses.160 Thompson divides narrative discourse into two categories: ‘narrative event structure’ and ‘subordination.’ Temporal narrative events are foreground, and the other events of subordination are background.161 Temporality is based upon grammatical structure such as main and subordinate clauses.

Cognitive Perception Starting from the reader’s cognitive perception, Leonard Talmy uses the terms ‘figure and ground’ for identifying two different types of information. He defines the figure object as ‘a moving or conceptually movable point’ and the ground object as ‘a reference-point, having a stationary setting.’162 Stephen Wallace makes the figure-ground distinction in narrative discourse by focusing on human visual perception of an object and an event.163 His fundamental principle is that ‘human perception does not lend equal weight to all incoming sensations, but notices some as more salient figures which “stand out distinctively” in front of a less salient ground.’164 For him, figure is ‘greater degrees of salience’ and ground is ‘lesser degrees of salience.’ Thus, the figure is more prominent or important than the ground. Wallace puts the distinction between figure and ground as equivalent to the distinction between foreground and background.165 It is noteworthy that Tanya Reinhart studies the similarity between ‘temporality of foreground and background’ and ‘cognitive perception of figure and

34 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

ground.’166 The foreground matches the figure, and the background matches the ground. The temporal continuity is like the figure because the shape of good continuation is the figure. Punctual events are like the figure because punctual events indicate a smaller amount of time in narrative, and smaller areas are the figures in shape. Completed events are like the figure because they are similar to closed areas in shape.167 Thus, she argues that there is correlation between temporal sequence and cognitive perception.168

Aspect (or Tense) Forsyth describes two types of information as aspect (or tense). In the study of the Russian verb, he observes that the perfective verb ‘carries the narrative forward.’ The imperfective verb does ‘not present dynamic changes, but rather facts relating to the background.’169 Hopper sees that foregrounded events are expressed with the perfective verb and deliver chronological sequence, and backgrounded events are expressed with the imperfective verb and convey simultaneous situations with the foregrounded events.170 Ozete uses tense to distinguish between grounds. He uses the terms ‘High Focus’ and ‘Low Focus.’ The preterite is used for ‘High Focus’ and the imperfect for ‘Low Focus.’171 The preterite appears in independent clauses, serving to ‘advance the action of the narrative’ like foreground. The imperfect occurs in dependent clauses, serving to ‘provide description, circumstantial, [and] information’ like background.172 Shankara Bhat believes that verbal forms are used to encode foregrounded events and backgrounded material. In the Greek language, which is an aspect-dominated language, the perfective is used for foreground and the imperfective for background.173 Levinsohn believes that the perfective (aorist) is used for foreground events, and the imperfective (imperfect) is used for background information. The perfective describes completed actions, but the imperfective describes ‘habitual actions’ which are not viewed as completed.174 However he cautions against equating the perfective and imperfective with foreground and background because the relation between aspect and grounding should be treated as a correlation, rather than an equation.175 Longacre finds different functions of aspect (or tense) in different genres. In narrative, the past, perfective, or completive is used to express the main or event line. In expository discourse, the present or habitual tense is used for the main line. Thus, the perfective aspect (past tense) is foreground in narrative, and the imperfective aspect (the present tense) is foreground in expository discourse.176 Levinsohn distinguishes four different genres: a narrative, a procedure, an exhortation, and an exposition. He observes that different verb forms are used for mainline information according to different genres. Whether chronological or not, each

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 35

genre uses distinctive forms of the verb for mainline information: the perfective aspect (the aorist) in a narrative, the imperfective aspect in a procedure, imperatives in an exhortation, and stative verbs in an exposition.177 It cannot be said that one particular verb form is consistently used for one particular ground in any genre. He states, ‘the same material may be viewed as background in one genre and as foreground in another.’178 To conclude, we have seen that the concept of foreground is used to describe one of two types of information in discourse. Unlike ‘deviation from a norm,’ which is perceived as standing out against background, the foreground in non-poetic texts is mainline information implying that the supportive material is the background. The notion of foreground in poetic texts is prominence. In contrast, the notion of foreground in non-poetic texts is mainline information. However, in terms of delivering central messages to the reader, the foreground in non-poetic texts can be understood to have prominence, while the other ground (background) is used to support the central message. The pair of foreground and background is one set of terms for distinguishing two types of information; others include ‘mainline and offline,’ ‘figure and ground,’ and ‘backbone and supporting material.’ Various approaches for making distinctions between types of information have been attempted using content, transitivity, temporality, cognitive perception, and aspect or tense. They show that, in discourse, the function of ‘mainline,’ ‘figure,’ or ‘backbone’ is equal to that of foreground, and the function of ‘offline,’ ‘ground,’ or ‘supporting’ is equal to that of background. They also show that most approaches consider grammatical structure, such as main clauses, subordinate clauses, or embedded clauses, to indicate two types of ­information. As we have seen, Porter uses verbal aspect to determine foreground and background; however, it is unlikely that verbal aspect alone is capable of determining foreground and background. Grammatical-structure factors and contextual factors, among other factors, play an important role in determining foreground and background. Moreover, while Porter has argued that the aorist is all the time used for background, Levinsohn holds that verbal aspect works differently in different genres.

Foreground as ‘Deviation from Two Normal Types of Information’ in Non-Poetic Texts Some observe that a deviation from a norm in non-poetic texts stands out (is prominent) from normal information, drawing the reader’s attention. Guy Cook mentions discourse deviation, which is the dynamic interaction between the reader’s perception and linguistic and text-structural deviation. This dynamic interaction

36 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

brings about ‘a change in the schemata of the reader,’ which change is the function of prominence.179 According to John Douthwaite, a foreground device in non-poetic texts expresses prominence not for its own sake, but for ‘extra discourse structure inviting interpretation.’180 He understands that a foregrounded item or a foreground device in non-poetic texts gives extra meaning to the extra structure, which becomes prominent to the reader.181 Thus, if foreground in non-poetic texts indicates prominence, the foregrounded part should be related to additional information other than the two normal types of information (mainline and supportive). The additional information is indicated through various foreground devices (prominence devices or indicators). Polanyi-Bowditch suggests three types of information:  temporal, durative (or descriptive), and evaluative.182 She adds the term ‘evaluative’ to her terms for the two normal types of information (‘temporal and durative (or descriptive)’),183 understanding that it conveys importance or prominence. Evaluative information can appear from either or both the temporal and the durative (or descriptive) structure.184 It is recognized by evaluative devices such as repetition, redundancy, direct discourse, indirect discourse, change of tense from past to present, and other features.185 Longacre mentions the peak of a discourse,186 which is non-routine, compared to the routine strands of information.187 He observes that non-poetic texts include not only mainline and supportive material but also ‘the more important happenings in the storyline’ that come out of the mainline.188 For Longacre, the peak of a discourse is ‘a salience scheme’ that functions to encode ‘progressive degrees of departure from the mainline’189 and ends up fulfilling the goal of the story.190 He finds that in various languages the peak of a discourse, which is also called a ‘pivotal storyline,’ is marked by various pivotal devices.191 He lists diverse pivotal devices, which function to draw the reader’s attention. The devices are paraphrase, parallelism, and tautologies, which are all used independently of two normal types of information.192 (Longacre lists the devices in more detail later.193) With these devices, the reader catches non-routine parts of the text as prominence. Longacre explains that since the peak of a discourse is non-routine, it is perceived ‘as a zone of turbulence in regard to the general flow of a discourse.’194 Tomlin suggests ‘the foreground-background continuum.’195 He divides the continuum into three types of information: pivotal information, foreground information, and background information.196 He separates pivotal information from foreground information.197 He understands pivotal information as indicating prominence, which can function to draw the reader’s attention. In contrast, Stefano Cotrozzi mentions that ‘defamiliarization devices’ for prominence can appear in any part of ‘the plotline and its support.’198

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 37

Larry B. Jones and Linda K. Jones observe that all the languages they have studied contain three basic levels:  background, ordinary events (or backbone events), and peak.199 Notably, peak is added to two normal types of information (background and backbone). The three levels convey three distinct levels of prominence from lowest to highest200—the background information is the lowest, the ordinary (or backbone) events are higher than the background, and the peak is the highest.201 These three levels of Jones and Jones (1979) are reflected in Porter’s three groundings (1989).202 However, Porter does not adopt their terms and he inverts their prominence values. For Porter, the lowest prominence is given to the ordinary (or backbone) events and instead of their ‘peak,’ Porter uses frontground for the highest prominence. In order to identify the peak information, Jones and Jones introduce some devices of peak used in concentrating participants: shifts in tense (from past tense to present tense), person, or other devices, all of which can cause heightened vividness, working independently of normal types of information.203 In contrast, Porter introduces the perfect tense form as the highest prominence indicator. In conclusion, we have seen that, besides two normal types of information (mainline and supportive), there are additional devices that are perceived as unusual and, therefore, indicate the highest prominence.204 A  variety of forms of non-routine devices used in non-poetic texts include: repetition, redundancy, direct discourse, indirect discourse, change of tense from past to present, evaluation, description, unexpected linguistic items, and word order.205 These unusual devices are used independently of mainline and supportive information as a ‘deviation from a norm.’

Porter’s Grounding Porter’s grounding theory is based on his Greek verbal network206 and his belief that tense forms of the Greek verb have inherent prominence values.207 He connects each Greek verb form to one of three groundings with prominence values. In order to explain their relationship, he uses the illustration of ‘planes of discourse.’208 Thus, the perfective (aorist) is the background tense, indicating the least prominence; the imperfective (present or imperfect) is the foreground tense, indicating more prominence than the background tense; and the stative (perfect or pluperfect) is the frontground tense, indicating the highest prominence.209 Porter’s grounding theory has created two issues. The first issue is that he mismatches ‘foreground and background’ in poetic texts210 with ‘mainline and supportive information’ in non-poetic texts. As a result, Porter inverts the terms of foreground and background. The second issue is that he mismatches a foreground device (a prominence device) in poetic texts with the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts. As a result, he considers the perfect tense form to be like a

38 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

foreground device (a prominence device or indicator). Thus, Porter argues that the perfect tense form is the highest prominence indicator, the third level of his grounding which he calls ‘frontground.’ His argument is based on his theory that verbal aspect inherently indicates prominence levels in non-poetic texts.

Porter’s Foreground and Background The first issue causes Porter to invert the terms of foreground and background for mainline and supportive. For Porter, the mainline information expressed in the perfective (aorist) is background, whereas it is foreground for most scholars.211 For Porter, the supportive material expressed in the imperfective (present or imperfect) is foreground, whereas it is background for most scholars.212 The reason that Porter inverts the terms of foreground and background may be because of his understanding of background. He understands it as a default, which is like a norm.213 So mainline information is background because it is a normal progression, which he understands as having ‘no or the least prominence.’214 On the other hand, he understands foreground as ‘standing out’—a device of deviation from the norm because it departs from the mainline, thus having prominence.215 Based on this understanding, the aorist tense form, which is used for main events or themes in narrative discourse, is background. He calls the aorist the default tense, which implies ‘no standing out.’216 If his understanding were applied to poetic texts, there would be no problem. However, when his understanding is applied to non-poetic texts, confusion occurs. With regard to mainline and supportive functions of the Greek verb form, Porter considers a different genre of discourse and grammatical structures.217 The aorist tense form is used for mainline events in narrative discourse, whereas the present tense form is used for mainline themes in expository discourse.218 Primary clauses are used for the mainline, and secondary and embedded clauses are used ‘to subordinate ideas within the discourse’ (which is supportive material).219 His explanations sound fine. However, when it comes to distinguishing foreground and background, Porter does not consider a different genre of discourse or even grammatical structures. In narrative discourse, the aorist is background because it is used as a default, whereas in expository discourse the aorist is also background because it is used for supportive material.220 Porter is inconsistent in that he applies a different basis for determining background in a different genre. In narrative discourse, background is determined based on a default situation. In expository discourse, it is determined based on supportive material. The study of Leonard Talmy shows that there is a relationship between the reader’s psychological perception and syntactic structures of main clauses or subordinate clauses. Figure features appear in the main clause, and ground features

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 39

appear in the subordinate clause.221 This means that the reader perceives the events in the main clause as primary and the supporting material in the subordinate clauses as secondary. Talmy’s consideration of grammatical structure causes no confusion in determining foreground and background. Some scholars recognize that the term ‘foreground’ can cause confusion when related to non-poetic texts because the word itself indicates prominence or salience. Thus, in order to solve the confusion, Reed and Reese use the term ‘theme’ instead of ‘foreground.’222 Cotrozzi uses two different terms for two concepts of foreground. For the foreground of deviation from a norm, he uses ‘pragmatic foregrounding,’ which refers to foregrounded items or prominent features; and for the mainline information, he uses ‘structural foregrounding,’ which refers to the storyline of a narrative.223 Some scholars are skeptical about the use of foreground for determining prominence in discourse because they think that the function of the foreground in discourse texts is to deliver mainline information and not necessarily to indicate foreground (prominence). Helen Aristar Dry mentions that, although foreground includes both the ideas of ‘importance’ and ‘salience,’224 both importance and salience are not often coincided to denote foreground (prominence).225 Dry argues that, in discourse analysis that focuses on morphosyntactic markers of foreground, the identification of specific markers may not guarantee the notion of foreground (prominence).226 Tanya Reinhart also questions whether the term ‘foreground’ can be taken to mean importance, center of attention, or prominence because supporting material may be significant to the main story events or sometimes more significant than the main story events.227 Like Reinhart, Runge feels that supporting material does ‘the important role of fleshing out the broader picture of the discourse,’ although it is dependent upon the theme line events.228 As we have seen, Porter’s inverse use of the terms of foreground and background has created confusion among scholars about the distinction between mainline and supportive information.

Porter’s Frontground The second issue causes Porter to argue that the perfect tense form is chosen to indicate the highest prominence. Porter separates a third type of information from two normal types of information (mainline and supportive). He gives the name ‘frontground’ to this third level of information, arguing that it indicates the highest prominence. Porter’s frontground is discussed through four areas: additional information as deviation from a norm, the highest prominence, a prominence indicator, and debate about Porter’s prominence. First, with regard to additional information, which is ‘deviation from a norm,’ it is assumed that Porter’s frontground is influenced by the notion of ‘peak’ or

40 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

‘pivotal’ information which some scholars observe.229 Longacre uses the term ‘peak’ or ‘pivotal’ for additional information in discourse that attracts the reader’s special interest.230 His basic idea of peak or pivotal information is departure from norm. He states, ‘The very disappearance of the routine event-line markers is itself a marking of peak.’231 Various devices of peak can appear in either of the two normal types of information.232 Tomlin also uses the term ‘pivotal’ information. He separates pivotal information from foreground information, which is mainline information.233 Polanyi-Bowditch sees evaluative structures as something that stands out against two types of normal information.234 She thinks that evaluation structure, which includes crucial details, is chosen by the author because he considered it as important or prominent.235 Thus, the idea of peak, pivotal, or evaluative information in non-poetic texts seems to be equal to deviation from a norm in poetic texts as a third level of information. Probably influenced with this notion Porter names this third level ‘frontground’ in order to separate it from the foreground. Porter seems to have in mind the term ‘peak’ for deviation from a norm. He connects the notion of prominence to Longacre’s ‘discourse peak as zone of turbulence,’236 which implies deviation from a norm that draws the reader’s attention. He mentions ‘the points of emphasis or peaks of a discourse may be indicated’ by use of the verbal aspects.237 He goes on to mention two tense forms that are used ‘to mark prominent features’:  the present (foreground) and perfect (frontground) tense forms.238 His statement indicates that he may have in mind two kinds of prominence indicators. Porter gives distinct prominence value to each tense according to a cline of prominence based on his theory of grounding. Thus, Porter places the perfect tense form in the position of the highest prominence above the present tense form. Second, concerning the highest prominence, Porter explains why the perfect tense delivers the highest prominence. The stative aspect (perfect) indicates ‘unexpected things in discourse’239 and ‘very well-defined points of special interests.’240 From his statement, we sense the feature of ‘deviation from a norm,’ similar to peak, with unusually detailed description. Theoretically, Porter’s understanding seems to be acceptable in light of a third ground, which departs from two normal types of information. However, practically his view needs to be evaluated in actual texts. In other places, Porter mentions ‘semantic complexity’ as a feature of the highest prominence.241 This means that the perfect tense form delivers double duty with semantics. Porter states that the stative aspect (perfect) ‘subsumes either, or both, of the Present and Aorist.’242 Although he admits double duty of the perfect, Porter does not accept the dual feature of the present state resulting from anterior activity, denying the aoristic meaning of the perfect on a discourse level. Porter also mentions ‘semantic delicacy’ which is a ‘discrete, well-defined and contoured feature.’243 Porter tries to explain semantic delicacy with the illustration of a single

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 41

book (the perfect) standing out from a shelf (the present) in a bookcase (the aorist).244 For me, it is hard to theoretically evaluate this.245 I wonder if his theoretical illustration is effective in practically explaining the function of the perfect in actual Greek texts. I will examine this in chs 4 and 5. Third, regarding a prominence indicator, we need to examine various devices of prominence that scholars have suggested since Porter mismatches a foreground device (a prominence device or indicator) in poetic texts to the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts. Just as prominence in poetic texts is indicated through foreground devices (prominence devices), so prominence in non-poetic texts is to be indicated through prominence devices. Klutz observes four kinds of foreground devices (prominence devices) in his study of Acts 19:13–20: repetition, parallelism, verbal aspect, and word order.246 Robert E. Longacre lists more possible devices of prominence (or peak) shown in various languages:  deletion, repetition, paraphrase, slowing-the-camera-down, a particle, introduction of dialogue or reported speech, a tense shift, a person shift, and other features.247 Douthwaite mentions the extra structure for prominence devices.248 Polanyi-Bowditch suggests evaluative devices such as repetition, redundancy, direct discourse, indirect discourse, change of tense from past to present, and others without any fixed form.249 Jones and Jones list some devices of prominence for participants such as shifts in tense (from past tense to present tense) and shifts in person.250 As we have seen so far, the perfect tense form itself is not included in the lists previously discussed. Since the perfect tense form belongs to the previous category of aspect (or tense), we might easily think that the perfect tense form could be used as a device of prominence. However, for aspect (or tense), there is only one case of a prominence indicator which is ‘a shift from past to present.’ ‘A shift from past to present’ alludes to the historical present. Runge regards the historical present as a ‘departure from an expected norm,’251 which draws the reader’s attention and causes the reader to pay attention to the following events.252 For Runge, the historical present is, thus, a prominence indicator. Fanning also recognizes that the historical present signals prominence,253 saying that it is ‘a feature that departs from its default usage’ and ‘signals discontinuity.’254 Like Runge, Fanning suggests that the historical present is a prominence indicator that points to following events. We have seen that some grammatical structures such as direct or indirect discourse, extra structure, and evaluative structure are considered prominence devices. The perfect tense form could appear in those structures. However, the determiner of prominence is not the perfect tense form, but the structures themselves. Reed and Reese warn that a particular tense form should not ‘always be interpreted in terms of prominence’ because the issue of prominence value is pragmatically related to a discourse function, not a function of morphological form.255 They state, ‘The use of verbal aspect to indicate prominence is a secondary role—a pragmatic

42 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

function of grammar.’256 Reed states that ‘no single category signals prominence on its own, but must be studied with respect to the surrounding discourse.’257 Fourth, as for debate about Porter’s prominence, Porter’s argument that the perfect tense form is chosen to indicate the highest prominence is based on his theory that verbal aspect is used as an indicator of prominence in non-poetic texts. Since 1989, when he published his monograph about verbal aspect, Porter has maintained his theory that verbal aspect is used as an indicator of prominence, although he admits that there are other linguistic means to indicate prominence, such as word order, clause structure, and redundant pronouns.258 Fanning (1990), who published his book Verbal Aspect at the same time as Porter’s monograph, takes the opposite stance. Fanning mentions that ‘[verbal] aspect has nothing inherently to do … with prominence in discourse.’259 Since then, there has been debate regarding Porter’s view of verbal aspect related to prominence. Silva argues that a particular verb form may not be deliberately chosen by ‘the desire to convey a semantic point.’260 He does not agree that the meaning of individual verbs (verbal aspect) is used intentionally to emphasize a point261 because the aspectual choice of the Greek verb ‘may be greatly restricted by a variety of factors such as the grammatical system itself ’ and ‘individual preferences (idiolect).’262 Finally he suggests that the interpreter of the Greek texts should not focus on aspect itself263 but rather consider the context. Robert E. Picirilli is not confident in Porter’s argument that the Greek verb tense form is chosen by the writer for the sake of prominence. Moreover, he is not sure about the degrees of prominence of the three Greek verbal aspects. He argues that if there are some cases where the Greek verb indicates prominence, the prominence comes from other contextual factors, not from the Greek verbal aspect.264 Jody Barnard challenges Porter’s thought, arguing that verbal aspect is not a prominence indicator.265 In his study of Luke’s miracle and pronouncement stories, Barnard observes that the aorist tense, which Porter argues is the background tense, is used for prominent events and actions.266 Barnard also finds that the perfect tense is used for ‘some relatively unimportant details,’ contrary to Porter’s argument that the perfect tense indicates the highest prominence.267 Stephen H. Levinsohn argues that each tense form is not to be equated with a particular degree of prominence.268 Levinsohn presents the possibility that the same verb form can function to indicate foreground or background,269 based on relevance theory. Levinsohn states, ‘Relevance theory claims that non-default forms may result in a variety of cognitive effects. Finally, a non-default form or structure may give prominence not to the event concerned, but to the following event(s).’270 Thus, Levinsohn does not agree to ‘a one to one relationship between the tense form and the prominence or dynamicity associated with it.’271 Levinsohn applies his view based on relevance theory to the perfect tense form and,

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 43

accordingly, argues that the perfect tense form can also be used as background or frontground.272 In spite of these challenges, in 2013 Porter reaffirmed that ‘verbal aspect is used as an indicator of prominence in discourse.’273 Porter persistently holds that the perfect tense form indicates the highest prominence because he believes that it is used to further highlight some parts of the text.274 Runge (2014) disagrees with Porter, saying that the tense forms do not have inherent semantic prominence and that their markedness is not correlated with semantic weight.275 There is partial disagreement among Porter’s followers on Porter’s theory of grounding with prominence values. Decker supports Porter’s grounding. However, he does not use Porter’s terms.276 Decker prefers functional terms to the terms of grounding, maybe because he is uncomfortable with Porter’s terms. He uses the aorist ‘storyline’ instead of Porter’s background, and the imperfect ‘offline’ instead of Porter’s foreground. Decker calls the present that is shifted from the aorist for dialog ‘foreground’ because he believes that it is used for more prominent statements.277 Decker’s understanding of foreground is different from Porter’s. Porter’s foreground is a means of foregrounding supporting material in narrative discourse278 and the mainline of the discourse in expository discourse,279 while Decker’s foreground seems to mean ‘deviation from a norm’ which draws the reader’s attention. As for the perfect, in a similar way to Porter, Decker argues that it is used to indicate ‘crucial events, statements or facts.’280 However, he does not give any functional term to it nor does he use Porter’s term ‘frontground.’ He seems to tacitly agree that the perfect is used to add some extra information to two normal types of information. Klutz agrees that the perfect tense form is chosen to indicate special emphasis or prominence.281 However, unlike Porter, Klutz admits that anterior activity is involved in the perfect tense.282 Like Porter, Reed suggests three levels of information (background, thematic, and focal); but he uses different terms from Porter (foreground, background, and frontground).283 Reed’s focal information (‘focus’) corresponds to Porter’s frontground and ‘refers to those linguistic elements which stand out somewhat unexpectedly.’284 Reed thinks that the perfect and pluperfect tense forms are unexpected linguistic items and that is why the perfect or pluperfect indicate the highest prominence. However, Reed believes that the reason that the perfect tense form is central is that it indicates ‘an event that has resulted from other circumstances,’ that is, anterior activity.285 Reed seems to think that perfect and pluperfect tense forms are not chosen in discourse to signal prominence but as a pragmatic function of grammar to indicate the present state resulting from anterior occurrence. Unlike Porter, who believes that the Greek tense form itself determines the level of prominence in discourse, Westfall suggests that prominence in discourse is determined by the contextual factors of the surrounding co-texts.286 Although

44 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

she follows Porter’s term ‘frontground,’ Westfall tries to redefine its function. She prefers the term ‘frontground sentence’ to the term ‘frontground’ because the perfect tense itself cannot dominate prominence values but must work with other factors in the sentence.287 Westfall understands that prominence or frontground ‘is a pragmatic effect that is achieved, for example, by the use of the marked perfect tense in a specific context.’288

CO N C LU S I O N In conclusion, we examined three different meanings of the term ‘foreground.’ First, the term ‘foreground’ in poetic texts means deviation from a norm, which implies prominence. The opposite term ‘background’ means a default or norm that implies no prominence. Second, the term ‘foreground’ in non-poetic texts means delivering main events or themes. The opposite term ‘background’ means supportive material. In general, non-poetic texts are composed of normal binary mainline and supportive information. Thus, the foreground information in non-poetic texts is not related to deviation from a norm, but it is mainline information. Third, the term ‘foreground’ is also used in non-poetic texts to refer to information given in addition to two normal types of information. This additional information functions like deviation from a norm in poetic texts. As a result, two kinds of foregrounds happen to be used in non-poetic texts. One is for mainline information; the other is for additional information. Some scholars are not comfortable with the use of the same term for two different types of information. In order to avoid confusion, some do not use the term ‘foreground’ for mainline information. Others use other terms like ‘peak’ or ‘pivotal’ for additional information. Along with the terms ‘foreground and background,’ Porter uses a new term, ‘frontground,’ for a third level of additional information. Porter’s grounding theory includes his verbal aspect system and prominence values. His three verbal aspects system (perfective, imperfective, and stative), three groundings (background, foreground, and frontground), and three levels of prominence (least prominence, more prominence, and highest prominence) are connected together. However, Porter’s grounding theory has caused two issues. One is his inverse use of the terms ‘foreground and background’ for ‘mainline and supportive information.’ The other is the question of whether Porter’s frontground is the highest prominence-indicator or not. I  judged that Porter’s two issues come from two mismatches that result from his understanding. The first issue is that Porter mismatches the concept of foreground as ‘deviation from a norm’ in poetic texts to supportive material in non-poetic texts, based on his understanding that mainline information is a default for a normal progression and supportive material is a

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 45

deviation from a normal progression. The second issue is that Porter mismatches a foreground device in poetic texts to the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts, based on his argument that verbal aspect is a prominence indicator. I pointed out Porter’s two arguments. One is that verbal aspect is a prominence indicator; the other is that the perfect tense form is chosen to indicate the highest prominence. The second argument is based on the first argument. Some scholars have challenged Porter’s arguments,289 and some of Porter’s followers have partially disagreed with his arguments.290 Nevertheless, Porter persistently holds to them. In ch 3, I will focus on the validity of the traditional approach to the perfect, compared with Porter’s approach, delving into the dual feature of the perfect and the anterior activity that Porter denies gives inherent meaning of the perfect. Then I will suggest my Three Rules of the function of the perfect through which I will discuss the dual feature of the perfect in actual texts (Mark and Romans). I will demonstrate that the perfect is chosen in association with other parts, in an immediate context, and does not function as the highest prominence (frontground) in a larger context. In chs 4 and 5 of this book, as one of Porter’s challengers I will examine the function of the perfect in Mark and Romans in order to suggest that Porter’s arguments need to be reconsidered. I will argue that the perfect tense itself conveys its inherent dual meaning in an immediate context, regardless of contextual factors, supporting main events or themes as background in a larger context. notes 1. Roman Jakobson, Selected Writings: Word and Language, vol. 2 (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), 136; Robert K. Herbert, Language Universals, Markedness Theory, and Natural Phonetic Processes (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986), 24; Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, eds., Roman Jakobson: Language in Literature (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), 457; Edna Andrews, ‘Jakobsonian Markedness Theory as Mathematical Principle,’ in Language, Poetry and Poetics. The Generation of the 1890s: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovskij, ed. Krystyna Pomorska et  al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 178; Edwin Battistella, Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990), 2; Olga Mišeska Tomić, ‘Introduction,’ in Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony, ed. Olga Mišeska Tomić (Berlin: Mouton, 1989), 1; Henning Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ in Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony, ed. Olga Mišeska Tomić (Berlin:  Mouton, 1989), 12; Laura A.  Janda, ‘Unpacking Markedness,’ in Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. Eugene H. Casad (Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1996), 207. 2. J. E. Grimes, The Thread of Discourse (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 56; Paul J. Hopper, ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,’ in Discourse and Syntax, ed. Talmy Givón, Syntax and Semantics 12 (New York: Academic Press, 1979), 213; Robert E. Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ Text 1 (4) (1981): 340; Stephen Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,’ in Tense-Aspect:  Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed.

46 

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Paul J. Hopper (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982), 209; Helen Aristar Dry, ‘The Movement of Narrative Time,’ JLS 12 (2) (1983): 21; Suzanne Fleischman, ‘Discourse Functions of Tense-Aspect Oppositions in Narrative: Toward a Theory of Grounding,’ Linguistics 23 (1985): 854; Mary S. Erbaugh, ‘A Uniform Pause and Error Strategy for Native and Non-Native Speakers,’ in Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987), 112; T. Givón, ‘Beyond Foreground and Background,’ in Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987), 175–189; Stephen H. Levinsohn, ‘Aspect and Prominence in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,’ FN 23 (2010): 162. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 255. Ibid., 92–93; Stanley E.  Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 23. Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 54; D.N. Shankara Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), 170; Steven E. Runge, ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,’ in SBL Annual Meeting (San Diego, CA: November 2014), 1; Randall Buth, ‘Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 8; Rutger K. Allan, ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek:  Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 108; Robert Crellin, ‘The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 432; Amalia Moser, ‘Tense and Aspect after the New Testament,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 548; Stephen H. Levinsohn, ‘Functions of Copular-Participle Combinations (“Periphrastics”),’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 315–320. Benjamin L. Merkle, ‘Response to Porter,’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 83; K. L. McKay, ‘Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek,’ NovT 34, no. 3 (1992): 225. Refer to Stanley E. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009); J. A. Barnard, ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,’ FN 19 (2006): 3–29. Stanley E. Porter, ‘Verbal Aspect as a Prominence Indicator: A Response to Jody Barnard,’ in Greek, Jews, and Christians: Historical, Religious and Philological Studies in Honor of Jesús Peláez del Rosal, ed. Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta and Israel Muňoz Gallarte (Córdoba: Ediciones El Almendro, 2013), 430–431. I am influenced by Edna Andrews’s idea of ‘form, meaning and the interpretant,’ and by Edwin Battistella’s idea of ‘markedness values.’ See Edna Andrews, Markedness Theory (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 1, 137; Battistella, Markedness, 23–68. Steven E. Runge, ‘Markedness: Contrasting Porter’s Model with the Linguists Cited as Support,’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 44.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 47

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

Ibid., 48. Ibid., 47, 55. Ibid., 46. Ibid., 47. Stanley E. Porter, ‘What More Shall I Say? A Response to Steven Runge and Benjamin Merkle,’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 76–77. N. S.  Trubetzkoy first discovered the idea of the marked and unmarked opposition in 1930. Later, Roman Jakobson developed his idea and extended it to other areas. Jan H.  Nylund, ‘The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New Testament Language Studies,’ in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W.  Pitts, vol. 3, Early Christianity in Its Hellenisitic Context (Leiden:  Brill, 2013), 160. For more information, see Andrews, Markedness Theory, 1–2, 13; Andrews, ‘Jakobsonian Markedness Theory as Mathematical Principle,’ 178. Before Roman Jakobson suggested binary oppositions, Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) had already recognized that the basic idea for fundamentally linguistic structure was binary oppositions. See Jonathan D. Culler, Ferdinand de Saussure (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986), 62. Roman Jakobson presented privative oppositional relation between two in phonology:  one is marked with a property and the other is unmarked without the property. See Pomorska and Rudy, eds., Roman Jakobson: Language in Literature, 457. N.  S. Trubetzkoy proposed not only privative oppositional relation, but also gradual and equipollent oppositional relation in phonology. See Andrews, Markedness Theory, 14. In privative opposition, two opposites are differentiated by the presence or absence of a feature. In gradual opposition, two opposites are differentiated by gradual quality of a feature. See Anatoly Liberman, ed. N. S. Trubetzkoy: Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure, trans. Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2001), 19. Gradual opposition is developed into gradual relative markednesss in multiple oppositions. Greenberg later presents the scalar conception of markedness and argues that there can be markedness values from the least unmarked through moderately marked to most marked, with the term ‘hierarchy.’ See J. H. Greenberg, Language Universals:  With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies (Berlin:  Mouton de Gruyter, 1966, 2005), 31. In equipollent opposition, two opposites are differentiated with their own equal features. For more information, see Nylund, ‘The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New ­Testament Language Studies,’ 160. Andrews, Markedness Theory, 14. Porter, ‘What More Shall I Say? A Response to Steven Runge and Benjamin Merkle,’ 76–77. The scholars are listed in endnote 1. The binary concept of markedness in phonology has extended to morphology and grammatical or lexical categories. Battistella, Markedness, 9; Jakobson, Selected Writings: Word and Language, 136–140. See Battistella, Markedness, 1.  Roman Jakobson also applied the correlation of marked and unmarked to grammatical features such as person, genre, tense, aspect, mood, voice and taxis in Russian verbs. For example, the correlation of marked and unmarked is personal and impersonal in terms of ‘person,’ subjective and neuter in terms of ‘gender,’ preterit and present in terms of ‘tense,’ perfective and imperfective in terms of ‘aspect,’ conditional and indicative and injunctive and indicative in terms of ‘mood,’ reflexive and non-reflexive in terms of ‘voice,’ and dependent and independent in terms of ‘taxis.’ For more information, see Jakobson, Selected Writings: Word and Language, 136–140; Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle, eds., Roman Jakobson: Russian and

48 

23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Slavic Grammar Studies 1931–1981 (Berlin: Mouton, 1984), 6–10; Nylund, ‘The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New Testament Language Studies,’ 160; Andrew W. Pitts, ‘Greek Word Order and Clause Structure:  A Comparative Study of Some New Testament Corpora,’ in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 315. Roman Jakobson presents two kinds of correlation: symmetric and asymmetric. The symmetric correlation is between A vs. non-A. The asymmetric correlation is between A vs. B (no statement of A). In terms of grammatical category, it belongs to asymmetric correlation. L. Hjelmslev names the former as ‘contradictory’ and the latter is ‘contrary.’ See Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ 18. For more information, see Jakobson, Selected Writings: Word and Language, 138. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90. Ibid., 251. Porter’s exposition is as follows. ‘The perfect verb form is used to introduce the section (δεδικαίωται), as well as to specify the content of the Christian’s knowledge (εἰδότες). Repeated aorist tenseforms are used to lay down the fundamental events upon which the Christian’s status depends. The more emphatic present tense then describes the events.’ See Porter, Idioms, 22. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 181, 249–251. For example, the category of aspect (or tense) has five different markedness values, the category of mood has four different markedness values, the category of voice has three different markedness values, and the category of person has six different markedness values. See Cynthia Long Westfall, ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek,’ in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 79–84. Ibid., 79; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90. The aorist is a default tense. The imperfect is distant, indefinite action. The present is close, indefinite action. The perfect is definite, contoured. The pluperfect is rare, definite, contoured. See Westfall, ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek,’ 79. When she works on the category of person and number, Westfall deals with them in binary oppositions. There are six items in the category of person and number: 1st person pl. and sg., 2nd person pl. and sg., and 3rd person pl. and sg. Westfall attempts to make six items lined up: from 3rd person sg. to 1st person pl. (from the least unmarked to the most marked). Although she makes the markedness values of the six items scalar, Westfall explains them with the perspective of binary oppositions in one category. For example, in terms of the category of personal and impersonal, ‘the impersonal would be unmarked and the personal would be marked.’ In terms of the category of singular and plural, ‘the singular would be unmarked and the plural would be marked.’ As far as the hearers or readers are concerned, ‘the second person is more marked than the first person.’ Although she theoretically presents each distinctive semantic feature of six items with gradual degrees of markedness, she contrasts only two items. See ibid., 83. Battistella, Markedness, 17. Ibid. For more information, see Battistella’s diagram on p. 17. Ibid., 1. Battistella defines the simpler, more general pole as unmarked, while the more complex and focused pole as marked. For example, the markedness values, that universally singular is unmarked and plural marked, can be changed to the opposite in particular situations. See ibid., 23. For example, T.  Givón suggests three major criteria for determining marked or unmarked in a binary grammatical contrast:  structural complexity, frequency distribution, and cognitive

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 49

37.

38.

39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

complexity. See T. Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ SL 15 (1991): 337. Edith Moravcsik and Jessica Wirth suggest three criteria: distribution, syntagmatic composition, and paradigmatic composition. See Edith Moravcsik and Jessica Wirth, ‘Markedness—An Overview,’ in Markedness, ed. Fred Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik, and Jessica R. Wirth (New York: Plenum Press, 1986), 2. Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 118. Other scholars present different criteria. Lehmann (1989) proposes that grammaticalization is an unmarking and lexicalization is a marking. Shapiro (1983) suggests that truncation is generally an unmarking and augmentation is a marking. Liszka (1989) proposes that euphemism is an unmarking and vulgarism is a marking. For more information, see Edwin Battistella, The Logic of Markedness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 17. According to Comrie, semantically, in general, the aorist is the unmarked member of the aorist and imperfect opposition, but there is a possibility that two work as equally marked members of an equipollent opposition. Morphologically, the aorist is so irregular that it belongs to an unmarked category. Regarding the frequency of the verb, the perfective is more frequent than the imperfective within the past tense. However, it is hard to say that the former is more marked than the latter or vice versa because ‘the choice of aspect is very closely connected with what the speaker wants to say’ either a description of a scene or a description of a consecutive event. Contextually, two members of the perfective and imperfective can be both either marked or unmarked. Comrie, who only discusses markedness values in the aorist and imperfect opposition, argues that the concept of markedness cannot be generalized in other tenses like the present tense. See Comrie, Aspect, 117–122. Ibid., 114. Ibid., 111. Ibid., 122. For more information, see Battistella, Markedness, 26. For him, the unmarked feature as the prototype shows formal simplicity, semantic indeterminateness, the syncretized use with subcategories, and the greater freedom of distribution. Ibid., 28. Ibid., 25. Martin Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ JL 42, no. 1 (March 2006): 25. Martin Haspelmath groups the twelve senses of markedness into four classes: ‘markedness as complexity, as difficulty, as abnormality, and as a multidimensional correlation.’ Even though Martin theorizes the concept of markedness in detail, he concludes, ‘The term “markedness” is superfluous.’ Ibid., 26–63. Östen Dahl, Tense and Aspect Systems (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 19. Ibid. Dahl gives an example of English verb of 3rd person. Although the verb has an addition of –s as a sign of marking, it can be used in the default situation for the 1st and 2nd persons. Janda, ‘Unpacking Markedness,’ 209. Central prototype members are correlated with peripheral members with a radial structure. Ibid., 210. The unmarked element takes the central position and correlates with situations. The unmarked element, as the center, is used to anchor the marked element. Ibid., 228. Ibid., 207. Greenberg, Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, ix.

50 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

54. Ibid., 14; Keith Denning and Suzanne Kemmer, eds., On Language: Selected Writings of Joseph H. Greenberg (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), 30–32. 55. Greenberg, Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, ix. 56. Ibid., 31. 57. Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ 30. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Janda, ‘Unpacking Markedness,’ 210. 61. Givón says that ‘the realis, terminated, compact, preterite verb-from’ tends to be common in discourse because ‘it is typical of human oriented action-focused narrative.’ See Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ 360. 62. Some are listed. Ibid., 337; Moravcsik and Wirth, ‘Markedness—An Overview,’ 2; Comrie, Aspect, 118; Battistella, Markedness, 26; Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 26–63. 63. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 178–181. Later Porter suggests five categories including ‘positional,’ ‘cognitive,’ and excluding ‘semantic.’ See Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 55–56. 64. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 181. 65. The aorist occurs 5922 times and the present or imperfect occurs 5261 times in the indicative. See ibid. 66. Ibid., 89–97. 67. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 56. 68. Ibid., 55. 69. Ibid. Porter’s criterion, ‘positional,’ has not been proved always valid. Porter argued that, in studying Philippians, the subject placed first in the clause is more emphasized than the subject placed in second or third place, and accordingly Porter made general statement that the initial subject is used for markedness or foregrounding. See Stanley E. Porter, ‘Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament Greek:  An Unexplored Area of Greek Linguistics Using Philippians as a Test Case,’ FN 12 (1993):  190, 203. Martín-Asensio, however, argues against Porter. In studying Acts 25, Martín-Asensio found that explicit subjects at first and second or third are nearly equal in number in the shipwreck narrative, thus arguing that it is hard to prove that the initial subject is marked or foregrounded. Instead, Martin suggests that markedness values are demonstrated not in marked structures but transitivity patterns functioning for foregrounding. See Gustavo Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective, Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 202. Studies in New Testament Greek 8 (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 2000), 67–68. 70. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 56. 71. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 91, 248. 72. Buist M.  Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 65–70. The first two relations in binary oppositions are originated from Jakobson. Contradictory relations are between A and non-A. Contrary relations are ‘statement of A vs. ‘no statement of A.’ Jakobson did not think of ‘mixed’ opposition. See Jakobson, Selected Writings: Word and Language, 136. Fanning’s third type ‘mixed’ opposition is similar to ‘inclusive’ opposition of Andersen. Hjelmslev first recognizes participative oppositions called ‘inclusive.’ Andersen supports his ‘inclusive.’ See Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ 18, 23–24.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 51

73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

92. 93.

94.

Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 64–65. Ibid., 71. Battistella, Markedness, 23. Ibid., 24. Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ 338. Ibid., 336. Based on distribution, passive forms occur less frequently in everyday oral communication than academic discourse. Ibid., 347. Ibid., 335. Givón understands that formal marking and frequency distribution are the main factors to decide marked or unmarked. However, he further goes on to think about ‘the ‘substantive grounds’ that explain why the marked and unmarked categories have their formal and distributional status.’ For Givón, the ‘grounds’ are ‘context’ which is ‘communicative, social-cultural, cognitive or neuro-biological.’ Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 62. Ibid., 45. Another interesting example that Haspelmath gives is ‘The number nine is rarer than four because with larger groups, we are less concerned with precise numbers.’ Ibid., 48; Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ 352. Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 63. Peter Meijes Tiersma, ‘Local and General Markedness,’ Language 58 (Dec. 1982):  845–846; Greenberg, Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, 45. Statistics of frequency in cross-linguistics shows generally that the third person among three persons of the verb appears in highest percentage, but the percentage of frequency of first and second persons varies according to the context of a particular language. For example, Sanskrit (3rd: 54.1%, 2nd: 34.6%, 1st 11.3%), Latin (3rd:  45.3%, 1st:  29.3%, 2nd 25.4%), and Russian (3rd:  50.4%, 1st:  31.9%, 2nd: 17.7%). Greenberg, Language Universals: With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, 24. Battistella, The Logic of Markedness, 18. Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 25. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 178–181. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 56. The present is more marked than the aorist because imperfective (the present) is ‘morphologically bulkier’ than perfective (the aorist). Porter studies historical formation of the verb stem, mainly focusing on the verb stem. Porter presents that the present stem has double consonants or lengthened vowels compared with the aorist. As for the aorist, Porter does not consider the augment and the sigma part of morphological marking because they do not belong to the verb stem, thus arguing that perfective (aorist) is shorter than imperfective (the present). See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 180. Ibid., 246. ‘The connecting vowel is the vowel that connects the verbal stem to the personal ending.’ The connecting vowel is seen between the verbal stem and the personal ending in the example of ‘λεγ+ο+μεν.’ See William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 132. ‘The personal ending is added to the connecting vowel in order to designate person and number.’ See ibid.

52 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

95. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 246–247. 96. Imperfective (the present or imperfect) is more heavily marked than perfective (the aorist) because imperfective has fewer irregularities than perfective. In terms of syncretism, the present and imperfect have the same form in middle/passive voices, thus less irregular, whereas the aorist has three different forms of three voices, thus more irregular. Thus, the present (or imperfect) less irregular is more marked than the aorist more irregular. Porter explains that the present (or imperfect) has mainly regular form of ω in a lexical form. The aorist is irregular because it has diverse formation of the 1st aorist and 2nd aorist, and the augment does not appear outside of the indicative. See ibid., 180. 97. Ibid., 247. Porter cites ‘Curtius, Verb, 354,’ where Curtius discusses the regularity of reduplication-formation. 98. Ibid. Porter presents the frequency of the perfect tense form in other moods. ‘In the NT, the perfect subjunctive is only found ten times, the Imperative four times, and the perfect optative not at all.’ 99. The present (or imperfect) is slightly more marked than the aorist because the present (or imperfect) is less frequent than the aorist. Porter uses the word ‘slightly’ because he finds that there is no big distinction between the present (or imperfect) and the aorist in frequency of occurrence. Porter provides the numerical figures of the occurrences of the present (or imperfect) and the aorist. For example, in the Indicative, 5261 presents and imperfects occur and 5922 aorists occur. See ibid., 181. 100. Ibid., 246. Porter points out that ‘The Perfect/Pluperfect forms display the least frequency of usage of the three tense forms.’ 101. Plato, Josephus, and Thucydides. 102. Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ 28. 103. Ibid., 30. 104. Wally V.  Cirafesi, Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent Tense-Form Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 55. 105. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 181, 89–97. Porter uses different concepts such as verbal opposition, conceptual description (or visualization), planes of discourse and systemic network. 106. Ibid., 248. Ruipérez distinguishes the perfect as the marked. Ruipérez uses ‘the marked,’ not ‘the most heavily marked.’ 107. Ibid. 108. Ibid. 109. Ibid., 91. A  television correspondent sees the parade ‘as a single and complete whole.’ This is  illustration for perfective aspect. A  spectator sees the parade as ‘as an event in progress.’ This is for imperfective. The parade manager considers ‘all of the conditions in existence as this parade, including not only all the arrangements that are coming to fruition but all of the accompanying events that allow the parade to operate.’ This is for stative aspect. 110. Porter says that there is not a big distinction of the views between a spectator and a television correspondent, which is between imperfective and perfective. See ibid; Porter, Idioms, 23–24. 111. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 91. 112. Porter, Idioms, 23. 113. K. L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb (Canberra: Australian National University, 1974), 6; Porter, Idioms, 23. 114. I started the section of markedness with these three questions, which I called ‘lenses.’ As indicated before, I  got the idea of the three lenses (questions) from Edna Andrews and Edwin Battistella. Refer to Andrews, Markedness Theory, 1, 137; Battistella, Markedness, 23–68.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 53

115. The original concept of markedness, which was based on the idea of marked and unmarked opposition, was discovered and developed by Trubetzkoy and Jakobson. See Nylund, ‘The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New Testament Language Studies,’ 160. 116. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 249–251. 117. Westfall, ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek,’ 79. 118. For more information, see Greenberg, Language Universals:  With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies, ix; Andersen, ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years,’ 30; Janda, ‘Unpacking Markedness,’ 210; Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ 360; Battistella, Markedness, 26; Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 25; Comrie, Aspect, 118; Moravcsik and Wirth, ‘Markedness—An Overview,’ 2; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 178–181. 119. See Battistella, Markedness, 23; Givón, ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure,’ 338; Haspelmath, ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with),’ 62; Tiersma, ‘Local and General Markedness,’ 845–846. 120. Moravcsik and Wirth, ‘Markedness—An Overview,’ 10. As Moravcsik and Wirth point out variety of markedness, markedness claims differ according to their focus, whether phonological or syntactical. They differ according to the specific criteria of diagnosis of markedness relations. They differ according to the domains. They differ according to individual languages. They differ according to how they construe the significance of markedness within the context. For more, see Paul Friedrich, ‘On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect,’ IJAL 40, no. 4, Part 2 (October 1974): S16. 121. Viktor Shklovsky, Theory of Prose, trans. Benjamin Sher (Normal, IL:  Dalkey Archive Press, 1991), 1–14. 122. Willie Van Peer, Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding, Croom Helm Linguistics Series (London: Croom Helm, 1986), 16; Guy Cook, Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 207; Geoffrey Leech, Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding (New York: Routledge, 2014), 61. 123. Runge explains the mainline as the theme line because its portions advance the plot or argument forming the backbone of the discourse. The remaining portions are considered ‘support for the theme line, offering important background detail and fleshing out concepts.’ See Steven E. Runge, ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Chirstopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 221. Breeze explains, ‘all discourse contains a certain core of material which presents the main thrust or development and that this core is backed up or supported by all the other material included within the discourse. See Mary Breeze, ‘Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians,’ JTT 5, no. 4 (1992): 313. 124. I adopt this term from Cotrozzi. He puts the terms foregrounding and defamiliarization as the same meaning that is ‘the sense of highlighting through deviation from a norm or convention.’ See Livia Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ in Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Second Annual Meeting, ed. Kenneth Whistler et al. (Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1976), 62–67, 72. 125. Fanning mentions that thematically central material should be labeled ‘foreground,’ and ‘peripheral and supportive’ information ‘should be seen as background.’ See Buist M. Fanning, ‘Greek Presents, Imperfects, and Aorists in the Synoptic Gospels: Their Contribution to Narrative Structuring,’ in Discourse Studies & Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 173.

54 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

126. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When:  Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 69. 127. Robert E. Longacre, An Anatomy of Speech Notions (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1976), 217. 128. Larry B. Jones and Linda K. Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ in Discourse Studies in Mesoamerican Languages: Discussion, ed. Linda K. Jones (Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1979), 21–22. 129. R. S. Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,’ Text 5 (1985): 90. 130. Grimes considers evaluative information as background information. See Grimes, The Thread of Discourse, 64. With the perspective of the binary distinction of foreground and background, Dooley and Levinsohn divide narrative discourse into events and nonevents, that is, foreground and background. They list various types of nonevents in which ‘evaluation’ is included. See Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), 81–82. 131. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 62; Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 6. 132. The three planes are depicted by a case of books to differentiate three grounds of discourse. A case of books is ‘background,’ one shelf of the case is ‘foreground,’ and a selected single book is ‘frontground.’ See Porter, Idioms, 23. 133. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92; Porter, Idioms, 23. 134. Scholars have debated Porter’s suggestions. See Fanning, ‘Greek Presents, Imperfects, and Aorists in the Synoptic Gospels:  Their Contribution to Narrative Structuring,’ 174; Levinsohn, ‘Aspect and Prominence in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,’ 173; Runge, ‘Markedness: Contrasting Porter’s Model with the Linguists Cited as Support,’ 43. 135. I found that Runge also used the word ‘mismatch’ in his article in the book. Steven E. Runge, ‘The Verbal Aspect of the Historical Present Indicative in Narrative,’ in Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 191–223. 136. Klutz lists them as repetition, parallelism, verbal aspect, and word order. See Todd Klutz, ‘Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13–20,’ in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament:  Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E.  Porter and Jeffrey T.  Reed (Sheffield:  Sheffield Academic, 1999), 259–261. Polanyi-Bowditch lists them as repetition, redundancy, direct discourse, indirect discourse, change of tense from past to present, evaluation, description, unexpected linguistic items, and word order. See Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When:  Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 62–67, 72. Longacre lists them as paraphrase, parallelism, and tautologies. See Longacre, An Anatomy, 217. 137. Shklovsky, Theory of Prose, xix. 138. Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-based Foregrounding, 52–53; Geoffrey Leech, ‘Stylistics,’ in Discourse and Literature, ed. Teun Adrianus van Dijk (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985), 50. 139. Stefano Cotrozzi, Expect the Unexpected:  Aspects of Pragmatic Foregrounding in Old Testament Narratives (New York: T & T Clark, 2010), 15. For ‘parallelism’ of Jakobson, see Pomorska and Rudy, eds., Roman Jakobson: Language in Literature, 145–179; Leech, Language in Literature, 61. 140. Cotrozzi, Expect the Unexpected, 14. 141. J. Forsyth, A Grammar of Aspect:  Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1970); William Labov, Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972); Grimes, The Thread of

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 55

Discourse; Longacre, An Anatomy; Leonard Talmy, ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences,’ in Universals of Human Language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, vol. 4 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978); Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse; Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A.  Thompson, ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse,’ Language 56, no.  2 (1980); Hopper, ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse; Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground:  The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories; Tanya Reinhart, ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,’ Linguistics 22 (1984); Fleischman, ‘Discourse Functions of Tense-Aspect Oppositions in Narrative:  Toward a Theory of Grounding; Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination; Scott DeLancey, ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Cognition,’ in Coherence and Grounding in Discourse:  Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S.  Tomlin (Amsterdam:  J. Benjamins, 1987); Givón, ‘Beyond Foreground and Background; Sandra A.  Thompson, ‘“Subordination” and Narrative Event Structure,’ in Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin (Armsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987); Oscar Ozete, ‘Focusing on the Preterite and Imperfect,’ Hispania 71, no. 3 (Sept. 1988); Helen Aristar Dry, ‘Foregrounding: An Assessment,’ in Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, ed. Robert E. Longacre, Shin Ja Joo Hwang, and William R. Merrifield (Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1992); Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2 ed. (New York: Plenum, 1996); Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-based Foregrounding; Bhat, The Prominence of Tense. 142. Constantine R.  Campbell uses mainline and offline strands for two types of information in narrative. Mainline strand communicates ‘skeletal storyline’ and offline strand gives ‘supplemental information.’ See Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Greek 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 4. 143. Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,’ 214; Talmy, ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences,’ 627. 144. Robert E. Longacre distinguishes foregrounded event-line from supporting material in Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 340. He uses other terms (backbone and tributary material) for the distinction of the two information in Robert E. Longacre, ‘Vertical Threads of Cohesion in Discourse,’ in Coherence in Natural-Language Texts, ed. Fritz Neubauer (Hamburg: H. Buske, 1983), 100. 145. Hopper, ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,’ 213. 146. Ibid. 147. Grimes uses ‘the central thread of all discourses.’ See Grimes, The Thread of Discourse, 56. 148. Ibid., 35, 56. 149. Grimes studies the elements of background in detail. If some elements are not connected to the main narrative, they are considered ‘background.’ Some examples are sequences of events in the embedded narrative, antecedent events, and foreshadowing events. For more information, see ibid., 55–60. 150. Constantine R. Campbell, ‘Breaking Perfect Rules: The Traditional Understanding of the Greek Perfect,’ in Discourse Studies & Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011), 116. 151. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, 116. 152. Hopper and Thompson, ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse,’ 251. 153. DeLancey, ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Cognition,’ 54–55.

56 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

154. Ibid., 65. 155. Martín-Asensio, Transitivity-based Foregrounding, 79. 156. Labov, Language in the Inner City, 361. 157. Dry, ‘The Movement of Narrative Time,’ 49. 158. Ibid., 48. 159. Reinhart studied Hemingway’s The Killers to get this result. See Reinhart, ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,’ 782–783. Reinhart defines reference time as ‘a time unit containing the event.’ In his example, ‘Nick opened the door and the dog ran out,’ the reference time ‘opened’ moves forward to the reference time ‘ran.’’ See ibid., 786. 160. When it comes to the subordinate clauses with temporal sequence, she divides background into two: ‘background’ for temporal and ‘a subsidiary foreground’ for non-temporal. Her new term ‘a subsidiary foreground’ indicates that she has been tempted to put the subordinate clauses with temporal sequence into the category of foreground maybe because temporal sequence is important in narrative. See ibid., 784–799. 161. Thompson, ‘“Subordination” and Narrative Event Structure,’ 435–451. She observes the cases that both non-temporal material and temporal material appear in subordinate clauses. However, she does not judge ‘temporal material in subordinate clauses’ as foreground because she believes that syntactic structure takes priority over temporal sequence. 162. Talmy, ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences,’ 627. 163. Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground:  The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,’ 213. The figure-ground distinction is influenced by the Gestalt psychologists of the early twentieth century. 164. Ibid., 216. 165. Ibid., 212. 166. Reinhart, ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,’ 801–803. 167. For more discussion, see ibid., 803–805. 168. Ibid., 779. 169. Forsyth, A Grammar of Aspect, 10. 170. Hopper, ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,’ 216. Similarly, Comrie (1976) states that perfective forms are used for the actual events, and the imperfective forms are used for describing ‘the background states of each occurrence’ of the series of events. See Comrie, Aspect, 70. 171. Ozete, ‘Focusing on the Preterite and Imperfect,’ 687–690. 172. Ibid., 688. 173. Bhat studies that tense-dominated languages such as Kannada and French use past tense for denoting foregrounded events. Aspect-dominated languages such as Latin, Greek, and Russian, use the perfective for them. Mood-dominated languages use the realis for them. See Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, 179–181. 174. Stephen H. Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative Discourse Analysis (SIL International, 2007), 76. 175. Levinsohn, ‘Verb Forms and Grounding in Narrative,’ 167–168. 176. Robert E. Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ in Beyond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form, ed. Jessica R. Wirth (Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma, 1985), 83. Longacre states, ‘expository clauses are off the line’ in narrative discourse, and narrative clauses are ‘off the line’ in expository discourse. 177. Stephen H.  Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis (SIL International, 2008), 16.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 57

178. Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative, 66. 179. He embraces the Russian Formalist concept and the structuralist approach. See Cook, Discourse and Literature, 181–182. 180. Douthwaite uses the term of Fowler. See John Douthwaite, Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding (Edizioni dell’Orso, 2000), 168; Cotrozzi, Expect the Unexpected, 22; Roger Fowler, Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism (London: Batsford Academic and Educational, 1981), 16. 181. Douthwaite, Towards a Linguistic Theory, 168. 182. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When:  Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 69. 183. Ibid., 62. 184. Ibid., 61, 68. 185. Ibid., 62–67, 72. 186. With the optical perspective on discourse analysis, Longacre approaches discourse analysis with the terms ‘spectrum’ and ‘profile.’ For the ‘spectrum,’ he explains that the narrative reveals a cline of information ‘from the most dynamic elements of the story to the most static (depictive) ­elements.’ On the other hand, the ‘profile’ is the surface structure of a discourse. A  discourse profile includes the peak of a discourse. See Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 340; Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2. 187. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 3. 188. Ibid., 23. 189. Ibid. 190. Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 84. 191. The pivotal devices are diverse according to different languages. For example, in the Totonac language, tuncan (and then) is used. In the Aguacatec language, a particle –tz is used. In Kickapoo and in some Mayan languages, a doublet is used. For more information, see Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 28–29. 192. Longacre, An Anatomy, 217. 193. They are ‘repetition,’ ‘paraphrase,’ ‘a tense shift,’ ‘a person shift,’ ‘dialogue devices,’ ‘change of a place,’ ‘use of onomatopoeia,’ ‘packing the action line,’ ‘slowing the camera down,’ ‘phasing out of the usual markers of event line,’ ‘phasing out many of the sequence signals and conjunctions,’ and ‘stimulating at the peak of a discourse of one type the features of another.’ For more information, see Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 96–97. 194. Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 347; Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 3. 195. Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,’ 90. 196. Ibid. 197. Ibid. 198. Cotrozzi, Expect the Unexpected, 7–9. 199. Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 21–22. In their study, Jones and Jones find the multiple levels of information from three to five in Native American languages. From least significant to most significant, Lachisxio Zapotec has three levels (ordinary background, backbone events, and peak.), Cajonos Zapotec four (ordinary background, backbone events, pivotal events, and peak), Kckapoo five (ordinary background, significant background, ordinary events, pivotal events, and peak), Totonac and Aguacatec five (ordinary background, significant background, ordinary events, backbone events, and peak), and Rabinal Achí five (ordinary

58 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

background, significant background, backbone events, pivotal events, and peak). All are found grammatically marked. 200. Ibid., 22. 201. Ibid., 18. 202. Ibid., 21–22; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92–93. 203. Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 18–19. 204. Various terms are used for the portions delivering the great prominence: for example, evaluation (Livia), peak ( Jones and Jones, and Longacre), and pivotal (Tomlin). See Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When:  Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 69; Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 21–22; Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 340; Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,’ 90. 205. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 62–67, 72. 206. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92–93. 207. Porter, Idioms, 25. 208. In the planes of discourse, the perfective (the aorist) is depicted as a case of books. The foreground is depicted like a shelf against the case of books. See ibid., 23. 209. Ibid; Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92–93. 210. Runge also uses the word ‘mismatch.’ See Steven E.  Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis, Lexham Bible Reference Series (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2010), 165. 211. Porter states that ‘the basic narratives sequence functions essentially as “background,” not foreground, in that it provides the fundamental narrative sequence against which both supporting and highlighted (figure) material is presented.’ See Porter, ‘Verbal Aspect as a Prominence Indicator: A Response to Jody Barnard,’ 430. 212. Talmy, ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences,’ 627; Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground:  The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,’ 212; Forsyth, A Grammar of Aspect, 10; Reinhart, ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,’ 801–803; Hopper, ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse,’ 216; Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative, 76. 213. Porter, Idioms, 302. 214. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 57. 215. Ibid. 216. Porter, Idioms, 22. 217. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 105–107; Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 57. 218. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 57–58. 219. Ibid., 57. 220. Porter applies different criteria in order to determine background within different genres: the criterion of ‘default’ for narrative and the criterion of ‘supportive’ for expository discourse. With this explanation, Porter argues that his grounding theory can ‘apply both to narrative and to expositional material’ in the same way. See Porter, Idioms, 302. 221. Talmy, ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences,’ 638. 222. Jeffrey T. Reed and Ruth A. Reese, ‘Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude,’ FN 9, no. 18 (1996): 185–186. 223. Cotrozzi, Expect the Unexpected, 7–8.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 59

224. Dry, ‘Foregrounding: An Assessment,’ 442. 225. For example, in discourse analysis, ‘temporally successive clauses’ without elaborated structure ‘do not necessarily have more thematic importance than other narrative phenomena.’ Events in literary approach ‘are often so de-emphasized as to lack thematic import.’ In the psycholinguistic approach, visual characteristics such as ‘well-defined,’ ‘bounded or enclosed,’ ‘small’ or ‘near’ are not correlated to textual characteristics such as ‘marked,’ ‘completed events,’ ‘punctual events,’ or ‘present tense’, respectively. Thus, the understanding of foreground is varied according to different approach methods such as discourse, literary, and psycholinguistic approaches. For more information, see ibid., 144–147; Wallace, ‘Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories,’ 214. 226. Dry, ‘Foregrounding: An Assessment,’ 447. 227. Reinhart, ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts,’ 787–789. She argues for the correlation of figure and ground, or foreground and background. The figure depends on the ground, and the ground can dominate the interpretation of the figure. The interpretation of the temporal sequence of events (foreground) can be determined by the background, which is ‘the physical conditions of its events, their motivations, the preceding circumstances or events that led to them, the mental state of their agents, etc.’ With this correlation, Reinhart makes it clear that ‘the foreground need not to be more important than the background.’ She does not support the view that the figure is related to the ‘important part’ in the visual field because the figure is meaningless without the ground in the visual field. Reinhart gives good illustrations about the functions of the figure and the ground with a diagram of a square in the rectangle. 228. Runge, ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse,’ 223. 229. Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 347; Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 21; Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,’ 90. 230. Longacre, ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis,’ 347. 231. Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 85. 232. He finds various devices of peak in narrative in different languages: for example, deletion, repetition and paraphrase, slow-the-camera-down, a particle, the introduction of dialogue or reported speech, a tense shift or a person shift, and others. For more information, see ibid., 86–97. 233. Tomlin, ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination,’ 90. 234. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 65. Evaluation structure employs evaluative devices: direct discourse, indirect discourse, change of tense from past to present, repetition, and others. 235. Ibid., 61. 236. See Porter, Idioms, 302; Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 85. Longacre mentions, ‘Discourse peak is often marked by “something new has been added to and something taken away.” ’ 237. Porter, Idioms, 302. Regarding the use of the plural ‘peaks,’ Porter does not clarify it. It is assumed that the plural ‘peaks’ means many points of prominence. Longacre also uses the plural ‘peaks.’ He seems to mean various kinds of peaks appearing in various episodes. Longacre mentions, ‘If we can identify a discourse peak’ at the overall grammar of the discourse, ‘then we can identify pre-peak and post-peak sections.’ See Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 97, 97 n. 4.

60 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

238. Porter, Idioms, 302. 239. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 54. 240. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 92–93; Stanley E. Porter, ‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect,’ in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 35. 241. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 248. 242. Ibid. 243. Porter, Idioms, 23. 244. Ibid. 245. Fanning helped me understand the meaning of ‘delicacy’ personally. In a personal communication, Fanning said, ‘Delicacy relates to moving to finer distinctions in the system of oppositions by going further and further through the levels of binary choices to more detailed descriptions of the choices.’ 246. Klutz, ‘Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13–20,’ 259– 261. His study shows that the function of a foreground device is to deliver prominence as a deviated form from a norm. However, as for verbal aspect he follows Porter’s theory of grounding, not for the idea of ‘deviation form a norm.’ Anyway, his suggestion of four kinds of foreground devices implies that verbal aspect is not the only absolute determinant for prominence in discourse. For more information, see ibid., 263–267. 247. For more information, see Longacre, ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence,’ 86–97. 248. Douthwaite, Towards a Linguistic Theory, 168. 249. Polanyi-Bowditch, ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative,’ 62–67, 72. 250. Jones and Jones, ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse,’ 18–19. 251. Runge, Discourse Grammar, 9. 252. See more discussion in ibid., 125–142. 253. Fanning, ‘Greek Presents, Imperfects, and Aorists in the Synoptic Gospels: Their Contribution to Narrative Structuring,’ 183. 254. Ibid., 185. 255. Reed and Reese, ‘Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude,’ 190. 256. Ibid. 257. Jeffrey T. Reed, ‘Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insights from Discourse Analysis,’ in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 90. 258. Porter, Idioms, 302–303; Porter, ‘Prominence:  An Overview,’ 58; Porter, ‘Verbal Aspect as a Prominence Indicator: A Response to Jody Barnard,’ 421. 259. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 85. 260. Moises Silva, ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect ’ in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 81. 261. Ibid., 80. 262. Ibid., 79. 263. Ibid., 82. 264. Robert E.  Picirilli, ‘The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek:  Where Are We?,’ JETS 48 (2005): 551. 265. Barnard, ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,’ 29.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 61

266. Ibid., 17. 267. Ibid., 18. 268. Levinsohn, ‘Aspect and Prominence in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,’ 167. 269. Regarding prominence, Levinsohn explains two different functions of the same verb form. One is its inherent ‘meaning’ and the other is ‘the “overtones” associated with it.’ In the example of the imperfect, if the inherent meaning of the imperfect, which is ‘not completed’ or ‘ongoing,’ is perceived as relevant description of the event to the reader, prominence is given to the event as foreground event (Mark 10:52). If the overtone is focused, prominence is not given to the event, but instead the following events are more prominent. In this case the imperfect is used for background event (Mark 11:5). See ibid., 169–173. 270. Ibid., 161. 271. Ibid., 173. 272. Ibid. Interestingly, Levinsohn uses Porter’s term ‘frontground.’ 273. Porter, ‘Verbal Aspect as a Prominence Indicator: A Response to Jody Barnard,’ 421. 274. Ibid., 431. 275. Steven E. Runge, ‘Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,’ NovT 56 (2014): 172. 276. Decker recognizes the confusion of the inverse use of foreground and background. However, he states, ‘Although the terms foreground and background seem reversed from Porter’s explanation, the meaning is the same.’ Rodney J. Decker, ‘The Function of the Imperfect Tense in Mark’s Gospel,’ in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 351. 277. Ibid., 351n12. 278. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ 57. 279. Ibid., 58. 280. Decker, ‘The Function of the Imperfect Tense in Mark’s Gospel,’ 351. 281. Klutz, ‘Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13–20,’ 259– 268. In terms of prominence, in the study of Acts 19:13–20, Klutz claims that two perfect participle forms τετραυματισμένους (‘wounded’) in verse 16 and πεπιστευκότων (‘had believed’) in verse 18 are chosen for prominence. 282. Ibid., 264. In terms of anterior activity, in the study of Acts 19:13–20, Klutz views τετραυματισμένους (‘wounded’) in Acts 19:16 as the result of the anterior activity described in the former part of verse16, which Porter totally disregards. As for the word πεπιστευκότων (‘had believed’) in Acts 19:18, Klutz mentions that the perfect tense is used for special emphasis on the group of believers who have already received the gospel. 283. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 93. 284. Jeffrey T. Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity, JSPSup, vol. 136 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 113. Reed gives some examples of ‘focus’ such as ἰδού and ἐγὼ αὐτός mentioning that they have more pragmatic function than semantic function, which can draw attention of the reader. Reed calls it focal prominence. See ibid., 108. 285. Ibid., 114. 286. Westfall perceives prominence through the interrelated work of linearization, grouping and prominence. See Westfall, ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek,’ 77, 93.

62 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

287. Ibid., 78. 288. Ibid., 76. 289. Fanning argues that aspect has nothing inherently to do with prominence in discourse, i.e., it is a pragmatic effect of the inherent aspectual sense. See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 85. Silva observes that the prominence of a particular tense can change according to significant patterns of usage. See Silva, ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect ’, 80. Picirilli argues that prominence value is determined by other contextual factors, not by the verb. See Picirilli, ‘The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek:  Where Are We?,’ 551. Barnard finds that the  perfect tense can be used for unimportant details. See Barnard, ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,’ 29. Levinsohn argues that according to relevance theory, the perfect tense can be either background or frontground. See Levinsohn, ‘Aspect and Prominence in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem,’ 167. Runge denies that the tense forms have the inherent semantic prominence. See Runge, ‘Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb: Reassessing Porter’s Argument,’ 172. 290. Decker uses the term ‘foreground’ for the present tense shifted form the aorist, not for supportive material. He does not use the term ‘frontground’ for the perfect tense form. See Decker, ‘The Function of the Imperfect Tense in Mark’s Gospel.’ See ibid., 351. Klutz suggests various environmental factors as prominence indicators. See Klutz, ‘Naked and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13–20,’ 258–264. Reed uses the term ‘focus’ instead of frontground. He suggests that the reason of the highest prominence of the perfect tense form does not come from the tense itself, but from its inherent meaning, which describes an event resulting from anterior activity. See Reed, A Discourse Analysis of Philippians, 114. Westfall argues that prominence is determined by contextual factors not by the verb form. She prefers the term ‘frontground sentence’ to the term ‘frontground.’ She argues that prominence is a pragmatic effect. See Westfall, ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek,’ 76.

bibliography Allan, Rutger K. ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 81–121. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Andersen, Henning. ‘Markedness Theory—the First 150 Years.’ In Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony, ed. Olga Mišeska Tomić, 11–46. Berlin: Mouton, 1989. Andrews, Edna. ‘Jakobsonian Markedness Theory as Mathematical Principle.’ In Language, Poetry and Poetics. The Generation of the 1890s: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovskij, ed. Krystyna Pomorska, Elżbieta Chodakowska, Hugh McLean and Brent Vine, 177–198. Berlin:  Walter de Gruyter, 1987. Andrews, Edna. Markedness Theory. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990. Barnard, J. A. ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke.’ FN 19 (2006): 3–29. Battistella, Edwin. Markedness: The Evaluative Superstructure of Language. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990. Battistella, Edwin. The Logic of Markedness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Bhat, D. N. Shankara. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 63

Breeze, Mary. ‘Hortatory Discourse in Ephesians.’ JTT 5, no. 4 (1992): 313–347. Buth, Randall. ‘Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 416–429. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Bybee, Joan, ReverePerkins, and William Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar:  Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Campbell, Constantine R. ‘Breaking Perfect Rules: The Traditional Understanding of the Greek Perfect.’ In Discourse Studies & Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge, 139–155. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011. Cirafesi, Wally V. Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels: On the Method and Meaning of Divergent TenseForm Usage in the Synoptic Passion Narratives. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Cook, Guy. Discourse and Literature:  The Interplay of Form and Mind. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1994. Cotrozzi, Stefano. Expect the Unexpected: Aspects of Pragmatic Foregrounding in Old Testament Narratives. New York: T & T Clark, 2010. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Semantics of the Perfect in the Greek of the New Testament.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 430–457. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Culler, Jonathan D. Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986. Dahl, Östen. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. Decker, Rodney J. ‘The Function of the Imperfect Tense in Mark’s Gospel.’ In The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, 347–364. Leiden: Brill, 2003. DeLancey, Scott. ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Cognition.’ In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin, 53–68. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987. Denning, Keith, and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. On Language:  Selected Writings of Joseph H.  Greenberg. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. Dooley, Robert A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts. Dallas: SIL International, 2001. Douthwaite, John. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Foregrounding: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2000. Dry, Helen Aristar. ‘The Movement of Narrative Time.’ JLS 12, no. 2 (1983): 19–54. Dry, Helen Aristar. ‘Foregrounding: An Assessment.’ In Language in Context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, ed. Robert E. Longacre, Shin Ja Joo Hwang, and William R. Merrifield, 435–450. Arlington: Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1992. Erbaugh, Mary S. ‘A Uniform Pause and Error Strategy for Native and Non-Native Speakers.’ In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin, 109–130. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987. Fanning, Buist Martin. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Fanning, Buist Martin. ‘Greek Presents, Imperfects, and Aorists in the Synoptic Gospels: Their Contribution to Narrative Structuring.’ In Discourse Studies & Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge, 157–190. Bellinghama, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011.

64 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Fleischman, Suzanne. ‘Discourse Functions of Tense-Aspect Oppositions in Narrative:  Toward a Theory of Grounding.’ Linguistics 23 (1985): 851–882. Forsyth, James. A Grammar of Aspect: Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Fowler, Roger. Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism. London: Batsford Academic and Educational, 1981. Friedrich, Paul. ‘On Aspect Theory and Homeric Aspect.’ IJAL 40, no.  4, Part  2 (October 1974): S1–S44. Givón, Thomas. ‘Beyond Foreground and Background.’ In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin, 175–189. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987. Givón, Thomas. ‘Markedness in Grammar: Distributional, Communicative and Cognitive Correlates of Syntactic Structure.’ SL 15 (1991): 335–370. Greenberg, Joseph Harold. Language Universals:  With Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1966, 2005. Grimes, J. E. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. Haspelmath, Martin. ‘Against Markedness (and What to Replace It with).’ JL 42, no.  1 (March 2006): 25–70. Herbert, Robert K. Language Universals, Markedness Theory, and Natural Phonetic Processes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986. Hopper, Paul J. ‘Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse.’ In Discourse and Syntax, ed. Talmy Givón. Syntax and Semantics 12, 213–241. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.’ Language 56, no. 2 (1980): 251–299. Jakobson, Roman. Selected Writings: Word and Language, vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Janda, Laura A. ‘Unpacking Markedness.’ In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. Eugene H. Casad, 207–236. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 1996. Jones, Larry B., and Linda K. Jones. ‘Multiple Levels of Information in Discourse.’ In Discourse Studies in Mesoamerican Languages: Discussion, ed. Linda K. Jones, 3–28. Arlington, TX: The Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington, 1979. Klutz, Todd. ‘Naked and Wounded:  Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13–20.’ In Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed, 258–279. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Labov, William. Language in the Inner City:  Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972. Leech, Geoffrey. ‘Stylistics.’ In Discourse and Literature, ed. Teun Adrianus van Dijk, 39–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. Leech, Geoffrey. Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. New York: Routledge, 2014. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative Discourse Analysis:  SIL International, 2007. Levinsohn, Stephen H. Self-Instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis:  SIL International, 2008. Levinsohn, Stephen H. ‘Aspect and Prominence in the Synoptic Accounts of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem.’ FN 23 (2010): 161–174. Levinsohn, Stephen H. ‘Functions of Copular-Participle Combinations (‘Periphrastics’).’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 307–326. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 65

Levinsohn, Stephen H. ‘Verb Forms and Grounding in Narrative.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 163–183. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Liberman, Anatoly, ed. N. S.  Trubetzkoy:  Studies in General Linguistics and Language Structure. Translated by Marvin Taylor and Anatoly Liberman. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2001. Longacre, Robert E. An Anatomy of Speech Notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1976. Longacre, Robert E. ‘A Spectrum and Profile Approach to Discourse Analysis.’ Text 1, no.  4 (1981): 337–359. Longacre, Robert E. ‘Vertical Threads of Cohesion in Discourse.’ In Coherence in Natural-Language Texts, ed. Fritz Neubauer, 99–113. Hamburg: H. Buske, 1983. Longacre, Robert E. ‘Discourse Peak as Zone of Turbulence.’ In Beyond the Sentence: Discourse and Sentential Form, ed. Jessica R. Wirth, 83–98. Ann Arbor: Karoma, 1985. Longacre, Robert E. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Plenum, 1996. Martín-Asensio, Gustavo. ‘Transitivity-based Foregrounding in the Acts of the Apostles: A Functional-Grammatical Approach to the Lukan Perspective.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 202. Studies in New Testament Greek 8. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. McKay, Kenneth L. Greek Grammar for Students:  A Concise Grammar of Classical Attic with Special Reference to Aspect in the Verb. Canberra: Australian National University, 1974. McKay, Kenneth L. ‘Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek.’ NovT 34, no. 3 (1992): 209–228. Merkle, Benjamin L. ‘Response to Porter.’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 83. Moravcsik, Edith, and Jessica Wirth. ‘Markedness—An Overview.’ In Markedness, ed. Fred Eckman, Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth, 1–12. New York: Plenum Press, 1986. Moser, Amalia. ‘Tense and Aspect after the New Testament.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 539–562. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009. Nylund, Jan H. ‘The Prague School of Linguistics and Its Influence on New Testament Language Studies.’ In The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. Early Christianity in Its Hellenisitic Context, vol. 3, 155–221. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Ozete, Oscar. ‘Focusing on the Preterite and Imperfect.’ Hispania 71, no. 3 (Sept. 1988): 687–691. Picirilli, Robert E. ‘The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where Are We?’. JETS 48 (2005): 535–555. Pitts, Andrew W. ‘Greek Word Order and Clause Structure: A Comparative Study of Some New Testament Corpora.’ In The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, 311–346. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Polanyi-Bowditch, Livia. ‘Why the What’s Are When: Mutually Contexualizing Realms of Narrative.’ In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society Second Annual Meeting, ed. Kenneth Whistler et al., 59–77. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1976. Pomorska, Krystyna, and Stephen Rudy, eds. Roman Jakobson:  Language in Literature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. ‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect.’ In Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics:  Open Questions in Current Research ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson, 26–45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

66 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Porter, Stanley E. ‘Word Order and Clause Structure in New Testament Greek: An Unexplored Area of Greek Linguistics Using Philippians as a Test Case.’ FN 12 (1993): 177–206. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:  Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Prominence:  An Overview.’ In The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, 45–74. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Verbal Aspect as a Prominence Indicator: A Response to Jody Barnard.’ In Greek, Jews, and Christians: Historical, Religious and Philological Studies in Honor of Jesús Peláez del Rosal, ed. Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta and Israel Muňoz Gallarte, 421–448. Córdoba:  Ediciones El Almendro, 2013. Porter, Stanley E. ‘What More Shall I Say? A Response to Steven Runge and Benjamin Merkle.’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 75–79. Reed, Jeffrey T. ‘Identifying Theme in the New Testament:  Insights from Discourse Analysis.’ In Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson, 75–101. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Reed, Jeffrey T. ‘A Discourse Analysis of Philippians: Method and Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity.’ JSPSup 136 (1997). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Reed, Jeffrey T., and Ruth A. Reese. ‘Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence, and the Letter of Jude.’ FN 9, no. 18 (1996): 181–199. Reinhart, Tanya. ‘Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts.’ Linguistics 22 (1984): 779–809. Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Lexham Bible Reference Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2010. Runge, Steven E. ‘The Verbal Aspect of the Historical Present Indicative in Narrative.’ In Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn, ed. Steven E. Runge, 191–223. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2011. Runge, Steven E. ‘Contrastive Substitution and the Greek Verb:  Reassessing Porter’s Argument.’ NovT 56 (2014): 154–173. Runge, Steven E. “Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.” In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 458–85. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Runge, Steven E. ‘Markedness:  Contrasting Porter’s Model with the Linguists Cited as Support.’ BBR 26, no. 1 (2016): 43–56. Runge, Steven E. ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Chirstopher J. Fresch, 221–272. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Shklovsky, Viktor. Theory of Prose. Translated by Benjamin Sher. Normal, IL:  Dalkey Archive Press, 1991. Silva, Moises. ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect ’ In Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Donald Arthur Carson, 74–82. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Talmy, Leonard. ‘Figure and Ground in Complex Sentences.’ In Universals of Human Language, ed. Joseph H. Greenberg, vol. 4, 625–649. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1978.

an e valuation of por ter ’ s mark e dn e s s a n d g r ou n d i n g  | 67

Thompson, Sandra Annear. ‘‘Subordination’ and Narrative Event Structure.’ In Coherence and Grounding in Discourse:  Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, ed. Russell S. Tomlin, 435–454. Armsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1987. Tiersma, Peter Meijes. ‘Local and General Markedness.’ Language 58 (Dec. 1982): 832–849. Tomić, Olga Mišeska. ‘Introduction.’ In Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony, ed. Olga Mišeska Tomić, 1–10. Berlin: Mouton, 1989. Tomlin, R. S. ‘Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination.’ Text 5 (1985): 85–122. Van Peer, Willie. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations of Foregrounding. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm, 1986. Wallace, Stephen. ‘Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories.’ In Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. Paul J. Hopper, 201–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1982. Waugh, Linda R., and Morris Halle, eds. Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar Studies 1931– 1981. Berlin: Mouton, 1984. Westfall, Cynthia Long. ‘A Method for the Analysis of Prominence in Hellenistic Greek.’ In The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, 76–94. Sheffield:  Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009.

C HAPTER THREE

The Traditional Understanding of the Perfect, Compared with Porter’s Approach

There is conflict between the traditional understanding of the perfect and Porter’s understanding of the perfect. I define the traditional understanding of the perfect thus: the perfect inherently expresses the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. Porter does not agree with the traditional understanding because he believes that the perfect delivers the single feature of ‘a state of affairs,’ regardless of anterior activity (temporality).1 In this chapter, I  demonstrate the validity of the traditional understanding of the perfect, delving into the dual feature of the perfect, especially the feature of anterior activity.

D UA L F E AT U R E O F T H E P E R F E C T Many scholars support the dual feature of the perfect.2 There are various ways to explain the function of the perfect in narrative or expository discourse. However, scholars never depart from a basic axis—the dual feature of the perfect. For example, simply put, a temporal basis can explain the perfect by using ‘past time and present time’; the verbal-aspect basis can explain the perfect by using ‘perfective (stative) and imperfective.’ The dual feature of the perfect is the key to distinguishing the perfect from other tenses. Turner understands the essence of the perfect as expressing two truths at once: ‘the previous inception of the condition and the present continuance of

70 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

it.’3 The understanding of the perfect’s dual feature has lasted for a long time, even until today.

Pendulum Movement Difficulty can arise in that, like a pendulum movement, the semantic emphasis of the dual feature of the perfect can be shifted from one feature to the other. Lloyd mentions that the perfect is ‘a somewhat unstable category’ because the focus of the perfect can shift backwards (to the past) or forwards (to the present state).4 Dana and Mantey say, ‘Emphasis, as indicated by the context or the meaning of the verb root, may be on either the completion of the action or on its finished results.’5 Jannaris states that the perfect ‘stands between the effective present and the effective past, bordering on either side.’ Thus, sometimes the perfect appears to stand for the present and sometimes for the aorist.6 This shift of emphasis from one feature to the other is caused by lexical situations as well as other contextual factors. Orriens mentions that lexical characters (either telic verbs or atelic verbs) can cause the shift of emphasis in the perfect’s dual feature.7 In the same way, Olsen mentions that lexical situations, such as ‘dynamic,’ ‘durative,’ and ‘telic’ situations, can bring about the emphatic shift in the perfect’s dual feature.8 Haug, who says that the essential feature of the perfect is a double reference (a present state and a past event that culminated), points out that one side of a double reference can be emphasized according to pragmatic factors.9 Porter attempted ‘a systemic explication of the opposition between the stative and non-stative aspectual systems in the Greek verbal network.’10 According to Porter, the stative aspect (perfect) is more prominent than two non-stative aspects (present and aorist). The imperfective aspect (present) is more prominent than the perfective aspect (aorist), and the stative aspect (perfect) delivers the highest prominence in the context where it is associated with the present or aorist. In order to explain the concept of prominence on a discourse level, Porter uses the terms ‘frontground’ (perfect), ‘foreground’ (aorist), and ‘background’ (present).11 Instead of considering anterior activity, Porter adopts the notion of prominence in a larger context, arguing that the perfect is chosen to indicate prominence (the highest prominence) on a discourse level. However, I will suggest that the perfect is not chosen to express prominence in a larger context but rather to highlight one side of the perfect’s dual feature in an immediate context, while still denoting the other side. In this book, I attempt to show how one side of the dual feature of the perfect happens to be emphasized when the perfect is understood to be associated with the present or aorist in an immediate context. I intentionally follow Porter’s approach

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 71

of the relationship between the perfect and the present (or aorist). Through my work, I  demonstrate that the traditional understanding has more explanatory power than Porter’s understanding, although I use the same approach as Porter.

Various Categories Suggested Various categories of the perfect12 have been suggested because, in the actual use of the perfect, it has been found that the perfect appears not to indicate even one side of the dual feature. Campbell mentions the problematic complexities of the actual use of the perfect tense. He lists four categories of the perfect based on its dual feature. In some categories, the past action can be emphasized, or the present state can be emphasized. In other categories, no past action is viewed, or no present state is viewed.13 He notices that those categories appear to be related to the influence of lexical situations and contextual situations. Considering the perfect’s lexical meaning and its use in context, scholars have attempted to categorize the function of the perfect for the sake of interpretation. However, their categorizations vary. For example, Robertson suggests ten categories of the perfect,14 BDF suggest five categories,15 and Brooks suggests five categories.16 Perschbacher categorizes the use of the perfect into six divisions,17 while Wallace suggests seven divisions.18 Fanning divides the function of the perfect into four categories.19 And Porter, who claims that there is only one category of ‘a present state or condition of the perfect,’ suggests five functions of the perfect, based on temporal ideas.20 In the following chapters, I attempt to focus on the dual feature of the perfect, laying down various categories of the perfect so that I can demonstrate that it is possible to interpret the perfect by considering only its dual feature. In addition, I consider the perfect’s conventional use, which is established before the speaker or writer chooses the perfect. I define ‘conventional use’ to mean that a certain usage is widely accepted by many people and that usage has been in use for a certain time, which is here the period of the first century.

A N T E R I O R AC T I V I T Y Porter denies anterior activity (a prior event) affects the meaning of the perfect. I argue that anterior activity gives the perfect inherent meaning along with the perfect’s present state. Some understand the terms ‘anterior’ or ‘anteriority’ from the perspective of the dual feature of the perfect. For example, Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca combine the meanings of ‘a prior activity and a present relevance’ in the term ‘anterior.’21

72 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

For them, the meaning of ‘anterior’ is closer to the function of the English present perfect, which is often used with the present relational adverbs22 ‘already’ and ‘just’—‘I’ve just eaten dinner. (So I don’t want any more food.)’23 However, I use the term ‘anterior’ only to refer to a prior event that is separated from a present state, and so I use the terms ‘anterior activity’ and ‘a prior event’ interchangeably. My ‘anterior activity’ can refer to temporal anterior activity or to logical anterior activity.

The Development of the Perfect towards Anterior Activity The diachronic study of the perfect’s development from Homeric Greek to Koine Greek shows a semantic shift towards anterior activity. Bentein finds that there was a ‘semantic shift from resultative to anterior perfect.’24 (For Bentein, the ‘resultative perfect’ expresses a state resulting from some action in the past.25) Haug also observes that the perfect ‘involves a semantic change from resultative to anterior semantics.’26 According to Haug, in Homeric Greek, the perfect indicated a ‘resultative,’ but in Koine Greek it indicated an anterior feature with current relevance.27 In other words, in Homeric Greek anterior activity was underground, resulting in a present state, but in Koine Greek it began to be indicated on the surface. Sicking and Stork concur that, from the fifth century BC, the Greek perfect, which formerly referred to a present state (resultative), began indicating a past situation with its current relevance.28 Haspelmath explains that the shift toward anteriority occurred from a state-focus to an event-focus.29 Gerö and von Stechow explain that in Homeric Greek the perfect delivered resultative meaning. In Classical Greek, the perfect indicated more ‘past-oriented’ meaning. In post-classical Greek, it often yielded a past meaning, which caused confusion with the aorist, thus it fell out of use.30 Jannaris observes that since Hellenistic times, the perfect and aorist have been associated with one another. Consequently, the use of the perfect decreased, and the use of the aorist increased.31 Allan divides the development of the perfect into three stages from ‘resultative-stative’ to ‘current relevance (anterior)’ to ‘past perfective.’32 Allan’s presentation of the three stages indicates that a prior event or situation was an original essential meaning of the perfect. The studies of these scholars show that the perfect in the Koine period indicates a stronger idea of anterior activity than it did before. Since anterior activity is the main difference between the traditional understanding of the perfect and Porter’s understanding, I now present two groups of scholars who have addressed how anterior activity relates to the perfect. One group accepts anterior activity for the interpretation of the perfect, based on the inherently dual feature of the perfect. The other group rejects anterior activity, based on the inherent-single feature of the perfect.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 73

Scholars Who Accept Anterior Activity For Comrie, the particular function of the perfect is to refer to a prior situation.33 He mentions that the perfect ‘expresses a relation between two timepoints—on the one hand, the time of the state resulting from a prior situation, and on the other, the time of that prior situation.’34 Although the perfect ‘tells us nothing directly about the situation in itself, it relates some state to a preceding ­situation.’35 Fanning suggests a summary viewpoint of the perfect based on occurrence, which includes a present state and anterior activity.36 He believes that the perfect retains the notion of anterior activity along with its present consequence in either the verbs of activities or the verbs of states.37 In the case of verbs of activities, the perfect clearly indicates anterior activity as well as its existing result.38 In the case of verbs of states, the existing present state is more emphasized, although there is an anterior act that led into the present state.39 For Smith, the perfect is situated in two kinds of times: ‘situation time’ and ‘reference time.’40 The perfect indicates the situation time that has to do with the event occurring prior to the reference time. For her, anterior activity is the essential point of the perfect.41 Similar to Smith, Olsen describes two different categories of time in regard to situations: ‘event time’ and ‘reference time.’ She explains that the event time, which implies a completed event at an anterior time to the present, intersects the reference time, which is the same as the present time of speaking.42 She argues that this dual temporality works together with aspect (a viewpoint on a kind of action). This temporality produces the dual feature of a present situation of the action that results from anterior activity.43 Bybee defines the meaning of the perfect as ‘the anterior.’ For Bybee, ‘the anterior’ means ‘a past event whose results still exists in the present.’44 Her term ‘the anterior’ demonstrates that she puts stress on the anterior activity of the perfect.45 Bhat explains the perfect through three different views: temporal, aspectual, and modal. According to the temporal view, the perfect describes ‘a past event with current relevance.’46 According to the aspectual view, the perfect describes ‘a completed (perfective) event with continuing (imperfective) relevance.’ 47 According to the modal view, the perfect expresses ‘realis event with irrealis relevance.’48 Bhat’s temporal and aspectual views of the perfect show that first the anterior completed event is indicated and then present relevance follows. Orriens says that the perfect is chosen to mark ‘a reciprocal (or bilateral) relationship between a completed past SoA [state of affairs] and the moment of speech.’49 For him, the aorist refers only to the completed past SoA, but the perfect refers to the dual feature (the moment of speech and the completed past SoA). The speaker chooses the perfect in order to mark ‘the actuality that the speaker ascribes to the past SoA within the present communicative situation.’50 For Orriens, the

74 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

anterior activity is a primary reason for the speaker to choose the perfect in his present situation.51 Horrocks observes the situation of the perfect in the Koine Greek through the study of the letter (P. Oxy. 1155) written in AD 104.52 Horrocks observes that the usage of the perfect in this letter concerns events that occurred prior to the time of the speaker or writer.53 For Horrocks, when the perfect is understood as an aspect, that aspect involves the viewpoint of the anterior action that is understood as completed.54 Runge affirms that the semantics of the perfect include anterior activity. Even though no anterior activity is in clear view, he argues that it is there. Runge says, ‘even though the Perfect is an aspect, it nevertheless has a logical temporal ordering that cannot be ignored … For states of affair that are atelic, i.e., lack a clear ending, the state that results still logically precedes the viewing point.’55 Based on the anterior activity of the perfect, Runge interprets the perfect according to its relevance to other parts of the text and then argues that the perfect tense is used as ‘background for the more salient’ parts, which the perfect may follow or precede.56 Crellin examines the Greek perfect active indicative through the eyes of the Gothic translator.57 Crellin finds that there is a single semantic definition for the perfect in the later post-Classical language, which implies an existing property of the subject based on the event determined in the past.58 He describes two kinds of lexical semantics: first, ‘non-state verbs’ and second, ‘state verbs,’ including ‘change of state verbs.’59 ‘Non-state’ Greek perfect forms, such as ποιέω, were translated with only past tense forms in the Gothic language.60 The state and change-of-state verbs, such as ἐλπίζω and ἵστημι, were found translated into both past and non-past tense forms in Gothic. The possibility of translating ‘state’ verbs (including changeof-state verbs) into both past and non-past tense forms in Gothic indicates that their resultant states subsume past reference, regardless of ‘direct reference to a prior culminating event.’61 The choice of past tenses in Gothic shows that the translator perceived the perfect tense itself as participating in a prior event. In keeping with his study, Crellin does not agree with Porter’s argument that the perfect tense form itself does not refer to a prior event.62 All the scholars presented previously base their arguments on the inherently dual feature of the perfect. Without consulting contextual factors, such as temporal indicators, they all describe the perfect itself as delivering anterior activity.

Scholars Who Reject Anterior Activity McKay basically agrees that the perfect tense is chosen when the author views an event or activity ‘as the state consequent upon an action.’63 However, McKay does not fully agree that the dual features work together. He states, ‘The perfect aspect expresses the state or condition of the subject of the verb, as a result of an action

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 75

(logically a prior action), but most often with comparatively little reference to the action itself.’64 McKay finally suggests that the perfect only delivers the present state of the subject (stative aspect). He says that temporal matter is decided by context, which applies the state to ‘present time, timeless situations, extensions from past to present, and the implication of future reference.’65 Porter does not include the feature of anterior activity in his description of the inherently semantic meanings of the perfect because he believes that the perfect form grammaticalizes the author’s viewpoint, which is a stative aspect.66 For Porter, an anterior event, which he thinks belongs to the objective nature, is separated from the subjective conception of the speaker. Porter believes that in order to indicate anterior activity, the speaker or writer uses temporal indicators rather than the perfect itself. Thus, he tries to find anterior activity outside the perfect tense form.67 According to the presence or absence of temporal indicators in context, Porter would understand the perfect as the present, the aorist, the future, or as timeless. Porter mentions, ‘Any conception of the Perfect function cannot be essentially temporally based, not only since the analogy of the Aorist and Present tenses cannot hold, but since the Perfect itself functions in a variety of temporal contexts.’68 What he means by this seems to be that the semantics of the perfect can change according to temporal indicators in context.69 Haug argues that the semantic change of the perfect cannot be caused by the author’s subjective choices, such as deixis, modality, or discourse strategies, because these choices can invite inference. He finds that the original semantic change70 is more grammatically related to paradigmatic relations than pragmatic implicatures.71 Thus, Haug does not agree with Traugott and Dasher, who focus on pragmatic inference to understand the semantics of the perfect.72 Haug may not agree with Porter as well.73 Recently Porter appears to have revised his argument. Porter states: What I mean is that, as with all aspectual choices, the use by an author of the perfect tenseform encodes the action as reflecting a complex state of affairs of the subject. This may involve a previous action (although this may be true for the action encoded by any of the aspects), but the emphasis is upon this subject-related state of affairs. In this sense, there may be some overlap with Aktionsart theory in that both are using the notion of state or stativity.74

Following Porter, Hatina does not see that the perfect has the dual feature of a present state and anterior activity. Focusing on deixis in the study of Colossians, he argues, ‘Most of the perfect forms are used in context to refer to either pasttime or present-time, rarely both.’ However, he finds the dual feature of the perfect in three out of nineteen perfects (ἑόρακαν in Col 2:1; ἑόρακεν in Col 2:18; and δέδεμαι in Col 4:3).75 Hatina, like Porter, attempts to find temporality from the context or from ‘external factors known as deictic indicators—such as temporal

76 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

adverbs, references to person, place and time, and discourse features.’76 Instead of considering the perfect’s anterior activity, Hatina defends Porter’s argument that the perfect indicates prominence (frontground). Hatina reiterates Porter’s words that the perfect expresses ‘more detailed and contoured elements in the discourse’ against the background of the aorist tense form. Like Porter, he also states that ‘the perfect expresses emphasis when contrasted with the aorist or the present forms.’77 Decker supports Porter’s view that the semantic function of the perfect is to deliver a state or condition of the subject (its ‘stative aspect’) not anterior activity.78 Like Porter, Decker argues that the semantic value of the ‘stative’ of the perfect should not be confused with pragmatic factors.79 In his study of Mark, Decker attempts to focus on the influence of pragmatic factors on the semantics of the perfect. His study concludes that the semantics of the perfect are changed by the presence or absence of temporal deictic indicators. Thus, he argues that most perfect forms in Mark do not indicate a past action or state, unless there is a past reference.80 In contrast with Decker, in ch 4 I will present that most perfects in Mark indicate the dual feature of a present state and its anterior activity without consulting temporal indicators. Mathewson does not accept the temporality of the Greek verb like Porter does. Instead, he focuses on verbal aspect, not considering time or Aktionsart. Like Porter, Mathewson interprets the Greek verb as signaling prominence in a discourse.81 As for the perfect, he does not consider anterior activity.82 When he interprets the perfect εἴληφεν in Revelation 5:7, Mathewson denies all views for interpretation other than the view of frontground (prominence). Mathewson discusses that this perfect should not be interpreted as the result of Semitic influence,83 as an ‘aoristic perfect,’84 nor as a ‘dramatic historical present perfect.’85 Thus, Mathewson understands the perfect εἴληφεν as a frontground aspect which functions to ‘focus attention on the process of the reception of the scroll.’86 According to my Three Rules, which will be presented in the final part of this chapter, I would say that the perfect (εἴληφεν) is chosen to highlight a present state of receiving the scroll that occurred prior to the present time of writing because the perfect is associated with the aorist (ἦλθεν) (Rule 2). Evans defines the perfect ‘as a special type of imperfective, expressing stativ87 ity.’ For Evans, the special type of imperfective manifests ‘the same aspect found in the present system.’88 With his view, he argues that the perfect itself does not refer to prior occurrences and conveys non-past temporal references.89 Evans, who believes that the perfect in Koine Greek conveys a present state like the present tense, does not accept the diachronic development form resultative to anterior. He argues that the aoristic function of the perfect is hard to find in material prior to the first century AD because the aorist and the perfect merged very late (in the mid-first millennium AD).90 He seems to say that the perfect in the NT is not

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 77

related to aoristic ideas, thus it is to be understood as a present state. Evans connects the anterior activity of the perfect to the effects of lexical semantics.91 Campbell understands the perfect as the imperfective aspect with the notion of heightened proximity, not referring to anterior activity (temporality).92 Campbell explains: ‘A viewpoint of heightened proximity is one that pictures the reporter taking steps to be close to the parade.’93 Since the reporter views the parade very closely, heightened proximity is related to the intimate or dramatic experience of the reporter.94 Thus, Campbell relates the perfect to ‘prominence.’95 Campbell does not connect the perfect to the aorist (or completed action), which indicates the occurrence of an action in the past.96 Buth suggests the Greek perfect be understood as ‘continuing an achieved state.’ His word ‘achieved’ seems to imply an anterior activity. However, he emphasizes ‘an ongoing relevance’ more than anterior activity. Thus, he understands the Greek perfect πεποίηκα as ‘a perfective that marks an ongoing relevance.’97 About ten years before Porter published his theory of the perfect, McKay almost denied the anterior activity of the perfect, focusing only on the present state of the subject.98 Following McKay’s view, Porter also disregarded the anterior activity of the perfect, instead suggesting that the perfect is chosen to deliver the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. Porter’s followers (Hatina, Decker, Mathewson) advocated for Porter’s view of the perfect. Porter and his followers reject the idea of anterior activity affecting the perfect. They disregard the inherent anterior activity of the perfect and instead suggest the notion of the highest prominence (frontground) in a larger context. Evans and Campbell see the perfect as the imperfective aspect (present tense). Evans finds the anterior activity of the perfect to arise from lexical factors, while Campbell tries to explain the anterior activity of the perfect with the notion of heightened proximity, connecting it prominence. Buth focuses on ‘an ongoing relevance,’ rather than anterior activity. Substitutive views, such as ‘the notion of prominence,’ ‘the imperfective aspect,’ ‘the notion of heightened proximity,’ and ‘an ongoing relevance’ have been suggested when the anterior activity of the perfect has been disregarded.

CO N C LU S I O N To conclude, in this chapter I emphasized the validity of the traditional understanding of the perfect. I  asserted that the perfect itself has an inherently dual feature of a present state and anterior activity and compared it with Porter’s understanding that the perfect itself indicates a single feature of ‘a present state.’ Most scholars agree that the perfect’s dual feature is a characteristic that distinguishes it from other tenses. Some find that there can be a shift of emphasis from one tense to the other, according to contextual factors; and others find that

78 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

there can be some cases in which the dual feature cannot be clearly perceived. Accordingly, various categories have been suggested for interpretation. However, I found that they do not deny the dual feature of the perfect. I focused on anterior activity because it is the crux of the debate between the traditional understanding of the perfect and Porter’s understanding of the perfect (which has triggered the feature of prominence). I  made the case that anterior activity cannot be disregarded. The diachronic development of the perfect proves that anterior activity has existed through Homeric Greek to Koine Greek, becoming even stronger in the Koine Greek. As to anterior activity, scholars are divided. First, some scholars accept anterior activity. Thus, they interpret the perfect, based on its inherently dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity without consulting many other contextual factors. This position is the traditional understanding of the perfect. Second, other scholars reject anterior activity. They interpret the perfect based on the single feature of its present state. They tend to rely on temporal indicators to find anterior activity, and they tend to change the semantics of the perfect according to temporal indicators outside the perfect. They also apply other interpretive methods for interpretation on a discourse level, for example, the notion of prominence. Porter belongs to this group. Taking the position of the first group, in the following chapters I will demonstrate that the traditional understanding of the perfect has more explanatory power than Porter’s understanding. To do so, I will use three rules as a means of discussion.

THREE RULES I have created a set of ‘Three Rules’ as a way to examine the use of the perfect within a text. The first basis for my Three Rules is Porter’s frame of binary pairs.99 Porter suggests that the perfect works within a binary opposition, indicating the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. He states, ‘The Perfect tense (stative aspect) is the most heavily marked formally, distributionally and semantically, and forms an opposition with the Present or Aorist (imperfective or perfective) opposition.’100 The second basis of my Three Rules is my assumption (rooted in the traditional understanding of the perfect) that an author chooses the perfect to express its dual feature in its immediate context while functioning as background for main events or themes in its larger context.101 With these two bases, I argue that the perfect finite verb is chosen to complement the meaning of the present or aorist in a binary opposition, highlighting one side or the other of its dual feature, depending on its associated part (Rule 1 and 2). Also, I argue that the perfect participle is chosen to describe a substantive with its dual feature (Rule 3).

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 79

Porter does not consider grammatical features, such as mood, main or subordinate clauses, conventional or idiomatic expressions, and functions of parts of speech, but he only focuses on aspectual distinctions between the members of binary pairs of Greek verbs (perfective, imperfective, stative). For example, in Romans 6:7–11, Porter connects the perfect indicative (δεδικαίωται) to the aorist participle, the aorist indicative, the present participle, and the present indicative. Then he argues that the perfect indicative plays a major role ‘for the following interplay of imperfective and perfective aspects.’102 In contrast, I  consider the grammatical features of a text. Accordingly, I have made two categories to explain the function of the perfect: ‘a finite verb’ and ‘an adjective.’

The First Category: The Perfect Working as a Finite Verb I assume that the speaker or writer chooses the form of the perfect finite verb, whether it is indicative or non-indicative, considering the dual feature of the perfect. I also assume that the perfect finite verb is used to complement the meaning of the present, the future, the aorist, or the imperfect, whether temporal or logical. Thus, I  attempt to associate the perfect with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative and with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative. In this category I do not pay much attention to voice because I understand that voice is not a priority for the speaker or writer to choose the perfect when he intends to express one side of the dual feature of the perfect. Rather the pendulum emphasis of the perfect is more related to what tense the perfect is associated with, especially when the perfect is used as a finite verb. There are two exceptions in this category. The first exception is the group of γέγραπται, οἶδα, and πέποιθας (or πέπεισμαι). These verbs appear in conventional or idiomatical structures with an objective clause. They are connected with the objective clause instead of another verb. The other exception is the perfect infinitive (Mark 5:4; Rom 4:1, 15:8, 19) and the pluperfect. Whether it is associated with the present or the aorist, the perfect infinitive always delivers anterior temporality to the main verb. The pluperfect always occurs in the narrative past time, and it delivers anterior temporality to the past time. Rule 1 is applied to both the perfect infinitive and the pluperfect because of their feature of anterior temporality. These exceptions will be explained in chs 4 and 5. I have formulated Rules 1 and 2 according to these assumptions.

Rule 1: The Perfect Finite Verb with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative When the speaker or writer chooses the perfect finite verb in association with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, the perfect highlights the subject’s

80 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

anterior activity (either temporal or logical) while still engaging its present state. In other words, the perfect is used to complement the meaning of the non-past indicative or present non-indicative by indicating anterior activity, which is temporal or logical. The label ‘non-past indicative’ includes the present or future tense indicatives. The label ‘present non-indicative’ includes the present tense in the non-indicative. In the case where there is no explicit verb in a present-referring situation, the perfect is associated with the present situation in which a present tense is implied. The present-referring situation is established with contextual features such as direct discourse, expository discourse, and others.

Rule 2: The Perfect Finite Verb with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative When the speaker or writer chooses the perfect finite verb in association with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, the perfect highlights the subject’s present state that has resulted from anterior activity, which is temporal or logical. In other words, the perfect complements the meaning of the past indicative or aorist non-indicative by indicating the subject’s present state. The label ‘past indicative’ includes the aorist or imperfect indicatives. The label ‘aorist non-indicative’ includes the aorist tense in the non-indicative, which is used to express a logically completed action. In the case where there is no explicit verb in a past-referring situation, the perfect is associated with the past situation in which a narrative past tense is omitted. The past-referring situation is established with contextual features such as narrative discourse and others.

The Second Category: The Perfect Participle Working as an Adjective I assume that the speaker or writer chooses the perfect participle with the intention to describe a substantive as an adjective. In other words, the perfect participle, through its inherent-dual feature, describes the substantive as having a present state (or contemporary state) resulting from anterior activity. In this category the pendulum movement, which is the shift of emphasis from one side of the dual feature to the other, is influenced by the voice (active or middle/passive). However, the main reason for the speaker or writer to choose the perfect participle is to deliver the full meaning captured by its dual feature. Based on these assumptions, I have formulated Rule 3.

Rule 3: The Perfect Participle with a Substantive When the speaker or writer chooses the perfect participle in connection with a substantive, the perfect participle describes the substantive with its dual feature.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 81

The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity while still engaging its present state. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state that results from anterior activity. Although one side of the perfect’s dual feature may be highlighted over the other, according to the voice, the choice of the perfect participle is due to the author’s wish to describe the substantive with the full meaning conveyed by the perfect’s dual feature. Regarding the highlighting of one of the perfect’s features over the other, there is some exception. That is the family of ἵστημι (ἐνίστημι, παρίστημι, or ἀνθίστημι). This family is lexically constrained to take active forms, but has intransitive meaning, highlighting a present state as if it were the middle/passive participle, but it still implies anterior activity. This family does not have middle/passive forms. Table 3.1. Three Rules. Source: Author The perfect verb form

The part associated with the perfect Use of the perfect

Rule 1

The perfect finite verba

Rule 2

The perfect finite verb The perfect participle

The non-past indicative or present nonindicative The past indicative or aorist non-indicative A substantive

Rule 3

Highlights the subject’s anterior activity and still engages its present state. Highlights the subject’s present state, resulting from anterior activity. Describes the substantive with the dual feature of the perfect. The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state.

The perfect finite verb includes the indicative and non-indicative.

a

The speaker or writer’s choice Rule 1

Non-past indicative or present non-indicative

Rule 2

The form of the perfect finite verb

Highlight of anterior activity

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

Past indicative or aorist non-indicative

Highlight of present state

82 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Rule 3 The speaker or writer’s choice

Active voice

Middle/passive voice The form of the perfect participle

A substantive Highlight of anterior activity

Highlight of present state

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

In chs 4 and 5, my Three Rules will be applied to the perfects appearing in Mark and Romans. It will be discussed that the perfect is chosen to indicate its dual feature in its immediate context, while functioning as background for main events or themes in its larger context. In addition, the pluperfect will be dealt with based on the three rules designed for the perfect because the pluperfect is functionally the same as the perfect. The only difference is that it appears in a past-referring context, while the perfect appears in a present-referring context. My work in chs 4 and 5 will demonstrate that Porter’s suggestions of a third level of frontground (the highest prominence) are not valid and that the traditional understanding of the perfect has more explanatory power. notes 1. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 107. 2. Fanning (1990) suggests a three-fold meaning of the perfect: ‘an Aktionsart-feature of stative situation, an internal tense-feature of anteriority, and an aspect-feature of summary viewpoint concerning an occurrence.’ He uses these three features to denote double duty of the perfect: ‘a condition resulting from an anterior occurrence.’ Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 290–291. Perschbacher (1995) says the ‘perfect tense is the tense of completed action focusing on the existence of the finished results.’ W. J. Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 310. Wallace (1996) follows the basic agreement among grammarians that the perfect has two elements: a completed action and a resultant state. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 573.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 83

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Bhat (1999) explains the dual feature of the perfect in three different perspectives. According to the temporal view, the perfect indicates ‘a past event with current relevance.’ According to the aspectual view, the perfect describes ‘a completed (perfective) event with continuing (imperfective) relevance.’ According to the modal view, the perfect expresses ‘realis event with irrealis relevance (something needs to be done).’ D. N. Shankara Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), 170. Orriens (2009) views the perfect as ‘a reciprocal (or bilateral) relationship between a completed past [state of affairs] and the moment of speech.’ Sander Orriens, ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device,’ in Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, ed. Stéphanie J. Bakker and G. C. Wakker (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 225. Horrocks (2009) believes that the perfect ‘entails the notion of continuing relevance for the earlier event.’ Geoffrey C. Horrocks, Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers, 2nd ed. (Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 176. Crellin (2014) suggests that the dual feature of the perfect (a prior event and a present state) should be seen as a single semantic function of the perfect. Robert Crellin, ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek,’ JGL 14 (2014): 16–39. Ellis (2016) rejects the term ‘stative’ and calls the perfect a ‘combinative aspect’ which ‘reflects the perfective nature of the verbal event and the imperfective nature of its ongoing relevance.’ Nicholas J.  Ellis, ‘Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for the Greek Verb,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 143. All the scholars above mention a dual feature of the perfect: a present state and anterior activity. (I have only listed some scholars from 1990 up to 2016, but there are more.) Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 80. Albert L. Lloyd, Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979), 119. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 200. A. N.  Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (London:  Macmillan, 1897), 438–439. Orriens, ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device,’ 239. Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics (New York: Garland, 1997), 24. Dag T.  T. Haug, ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect,’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 396. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 245. Ibid., 90–93. The perfect is generally distinguished by two terms:  ‘the intensive perfect’ and ‘the extensive perfect,’ based on the shift of emphatic force of the perfect’s dual feature. ‘The intensive perfect’ is the term for the emphasis of the existing result (or a present state) and ‘the extensive perfect’ is the term for the emphasis of anterior activity (or completed action). Dana and Mantey (1957) use the term ‘the intensive perfect’ to describe the emphasis of the existing results and use the term ‘the consummative perfect’ to describe a completed action. See Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 202–203. MacDonald (1986) uses ‘the intensive perfect’ when ‘the existing-result character of the perfect tense’ is emphasized and uses ‘the pure perfect’ when ‘completed action with lasting effects’ is emphasized. See William Graham

84 

13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion:  A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Handrickson Publishers, 1986), 36. Wallace (1996) uses the term ‘the intensive perfect’ for the perfect which emphasizes ‘the results or present state produced by a past action’ and uses ‘the extensive perfect’ for the perfect which emphasizes ‘the completed action of a past action or process from which a present emerges.’ Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 576. Constantine R.  Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative:  Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Greek 13 (New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 162. He describes first, ‘the intensive present perfect,’ which has only the durative force and not the punctiliar force; second, ‘the extensive present perfect,’ which focuses on a completed state; third, ‘the present perfect of broken continuity,’ which indicates a series of actions; fourth, ‘the dramatic historical present perfect,’ which is used for vividness; fifth, ‘the gnomic present perfect’; sixth, ‘the perfect in indirect perfect’; seventh, ‘futuristic present perfect’; eighth, ‘the aoristic present perfect’; ninth ‘the periphrastic perfect’; and, tenth, ‘present as perfect.’ See Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd ed., International Critical Commentary (New York: Scribners, 1914), 894–903. First, the present perfect delivers wholly the sense of a present, e.g. ἕστηκα, πέποιθα, μέμνημαι. Second, the perfect is used to denote a continuing effect on a subject or object, which is the same as the extensive perfect of Robertson. Third, the perfect is used for ‘the aorist.’ Fourth, the perfect is used in general assertions or imaginary examples. Fifth, the perfect is used to expresss relative time. See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 176–177. They are the ‘intensive perfect’ (which emphasizes the present state of being, the continuing result); ‘consummative perfect’ (which emphasizes the past, a completed action); ‘iterative perfect’ (which emphasizes a past iterative action); ‘dramatic perfect’ (which brings a past event vivdly into the present); and ‘gnomic perfect’ (which has no element of result). See James A. Brooks and Carlton L.  Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD:  University Press of America, 1979), 95–98. To Perschbacher, the ‘intensive perfect’ indicates a past action with emphasis placed on the results of the action. The ‘consummative perfect’ indicates action completed in the past with no specific focus on the results. The ‘iterative perfect’ indicates repetitive but completed action. The ‘aorist perfect’ functions as a simple aorist. The other two divisions are ‘perfect as present’ and ‘gnomic perfect.’ See Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax, 310. Wallace bases his divisions on three main uses of the perfect: normative, collapsed, and specialized perfects. The normative uses of the perfect involve both the external and internal aspects. The collapsed perfects involve either the interal or external because of contextual or lexical interference. The specialized perfects are rare. He further categorizes these three groups in detail: the ‘intensive perfect’ (also known as ‘resultative perfect’), ‘extensive perfect’ (also known as ‘cosummative perfect’), ‘aoristic perfect’ (also knows as ‘dramatic or historical perfect’), ‘perfect with a present force,’ ‘gnomic perfect,’ ‘proleptic (futuristic) perfect,’ and ‘perfect of allegory.’ Out of these categories, Wallace highlights three functions—‘intensive perfect,’ ‘extensive perfect,’ and ‘perfect with a present force.’ See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 572–582. They are ‘perfect of resulting state,’ ‘perfect of completed action,’ ‘perfect with purely present meaning,’ and ‘perfect with aoristic sense.’ See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 290–305. Porter’s category includes ‘past,’ ‘present,’ ‘future,’ ‘omnitemporal,’ and ‘timeless.’ See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 260–270.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 85

21. Bybee, Perkins, Pagliuca define ‘an anterior’ as a signal that ‘the situation occurs prior to reference time and is relevant to the situation at reference time.’ They distinguish ‘anterior’ from ‘completive’ that focuses on completion of an action without any relevance to a present situation. They also distinguish ‘anterior’ from ‘perfective’ that refer to situations that occurred in the past. See Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World (Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1994), 54. Haug and Haspelmath use the term ‘anterior’ as the same meaning as them. Dag T. T. Haug, ‘From Resultatives to Anteriors in Ancient Greek: On the Role of Paradigmaticity in Semantic Change,’ in Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, ed. T.  Eythorsson (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008), 292; Martin Haspelmath, ‘From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek,’ Función 11–12 (1992): 209. 22. The present relational adverbs are used to mean those that express a relationship between the present and some other time in the past. 23. Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, 54, 61. 24. He studied the periphrastic construction in extra-biblical writings in fifth century BC. Klaas Bentein, ‘The Periphrastic Perfect in Ancient Greek: A Diachronic Mental Space Analysis,’ TPS, no. 2 (2012): 171. 25. For Bentein, the term ‘resultative’ is different form ‘stative.’ The former is a state resulting from some action in the past, while the latter is a state with no implied previous event. Bentein distinguishes his ‘resultative perfect’ from Wackernagel’s (1904) and Chantraine’s (1927) ‘resultative perfect.’ Theirs describes the state of the object; his describes the state of the subject. See ibid., 176. 26. Haug, ‘From Resultatives to Anteriors in Ancient Greek:  On the Role of Paradigmaticity in Semantic Change,’ 303. Haug explains the shift from the resultant state to the target state. The resultant state is the state resulting from a previous event, that is, the state after the event’s culmination: for example, Mary has eaten lunch. The target state is the state of the event, that is, the state of the event’s activity: for example, the state of a ball on the roof once it has been ball onto the roof. See ibid., 398–399. According to Haug, in Homeric Greek (750 BC) the perfect always referred to a target state from telic verbs. Later in Old Attic Greek (fifth century BC) the target state developed to the resultant state with atelic verbs. In fourth century Attic Greek, the resultant state of the event shifted to have anterior meaning, including a current relevance. For more information, see ibid., 292–302; Haug, ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect,’ 409. 27. Haug, ‘From Resultatives to Anteriors in Ancient Greek:  On the Role of Paradigmaticity in Semantic Change,’ 293–303. According to Haug, in Homeric Greek, there was a change in voice from the active perfect (‘ephthora’ ‘I am destroyed’) to the middle perfect (‘ephtharmai’ ‘I am destroyed’), and then a change to the active with anterior activity (‘ephthora’ ‘[I]‌have destroyed’). Later, in the fifth century ephthora was changed to ephtharka, which is related to ‘current relevance.’ See ibid., 302. The old active perfect is often ‘patient-oriented, like the middle.’ See Haspelmath, ‘From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek,’ 194. 28. C. M.  J. Sicking and P.  Stork, Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 151–158. 29. In Homeric Greek (eighth century to seventh century BC), the perfect active was used for patient-oriented events and thus was resultative and focused on a present state. In Classical Greek, the perfect active was used for agent-oriented events, which mostly had a preceding event and still had a resultative state. This development continued to post-Classical Greek where the

86 

30. 31.

32.

33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

perfect began to be used to indicate a past event, and so the perfect was supplanted by the aorist, eventually disappearing. For more information, see Haspelmath, ‘From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek,’ 218–221. Eva-Carin Gerö and Arnim von Stechow, ‘Tense in Time:  The Greek Perfect,’ in Words in Time:  Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View, ed. Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger, and Christoph Schwarze (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003), 253. As evidence, he presents the morphological fusion of the –κα in both δέδωκα and ἔδωκα, where the same ending was used for both the perfect and the aorist. See Antonius N. Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchandlung, 1968), 440. Allan studied the historical semantic development of the perfect from PIE (Proto-Indo-European) to Classical Greek. His first stage is the ‘resultative-stative’—a resulting state, in which ‘the subject was in a physical or mental state resulting from a prior event.’ An example would be the sentence Ἥρη τίπτε βέβηκας; ‘Hera, why have you come?’ (Hom. Il. 15.90). Allan differentiates his idea of the resultative state from Chantraine’s—his is the resultative state of the subject, while Chantraine’s is the resultative state of the object. In Allan’s second stage, the ‘current relevance (anterior),’ the perfect was the focus of the anterior and signaled the situation occurring prior to the reference time while having a present relevance. Allan explained that the semantic change of this second stage occurred in the appearance of transitive perfects, which expressed the subject’s responsibility for past action, not the resultative state of the object. Allan also mentions that although there was a semantic change, the resultative-stative meaning of the first stage still existed together with the new meaning of current relevance (anterior) of the second stage. In Allan’s final stage, the semantic meaning of the perfect changed to ‘past perfective,’ which is most similar to the aorist. See Rutger K. Allan, ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 102–109. Haug presents the perfect’s semantic change as a change to the ‘responsibility of the subject,’ using the verb tiktō. The transitive verb tiktō is used with a transitive meaning in the present and the aorist, taking the child as an object. However, the perfect tetoka refers to the realm of responsibility with a meaning of ‘being in the puerperal state,’ which does not indicate a result of begetting, but rather current relevance. This situation, Haug mentions, is related to its lexical character. See Haug, ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect,’ 406. Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 52. Ibid. Ibid. Comrie mainly focuses on the English perfect, presenting four sub-types: the perfect of result, the experiential perfect, the perfect of persistent situation, and the perfect of recent past. Although the Greek perfect is more restricted to perfective aspect or a completed anterior activity than the English perfect, Comrie makes clear in the four sub-types of the English perfect that the perfect is based on a prior situation. For more information, see ibid., 52–64. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 290. Ibid., 291. Ibid., 144–145. Ibid., 138–139. Carlota S. Smith, The Parameter of Aspect, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991), 151. Ibid., 149.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 87

42. For the perfect tense, the reference time is the same as the time of speaking (deictic center). For the pluperfect, the reference time is prior to the time of speaking. Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model, 142–143. 43. She mentions two aspects: ‘grammatical aspect’ and ‘lexical aspect.’ The grammatical aspect is a viewpoint on the ‘internal temporal constituency’ of one action that she labels ‘lexical aspect.’ Both aspects involve temporal notion. For more information, see ibid., 8–26. 44. J. Bybee, Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985), 160. 45. Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar, 61. 46. Bhat, The Prominence of Tense, 170. 47. Ibid. 48. Ibid. 49. Orriens, ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device,’ 225. 50. In other words, he says, ‘the perfect is used as a situating cohesion device.’ Ibid., 227. 51. Ibid. 52. He finds some vowel changes between the perfect and the aorist. This formal change created the functional change. In this period, the perfect came to be used as a simple past tense. For more information, see Horrocks, Greek, 174–176. 53. Ibid., 177. 54. Ibid., 176. 55. Steven E. Runge, ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.  Runge and Christopher J.  Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 462. 56. Runge does not support the idea that the perfect is chosen for prominence. Runge suggests three types of uses of the perfect in terms of ‘relevance.’ See ibid., 463–472. 57. Crellin studied Bishop Wulfila’s fourth-century translation of the Greek text. See Crellin, ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek,’ 16. 58. Crellin’s definition is: ‘The perfect of a predicate P denotes a property of the subject S existing at or beyond a terminal point of the event as determined by the event structure of P.’ See ibid., 38. 59. Ibid., 38–39. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid., 30. 62. Ibid., 10. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 259. 63. K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ NovT 23 (1981): 290. Based on his study of the Greek perfect usage from the time of Homer to the Roman period, McKay understands that the state of an action verb results from ‘a prior action or series of actions,’ and the state of a state verb results from ‘the aoristic operation of that verb.’ In addition, McKay also understands that there are minor functions, such as ‘equivalent of present,’ ‘dramatic or emphatic use,’ and others, which are not related to anteriority. See K. L. McKay, ‘The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century A.D.,’ BICS 12 (December 1965): 17. 64. K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, Studies in Biblical Greek 5, ed. Donald Arthur Carson (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 31. 65. Ibid., 49. 66. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 98–102.

88  67. 68. 69. 70.

71.

72. 73. 74. 75.

76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

82.

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Ibid. Ibid., 256. Ibid., 260–270. According to Haug, the original semantic change means that the semantics of the perfect that we have now is originated from the semantic change occurring from Homeric Greek to Classical Greek through paradigmatic change in a verbal system. The perfect went through three stages. More information is presented in the next endnote. Haug, ‘From Resultatives to Anteriors in Ancient Greek:  On the Role of Paradigmaticity in Semantic Change,’ 291–303. Haug argues that the semantic change of the perfect from resultative to perfect or anterior is more related to a morphologically paradigmatic change of the perfect than syntagmatic relations within a sentence, which cause pragmatic inferencing. According to IITSC (The Invited Inference Theory of Semantic Change), inferences tend to become conventionalized and part of semantic meaning. However, Haug does not agree with IITSC. Haug observed that the semantic change of the perfect is based on paradigmatic change in a verbal system. For example, the active morphology of the perfect ephthora ‘am destroyed,’ which was used as middle semantics, was replaced with middle morphology ephtharmai ‘am destroyed.’ Then active form ephthora came to mean ‘have destroyed.’ Haug also suggests that although this new active form ephthora attained anterior-like semantics, it may have kept its resultative semantics. See ibid., 302. Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Richard B.  Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 1. Porter believes that anterior activity is expressed by lexis in context, so he relies on pragmatic implicatures to figure out the semantics of the perfect. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 259. Stanley E. Porter, Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2015), 211. Thomas R. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Colossians: Verbal Aspect, Temporality and the Challenge of Translation,’ in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 173 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 249. Ibid., 224. For more discussion, see Thomas R. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study,’ FN 15 Vol.8 (1995): 14–15; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 22–23, 301–303. Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, Studies in Biblical Greek 10 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 153. Ibid., 148. Ibid., 109. Decker suggests that the temporal references in Mark’s parables are all temporally unrestricted references, so the perfects in the parables in Mark are not to be understood with even logical anteriority. See ibid., 148. David Mathewson, ‘Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John:  An Analysis of Revelation 5,’ NovT 50, no. 1 (2008): 76. To see more of his view of temporality, refer to David Mathewson, Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse, Linguistic Biblical Studies 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 14–15. Mathewson, ‘Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John: An Analysis of Revelation 5,’ 76. When he works on the shifts of the Greek verb in Revelation 5, Mathewson does not apply temporal notions to them.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 89

83. Ibid., 71; Steven Thompson, The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985), 39. 84. Mathewson cites many scholars who support this. See Mathewson, ‘Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John: An Analysis of Revelation 5,’ 72, fn. 48. 85. See Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 896. 86. For more discussion, see Mathewson, ‘Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John: An Analysis of Revelation 5,’ 73–74. 87. T. A. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 32. 88. Trevor V. Evans, ‘Another Ghost: The Greek Epistolary Perfect,’ Glotta 75 (1999): 202. 89. Evans, Verbal Syntax, 147. 90. Evans, ‘Another Ghost: The Greek Epistolary Perfect,’ 203. 91. He thinks that ‘the diachronic functional merging with past tenses is probably connected with the effects of lexical semantics’ because he believes that the IE perfect was ‘in origin a special kind of present tense.’ See Evans, Verbal Syntax, 31–32. 92. Campbell argues that stativity belongs to Aktionsart, not to aspect. Thus, he regards the perfect as imperfective. See Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, 174. Proximity is a term of spatial value. The imperfect tense (remote imperfectivity) indicates that a parade (an event or state) is viewed from a remote distance—the reporter’s viewpoint. The present tense (proximate imperfectivity) indicates that a parade (an event or state) is viewed from a proximate distance— the reporter’s viewpoint. The perfect tense (heightened proximity) is a higher level of proximity than the present tense. See ibid., 197–199. Fanning does not agree with Campbell’s imperfective aspect for the perfect. See, Buist M. Fanning, ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect,’ in The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson (New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming). 93. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, 199. 94. Ibid. 95. Ibid., 206. Campbell’s prominence, which means ‘stress,’ is different from Porter’s ‘frontground.’ Campbell understands, for example, in the case of γέγραπται (which is used with scriptural citations) that the perfect is used to express the significance of introducing scripture. He does not consider the anterior activity of writing scripture. See ibid., 208–209. 96. Ibid., 184–187. 97. Randall Buth, ‘Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.  Runge and Christopher J.  Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 422–423. 98. McKay almost argues that the perfect does not refer to anterior activity itself, although the state or the condition of the subject of the verb is the result of prior action. See McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ 296. McKay explains, in his exposition of John 7:22, that the aorist would have stressed the activity of giving; but the perfect (δέδωκεν) functions to move the emphasis to the person responsible for the activity of giving. For more discussion, refer to ibid., 315. 99. My first base has been formed to present that I basically agree to the perfect’s binary pair, which is a pair between the perfect and the present (or aorist), in the case of the perfect working as a finite verb. Based on this, I have developed the function of the perfect participle as an adjective. Porter suggests two binary pairs based on verbal aspect (perfective, imperfective, and stative). The first pair is between ‘+perfective’ (Aorist) and ‘–perfective.’ Under ‘–perfective,’ there is a second

90 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

pair of ‘+imperfective’ (Present) and ‘+stative’ (Perfect). With this network, ‘+stative’ (Perfect) and ‘+perfective’ (Aorist) can form a pair. Or ‘+stative’ (Perfect) and ‘+imperfective’ (Present) can form a pair. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90. 100. Ibid. 101. The second base has been formed to refute Porter’s argument that the perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. 102. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90.

bibliography Allan, Rutger K. ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 81–121. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Bentein, Klaas. ‘The Periphrastic Perfect in Ancient Greek: A Diachronic Mental Space Analysis.’ TPS, no. 2 (2012): 171–211. Bhat, D. N. Shankara. The Prominence of Tense, Aspect, and Mood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Brooks, James A., and Carlton L. Winbery. Syntax of New Testament Greek. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979. Buth, Randall. ‘Perfect Greek Morphology and Pedagogy.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 416–429. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Bybee, Joan. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar:  Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek.’ JGL 14 (2014): 5–42. Dana, Harvey Eugene, and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. Studies in Biblical Greek 10. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Ellis, Nicholas J. ‘Aspect-Prominence, Morpho-Syntax, and a Cognitive-Linguistic Framework for the Greek Verb.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 122–160. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Evans, Theodor. A. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Evans, Trevor V. ‘Another Ghost: The Greek Epistolary Perfect.’ Glotta 75 (1999): 194–221. Fanning, Buist M. ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect.’ In The Perfect Volume:  Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson, 1–20. New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming.

the tr aditional understa n d i n g o f t h e p e rf e c t  | 91

Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Gerö, Eva-Carin, and Arnim vonStechow. ‘Tense in Time: The Greek Perfect.’ In Words in Time: Diachronic Semantics from Different Points of View, ed. Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger, and Christoph Schwarze, 251–293. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. Haspelmath, Martin. ‘From Resultative to Perfect in Ancient Greek.’ Función 11–12 (1992): 187–224. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study.’ FN 15 8 (1995): 3–22. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Colossians: Verbal Aspect, Temporality and the Challenge of Translation.’ In Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 173, 224–252. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.Haug, Dag T. T. ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect.’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 387–418. Haug, Dag T. T. ‘From Resultatives to Anteriors in Ancient Greek: On the Role of Paradigmaticity in Semantic Change.’ In Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, ed. Thórhallur Eythórsson, 285–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Horrocks, Geoffrey C. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. 2nd ed. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Jannaris, Antonius Nikolaus. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. London: Macmillan, 1897. Jannaris, Antonius Nikolaus. An Historical Greek Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchandlung, 1968. Lloyd, Albert Lancaster. Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979. MacDonald, William Graham. Greek Enchiridion: A Concise Handbook of Grammar for Translation and Exegesis. Peabody, MA: Handrickson Publishers, 1986. Mathewson, David. ‘Verbal Aspect in the Apocalypse of John: An Analysis of Revelation 5.’ NovT 50, no. 1 (2008): 58–77. Mathewson, David. Verbal Aspect in the Book of Revelation: The Function of Greek Verb Tenses in John’s Apocalypse. Linguistic Biblical Studies 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. McKay, K enneth Leslie. ‘The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century A.D.’. BICS 12 (December 1965): 1–21. McKay, Kenneth Leslie. ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.’ NovT 23 (1981): 289–329. McKay, K. L. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. Studies in Biblical Greek 5, ed. Donald Arthur Carson. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland, 1997. Orriens, Sander. ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device.’ In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, ed. Stéphanie J. Bakker and Gerry C. Wakker, 221–39. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Perschbacher, W. J. New Testament Greek Syntax. Chicago: Moody, 1995. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:  Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994.

92 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Porter, Stanley E. Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament: Studies in Tools, Methods, and Practice. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2015. Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribners, 1914. Runge, Steven E. ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 458–485. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Sicking, C. M.  J., and P. Stork. Two Studies in the Semantics of the Verb in Classical Greek. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Smith, Carlota S. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991. Thompson, Steven. The Apocalypse and Semitic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965. Wallace, Daniel Baird. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

C HAPTER F O U R

The Perfect Tense in Mark

In this chapter I  will examine all the perfects in the Gospel of Mark as a test case for narrative discourse. Based on my Three Rules, I will discuss ninety-two perfects and eight pluperfects. All are divided into five groups for discussion: perfect indicative, perfect non-indicative, individual treatments (γέγραπται, οἶδα, ἵστημι, παρίστημι), pluperfect, and passage studies. For clarity, I have marked the perfects and the pluperfects with bold letters and underlined their associated parts in following tables.

T H E P E R F E C T I N D I C AT I V E Mark has forty-seven perfects in the indicative; of these, forty-two perfects1 occur in direct discourse. This observation shows that the perfect indicative is used for communication at the moment of speech. The other five perfect indicatives (Mark 5:29, 33, 15:44, 15:47, 16:4) appear in subordinate clauses (ὅτι, ὃ, εἰ, ποῦ, ὅτι) that introduce the contents of self-thought or self-perception. As Orriens points out, the perfect is not a narrative tense; rather, it is used ‘in monological and dialogical discourse.’2 Out of the forty-seven perfect indicatives, I exclude twenty-one occurrences of three perfects (γέγραπται, οἶδα, παρέστηκεν), which are discussed in the individual treatments section. Twenty-six perfect indicatives are discussed based on my Three Rules. I apply Rule 1 to the eighteen cases in which the perfect is associated with the non-past

94 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

indicative or present non-indicative in direct discourse. I apply Rule 2 to the eight cases in which the perfect is associated with the past indicative. Out of these, three cases occur in a present-referring situation (direct discourse), and five cases occur in a past-referring situation (narrative past time). These eight cases of the perfect in Mark are found not to be associated with the aorist non-indicative.

The Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative in Direct Discourse: Rule 1 Eighteen perfects appear here in a direct discourse, which is a present-referring situation. In this context, the perfect is used with the present or future indicative and the present non-indicative. Porter may explain the semantic function of the perfect with the idea of aspectual opposition between the perfect and the present. In his argument, the present is a foreground tense, and the perfect is a frontground tense. Thus, Porter interprets the perfect to function as the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. Porter pays little attention to the function of the future in discourse because he believes that the future is aspectually vague.3 Unlike Porter, I argue that the perfect functions as background for main events or themes in a larger context,4 complementing the meaning of the present or future indicative or of the present non-indicative in an immediate context.5 The complemented meaning is anterior activity. Thus, I say that the perfect is chosen to highlight anterior activity and it still engages its present state. The following discussion of each verse can show that my Three Rules prevail over Porter’s view.

πεπλήρωται, ἤγγικεν in 1:15 In the larger context (vv. 14–15), Porter may argue that the present state of the fulfillment of time and the arrival of the kingdom of God is more prominent than the present injunction of repenting and believing the gospel because the former is expressed with the perfect and the latter with the present. However, it is the opposite. The perfect is used as background for the present. In Mark 1:15, ‘The fulfillment of Jesus’ time and the arrival of the kingdom of God’ (πεπλήρωται and ἤγγικεν) functions to give the background reason why people should repent and believe the gospel (μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε). According to my Rule 1, two perfects (πεπλήρωται and ἤγγικεν) are associated with two present imperatives (μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε). I suggest that the two perfects in Mark 1:15 are chosen to complement the limited meaning of the two present imperatives by indicating anterior activity. Thus, the two perfects highlight anterior activity that results in the present state of the time fulfilled and the arrival of God’s kingdom in the immediate context (v. 15). However, in the larger context (vv. 14–15), the two perfects are used to support the main theme of ‘repent and

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 95

Table 4.1. Eighteen Perfects with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author Rulea NA28b R1 R1 R1

R1 R1

R1

R1 R1

R1

NETc

Mark 1:15 καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. Mark 14:42 ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν· ἰδοὺ ὁ παραδιδούς με ἤγγικεν.d Mark 4:11 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ὑμῖν τὸ μυστήριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐκείνοις δὲ τοῖς ἔξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὰ πάντα γίνεται, Mark 4:12 ἵνα βλέποντες βλέπωσιν καὶ μὴ ἴδωσιν, καὶ ἀκούοντες ἀκούωσιν καὶ μὴ συνιῶσιν, μήποτε ἐπιστρέψωσιν καὶ ἀφεθῇ αὐτοῖς. Mark 5:34 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγός σου. Mark 10:52 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.e

Mark 1:15 He said, ‘The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the gospel!’ Mark 14:42 Get up, let us go. Look! My betrayer is approaching!’ Mark 4:11 He said to them, ‘The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside, everything is in parables, Mark 4:12 so that although they look they may look but not see, and although they hear they may hear but not understand, so they may not repent and be forgiven.’ Mark 5:34 He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’ Mark 10:52 Jesus said to him, ‘Go, your faith has healed you.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the road. Mark 6:14 Καὶ ἤκουσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς Mark 6:14 Now King Herod heard this, Ἡρῴδης, φανερὸν γὰρ ἐγένετο τὸ ὄνομα for Jesus’ name had become known. Some αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτίζων were saying, ‘John the baptizer has been ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐνεργοῦσ raised from the dead, and because of this, ιν αἱ δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ. miraculous powers are at work in him.’ Mark 7:29 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· διὰ τοῦτον τὸν Mark 7:29 Then he said to her, ‘Because λόγον ὕπαγε, ἐξελήλυθεν ἐκ τῆς θυγατρός you said this, you may go. The demon has σου τὸ δαιμόνιον. left your daughter.’ Mark 9:13 ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ Ἠλίας Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah ἐλήλυθεν, καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον, has certainly come, and they did to him καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. whatever they wanted, just as it is written about him.’ Mark 7:37 καὶ ὑπερπερισσῶς ἐξεπλήσσοντο Mark 7:37 People were completely λέγοντες· καλῶς πάντα πεποίηκεν, καὶ τοὺς astounded and said, ‘He has done κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν καὶ [τοὺς] ἀλάλους everything well. He even makes the deaf λαλεῖν. hear and the mute speak.’ Continued 

96 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.1. Continued Rulea NA28b

NETc

R1

Mark 11:17 Then he began to teach them and said, ‘Is it not written: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations?” But you have turned it into a den of robbers!’

R1 R1 R1

R1 R1 R1

R1

Mark 11:17 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.f Mark 8:3 καὶ ἐὰν ἀπολύσω αὐτοὺς νήστεις εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν, ἐκλυθήσονται ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ· καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν. Mark 9:21 καὶ ἐπηρώτησεν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ· πόσος χρόνος ἐστὶν ὡς τοῦτο γέγονεν αὐτῷ; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· ἐκ παιδιόθεν· Mark 13:19 ἔσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι ἐκεῖναι θλῖψις οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ἣν ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς ἕως τοῦ νῦν καὶ οὐ μὴ γένηται.g

Mark 8:3 If I send them home hungry, they will faint on the way, and some of them have come from a great distance.’ Mark 9:21 Jesus asked his father, ‘How long has this been happening to him?’ And he said, ‘From childhood. Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, or ever will happen. Mark 13:23 ὑμεῖς δὲ βλέπετε· προείρηκα Mark 13:23 Be careful! I have told you ὑμῖν πάντα. everything ahead of time. Mark 14:4 ἦσαν δέ τινες ἀγανακτοῦντες Mark 14:4 But some who were present πρὸς ἑαυτούς· εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ indignantly said to one another, ‘Why this μύρου γέγονεν;h waste of expensive ointment? Mark 9:42 Καὶ ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν Mark 9:42 ‘If anyone causes one of these μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων [εἰς ἐμέ], little ones who believe in me to sin, it καλόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ μᾶλλον εἰ περίκειται would be better for him to have a huge μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τὸν τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ millstone tied around his neck and to be βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν. thrown into the sea. Mark 10:40 τὸ δὲ καθίσαι ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἢ Mark 10:40 but to sit at my right or at my ἐξ εὐωνύμων οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸν δοῦναι, ἀλλ᾿ οἷς left is not mine to give. It is for those for ἡτοίμασται. whom it has been prepared.’

I labeled each case with one of my Three Rules so the reader might immediately know my judgment. For this paper, I use Greek texts from Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition. c For this paper, I put the New English Translation (NET) beside the Greek texts for the reader’s understanding. d Basically, the verses of Mark are placed in order in these columns. However, Mark 14:42 is placed after Mark 1:15 because both have the same perfect form (ἤγγικεν), and so it is proper to discuss them together. e Mark 10:52 is placed after Mark 5:34 because they have the same perfect (σέσωκεν). f Mark 11:17 is placed after Mark 7:37 because they have the same perfect (πεποίηκεν and πεποιήκατε). g Mark 13:19 is placed after Mark 9:21 because they have the same perfect (γέγονεν). h I deal with the perfect (γέγονεν) in Mark 14:4 separately because it has no associated verb. That is why there is no underlined word in this verse. a

b

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 97

believe the gospel.’ In other words, the perfect, which highlights anterior activity in the immediate context (1:15), supports two present imperatives (‘repent and believe the gospel’), which is the main theme in the larger context (1:14–15). Thus, in the larger context, although it is only two verses, the present imperatives are more prominent than the perfect, which is opposite to Porter’s view. The implication is that the time of Jesus, which was prophesied in the past, is now fulfilled6 and the kingdom of God, which has arrived on earth through Jesus, is now highlighted. With the present result of the anterior activity, people are encouraged to repent and believe the gospel. Through the perfect, the author may have wanted to point out that the present realization of God’s kingdom through Jesus is connected to prior historical activity. The lexical meaning of ἐγγίζω is ‘draw near, come near, or approach,’ which is an atelic verb. This verb tends to be used with a telic endpoint by using a modifier, and together the verb and modifier can mean ‘drawing closer to a reference point or drawing near in a temporal sense’ (BDAG, 270). All kinds of tenses appear in the NT.7 The present in the indicative expresses simply the present action not related to the past and is used with some forward destination.8 The aorist in the indicative is related to narrative events occurring in the past, which do not indicate their present states, and it is also used with some forward destination.9 However, the perfect (ἤγγικεν), which is used in light of its inherent dual feature of the past and the present, is not used with a forward destination.10 Unlike the present and the aorist, the use of the perfect without a forward destination indicates that the perfect is not involved in the active process of events or themes but in supporting main events or themes. Guelich understands that ἤγγικεν is used to indicate ‘the kingdom of God has “come into history.” ’11 He perceives the prior activity of the kingdom of God from ἤγγικεν to its present arrival. However, there are some scholars who do not accept the dual feature of the perfect. Palu does not consider the anterior activity of this perfect, as does Porter, because he believes the prior event is no longer semantically encoded in the perfect tense form. He explains that ἤγγικεν in Mark 1:15 signifies the kingdom of God as ‘unfolding in the present time and not in the past.’12 Kümmel understands that this perfect suggests that the kingdom of God is ‘realizing itself already in his person, his actions, his message.’13 Decker mentions that the Greek verb ἐγγίζω itself has temporal and spatial meanings in the present. His translation is ‘the kingdom of God is near.’14 In the same way, Decker understands that πεπλήρωται has clear temporal meaning in the present, which is a similar temporal idea to the word μέλλω, which means ‘be about to.’ Thus, Decker translates πεπλήρωται as ‘the time is fulfilled.’15 Two different interpretations of the passage are brought about from the different understandings of the inherent meaning of the perfect, especially in terms of the existence of anterior activity. The second interpretation focuses on a present

98 

| 

the greek perfec t tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

kingdom. Those who hold to this interpretation seem to think that the perfect ἤγγικεν does not indicate God’s kingdom that was prepared in the past through the sovereign power of God for the sake of the new era. Advocating the dual feature of the perfect, I suggest that Mark chose the perfect ἤγγικεν in Mark 1:15 to highlight the prior activity of God’s kingdom that results in the present existence of God’s kingdom (15a). Mark may have used the dual feature to support the main theme of ‘repent and believe the gospel’ in the larger context (Mark 1:14–15). ἤγγικεν in 14:42

The event of Mark 14:32–42 is Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane. In this account, Jesus talks to three disciples (Peter, James, and John) three times: first in verse 34, second in verses 37–38, and third in verses 41–42. In the last talk in verses 41–42 (excluding Jesus’ question to His disciples) Jesus’ pronouncement (vv. 41b-42) includes the aorist (ἦλθεν), the present (παραδίδοται), and the perfect (ἤγγικεν). In Jesus’ pronouncement (vv. 41b-42), Porter may argue that the perfect (ἤγγικεν) is chosen for the highest prominence because it is in opposition to the aorist and present. For Porter, in the case that three tenses occur in a context, the perfect is frontground (the highest prominence), the present is foreground (second highest prominence), and the aorist is the background (lowest prominence). Porter may argue that ‘my betrayer has come’ (the perfect) is more prominent than ‘the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners’ (the present). However, looking at the following passage (Mark 14:43–50), the account in Mark 14:32–42 appears as a preparatory story for the following account in which Jesus was handed over to Jewish leaders and His disciples flee. If then, the highlight of the preparatory story is ‘the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,’ not ‘my betrayer has come.’ The account of ‘the Son of Man is betrayed’ is described in greater detail in the following passage (vv. 43–50). Examination shows that Porter’s suggestions of a third level of frontground for the perfect is invalid. Compared to Porter, I associate the perfect (ἤγγικεν) with the present imperative and the present subjunctive (ἐγείρεσθε ἄγωμεν), which are the present non-indicative. Rule 1 is applied. Unlike Porter, I suggest that the perfect is chosen to complement the lack of meaning of the present, which is anterior activity. In other words, the perfect is used to highlight the prior activity of the betrayer, still effectively engaging the present betrayal in its immediate context (v. 42). Before the actual arrival of Judas, Jesus already knew that Judas was with the approaching soldiers.16 Verse 43 confirms that Judas arrived (v. 43), and verse 44 provides the content of Judas’ prior activity. The perfect is also used as background for a hortatory discourse. Since the betrayer has come, you need to get up and let’s go. In the larger context (vv. 41b-42), the perfect (‘my betrayer has come’) is used as background for the theme, which is ‘the Son of Man is betrayed.’

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 99

δέδοται in 4:11 In Mark 4:11, there is a contrast between ‘to you (ὑμῖν)’ with the perfect and ‘to those outside’ (ἐκείνοις τοῖς ἔξω) with the present. The former can be called ‘insiders’ because the latter are called ‘outsiders.’ The identities of the two different groups are simply contrasted based on whether the mystery of the Kingdom has been given to them or not. The insiders are the twelve disciples, who belong to Jesus. They are described with the perfect. Porter may say that the perfect (δέδοται) is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context (Mark 4:10–12). Thus, for Porter, the present situation that ‘the secret of the kingdom of God is given to the insiders’ may be a highlighted point. However, the object of Mark 4:10–12 is the outsiders who are not given the secret of the kingdom of God. The following verse (v. 12) quotes an OT passage (Isa 6:9–10) to explain the purpose of the parables. The parables are designed to be given to the outsider group ‘in order to help them to understand and thus to become insiders.’17 According to my Rule 1, the perfect (δέδοται) is associated with the present (γίνεται). The perfect (δέδοται) emphasizes the anterior activity of the disciples experiencing Jesus’ ministry18 while indicating that now they have become insiders who follow Jesus. I believe that, although there is no clear indication of anterior activity within the context, the inherent dual feature of the perfect implies the disciples’ prior experience. However, Porter only admits prior activity of the perfect when he finds some sort of indication of a past action in the context, because he believes that the perfect itself is chosen to deliver a stative aspect, which is a present state. Porter’s understanding is that the perfect highlights the present state of the disciples as those who are able to understand the parable. My understanding is that the perfect highlights that the disciples have been granted the ability to understand the mystery, which involves the past situation of Jesus calling them or them witnessing Jesus’ divine ministry. Now they have the status of those who receive the explanation of the parable. That is why, in Mark 4:13–23, Jesus explains the meaning of the parable only to them—they already have ears to ear.

σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52 This perfect (σέσωκεν) occurs in two places in Mark. Their uses are discussed in the passage study of Mark 5:25–34. ἐγήγερται in 6:14

In the larger context of Mark 6:14–29, two perfects appear in verse 14 (ἐγήγερται) and in verse 20 (εἰδώς). I exclude the latter here for discussion because it is discussed in the section that treats individual terms.

100 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

The passage (vv. 14–29) is a story sandwiched between sections: verses 7–13 and verse 30. In the first section (vv. 7–13), Jesus sent His twelve disciples two by two, giving them power to do miracles with some instructions of attitude and behavior. In the second part (v. 30), the disciples came back and reported to Jesus about every miraculous thing and teaching that they did by Jesus’ name. The sandwich story is mainly about John the Baptist. The sandwich structure indicates that the fate of John the Baptist is related to the fate of Jesus. The sandwiched story (vv. 14–29) can be divided into two parts. In the first part (vv. 14–16), people questioned who Jesus was because they had heard of Jesus’ disciples doing miraculous things in Jesus’ name. King Herod also heard of these miracles. The second part (vv. 17–29) describes how Herod beheaded John the Baptist at the request of Herodias and her daughter. In the first part (vv. 14–16), there are four stated opinions regarding the identity of Jesus. The first opinion is that Jesus is John, the one who baptizes. The second opinion is that Jesus is Elijah. The third opinion is that Jesus is one of the prophets. The fourth opinion, stated by Herod, is that Jesus is John whom he beheaded. The first group provides further explanation about Jesus: ‘He has been raised from the dead, and because of this, miraculous powers are at work in him.’ Here, the perfect (ἐγήγερται ‘has been raised’) occurs with the present (ἐνεργοῦσιν ‘are working’). Porter understands that this perfect (ἐγήγερται), without any reference to anterior activity, means, ‘Herod is concerned with John being alive now.’19 Porter may think of the following sentence (καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐνεργοῦσιν αἱ δυνάμεις ἐν αὐτῷ ‘because of this, miraculous powers are at work in him’) as a deictic indicator for the present. Like Porter, Decker suggests that the emphasis in this context ‘is not that a past action has taken place but on the present state that exists.’20 Decker translates the perfect as ‘John the Baptist is risen from the dead.’21 However, I understand that the perfect (ἐγήγερται) is chosen to complement the meaning in the present, referencing anterior activity that the present cannot express. I apply Rule 1. Compared to the first explanation (Ιωάννης …ἐγήγερται ‘John has been raised’) in verse 14b, Herod’s statement includes a similar explanation in verse 16: οὗτος ἠγέρθη ‘this one was raised.’ These statements are different in the tense; and the perfect is used in the first explanation, while the aorist is used in the fourth explanation. What can explain two different tenses? Porter may argue that the perfect (v. 14b) is chosen to indicate the highest prominence among four statements in the larger context (vv. 14–16), while the aorist (v. 16) conveys the least prominence. However, I suggest that the perfect (v. 14b) is chosen in consideration of the present with the intention to indicate anterior activity in the immediate context (v. 14b), while the aorist (v. 16) is chosen to lead the narrative story forward. The following story from verse 16 to verse 29 is presented mainly in the past tenses, which are the aorist and the imperfect. Thus, I argue that the perfect is chosen to complement the lack of their meanings in the immediate context (v. 14b).

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 101

In the larger context (vv. 14–29), four statements about Jesus’ identity are used to support the theme that John the Baptist pictures Jesus. Mark writes that John the Baptist is the forerunner of Jesus’ life and ministry (1:1–3), which was prophesized through Elijah the prophet (Mal 3:1, 4:5–6). Mark writes that Jesus connects himself to Elijah and the Son of Man (9:11–13). The story of the death of John the Baptist forebodes Jesus’ death, which is connected to His resurrection. The focus of this passage is the death of John the Baptist, which prefigures Jesus’ death. Verse 14b, which includes the perfect, is background for the main theme—the picture of Jesus’ death and resurrection—which has implied continuing relevance. ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29

This perfect (ἐξελήλυθεν) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 7:24–30 ἐλήλυθεν in 9:13

Mark 9:9–13 includes three perfects: two uses of γέγραπται (vv. 12–13) and one use of ἐλήλυθεν (v. 13). The former is discussed later in the section that treats individual terms. Here, I look into the latter, which appears in verse 13a in the sentence: ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθεν ‘But I tell you that Elijah has certainly come.’ I question why the perfect is chosen here. Except for γέγραπται (vv. 12 and 13c), which is considered an idiomatic use, the perfect (ἐλήλυθεν) is the only perfect in this passage (9:9–13). Porter may argue that the perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. Thus, for Porter, the fact that Elijah has already come can be seen as the most prominent issue in the larger context (9:9–13). However, Elijah, who is related to John the Baptist, appears to be used merely as supporting material for the Son of Man. The description of Elijah helps to understand the suffering and death of the Son of Man in the larger context (9:9–13). The prominent topic is the Son of Man’s suffering (v. 12), and His resurrection from the dead (v. 9). In the OT, Elijah suffered persecution from Ahab and Jezebel (1 King 19). John the Baptist in the NT is called Elijah (Mal 4:5–6), suffered persecution from Herod Antipas and Herodias, and was finally killed (Mark 6:17–29). In this way, the fates of Elijah and John the Baptist picture the fate of the Son of Man. I argue that the function of the perfect is limited to the description of Elijah in the immediate context (v. 13). Applying Rule 1, I associate the perfect (ἐλήλυθεν) with the present (λέγω). The perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present, by referencing anterior activity. Thus, the perfect emphasizes the prior event of the coming of Elijah ( John the Baptist) in this immediate context (v. 13). Right after this, Jesus makes an additional comment that people killed John the Baptist in the past, which implies that people are going to do the same thing to Jesus.

102 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Cole states, ‘Jesus identified Elijah with John, in the sense that John had fulfilled Elijah’s task.’ And now Jesus is identified with John, ‘just as John the Baptist had been rejected and killed, so would Jesus be.’22 Gundry understands that Elijah’s name indicates that John the Baptist, as well as the Son of Man, has come. Gundry explains that ‘the scripturalness of Elijah’s maltreatment’ parallels and supports ‘John’s maltreatment.’ In turn, ‘John’s maltreatment’ parallels and supports ‘the scripturalness of the Son of Man’s coming maltreatment.’23 Evans mentions, ‘Jesus’ point is that John’s/Elijah’s fate is in keeping with the overall picture of suffering and death in which Jesus shares.’24

πεποίηκεν in 7:37 In Mark 7:31–37, the main event is the account of a deaf-mute’s healing. The perfect (πεποίηκεν) only appears in verse 37, which contains the people’s statements of amazement. Decker, one of Porter’s followers, understands that this perfect (πεποίηκεν) has a tone that ‘seems to be more general, summarizing the character of his ministry both past and present (and perhaps even anticipating his continued works).’25 Decker supports a single feature of a present state of the perfect, rejecting the possibility of a dual feature. That is why he places this perfect in the category of ‘a temporally unrestricted reference,’ although he admits that it indicates a past event and references the present event. Fanning understands that since the perfect (πεποίηκεν) is a transitive active verb, it highlights the action of the subject, emphasizing its authority to act in a certain way.26 For Fanning, the authority or the ongoing responsibility of the subject of the perfect is the existing state that results from the action.27 I understand that the perfect (πεποίηκεν) works in association with the present (ποιεῖ). According to Rule 1, the perfect is used to highlight the anterior activity of Jesus’ ministry that is related to the present miracle. When people see a deaf-mute man healed, they also remember Jesus’ ministry in the past. According to Porter, the perfect indicates the highest prominence in the larger context (vv. 31–37). In the binary pair between the perfect (πεποίηκεν) in verse 37b and the present (ποιεῖ) in verse 37c, the perfect indicates higher prominence than the present. Either way, Porter may argue that the sentence that has the perfect (‘he has done everything well’) is the most prominent on a discourse level. However, the highest prominence is not automatically decided by the inclusion of the perfect. It can be determined by various contextual situations. Any tense can be used to indicate a prominent theme. In fact, the two acclamations in verse 37 seem to function like pronouncement statements in the account of the deaf-mute’s healing. Thus, the two statements appear to be the most prominent messages in this passage, not because of the perfect but because of the contextual situation.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 103

Brooks theologically explains the two acclamations in verse 37. The first, ‘He has done everything well,’ alludes to Genesis 1:31 (‘God saw all that he had made—and it was very good!’). The other, ‘he even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak,’ alludes to Isaiah 35:5 (‘the blind eyes will open, deaf ears will hear’).28 The two acclamations imply that Jesus’ ministry is the restoration work of the Messiah in the present, which mirrors the work of God’s creation in the past. Brooks’s theological interpretation demonstrates the dual feature of the perfect.

πεποιήκατε in 11:17 In Mark 11:15–19, two perfects occur in verse 17: γέγραπται and πεποιήκατε. I discuss γέγραπται later in the section on individual treatments. Here, I only examine πεποιήκατε, which appears in the OT citations in verse 17b. There are two citations. The first comes from Isaiah 56:7, and almost the exact wording of the LXX is used. The second one comes from Jeremiah 7:11, partially quoting a phrase (σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ‘a den of robbers’) from the LXX. The remaining part (ὑμεῖς δὲ πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν ‘But you have turned it into’), which includes the perfect (πεποιήκατε), seems to be the speaker or writer’s choice. Decker thinks that the perfect (πεποιήκατε) has an implied reference to the past, that is, ‘the deliberate, desecrating actions of those who had defied the temple,’29 which were hinted at in verse 15. Because of the past implicature, Decker understands this perfect as indicating anterior activity. Further, since this perfect is in active voice, Decker explains that it ‘expresses responsibility for the action that produced the state.’30 Unlike Decker, I do not consider temporal references in the context to determine the semantics of the perfect because I believe that it is possible to roughly interpret the perfect from the perspective of its dual feature, even though a more precise interpretation of the perfect can be obtained through the study of lexical situations and other contextual factors.31 According to Rule 1, the perfect (πεποιήκατε) in the second citation is associated with the non-past (the future κληθήσεται) in the first citation. I understand that the intention of the speaker or writer is to point out the anterior activity of ‘corrupting the temple,’ while looking at the present situation of corruption. The following verse (v. 18)  shows that the chief priests and the experts in the law understood that Jesus pointed out their anterior activity as wrong, so they tried to kill Him. In the larger context of Mark 11:15–19, the main event is Jesus’ symbolic action of temple cleansing. This symbolic action is described in verses 15–16. The teaching in regard to the action is presented in verse 17, where two perfects are used. The first perfect is γέγραπται, which is conventionally considered as part of a formula to introduce OT citations. Thus, I think that the use of this perfect is

104 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

unrelated to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice over the highest prominence in his message. The second perfect is πεποιήκατε. Porter may argue that this perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) in the passage of Mark 11:15–19. Since Jesus’ symbolic action is related to the anticipation of the imminent destruction of the temple, the perfect seems to be chosen to make the temple’s destruction prominent. However, the perfect is more confined to ‘you’ (ὑμεῖς) in its immediate context, referring to the religious leaders rather than to Israel. ‘You have done it (πεποιήκατε),’ implies that the present wicked situation is the leaders’ responsibility. Thus, the perfect (πεποιήκατε) functions as supporting material to explain the whole situation happening at the present time in the temple in the larger context. ἥκασιν in 8:3

The passage of Mark 8:1–9 is about the feeding of the four thousand. One perfect (ἥκασιν) appears in verse 3. The perfect (ἥκασιν) is the only perfect form of ἥκω in the NT.32 It is hard to explain why this perfect form appears only once in the NT. It is found that the present form itself delivers the force of a perfect (TDNT)33 with a meaning of ‘have come’ or ‘be present’ (BDAG, 435). There is a textual problem with this perfect. The manuscripts after the ninth century take the present form instead of the perfect form.34 It is assumed that the present form was considered enough to deliver the meaning of ‘have come.’ However, taking the perfect as the better reading in Mark 8:3, I will attempt to interpret this verse by applying the dual feature of the perfect. It is possible that Mark intentionally used the perfect in this situation where the use of the perfect of ἥκω was decreasing. The perfect is associated with the future (ἐκλυθήσονται), which means ‘will faint.’ In light of Rule 1, I understand that the perfect highlights the anterior activity of coming a long distance, which may result in some people fainting when they go back to their homes. When I compare Mark 8:1–9 with its parallel passage Matthew 15:32–39, I see that Mark adds an additional explanation to the end of verse 3: ‘and some of them have come from a great distance’ (καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν).35 Mark may have wanted to point out that the people could not go back home without eating. Also, the additional information about the description of the crowd points to Jesus’ compassionate heart, which is relevant to the present miracle of the feeding of the four thousand. Runge examines many ‘perfects that follow that to which they are relevant,’ which function to ‘help readers make the proper relevance connection back to the main clause on which they depend.’36 If I apply this principle here, the perfect (ἥκω) seems to be chosen to highlight anterior activity relevant to the preceding main sentence: ‘If I sent them home hungry, they will faint on the way.’ The connective καί could be used for that connection.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 105

γέγονεν in 9:21 The narrative of Mark 9:14–29 is presented with the aorist and imperfect, which are normal in narrative discourse. One perfect (γέγονεν) appears in embedded conversation in this narrative storyline (v. 21). Porter may say that the perfect is chosen as frontground (the highest prominence) on a discourse level. Thus, for Porter, how long the boy has suffered is the prominent issue in this passage. However, the prominent issue is ‘faith,’ which is the theological theme in Mark 9:14–29. Jesus’ disciples failed to cast out an unclean spirit from the boy (v. 18). Jesus exclaimed, ‘Oh! Unbelieving generation!’ (v. 19)  The father of the boy brought him to Jesus (v. 20). Jesus incited the father’s confession: ‘I believe. Help my unbelief !’ (vv. 23–24). Then Jesus cast out the unclean spirit from the boy (vv. 25–27). Jesus answered His disciples’ question over their failure:  ‘This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer’ (v. 29). The main theme is clearly pronounced: ‘All things are possible to him who believes’ (v. 23). According to Rule 1, the perfect (γέγονεν) is associated with the present (ἐστὶν). The perfect highlights the event happening prior to the present, still denoting its existent result. It indicates the boy’s past situation that continues up to the present moment in the immediate context (v. 21).37 Porter admits that this perfect delivers anterior activity because of a temporal deixis (πόσος χρόνος ‘how long’).38 In the same way, because of a past referent (πόσος χρόνος), Decker translates the perfect as having anterior activity: ‘how long is it since [the boy] has been in this state.’39 Porter, Decker, and I have the same result in terms of anterior activity. However, our processes for getting the result are different. Porter and Decker make a decision about anterior activity based on a past referent. However, I decide about the anterior activity only with the perfect’s associated tense (the present), not consulting any other temporal indicators in the context.

γέγονεν in 13:19 Mark 13:14–23 belongs to the eschatological discourse of Mark 13:1–37,40 which discusses the Great Tribulation. Three perfects occur in this passage:  ἑστηκότα (‘standing’) in verse 14, γέγονεν (‘has happened’) in verse 19, and προείρηκα (‘have told in advance’) in verse 23. The semantics of each perfect are confined to the immediate contexts. ἑστηκότα (‘standing’) is used to describe ‘the abomination of desolation’ (v. 14). γέγονεν (‘has happened’) connects the anterior tribulation to the future Tribulation (v. 19). προείρηκα (‘have told in advance’) functions as a reminder of the previous warnings, not as emphasis of the contents of the Great Tribulation (v. 23). The first two perfects are parts of the description of the entire Great Tribulation. The third perfect is for the confirmation of the information of the Great Tribulation. Each perfect functions in its immediate context and supports

106 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the main event of the Great Tribulation in the larger context (13:14–23). I deal with the first perfect (ἑστηκότα), which is a perfect participial form of ἵστημι in the section that treats individual terms. The third perfect (προείρηκα) is discussed right after the second perfect. Porter may argue that the three parts of the eschatological discourse that contain perfects are frontground (of the highest prominence). This interpretation raises questions. What is the correct view of the other events, which are described with the present or aorist? Are not they also descriptions of the Great Tribulation? The argument that only the perfects here are chosen to indicate the highest prominence in this discourse on the Great Tribulation is unpersuasive in light of the other prominent issues mentioned in the passage. It is more persuasive to argue that the perfect is chosen to emphasize anterior activity. As for the second perfect (γέγονεν) in verse 19, I argue that the perfect highlights anterior activity, still engaging in the present tribulation while anticipating the future Great Tribulation. With Rule 1, the perfect is associated with the nonpast indicative (future ἔσονται). Based on Rule 1, I explain that the Great Tribulation in the future is contrasted with anterior tribulation. Decker states that the perfect (γέγονεν) must refer to ‘a past state’ (rather than anterior activity) because of the temporal phrase (ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως ‘from the beginning of the creation’).41 Unlike Decker, I understand the perfect as highlighting anterior activity, though not considering any past time indicator.

προείρηκα in 13:23 The perfect (προείρηκα) is the third perfect found in Mark 13:14–23. Unlike Porter, who may argue that this perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the eschatological discourse, I attempt to approach it with Rule 1. The perfect (προείρηκα) is associated with the present non-indicative (the present imperative βλέπετε). I argue that the perfect is chosen to indicate anterior activity. Hatina discusses the same perfect found in Galatians 1:9. He understands that the perfect (προειρήκαμεν) is chosen ‘to draw attention to the previous warning.’42 He associates the perfect (ὡς προειρήκαμεν) in Galatians1:9 with the present (ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω), just as I do. However, like Porter, he agrees that the perfect conveys the most semantic weight and that the past reference of the perfect is not indicated by the tense form, but rather by the deictic features (ὡς and ἄρτι πάλιν).43 Thus, he tries to look for evidence of anterior activity from the context, not from the perfect itself. Hatina believes that the perfect contains the most semantic weight on a discourse level. I believe that the perfect functions to support main events or themes in the larger context, highlighting one side of its dual feature in its immediate context. If I look at Galatians 1:1–9, the main theme is ‘if there is anyone who preaches a different gospel from Paul, let him be condemned to hell’ (Gal 1: 9b).

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 107

προειρήκαμεν in Gal 1:  9a is a reminder for the previous warnings, helping the main idea. Mark 13:14–23, which belongs to the eschatological discourse (13:1–37), is Jesus’ warning about the Great Tribulation that will occur in the future. In the final verse (v. 23), the perfect is used to confirm the warnings that Jesus presented in the previous verses (vv. 14–22). Thus, the perfect is used as a reminder that supports the main theme in the larger context, highlighting the anterior activity of warning in the immediate context (v. 23).

γέγονεν in 14:4 The perfect γέγονεν appears in a direct discourse in a present-referring situation in verse 4b. The present time frame is established by direct speech in narrative discourse. People ask a question to one another: εἰς τί ἡ ἀπώλεια αὕτη τοῦ μύρου γέγονεν; ‘Why has this waste of expensive ointment happened?’ (my translation). This question is made after a woman broke an alabaster jar and poured costly aromatic oil on Jesus’ head (v. 3). Porter may discuss that the use of the perfect (γέγονεν) is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on the woman’s waste of expensive ointment. It could be possible because the woman’s action that broke the jar and poured the ointment on Jesus’ head was enough to catch people’s eyes and cause indignant discussion among people. However, the larger context (14:3–9) shows that her waste of expensive ointment is used as supporting material (background) and it is a symbolic act anticipating the burial of Jesus’ body. Jesus interpreted her action: ‘She anointed my body beforehand for burial.’ (v. 8). I think that Rule 1 is appropriate to explain this perfect. There is no associated verb with the perfect because the perfect occurs in a simple sentence in the direct discourse. That is why I associate the perfect (γέγονεν) with a present situation. In the immediate context (v. 4), the perfect points to the anterior activity of the waste of the expensive ointment, while still engaging its resulting state. In the larger context (14:3–9) the woman’s story is used as supporting material in connection with Jesus’ death and burial44 although it appears that the emphasis is on the woman’s extravagant manner.

βέβληται in 9:42 The perfect (βέβληται) appears in the protasis (v. 42b). There are two subjects in the protasis, which means two sentences. One is ‘a huge millstone’ described by the present (περίκειται), and the other is an indefinite person, ‘anyone,’ described by the perfect (βέβληται). Although the subjects of the two verbs are different, they point to an indefinite person (αὐτῷ and αὐτοῦ). The indefinite person is described further in the ὃς ἂν clause (v. 42a), which is grammatically independent from the sentence that follows.45

108 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

The perfect tense is used to describe the image of a man thrown into the sea. His present state is described as having a millstone tied around his neck. This situation can be understood through the dual feature of the perfect, using Rule 1. The perfect (βέβληται) is associated with the present (περίκειται) and is used to complement the meaning of the present by indicating a logically completed action. Decker believes that the perfect (βέβληται) in the protasis of the conditional statement indicates ‘a temporally unrestricted reference’ rather than anterior activity because ‘the conditional statement makes the reference of the apodosis indefinite; it applies to anyone who meets the condition of the protasis.’46 For Decker, the semantics of the perfect are changed by contextual factors such as deictic indicators and grammatical constructions. I would attempt to rely on the inherent dual feature of the perfect in whatever context. Thus, I argue that logically, even in an irrealis mood, the perfect delivers anterior activity. The perfect (βέβληται) is the only perfect that appears in the passage of Mark 9:42–50. The main theme is ‘a warning against offenses,’47 which is a warning against causing people to stumble.48 Mark 9:42 begins with the warning against anyone who causes ‘one of these little ones’ to stumble, probably referring to the children in the previous account (Mark 9:36–37). It appears that part of the previous account is used to open this account, which acts as supporting material. The object (αὐτῷ ‘anyone’) in verse 42b changes to the listener (σε ‘yourself ’) in verses 43b, 45b, and 47b. It seems to change from ‘general’ to ‘specific,’ developing the main theme. It appears that verse 42, which includes the perfect, is used as general background for three specific warning statements concerning ‘stumbling.’ Porter may argue that the perfect (βέβληται) is chosen to make prominent the state of ‘being thrown down’ on a discourse level. However, the perfect does not seem to be used for prominence in the larger context because verse 42 is used as background which functions to open the theme of ‘stumbling,’ as mentioned before. I would say that the perfect (βέβληται) is confined to the picture of a huge millstone in the immediate context (v. 42b). ἡτοίμασται in 10:40

Mark 10:35–45 presents the process of the dialogue between the sons of Zebedee ( James and John) and Jesus. The perfect passive (ἡτοίμασται) appears in verse 40. In the parallel passage of Matthew 20:23, the perfect (ἡτοίμασται) is followed by ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός μου (‘by my father’). Assuming the presence of ‘by my father’ in Mark, it means that God has prepared the position of the right or left for some people. The phrases ‘God has already prepared the position’ and ‘I am not the one to give the position’ are contrasted. The perfect emphasizes God’s anterior activity that He has already completely prepared, denoting its resulting state. This understanding can be explained through Rule 1 in the condition in which the perfect (ἡτοίμασται) is associated with the present (ἔστιν).

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 109

Porter may understand this perfect (ἡτοίμασται) as having a future sense because of the future implicature of ‘to sit at my right or at my left.’49 Decker understands that this use of the perfect ἡτοίμασται refers to a present situation maybe because of ‘those’ at the present. Thus, Decker translates it as ‘[it is for] those for whom it is prepared.’50 I do not agree with the view that the semantics of the perfect are changed by implicatures in the context. Rather, I advocate that the perfect itself sustains its dual feature of a present state and anterior activity.

The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse: Rule 2 My argument in this book is that the perfect owns its inherent dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. In some contexts, one side of the dual feature can be more highlighted than the other side, and vice versa. The perfect does not lose its own dual feature although the dual feature is not clearly translated into English. In the previous section, I  observed that the perfect indicative appearing in direct discourse is often associated with the non-past indicative (present or future) or present non-indicative, primarily highlighting anterior activity along with its present result (Rule 1). In this section, I  discuss the case in which the perfect indicative is associated with the past indicative in direct discourse (Rule 2). In Mark, it is found that the perfect here is only associated with past indicative, not with the aorist non-indicative. My hypothesis is that when choosing the perfect in association with the past indicative, the speaker or writer may have the intention to complement the meaning of the past indicative (imperfect or aorist) by referencing a present state (or present relevance). Several scholars have attempted to explain Table 4.2. Three Perfects with the Past Indicative in Direct Discourse. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Mark 5:19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σοὺς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε.

Mark 5:19 But Jesus did not permit him to do so. Instead, he said to him, ‘Go to your home and to your people and tell them what the Lord has done for you, that he had mercy on you.’ Mark 10:28 Peter began to speak to him, ‘Look, we have left everything to follow you!’

R 2 Mark 10:28 Ἤρξατο λέγειν ὁ Πέτρος αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν πάντα καὶ ἠκολουθήκαμέν σοι. R 2 Mark 11:21 καὶ ἀναμνησθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ἴδε ἡ συκῆ ἣν κατηράσω ἐξήρανται.

Mark 11:21 Peter remembered and said to him, ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered.’

110 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the usage of the perfect with the past indicative (imperfect or aorist) because its usage is not a normal pattern. Here in the Gospel of Mark I find only three cases. Burton understands that the perfect with the aorist is used to highlight a present state. He states that, in the case where the perfect and the aorist are associated together, the perfect focuses on ‘an existing result, prominently before the mind.’51 Moulton understands that the perfect in association with the aorist is used in place of the aorist, called ‘the aoristic perfect.’ However, he does not depart from the function of a present state. He states that the reason that the perfect is used in place of the aorist is that ‘a preference grows in popular speech for the expression which links the past act with present consequences.’52 Burton connects the use of the aoristic perfect to a personal idiosyncrasy. He suggests that Matthew uses the aoristic γέγονα, John uses εἴληφα in the book of Revelation, and Paul uses ἔσχηκα.53 Eakin argues that when the perfect and the aorist appear in close proximity, each tense functions in its own force: the indefinite past tense (aorist) and a past action with a present effect (perfect).54 Fanning states, ‘Even when perfects are used in close connection with aorists, they normally preserve a distinctive sense in that they refer not only to a past occurrence but also to some present result of the action.’55 McKay understands that when the perfect is used with the aorist, the perfect is chosen to emphasize the actor or the subject who is responsible for the action, and the aorist is chosen to stress the action itself ( John 7:22 Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν περιτομήν ‘Moses gave you circumcision’).56 Porter understands the usage of the perfect with the aorist as the oppositional relation between the perfect and the aorist, which is the same as the oppositional relation between the perfect and the present, although the former opposition occurs less than the latter.57 His understanding implies that the more heavily marked form (the perfect) is chosen to indicate prominence in relation to the less heavily marked form (the aorist or the present) on a discourse level. My understanding is that when the perfect is associated with the aorist in direct discourse, the speaker or writer intentionally chooses the perfect to highlight a present state, present situation, or present relevance which results from anterior activity. The function of the perfect is confined to the immediate context, not extending to the larger context.

πεποίηκεν in 5:19 This perfect (πεποίηκεν) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 5:1–20. ἠκολουθήκαμέν in 10:28

In Mark 10:28–31, there is one perfect tense (ἠκολουθήκαμεν), found in verse 28. This perfect occurs one time in the NT. It seems that the speaker or writer intentionally chooses the perfect with some reason, not choosing the present or aorist.58

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 111

Probably the perfect is considered the only way to deliver the dual feature of a present situation related to anterior activity. Porter may argue that the perfect (ἠκολουθήκαμεν ‘following’) is more prominent than the aorist (ἀφήκαμεν ‘leaving’) in a binary opposition. However, I believe that each delivers its own semantic force. The aorist focuses on the past action of ‘leaving everything,’ and the perfect focuses on the present situation of ‘following’ based on the anterior action of ‘following.’ The perfect is chosen to complement the lack of meaning of the aorist by indicating a present state. The perfect (ἠκολουθήκαμεν) can be explained with Rule 2. The perfect is associated with the aorist (ἀφήκαμεν). It emphasizes a present situation of ‘following,’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘following.’ Unlike the rich man in the previous verses (10:17–22), Peter, as a spokesman, may have wanted to say that ‘we’ left everything and now we are here as your followers. McKay understands that in the case that the perfect is closely related to the aorist, taking the same subject, the perfect ‘is singled out for more vivid presentation,’ like a historic present (Matt 13:46; Rev 5:7).59 I agree with McKay as to the sense of highlighting a present state. Thus, through the perfect (ἠκολουθήκαμεν), the present situation of ‘following’ is vividly highlighted in the immediate context (v. 28). The following verses (vv. 29–30) further explain what ‘leaving everything’ means. In the larger context (10:28–31), Jesus points out the cost of following, which means that following Jesus cannot be separated from ‘leaving everything.’ ἐξήρανται in 11:21

The episode of the fig tree (Mark 11:20–24) starts from the setting of the narrative past time, which is a past-referring context. Jesus’ disciples saw the fig tree withered from the roots (v. 20). Then the dialogue between Peter and Jesus begins in a present-referring context, which is direct discourse. First Peter says to Jesus: ‘Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered’ (v. 21). In Peter’s statement, the perfect (ἐξήρανται) occurs in association with the aorist (κατηράσω) that appears in the dependent or relative clause. Here, in 11:21, although the aorist appears in the dependent clause (the relative clause), since this is a finite verb, I connect it to the choice of the perfect, assuming that the speaker or writer may have chosen the perfect to complement the meaning of the aorist. The subject of the perfect is ‘the fig tree.’ The subject of the aorist is ‘you’ ( Jesus). The subjects of the two verbs are different, but they are related with the topic ‘the fig tree’ (‘you cursed the fig tree’ and ‘the fig tree has withered’). Rule 2 is applied. I explain that the perfect is chosen to highlight a present state of ‘a withered fig tree,’ which results from the anterior activity of withering. The situation (vv. 13–14) implies that the action of ‘withering’ happened in the past after Jesus cursed (κατηράσω) the fig tree.

112 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

However, Decker decides that this usage is a present-referring perfect because the previous situation is not in view.60 Decker and I reach the same understanding of ‘a present state,’ but we are different in terms of anterior activity. For Decker, the perfect indicates a present state without anterior activity. For me, the perfect indicates a present state resulting from anterior activity. The present situation of the withered fig tree is also described in verse 20 with the perfect participle (ἐξηρ αμμένην). The main theme of Mark 11:20–24 is faith. The episode of the fig tree is teaching material for the main theme: ‘what God can do through one who has faith in God.’61 Thus, the episode of the fig tree expressed with the perfect is background material for the main theme in the larger context (vv. 20–24). In the immediate context (v. 21), the perfect (ἐξήρανται) is chosen only in relation with the cursed fig tree.

The Perfect with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse: Rule 2 There are five perfects in Mark that appear in non-direct discourse, which are in past-referring situations or in situations of the narrative past time. All occur in a Table 4.3. Five Perfects with the Past Indicative in Non-Direct Discourse. Source: Author Rule NA28 R2 R 1a

R2

R2 R2

NET

Mark 5:29 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς καὶ ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγος. Mark 5:33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ, ἦλθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Mark 15:44 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν κεντυρίωνα ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν· Mark 15:47 ἡ δὲ Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ τέθειται.

Mark 5:29 At once the bleeding stopped, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Mark 5:33 Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. Mark 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was placed. Mark 16:4 καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι Mark 16:4 But when they looked up, ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος· ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled back.

Here, I use Rule 1 instead of Rule 2 because the perfect (γέγονεν) is influenced by the idiomatic or conventional use of εἰδυῖα (οἶδα). I discuss this in the passage study of Mark 5:25–34. a

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 113

subordinate clause (ὅτι, ὃ, εἰ, ποῦ, ὅτι), depending on the main verb. So I connect them with their main verbs that are past tense. Rule 2 is applied. They highlight a present state (of the narrative past time) based on anterior activity. All are discussed in the passage study of Mark 5:25–34, 15:42–47, and 16:1–8. Two words (εἰδυῖα and θεωροῦσιν) underlined in Table  4.3 need explaining. First, in Mark 5:33, the perfect is connected with εἰδυῖα, which is a perfect participle with a present meaning. εἰδυῖα is an adverbial participle which can function as a finite verb of the present tense. Thus the perfect (γέγονεν) can be associated with the present tense. Rule 1 is applied. The perfect (γέγονεν) is chosen to complement the meaning of the present by indicating anterior activity. Since the whole sentence (v. 33) is in the narrative past tense, in English, the perfect (γέγονεν) can be translated into ‘had happened’ instead of ‘has happened.’ Second, in Mark 16:4, the perfect (ἀποκεκύλισται) is connected with a historical present (θεωροῦσιν). The historical present is considered a past tense in the narrative past time because it is a variant form used for the purpose of vividness in a past-referring situation. Thus Rule 2 is applied. The perfect highlights a present state resulting from anterior activity of ‘being rolled away.’

T H E P E R F E C T N O N - I N D I C AT I V E The Gospel of Mark contains forty-five perfects in the non-indicative: the perfect participle (40), the perfect imperative (1), the perfect infinitive (3), and the perfect subjunctive (1).62 The non-indicative perfects are divided into two parts for this discussion. First, twenty-two out of the forty perfect participles are discussed here, applying Rule 3. The other eighteen perfect participles and one perfect subjunctive are explained in other places. That is, the participial forms of οἶδα (4), one case of the perfect subjunctive of οἶδα (1), and the perfect participles of ἵστημι (3) and παρίστημι (5) are discussed in the section on individual treatments. And the perfect participles (6), which are used for the pluperfect periphrastic constructions, are discussed in the section on the pluperfect. Second, four non-indicative perfects are discussed: the perfect imperative (1) and the perfect infinitives (3). I apply Rule 1 to them.

The Perfect Participle: Rule 3 The perfect participle is a verbal adjective—it has verbal as well as adjectival features. As for its verbal side, it retains the dual feature of the perfect. As for its adjectival side, it is used to describe its associated substantive. Based on this, I divide the participle into two groups: the adjectival or substantival participle and the adverbial participle. The adjectival participle functions as the adjective to describe a substantive. The substantival participle functions as if it were a noun, but in fact

114 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

it serves to describe an implied noun. Thus, I  put them together for discussion purposes. I associate all the perfect participles in Mark with a substantive. I apply Rule 3 to them. They describe the substantive with the dual feature of the perfect. When the perfect participle is in the middle/passive voice, it tends to highlight a present state of a substantive. When the perfect participle is in the active voice, it tends to highlight the anterior activity of a substantive. However, there is an exception. The family of ἵστημι takes active forms but has a middle/passive meaning. Thus, it highlights a present state rather than anterior activity. There is no opposite case in Mark; that is, there is no case where the middle/passive participle form is used to indicate active meaning. The adverbial participle functions like an adverb, which modifies a verb. It is dependent on the main verb while giving it a nuance of temporal, manner, means, cause, condition, concession, purpose, or result.63 I find that most of the perfect participles in Mark function as the adjectival participle, describing its associated substantive. There is one case that appears to be an adverbial participle (Mark 14:51). However, I prefer to explain it as an adjectival participle because I observe that it describes a substantive more than it indicates the circumstantial relationship with the main verb. ἐξηραμμένην in 3:1

In Mark 3:1–6, five tenses appear: the present, the imperfect, the aorist, the future, and the perfect. The perfect occurs once in verse 1 in its participial form (ἐξηραμμέ νην). Regardless of grammatical tense forms, such as the finite verb, the indicative, the non-indicative, and the participle, Porter may argue that this perfect participle is chosen from among the tenses of the present and aorist to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level.64 However, the perfect participle (ἐξηραμμένην) in verse 1 is used as a background setting for the following healing event. The story begins with a setting like ‘there was a person …’ in verse 1. Then, based on the person, the main story is presented from verse 2 to verse 6. I argue that the perfect participle (ἐξηραμμένην) is chosen to modify the man’s hand (χεῖρα) with the dual feature of the perfect in the immediate context (v. 1). Rule 3 is applied. It describes the current state of the withered hand that results from the anterior activity of ‘withering.’ Verse 3 proves that the proper adjective form (ξηρὰν), which is used only to describe a present state, can be used if there is no need of indicating anterior activity: καὶ λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ τὴν ξηρὰν (the adjective) χεῖρα ἔχοντι ‘So he said to the man who had the withered hand.’ ἐξηραμμένην in 11:20

The same participle (ἐξηραμμένην) appears in Mark 11:20. It is connected with the fig tree (συκῆν). It functions as an adjective, describing the fig tree with the

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 115

Table 4.4. Twenty-Two Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participles. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 3 Mark 3:1 Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν πάλιν εἰς τὴν συναγωγήν. καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπος ἐξηραμμ ένην ἔχων τὴν χεῖρα. R 3 Mark 11:20 Καὶ παραπορευόμενοι πρωῒ εἶδον τὴν συκῆν ἐξηραμμένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν.a R3

R3

R3

R3 R3 R3

R3

Mark 3:1 Then Jesus entered the synagogue again, and a man was there who had a withered hand. Mark 11:20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Mark 4:15 οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ παρὰ τὴν Mark 4:15 These are the ones on the ὁδόν· ὅπου σπείρεται ὁ λόγος καὶ ὅταν path where the word is sown: Whenever ἀκούσωσιν, εὐθὺς ἔρχεται ὁ σατανᾶς καὶ they hear, immediately Satan comes and αἴρει τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐσπαρμένον εἰς αὐτούς. snatches the word that was sown in them. Mark 5:14 Καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς Mark 5:14 Now the herdsmen ran off ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ and spread the news in the town and εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς· καὶ ἦλθον ἰδεῖν τί ἐστιν τὸ countryside, and the people went out to see γεγονὸςb what had happened. Mark 5:15 καὶ ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν Mark 5:15 They came to Jesus and saw the Ἰησοῦν καὶ θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον demon-possessed man sitting there, clothed καθήμενον ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦν and in his right mind—the one who had τα, τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγιῶνα, καὶ ἐφοβή the ‘Legion’—and they were afraid. θησαν. Mark 7:30 καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον Mark 7:30 She went home and found the αὐτῆς εὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν child lying on the bed, and the demon κλίνην καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξεληλυθός. gone. Mark 14:51 καὶ νεανίσκος τις Mark 14:51 A young man was following συνηκολούθει αὐτῷ περιβεβλημένος him, wearing only a linen cloth. They tried σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ, καὶ κρατοῦσιν αὐτόν·c to arrest him, Mark 16:5 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ Mark 16:5 Then as they went into the μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ white robe sitting on the right side; and ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. they were alarmed. Mark 6:8 καὶ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα Mark 6:8 He instructed them to take μηδὲν αἴρωσιν εἰς ὁδὸν εἰ μὴ ῥάβδον μόνον, nothing for the journey except a staff—no μὴ ἄρτον, μὴ πήραν, μὴ εἰς τὴν ζώνην bread, no bag, no money in their belts— χαλκόν, Mark 6:9 ἀλλὰ ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια, Mark 6:9 and to put on sandals but not to καὶ μὴ ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας. wear two tunics.

Continued 

116 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.4. Continued Rule NA28 R 3 Mark 8:17 καὶ γνοὺς λέγει αὐτοῖς· τί διαλογίζεσθε ὅτι ἄρτους οὐκ ἔχετε; οὔπω νοεῖτε οὐδὲ συνίετε; πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν; R3

R3

R3 R3

R3 R3 R3 R3

R3

NET

Mark 8:17 When he learned of this, Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you arguing about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Have your hearts been hardened?’ Mark 9:1 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω Mark 9:1 And he said to them, ‘I tell you ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότωνd the truth, there are some standing here who οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν will not experience death before they see ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν the kingdom of God come with power.’ ἐν δυνάμει. Mark 11:2 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑπάγετε εἰς Mark 11:2 and said to them, ‘Go to the τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθὺς village ahead of you. As soon as you enter it, εἰσπορευόμενοι εἰς αὐτὴν εὑρήσετε πῶλον you will find a colt tied there that has never δεδεμένον ἐφ᾿ ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων been ridden. Untie it and bring it here.’ ἐκάθισεν· λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε. Mark 11:4 καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον Mark 11:4 So they went and found a colt δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου tied at a door, outside in the street, and καὶ λύουσιν αὐτόν. untied it. Mark 11:9 καὶ οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ Mark 11:9 Both those who went ahead ἀκολουθοῦντες ἔκραζον·ὡσαννά· and those who followed kept shouting, εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου· ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Mark 11:10 εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη Mark 11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ·ὡσαννὰ ἐν of our father David! Hosanna in the τοῖς ὑψίστοις. highest!’ Mark 14:15 καὶ αὐτὸς ὑμῖν δείξει Mark 14:15 He will show you a large ἀνάγαιον μέγα ἐστρωμένον ἕτοιμον· καὶ room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make ἐκεῖ ἑτοιμάσατε ἡμῖν. preparations for us there.’ Mark 15:23 καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ Mark 15:23 They offered him wine mixed ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον· ὃς δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβεν. with myrrh, but he did not take it. Mark 15:32 ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ Mark 15:32 Let the Christ, the king of καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν Israel, come down from the cross now, that καὶ πιστεύσωμεν. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι we may see and believe!’ Those who were σὺν αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν. crucified with him also spoke abusively to him. Mark 16:6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς· μὴ ἐκθαμβ Mark 16:6 But he said to them, ‘Do not εῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him.’

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 117

Table 4.4. Continued Rule NA28

NET

R 3 Mark 16:14 Ὕστερον [δὲ] ἀνακειμένοις αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἕνδεκα ἐφανερώθη καὶ ὠνείδισεν τὴν ἀπιστίαν αὐτῶν καὶ σκληροκαρδίαν ὅτι τοῖς θεασαμένοις αὐτὸν ἐγηγερμένον οὐκ ἐ πίστευσαν.

Mark 16:14 Then he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen him resurrected.

I intentionally placed Mark 11:20 after Mark 3:1 so that they could be treated together because they use the same perfect (ἐξηραμμένην). b The perfect participle (γεγονός) here is not associated with other substantives because it describes an implied indefinite substantive ‘something’ which is indicated by τό. c I intentionally put Mark 14:51 and Mark 16:5 right after Mark 7:30 based on their same root (βάλλω). This perfect (περιβεβλημένος) can be understood as the adverbial participle, but I understand it as the predicate adjective used to describe ‘a young man.’ d ἑστηκότων (Mark 9:1) is discussed along with ἑστηκότων (Mark 11:5) and ἑστηκότα (Mark 13:14) in the section of individual treatments. a

dual feature of the perfect in the immediate context. The fig tree is in a state of being ‘withered,’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘withering.’ In Mark 11:20–24, the background of the story is that the fig tree withered from the roots. Using the background material, the issue of ‘faith’ is expounded. Thus, in the larger context, the perfect participle (ἐξηραμμένην) is not chosen for the highest prominence (frontground). ἐσπαρμένον in 4:15

Mark 4:13–20 is not a narrative discourse, but an expository discourse on Jesus’ interpretation of the seeds mentioned the parable found in Mark 4:1–9. The ‘seed’ (‘the word’) is explained in relation to four types of soil (along the path, the rocky ground, among thorns, and good soil). The word is sown along the path (σπείρεται in verse 15, the present indicative); the word is sown on the rocky ground (σπειρό μενοι in verse 16, the present participle); the word is sown among thorns (σπειρόμε νοι in verse 18, the present participle); the word is sown on good soil (σπαρέντες in verse 20, the aorist participle). The first three types of soil are described with the present; the last type is described with the aorist. Porter may argue that the fourth type (‘good soil’) is the least prominent in this passage because it takes the aorist, while the first type (‘along the path’) is the most prominent in this passage because it accompanies the explanation that uses the perfect. However, ‘the word’ which is sown in the good heart is the main point of this parable in the larger context (v. 4:13–20). It seems that the other three types are supporting material to help the good soil stand out. The perfect participle

118 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

(ἐσπαρμένον) occurs in the depiction of the first type of soil as an explanatory comment in the immediate context (v. 15). Thus, despite Porter’s view, it belongs to supporting material. The perfect participle (ἐσπαρμένον) in 4:15 modifies the word (λόγον). Rule 3 is applied. The function of this participle (ἐσπαρμένον) is confined to the description of ‘the word’ with the dual feature of the perfect. It appears in an explanatory comment. That is, ‘the word’ has already been sown (ἐσπαρμένον), and now Satan snatches it. I understand that, in order to recognize the prior activity, the perfect participle (ἐσπαρμένον) is used. I argue that it is not related to the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level, but rather it is chosen to indicate the anterior activity that led to the present state in the immediate context (v. 15).

γεγονός, ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:14–15 These perfect participles are discussed in the passage study of Mark 5:1–20.

βεβλημένον, ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30 These perfect participles are discussed in the passage study of Mark 7:24–30.

περιβεβλημένος in 14:51 The perfect participle (περιβεβλημένος ‘putting on’) in v. 51 can be understood as an adverbial participle. It can be associated with the main verb (συνηκολούθει), functioning adverbially to modify the main verb, with a circumstantial relationship. Rule 2 can be applied. However, I prefer to understand it as an adjectival participle because I believe the perfect participle describes the young man not indicating a circumstantial relationship with the main verb. I attempt to associate this perfect participle (περιβεβλημένος) with a substantive (‘a young man’). Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect participle is in middle/passive voice, it highlights that the young man is in a state of ‘having put on’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘putting on.’ Porter may argue that the speaker or writer intentionally chooses this perfect participle to indicate the highest prominence on a discourse level. However, verse 52 in which the aorist (narrative past tense) contains describes a young man running off naked. Verse 51 in which the perfect participle contains is a background explanation of what he had worn before he became naked. Thus I argue that the perfect participle in v. 51 is chosen to simply describe a substantive with its inherent-dual feature in the immediate context, functioning as background in the larger context (14:50–52).

περιβεβλημένον in 16:5 This perfect participle is discussed in the passage study of Mark 16:1–8.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 119

ὑποδεδεμένους in 6:9

Mark 6:8–9 presents difficulty in explaining its grammatical constructions. In verse 8, παρήγγειλεν (‘he instructed’) introduces the content of instructions. Three different structures are used for the content of instructions. Simply put, He instructed them ‘A, B, and C.’ A is the ἵνα clause (‘they should not take …’), B is the ὑποδεδεμένους σανδάλια clause (they should put on sandals’), and C is the μὴ ἐνδύσησθε δύο χιτῶνας clause (‘you should not wear two tunics’). Clauses A and B are ‘indirect discourse.’ It is understood that B belongs to A because they have the same subject ‘they.’ Differently from AB, it is understood that clause C is ‘direct discourse’ because the subject of C is ‘you.’ In B (v. 9a), there is a perfect participle (ὑποδεδεμένους). Since this participle is in the accusative and plural form, some substantive, which is in the accusative and plural form, is needed. It is most likely that αὐτοῖς can be the substantive for the perfect participle, although it is not in the accusative. It may be the construction of ‘He instructed + IO65 (‘to them’ dative) + DO66 (‘putting on sandals’ the content of instruction, accusative). Indirect object (or called IO) can be the implied subject for B.  If I  take this understanding, the perfect participle (ὑποδεδεμένους) can be explained as a predicate adjective for ‘them.’ Based on this understanding, the perfect participle (ὑποδεδεμένους) describes the situation of ‘their wearing’ with the dual feature of the perfect: the present state of ‘wearing’ and the anterior activity of ‘putting on’ that led to the present state. Like ἱματισμένον (5:15) and περιβεβλημένον (16:5),67 the speaker or writer seems to choose the perfect participle (ὑποδεδεμένους ‘wearing’) according to its conventional use of the dual feature of ‘wearing’ not related to the intention of prominence because it is only used as the perfect tense form in the NT.68 Mark 6:7–13 is the account of the mission of the twelve disciples. For the mission, Jesus instructed His disciples about what they should or should not take for their journey, what to wear, and where to stay. This was their preparation for preaching the gospel. ‘Putting on sandals,’ expressed with the perfect participle, is one of their listed preparations. Thus, this perfect participle is not related to a deliberate choice for the highest prominence, but it is a part of supporting the main theme.

πεπωρωμένην in 8:17 In Mark 8:14–21, one perfect participle (πεπωρωμένην) occurs in verse 17 along with the present, the imperfect, and the aorist. Porter may argue that the perfect participle is chosen from among other tenses to indicate the highest prominence on a discourse level. According to Porter, ‘hardened heart’ is the main point in this passage (Mark 8:14–21). However, the main theme is the disciples’ misunderstanding Jesus. The disciples’ concern over the lack of bread indicates their failure

120 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

to perceive Jesus as the One who is much greater than physical bread. Jesus’ rhetorical questions are thrown out in verses 17–21, focusing on the disciples’ misunderstanding caused by their hardened hearts. Thus, a heart that has become hardened becomes an explanation of why the disciples do not understand. I believe that the perfect participle (πεπωρωμένην) is chosen to describe the heart in the immediate context (v. 17). I apply Rule 3 for explanation. The present state of the hardened heart is related to the anterior activity of ‘hardening.’ Although the disciples experienced Jesus’ miracles of feeding crowds of five thousand and four thousand in the past (vv. 19–20), they are now arguing about having no bread (v. 16). Jesus points out their hardened hearts as the reason that His disciples do not recognize who He is. The perfect participle is chosen to describe the state of heart in the immediate context of verse 17. It is used as supporting material to explain the disciples’ misunderstanding in the larger context (vv. 14–21). ἐληλυθυῖαν in 9:1

Mark 9:1 connects Mark 8:34–38 to Mark 9:2–8. The account of 8:34–38 contains Jesus’ teaching about discipleship. Following the revelation of His suffering and death in 8:27–33, in verse 34 Jesus presents the proposition of discipleship, which is related to suffering and death: ‘If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.’ Then, more explanations about the meaning of becoming Jesus’ followers, in regard to death, are given in verses 35–38. Relating to the previous prediction of verse 38b (‘the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels’), Jesus’ prediction in 9:169 seems to function as a prelude for the following account (the transfiguration) in 9:2–8. Thus, it appears that 9:1 is placed between 8:34–38 and 9:2–8 to support the following account of the transfiguration. In the long passage of 8:34–9:8, the two perfect participles appear only in 9:1. Porter may argue that the two perfect participles in 9:1 indicate the highest prominence among other tenses on a discourse level merely because they are in the perfect tense without taking into account grammatical structures. However, as I have shown before, 9:1 presents supporting material for the account of the transfiguration (9:2–8). I believe that the meaning of the perfect works on the level of the immediate context, not expanding to the larger context. The two perfect participles in 9:1 are ἑστηκότων and ἐληλυθυῖαν. I argue that the perfect participle is chosen to describe a substantive. According to Rule 3, the first participle (ἑστηκότων) is connected with the implied substantive, which is ‘some people.’ It is later dealt with in the section on individual treatments. The second perfect participle (ἐληλυθυῖαν) is connected with ‘the kingdom of God.’ It functions

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 121

as a predicate adjective, modifying the kingdom of God with its dual feature. Since it appears in the subjunctive clause, which expresses a futuristic notion, and is in active voice, this perfect participle emphasizes logically anterior activity completed prior to the future. Evans recognizes this verse as expressing the dual feature of the perfect. Jesus’ saying is ‘they will not die before they have seen the arrival of the kingdom.’70 The use of the perfect, which is related to God’s kingdom, shows Mark’s perspective on the kingdom of God. Mark’s perspective is that Jesus came to earth, bringing the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God is near at hand. Mark, for example, uses two perfects regarding the kingdom of God in Mark 1:15: πεπλήρωται (the perfect) ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν (the perfect) ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (‘the time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God has come near’).

δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4 This perfect participle (δεδεμένον) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 11:1–11.

εὐλογημένος, εὐλογημένη in 11:9–10 These perfect participles (εὐλογημένος and εὐλογημένη) are discussed in the passage study of Mark 11:1–11. ἐστρωμένον in 14:15

This instance of the perfect participle (ἐστρωμένον) is only one in passage Mark 14:12–16. The main event of this passage is the preparation of the Passover meal. For Porter, only one perfect participle in verse 15 is intentionally chosen in order to highlight that an upstairs room is prepared for the Passover meal. It could be possible to understand the well-furnished upstairs room to be prominent since the place is most important for the Passover meal. However, the following passage (14:17–26) indicates that the upstairs room is supporting material for the meeting for the Passover meal where the Lord’s Supper is instituted. Thus, it would be better to understand that the perfect participle (ἐστρωμένον ‘furnished’) is used to describe the situation of the upstairs room that is the setting for the Passover meal (v. 15). I apply Rule 3 to this perfect participle (ἐστρωμένον). As the function of the adjective, it modifies the noun ἀνάγαιον (upstairs room). There are two more adjectives that modify ‘upstairs room’: μέγα (large) and ἕτοιμον (ready). What is the difference between the adjective and the perfect adjectival participle? The adjective (μέγα and ἕτοιμον) describes a present state without any notion of anterior activity. The perfect adjectival participle (ἐστρωμένον) describes not only a present situation

122 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

but also the anterior activity of that situation. ‘Furnished’ itself has an implication of the dual idea of a present situation resulting from anterior activity, which cannot be expressed through the adjective and the present. Probably the ‘upstairs room’ has already been ‘furnished with carpets or couches for the guests to recline on as they ate’ (BDAG, 949). The author may have chosen to indicate that the present situation of the room was already prepared prior to the time of speaking. Theologically, this perfect implies God’s sovereign provision. ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23, συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32

These perfect participles (ἐσμυρνισμένον and συνεσταυρωμένοι) are discussed in the passage study of Mark 15:22–32. ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6

This perfect participle (ἐσταυρωμένον) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 16:1–8. ἐγηγερμένον in 16:14

Mark 16:14–18 belongs to the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20).71 It is likely that the main point of this passage (16:14–18) is Jesus’ commission to His disciples. Verse 14 indicates a background setting for Jesus’ commission. The resurrected Jesus appears (v. 14)  and then He gives His commission to the eleven disciples in verses 15–18. In this context, the perfect participle (ἐγηγερμένον ‘resurrected’) occurs in the background setting (v. 14) in order to describe that Jesus has been resurrected. Porter may argue that the resurrected Jesus is the most prominent feature in this passage (16:14–18) because of the presence of the perfect participle (ἐγηγερμέν ον ‘resurrected’). However, the perfect participle appears in the background setting for the rest of the passage. It is clear that the perfect participle is not used for the highest prominence in the larger context (16:14–18). Rather, it is appropriate to understand that the perfect participle is used to describe Jesus only within the immediate context (v. 14). Thus, I argue that the perfect participle in verse 14 is chosen to indicate that the one whom the eleven disciples saw was Jesus who had previously been resurrected from the dead in the immediate context. Rule 3 is applied. The perfect participle (ἐγηγερμένον) functions as an attributive adjective. It modifies αὐτὸν (‘him’) with the full meaning of the dual feature of the perfect. It implies that Jesus was raised from the dead in the past, and now He is still alive. There is a tendency for the meaning of the perfect to shift to the current result of ‘alive’ when the perfect is in passive.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 123

The Perfect Imperative and The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1 In Mark, only one perfect imperative occurs in 4:39. And three infinitives occur in a single verse of 5:4. I apply Rule 1 to the imperative as well as the infinitive.

πεφίμωσο in 4:39 Mark 4:35–41 is the account of Jesus’ miraculous activity of stilling the storm and calming the sea. Verse 35 provides a temporal background:  ‘one evening.’ Verse 36 provides a locational background: ‘in the boat.’ Verses 37–39 present the main event:  stilling the storm. The event is used to teach Jesus’ disciples about their lack of faith in verse 40. Verse 41 shows the event’s impact and how the disciples thought about who Jesus was. The main event of stilling the storm supports the main idea of increasing the disciples’ faith in Jesus. As it says in verse 41, the disciples said to one another, ‘Who then is this? Even the wind and sea obey him!’ The perfect imperative (πεφίμωσο) occurs when Jesus quiets the storm (v. 39), which I understand is background material for demonstrating who Jesus is and exposing the disciples’ lack of faith. Porter may argue that Jesus’ word, πεφίμωσο (the perfect imperative ‘calm down!’ in v. 39), is chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context (4:35– 41) because only one perfect appears in this passage. Or he may argue that the perfect imperative (πεφίμωσο) indicates higher prominence than the present imperative (σιώπα) in a binary opposition in the immediate context and then apply the prominence of the immediate context to that of the larger context, suggesting that the perfect delivers the highest prominence among other tenses in the larger context. Table 4.5. One Imperative and Three Infinitives. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R1

Mark 4:39 So he got up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, ‘Be quiet! Calm down!’ Then the wind stopped, and it was dead calm. Mark 5:3 He lived among the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain.

R1

Mark 4:39 καὶ διεγερθεὶς ἐπετίμησεν τῷ ἀνέμῳ καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· σιώπα, πεφίμωσο. καὶ ἐκόπασεν ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἐγένετο γαλήνη μεγάλη. Mark 5:3 ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν, καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι Mark 5:4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι·

Mark 5:4 For his hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles, but he had torn the chains apart and broken the shackles in pieces. No one was strong enough to subdue him.

124 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

However, as I have shown, the perfect imperative belongs to the event that is used to teach the main theme, ‘faith in Jesus.’ Thus, I would say that the perfect imperative functions to emphasize Jesus’ power in the immediate context (v. 39), ultimately supporting and magnifying the identity of Jesus in the larger context (v. 35–41). According to Rule 1, the perfect imperative (πεφίμωσο) in verse 39 is associated with the present imperative (σιώπα). Since the imperative mood indicates an irrealis situation, it has a futuristic nuance because an action is not visible yet. Thus, the perfect imperative is chosen to complement the meaning of the present imperative by showing logically anterior activity (an action completed prior to the future) that the present imperative cannot deliver, while denoting its resultant state in the future. In the same way I do, McKay contrasts the present imperative (σιώπα) with the perfect imperative (πεφίμωσο). However, he understands the binary opposition in terms of ‘kind of actions,’ while I understand it in terms of complementary relations. McKay states that πεφίμωσο ‘is a more forceful way of repeating the idea of σιώπα.’72 However, I suggest that the perfect supplies what is lacking in the present because it encodes anterior activity as well as the resulting condition. The perfect imperative is rarely used in the NT. There are only three imperatives used in four places: πεφίμωσο ‘be quiet’ (Mark 4:39), ἔρρωσθε ‘farewell’ (Acts 15:29), ἴστε ‘know’ (Eph 5:5; Jas 1:19). When the imperative is used for commanding, the aorist or the present is used. 73 The perfect imperative does not seem appropriate for commanding because of its dual feature. Probably that is why the perfect imperative is rarely used for commanding. Through the use of the perfect, Jesus is going to demonstrate His miraculous power to still the wind and the sea, which will lead to complete stillness. The sentence in verse 39c affirms the dual feature of the perfect:  the wind stopped (anterior activity) and it was dead calm (its resultant state). In contrast, the aorist imperative (φιμώθητι ‘silence’), which occurs in Mark 1:25, focuses on the occurrence of an action, unconnected to its present result of ‘silencing.’

δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4 The infinitive operates by its own grammar rules. Two rules are applied to the perfect infinitives in Mark 5:4. One is an idiomatic construction. Here, the infinitives (δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι) belong to one of the idiomatic constructions (διὰ τὸ + the infinitive) which functions as a causal adverbial clause that deliver the reason for the action of the main verb (ἐδύνατο), or ‘the controlling verb.’74 The other is that the infinitive has temporal relations to the main verb.75 The perfect infinitive delivers antecedent time to the time of the main verb.76 Thus, the perfect infinitive has a strong ability to indicate anterior temporality. With its particular grammatical use, the perfect infinitive cannot be explained with Porter’s third level of ‘frontground’ that is based on a present state.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 125

I attempt to apply Rule 1 to the three perfect infinitives in 5:4 to shed light on their anterior temporality. Since they are associated with the past tense of the controlling verb (ἐδύνατο in Mark 5: 3b), they, like the pluperfect, highlight a prior time in contrast to the past time, while still retaining a current state of the time of the main verb (which is the narrative past time). In the immediate context, these three perfects are chosen to describe the demon-possessed man before he was healed. His hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles. The chains had often been torn off. The shackles had often been broken in pieces. Further discussion of these perfects will be presented in the passage study of Mark 5:1–20.

I N D I V I D UA L T R E AT M E N T S In this section, four perfects are individually treated:  (1) indicative γέγραπται, (2)  indicative οἶδά, (3)  non-indicative οἶδά, and (4)  non-indicative perfect forms of ἵστημι and παρίστημι with the indicative παρίστημι. They are known to have a simple present force or purely present meaning. Perhaps Porter may interpret the four perfects as indicating a present state as well as the highest prominence in the larger context. However, I attempt to demonstrate that they are used with the dual feature to supplement the immediate context. And I present why they have been understood to highlight a present state which influences on the interpretation of a present meaning.77 Using my Three Rules, I attempt to discuss these perfects in relation to their associated parts as follows.

γέγραπται: Rule 2 γέγραπται appears seven times in Mark (1:2, 7:6, 9:12, 13, 11:17, 14:21, 27). Each of these occurrences introduces OT quotations or OT events by functioning like an introductory formula. The NT has sixty-seven occurrences of this formula. In this situation, the perfect (γέγραπται) always takes the form of third person singular perfect passive. Conventionally or idiomatically, the choice of this perfect seems to be related to a certain situation that needs to indicate the present relevance relating to an OT reference. This need can be met through the dual feature of the perfect. Robertson recognized this feature a long time ago and stated of γέγραπται: ‘it was written (punctiliar) and still is on record (durative).’78 It is hard to regard γέγραπται as simply having a present meaning because twenty-six present forms and fifty-five aorists forms are used in the NT, which implies that each tense has its own force. In Mark, no present, three aorists, and seven perfects appear. Three aorists (Mark 10:4, 5, 12:19) are related to Moses’ statements.79 Mark 10:4 and 10:5 allude to Deuteronomy 24:1, and Mark 12:19

126 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.6. Seven Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author Rule NA28 R2

R2

R2

R2

R2

R2

R2

NET

Mark 1:2 Καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah προφήτῃ· ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ the prophet, ‘Look, I am sending my προσώπου σου, ὃς κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου· messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way. Mark 7:6 Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· καλῶς Mark 7:6 He said to them, ‘Isaiah ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαΐας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν prophesied correctly about you ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται [ὅτι] οὗτος ὁ λαὸς hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω honors me with their lips, but their heart ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· is far from me.’ Mark 9:12 ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς· Ἠλίας μὲν Mark 9:12 He said to them, ‘Elijah ἐλθὼν πρῶτον ἀποκαθιστάνει πάντα· καὶ πῶς does indeed come first, and restores all γέγραπται ἐπὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἵνα things. And why is it written that the πολλὰ πάθῃ καὶ ἐξουδενηθῇ; Son of Man must suffer many things and be despised? Mark 9:13 ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ Ἠλίας Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah ἐλήλυθεν, καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον, has certainly come, and they did to καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. him whatever they wanted, just as it is written about him.’ Mark 11:17 καὶ ἐδίδασκεν καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Mark 11:17 Then he began to teach οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς them and said, ‘Is it not written: “My κληθήσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ house will be called a house of prayer for πεποιήκατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. all nations?” But you have turned it into a den of robbers!’ Mark 14:21 ὅτι ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man will ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ, οὐαὶ δὲ go as it is written about him, but woe τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾿ οὗ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου to that man by whom the Son of Man παραδίδοται· καλὸν αὐτῷ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁ is betrayed! It would be better for him ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος. if he had never been born.’ Mark 14:27 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι Mark 14:27 ¶ Then Jesus said to them, πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, ὅτι γέγραπτ ‘You will all fall away, for it is written, αι· πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα, καὶ τὰ πρόβατα “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep διασκορπισθήσονται. will be scattered.”

quotes Deuteronomy 25:5. These three aorists focus on completed past events and do not relate to present relevance. In contrast, the seven perfects of γέγραπται (Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:12, 13, 11:17, 14:21, 27) are used to introduce OT references and express their relation to the present situation as well. All of the perfects in Mark are related to present situations, such as the Baptist (1:2), the Pharisees and the Jews (7:6), Jesus (9:12), John the Baptist (9:13), Jerusalem corrupted at the present

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 127

time (11:17), Judas (14:21), and the prediction of Jesus’ death (14:27). It is clear that γέγραπται retains its own feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. I attempt to explain γέγραπται in association with the objective clauses (ὅτι or a direct quotation). The clauses, which are underlined in Table 4.6, deliver OT quotations or events that occurred in the past. I believe that γέγραπται is chosen to complement the meaning of past occurrence by highlighting its present relevance. Rule 2 is applied. γέγραπται highlights a present state (present relevance) resulting from anterior events. Wallace states that this formula is used ‘to emphasize that the written word still exists.’80 The choice of the perfect (γέγραπται) is confined to the immediate context, which is the introduction of OT quotations and events. The function of γέγραπται is not extended to the larger context.

οἶδα: Rule 2 οἶδα and its inflected forms occur thirteen times in Mark: οἶδα (1:24, 14:68, 71), οἴδατε (4:13, 10:38, 42, 13:33, 35), οἶδεν (4:27, 13:32), οἶδας (10:19), and οἴδαμεν (11:33, 12:14). The present or aorist forms do not occur in the NT, only perfect forms and pluperfect forms. Although οἶδα is generally considered as conveying a present meaning,81 I posit that it retains the dual feature of the perfect. οἶδα appears in direct discourse in the midst of a dialogue. οἶδα is almost always used at the introduction of the content of a prior knowledge indicated by subordinate conjunctions such as ὅτι, τίς, τί, πότε, and ὡς or by accusative nouns. I underlined the content of a prior knowledge in Table 4.7. I associate οἶδα with the underlined content of knowledge which the speaker or writer probably knew or should know before he or she speaks in the present time.82 Rule 2 is applied. My understanding is that when the perfect οἶδα is associated with the aoristic objective part of the sentence, it highlights the subject’s present state of knowing which results from a prior knowledge. It seems that the speaker or writer chooses οἶδα when he needs to introduce the content of prior knowledge in the immediate context. I argue that the sentence including οἶδα is not used to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context; rather it supports main events or themes in the larger context by way of introducing some prior knowledge. Stovell understands that οἶδα is chosen to indicate prominence. When she deals with the perfects in John 3:1–15, Stovell adopts Porter’s frontground of the perfect tense as well as Westfall’s focus, markedness, and grounding.83 She concludes that five perfects, including οἶδα, that are used nine times in John 3:1–15 establish prominence. Thus, she argues, ‘The perfect provides a frontgrounding function.’84 However, Porter himself and Pitts view οἶδα as a disclosure formula that expresses ‘the author’s desire for the audience to know something … in support of a statement or argument.’85

128 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.7. Thirteen Cases of the Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author Rule NA28 R 2 Mark 1:24 λέγων· τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

NET

Mark 1:24 ‘Leave us alone, Jesus the Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!’ R 2 Mark 14:68 ὁ δὲ ἠρνήσατο λέγων· οὔτε Mark 14:68 But he denied it: ‘I don’t even οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι σὺ τί λέγεις. καὶ understand what you’re talking about!’ Then ἐξῆλθεν ἔξω εἰς τὸ προαύλιον [καὶ ἀλέκτωρ he went out to the gateway, and a rooster ἐφώνησεν]. crowed. R 2 Mark 14:71 ὁ δὲ ἤρξατο ἀναθεματίζειν Mark 14:71 Then he began to curse, and he καὶ ὀμνύναι ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον swore with an oath, ‘I do not know this man τοῦτον ὃν λέγετε. you are talking about!’ R 2 Mark 4:13 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐκ οἴδατε Mark 4:13 He said to them, ‘Don’t you τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην, καὶ πῶς πάσας understand this parable? Then how will you τὰς παραβολὰς γνώσεσθε; understand any parable? R 2 Mark 10:38 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, ‘You οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ don’t know what you are asking! Are you ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ able to drink the cup I drink or be baptized βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι; with the baptism I experience?’ R 2 Mark 10:42 καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος Mark 10:42 Jesus called them and said αὐτοὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς· οἴδατε to them, ‘You know that those who are ὅτι οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ μεγάλοι over them, and those in high positions use αὐτῶν κατεξουσιάζουσιν αὐτῶν. their authority over them. R 2 Mark 13:33 Βλέπετε, ἀγρυπνεῖτε· οὐκ Mark 13:33 Watch out! Stay alert! For you οἴδατε γὰρ πότε ὁ καιρός ἐστιν. do not know when the time will come. R 2 Mark 13:35 γρηγορεῖτε οὖν· οὐκ οἴδατε Mark 13:35 Stay alert, then, because you γὰρ πότε ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας ἔρχεται, ἢ do not know when the owner of the house ὀψὲ ἢ μεσονύκτιον ἢ ἀλεκτοροφωνίας ἢ will return—whether during evening, at πρωΐ, midnight, when the rooster crows, or at dawn— R 2 Mark 4:27 καὶ καθεύδῃ καὶ ἐγείρηται Mark 4:27 He goes to sleep and gets up, νύκτα καὶ ἡμέραν, καὶ ὁ σπόρος βλαστᾷ night and day, and the seed sprouts and καὶ μηκύνηται ὡς οὐκ οἶδεν αὐτός. grows, though he does not know how. R 2 Mark 13:32 Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης Mark 13:32 ¶ ‘But as for that day or hour ἢ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν no one knows it—neither the angels in οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ. heaven, nor the Son—except the Father. R 2 Mark 10:19 τὰς ἐντολὰς οἶδας· μὴ Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: φονεύσῃς, μὴ μοιχεύσῃς, μὴ κλέψῃς, μὴ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do ψευδομαρτυρήσῃς, μὴ ἀποστερήσῃς, τίμα not steal, do not give false testimony, do not τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα. defraud, honor your father and mother.’’

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 129

Table 4.7. Continued Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Mark 11:33 καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ Ἰησοῦ λέγουσιν· οὐκ οἴδαμεν. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐδὲ ἐγὼ λέγω ὑμῖν ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ ταῦτα ποιῶ. (vv. 31 and 32 have the content of knowing: ‘if we say, …’) R 2 Mark 12:14 καὶ ἐλθόντες λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· διδάσκαλε, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀληθὴς εἶ καὶ οὐ μέλει σοι περὶ οὐδενός· οὐ γὰρ βλέπεις εἰς πρόσωπον ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἀληθείας τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ διδάσκεις· ἔξεστιν δοῦναι κῆνσον Καίσαρι ἢ οὔ; δῶμεν ἢ μὴ δῶμεν;

Mark 11:33 So they answered Jesus, ‘We don’t know.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.’ Mark 12:14 When they came they said to him, ‘Teacher, we know that you are truthful and do not court anyone’s favor, because you show no partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?’

McKay believes that οἶδα is a true perfect for the ancient Greeks.86 He separates οἶδα from γινώσκω, which also means ‘I know.’ οἶδα means ‘know by reflection,’ and γινώσκω means ‘know by observation.’87 His definition of οἶδα seems to imply that οἶδα reflects the anterior activity of ‘knowing.’ However, McKay states that οἶδα rarely conveys any clear implication of the action of past knowledge; rather, it focuses on the existing state of knowledge.88 Thus, for McKay, οἶδα focuses on a present state of knowledge, regardless of a prior knowledge. For me, according to Rule 2, the present state resulting from a prior knowledge is highlighted. The introduction of the content of knowledge implies that the speaker or writer knew the content prior to his or her present utterance. οἶδα does not mean ‘coming to know.’

The Non-Indicative οἶδα: Rule 2 In Mark, there are five uses of the non-indicative perfect οἶδα: εἰδῆτε (the perfect subjunctive) in 2:10, εἰδυῖα (the perfect adverbial participle) in 5:33, εἰδώς (the perfect adverbial participle) in 6:20, εἰδώς (the perfect substantival participle) in 12:15, and εἰδότες (the perfect adverbial participle) in 12:24. Whatever the form, whether it is a finite verb or participle, all of them carry the content of a prior knowledge, as underlined in Table 4.8. Rule 2 is applied to the non-indicative forms of οἶδα with the same rationale as the indicative forms of οἶδα, which is exceptional in that the perfect οἶδα is associated with a prior knowledge delivered in the aoristic objective part of the sentence and it accordingly highlights the subject’s present state of knowing which results from a prior knowledge.

130 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.8. Five Cases of the Non-Indicative οἶδα. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R2

Mark 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,’—he said to the paralytic— Mark 5:33 Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. Mark 6:20 because Herod stood in awe of John and protected him, since he knew that John was a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard him, he was thoroughly baffled, and yet he liked to listen to John. Mark 12:15 But he saw through their hypocrisy and said to them, ‘Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.’ Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, ‘Aren’t you deceived for this reason, because you don’t know the scriptures or the power of God?

R2

R2

Mark 2:10 ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς –λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ· Mark 5:33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ, ἦλθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Mark 6:20 ὁ γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ἐφοβεῖτο τὸν Ἰωάννην, εἰδὼς αὐτὸν ἄνδρα δίκαιον καὶ ἅγιον, καὶ συνετήρει αὐτόν, καὶ ἀκούσας αὐτοῦ πολλὰ ἠπόρει, καὶ ἡδέως αὐτοῦ ἤκουεν.

R2

Mark 12:15 ὁ δὲ εἰδὼς αὐτῶν τὴν ὑπόκρισιν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τί με πειράζετε; φέρετέ μοι δηνάριον ἵνα ἴδω.

R2

Mark 12:24 ἔφη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· οὐ διὰ τοῦτο πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ;

The Non-Indicative Perfect Forms of ἵστημι and παρίστημι: Rule 3 In Mark, ἵστημι and παρίστημι, which I  call ‘the family of ἵστημι,’ appear in nine cases: eight participles and one indicative. The perfect form of the family of ἵστημι is always active and there is no middle/passive form in the NT. The family of ἵστημι has been generally considered only to have a present meaning probably because it has been lexically constrained to take an active form but with middle/passive meaning, so it delivers a present state. Porter may claim that the family of ἵστημι is good evidence that the perfect indicates the author’s viewpoint on a present state, regardless of anterior activity. However, it is found that the present state of the dual feature is emphasized only when the family of ἵστημι is used as the participial form in Mark. I believe that when the perfect participle is chosen to describe a substantive, voice is considered because the speaker or writer looks at the substantive’s situation, whether an agent or a patient. Accordingly I  understand that the perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity that leads to a present state. However, as for the family of ἵστημι, it highlights a present state although it is an active form.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 131

Table 4.9. Eight Non-Indicatives of ἵστημι and παρίστημι and One Indicative of παρίστημι a. Source: Author Rule NA28 R3

R3 R3

R3

R3 R3

R3 R3

R1

a

NET

Mark 9:1 Καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει. Mark 11:5 καί τινες τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἔλεγον αὐτοῖς· τί ποιεῖτε λύοντες τὸν πῶλον;

Mark 9:1 And he said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.’ Mark 11:5 Some people standing there said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ Mark 13:14 Ὅταν δὲ ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα Mark 13:14 ‘But when you see the τῆς ἐρημώσεως ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ, ὁ ἀ abomination of desolation standing where it ναγινώσκων νοείτω, τότε οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ should not be (let the reader understand), φευγέτωσαν εἰς τὰ ὄρη, then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Mark 14:47 εἷς δέ [τις] τῶν παρεστηκότων Mark 14:47 One of the bystanders drew σπασάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν ἔπαισεν τὸν his sword and struck the high priest’s δοῦλον τοῦ ἀρχιερέως καὶ ἀφεῖλεν αὐτοῦ τὸ slave, cutting off his ear. ὠτάριον. Mark 14:69 καὶ ἡ παιδίσκη ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν Mark 14:69 When the slave girl saw him, ἤρξατο πάλιν λέγειν τοῖς παρεστῶσιν ὅτι she began again to say to the bystanders, οὗτος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐστιν. ‘This man is one of them.’ Mark 14:70 ὁ δὲ πάλιν ἠρνεῖτο. καὶ Mark 14:70 But he denied it again. μετὰ μικρὸν πάλιν οἱ παρεστῶτες ἔλεγον A short time later the bystanders again τῷ Πέτρῳ· ἀληθῶς ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ said to Peter, ‘You must be one of them, Γαλιλαῖος εἶ. because you are also a Galilean.’ Mark 15:35 καί τινες τῶν παρεστηκότων Mark 15:35 When some of the ἀκούσαντες ἔλεγον· ἴδε Ἠλίαν φωνεῖ. bystanders heard it they said, ‘Listen, he is calling for Elijah!’ Mark 15:39 Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ πα Mark 15:39 Now when the centurion, ρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως who stood in front of him, saw how he ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν· ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος died, he said, ‘Truly this man was God’s υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν. Son!’ Mark 4:29 ὅταν δὲ παραδοῖ ὁ καρπός, Mark 4:29 And when the grain is ripe, εὐθὺς ἀποστέλλει τὸ δρέπανον, ὅτι παρέστη he sends in the sickle because the harvest κεν ὁ θερισμός. has come.’

My discussion groups the verses together according to lexeme.

132 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

However, when the perfect indicative is chosen as a finite verb, voice is not considered because it is associated with another finite verb. Thus it can highlight either a present state (Rule 2) or anterior activity (Rule 1) depending on its associated verb. In Mark, there is only one perfect indicative that belongs to this case (Mark 4:29). ἑστηκότων in 9:1 and 11:5

The perfect participle (ἑστηκότων) in 9:1 and 11:5 has a substantival function as if it were a noun and describes an implied substantive (‘some’ or ‘some people’) as an adjective. It appears that the perfect participle (ἑστηκότων) mainly describes people standing at present (Rule 3). However, I understand that it implies the anterior activity of ‘standing’ because the present existing result cannot be separated from that anterior activity. The present participle of ἵστημι may not have been appropriate to denote the present state of ‘standing.’ In fact, there is no present participial form of ἵστημι used in the NT. Otherwise, the present participle might have been used until now. I believe that the perfect participle of ἵστημι may have been used for the present state of ‘standing’ with the implication of anterior activity. Even though this Greek perfect is translated as the present tense in English (‘some standing here’ in 9:1 and ‘some people standing there’ in 11:5), I argue that the dual feature still exists in the perfect participle of ἵστημι. On a discourse level, the perfect participle (ἑστηκότων) is used to describe some people’s state of ‘standing’ only in the immediate context. ἑστηκότα in 13:14

The main theme of Mark 13:14–23 is the prediction of the Great Tribulation. The Tribulation will start when people see ‘the abomination of desolation’ standing where it should not be (v. 14). Thus, ‘the abomination of desolation standing’ expressed with the perfect participle is a setting for the beginning of the Tribulation. Thus, it is background material for the whole theme and is not of the highest prominence (frontground). According to Rule 3, I connect the perfect participle (ἑστηκότα) with the substantive (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ‘the abomination of desolation’). It functions as a predicate adjective, describing the substantive with the dual feature of the perfect. ‘The abomination of desolation’ is in a state of ‘standing,’ which implies a prior activity of being set up. As indicated earlier, normally the perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity, but this perfect active participle (ἑστηκότα) highlights a present state conventionally or subconsciously as mentioned earlier. Thus highlighting a present state is not related to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice to indicate the highest prominence (frontground); instead, it is more related to the conventional use. This perfect participle (ἑστηκότα) occurs in the subjunctive clause, so it implies a logical-anterior activity.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 133

παρεστηκότων in 14:47, παρεστῶσιν in 14:69, παρεστῶτες in 14:70, παρεστηκότων in 15:35, and παρεστηκώς in 15:39 The same rationale as the family of ἵστημι is applied to παρίστημι. Like ἵστημι, the perfect form of παρίστημι is used as an intransitive verb, although it takes an active form.89 Like ἵστημι, the perfect participle of παρίστημι is understood to highlight a present state of ‘standing by’ but implies the anterior activity of ‘standing by.’ The speaker or writer may have felt constrained to choose this perfect conventionally or subconsciously, similarly to choosing ἵστημι for ‘standing.’ It is found that the substantival uses in Mark 14:47, 69, 70, and 15:35 be translated as nouns like ‘the bystanders,’ ‘the spectators,’ or ‘those present’ (BDAG, 778). The use of these participles seems more related to their conventional uses, rather than to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice for the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. The adjectival use appears in Mark 15:39. Like the substantival uses before, it describes the centurion with the dual feature of the present state resulting from the anterior activity of ‘stand by.’ Whether in the substantival use or the adjectival use, the perfect participle is used only to describe a substantive or implied substantive in the immediate context, without influencing the larger context in terms of prominence.

παρέστηκεν in 4:29 In Mark 4:26–29, two perfects appear: οἶδεν in verse 27 and παρέστηκεν in verse 29. According to Porter, the two perfects deliver the highest prominence in this passage. Thus, he may exegete that ‘he does not know how’ and ‘the harvest has come’ are the most important messages in this passage. However, as mentioned in the part where οἶδα is individually treated, the first perfect οἶδεν in verse 27 is conventionally chosen to present a current state of knowledge in a situation in which there is a need to point out prior knowledge, regardless of indicating the highest prominence. The second perfect (παρέστηκεν) also is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context; rather it is chosen to highlight one side of the dual feature in the immediate context. The perfect indicative (παρέστηκεν) is approached differently from the perfect participles discussed earlier because it functions as a finite verb. It is associated with another verb. The shift of highlight is determined not by voice, but by other verb. Since it is associated with the present (ἀποστέλλει), it highlights anterior activity, still retaining its present state (Rule 1). The perfect (παρέστηκεν) in verse 29 occurs in the ὅτι clause that functions to provide why the farmer puts the sickle on the grain. The reason is ‘the harvest has come.’ Another reason for putting the sickle on the grain is given in the beginning of verse 29 in the ὅταν clause. The reason is ‘the grain is ripe.’ Two reasons are placed before and after the main event, ‘he sends in the sickle.’ In this situation,

134 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

it is hard to say that ‘the harvest has come’ is of the highest prominence, as Porter suggests, simply because it has the perfect. Rather, as evidenced in the grammatical structure, the perfect in ‘the harvest has come’ supports the main event, which occurs previously. According to my Rule 1, I put the perfect (παρέστηκεν) in association with the present (ἀποστέλλει). I argue that this perfect is chosen to indicate logically anterior activity of ‘harvest’ relevant to the present situation, functioning as background for the main event. According to Runge, who understands the perfect in terms of ‘relevance,’90 the perfect provides relevant background for either a preceding or following situation.91 Thus, Runge may suggest in this verse that ‘the harvest has come,’ expressed by the perfect as background, is relevant to the present situation ‘he sends in the sickle.’92 Although my approach, which is based on a dual feature of the perfect, is different from Runge’s, I find the same result as Runge in terms of relevance. The perfect (παρέστηκεν) in verse 29 appears with the ὅταν subordinate clause (‘when the grain is ripe’), which implies a conditional or possible action. Thus, the perfect is chosen to highlight logically anterior activity that denotes a completed harvest situation, which will occur when the condition or possibility is accomplished. The resulting interpretation of verse 29 is ‘when the grain is ripe, he sends in the sickle because the completed harvest comes.’ Decker, who does not consider logically anterior activity, explains, ‘The genre (parable) suggests the temporally unrestricted reference rather than some particular past or present state.’93 He understands that instead of logically anterior activity, the perfect delivers the highest prominence on a discourse level. However, as shown, the perfect with a causal idea (ὅτι) supports the previous clause (‘he sends in the sickle’), while the perfect itself highlights one side of its dual features (logically anterior activity), while still engaging its resulting state.

T H E P LU P E R F E C T Porter, who understands the Greek tense from the perspective of non-temporality, argues that the pluperfect grammaticalizes ‘[+stative: +remoteness] aspect.’94 He states, ‘The Pluperfect is not past-bound but appears predominantly in contexts with this implicature …’95 In the same way as the perfect, Porter puts the pluperfect into the category of ‘stative aspect,’ adding one more feature of ‘+remoteness.’ Porter uses the term ‘+remoteness’ for the imperfect indicative (+remoteness) in contrast to the present indicative (-remoteness), and for the pluperfect indicative (+remoteness) in contrast to the perfect indicative (-remoteness).96 Porter uses this term with understanding that ‘the action is seen as more remote than the action described by’ the present or the perfect.97 Probably Porter chooses the term ‘+remoteness’ in order to avoid temporal terms for discussion of the tense forms.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 135

However, in my perspective of temporality, the term ‘+remoteness’ is a term of a disguised anterior temporality. At any rate, instead of admitting anterior temporality, Porter tries to interpret the pluperfect as indicating prominence on a discourse level the same way he feels the perfect does. In John 8:19–20 there are three pluperfects that Porter understands play important roles on a discourse level. Porter believes the two pluperfects (ᾔδειτε) in verse 19 are chosen as ‘a fitting summary statement to the dialogue,’ and the pluperfect (ἐληλύθει) in verse 20 is chosen to close ‘the entire narrative pericope.’98 However, I believe that the first two pluperfects (ᾔδειτε) are used to indicate logically anterior temporality in a conditional statement and operate in the immediate context, while the pluperfect (ἐληλύθει) in verse 20 is used to indicate anterior temporality to the narrative time in the immediate context. I maintain the traditional understanding that the pluperfect is equivalent to the perfect in that it delivers the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. The difference between the two is temporal axis. The perfect occurs in speech, which is in a present-referring context, and the pluperfect occurs in narrative, which is in a past-referring context. I find that 94% of all the pluperfects99 in the NT appear to focus on anterior temporality. Thus, I can say that the primary function of the pluperfect is to indicate a completed action prior to the narrative past time, implying a current state of a completed action.100 The pluperfect is expressed with two kinds of construction. One is a synthesized (monolectic) form. The other is a periphrastic construction. The synthesized (monolectic) form occurs eighty-one times in the NT. Whether in active or middle/passive, seventy-nine cases appear in the indicative in narrative discourse. The other two appear in the conditional structure of non-narrative discourse (Rom 7:7; 1 John 2:19), thus indicating logically anterior temporality. The pluperfect mostly appears in a past-referring situation, which is established with the narrative past tense. Rule 2 should be applied to the pluperfect because it is associated with the past indicative (the narrative past time). However, Rule 1 instead is applied to the pluperfect because the feature of anterior temporality is the primary function of the pluperfect. With Rule 1, I will demonstrate that the traditional understanding of the pluperfect has more explanatory power than Porter’s. In Mark, four pluperfect active indicatives occur (14:44, 15:7, 10, 16:9). I will explain that they highlight temporally anterior activity to the narrative past tense (Rule 1). Regarding the pluperfects of ᾔδειν (1:34, 9:6, 14:40), I will attempt to apply Rule 2 to them as I treated the perfect form of οἶδα before. εἰώθει (10:1) seems to be conventionally used. I will explain it using Rule 2. Finally, I will explain six pluperfect periphrastic constructions (ἦν + the perfect participle in 1:6, 1:33, 6:52, 15:7, 26, 46), which are considered as finite verbs of the pluperfect. I apply Rule 3 only to the function of the perfect participle.

136 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

The Pluperfect Active Indicative: Rule 1 In Mark, there are eight pluperfect indicative forms. I exclude four cases of the pluperfect (ᾔδεισαν in 1:34, 14:40, ᾔδει in 9:6, and εἰώθει in 10:1) from present consideration so that I can examine them differently later since they are considered used idiomatically or conventionally. Here, I deal with the other four, which I call ‘genuine pluperfects’ that appear in four places in Mark (14:44, 15:7, 15:10, 16:9). They are all active. In Mark, grammatical structure shows all the phrases with the pluperfect function as supporting material for the main narrative. Mark 14:44 (δεδώκει) is introduced by δὲ, which is a marker for an additional explanation (BDAG, 213). The pluperfects πεποιήκεισαν and ἐκβεβλήκει appear in relative clauses (15:7, 16:9). The pluperfect παραδεδώκεισαν occurs in the ὅτι clause (15:10), which is subordinate to the main clause. With Rule 1, I  discuss that the pluperfect primarily highlights temporally anterior activity, which is an action completed prior to the narrative past time. Table 4.10. Four Pluperfect Active Indicatives. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R1

Mark 14:43 Right away, while Jesus was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him came a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and experts in the law and elders.

R1 R1 R1

Mark 14:43 Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Mark 14:44 δεδώκει δὲ ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν σύσσημον αὐτοῖς λέγων· ὃν ἂν φιλήσω αὐτός ἐστιν, κρατήσατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς. Mark 15:7 ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. Mark 15:10 ἐγίνωσκεν γὰρ ὅτι διὰ φθόνον παραδεδώκεισαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. Mark 16:9 Ἀναστὰς δὲ πρωῒ πρώτῃ σαββάτου ἐφάνη πρῶτον Μαρίᾳ τῇ Μαγδαληνῇ, παρ᾿ ἧς ἐκβεβλήκει ἑπτὰ δαιμόνια.

Mark 14:44 (Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, ‘The one I kiss is the man. Arrest him and lead him away under guard.’) Mark 15:7 A man named Barabbas was imprisoned with rebels who had committed murder during an insurrection. Mark 15:10 (For he knew that the chief priests had handed him over because of envy.) Mark 16:9 Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 137

δεδώκει in 14:44 Porter may want to explain the pluperfect (δεδώκει) as indicating the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context (14:43–47), which is the scene of Jesus’ arrest. The scene includes ‘a crowd coming armed with swords and clubs,’ ‘Judas’ kissing,’ and ‘cutting off the high priest’s slave’s ear.’ For Porter, out of these three events, Judas’s kissing is of the highest prominence because of the pluperfect. However, all of these three actions are background material for the main event of Jesus’ arrest. Using Rule 1, the pluperfect (δεδώκει) in verse 44 is associated with the narrative past time, which is indicated by παραγίνεται (historical present) in verse 43. Although παραγίνεται (present tense) is chosen for vivid expression, it is actually a narrative past tense. Thus, with the primary function of anterior temporality, the pluperfect (δεδώκει) itself indicates that Judas had already made a sign prior to the narrative action of Judas’ arrival. Verse 45 clearly indicates that the sentence with the pluperfect (v. 44) is background information. Fanning explains that the pluperfect often occurs in an explanatory clause ‘introduced by δέ, γάρ, or by relative pronouns’ and ‘fills in background information’ for narrative past events.101 New English Translation (NET), which puts verse 44 in parenthesis, supports this view.

πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7, παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10 The pluperfect (πεποιήκεισαν) in 15:7 is associated with the narrative past tense (ἦν). In the same rationale as before, because of the primary feature of anterior temporality, Rule 1 is applied even though Rule 2 should be used when it is connected with the past indicative. This pluperfect (πεποιήκεισαν), appearing in the relative clause, is chosen to give information about what the rebels did prior to the narrative past time—the rebels had committed murder during an insurrection. It is background material that explains who Barabbas was, one of the rebels. The pluperfect (παραδεδώκεισαν) in 15:10 is associated with the narrative past tense (ἐγίνωσκεν). The pluperfect indicates that the activity of ‘the chief priests’ handing Jesus over happened prior to the narrative past time. The relative clause that includes the pluperfect is background information about Pilate—he knew that the chief priests had handed Jesus over because of envy. Further discussion is provided in the passage study of Mark 15:6–15. ἐκβεβλήκει in 16:9

The pluperfect (ἐκβεβλήκει) in verse 9 is associated with the narrative past tense, which is indicated by ἐφάνη. Jesus’ miraculous activity of ‘driving out seven demons from her’ occurred prior to the narrative action ( Jesus appeared), implying the

138 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

current (narrative past time) state of Jesus’ authority to driving out seven demons. The phrase with the pluperfect is background material for explaining what Jesus did before appearing to Mary Magdalene.

The Pluperfect: ᾔδειν and εἰώθει: Rule 2 There are four idiomatic pluperfects in Mark:  ᾔδεισαν (1:34, 14:40), ᾔδει (9:6), and εἰώθει (10:1). The pluperfect forms of ᾔδεισαν (1:34, 14:40) and ᾔδει (9:6) can be understood as the aorist in line with the idiomatic use of its perfect, which is considered the present. I believe that they are simply chosen to adjust to the narrative past time. As I have shown in the discussion of the perfect form οἶδα in the section on individual treatments, I assume that these pluperfects deliver the dual feature of the perfect in the narrative past time. I associate each with the underlined section of Scripture that is the content of a prior ‘knowing.’ Rule 2 is applied. Each emphasizes its resultant state (of the narrative past time) of ‘knowing’ of the subject. The pluperfect of εἰώθει (10:1), which is rarely used, is explained with Rule 2. ᾔδειν in 1:34, 9:6, and 14:40

In Mark 1:  34b, the demons had prior knowledge about Jesus. The content of their prior knowledge of Jesus’ healing and exorcising is presented in 1:34a. Table 4.11. Three Pluperfects of ᾔδειν and One εἰώθει. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Mark 1:34 καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν πολλοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ δαιμόνια πολλὰ ἐξέβαλεν καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν λαλεῖν τὰ δαιμόνια, ὅτι ᾔδεισαν αὐτόν. R 2 Mark 9:6 οὐ γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἀποκριθῇ, ἔκφοβοι γὰρ ἐγένοντο. R 2 Mark 14:40 καὶ πάλιν ἐλθὼν εὗρεν αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας, ἦσαν γὰρ αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ καταβαρυνόμενοι, καὶ οὐκ ᾔδεισαν τί ἀποκριθῶσιν αὐτῷ. R 2 Mark 10:1 Καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ἀναστὰς ἔρχεται εἰς τὰ ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας [καὶ] πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, καὶ συμπορεύονται πάλιν ὄχλοι πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ ὡς εἰώθει πάλιν ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.

Mark 1:34 So he healed many who were sick with various diseases and drove out many demons. But he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him. Mark 9:6 (For they were afraid, and he did not know what to say.) Mark 14:40 When he came again he found them sleeping; they could not keep their eyes open. And they did not know what to tell him. Mark 10:1 Then Jesus left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan River. Again crowds gathered to him, and again, as was his custom, he taught them.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 139

In Mark 9:6, Peter himself did not understand his prior talk with Jesus. The content of his prior activity is presented in 9:5. In Mark 14: 40b, the disciples did not know how to explain their anterior action. The content of their anterior action is presented in 14: 40a. All the pluperfects of ᾔδεισαν and ᾔδει indicate the current state of the narrative past time that results from temporally anterior activity.

εἰώθει in 10:1 The pluperfect indicative εἰώθει occurs two times in the NT (Matt 27:15; Mark 10:1).102 There are no other tenses than the pluperfect. This pluperfect (εἰώθει) is associated with the past tense (imperfect ἐδίδασκεν). The pluperfect indicates the current state (narrative past time) of ‘being accustomed,’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘being accustomed.’ (Rule 2)  The lexical character of εἰώθει, which is ‘to maintain a custom (BDAG, 295),’ also implies its resultant state. All four idiomatic expressions appear in narrative discourse. They do not carry the narrative story forward. They are used as additional comments to support main events or themes. In grammatical construction, they are used with ὅτι (1:34), γάρ (9:6), καί (14:40), and ὡς (10:1), which indicate that they are explanatory material supporting main events or themes.

The Pluperfect Periphrastic Construction: Rule 3 When the perfect participle nominative is used with ἦν (the imperfect of εἰμί), the construction is called ‘a periphrastic construction’ (ἦν + the perfect participle), functioning as a finite verb of the pluperfect.103 This construction expresses both ‘the narrative past time (ἦν)’ and ‘a dual feature of the perfect (the perfect participle).’ The perfect participle functions as a predicate adjective, which describes the subject (a substantive) with the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. The narrative past time indicated by the copular ἦν is added to the function of the perfect participle (Rule 3). Thus it functions as the pluperfect. Although this pluperfect periphrastic construction is considered a finite verb, the adjectival function of the perfect participle is mainly displayed. Fanning states that the pluperfect periphrastic construction is to be understood in both ways. One is that ‘a stative, almost adjectival sense predominates’ in the middle-passive. The other is that it ‘highlights a past condition with some reference to the occurrence which produced it.’104 Levinsohn also says that the periphrastic construction serves ‘to emphasize the adjectival [stative] idea inherent in the participle.’105 The copular (ἦν) expresses an iterative event or ongoing state.106 Moreover, on a discourse level, Levinsohn states that the pluperfect periphrastic construction is used as a background setting for the narrative.107

140 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.12. Six Pluperfect Periphrastic Constructions. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R3

Mark 1:6 John wore a garment made of camel’s hair with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.

R3 R3

Mark 1:6 καὶ ἦν ὁ Ἰωάννης ἐνδεδυμένος τρίχας καμήλου καὶ ζώνην δερματίνην περὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ μέλι ἄγριον. Mark 1:33 καὶ ἦν ὅλη ἡ πόλις ἐπισυνηγμένη πρὸς τὴν θύραν. Mark 6:52 οὐ γὰρ συνῆκαν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἄρτοις, ἀλλ᾿ ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη.

R3

Mark 15:7 ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.

R3

Mark 15:26 καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη· ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Mark 15:46 καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.

R3

Mark 1:33 The whole town gathered by the door. Mark 6:52 because they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened. Mark 15:7 A man named Barabbas was imprisoned with rebels who had committed murder during an insurrection. Mark 15:26 The inscription of the charge against him read, ‘The king of the Jews.’ Mark 15:46 After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of the rock. Then he rolled a stone across the entrance of the tomb.

In Mark, there are six pluperfect periphrastic constructions (Mark 1:6, 33, 6:52, 15:7, 26, 46). Five out of the six have the order of ‘ἦν + the subject + the perfect participle,’ which Levinsohn calls the default order.108 Only one case has the order of ‘ὃ + ἦν + the perfect participle’ in which ὃ (a relative pronoun) functions as the subject. I associate all the perfect participles with the substantives (subjects). Rule 3 is applied. I understand that the perfect participle in the periphrastic construction functions to describe the subject with the dual feature of the perfect. When the perfect participle is in middle/passive voice, a present state tends to be highlighted. When it is in active voice, anterior activity tends to be highlighted.109 The six cases in Mark are all in middle/passive voice. Thus, they all are used to emphasize a current (past) state, which results from anterior activity, based on the narrative past time indicated by ἦν. The perfect participle is chosen to meet the need of describing the subject in the immediate context. In the larger context, the perfect participle is supporting material for main events or themes because it does not carry main events or themes forward but, as background, delivers a description of a part.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 141

ἦν + S + ἐνδεδυμένος in 1:6

In the passage of Mark 1:1–8, verses 1–3 present that the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ started with John the Baptist’s ministry, which was prophesied by the prophet Isaiah. Verses 4–8 are about John’s ministry, which is the main story of the larger context (1:1–8). Verse 6 is the description of John’s appearance and lifestyle. John’s outfit, which is described here with the perfect participle, is supporting material for the explanation of who John is. Since John’s outfit is subsidiary information to explain John’s life and ministry, it does not make sense if Porter says that John’s outfit is of the highest prominence in this context. In the periphrastic construction (ἦν + S + ἐνδεδυμένος) in verse 6, the perfect participle (ἐνδεδυμένος) is connected with the subject (‘John’). The perfect middle participle (ἐνδεδυμένος) here describes John as being in a state of wearing a garment made of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist. The present state of ‘wearing’ cannot be separated from the anterior action of ‘putting on.’ ἦν indicates the narrative past time. Thus, the interpretation is that John was in a state of wearing resulting from a prior action of ‘putting on.’ ἦν + S + ἐπισυνηγμένη in 1:33

In Mark 1:32–34, the main event is Jesus’ healing. Verse 33 (‘The whole town gathered by the door’) is an additional explanation for the situation in which people brought all kinds of the sick and the demon-possessed to Jesus (v. 32). Thus, verses 32–33 are a background setting for the main event, healing. In the periphrastic construction (ἦν + S + ἐπισυνηγμένη) in verse 33, the perfect middle/passive participle is connected with the subject (ὅλη ἡ πόλις ‘the whole town’) according to Rule 3. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to emphasize a present state, implying a prior action. Thus, here the perfect participle (ἐπισυνηγμένη) describes the current (past) situation of the whole town where many people gathered. With ἦν indicating the narrative past time, verse 33 is interpreted as ‘The whole town had already gathered by the door before healing took place.’ ἦν + S + πεπωρωμένη in 6:52

The event in Mark 6:45–52 is Jesus’ walking on the water. Jesus’ miracle is contrasted to the disciples who did not recognize Jesus walking on the water. Its main theme is the disciples’ failure in their faith. In the final verse of this passage (v. 52), where the pluperfect periphrastic construction appears, the author explains with γὰρ why they failed. Porter may argue that the hardened hearts of the disciples are highlighted because of the perfect on a discourse level. However, the event is mostly presented with the aorist and imperfect indicatives, which are narrative tenses. The perfect participle (πεπωρωμένη) is chosen to describe ‘their heart’ in the immediate context (v. 52).

142 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

According to Rule 3, I explain that, in the periphrastic construction in verse 52 (ἦν + S + πεπωρωμένη), the perfect middle/passive participle (πεπωρωμένη) is chosen to describe the subject (αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία ‘their heart’). The perfect participle (πεπωρ ωμένη) highlights a present state of their heart. In this periphrastic construction, the copular ἦν is added to indicate the narrative past time. Thus, their heart was in a state of hardness resulting from a prior hardening. Their hardened heart is connected to the fact that they did not understand the miracle of the loaves. ἦν + S+ δεδεμένος in 15:7

This perfect participle (δεδεμένος) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 15:6–15. ἦν + S + ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26

This perfect participle (ἐπιγεγραμμένη) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 15:22–32. ὃ + ἦν + λελατομημένον in 15:46

This perfect participle (λελατομημένον) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 15:42–47.

PA S S AG E S T U D I E S In this section, I select eight passages (Mark 5:1–20, 5:25–34, 7:24–30, 11:1–11, 15:6–15, 15:22–32, 15:42–47, 16:1–8) and examine the various perfects that occur in these passages to determine if the perfects are chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context or to highlight one side of the dual feature of the perfect in the immediate context. Using my Three Rules, I verify that the perfect is chosen to convey its dual feature in relation to its associated part, highlighting one side of its dual feature in the immediate context while in the larger context it supports main events or themes as background.

Mark 5:1–20 This passage (Mark 5:1–20) is the account of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac. The main theme is Jesus’ power over the forces of evil.110 Seven perfects occur in Mark 5:1–20: three perfect infinitives (v. 4), three perfect participles (vv. 14–15), and one perfect indicative (v. 19). The three perfect infinitives (v. 4) are used to describe the situation of the demon-possessed man before he met Jesus. One perfect participle (v. 14)  is used to describe what had happened to the man. Two

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 143

Table 4.13. Mark 5:1–20. Source: Author Rule NA28 Mark 5:1 Καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν.

NET Mark 5:1 So they came to the other side of the lake, to the region of the Gerasenes.

Mark 5:2 καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Mark 5:2 Just as Jesus was getting out πλοίου εὐθὺς ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν of the boat, a man with an unclean spirit μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, came from the tombs and met him.

R1

Mark 5:3 ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν, καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι Mark 5:4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθ αι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι· Mark 5:5 καὶ διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν ἦν κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν λίθοις.

Mark 5:3 He lived among the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. Mark 5:4 For his hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles, but he had torn the chains apart and broken the shackles in pieces. No one was strong enough to subdue him. Mark 5:5 Each night and every day among the tombs and in the mountains, he would cry out and cut himself with stones. Mark 5:6 καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ Mark 5:6 When he saw Jesus from μακρόθεν ἔδραμεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτῷ a distance, he ran and bowed down before him. Mark 5:7 καὶ κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγει· τί Mark 5:7 Then he cried out with a loud ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου; voice, ‘Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν, μή με βασανίσῃς. the Most High God! I implore you by God—do not torment me!’ Mark 5:8 ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ· ἔξελθε τὸ Mark 5:8 (For Jesus had said to him, πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. ‘Come out of that man, you unclean spirit!’) Mark 5:9 καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν· τί ὄνομά Mark 5:9 Jesus asked him, ‘What is your σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι name?’ And he said, ‘My name is Legion, πολλοί ἐσμεν. for we are many.’ Mark 5:10 καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα Mark 5:10 He begged Jesus repeatedly μὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας. not to send them out of the region. Mark 5:11 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀγέλη Mark 5:11 There on the hillside, a great χοίρων μεγάλη βοσκομένη· herd of pigs was feeding. Mark 5:12 καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν Mark 5:12 And the demonic spirits λέγοντες· πέμψον ἡμᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα begged him, ‘Send us into the pigs. Let εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν. us enter them.’ Continued 

144 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.13. Continued Rule NA28

R3

R2

NET

Mark 5:13 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἐπνίγοντο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. Mark 5:14 Καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς· καὶ ἦλθον ἰδεῖν τί ἐστιν τὸ γεγονὸς

Mark 5:13 Jesus gave them permission. So the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs. Then the herd rushed down the steep slope into the lake, and about two thousand were drowned in the lake. Mark 5:14 Now the herdsmen ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. Mark 5:15 καὶ ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν Mark 5:15 They came to Jesus and saw καὶ θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον καθήμενον the demon-possessed man sitting there, ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα, τὸν clothed and in his right mind—the one ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγιῶνα, καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν. who had the ‘Legion’—and they were afraid. Mark 5:16 καὶ διηγήσαντο αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες Mark 5:16 Those who had seen what πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ καὶ περὶ τῶν had happened to the demon-possessed χοίρων. man reported it, and they also told about the pigs. Mark 5:17 καὶ ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν Mark 5:17 Then they asked Jesus to leave ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν. their region. Mark 5:18 Καὶ ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ Mark 5:18 As he was getting into the πλοῖον παρεκάλει αὐτὸν ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς ἵνα boat the man who had been demonμετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ᾖ. possessed asked if he could go with him. Mark 5:19 καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ Mark 5:19 But Jesus did not permit him λέγει αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς to do so. Instead, he said to him, ‘Go to τοὺς σοὺς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ your home and to your people and tell κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε. them what the Lord has done for you, that he had mercy on you.’ Mark 5:20 καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἤρξατο Mark 5:20 So he went away and began to κηρύσσειν ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus had αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον. done for him, and all were amazed.

perfect participles (v. 15) are used to describe the situation of the man, who had the ‘Legion,’ once he was healed and became a man in his right mind. One perfect indicative (v. 19) highlights the present result of Jesus’ miraculous work. Except for verse 19, most of the perfects are related to the demon-possessed man. In terms of ‘prominence,’ Porter disregards any other grammatical features and structures. In other words, he does not care about whether, for example, the perfect is in the infinitive or in the participle form.111 Porter may argue that all the perfects

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 145

are related to the highest prominence (frontground) in this narrative discourse. For Porter, the demon-possessed man is prominent in this narrative because all descriptions, except for verse 19, refer to the demon-possessed man. However, the main theme is Jesus’ power over the demons. The demon-possessed man is the object of Jesus’ powerful activity. His serious condition functions as background for magnifying Jesus’ power over the demons.112 The final perfect (v. 19)  highlights Jesus who has done awesome work for the demon-possessed man. The previous six perfects are supporting material for demonstrating Jesus’ power and authority. Thus, I cannot agree that all the perfects are chosen to show the highest prominence in the larger context. Rather, each perfect is chosen to meet the needs of its immediate context. Using my Three Rules, I present in the following sections how each perfect operates within the limits of their immediate context so that I can show that my approach has more explanatory power than Porter’s.

δεδέσθαι, διεσπάσθαι, συντετρῖφθαι in 5:4 As I have already discussed in the section on the perfect non-indicative, the three infinitives in 5:4 function to indicate anterior temporality. I  attempted to apply Rule 1 to the three perfect infinitives in 5:4. They are associated with the past tense of the controlling verb (ἐδύνατο in 5: 3b). These three perfects are chosen in the immediate context (v. 4) to describe the demon-possessed man before he was healed and do not influence other verses. His hands and feet had often been bound with the chains and shackles. The chains had often been torn off. The shackles had often been broken into pieces. The descriptions use the three perfects as background for the narrative of healing in the larger context (5:1–20).

γεγονός in 5:14 According to Rule 3, I explain that the perfect participle (γεγονός) functions as a substantival adjective, describing an implied indefinite substantive (τό ‘something’) with the dual feature of the perfect. Since this perfect in in active voice, it tends to focus more on anterior activity than a present state. People came to see τὸ γεγονός (‘what had happened’). If Jesus and the demon-possessed man are the main characters, the ‘people’ of the countryside are supporting characters for this story. The perfect appears in the description of the ‘people.’ It appears that the perfect is chosen as supporting material and, thus, as background for the main theme of the Jesus’ power over the demons. ἱματισμένον, ἐσχηκότα in 5:15

According to Rule 3, the perfect participle (ἱματισμένον) in 5:15 is connected to a substantive (τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον ‘the demon-possessed man’), which contains the

146 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

present participle. This perfect participle (ἱματισμένον) functions as a predicate adjective to modify the demon-possessed man. It highlights a present state of ‘wearing,’ which implies the anterior activity of ‘putting on.’ As mentioned in the section on the perfect participle (περιβεβλημένος ‘wearing’) in 14:51, this perfect participle (ἱματισμένον) delivers a present state of ‘wearing’ with the notion that the present state of ‘wearing’ cannot be separated from the anterior activity of ‘putting on.’ Thus, I believe that the speaker or writer chooses this perfect conventionally based on the nature of its lexical meaning, without intending to highlight a section of the story in the larger context. The second perfect participle (ἐσχηκότα) in 5:15 functions substantivally to modify an implied substantive, ‘the demon-possessed man.’ The perfect participle (ἐσχηκότα) highlights the present state of ‘having the Legion,’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘the Legion’s entering.’ Although this perfect is in active voice, it does not focus on anterior activity. Idiomatically, it seems that, instead of the passive perfect participle, the active perfect participle has been used to indicate a present state. It is found that no passive form of ἔχω appears in the NT.

πεποίηκεν in 5:19 In Mark, three perfect indicatives of ποιέω occur (5:19, 7:37, and 11:17). Previously, I applied Rule 1 to 7:37 and 11:17 by stating that they highlight anterior activity while still denoting a present state. However, the situation in 5:19 is different. Here the perfect (πεποίηκεν) is coordinated with the aorist (ἠλέησέν) in a present-referring situation (direct discourse). Thus, Rule 2 is appropriate to explain it. The perfect is chosen to highlight an existing result of the anterior activity of ‘doing.’ The existing result in this context implies Jesus’ credit for performing this healing. Regarding the phrase (ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε), Porter explains that the perfect encompasses all of Jesus’ acts, including His mercy.113 Porter seems to consider anterior activity. He should have explained that the perfect here highlights a present state because, for him, the perfect delivers the stative aspect with prominence. The binary opposition between the perfect and the aorist could have been good evidence for his argument, since, for him, the aorist is used to support more heavily marked tenses (the perfect). However, Porter here inclines toward anterior activity. His consideration of anterior activity may come from the thought that the aorist is an indicator for anterior activity. However, I suggest that, according to Rule 2, the present state is highlighted. Or I  would say that this perfect (πεποίηκεν) is used to vividly deliver the work of Jesus in front of the eyes of the reader. My interpretation is that the man is commanded to proclaim the work of Jesus in a vivid way based on his anterior experience.114

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 147

Mark 5:25–34 Mark 5:25–34 is the narrative about ‘the woman who touched Jesus’ garment.’ Mark 5:25–34 has four perfect forms: ἴαται (v. 29), εἰδυῖα (v. 33), γέγονεν (v. 33), and σέσωκέν (v. 34). According to Porter, all are chosen to indicate the highest prominence on a discourse level. Regardless of grammatical structures and relational words, Porter may say that the perfect is chosen to highlight her healing event. He may explain that the first three perfects in verse 29 and verse 33 highlight her acknowledgment of the healing while the last perfect in verse 34 highlights complete healing through her faith. It may be compelling to think of ‘healing’ as the main theme in this event since something related to healing is expressed with the perfect. However, I argue that the perfect is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context but to deliver one side of its dual feature (with the other side still at work) in an immediate context. The following discussion shows that my approach using my Three Rules has more explanatory power than Porter’s. ἴαται in 5:29

Applying Rule 2, I associate the perfect (ἴαται) in the subordinate clause with the aorist (ἔγνω) in the main clause, which is the narrative past tense. I explain that the perfect emphasizes an existing state of ‘being healed’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘healing.’ She felt in her body that she was now in a state of being healed through touching Jesus. The perfect (ἴαται) is used within the ὅτι clause to refer to the woman’s state within the limits of the immediate context (v. 29).

εἰδυῖα, γέγονεν in 5:33 The first perfect εἰδυῖα is a participial form of οἶδα and has the same function as οἶδα. As I have already discussed it in the section on individual treatments, οἶδα is associated with the content of a prior knowledge (ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ), expressing the subject’s present state of knowing. Rule 2 is appropriate for explain this. εἰδυῖα highlights a current state (narrative past time) of knowing based on a prior knowledge (‘what had happened to her’). The second perfect γέγονεν in the relative clause is associated with εἰδυῖα which is the perfect participle regarded as a present tense. Rule 1 is applied. The perfect (γέγονεν) highlights anterior activity. Porter also says that this perfect (γέγονεν) indicates anterior activity.115 However, it is not based on the perfect’s inherent dual feature but based on the temporal indicator of the previous event of healing (v. 29–30). In the same way, Decker understands that this perfect (γέγονεν) indicates past time because it describes a previous state or condition.116 Their conclusion is the same as mine. However, their decision comes from other contextual factors, whereas my decision comes from the perfect’s inherent dual feature.

148 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

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

NA28

NET

Mark 5:25 Καὶ γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος δώδεκα ἔτη

Mark 5:25 Now a woman was there who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years.

Mark 5:26 καὶ πολλὰ παθοῦσα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παρ᾿ αὐτῆς πάντα καὶ μηδὲν ὠφεληθεῖσα ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα, Mark 5:27 ἀκούσασα περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ·

R2

R 2 R1 R1 R1

Mark 5:28 ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. Mark 5:29 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς καὶ ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγος. Mark 5:30 καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἐπιστραφεὶς ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἔλεγεν· τίς μου ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων; Mark 5:31 καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ· βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε καὶ λέγεις· τίς μου ἥψατο; Mark 5:32 καὶ περιεβλέπετο ἰδεῖν τὴν τοῦτο ποιήσασαν. Mark 5:33 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ, ἦλθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Mark 5:34 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγός σου. Mark 10:52 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.a

Mark 5:26 She had endured a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet instead of getting better, she grew worse.

Mark 5:27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak,

Mark 5:28 for she kept saying, ‘If only I touch his clothes, I will be healed.’ Mark 5:29 At once the bleeding stopped, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. Mark 5:30 Jesus knew at once that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and said, ‘Who touched my clothes?’ Mark 5:31 His disciples said to him, ‘You see the crowd pressing against you and you say, “Who touched me?” ’ Mark 5:32 But he looked around to see who had done it. Mark 5:33 Then the woman, with fear and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. Mark 5:34 He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’ Mark 10:52 Jesus said to him, ‘Go, your faith has healed you.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the road.

I intentionally put Mark 10:52 after Mark 5:34 to see how the same perfect (σέσωκεν) functions in a different context. a

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 149

σέσωκεν in 5:34 and 10:52 Applying Rule 1, I associate the perfect (σέσωκεν) in Mark 5:34 with two present imperatives (ὕπαγε and ἴσθι). These present imperatives deliver a future-oriented sense to their immediate context because the actions in the imperatives are not visible yet. The woman in this passage had been suffering from a hemorrhage (Mark 5:25). The perfect (σέσωκεν) in 5:34 highlights the anterior activity of complete healing, which gives a credit to her faith. The anterior activity of complete healing through her faith leads to her present healthy state and will continually influence her healthy life in the future. The same perfect (σέσωκεν) in Mark 10:52 appears in a similar situation. Like Mark 5:34, it is associated with the present imperative (ὕπαγε). Because of the imperative, a futuristic sense is implied. With Rule 1, I  explain the function of this perfect. Mark 10:52 belongs to the story of the blind man, Bartimaeus. The anterior activity of healing through the blind man’s faith, which caused him to gain his sight, is highlighted. This man, who is in a state of having his eyes open, will go forward in the future with regaining his sight. Without considering lexical situations and other contextual factors, based on Rule 1, I judge that the perfect is used to highlight the anterior activity of healing through Bartimaeus’s crying out: ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ (10: 48). In both Mark 5:34 and 10:52, the perfect (σέσωκεν) appears in transitive and active voice. Based on lexical situations and grammatical situations of ‘voice’ or ‘transitivity,’ Fanning suggests that σέσωκεν emphasizes a completed action.117 Recently Fanning explains that, for transitive active perfects, the state of the subject is ‘concerned with the realm of responsibility (for credit or blame) for doing the action.’118 However, in this dissertation, I attempt to apply a simply unitary meaning of the dual feature to all the perfects with my hypothesis that the speaker or writer may choose the perfect with a simple thought. In other words, the speaker or writer may have only considered an associated word in the immediate context without much thinking on complicated characteristics of the verb and other complicated contextual situations.119 The perfect σέσωκεν occurs in the phrase ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε ‘your faith has made you well.’ The same phrase appears seven times in four stories of healing or forgiveness.120 All contain the anterior activity through faith.121 All are used with the imperative, which endows a future-oriented sense.122 The reason that the perfect (σέσωκεν) is chosen in the immediate context is to indicate the anterior activity of healing through faith that caused the present state of healing. I believe that the perfect is chosen to complement the imperative because the imperative cannot deliver the past and present tense. In the larger context, the statement ‘your faith has made you well’ could be the prominent message, not because of the perfect tense, but because of the topic of Jesus’ healing which

150 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

implies the salvation in the past, the present, and the future. In the sense of a full coverage of healing or salvation, ‘your faith has made you well’ can be a concluding statement or a pronouncement statement. However, a concluding statement, a summary statement, or a pronouncement statement is not necessarily expressed only through the perfect tense for the highest prominence.

Mark 7:24–30 Mark 7:24–30 is about the faith of the Syrophoenician woman. The story is presented with the aorist and imperfect, which are normal tenses used in narrative discourse. Three perfects occur in Mark 7:29 (ἐξελήλυθεν) and 7:30 (βεβλημένον and ἐξεληλυθός). Verse 28 highlights the woman’s faith: ‘Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs Table 4.15. Mark 7:24–30. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

Mark 7:24 Ἐκεῖθεν δὲ ἀναστὰς ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Mark 7:24 After Jesus left there, he went τὰ ὅρια Τύρου. Καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς οἰκίαν οὐδένα to the region of Tyre. When he went into ἤθελεν γνῶναι, καὶ οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν· a house, he did not want anyone to know, but he was not able to escape notice. Mark 7:25 ἀλλ᾿ εὐθὺς ἀκούσασα γυνὴ περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἧς εἶχεν τὸ θυγάτριον αὐτῆς πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, ἐλθοῦσα προσέπεσεν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ·

Mark 7:25 Instead, a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him and came and fell at his feet.

Mark 7:26 ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἦν Ἑλληνίς, Mark 7:26 The woman was a Greek, of Συροφοινίκισσα τῷ γένει· καὶ ἠρώτα αὐτὸν ἵνα Syrophoenician origin. She asked him to τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐκβάλῃ ἐκ τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς. cast the demon out of her daughter. Mark 7:27 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτῇ· ἄφες πρῶτον χορ τασθῆναι τὰ τέκνα, οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν. Mark 7:28 ἡ δὲ ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· κύριε· καὶ τὰ κυνάρια ὑποκάτω τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ψιχίων τῶν παιδίων. R 1 Mark 7:29 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ· διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ὕπαγε, ἐξελήλυθεν ἐκ τῆς θυγατρός σου τὸ δαιμόνιον. R 3 Mark 7:30 καὶ ἀπελθοῦσα εἰς τὸν οἶκον R 3 αὐτῆς εὗρεν τὸ παιδίον βεβλημένον ἐπὶ τὴν κλίνην καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον ἐξεληλυθός.

Mark 7:27 He said to her, ‘Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and to throw it to the dogs.’

Mark 7:28 She answered, ‘Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ Mark 7:29 Then he said to her, ‘Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter.’ Mark 7:30 She went home and found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 151

under the table eat the children’s crumbs’ (RSV).123 Verse 30 shows the confirmation of her faith through her daughter’s healing. Porter may argue that verses 29–30 are part of the highest prominence (frontground) in Mark 7:24–30 because of the perfects they contain. However, the woman’s faith is not demonstrated in verses 29–30. Rather, verses 29–30 show the situation that results from her confession of faith. Thus, it can be said that verses 29–30 contain supporting material that confirms the woman’s faith. I argue that the perfects are chosen to supplement the immediate context (vv. 29–30) for the larger context. I  deal with the three perfects in verses 29 and 30 using my Three Rules so that I can show that the perfect functions with its inherent-dual feature in the immediate context while supporting main events or themes in the larger context. ἐξελήλυθεν in 7:29

In the larger context (7:24–30), Porter focuses on the woman’s present state of faith, instead of the anterior activity of the demon’s leaving. Porter asserts that the phrase ‘the demon has come (ἐξελήλυθεν) out of her daughter’ is ‘a mere description and is linked to her present persistence and faith.’124 To be consistent with his theory, Porter should have said that the fact that ‘the demon has come out of her daughter’ is prominent because it is described using the perfect. However, his statement sounds like he believes the perfect functions are supporting material for denoting the woman’s present state of faith. I explain the perfect (ἐξελήλυθεν) by using Rule 1. This perfect (ἐξελήλυθεν) is associated with the present imperative (ὕπαγε). The perfect is chosen to emphasize anterior activity along with its present result because the present imperative does not deliver both a prior event and a present state. The perfect (ἐξελήλυθεν) highlights the demon’s complete leaving, which is Jesus’ pronouncement in one of Jesus’ miracle works (v. 29).125 Jesus’ pronouncement motivates the woman not to need to persist in her request any longer because the healing was complete. Grassmick says that Jesus told the woman to go home, assuring her that the healing was already complete.126

βεβλημένον in 7:30 According to Rule 3, I connect the perfect participle (βεβλημένον) to the child (τὸ παιδίον)—the perfect functions as an adjective describing the state of the child (τὸ παιδίον). Since the perfect is in middle/passive voice, it tends to emphasize a current (past) state that results from anterior activity in the immediate context (in narrative past time). The perfect participle (βεβλημένον) can imply that ‘the child is lying on the bed,’ not for a regular sleep but for something like sickness. This present situation of the child indicated by the perfect fits in the context. Considering

152 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

narrative past time, probably it means that, although the demon had gone out, the child was still lying on the bed probably for some physical recovery. ἐξεληλυθός in 7:30

This perfect participle (ἐξεληλυθός) is used to describe the demon (τὸ δαιμόνιον). Rule 3 is applied. It occurs in the same structure as the previous perfect participle (βεβλημένον). However, unlike the previous one, this perfect (ἐξεληλυθός) is in active voice. Thus, I understand that this perfect emphasizes the anterior activity of ‘the demon’s going out,’ although the activity is not in view. Vincent understands the description of the perfect thus:  ‘She had probably experienced some fearful convulsion when the demon departed.’127

Mark 11:1–11 Mark 11:1–11 contains four perfect forms:  δεδεμένον (11:2, 4), ἑστηκότων (11:5), εὐλογημένος (11:9), and εὐλογημένη (11:10). They are all perfect participles. The theme of Mark 11:1–11 is the triumphal entry of Jesus. The story shows that the prophecy of Zechariah is fulfilled through ‘riding on a donkey’ (Zech 9:9). The colt that is ‘tied’ (a state expressed with the perfect participle) is part of the background description for how the disciples can get the donkey for Jesus to ride on it. This prophecy indicates that Jesus is the Messianic king. Jesus is recognized as the Messianic king with the people’s shouting (Ps 118:25), expressed through the perfect participle. Two OT citations (11:9 and 10) are used to highlight the identity of Jesus as the Messianic king, not because they contain the perfect but because of the content of the prophecy. Porter understands that these perfect participles are chosen ‘as part of the author’s strategy in the light of his entire discourse.’128 Porter explains that they are chosen to draw attention to the people’s recognition of Jesus, providing frontground (the highest prominence) information.129 For Porter, the function of the perfect is to indicate ‘a present state and prominence’ in the larger context. I believe the speaker or writer wished to indicate ‘a dual feature’ of a present state resulting from anterior activity in the immediate context. In the following discussions, I demonstrate that my approach is superior to Porter’s. I apply Rule 3 to explain the function of all perfect participles in this passage. Simply put, they describe substantives as adjectives with the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. I argue that the speaker or writer chooses them to meet the need of each immediate context.

δεδεμένον in 11:2 and 4 I understand that the perfect participle (δεδεμένον ‘tied’) is chosen to describe a colt (πῶλον) with the dual feature of the perfect. The participle is in passive voice,

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 153

Table 4.16. Mark 11:1–11. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

Mark 11:1 Καὶ ὅτε ἐγγίζουσιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανίαν πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, ἀποστέλλει δύο τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ R 3 Mark 11:2 καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν κώμην τὴν κατέναντι ὑμῶν, καὶ εὐθὺς εἰσπορευόμενοι εἰς αὐτὴν εὑρήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον ἐφ᾿ ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν· λύσατε αὐτὸν καὶ φέρετε. Mark 11:3 καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ· τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο; εἴπατε· ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει, καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν ὧδε. R 3 Mark 11:4 καὶ ἀπῆλθον καὶ εὗρον πῶλον δεδεμένον πρὸς θύραν ἔξω ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀμφόδου καὶ λύουσιν αὐτόν. R 3 Mark 11:5 καί τινες τῶν ἐκεῖ ἑστηκότων ἔλεγον αὐτοῖς· τί ποιεῖτε λύοντες τὸν πῶλον;

Mark 11:1 Now as they approached Jerusalem, near Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples Mark 11:2 and said to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you. As soon as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. Mark 11:3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here soon.’’ Mark 11:4 So they went and found a colt tied at a door, outside in the street, and untied it. Mark 11:5 Some people standing there said to them, ‘What are you doing, untying that colt?’ Mark 11:6 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτοῖς καθὼς εἶπεν ὁ Mark 11:6 They replied as Jesus had told Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ἀφῆκαν αὐτούς. them, and the bystanders let them go.

Mark 11:7 καὶ φέρουσιν τὸν πῶλον πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἐπιβάλλουσιν αὐτῷ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. Mark 11:8 καὶ πολλοὶ τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν ἔστρωσαν εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν. R 3 Mark 11:9 καὶ οἱ προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες ἔκραζον· ὡσαννά· εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου· Mark 11:10 εὐλογημένη ἡ ἐρχομένη βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ·ὡσαννὰ ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις. Mark 11:11 Καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ περιβλεψάμενος πάντα, ὀψίας ἤδη οὔσης τῆς ὥρας, ἐξῆλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα.

Mark 11:7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus, threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. Mark 11:8 Many spread their cloaks on the road and others spread branches they had cut in the fields. Mark 11:9 Both those who went ahead and those who followed kept shouting, ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Mark 11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest!’ Mark 11:11 Then Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the temple. And after looking around at everything, he went out to Bethany with the twelve since it was already late.

154 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

so it tends to highlight the present state of the colt (tied) while still implying the anterior activity of ‘tying.’ I find that no present tense form of δέω occurs in the NT.130 It is assumed that the perfect was chosen instead of the present because of its dual feature. It may have been understood that the present state of ‘being tied’ was not separated from the anterior activity of ‘tying.’ If then, the choice of this perfect (δεδεμένον) does not represent a strategy to draw the reader’s attention but rather the need to describe the present state of the substantive. δεδεμένον is used to describe the present state of ‘a colt’ within the limits of the immediate context (vv. 2 and 4). ἑστηκότων in 11:5

The perfect participle (ἑστηκότων) in Mark 11:5 is the same form as the perfect found in Mark 9:1. It is the substantival paticiple that functions as if it were a noun, modifying an implied noun (τῶν ‘people’). Here, I apply my same explanation for the perfect in Mark 9:1 to Mark 11:5. No present tense form appears in the NT. Instead, the perfect is used to describe a present state of ‘standing’ because the present state of standing implies anterior standing. Thus, the choice of the perfect is not related to the speaker or writer’s strategy to draw the reader’s attention but related to the conventional use of this perfect in the given lexical situation.

εὐλογημένος in 11:9–10 The perfect participle (εὐλογημένος) in Mark 11: 9b comes from the OT citation of Psalm 118:26 (LXX). The perfect participle (εὐλογημένος) is not the author’s subjective choice but merely an accurate citation of the verb found in the LXX, which is translated from the Hebrew passive participle (‫)ְךּורָּב‬. Evans suggests that in the first century there may have been an ‘antiphonal’ song based on the wording of Psalm 118:26.131 At any rate, the perfect form relies on the LXX. Thus, it is not related to the author’s strategy to denote prominence on a discourse level. Applying Rule 3, the perfect participle (εὐλογημένος) is associated with the subject ‘the one who comes’ which refers to Jesus. It functions as a predicate adjective. Since this is in passive voice, it highlights the present state of Jesus—Jesus is the one who is blessed.

Mark 15:6–15 Mark 15:6–15 includes one perfect participle (δεδεμένος) in verse 7a and two pluperfect indicatives (πεποιήκεισαν and παραδεδώκεισαν) in verses 7b and 10. This passage belongs to the account of the Jesus’ Roman trial (Mark 15:1–15). The main figure is Jesus, not Barabbas, for Jesus was sentenced to die on the cross. Porter may understand that the sentences which include the perfect and pluperfect

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 155

Table 4.17. Mark 15:6–15. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

Mark 15:6 Κατὰ δὲ ἑορτὴν ἀπέλυεν αὐτοῖς Mark 15:6 During the feast it was ἕνα δέσμιον ὃν παρῃτοῦντο. customary to release one prisoner to the people, whomever they requested. R 3 Mark 15:7 ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς Mark 15:7 A man named Barabbas R 1 μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν was imprisoned with rebels who had τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν. committed murder during an insurrection. Mark 15:8 καὶ ἀναβὰς ὁ ὄχλος ἤρξατο Mark 15:8 The crowd came up and asked αἰτεῖσθαι καθὼς ἐποίει αὐτοῖς. Pilate to do for them what he usually did. Mark 15:9 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς Mark 15:9 ‘Do you want me to release to λέγων· θέλετε ἀπολύσω ὑμῖν τὸν βασιλέα you the king of the Jews?’ asked Pilate, τῶν Ἰουδαίων; R 1 Mark 15:10 ἐγίνωσκεν γὰρ ὅτι διὰ φθόνον Mark 15:10 (For he knew that the chief παραδεδώκεισαν αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. priests had handed him over because of envy.) Mark 15:11 οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς ἀνέσεισαν τὸν Mark 15:11 But the chief priests stirred ὄχλον ἵνα μᾶλλον τὸν Βαραββᾶν ἀπολύσῃ up the crowd to have him release αὐτοῖς. Barabbas instead. Mark 15:12 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος πάλιν ἀποκριθεὶς Mark 15:12 So Pilate spoke to them ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· τί οὖν [θέλετε] ποιήσω [ὃν again, ‘Then what do you want me to do λέγετε] τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰουδαίων; with the one you call king of the Jews?’ Mark 15:13 οἱ δὲ πάλιν ἔκραξαν· σταύρωσον αὐτόν.

Mark 15:14 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· τί γὰρ ἐποίησεν κακόν; οἱ δὲ περισσῶς ἔκραξαν· σταύρωσον αὐτόν. Mark 15:15 Ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος βουλόμενος τῷ ὄχλῳ τὸ ἱκανὸν ποιῆσαι ἀπέλυσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν Βαραββᾶν, καὶ παρέδωκεν τὸν Ἰησοῦν φραγ ελλώσας ἵνα σταυρωθῇ.

Mark 15:13 They shouted back, ‘Crucify him!’

Mark 15:14 Pilate asked them, ‘Why? What has he done wrong?’ But they shouted more insistently, ‘Crucify him!’

Mark 15:15 Because he wanted to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas for them. Then, after he had Jesus flogged, he handed him over to be crucified.

(vv. 7 and 10) indicate the highest prominence in the larger context of 15:6–15. However, the first perfect participle in verse 7a is used to describe Barabbas. The other two pluperfects in verse 7b and 10 are about the rebels and the chief priests. All are supporting materials for the trial situation of Jesus. Thus, it is revealed that Porter’s suggestion of a third level of frontground (the highest prominence) for the perfect is not valid in this passage. My approach appears to have more explanatory power than Porter’s. In the following sections, I discuss one perfect participle and

156 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

two pluperfect indicatives with my Three Rules that are based on the dual feature of the perfect.

δεδεμένος in 15:7a In Mark 15:7a, the perfect participle (δεδεμένος) is used with ἦν, which is considered a periphrastic construction. Often the subject is inserted between them: ἦν + Barabbas + δεδεμένος. This periphrastic construction functions as a finite verb of the pluperfect. Thus, it can be translated in English as ‘Barabbas had been imprisoned,’ which means in Greek that Barabbas was in a state of imprisonment that had occurred prior to the narrative past time. Rule 3 is adequate for the explanation of this perfect. The perfect participle (δεδεμένος) describes the substantive of Barabbas with the dual feature of the perfect. Since it is in passive voice, it highlights the current state (narrative past time) of Barabbas (‘imprisoned’) which results from the anterior activity of ‘imprisoning.’ The function of the perfect participle is confined to the description of Barabbas in the immediate context (v. 7).

πεποιήκεισαν in 15:7b In the same way as Porter, Decker, who follows Porter, tries to find past temporal reference to understand the anterior activity (temporality) of the pluperfect because he believes that the pluperfect itself does not indicate temporally anterior activity. So, he points out ‘uprising or insurrection’ (ἐν τῇ στάσει in verse 7) as a past temporal reference for the pluperfect.132 Because of the past temporal reference, he accepts temporally prior activity to the narrative past time. However, I believe that, without finding past temporal reference, the pluperfect itself indicates the action prior to the narrative past time. Thus, the pluperfect active indicative (πεποιήκεισαν in verse 7b) indicates the anterior action of murder happening prior to the narrative past time. If the pluperfect is associated with the narrative past tense, Rule 2 should be applied. However, Rule 1 is applied here because the primary feature of the pluperfect is anterior temporality.

παραδεδώκεισαν in 15:10 The pluperfect active indicative (παραδεδώκεισαν in verse 10) has the same function as πεποιήκεισαν in verse 7b. The pluperfect itself delivers the activity completed prior to the narrative past time. Applying Rule 1, this pluperfect is associated with the narrative past tense (ἐγίνωσκεν). Pilate knew in advance that the chief priests had handed Jesus over because of envy. The NET and NLT translations put 15:10 in parentheses because it is regarded as background material for the main event. Decker also understands that this is an explanatory comment.133 All this shows that the pluperfect is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence on a discourse level.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 157

Mark 15:22–32 Mark 15:22–32 is the event of Jesus’ crucifixion. It contains three perfect participles: ‘the wine mixed with myrrh’ in verse 23, ‘the inscription of his accusation was written on’ in verse 26, and ‘those who were crucified with him’ in verse 32. According to Porter, these three verses are most prominent in this passage simply Table 4.18. Mark 15:22–32. Source: Author Rule NA28 Mark 15:22 Καὶ φέρουσιν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸν Γολγοθᾶν τόπον, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Κρανίου Τόπος. R 3 Mark 15:23 καὶ ἐδίδουν αὐτῷ ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον· ὃς δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβεν. Mark 15:24 Καὶ σταυροῦσιν αὐτὸν καὶ διαμερίζονται τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ, βάλλοντες κλῆρον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὰ τίς τί ἄρῃ. Mark 15:25 ἦν δὲ ὥρα τρίτη καὶ ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν. R 3 Mark 15:26 καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη· ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Mark 15:27 Καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς, ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων αὐτοῦ. Mark 15:29 Καὶ οἱ παραπορευόμενοι ἐβλασ φήμουν αὐτὸν κινοῦντες τὰς κεφαλὰς αὐτῶν καὶ λέγοντες· οὐὰ ὁ καταλύων τὸν ναὸν καὶ οἰκοδομῶν ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις, Mark 15:30 σῶσον σεαυτὸν καταβὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ. Mark 15:31 ὁμοίως καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ἐμπαίζ οντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους μετὰ τῶν γραμματέων ἔλεγον· ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι·

NET

Mark 15:22 They brought Jesus to a place called Golgotha (which is translated, ‘Place of the Skull’). Mark 15:23 They offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. Mark 15:24 Then they crucified him and divided his clothes, throwing dice for them, to decide what each would take. Mark 15:25 It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him. Mark 15:26 The inscription of the charge against him read, ‘The king of the Jews.’ Mark 15:27 And they crucified two outlaws with him, one on his right and one on his left. Mark 15:29 Those who passed by defamed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘Aha! You who can destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, Mark 15:30 save yourself and come down from the cross!’ Mark 15:31 In the same way even the chief priests—together with the experts in the law—were mocking him among themselves: ‘He saved others, but he cannot save himself ! R 3 Mark 15:32 ὁ χριστὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ Mark 15:32 Let the Christ, the king of καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἵνα ἴδωμεν Israel, come down from the cross now, καὶ πιστεύσωμεν. καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν that we may see and believe!’ Those αὐτῷ ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν. who were crucified with him also spoke abusively to him.

158 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

because of the perfect’s presence. If Porter is right to believe that the author chose the perfect intentionally to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level, this intention should be obvious. First, the perfect passive participle (ἐσμυρνισμένον ‘mixed with myrrh’ in verse 23) occurs once in the NT. BDAG (933–34) shows that this perfect participle is found only once even in other early Christian literature. The rare use of this perfect is not an appropriate issue for prominence because it is not related to choice which can be made among other tenses. Second, the perfect passive participle (ἐπιγεγραμμένη ‘written on’) in verse 26 is used similarly to the function of the perfect passive indicative (γέγραπται ‘it has been written’), which is idiomatically chosen to introduce OT quotations and contents. Consequently, the choice of the perfect passive participle (ἐπιγεγραμμένη ‘written on’ in verse 26) may not be related to the author or speaker’s intentional choice for prominence. Third, the use of the perfect participle (συνεσταυρωμένοι ‘crucified with’ in verse 32)  is contrasted with the present indicative (σταυροῦσιν ‘they crucify’ in verses 24 and 27)  and the aorist indicative (ἐσταύρωσαν ‘they crucified’ in verse 25)  in the same passage. The perfect participle describes the crucifixion of two robbers. Two present indicatives are related to the crucifixion of Jesus and two robbers. The aorist indicative is related to the crucifixion of Jesus. In this situation, Porter may argue that the perfect indicates the highest prominence among these three aspects. If this is correct, the crucifixion of the two robbers should have the highest prominence in this passage. However, it is likely that the author would place more emphasis on Jesus’ crucifixion than on the crucifixion of the two robbers. Thus, I believe that the perfect participle (συνεσταυρωμένοι ‘crucified with’ in verse 32) was simply chosen to describe two robbers without any notion of prominence. I explain this passage considering grammatical features and structures so that I can demonstrate that the traditional understanding has more explanatory power than Porter’s. Mark 15:22–32 is the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion, which is the core scene of Jesus’ life. In order to vivify the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion, three historical presents (vv. 22, 24, and 27) are employed. Among these historical presents, supporting materials with the perfect participles are inserted to help readers understand the scene of the crucifixion (vv. 23, 26, and 32). Verse 22 begins with the historical present. People bring Jesus to Golgotha. Verse 23 resumes the narrative tenses (the imperfect and the aorist). The perfect participle is used to describe a noun (wine). Verse 24 also begins with the historical present, which is the action of crucifixion. Verse 25 again resumes the narrative past tense. The perfect participle in verse 26 is used to describe the content of the inscription. Verse 27 again starts with the historical present, which is the action of crucifixion. Verses 29–31 again resume the narrative past tense. The perfect participle in verse 32 is used to describe the crucifixion of two robbers. Apparently, the

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 159

three perfect participles are chosen to describe substantives according to the need of each immediate context (‘mixed with myrrh’ in verse 23, ‘written on’ in verse 26, ‘two robbers crucified’ in verse 32). In the larger context (15:22–32), they are supporting material for the scene of Jesus’ crucifixion. I think that Rule 3 adequately explains the function of these perfect participles. ἐσμυρνισμένον in 15:23

According to Rule 3, I  connect the perfect participle (ἐσμυρνισμένον) with οἶνον (‘wine’). The perfect is chosen to describe ‘wine.’ The perfect participle is in passive voice. It highlights the present state of wine, which has already been mixed with myrrh. This perfect participle is only related to the description of wine in the immediate context (v. 23), not emphasizing this wine mixed with myrrh for the entire passage of Mark 15:22–32. ἐπιγεγραμμένη in 15:26

According to Rule 3, the perfect participle (ἐπιγεγραμμένη) is connected with the subject (ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ). Although the construction (ἦν + S +the perfect participle) is considered a finite verb of the pluperfect, I only deal with the perfect participle (ἐπιγεγραμμένη) as an adjective. It modifies the inscription (ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ) with the dual feature of a present state of ‘being written’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘writing’ in a past-referring situation (narrative past time). Like γέγραπται, it introduces the content of the inscription (Mark 15:26; Acts 17:23; Rev 21:12). Also, it highlights the current situation of the inscription that was written prior to the narrative past time (v. 26).

συνεσταυρωμένοι in 15:32 I also apply Rule 3 to the perfect substantival participle. This perfect substantival participle (συνεσταυρωμένοι) is connected with an implied noun (οἱ ‘those’), which refers to the two robbers.134 Although the phrase with the perfect participle (οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ) functions as the subject, the perfect participle itself is used to modify an implied noun with the dual feature of the perfect. The perfect participle primarily describes those who are in a state of ‘being crucified’ because it is in passive voice.

Mark 15:42–47 Mark 15:42–47 includes three perfect forms:  two indicatives (τέθνηκεν in 15:44 and τέθειται in 15:47) and one participle (λελατομημένον in 15:46) with ἦν forming a periphrastic construction for the pluperfect. In the larger context (15:42–47), the main event is the burial of Jesus. For Porter, three perfects are chosen for the

160 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 4.19. Mark 15:42–47. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

Mark 15:42 Καὶ ἤδη ὀψίας γενομένης, Mark 15:42 Now when evening had already ἐπεὶ ἦν παρασκευὴ ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον, come, since it was the day of preparation (that is, the day before the Sabbath),

Mark 15:43 ἐλθὼν Ἰωσὴφ [ὁ] ἀπὸ Ἁριμαθαίας εὐσχήμων βουλευτής, ὃς καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν προσδεχόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, τολμήσας εἰσῆλθεν πρὸς τὸν Πιλᾶτον καὶ ᾐτήσατο τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. R 2 Mark 15:44 ὁ δὲ Πιλᾶτος ἐθαύμασεν εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος τὸν κεντυρίωνα ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτὸν εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν· Mark 15:45 καὶ γνοὺς ἀπὸ τοῦ κεντυρίων ος ἐδωρήσατο τὸ πτῶμα τῷ Ἰωσήφ. R3 Mark 15:46 καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου. R 2 Ἰωσῆτος ἐθεώρουν ποῦ τέθειται.

Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who was himself looking forward to the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Mark 15:44 Pilate was surprised that he was already dead. He called the centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time. Mark 15:45 When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. Mark 15:46 After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of the rock. Then he rolled a stone across the entrance of the tomb. Mark 15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was placed.

highest prominence (frontground) in this passage over the main event, regardless of grammatical structures. However, they seem to be parts of the main event, which is the burial of Jesus. The first perfect is related to Pilate’s thought: ‘if he has already died’ (τέθνηκεν). The second is used to describe the tomb: ‘a tomb cut out of the rock’ (λελατομημένον). The third is about the observation of the two Marys (Magdalene and the mother of James): ‘where the body was placed’ (τέθειται). It is apparent that all of these phrases contain subsidiary information for the main theme of the burial of Jesus. Using my Three Rules, I  discuss in the following sections how the perfect functions with its dual feature as supporting material for main events or themes in the immediate context, contrary to Porter, who argues that the perfect operates for prominence in the larger context.

τέθνηκεν in 15:44 There are parallel phrases in verse 44 containing verbs meaning ‘die.’ One uses the perfect tense: ‘εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκεν’ (‘if he has already died’). The other uses the aorist

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 161

tense: ‘εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανεν’ (‘if he died long ago’). Various explanations are suggested regarding the two different tenses which both mean ‘die.’ Porter connects the perfect (τέθνηκεν) to the aorist (ἀπέθανεν) in the same verse with the idea that the aorist is unmarked and the perfect is the most marked.135 Thus, for Porter the perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground). However, Decker points out that ἤδη (already) is a past reference for the perfect. He interprets this verse, as ‘Pilate’s query is whether or not Jesus was already in the state of death at that time.’136 His understanding seems to show that, because of a past reference, the present state of the perfect is changed to the past state. However, I argue that the perfect itself never delivers a past state. Only when the narrative past time is applied to the perfect can we say that the present state of the perfect is considered the past state. Turner sees the perfect (τέθνηκεν) in Mark 15:44 as retaining the original ‘resultative’ force ‘which implies the results of an action which in part are still vividly present at the time of speaking.’137 Turner distinguishes the perfect from the aorist. The perfect (τέθνηκεν) is related to a present state of surprise, while the aorist (ἀπέθανεν) indicates a punctiliar idea, the occurrence of death.138 Smyth suggests that the perfect (τέθνηκεν) is conventionally used as a present meaning, which is the enduring result rather than the completed act.139 I attempt to explain the perfect (τέθνηκεν) by applying Rule 2.  The perfect (τέθνηκεν) appearing in the subordinate clause (v. 44)  is associated with the aorist main verb (ἐθαύμασεν) in a past-referring situation (narrative discourse). The perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the aorist, which has present relevance. Thus, without consulting contextual factors, I decide that the perfect highlights a current state of Jesus’ death resulting from the anterior activity of ‘dying.’ Or this perfect (τέθνηκεν) can be associated with the other aorist (ἀπέθανεν) with Rule 2. Either way, the perfect highlights a current state resulting from anterior activity. I found that θνῄσκω (the lexical form of τέθνηκεν) and ἀποθνῄσκω (the lexical form of ἀπέθανεν) are used differently. For θνῄσκω, its present and aorist forms do not appear in the NT, while its perfect tense (τέθνηκεν) does.140 It seems that when the speaker or writer wanted to express a present state that cannot be separated from anterior activity, he simply chose this perfect, not relating it to the idea of prominence. In contrast, as for ἀποθνῄσκω, there is no perfect form used in the NT. Only the present tense and aorist tense are used with the notion of being action-focused.141 The usages of θνῄσκω and ἀποθνῄσκω show that the choice of the verb can be related to its own lexical feature. Since the perfect (τέθνηκεν) in verse 44a appears in a past-referring situation (narrative discourse), my translation of the phrase is ‘Pilate was surprised that he was in a state of death.’ On the other hand, the aorist of ‘die’ (ἀπέθανεν) in verse 44b indicates a past event only. The temporal adverb πάλαι (long ago), which is used with the aorist, means ‘to a point of time in the past’ (BDAG, 751). Thus,

162 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

my translation of the phrase in verse 44b is ‘Pilate asked when he had happened to die.’

λελατομημένον in 15:46 Although ‘ἦν + λελατομημένον’ is considered a periphrastic construction which functions like a finite verb of the pluperfect, I  connect the perfect participle (λελατομημένον) with the substantive (‘the tomb’). The perfect participle, which occurs in the relative clause, functions as a predicate adjective, modifying the tomb with the dual feature of the perfect in a past-referring situation indicated by ἦν. I apply Rule 3. Since this perfect participle is in passive voice, the current state of ‘being cut’ is emphasized more than the anterior activity of ‘cutting.’

τέθειται in 15:47 According to Rule 2, the perfect (τέθειται) is associated with the past tense (ἐθεώρουν imperfect) in a past-referring situation. I understand that the perfect is chosen to highlight the present situation of ‘being placed’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘placing’ since it is in passive voice. Applying the narrative past time, Mark 15:47 means that Mary the mother of Joseph was looking at the place where Jesus’ body was placed. All the perfects in this passage are chosen to meet the needs of their immediate context with no intent to influence the larger context (15:42–47). They are parts of the main event, the burial of Jesus.

Mark 16:1–8 In the larger context of 16:1–8, there are three perfects:  the perfect indicative (ἀποκεκύλισται in verse 4) and two perfect participles (περιβεβλημένον in verse 5 and ἐσταυρωμένον in verse 6). The main story of Mark 16:1–8 is ‘the resurrection of Jesus and the discovery of the empty tomb.’142 Porter disregards any other grammatical features and structures in his search for prominence. If there is any perfect form in any grammatical structure, Porter thinks that it is chosen or used for the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level. In other words, he views that the author chooses the perfect intentionally to indicate prominence. However, my study of the distribution of certain verbs shows that there are cases in which there is no choice other than the perfect. In these cases, I assume that the author does not choose the perfect from among other tenses to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context but uses the perfect for some other reason. I believe that this reason is the perfect’s inherent dual feature.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 163

Table 4.20. Mark 16:1–8. Source: Author Rule NA28 Mark 16:1 Καὶ διαγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ Μαρία ἡ [τοῦ] Ἰακώβου καὶ Σαλώμη ἠγόρασαν ἀρώματα ἵνα ἐλθοῦσαι ἀλείψωσιν αὐτόν. Mark 16:2 καὶ λίαν πρωῒ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἔρχονται ἐπὶ τὸ μνημεῖον ἀνατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου. Mark 16:3 καὶ ἔλεγον πρὸς ἑαυτάς· τίς ἀποκυλίσει ἡμῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς θύρας τοῦ μνημείου; R 2 Mark 16:4 καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος· ἦν γὰρ μέγας σφόδρα. R 3 Mark 16:5 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. R 3 Mark 16:6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς· μὴ ἐκθαμβ εῖσθε· Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον· ἠγέρθη, οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε· ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν. Mark 16:7 ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν. Mark 16:8 Καὶ ἐξελθοῦσαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ μνημείου, εἶχεν γὰρ αὐτὰς τρόμος καὶ ἔκστασις· καὶ οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν· ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ.

NET Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him. Mark 16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb.

Mark 16:3 They had been asking each other, ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’ Mark 16:4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled back. Mark 16:5 Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. Mark 16:6 But he said to them, ‘Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.’

Mark 16:8 Then they went out and ran from the tomb, for terror and bewilderment had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

The distribution of three perfects in this passage indicates that the author cannot help choosing these perfects. First, the perfect passive indicative (ἀποκεκύλισται) appears in verse 4. The verb (ἀποκυλίω ‘roll away’) does not have a passive form in any other tense (present or aorist) than the perfect.143 Second, I find that, in the case in which the participial form is required, the perfect middle participle (περιβεβλημένον in verse 5) is used. No present or aorist middle participle occurs in

164 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the NT. Third, as with a previous participle, if the participial form is required in certain grammatical structures, only the perfect passive participle (ἐσταυρωμένον) is used (Matt 28:5; Mark 16:6; 1 Cor 1:23, 2:2; Gal 3:1). There is no present or aorist passive participle in the NT, although the present or aorist of other moods appears, such as the indicative, infinitive, or imperative. It appears that the perfect passive participle is the only choice in this structure. This distribution of all three perfects indicates that the perfect is not chosen from among other tenses to indicate prominence but for another reason, which I believe is its inherent dual feature. I prefer the traditional understanding of the inherent dual feature of the perfect operating in its immediate context. Porter does not admit that the perfect indicates its inherent dual feature. Instead, he focuses on a present state of affairs, disregarding the anterior activity of the perfect. Then, based on a present state, he connects the feature of a present state to the notion of prominence on a discourse level. As I have shown previously, the choice of the perfect is not related to the author’s intentional choice but to conventional choice, which would be based on the author’s knowledge of the inherent dual feature of the perfect. Using my Three Rules, I present that the traditional understanding of the dual feature of the perfect has more explanatory power than Porter’s theory. In contrast to Porter, I also argue that in the larger context the perfect is used to support main events or themes, which is background on a discourse level. In this passage, I  find that three perfects are used to support the main story. The first perfect describes ‘the stone rolled back’ (v. 4). The second is used to describe ‘a young man (angel)’s costume.’ The third is the description of ‘Jesus’ crucifixion.’ All are supporting material for the event of Jesus’ resurrection and the discovery of the empty tomb. ἀποκεκύλισται in 16:4

According to Rule 2, the perfect indicative (ἀποκεκύλισται) appearing in the subordinate clause is associated with the historical present (θεωροῦσιν), which is chosen to describe something vividly in a narrative past situation. Actually, it is equal to past tense. Rule 2 is applied. The perfect emphasizes a present state resulting from anterior activity of ‘being rolled away,’ which happened before the narrative past time. It is chosen to supplement the immediate context (v. 4), which supports the story of the empty tomb.

περιβεβλημένον in 16:5 It is observed that the present form of περιβάλλω is not used in the NT, probably because it is not appropriate to express the resultant state of ‘being dressed.’ Instead, the perfect participle seems to be conventionally or idiomatically chosen probably because of its dual feature with subconscious understanding that the present state

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 165

of ‘being dressed’ includes the anterior activity of ‘putting on.’ The lexical usage of this verb indicates that the choice of the perfect is not related to the speaker or writer’s subjective intention for the highest prominence on a discourse level but to the conventional or idiomatical use in an immediate context. Thus, it is argued that this perfect middle participle (περιβεβλημένον) is chosen to describe the state of νεανίσκον (‘a young man’) in the immediate context (v. 5).144 Rule 3 is appropriate to explain the function of this perfect participle. It highlights the present state of a young man dressed in a white robe, which results from the anterior action of putting on it. This verse (v. 5) is background for the story of Jesus’ resurrection and the discovery of the empty tomb in the larger context (16:1–8). ἐσταυρωμένον in 16:6

Applying Rule 3, I explain the perfect passive participle (ἐσταυρωμένον) in relation to the phrase ‘Jesus the Nazarene’ (Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζαρηνόν). The perfect participle functions as an adjective to modify a substantive with the dual feature. This participle is in passive voice, so the present state of ‘being crucified’ is more highlighted than the anterior activity of ‘crucifying.’ It is chosen to describe the state of Jesus the Nazarene in the immediate context (v. 6) and supports the main event of His resurrection and the empty tomb in the larger context (16:1–8).

CO N C LU S I O N For the perfect indicative, first I analyzed eighteen perfect indicatives, which are associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative (Rule 1). I found that all of them convey anterior activity (temporal or logical) while still denoting a present result. This dual feature can be found in the perfect, regardless of lexical ­situations and other contextual factors. In order to verify my conclusion, I examined lexical situations and contextual factors. Second, I evaluated three perfect indicatives, which are associated with the past indicative in direct discourse (Rule 2). All of them highlight a present state, which results from anterior activity. Third, I  analyzed five perfect indicatives, which are associated with the past indicative in non-direct discourse (Rule 2). All occur in subordinate clauses, being associated with their main verbs. The main verbs are usually past tense (aorist or imperfect) which are normal narrative tenses that carry narrative stories forward. The five perfect indicatives in this situation highlight a current state in the narrative past time. There is one exception. In Mark 5:33, the perfect indicative (γέγονεν) in the relative clause is associated with the perfect participle (εἰδυῖα), which is considered a present meaning. I applied Rule 1. In contrast to the other four perfects, this perfect (γέγονεν) highlights anterior activity rather than a present state. Since

166 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

it appears in the narrative past time, the anterior action is expressed in English as ‘what had happened’ in order to denote temporally anterior action. In the perfect non-indicative, I discussed twenty-two participles, one imperative, and three infinitives. I applied Rule 3 to all the participles. I suggested that the speaker or writer chose the perfect participle to describe a substantive with the dual feature of the perfect (Rule 3). The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state of a substantive. The perfect active participle tends to highlight the anterior activity of a substantive. The perfect participle works in the immediate context, only describing a substantive in close proximity. In the larger context, the perfect participle supports main events or themes. I applied Rule 1 to the perfect imperative in Mark 4:39. The perfect imperative is associated with the present imperative. I demonstrated that the perfect imperative is chosen to deliver the logically anterior activity of ‘stilling the sea’ that will lead to the state of ‘stillness’ in a futuristic situation. I applied Rule 1 to three perfect infinitives in Mark 5:4. The infinitives are interpreted in two ways according to their own grammar. First, the three infinitival phrases (διὰ τὸ + the infinitive) are understood as causal adverbial clauses functioning as finite verbs depending on the main verb. Second, the perfect infinitive itself is used to deliver antecedent time to the time of the main verb. Thus, the perfect infinitive is chosen to indicate anterior temporality. Based on the inherent function of the perfect infinitive, which is the function of anterior temporality, I explained the three perfect infinitives based on Rule 1. They are associated with the main verb (ἐδύνατο in Mark 5: 3b), which is in the narrative past time. That is why they function like the pluperfect. They highlight a time prior to the past time, while still holding a current (past) state. I presented so-called idiomatic expressions of γέγραπται, οἶδά, and the perfect forms of ἵστημι and παρίστημι. Although they are generally considered as delivering a present meaning, I attempted to apply the dual feature to them. γέγραπται is associated with OT citations or events in the past. οἶδά is associated with the content of a prior knowledge. I applied Rule 2 to them. In Mark, there occur eight perfect participles of ἵστημι and παρίστημι and one perfect indicative of παρίστημι (Mark 4:29). Rule 3 was applied to the former (participial form), and Rule 1 was applied to the latter (indicative form). I discussed the pluperfect active indicative. The pluperfect, which has the same dual feature as the perfect, is used in a past-referring situation (narrative past time). The pluperfect highlights anterior temporality that occurred prior to the narrative past time although it denotes a current (narrative past time) state resulting from the anterior activity. The pluperfect is used for supporting main events or themes. I discussed two types of the pluperfect separately. One is a synthesized or monolectic form and the other is a periphrastic construction. In the first type, eight pluperfects appear in Mark including four idiomatic expressions. They are all in the

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 167

active voice. As for four pluperfect indicatives (14:44, 15:7, 15:10, 16:9), they highlight an action completed prior to the narrative past time. I applied Rule 1. And in the other four idiomatic uses (1:34, 9:6, 14:40, 10:1), two pluperfects (ῃδειν and εἰώθει) were dealt with together. They do not have the present tense form as well as the aorist tense form but only have the perfect and the pluperfect. In a present-referring situation, the perfect is chosen. In a past-referring situation, the pluperfect is chosen. Thus, the choice of the pluperfect is related to matching the narrative past time not to indicating prominence. I attempted to discuss that the pluperfects indicate the dual feature of the perfect in a past-referring situation. In Mark, six pluperfect periphrastic constructions (ἦν + the perfect participle) appear. I applied Rule 3 only to the function of the perfect participle, although this periphrastic construction as a whole functions as a finite verb of the pluperfect. I judged that the perfect participle functions as the adjective to describe a substantive in the narrative past time indicated by ἦν. Finally, I studied eight passages to see how the perfects work on a discourse level. I judged that all the perfects are chosen for their immediate contexts, not for larger contexts. The primary reason to choose the perfect is its own force—the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. Overall, I found that the perfect retains its inherent dual feature, regardless of temporal indicators or context, although, like a pendulum movement, one side of the dual feature can be more highlighted than the other. The perfect is chosen in association with other parts to meet the need of the immediate context, and this choice is never related to the notion of the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context. notes 1. All the statistics about the use of the Greek verbs in this paper are generated through Logos Bible Software 7 and Accordance XII. 2. Sander Orriens, ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device,’ in Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, ed. Stéphanie J.  Bakker and G.  C. Wakker (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 231. 3. Stanley E.  Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 413. Porter states, ‘It is proposed here that on the basis of its distinctive yet tense-related morphological features, the Future constitutes part of the Greek verbal system that results in full aspectual choices, but as seen previously, it is not fully aspectual (no paradigmatic choice is offered). This system is labeled ASPECTUALITY. Therefore, the Future is compatible with environments where full aspectual choice is made, but it does not grammaticalize such choice itself (it is aspectually vague).’ 4. What I mean by ‘a larger context’ is beyond the sentence where the perfect occurs, to the level of a paragraph or paragraphs.

168 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

5. What I mean by ‘an immediate context’ is within the sentence where the perfect occurs, or within the nearest one to the sentence where the perfect appears. 6. France mentions that πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρός indicates ‘the fulfillment of prophetic hope in the time of messianic deliverance.’ See R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 91. 7. As for ἐγγίζω, there are thirty occurrences in the indicative and eleven occurrences in the non-indicative. In the indicative, there are four of the present, two of the imperfect, nine of the aorist, one of the future, and fourteen of the perfect. This information is taken from an Accordance search. The coming information about lexical use and situation will be obtained from an Accordance search. 8. The present ἐγγίζω is used with two different destinations:  ‘to Jerusalem’ (Mark 11:1), and ‘to God’ (Heb 7:19). In two other places, ἐγγίζω is used without any destination—‘your redemption is drawing near’ (Luke 21:28) and ‘no thief approaches’ (Luke 12:33). 9. There are nine aorist indicatives (Matt 21:1, 34; Luke 7:12; 15:25; 19:29, 41; 22:47; 24:28; Phil 2:30.) Seven cases are used with their destinations that are expressed with εἰς, a dative form, or μέχρι. The other two cases are used without reference points. 10. There are fourteen occurrences of the perfect. All of them are used without some forward destination. 11. Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger et al., vol. 34A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1998), 44. 12. He understands the perfect as imperfective. Thus, he explains that ἤγγικεν signifies ongoing processes unfolding in the present time. See Ma’afu Palu, Jesus and Time: An Interpretation of Mark 1:15 (New York: A & C Black, 2012), 135. 13. Werner Georg Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment:  The Eschatological Message of Jesus (London: SCM, 1966), 153. 14. Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect, Studies in Biblical Greek 10 (New York: Peter Lang, 2001), 84–85. 15. Ibid. 16. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, vol. 34B, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger et al. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 418. 17. France, The Gospel of Mark, 198. 18. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 208. 19. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 265. 20. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 109. 21. Ibid. 22. R. Alan Cole, ‘Mark,’ in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. Donald Arthur Carson et al. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 965. 23. Robert H. Gundry, Mark, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993), 465. 24. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 44. 25. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 110. 26. Buist M.  Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 295. 27. Refer to Buist M. Fanning, ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect,’ in The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson (New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming), 1–20. Fanning disagrees with Campbell’s imperfective view on the perfect. Fanning believes that the perfect had retained a

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 169

28. 29. 30. 31.

32.

33. 34. 35.

present state resulting from a prior action in history until it had a perfective or simple past sense. Excluding the period of a perfective or simple past sense, Fanning divides the evolution of the perfect into three periods: (1) the period of a stative or resultative sense, which implies a state resulting from a prior action; (2) the period of a quasi-resultative sense, which is a state resulting from the verbal action; and (3) the period of an anterior sense, which is from the resultative’s focus on a prior action’s existing state. Fanning observes that the use of the perfect extended from ‘the verbs of states’ in Homeric Greek to ‘non-telic verbs of action and causative actives’ in the Classical period. In the latter, three kinds of states can be applicable to interpret the perfect: ‘the ongoing responsibility of the subject,’ ‘the state of the object,’ or ‘the accomplishment of the action itself.’ Fanning understands the perfect (πεποίηκεν) in Mark 7:37 as expressing the sense of the subject’s responsibility or authority. For more information, see ibid., 8–18. James A. Brooks, Mark, NAC, vol. 23 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1991), 123. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 110. Decker follows McKay’s idea on action verbs. See ibid; K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ NovT 23 (1981): 296–297. Fanning has the same view. See Fanning, ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect,’ 12. Haug admits that the Greek perfect generally expresses ‘the present existence of a state resulting from a past event.’ See Dag T. T. Haug, ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect,’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 393. However, for a more precise interpretation, he focuses on lexical situations, discussing two groups of verbs: kinesis (movements) and energeia (actualities). For more information, see ibid., 388–393. Allan, for a more precise interpretation, investigates lexical situations that have been developed in history. However, he emphasizes the core meaning of the perfect, ‘current relevance,’ which implies a present state resulting from a prior event. See Rutger K. Allan, ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 104–113. Fanning presents various senses of the Greek perfect which have been developed with lexical situations: stative or resultative, quasi-resultative, anterior, and perfective or simple past. Except for the final sense, Fanning observes that the prior sense has been retained alongside the new nuances. He seems to argue that although lexical situations and other contextual factors can be helpful for more precise interpretation of the perfect, the core sense of the perfect, which is a resultative sense from a prior event, should not be set aside. See Fanning, ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect,’ 10–20. The NT has seven presents (Luke 15:27; John 2:4; 4:47; 8:42; Heb 10:7, 9; 1 John 5:20, all of which are in the active tense), seventeen futures (Matt 8:11; 23:36; 24:14, 50; Luke 12:46; 13:29, 35; 19:43; John 6:37; Rom 11:26; Heb 10:37; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:9; 15:4; 18:8), and one aorist subjunctive active (Rev 2:25). Johannes Schneider, ‘ἥκω, κτλ.,’ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 926. ηκουσιν K Γ 0131 ƒ13 l 2211 𝔐. See NA 28 Apparatus. In the parallel passages (Mark 8:1–9; Matt 15:32–39), both Mark 8:2 and Matthew 15:32b have almost the same wording: Mark 8:2 (σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσίν μοι καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν·καὶ ἐὰν ἀπολύσω αὐτοὺς νήστεις εἰς οἶκον αὐτῶν, ἐκλυθήσονται ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ·) and Matthew 15:32b (σπλαγχνίζομαι ἐπὶ τὸν ὄχλον, ὅτι ἤδη ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσίν μοι καὶ οὐκ

170 

36.

37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

55. 56.

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

ἔχουσιν τί φάγωσιν· καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτοὺς νήστεις οὐ θέλω, μήποτε ἐκλυθῶσιν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.). In Mark 8:3, the author adds this phrase: καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν. Steven E. Runge, ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.  Runge and Christopher J.  Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 467. According to Runge, one-third of the perfects in Luke, over half in Hebrews, and over 80% in Romans are ‘perfects that follow that to which they are relevant.’ Refer to Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 60. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 109–110. Mark 13:1–37 includes ‘the prediction of the destruction of the temple (13:1–2),’ ‘the coming woes (13:3–13),’ ‘the Great Tribulation (13:14–23),’ ‘the coming of the Son of Man (13:24–27),’ ‘the lesson of the fig tree (13:28–32),’ and ‘the need to watch (13:33–37).’ See Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 285–337. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 134. Thomas R. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study,’ FN 15 Vol.8 (1995): 9. Ibid., 8. Brooks, Mark, 222–223. Wallace names this clause (ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων [εἰς ἐμέ]) as ‘the pendent nominative.’ He explains that this clause appears at the beginning of a sentence, followed by a sentence in which this subject is now replaced by a pronoun in the case required by the syntax. John 1:12 (ὅσοι δὲ ἔλαβον αὐτόν, ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἐξουσίαν τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι . . .) shows a similar situation. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 51–52. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 110. In a conditional sentence, the term ‘apodosis’ refers to a ‘thenclause’ and ‘protasis’ refers to an ‘if-clause.’ The perfect (βέβληται) in Mark 9:42 appears in the protasis. Brooks, Mark, 152. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 69. In the same way, Porter interprets that the perfect in John 5:24 has a future sense because of the verse’s future implicatures of life and death: ‘Jesus says that the one who hears his word and believes the one who sent him has [or is going to have?] eternal life and is not going to come into judgment, but μεταβέβηκεν (is going to pass) from death to life.’ See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 267. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 109. Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898; reprint, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2003), §86. James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I. Prolegomena (Edinburgh:  T. & T. Clark, 1906), 141. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, §88. Eakin observes in his study of aorist and perfects in first-century papyri that both the aorist and the perfect in the immediate context carry their own proper sense. Eakin also argues that the perfect with the aorist is hardly used as the aoristic perfect except for two forms of εἴρηκα and εἴληφα. See Frank Eakin, ‘Aorists and Perfects in First-Century Papyri,’ AJT 20, no. 2 (1916): 266–269. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 303. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ 315.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 171

57. Ibid., 92–93 and Porter, Verbal Aspect, 250. 58. The present occurs thirty-four times in the NT, and none of these occurrences are related to anterior action. The aorist form occurs thirty-four times in the NT, and none of these occurrences are related to present relevance. Mark has five aorist forms, which are used to carry the events forward. They are not related to present relevance. Mark has seven present forms: one imperative in direct discourse in 2:14, one historical present in 6:1, one infinitive in the direct discourse in 8:34, two imperatives in the direct discourse in 10:21, and two participles for the description of people in 10:32 and 11:9. All the present forms are not related to anterior action. 59. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ 320. 60. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 109. 61. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 190. 62. Actually, there are forty-six non-indicative perfects in Mark. I excluded one perfect participle (παρηγγελμένα), which is inserted between 16:8 and 16:9 because this is related to textual criticism. The longer version of Mark includes 16:9–20. The shorter version of Mark ends at 16:8. Some shorter versions do include some additional content after 16:8: ‘They reported briefly to those around Peter all that they had been commanded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal salvation. Amen.’ Also, there are some MSS of the longer ending of Mark that insert this additional content with the one perfect participle (παρηγγελμένα) between 16:8 and 16:9. I excluded this in my discussion. Refer to Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 543–545. 63. Ibid. 64. See Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 302–303. 65. IO means ‘indirect object.’ 66. DO means ‘direct object.’ 67. ἱματισμένον (5:15) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 5:1–20. περιβεβλημένον (16:5) is discussed in the passage study of Mark 16:1–8. 68. Similar lexical situations occur not only in ἱματισμένον (5:15) and περιβεβλημένον (16:5) but also in ἐνδεδυμένος (1:6), ὑποδεδεμένους (6:9), and περιβεβλημένος (14:51). All of them (the meaning of ‘wearing’) do not take the present tense form. They are only used as the perfect tense form. 69. There are various discussions regarding the placement and interpretation of 9:1. See Brooks, Mark, 140–141. 70. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 28. 71. The so-called short ending (the Gospel of Mark) ends at Mark 16:8. Right after verse 8, there is an additional verse that includes the perfect participle παρηγγελμένα. I do not think that the additional verse is authentic because many of the older MSS manuscripts have in their text asterisks and obeli marks which are symbols of a spurious text. I excluded the perfect participle παρηγγελμένα from my discussion because most translations do not include this additional verse. And the so-called longer ending (the Gospel of Mark) includes Mark 16:9–20. Like the additional verse of ‘short ending,’ I do not think that Mark 16:9–20 is authentic. However, in my discussion, I do include the perfect participle ἐγηγερμένον found in Mark 16:14 because most translations contain the longer ending (Mark 16:9–20). To see further discussion about this issue, refer to John D. Grassmick, ‘Mark,’ in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 142. 72. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ 324.

172 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

73. The aorist imperative is used to command an action as a whole, while the present imperative is used to command an action that is ongoing. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 485. 74. Wallace uses the term ‘controlling verb.’ See ibid., 596. 75. The present infinitive delivers the same time as the controlling verb. The aorist infinitive delivers the anterior time to the controlling verb. Ibid. 76. Ibid., 594. 77. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, §75; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §341; Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 580; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 299. 78. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 895. 79. They are one infinitive (Mark 10:4) and two indicatives (Mark 10:5; 12:19). 80. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 576. 81. Crellin gives statistics of the use of οἶδα. It is used ninety-six times with a non-past meaning and only two times with a past meaning (2 Tim 3:15 and John 6:42). For more information see Robert Crellin, ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek,’ JGL 14 (2014): 36–37. 82. In rhetorical questions (e.g. ‘Don’t you know …?’ in Mark 4:13 and ‘You don’t know …?’ in Mark 10:38) οἶδα can deliver the nuance that the subject should have known the content of knowledge prior to the utterance. 83. Beth M. Stovell, ‘Seeing the Kingdom of God, Seeing Eternal Life: Cohesion and Prominence in John 3:1–15 and the Apocryphal Gospels in Terms of Metaphor Use,’ in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, vol. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 439–450. 84. Ibid., 448. 85. Stanley E.  Porter and Andrew W.  Pitts, ‘The Disclosure Formula in the Epistolary Papyri and in the New Testament: Development, Form, Function, and Syntax,’ in The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 426. 86. K. L. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri,’ BICS 27 (1980): 26. 87. McKay, ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek,’ 298. 88. Ibid., 299. 89. There are thirteen perfects of παρίστημι: two perfect indicatives and eleven perfect participles. No present form is used in the NT, except for two cases (Rom 6:13, 16) where it has a transitive meaning of ‘present something.’ There are twenty active aorists. Fifteen of them are used with a transitive meaning of ‘present something.’ 90. Runge, ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,’ 458. 91. Ibid., 463–468. 92. In the case that the perfect is relevant to what precedes, Runge explains that the use of the perfect, which appears commonly in the subordinate clause, constrains the reader to ‘make the proper relevance connection back to the main clause on which they depend.’ See ibid., 466. 93. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 110. 94. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 289. 95. Ibid. 96. Ibid., 95.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 173

97. Ibid., 207. 98. Ibid., 289. 99. Seventy-eight active pluperfects and two middle pluperfects in the NT ( John 9:22; Acts 26:32) emphasize one side of the dual feature—anterior temporality to the past time that retains a current (past) state. Five passive pluperfects in the NT (Matt 7:25; Luke 4:29, 16:20; John 11:44; Acts 17:23) emphasize the other side of the dual feature—a past state that results from an action occurring in a prior time to the narrative past time. 100. Curtius says that the pluperfect ‘express an action completed for and with reference to a past time.’ See Georg Curtius, A Grammar of the Greek Language (New  York: Harper & Brothers, 1872), §504. Burton states that the pluperfect is used of ‘an action which was complete at a point of past time implied in the context.’ See Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses, §89. Dana and Mantey mentions, ‘It presents action as complete and the results of the action in existence at some point in past time.’ See H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 205. According to Moule, ‘The Greek Pluperfect is used to represent an action as standing complete, i.e., as having an existing result, at a point of past time indicated by the context.’ See C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959; reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 16. 101. See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 306–307. 102. Meanwhile, the perfect form of εἰωθός appears two times in the NT (Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2). They are participles appearing in the same phrase (κατὰ τὸ εἰωθός). 103. According to Drinka, the Greek periphrastic perfect has developed along with the Greek perfect. The structure of ‘be + a middle perfect participle’ was found in Homeric Greek with a stative intransitive meaning. In the fifth century BC, the transitive periphrastic perfect occurred with the construction of ‘have + an active aorist participle.’ In the following century BC, the construction of ‘middle perfect participles + be’ began to be frequently used. By the time of Koine, the use of ‘synthetic perfects’ (monolectic perfects) decreased. The periphrastic construction of ‘be + perfect participle’ continued to be used, while the construction of ‘have + aorist participle’ began to decrease. In Koine Greek, the construction of ‘have + accusative object + accusative participle’ appears. See Bridget Drinka, Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 94–96. 104. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 320. 105. Stephen H. Levinsohn, ‘Functions of Copular-Participle Combinations (‘Periphrastics’),’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 311–312. 106. Ibid., 312–313. 107. Ibid., 314. 108. Ibid., 309. 109. When discussing the non-indicative perfect, I found that the perfect active participle is used with only a limited numbers of verbs. Out of thirty, twelve verses contain the perfect active participle which is inflected by six verbs such as γίνομαι (Μark 5:14 γεγονός), ἔχω (Mark 5:15 ἐσχηκότα), ἐξέρχομαι (Mark 7:30 ἐξεληλυθός), ἔρχομαι (Mark 9:1 ἐληλυθυῖαν), ἵστημι (Mark 9:1 and 11:5 ἑστηκότων; 13:14 ἑστηκότα), and παρίστημι (Mark 14:47 and 15:35 παρεστηκότων; 14:69 παρεστῶσιν; 14:70 παρεστῶτες; 15:39 παρεστηκώς). In the pluperfect periphrastic construction, it is found that the perfect active participle only occurs in four verses in the NT: Luke 5:1 (ἦν ἑστώς), Luke 15:24 (ἦν ἀπολωλώς), Acts 16:9 (ἦν ἑστωώς), and Acts 22:29 (ἦν δεδεκώς). The fact that the

174 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

limited verbs are used could be related to the features of their lexical character, although I here attempt to connect their choices to highlighting anterior activity. 110. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 288. 111. Porter, Idioms, 302–303. 112. When he is examining Luke 5:1–11, which is the account of ‘a miraculous catch of fish,’ Barnard states that the so-called frontground tense of Porter ‘is used by Luke to report the backgrounded introductory details.’ He finds that two perfect participles (ἑστώς and ἑστῶτα) are used to describe the initial situations of this miraculous story: ‘Jesus was standing’ (Luke 5:1) and ‘two boats were standing by the lake’ (Luke 5:2). See J. A. Barnard, ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke,’ FN 19 (2006): 10–11. 113. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 250. 114. The perfect form of ποιέω in the NT occurs in sixteen places that include nine perfect active indicatives, five perfect active participles, one perfect passive participle, and one perfect infinitive. Here I work on nine perfect active indicatives. According to my approach, the nine perfect active indicatives are divided into two groups. The first group is four perfects that are associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative (Mark 7:37, 11:17, John 13:12, 1 John 5:10). I apply Rule 1 to them. I judge that they highlight anterior activity still engaging the present state. The second group is five perfects that are associated with the past indicative (Mark 5:19, Luke 1:25, 17:10, 2 Cor 11:25, Heb 11:28). I apply Rule 2 to them. I judge that they highlight a present state of the subject, in some cases implying the subject’s credit, blame, responsibility, or authority. Mark 5:19 that I discussed in the main text belongs to the second group. The other four cases are examined here (Luke 1:25, 17:10, 2 Cor 11:25, and Heb 11:28). πεποίηκεν in Luke 1:25 and πεποιήκαμεν in 17:10 are associated with the past indicative (aorist or imperfect) in direct discourse and highlight the present state of the subject’s credit resulting from anterior activity. In Luke 1:25, the subject (the Lord)’s credit is highlighted because He took away Elizabeth’s disgrace among people. In Luke 17:10, the subject (slaves)’s credit is highlighted because they did the best in their duty. In 2 Cor 11:25 and Heb 11:28, the perfect also appears among the aorists that are used to describe the episode in the past. According to Rule 2, I understand that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the aorist by indicating the currently existing state (the subject’s credit) resulting from the past event or a vivid remembrance resulting from the past event. In 2 Cor 11:25, Paul vividly remembers the horrible event that he has spent adrift in the open sea for twenty-four hours. Heb 11:28 belongs to the list of the examples of faith (Heb 11:1–40). Lots of figures and their activities in the OT are described using the aorists. In the larger context (Heb 11:1–40), two perfect active indicatives appear in 11:17 and 11:28. προσενήνοχεν (Heb 11:17) is used to describe the episode that Abraham offered up Isaac. πεποίηκεν (Heb 11:28) is used to describe the episode that Moses kept the Passover and the sprinkling of the blood. I believe that they are chosen to vividly describe the two events in front of the current reader’s eyes in each immediate context, highlighting the present state of the subjects and giving to the subjects (Abraham and Moses) the current credits that result from anterior activity. For the second group, my understanding appears to be similar to Porter’s in that the perfect highlights the present state of the subject. However, Porter understands that all the perfects are chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) among the presents or the aorists based on one side of the dual feature, which is a present state. I understand that the perfect tense conveys the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. Depending on

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 175

their associated verbs, some perfects highlight anterior activity implying a present state (Rule 1) and others highlight the present state of the subject resulting from anterior activity (Rule 2). 115. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261. 116. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 109. 117. He categorizes σέσωκεν in the verb of climax focus. See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 159. 118. Regarding ‘voice’ or ‘transitivity,’ Fanning explains that if the perfect verb is the active voice with transitive meaning, it emphasizes a completed action and secondarily indicates the result. If the verb is in the passive and intransitive, the emphasis may be on the resulting state rather than anterior action. See Fanning, ‘Defining the Ancient Greek Perfect: Interaction with Recent Alternatives to the Traditional View of the Perfect,’ 15. 119. Fanning presents a detailed analysis of the semantics of the perfect: an intersection of aspect (perfective or aoristic), temporal location (prior occurrence of the event relative to the state it produces), and procedural character (stative). His view became a foundation for me to formulate my Three Rules. See ibid., 14. 120. They are ‘a woman who suffered from a hemorrhage disease’ (Mark 5: 34: par.; Matt 9:22; Luke 8:48), ‘a blind beggar’ (Mark 10: 52: par.; Luke 18:42), ‘a sinful woman who spent her perfume on Jesus’ feet’ (Luke 7:50), and ‘a Samaritan leper out of ten lepers cleansed’ (Luke 17:19). 121. All had anterior confessions of their faith before they were healed. ‘She touched His garment’ (Matt 9:21; Mark 5:34; Luke 8:44); ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me’ (Mark 10:52; Luke 18:38); ‘She began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet, and anointing them with the perfume’ (Luke 7: 38); and ‘Jesus, Master, have mercy one us!’ (Luke 17: 13). 122. All are used with the imperative, which includes a future-oriented sense: θάρσει ‘take courage’ (Matt 9:22), ὕπαγε ‘go’ (Mark 5:34), ὕπαγε, (Mark 10:52), πορεύου ‘go’ (Luke 7:50), πορεύου (Luke 8:48), ἀναστὰς πορεύου ‘rise and go’ (Luke 17:19), and ἀνάβλεψον ‘receive your sight’ (Luke 18:42). 123. Guelich explains that it was because of the woman’s great faith that ‘she accepted Israel’s prerogative but laid claim to God’s benefit that came through the Jews, the crumbs from the children’s table.’ See Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 388. 124. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 265. 125. The four miracle stories are presented in Mark 4:35–5:43: ‘the stilling of the storm,’ ‘the exorcising of the demons from the wild man of Gerasa,’ ‘the raising of Jairus’s daughter,’ and ‘the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage.’ See Brooks, Mark, 86–92. 126. Grassmick, ‘Mark,’ 135–136. 127. Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 204. 128. Stanley E. Porter, ‘Prominence: An Overview,’ in The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 61. 129. Ibid. 130. There are twenty-three perfects of δέω in the NT: twenty-two perfect middle/passives and one perfect active. There are nineteen aorists in the NT. All are action-oriented except for two cases (both with the futuristic notion of the infinitive). 131. For more information, see Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 146. 132. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 111. 133. Ibid.

176 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

134. It is assumed that one of them soon stopped reviling Jesus and asked Jesus to remember him in His kingdom. See Luke 23:39–43. 135. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 261. 136. Decker, Temporal Deixis, 68. 137. Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 77. 138. Ibid. 139. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book, 1920), 434. 140. There are nine perfect forms of θνῄσκω (Matt 2:20; Mark 15:44; Luke 7:12; 8:49; John 11:44; 19:33; Acts 14:19; 25:19; 1 Tim 5:6). 141. The present tense of ἀποθνῄσκω occurs twenty-one times and the aorist occurs eighty-five times. 142. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 522. 143. The passive form should be used here because the subject is ‘the stone’ (Mark 16:4; Luke 24:2). The present or aorist passive indicative does not appear in the NT. However, there are two actives in the NT: the aorist active indicative (Matt 28:2) and the future active indicative (Mark 16:3). 144. All eleven perfect forms in the NT are in middle (Mark 14:51; 16:5; Rev 4:4; 7:9, 13; 10:1; 11:3; 12:1; 17:4; 18:16; 19:13).

bibliography Allan, Rutger K. ‘Tense and Aspect in Classical Greek: Two Historical Developments; Augment and Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 81–121. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Barnard, J. A. ‘Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? An Evaluation of Stanley Porter’s Proposal with Special Reference to the Gospel of Luke.’ FN 19 (2006): 3–29. Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Brooks, James A. ‘Mark.’ NAC, vol. 23. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1991. Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Cole, R. Alan. ‘Mark.’ In New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. Donald Arthur Carson et al., 4th ed., 946–977. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Greek Perfect through Gothic Eyes: Evidence for the Existence of a Unitary Semantic for the Greek Perfect in New Testament Greek.’ JGL 14 (2014): 5–42. Curtius, Georg. A Grammar of the Greek Language. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1872. Dana, H. E., and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Decker, Rodney J. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. Studies in Biblical Greek 10. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Drinka, Bridget. Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Eakin, Frank. ‘Aorists and Perfects in First-Century Papyri.’ AJT 20, no. 2 (1916): 266–273. Evans, Craig Alan. Mark 8:27–16:20. Vol. 34B. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

the p e rf e c t t e n s e i n   ma r k  | 177

Fanning, Buist Martin. ‘Defining the Ancient Greek Perfect: Interaction with Recent Alternatives to the Traditional View of the Perfect.’ In The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson, 1–19. New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming. Fanning, Buist Martin. ‘Response to Campbell’s Imperfective View of the Greek Perfect.’ In The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson, 1–20. New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming. Fanning, Buist Martin. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002. Grassmick, John D. ‘Mark.’ In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2, 95–197. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker, and Ralph P. Martin, vol. 34A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1998. Gundry, Robert Horton. Mark. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1993. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study.’ FN 15 8 (1995): 3–22. Haug, Dag T. T. ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect.’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 387–418. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Promise and Fulfilment:  The Eschatological Message of Jesus. London: SCM, 1966. Levinsohn, Stephen H. ‘Functions of Copular-Participle Combinations (‘Periphrastics’).’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 307–326. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. McKay, Kenneth L. ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek.’ NovT 23 (1981): 289–329. McKay, Kenneth L. ‘On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri.’ BICS 27 (1980): 23–49. Moule, Charles Francis Digby. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. I.  Prolegomena. Edinburgh:  T. & T. Clark, 1906. Orriens, Sander. ‘Involving the Past in the Present. The Classical Greek Perfect as a Situating Cohesion Device.’ In Discourse Cohesion in Ancient Greek, ed. Stéphanie J. Bakker and Gerry C. Wakker, 221–239. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Palu, Ma’afu. Jesus and Time: An Interpretation of Mark 1:15. New York: A & C Black, 2012. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:  Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Prominence:  An Overview.’ In The Linguist as Pedagogue: Trends in the Teaching and Linguistic Analysis of the Greek New Testament, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, 45–74. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009. Porter, Stanley E., and Andrew W. Pitts. ‘The Disclosure Formula in the Epistolary Papyri and in the New Testament:  Development, Form, Function, and Syntax.’ In The Language of the New

178 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, 421– 438. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934. Runge, Steven E. ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 458–485. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Schneider, Johannes. ‘ἥκω, κτλ.’ In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol.  2, 926–955. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1965. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book, 1920. Stovell, Beth M. ‘Seeing the Kingdom of God, Seeing Eternal Life: Cohesion and Prominence in John 3:1–15 and the Apocryphal Gospels in Terms of Metaphor Use.’ In The Language of the New Testament: Context, History, and Development, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, vol. 3, 439–467. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965. Vincent, Marvin Richardson. Word Studies in the New Testament. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887. Wallace, Daniel Baird. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

C HAPTER F I V E

The Perfect Tense in Romans

The Epistle to the Romans contains seventy-nine perfects and one pluperfect. For discussion, I divide them into four sections: the perfect indicative, the perfect non-indicative, individual treatments, and passage studies. One pluperfect (ᾔδειν in Rom 7:7) is included in the individual treatments. For clarity, in the tables in this chapter I  mark the perfects and the pluperfects with bold letters and underline their associated parts. I use my Three Rules to discuss the function of the perfect in the Epistle to the Romans as I did in the Gospel of Mark. I observe that there is no genre difference between the use of the perfect in the narrative and the non-narrative. In the same way as Mark, the dual feature of the perfect in Romans can be shifted to highlight a present state or anterior activity according to the situation. I reiterate my Three Rules here. When the perfect finite verb, mostly indicative, is associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, it highlights the subject’s anterior activity (either temporal or logical), while still engaging its present state (Rule 1). When the perfect finite verb, mostly indicative, is associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, it highlights the subject’s present state resulting from anterior activity (Rule 2). When the perfect non-indicative, mostly participle, is connected with a substantive, it describes the substantive with its dual feature of indicating a present state resulting from anterior activity. The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity. The perfect middle/ passive participle tends to highlight a present state (Rule 3).

180 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

T H E P E R F E C T I N D I C AT I V E The perfect indicative occurs fifty-seven times in Romans. In this section, I will discuss twenty-one perfect indicatives. I will deal with the others in the individual treatments section. The twenty-one perfect indicatives are divided into two groups. First are the fourteen cases in which the perfect indicative is associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative. Rule 1 is applied to them and reveals that they highlight anterior activity, while still denoting a present state. I assume that the speaker or writer chose the perfect to complement the meaning of the nonpast indicative or present non-indicative by showing anterior activity. Second are the seven cases in which the perfect indicative is associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative. Rule 2 is applied and reveals that they highlight a present or current state that results from anterior activity. I  assume that the speaker or writer chose these perfects to complement the meaning of the past indicative or aorist non-indicative by showing a present or current state.

The Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present NonIndicative: Rule 1 Fourteen perfects are examined in this section according to Rule 1.  When the perfect indicative is associated with the non-past indicative (which includes the present and the future) or the present non-indicative (which includes a present-referring situation in cases where there is no verb) the perfect is chosen to highlight the subject’s anterior activity and still engage its present state. On a discourse level, the perfect functions to support main events or themes, thus it is background. Porter does not admit the perfect’s inherent-dual feature. He only focuses on a present state, disregarding anterior activity. He accepts the perfect’s anterior activity only when he can find past-time implicature outside the perfect. On a discourse level, he argues that the perfect delivers the highest prominence, thus is frontground. The following discussion proves (without trying to find past-time implicature in the context) that the perfect indicates anterior activity in its immediate context, while still implying a present state, and is used as supporting material for main events or themes.

πεφανέρωται in 3:21 In the larger context of Romans 3:21–26, there are two perfects: the perfect indicative (πεφανέρωται) in verse 21 and the perfect participle (προγεγονότων) in verse 25. The second perfect participle will be dealt with in ‘The Perfect Non-Indicative’ section. The theme of Romans 3:21–26 is ‘the righteousness of God through faith

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 181

Table 5.1. Fourteen Cases of the Perfect with the Non-Past Indicative or Present Non-Indicative. Source: Author Rulea NA28b

NETc

R1

Rom. 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed— Rom. 4:17 As it is written: ‘I have made you a father of many nations.’ He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were. Rom. 4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able to do. Rom. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. Rom. 5:5 And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. Rom. 9:6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, Rom. 9:29 Just as Isaiah predicted, ‘If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have resembled Gomorrah.’ Rom. 15:21 but as it is written: ‘Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.’ Rom. 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

R1

R1 R1

R1

R1 R1

R1 R1

Rom. 3:21 Νυνὶ δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ πεφανέρωται μαρτυρουμένη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν, Rom. 4:17 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα.d Rom. 4:21 καὶ πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ ἐπή γγελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι. Rom. 5:1 Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rom. 5:2 δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν [τῇ πίστει] εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμενe καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. Rom. 5:5 ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει, ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν. Rom. 9:6 Οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι ἐκπέπτωκ εν ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ. οὐ γὰρ πάντες οἱ ἐξ Ἰσραὴλ οὗτοι Ἰσραήλ·f Rom. 9:29 καὶ καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἠσαΐας·εἰ μὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπ εν ἡμῖν σπέρμα, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν καὶ ὡς Γόμορρα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν.g Rom. 15:21 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται·οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν. Rom. 2:25 Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν.h

Continued 

182 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.1. Continued Rulea NA28b R1

R1 R1

R1 R 1 or R2

NETc

Rom. 6:5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ Rom. 6:5 For if we have become united with ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ him in the likeness of his death, we will τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection. Rom. 11:5 οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν Rom. 11:5 So in the same way at the present καιρῷ λεῖμμα κατ᾿ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος time there is a remnant chosen by grace. γέγονεν· Rom. 16:7 ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον Rom. 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ compatriots and my fellow prisoners. They συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν are well known to the apostles, and they ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ were in Christ before me. ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ. Rom. 13:8 Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ Rom. 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν love one another, for the one who loves his ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν.i neighbor has fulfilled the law. Rom. 14:23 ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν Rom. 14:23 But the man who doubts is φάγῃ κατακέκριται, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως· condemned if he eats, because he does not πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν. do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

I put my rule in this column so that the reader will immediately know my judgment. For this paper, I use Greek texts from Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition. c For this paper, I put text in this column from the New English Translation (NET) to complement the Greek texts for the reader’s understanding. d In Romans 4:17, the perfect (τέθεικα) appears in the OT citation of Genesis 17:5. I associate this perfect with a present situation. That is why there is no underlined word in this box. Further discussion may be found in the passage study of Romans 4:13–25. e This perfect (ἑστήκαμεν) is discussed in the individual treatment of ἵστημι. f In Romans 9:6, the perfect (ἐκπέπτωκεν) occurs in the subordinate clause. There is no other verb that is associated with the perfect. Thus, I associate the perfect with a present situation. That is why there is no underlined word in this box. g In Romans 9:29, the perfect (προείρηκεν) is associated with two presents (λέγει in 9:25 and κράζει in 9:27), which cannot be seen in Table 5.1. I discuss this perfect in the passage study of Romans 9:19–29. h I put together here the four uses of the perfect forms of γίνομαι: Romans 2:25; 6:5; 11:5; and 16:7, so that the reader can see them all at once. In fact, there is one more occurrence (Rom 11:25) that I put it in the following section, ‘The Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative.’ i I put Romans 13:8 and 14:23 together because they have the same structure of the phrase ‘the one who …’ They are discussed in the individual treatment of ‘the one who …’ a

b

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 183

in Jesus.’ The first perfect (πεφανέρωται in v. 21) is closely related to this theme. Porter may argue that this perfect is chosen for the highest prominence in this passage and indicates a present state, regardless of anterior activity. However, I believe that this perfect mainly delivers the meaning of ‘already manifested prior to the utterance’ to the death of Jesus. Rule 1 is appropriate to explain this idea. According to Rule 1, the perfect indicative (πεφανέρωται) is associated with the present adverbial participle (μαρτυρουμένη). Both share the same subject— the righteousness of God. Like an adverb, the adverbial participle is dependent on the main verb, adding some notion of an adverb such as temporal, manner, means, cause, condition, purpose, or result.1 Here the present adverbial participle (μαρτυρουμένη) is dependent on the perfect indicative (πεφανέρωται), adding some manner of how the righteousness of God has been disclosed. Thus the meaning of the present adverbial participle is used to explain that God’s righteousness, which has already been manifested through the death of Christ, is, at present, attested by the law and the prophets. In the opposite way, from the perfect’s viewpoint, the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present participle by indicating anterior activity. Thus, the perfect (πεφανέρωται) is chosen to highlight the historical past event of Jesus’ death. Dunn states that this perfect (πεφανέρωται) emphasizes ‘that a decisive act has already taken place which has proved to be the eschatological turning point in the history of salvation.’2 Starting from the following verse, Paul expounds that Christ’s redemptive death demonstrated God’s righteousness (3:22–26). Fanning mentions that this perfect (πεφανέρωται) lexically indicates ‘accomplishment,’ and highlights ‘the state of the subject’ because it is in passive voice.3 However, in this book, I do not much focus on the lexical character of each verb nor consider at length the voice when the perfect functions as a finite verb, although I consider the voice of the participle. Thus, according to Rule 1, I suggest that the perfect (πεφανέρωται) highlights the anterior activity of Jesus’ redemptive death in the immediate context, which functions to support the following exposition.

τέθεικα in 4:17 This perfect (τέθεικα) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 4:13–25. ἐπήγγελται in 4:21

This perfect (ἐπήγγελται) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 4:13–25. ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2

This perfect (ἐσχήκαμεν) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 5:1–5.

184 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

ἐκκέχυται in 5:5

This perfect (ἐκκέχυται) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 5:1–5. ἐκπέπτωκεν in 9:6

In the larger context of Romans 9:6–13, there are two perfects: ἐκπέπτωκεν in 9:6 and γέγραπται in 9:13. For Porter, the two perfects are the author’s intentional choice to indicate the highest prominence. However, regarding the latter perfect (γέγραπται), as I have discussed its use in Mark and will show in the section on the individual treatments in Romans, γέγραπται is not related to the indication of prominence but is related to the citation of the OT quotations. As for the former perfect indicative (ἐκπέπτωκεν), as Porter suggests, it appears in a thematic statement in verse 6 within the pericope of 9:6–13. It does seem to express the highest prominence. However, this perfect appears to be chosen as an opening for the presentation of the prior events of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I attempt to discuss this passage with Rule 1, so that I can show that the perfect is chosen to highlight anterior activity that leads to present relevance. Romans 9:6 does not contain any main verb. The only verb (the perfect ἐκπέπτωκεν) occurs in the subordinate clause (ὅτι). It is assumed that Romans 9:6 is written on a present-time basis because an expository discourse is laid out at the present time of the speaker or writer. The following verses (9:7–8) contain the present tense, and so the perfect is associated with a present situation. Thus, Rule 1 is applied. The perfect (ἐκπέπτωκεν) is chosen to indicate anterior activity—the fulfillment of the OT prophecy in verse 9 (Gen 18:10 and 18:14)—while connecting this anterior activity to the present situation. Through the use of this perfect, Paul argues that the word of God did not fail in the past and is now still valid in the present. Paul provides three illustrations of God’s fulfilled sovereign choice in Romans 9:7–18: Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Pharaoh.

προείρηκεν in 9:29 This perfect (προείρηκεν) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 9:19–29. ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21

This perfect (ἀκηκόασιν) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 15:14–21.

γέγονεν in 2:25 and 11:5, γεγόναμεν in 6:5, γέγοναν in 16:7 These three perfects are discussed in the individual treatment of γέγονεν.

πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8, κατακέκριται in 14:23 These two perfects are discussed in the individual treatment of ‘the one who …’

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 185

The Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative: Rule 2 I found in Mark that there are eight cases where the perfects are associated with past indicatives (the aorist and imperfect)—three perfects occur in a present-referring situation (direct discourse) and five perfects occur in a past-referring situation (narrative past time). I found that these perfects are not associated with the aorist non-indicative, but only with the past indicative (the aorist and imperfect). In Romans (an expository discourse not based on a narrative past event) seven perfects are associated with the past indicative as well as the aorist non-indicative. The aorist non-indicative expresses a completed action, which implies logically anterior activity. All of them occur in a present-referring situation. The present time frame is established in expository discourse. Earlier, I  listed fourteen perfect indicatives associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, which occur in a present-referring situation. Rule 1 was given. In this section, I present seven perfect indicatives associated with Table 5.2.  Seven Cases of the Perfect with the Past Indicative or Aorist Non-Indicative. Source: Author Rule

NA28

R2

Rom. 4:14 εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμ οι, κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐ παγγελία· Rom. 6:7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Rom. 7:2 ἡ γὰρ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ τῷ ζῶντι ἀνδρὶ δέδεται νόμῳ·a ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, κατήργηται ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ἀνδρός. Rom. 11:25 Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ ἦτε [παρ᾿] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, ὅτι πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ

R2 R2

R2

R2

NET

Rom. 4:14 For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. Rom. 6:7 (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.) Rom. 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage. Rom. 11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. Rom. 13:12 ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν, ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα Rom. 13:12 The night has advanced ἤγγικεν. ἀποθώμεθα οὖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ toward dawn; the day is near. So then we σκότους, ἐνδυσώμεθα [δὲ] τὰ ὅπλα τοῦ must lay aside the works of darkness, and φωτός. put on the weapons of light.

In Romans 7:2a, there is no verb to be associated with the perfect (δέδεται). I attempt to associate the perfect with the adjective (ὕπανδρος) because the adjective is considered to have a verbal meaning of ‘already married.’ That is why the adjective (ὕπανδρος) is underlined. a

186 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, which also occur in a present-referring situation. Rule 2 is applied. My assumption is that when the speaker or writer chooses the perfect in association with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, the perfect highlights the subject’s present state resulting from anterior activity. The speaker or writer may choose the perfect to complement the meaning of the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, concerning a present state.

κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14 These two perfects (κεκένωται and κατήργηται) are discussed in the passage study of Romans 4:13–25.

δεδικαίωται in 6:7 This perfect (δεδικαίωται) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 6:1–11.

δέδεται in 7:2a In the larger context of Romans 7:1–6, two perfects occur in verse 2: δέδεται and κατήργηται. According to Porter’s argument, verse 2 should be the central message in the larger context because it contains two perfects. As to the content of this passage, Paul presents a rhetorical question for discussion in verse 1, which is related to ‘the liberation from the law.’ Romans 7:2–3 describes the present situation of a married woman and her husband as an example for the following discussion. Based on this illustration, Paul states his central point in verse 4. In Romans 7:5–6, Paul provides further explanation about the meaning of ‘the liberation from the law.’ Verse 2, which includes two perfects (δέδεται and κατήργηται), illustrates the relationship to the law, that is, the relationship between the husband’s death and the wife’s legal liberation from the marriage. This illustration is used for the central point in verse 4—‘our relationship to Christ in his death on the cross.’4 Thus, it is hard to say, based only on the presence of the perfect, that verse 2 is the highlight of the illustration. Rather, verse 4 is highlighted with the support of the marriage analogy in verse 2. Porter’s argument about a third level of frontground for the perfect does not work in this passage. It is evident that the perfects in verse 2 are used as background material for the main theme of ‘the liberation from the law.’ Porter understands that these perfects are omnitemporal, because the law is an omnitemporal implicature as a natural law.5 Since they do not function to indicate the highest prominence, Porter should be able to provide another explanation of why they are chosen because the present tense form could be used to describe the omnitemporal function of the law as well. I  believe that the traditional understanding of the dual feature can solve this problem. Using Rule 2, I explain that the

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 187

two perfects are chosen to indicate a present state resulting from anterior activity in their immediate context. In Romans 7:2a, there is no verb associated with the perfect (δέδεται). I attempt to associate the perfect with the adjective (ὕπανδρος). The lexical meaning of the adjective (ὕπανδρος) is ‘being legally bound to a man in marriage’ (BDAG, 1029). Implicitly it seems to have a verbal meaning of ‘already married.’ Rule 2 is applied. The perfect highlights a present state of ‘being bound’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘binding’ in the immediate context (v. 2). It is found that, like the verb of ‘wear,’ the verb of ‘bind’ does not have the present tense form. 6 Instead of the present tense form, the perfect (δέδεται) is used to describe a present state. As like the verb of ‘wear,’ the present state of ‘being bound’ cannot be separated from a prior action of ‘binding.’ Thus, the choice of the perfect is not related to the speaker or writer’s intention for the highest prominence, but due to conventional use. The perfect is only chosen to meet the needs of an immediate context.

κατήργηται in 7:2b Applying Rule 2, the perfect (κατήργηται in 7:2b) is associated with the aorist subjunctive (ἀποθάνῃ). It highlights a present state of ‘being released’ resulting from the logically anterior activity of ‘releasing.’ Since the associated verb appears in the ἐὰν conditional clause, the perfect is influenced by a futuristic sense. If her husband happens to die, it will occur that she is in a state of ‘release’ from the bondage of the law of a marriage formed in the past.

γέγονεν in 11:25 This perfect (γέγονεν) is discussed in the individual treatments of γέγονεν. ἤγγικεν in 13:12

In the larger context of Romans 13:11–14, there are two perfects (εἰδότες and ἤγγικεν). εἰδότες (v. 11) will be discussed later in the section on the individual treatments. Therefore, only one perfect in verse 12 (ἤγγικεν) is discussed here. Porter may argue that this perfect is chosen for the highest prominence in the larger context (13:11–14). However, verse 12a seems to be a background pronouncement for the following encouragements (v.  12c-d). Based on the salvific imagery of the night and the day, Paul urges believers to lay down worldly life styles and put on the life of Jesus Christ. Thus, the main theme is taking up a heavenly life style now, recognizing the times. The perfect in verse 12a is not used for prominence in the larger context, but rather it is chosen to deliver Paul’s view of salvation as a background for the following argument. I believe that the traditional understanding of the perfect has more explanatory power to exegete Paul’s original intent than Porter’s.

188 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

I attempt to discuss this perfect with Rule 2. The perfect (ἤγγικεν) is associated with the aorist (προέκοψεν). The perfect highlights a present state resulting from anterior activity. I have already discussed this perfect (ἤγγικεν) in the narrative discourse of Mark 1:15 and 14:42. The application of Rule 1 to both instances of this perfect suggested that they highlight anterior activity because they are associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative. However, here in Romans 13:12, I understand that the perfect (ἤγγικεν) highlights a present state. In expository discourse, the perfect (ἤγγικεν) appears in three places: Romans 13:12, James 5:8, and 1 Peter 4:7.7 All three perfects are associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative. Rule 2 is applied. All imply the present eschatological fulfillment, anticipating the ultimate fulfillment,8 although the perfect (ἤγγικεν) is rendered as ‘is near,’ e.g. NET, NIV and NLT, or ‘at hand,’ e.g. NAS, and KJV—‘The day is near’ (Rom 13:12), ‘The Lord’s return is near’ ( James 5:8), and ‘The culmination of all things is near’ (1 Pet 4:7). The perfect (ἤγγικεν) in 13:12 delivers Paul’s view of salvation, which is ‘already and not yet.’9 In the previous verse (v. 11), Paul uses the comparative adjective (ἐγγύτερον ‘nearer’), which expresses a present state without the idea of anterior activity, and uses the aorist (ἐπιστεύσαμεν), indicating the activity of ‘believing’ in the past. Two stages are used to describe the process of our salvation, highlighting the present state. Thus, the translation is ‘our salvation is now nearer than when we first believed’ (NIV). Paul’s view of salvation is again presented in verse 12a. Paul contrasts the night and the day as an extension of the contrast between darkness and light. The subject ‘the night’ takes the aorist. The subject ‘the day’ takes the perfect. If we respect that each verb has its own feature, ἡ νὺξ προέκοψεν (‘the night has advanced toward dawn’ NET) may mean that the night has completely advanced until the dawn of God’s kingdom broke. And ἡ δὲ ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν (‘but the day is near’ NET) may mean that the day has come and now is. Since the lexical meaning of ἐγγίζω (‘draw closer to a reference point’ in BDAG, 270) has a future-oriented sense, the verb is ‘in connection with the great hope of consummation.’10 The night or darkness refers to the present age. The day or light refers to God’s kingdom. Thus, the dual feature of the perfect demonstrates Paul’s view of salvation, which is ‘already and not yet.’ The life of light began from the first coming of Jesus and expects the Second Coming of Jesus, which is the final salvation. Paul uses a similar expression with the adjective (ὁ κύριος ἐγγύς ‘the Lord is near’) in Philippians 4:5. It can be compared with the use of the perfect (ἡ ἡμέρα ἤγγικεν ‘the day is near’) here in Romans 13:12. Unlike the use of the perfect, the adjective only describes a present state. Thus, it means that the Lord is present near to us so He can be aware of our conduct.11

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 189

T H E P E R F E C T N O N - I N D I C AT I V E The Epistle to the Romans contains twenty-two non-indicative perfects. There are fourteen perfect participles, three perfect infinitives, three participial forms of οἶδα, and two participial forms of ἐνίστημι and ἀνθίστημι. The fourteen participles, which include one periphrastic construction (Rom 13:1), are discussed under Rule 3. The three infinitives are discussed with Rule 1. The three participial forms of οἶδα are discussed in the individual treatments, applying Rule 2. Two participial forms of ἐνίστημι and ἀνθίστημι are discussed in the individual treatments, applying Rule 3.

The Perfect Participle: Rule 3 The participle is a verbal adjective, which functions as a verb as well as an adjective. The function of the perfect participle is divided into two: the adjectival or substantival participle, which focuses on the adjectival function, and the adverbial participle, which focuses on the verbal function. The adjectival or substantival participle functions as an adjective to modify a substantive (whether explicit or implicit) with the dual feature of the perfect. The adverbial participle functions as an adverb to modify the main verb with the dual feature of the perfect to indicate purpose, result, time, condition, concession, means, and manner. Most of the perfect participles in Romans appear to function as an adjectival or substantival. There are four cases in Romans of what could be understood as perfect adverbial participles (1:29; 7:14; 15:14; 15:16). However, it seems more appropriate that they be interpreted as predicate adjectives. One perfect periphrastic construction (Rom 13:1) is included here because the participle (τεταγμέναι) is understood to describe the substantive (the subject) and, therefore, function as a predicate adjective. I connect all the perfect participles with a substantive. Rule 3 is applied. I assume that the perfect participle is chosen to describe the substantive through the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state. However, as I  have already mentioned in my discussion about Mark, this tendency is weak in a certain verb, that is, the family of ἵστημι (ἐνίστημι, παρίστημι, and ἀνθίστημι). Their lexical character restrains them to take active forms with intransitive meaning without using passive forms, highlighting a present state. Two perfect participles out of the family of ἵστημι appear in Romans 8:38 (ἐνεστῶτα) and 13:2 (ἀνθεστηκότες). They are discussed in the individual treatments.

190 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.3. Fourteen Cases of the Perfect Adjectival or Substantival Participle. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R3

Rom. 1:1 From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God. Rom. 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. Rom. 1:29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, and malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, and hostility. They are gossips, Rom. 3:13 ‘Their throats are open graves, they deceive with their tongues, the poison of asps is under their lips.’ Rom. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. Rom. 4:18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, ‘So shall your offspring be.’ Rom. 4:19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead.

R3

R3 R3

R3

R3

R3 R3

Rom. 1:1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ, Rom. 1:28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, Rom. 1:29 πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ, μεστοὺς φθόνου φόνου ἔριδος δόλου κακοηθείας, ψιθυριστὰς Rom. 3:13 τάφος ἀνεῳγμένος ὁ λάρυγξ αὐτῶν, ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν ἐδολιοῦσαν, ἰὸς ἀσπίδων ὑπὸ τὰ χείλη αὐτῶν· Rom. 3:25 ὃν προέθετο ὁ θεὸς ἱλαστήριον διὰ [τῆς] πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι εἰς ἔνδειξιν τῆς δικαι οσύνης αὐτοῦ διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων ἁμαρτημάτων Rom. 4:18 Ὃς παρ᾿ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου, Rom. 4:19 καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει κατενόησεν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον, ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας· Rom. 7:14 Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος πν ευματικός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πε πραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. Rom. 9:22 εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ θεὸς ἐνδείξασ θαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ σκεύη ὀργῆς κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν,

Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual—but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin. Rom. 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 191

Table 5.3. Continued Rule NA28 R3

R3

R3

R3

R3

NET

Rom. 9:25 ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ Rom. 9:25 As he also says in Hosea: ‘I will λέγει·καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου call those who were not my people, “My καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην·a people,” and I will call her who was unloved, “My beloved.” ’ Rom. 13:1 Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις Rom. 13:1 Let every person be subject to ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. Οὐ γὰρ the governing authorities. For there is no ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι authority except by God’s appointment, ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν.b 1 and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Rom. 15:14 Πέπεισμαι δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, Rom. 15:14 But I myself am fully convinced καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ about you, my brothers and sisters, that you μεστοί ἐστε ἀγαθωσύνης, πεπληρωμένοι yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all πάσης [τῆς] γνώσεως, δυνάμενοι καὶ knowledge, and able to instruct one another. ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. Rom. 15:16 εἰς τὸ εἶναί με Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, to the Gentiles. I serve the gospel of God like ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ, a priest, so that the Gentiles may become an ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν acceptable offering, sanctified by the Holy εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι Spirit. ἁγίῳ. Rom. 16:25 [Τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ ὑμᾶς Rom. 16:25 Now to him who is able to στηρίξαι κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου καὶ strengthen you according to my gospel and τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, κατὰ the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according ἀποκάλυψιν μυστηρίου χρόνοις αἰωνίοις to the revelation of the mystery that had been σεσιγημένου, kept secret for long ages,

The perfect participle (ἠγαπημένην) functions substantively; thus, it describes an implied substantive (‘my people’) which is implied in the previous clause. b The perfect (τεταγμέναι) appears in a perfect periphrastic construction (τεταγμέναι εἰσίν). a

ἀφωρισμένος in 1:1

The passage of Romans 1:1–7 is the salutation of the letter. Porter may say that Paul chose the perfect to make his identity of ‘set apart’ prominent because this identity is described by the perfect participle (ἀφωρισμένος in v.  1), which is the only perfect in this passage (1:1–7). However, there are other expressions used to indicate Paul’s identity such as ‘a slave’ and ‘called to be an apostle.’ Also, Paul seems to put more stress on ‘called’ (κλητός) because it repeatedly occurs in verses 1 and 6–7. It is likely that Paul’s identity of ‘called to be an apostle’ is supported

192 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

by the description of ‘being separated apart for the gospel.’ In the Greek text, ‘set apart for the gospel of God’ is placed right after ‘called to be an apostle.’ Thus, I understand that the perfect participle (ἀφωρισμένος) is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context (1:1–7); rather, it seems to be used as supplementary material for Paul’s identity in the immediate context (v. 1). In this situation, it appears that the choice of the perfect cannot be explained by Porter’s prominence theory better than the traditional understanding of the dual feature of the perfect. I attempt to explain this with Rule 3, which is based on the traditional understanding of the perfect. There is no finite verb in Romans 1:1. However, it is assumed that a present-time situation is a background for expository discourse. According to Rule 3, the perfect participle (ἀφωρισμένος) is connected with Paul. This perfect participle describes Paul’s present status of ‘set apart’ that results from anterior activity— probably his conversion and call to apostleship on the road to Damascus (Gal 1:15–16). Paul’s conversion happened in the past, and Paul is now a person who is set apart for the gospel of God. Paul uses the dual feature of the perfect to describe his status. Since the perfect participle is in passive voice, it tends to highlight Paul’s present state.

πεπληρωμένους in 1:29 In the pericope Romans 1:18–32, verse 18 presents the theme of this passage with the present tense—‘God’s wrath is revealed on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people.’ In verses 19–20, Paul announces why God’s wrath is on them. In verses 21–28, Paul uses many aorist indicatives to indicate how people did ungodly and unrighteous actions. In verse 29, Paul used the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένους) to describe them as being full of many sinful characteristics, including a list of vices (vv. 29–31). Verse 32 summarizes the preceding verses. Only one perfect participle (πεπληρωμένους) occurs in Romans 1:18–32. According to Porter, the perfect should function to express the highest prominence in this passage. However, the main theme is God’s wrath against those who reject Him. The subject of God is highlighted in the threefold repetition of ‘God gave them over to sins’ (vv. 24, 26, and 28). All kinds of vices are the results of condemnation. Then the perfect participle in v.29 is used in the immediate context (v. 29–31) to describe those who are full of every kind of ungodliness and unrighteousness. Thus the perfect appears to be a supporting material for the main theme. Porter’s suggestion of a third level of frontground (the highest prominence) for the perfect is not valid in this situation. Rather, the explanation based on the traditional understanding of the dual feature of the perfect is more powerful than Porter’s. I use my Three Rules to explain the perfect based on the dual feature.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 193

It can be understood that the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένους) is adverbial, functioning as a finite verb, depending on the main verb of the aorist (παρέδωκεν) in verse 28.12 If so, the perfect is associated with the aorist, and Rule 2 can be applied. However, I  attempt to connect the perfect participle with the substantive (αὐτοὺς) in verse 28, understanding that this perfect participle describes ‘them’ with the dual feature of the perfect. Rule 3 is applied. Since this perfect participle (πεπληρωμένους) is in passive voice, it tends to highlight that they are full of vices, which result from the ungodly and unrighteous actions in verses 21–28. ἀνεῳγμένος in 3:13

In the larger context of Romans 3:9–20, there are three perfects: γέγραπται (v. 10), ἀνεῳγμένος (v. 13), and οἴδαμεν (v. 19). If we exclude γέγραπται and οἴδαμεν as idiomatic expressions, there is one perfect (ἀνεῳγμένος in v. 13) left. Porter may argue that ἀνεῳγμένος (‘open’) is chosen for the highest prominence in the larger context (3: 9–20). However, it is found that verse 13 is one of a series of the OT citations (vv. 10–18). Verse 13a is an exact citation of the LXX (Ps 5:10), which indicates that Paul copied the perfect participle from the LXX without any intention to highlight the perfect. Hebrew texts show that ‘an open grave’ uses a maqqef, which is a binder of two words like a hyphen in English. Thus, it is understood that the perfect participle is closely connected to a noun in the immediate context. The prominent theme of Romans 3:9–20 is that there is no one who is righteous, and both Jews and Greeks are under the power of sin. ‘An open grave’ is one description of many sins. Verse 13, which owns the perfect, is background material to explain why human beings are sinful. Apparently, the perfect is not chosen for the highest prominence on a discourse level. Then there is a question—why is the perfect chosen? The answer is ‘because of the dual feature.’ I explain this with my Three Rules. According to Rule 3, I explain that the perfect participle (ἀνεῳγμένος) modifies a grave (τάφος) as an adjective, along with a verbal idea. I argue that it is chosen because of the dual feature of the perfect. This participle is in passive voice, so it tends to highlight a present state. ‘An open(ed) grave’ basically implies that the grave is in a state of openness that results from the anterior activity of ‘opening.’ There is no adjective form used for ‘open’ in the NT probably because the adjective form of ‘open’ does not deliver the dual sense. The perfect participle (ἀνεῳγμένος) is appropriate to describe a present state of ‘open,’ which implies the anterior action of ‘opening.’13 It is found that the present (four uses) and the aorist (fifty-three uses) are used only for their action-oriented meaning, not stative meaning.

προγεγονότων in 3:25 The theme of Romans 3:21–26 is ‘the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus.’ There are two perfects: πεφανέρωται in verse 21 and προγεγονότων in verse 25. Porter

194 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

may say that these two perfects are chosen for the highest prominence in the larger context (3:21–26). However, the first perfect (πεφανέρωται), as I have already discussed in the perfect indicative section, is used to support the following exposition of the theme of God’s present redemptive work through Christ’s past death. As for the second perfect (προγεγονότων in v. 25), Porter may argue that the perfect is chosen to highlight ‘the sins previously committed’ as the main theme. However, we can see that if the phrase ‘the sins previously committed’ is not used with the phrase ‘God’s passing over’ in the same verse (v. 25), it cannot be even a part of the main theme. Thus, ‘previously committed’ functions only to describe ‘the sins’ in the immediate context (v. 25), without extending to a larger context. Unlike Porter, I suggest that the choice of the perfect is tied to its dual feature. Applying Rule 3, the perfect participle (προγεγονότων) is connected with ‘sins.’ As an adjective, the perfect participle functions to describe the state of ‘sins’ with the dual feature of the perfect. The perfect participle is in active voice, so it serves to highlight the anterior activity of sinning. God had allowed the former sins to go unpunished for a period of time according to His plan. At the time of the writing, God’s righteousness was demonstrated by Him forgiving the sins which had been previously committed. The description of ‘sins’ in the immediate context supports the redemptive death of Christ in the larger context of Romans 3:21–26.

εἰρημένον in 4:18, νενεκρωμένον in 4:19 These perfect participles (εἰρημένον and νενεκρωμένον) are discussed in the passage study of Romans 4:13–25.

πεπραμένος in 7:14 In the larger context of Romans 7:14–25, three perfects appear:  οἴδαμεν and πεπραμένος in verse 14 and οἶδα in verse 18. οἴδαμεν and οἶδα will be discussed in the section of individual treatments. Here, only the perfect participle (πεπραμένος in v. 14) will be discussed. According to Porter, this perfect participle should deliver the highest prominence (frontground) in this passage. However, it seems that it is used as background in the passage. If we think that the main theme is ‘the struggle of “I” under the law,’ the perfect participle in verse 14 appears to provide a setting (background) for the struggle described in verses 15–20. The struggle is resolved in verses 21–25. Romans 7:14–25 contains the present tense (the first person singular) in contrast to the past tense in verses 2–13. In the present tense pericope, the perfect participle (πεπραμένος v. 14) is used. Porter may argue that it is chosen to indicate more prominence than the other present tense words. For Porter, this perfect participle highlights the present condition of ‘I.’ However, I argue that this perfect is chosen to describe ‘I’ with the dual feature. The perfect participle (πεπραμένος) indicates the

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 195

dual feature of a human being: a present unspiritual state and a past of being sold as a slave in the immediate context (v. 14). The description of a sinful human being highlights the existence of the Savior who is Jesus Christ in the larger context (vv. 14–25). Grammatically, the perfect participle (πεπραμένος) can be understood as an adverbial participle, depending on the main verb (εἰμί). Also, it can be understood as a periphrastic construction of ‘εἰμί + πεπραμένος.’14 However, I prefer to understand it as a predicate adjective used to describe the subject (ἐγώ) with the dual feature. Applying Rule 3, the perfect participle (πεπραμένος) is connected with the subject (ἐγώ). Since the perfect participle is in passive voice, it tends to highlight a present state of the subject (‘I’) who has been sold under sin in the past. The implication of description of ‘I’ in verse 14 is that the present unspiritual state is related to the fact that he was sold as a slave. Although ‘I’ has the law that can make a human being spiritual, ‘I’ is struggling with a sinful nature embedded in the past without the Savior.

κατηρτισμένα in 9:22, ἠγαπημένην in 9:25 These perfects (κατηρτισμένα and ἠγαπημένην) are discussed in the passage study of Romans 9:19–29.

τεταγμέναι in 13:1 This perfect (τεταγμέναι) occurs in the perfect periphrastic construction (τεταγμέναι εἰσίν). It is discussed in the individual treatments of ‘the one who …’

πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14 This perfect (πεπληρωμένοι) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 15:14–21. ἡγιασμένη in 15:16

This perfect (ἡγιασμένη) is discussed in the passage study of Romans 15:14–21.

σεσιγημένου in 16:25 Romans 16:25–27 is a concluding doxology of the whole letter. There is no finite verb. Instead, three participial forms occur. One is the perfect participle (σεσιγημένου in v. 25) and the other two are the aorist participles (φανερωθέντος and γνωρισθέντος in v. 26). All the participles modify a substantive (μυστηρίου ‘mystery’). Porter may contrast the perfect participle with the aorist participles and argue that the perfect participle is chosen to indicate more prominence than the aorists. In terms of context, we need to think about which is the more prominent issue for Paul. Is it the issue that the mystery has been kept secret for long ages (the

196 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

perfect)? Or is it the issue that the mystery is now revealed and made known to all the nations (the aorists)? For Paul, who focuses on the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the letter, the revelation of the mystery is probably much more exciting than the fact that the mystery was hidden for a long time. Grammatically, two connectives (δὲ νῦν ‘but now’) prove that the revelation of the mystery is emphasized more. The issue of the mystery being hidden for a long time (the perfect) appears to provide an additional explanation for the revelation of the mystery (the aorists). Unlike Porter, who argues that the choice of the perfect is related to the notion of prominence, I suggest that the choice of the perfect is related to the dual feature of the perfect. Based on the dual feature, I attempt to explain the perfect in two ways. First, the perfect participle (σεσιγημένου in v. 25) is connected with ‘the mystery.’ Rule 3 is appropriate to explain it. Since the perfect participle is in passive voice, it tends to highlight a present state of ‘being in silence’ that results from past silence. Second, two aorist participles are used in parallel with the perfect participle in that they all modify the same word, ‘the mystery.’ Considering the grammar of the relative time of the participle, the perfect participle indicates the action occurred at an antecedent time to the actions of the two aorist participles. Thus, the perfect highlights anterior activity of keeping the revelation of the mystery in silence that leads to a present state. Taking these two understandings, I judge that this perfect participle (σεσιγημέ νου) highlights both the anterior activity of ‘keeping the mystery in silence’ and the anterior activity’s present effect. Two aorist participles express the occurrence of actions. The mystery is now revealed and made known to all through Jesus Christ. The perfect adds to the revelation of the mystery some explanation as to why the mystery has been kept in silence from ‘the creation of universe’ for long past ages.15 The perfect also implies that the mystery is now effective to all who are in Jesus Christ through the power of God. I argue that this dual feature only operates relating to the substantive, ‘the mystery’ in the immediate context (v. 25). In the larger context (vv. 25–27), the perfect participle (σεσιγημένου) supports the main issue of ‘the revelation of the mystery.’

The Perfect Infinitive: Rule 1 Three infinitives occur in Romans 4:1, 15:8, and 15:19. The perfect infinitive operates according to its own grammatical rules. First, it appears in some idiomatic structures, functioning as like a finite verb. The perfect infinitives in Romans 4:1 and 15:8 appear in the structure of ‘the verb (λέγω) + the perfect infinitive.’ The verb (λέγω) indicates that the following infinitival phrase is a sentence in indirect discourse,16 so the perfect infinitive functions as a finite verb. And the perfect infinitive in 15:19 appears in the grammatical structure of ‘ὥστε + infinitive,’ an

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 197

Table 5.4. Three Cases of the Infinitive. Source: Author Rule NA 28

NET

R 1 Rom. 4:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν εὑρηκέναι Ἀβραὰμ τὸν προπάτορα ἡμῶν κατὰ σάρκα;

Rom. 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh, has discovered regarding this matter? R 1 Rom. 15:8 λέγω γὰρ Χριστὸν διάκονον γεγ Rom. 15:8 For I tell you that Christ has ενῆσθαι περιτομῆς ὑπὲρ ἀληθείας θεοῦ, εἰς τὸ become a servant of the circumcised βεβαιῶσαι τὰς ἐπαγγελίας τῶν πατέρων, on behalf of God’s truth to confirm the promises made to the fathers, R 1 Rom. 15:18 οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω τι λαλεῖν Rom. 15:18 For I will not dare to ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς speak of anything except what Christ ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν, λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ, has accomplished through me in order Rom. 15:19 ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ to bring about the obedience of the τεράτων, ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος [θεοῦ]· ὥστε Gentiles, by word and deed, με ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ μέχρι τοῦ Rom. 15:19 in the power of signs and Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ wonders, in the power of the Spirit of Χριστοῦ, God. So from Jerusalem even as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

adverbial phrase. It functions as a finite verb depending on the main verb, delivering antecedent time to the time of the main verb. Second, the perfect infinitive delivers anterior temporality in whatever structure.17 According to these two grammatical features, I understand that the infinitives in Romans function as finite verbs, indicating anterior temporality. Thus, Rule 1 is applied to them.

εὑρηκέναι in 4:1 Romans 4 is Paul’s discussion of ‘by faith alone: the faith of Abraham.’18 It includes the phrases ‘by faith not works’ (vv.1–8), ‘by faith not rites’ (vv. 9–12), ‘by faith not the law’ (vv. 13–17), and ‘by faith in God’s promise’ (vv. 18–25).19 The first part of Romans 4 (vv.1–12) is discussed here. The second part (vv. 13–25) will be discussed later in the passage study. In the first part of Romans 4 (vv. 1–12), there occurs only one perfect infinitive (εὑρηκέναι in v. 1) out of the presents, the aorists, and the future. Porter may argue that this perfect infinitive is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) among various tenses on a discourse level. When it comes to the meaning of ‘find (favor),’ Dunn mentions that the use of ‘find’ may show Paul’s intention to evoke the phrase which occurs quite frequently in the LXX: εὑρίσκειν χάριν (or ἔλεος) ‘to find grace (or mercy).’20 Dunn seems to

198 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

assume that favor is implied in verse 1. In Luke 1:30, the angel said to Mary, ‘For you have found favor with God,’ a phrase used in Jewish circles in the first century.21 Here, the aorist (εὗρες) is used.22 In light of this, Paul could have intentionally used the phrase ‘find God’s favor.’ However, instead of the aorist, Paul chose the perfect infinitive in verse 1. Was this for the sake of the highest prominence? Or was it the result of using the idiomatic structure? Regarding the level of a discourse, Paul uses the perfect infinitive to give a rhetorical question (v. 1)  as an opening statement for the following verses. This question is to build further defense of the previous conclusions in 3:27–31.23 Paul uses the perfect infinitive as an initiator for the following exposition, which functions as the ground for the discussion of Abraham’s righteousness. Using aorists in the following verses, Paul presents how Abraham gained his righteousness (vv. 2, 3, 9, 10, 11). Thus, the perfect infinitive (εὑρηκέναι) in 4:1 is introductory material (background) for the following discussion. Unlike Porter, I  believe that, in the immediate context, the perfect is chosen to highlight the anterior activity of Abraham relevant to the present situation. Crellin states that εὑρηκέναι in Romans 4:1 delivers a terminated and complete ‘finding’ event, which is anterior activity.24 According to the idiomatic structure of the perfect infinitive (λέγω + the perfect infinitive), the perfect is chosen to deliver anterior temporality. Rule 1 is appropriate to explain this. I associate the perfect infinitive (εὑρηκέναι) with the main verb (ἐροῦμεν the future indicative). It highlights anterior activity. I believe that the perfect infinitive is chosen, controlled by the idiomatic structure, to deliver anterior activity occurring prior to the utterance. This perfect infinitive points to how Abraham found God’s favor in the past in the immediate context (v. 1), which becomes supporting material for the following illustration of Abraham in the larger context (vv. 1–12).

γεγενῆσθαι in 15:8 In the larger context of Romans 15:7–13, excluding γέγραπται, the perfect infinitive (γεγενῆσθαι in v.  8)  is the only perfect. Verse 7 is a concluding remark of 15:1–6, connecting it to 15:8–13. In the former (15:1–6), Paul discusses the issue of accepting one another as ‘the weak’ or ‘the strong’ in dietary practice. In the latter (15:8–13), Paul discusses the issue of accepting one another as ‘the Gentiles’ or ‘the Jews.’ The perfect infinitive (γεγενῆσθαι in v. 8) appears in the latter part, providing the ground (Christ) for the following discussion. Thus, the perfect infinitive in verse 8 is supporting material for explaining the acceptance that was initiated from Christ. This understanding is the opposite of Porter’s. Porter may argue that the perfect infinitive is chosen for the highest prominence (frontground) in the larger context (vv. 7–13).

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 199

In the same way as the previous verse (Rom 4:1), it is understood that the perfect infinitive is chosen due to idiomatic structure (λέγω + the perfect infinitive). The perfect infinitive functions as a finite verb. It delivers anterior temporality. Rule 1 is appropriate to explain this. The perfect infinitive (γεγενῆσθαι) is associated with the main verb (λέγω the present). This perfect infinitive highlights anterior activity while still engaging its present result. This perfect infinitive (γεγενῆσθαι) is intended to indicate the servant ministry of Jesus, which is Jesus’ earthly ministry and death in the past, implying that His ministry and death are now effective, first for the Jews and then the Gentiles as well.25

πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19 This perfect infinitive is discussed in the passage study of Romans 15:14–21.

I N D I V I D UA L T R E AT M E N T S

γέγραπται: Rule 2 γέγραπται in Romans has the same function as in Mark. It occurs sixteen times in Romans. And each time it takes the form of third person singular passive voice, appearing with καθώς or γάρ (καθὼς γέγραπται or γέγραπται γάρ), which indicates that it is explanatory material for the main events or themes. It seems conventionally or idiomatical chosen. Thus, it is considered ‘the citation formula’ because all of them introduce the OT Scriptures, underlined in Table 5.5. In Romans, there are the present (γράφει) in 10:5 and the aorist (ἐγράφη) in 4:23, which also introduce the OT citations.26 We can see the different uses of the perfect, present, and aorist, although all of them introduce an OT citation. In Romans 10:5, the present active (γράφει) appears involved in expository discourse, providing the OT citation (Lev 18:5).27 In Romans 4:23, the aorist passive (ἐγράφη) appears involved in narrative discourse, providing the OT citation (Gen 15:6).28 However, the perfect is not involved in the actual process of the discourse. Instead it supports the process, appearing with καθώς or γάρ. Hatina finds that the perfect (γέγραπται) quotes the OT citation in Galatians 3:10, and the present (λέγει) also quotes the OT citation in Galatians 3:16 and 4:30. Regarding this difference, following Porter’s markedness, he argues that the markedness of the perfect adds emphasis to the scriptural reference.29 However, I argue that the perfect (γέγραπται in Gal 3:10) indicates an additional explanation because it is used with γάρ, which functions as an explanatory connective. On the other hand, the present (λέγει in Gal 3:16 and 4:30) is not used with any explanatory connective and is directly involved in the main theme, although it accompanies the OT citations.

200 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.5. Sixteen Cases of γέγραπται. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 1:17 δικαιοσύνη γὰρ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ Rom. 1:17 For the righteousness of God ἀποκαλύπτεται ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν, καθὼς is revealed in the gospel from faith to γέγραπται· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. faith, just as it is written, ‘The righteous by faith will live.’ R 2 Rom. 2:24 τὸ γὰρ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ δι᾿ Rom. 2:24 For just as it is written, ‘the ὑμᾶς βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, καθὼς name of God is being blasphemed among the γέγραπται. Gentiles because of you.’ R 2 Rom. 3:4 μὴ γένοιτο· γινέσθω δὲ ὁ θεὸς Rom. 3:4 Absolutely not! Let God be ἀληθής, πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, καθὼς γ proven true, and every human being έγραπται· shown up as a liar, just as it is written: ‘so ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ that you will be justified in your words and νικήσεις ἐν τῷ κρίνεσθαί σε. will prevail when you are judged.’ R 2 Rom. 3:10 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν Rom. 3:10 just as it is written: ‘There is no δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς, one righteous, not even one, R 2 Rom. 4:17 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα Rom. 4:17 (as it is written, ‘I have made πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οὗ you the father of many nations’). He is our ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς father in the presence of God whom he νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα. believed—the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. R 2 Rom. 8:36 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι νεκεν σοῦ θ Rom. 8:36 As it is written, ‘For your sake ανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν, ἐλογίσθημεν ὡς we encounter death all day long; we were πρόβατα σφαγῆς. considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ R 2 Rom. 9:13 καθὼς γέγραπται· τὸν Ἰακὼβ Rom. 9:13 just as it is written: ‘Jacob ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα. I loved, but Esau I hated.’ R 2 Rom. 9:33 καθὼς γέγραπται· ἰδοὺ τίθημι Rom. 9:33 just as it is written, ‘Look, I am ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόμματος καὶ πέτραν laying in Zion a stone that will cause people σκανδάλου, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ οὐ to stumble and a rock that will make them καταισχυνθήσεται. fall, yet the one who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ R 2 Rom. 10:15 πῶς δὲ κηρύξωσιν ἐὰν μὴ ἀποστ Rom. 10:15 And how are they to preach αλῶσιν; καθὼς γέγραπται· ὡς ὡραῖοι οἱ πόδες unless they are sent? As it is written, τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων [τὰ] ἀγαθά. ‘How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.’ R 2 Rom. 11:8 καθὼς γέγραπται· ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς Rom. 11:8 as it is written, ‘God gave them ὁ θεὸς πνεῦμα κατανύξεως, ὀφθαλμοὺς τοῦ a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and μὴ βλέπειν καὶ ὦτα τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν, ἕως τῆς ears that would not hear, to this very day.’ σήμερον ἡμέρας.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 201

Table 5.5. Continued Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 11:26 καὶ οὕτως πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ Rom. 11:26 And so all Israel will be σωθήσεται, καθὼς γέγραπται· ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ saved, as it is written: ‘The Deliverer will ῥυόμενος, ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ. come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. R 2 Rom. 12:19 μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντ Rom. 12:19 Do not avenge yourselves, ες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, dear friends, but give place to God’s γέγραπται γάρ· ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώ wrath, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, σω, λέγει κύριος. I will repay,’ says the Lord. R 2 Rom. 14:11 γέγραπται γάρ· ζῶ ἐγώ, λέγει Rom. 14:11 For it is written, ‘As I live, κύριος, ὅτι ἐμοὶ κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ καὶ πᾶσα says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, γλῶσσα ἐξομολογήσεται τῷ θεῷ. and every tongue will give praise to God.’ R 2 Rom. 15:3 καὶ γὰρ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτῷ Rom. 15:3 For even Christ did not please ἤρεσεν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· οἱ ὀνειδισμοὶ himself, but just as it is written, ‘The τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων σε ἐπέπεσαν ἐπ᾿ ἐμέ. insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.’ R 2 Rom. 15:9 τὰ δὲ ἔθνη ὑπὲρ ἐλέους δοξάσαι Rom. 15:9 and thus the Gentiles glorify τὸν θεόν, καθὼς γέγραπται· διὰ τοῦτο God for his mercy. As it is written, ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι ἐν ἔθνεσιν καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί ‘Because of this I will confess you among σου ψαλῶ. the Gentiles, and I will sing praises to your name.’ R 2 Rom. 15:21 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται· οἷς Rom. 15:21 but as it is written: ‘Those who οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ were not told about him will see, and those ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν. who have not heard will understand.’

Since the choice of γέγραπται is closely related to the introduction of the OT Scriptures, I attempt to associate the perfect (γέγραπται) with the OT reference that implies activity in the past. Rule 2 is appropriate to explain it. Based on the dual feature of the perfect, I understand that the perfect (γέγραπται) highlights a present state of ‘being written’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘writing.’ Porter may argue that the choice of γέγραπται is related to the indication of the highest prominence on a discourse level, but I argue that its choice is related to the need of citing the OT Scriptures in an immediate context.

οἶδα: Rule 2 οἶδα is only used in the perfect form in the NT and is generally considered to have a present meaning. There is no present form of this verb. It appears that this perfect form is automatically chosen in a present-referring situation, without any

202 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.6. Sixteen Cases of οἶδα (Twelve Indicatives, Three Participles, One Pluperfect). Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 2:2 οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τὸ κρίμα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τοὺς τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντας. R 2 Rom. 3:19 οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὅσα ὁ νόμος λέγει τοῖς ἐν τῷ νόμῳ λαλεῖ, ἵνα πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ καὶ ὑπόδικος γένηται πᾶς ὁ κόσμος τῷ θεῷ·

Rom. 2:2 Now we know that God’s judgment is in accordance with truth against those who practice such things. Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world may be held accountable to God. Rom. 6:16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or obedience resulting in righteousness? Rom. 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual—but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin. Rom. 7:18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it.

R 2 Rom. 6:16 οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ᾧ παριστάνετε ἑαυτοὺς δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν, δοῦλοί ἐστε ᾧ ὑπακούετε, ἤτοι ἁμαρτίας εἰς θάνατον ἢ ὑπακοῆς εἰς δικαιοσύνην; R 2 Rom. 7:14 Οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι ὁ νόμος π νευματικός ἐστιν, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν. R 2 Rom. 7:18 Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν· τὸ γὰρ θέλειν παράκειταί μοι, τὸ δὲ κατεργάζεσθαι τὸ καλὸν οὔ· R 2 Rom. 8:22 οἴδαμεν γὰρ ὅτι πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν· R 2 Rom. 8:26 Ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα συναντιλαμβάνεται τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν· τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ οὐκ οἴδαμεν, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπερεντυγχάνει στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις· R 2 Rom. 8:27 ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος, ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων.

Rom. 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers together until now. Rom. 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings. Rom. 8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God’s will. R 2 Rom. 8:28 Οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι τοῖς Rom. 8:28 And we know that all things work ἀγαπῶσιν τὸν θεὸν πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς together for good for those who love God, ἀγαθόν, τοῖς κατὰ πρόθεσιν κλητοῖς οὖσιν. who are called according to his purpose, R 2 Rom. 11:2 οὐκ ἀπώσατο ὁ θεὸς τὸν λαὸν Rom. 11:2 God has not rejected his people αὐτοῦ ὃν προέγνω. ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ἐν Ἠλίᾳ whom he foreknew! Do you not know what τί λέγει ἡ γραφή, ὡς ἐντυγχάνει τῷ θεῷ the Scripture says about Elijah, how he κατὰ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; pleads with God against Israel?

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 203

Table 5.6. Continued Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 14:14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν. R 2 Rom. 15:29 οἶδα δὲ ὅτι ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐν πληρώματι εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι. R 2 Rom. 5:3 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, R 2 Rom. 6:9 εἰδότες ὅτι Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει, θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει.

Rom. 14:14 I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. Rom. 15:29 and I know that when I come to you I will come in the fullness of Christ’s blessing. Rom. 5:3 Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, Rom. 6:9 We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, he is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over him. R 2 Rom. 13:11 Καὶ τοῦτο εἰδότες τὸν Rom. 13:11 And do this because we know καιρόν, ὅτι ὥρα ἤδη ὑμᾶς ἐξ ὕπνου the time that it is already the hour for us to ἐγερθῆναι, νῦν γὰρ ἐγγύτερον ἡμῶν ἡ awake from sleep, for our salvation is now σωτηρία ἢ ὅτε ἐπιστεύσαμεν. nearer than when we became believers. R 2 Rom. 7:7 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ὁ νόμος Rom. 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the ἁμαρτία; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would οὐκ ἔγνων εἰ μὴ διὰ νόμου· τήν τε γὰρ ἐπ not have known sin except through the law. ιθυμίανa οὐκ ᾔδεινb εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν· For indeed I would not have known what οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις. it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet.’ a b

‘τήν ἐπιθυμίαν’ points to ‘οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις.’ That is why I underlined both. This is the pluperfect form of οἶδα.

intention to make it prominent. And it appears that this perfect is chosen when there is an object, which is the content of knowledge. Like γέγραπται, it seems chosen conventionally or idiomatically when there is a need of introducing the content of a prior knowledge in an immediate context, not of indicating the highest prominence in a larger context. Thus, I attempt to explain, using Rule 2, this perfect (οἶδα) in connection with the content of knowledge.

204 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

The Epistle to the Romans has sixteen occurrences of οἶδα30: twelve indicative forms, three participle forms and one pluperfect form. The twelve inflected indicative forms of οἶδα (Rom 2:2; 3:19; 6:16; 7:14, 18; 8:22, 26, 27, 28; 11:2; 14:14; 15:29) are explained in the same way as those in Mark. They are all connected with the contents of a prior knowledge underlined in Table 5.6. The three participles (Rom 5:3; 6:9; 13:11) of οἶδα are explained in the same way as the indicative forms of οἶδα. Although they function as adverbial participles in a larger context, I do not associate them with their main verbs but connect them with the contents of a prior knowledge because I believe that they are chosen to meet the need of introducing the contents of a prior knowledge. All the contents are introduced by using the ὅτι clause or τί clause, except for one case (13:11).31 Thus, I connect the perfect with the ὅτι clause or τί clause. Like γέγραπται, Rule 2 is used because the content of a prior knowledge is considered a past event. It highlights the subject’s present state of ‘knowing’ which has been obtained through the content of a prior knowledge.32 In Romans, there occurs only one pluperfect form (ᾔδειν) of οἶδα (Rom 7:7). As we have seen in the previous discussion of Mark, the pluperfect form ᾔδειν is chosen in a past-referring situation, whereas the perfect (οἶδα) is chosen in a present-referring situation. This pluperfect (ᾔδειν) in 7:7 appears in a past-referring situation, yet in the unreal conditional construction, which refers to ‘something that was not true in the past time (from the speaker’s portrayal).’33 Thus, the choice of the pluperfect (ᾔδειν) is made simply to match the past situation indicated by the aorist (ἔγνων) in the previous sentence. Paul uses two similar constructions in 7:7 for his argument. The first is ‘the accusative noun + ἔγνων (the aorist) + εἰ μὴ.’ The second is ‘the accusative noun + ᾔδειν (the pluperfect) + εἰ μὴ.’ Two similar constructions also prove that the pluperfect (ᾔδειν) is used to match the aorist (ἔγνων) as a past meaning. Like οἶδα, it is chosen to introduce the content of a prior knowledge. I connect this pluperfect (ᾔδειν) with the content of ‘no desire or coveting’ (οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις), which is an explanation of the accusative noun (ἐπιθυμίαν). Rule 2 is applied. It highlights a current state of the past-referring situation, which is ‘a past state.’ The pluperfect (ᾔδειν) is not related to the notion of prominence. It is conventionally or idiomatically used to match the past-referring situation. In addition, it is observed that the second structure of ‘the accusative noun + ᾔδειν + εἰ μὴ’ provides a specific explanation for the first one. This observation also supports that the pluperfect (ᾔδειν) is used as supporting material.

Perfect Indicative of ἵστημι (Rule 2), ἐνίστημι (Rule 1), and Non-Indicative of ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι (Rule 3) All of these perfects belong to the same family of ἵστημι. With their lexical character, these three different verbs (ἵστημι, ἀνθίστημι, ἐνίστημι) are generally considered the same in that they take an active form but an intransitive meaning.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 205

Table 5.7. Four Perfect Indicatives ἑστήκαμεν, ἕστηκας, ἀνθέστηκεν, and Two Non-Indicatives ἐνεστῶτα, ἀνθεστηκότες. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 5:2 δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν [τῇ πίστει] εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. R 2 Rom. 11:20 καλῶς· τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἐξεκλάσθησαν, σὺ δὲ τῇ πίστει ἕστηκας. μὴ ὑψηλὰ φρόνει ἀλλὰ φοβοῦ· R 3 Rom. 8:38 πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα οὔτε δυνάμεις R 1 Rom. 9:19 Ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν· τί [οὖν] ἔτι μέμφεται; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ τίς ἀν θέστηκεν; R 1 Rom. 13:2 ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ R 3 ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστη κεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται.

Rom. 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. Rom. 11:20 Granted! They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but fear! Rom. 8:38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?’ Rom. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment.

As I have already mentioned in Mark, grammarians suggest that the perfect of the family of ἵστημι (ἐνίστημι and ἀνθίστημι) has a purely present meaning. Fanning explains that the dual feature of ‘a state produced by a prior action’ has come to denote the state alone over time.34 Porter focuses on only a present state. However, I attempt to interpret the family of ἵστημι with the dual feature. I find it possible to understand that the family of ἵστημι highlights one side of the dual feature of the perfect and vice versa depending on its associated part. Two perfect indicatives of ἵστημι (‘stand’) in 5:2 and 11:20 highlight a present state resulting from anterior activity (Rule 2). Two perfect indicatives of ἀνθίστημι (‘resist’) in 9:19 and 13:2a highlights anterior activity, still engaging a present state (Rule 1). Two perfect participles of ἐνίστημι (‘be present’) and ἀνθίστημι (‘resist’) in 8:38 and 13:2b highlight a present state resulting from anterior activity (Rule 3). ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2

This perfect is discussed in the passage study of Romans 5:1–5. ἕστηκας in 11:20

Romans 11:11–24 belongs to the larger section (­chapters 9–11) that is Paul’s exposition of the gospel in relation to Israel.35 Based on the hope of Israel’s restoration,36

206 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the Gentiles’ boasting is discussed in Romans 11:11–24. Paul warns the Gentiles of their arrogance and exhorts them to stand firm by faith: ‘If God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you’ (v. 21). In the following verses (11:25–36), Paul discloses God’s faithfulness for Israel: ‘A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in’ (v. 25). It appears that the Gentiles’ boasting is supporting material for Israel’s restoration. In Romans 11:11–24, there is only one perfect (ἕστηκας) in verse 20. Porter may argue that ‘you stand [the perfect] by faith’ is chosen for the highest prominence in this passage. According to Porter, the Gentiles’ present state of ‘standing by faith’ is highlighted in the larger context (11:11–24). However, the rhetorical question in verse 11 (‘they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they?’) indicates that the main theme of this passage is a hope for Israel’s restoration. Runge explains the relevant function of the perfect in the immediate context. It is likely, as Runge suggests, that ‘you stand by faith,’ which contains the perfect (ἕστηκας), is background material for the exhortation ‘Do not be arrogant, but fear!’ Runge suggests that, according to his view of ‘relevance,’ the perfect is chosen to refer to the following clause to which it is relevant (‘Do not be arrogant, but fear!’). So, for Runge, the following clause (‘Do not be arrogant, but fear!’) is highlighted. Since the following clause is in negative, Runge explains, ‘The Perfect adds the additional constraint of current relevance to the SoA [state of affairs] of “standing,” which connotes that the present state of “standing” will not last.’37 I agree with Runge in that this perfect operates in the immediate context (v. 20). However, instead of ‘relevance,’ I explain this perfect with the dual feature. Rule 2 is appropriate to explain the function of this perfect. The perfect indicative (ἕστηκας) of ἵστημι is associated with the aorist indicative (ἐξεκλάσθησαν). Although their subjects are different, they are connected to each other by ‘unbelief ’ and ‘belief.’ Thus, I argue that the perfect (ἕστηκας) is chosen to complement the meaning of the aorist (ἐξεκλάσθησαν), which is a present state. It emphasizes a present state of ‘standing,’ which results from the anterior activity of ‘standing.’ Dunn states, ‘The perfect ἕστηκας has the force of past action resulting in a continuing state maintained by the faith through which the past action was brought about.’38 Additionally, it contrasts between ‘their’ (Israel’s) failure of faith in the past and ‘your’ (the Gentiles’) success of faith at present. ἐνεστῶτα in 8:38

In the larger context of Romans 8:31–39, there are three perfects:  γέγραπται in verse 36, πέπεισμαι in verse 38, and ἐνεστῶτα in verse 38. Porter may argue that these three perfects are intentionally chosen for prominence in the larger context. The main theme of this passage is God’s love. It could be understood that the first two perfects are chosen for prominence because γέγραπται introduces the OT citation

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 207

that implies God’s love (v. 36) and πέπεισμαι introduces Paul’s confidence in God’s love (v. 38). However, other verses (vv. 32, 33, 34, 35, 37)  also strongly indicate God’s love. It is not likely that the two perfects are highlighted among these other verses in terms of God’s love. Rather, the two perfects seem to be chosen by contextual factors. γέγραπται is consistently used in the structure (γέγραπται + the OT citation). Thus, I prefer to say that the choice of γέγραπται is conventionally or idiomatically made to meet the need of introducing the OT citation, regardless of the speaker or writer’s intention for prominence. In the same way, πέπεισμαι is chosen in the same situation (πέπεισμαι + the content of confidence), indicating that it is used to meet the need of introducing the content of confidence. Likewise, the third perfect (ἐνεστῶτα in v. 38) seems to be chosen according to contextual factors and the lexical situation, not the speaker or writer’s intention for prominence. The perfect participle (ἐνεστῶτα in v. 38) is the only occurrence of this verb in Romans out of the six perfects in the NT (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22; 7:26; Gal 1:4; 2 Thess 2:2; Heb 9:9).39 Its lexical form is ἐνίστημι, which means ‘to be, be now, happen now’ (BDAG, 337). There is no present or aorist form of this verb in the NT, which implies that there is no choice other than the perfect. All the perfects of this verb in the NT take all active forms40 but have intransitive meanings. It is found that the perfect participle (ἐνεστῶτα) is combined with the present participle (μέλλοντα) to form a pair (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 3:22).41 In Romans 8:38, Paul seems to have wanted to describe the whole of reality. ‘Death and life’ encompass the life cycle of human beings (8:38a). ‘Angels and heavenly demonic beings’ are the whole of transcendent powers (8:38b). ‘Things present and things to come’ cover all of human history (8:38c). Here, in 8:38c, the perfect participle (ἐνεστῶτα ‘things present’) and the present participles (μέλλοντα ‘things to come’) are used together. The choice of the perfect participle seems to be aimed at making a pair that can mean ‘nor things that are present nor things to come’ in the immediate context (v. 38c). I explain the perfect participle (ἐνεστῶτα) according to Rule 3.  The perfect participle (ἐνεστῶτα) substantivally functions as the subject. It has an implied subject, ‘things.’ Thus, this perfect participle describes ‘things’ with the dual feature of a present state and anterior activity. Since this perfect is intransitive although it has an active form, it tends to emphasize the present state of ‘being present’ while engaging anterior activity. Thus, ‘things that are present’ includes the present and the past. The pair is understood to mean the whole of human history, past, present and future. ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19

This perfect is discussed in the passage study of Romans 9:19–29.

208 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2

These perfects are discussed in the individual study of ‘the one who …’

Perfect Forms of πείθω: Rule 2 In the NT, the perfect active indicatives of πείθω 42 are intransitive and some are translated as passive:  ‘depend on,’ ‘trust in,’ ‘be convinced,’ ‘be sure,’ or ‘be certain’ (BDAG, 792). They introduce the content of confidence mostly through the ὅτι clause. The perfect passive indicatives43 are used to mean ‘be convinced’ or ‘be certain’ (BDAG, 792). Like the perfect active indicatives, they also introduce the content of confidence mostly through the ὅτι clause. We can say that all the perfect forms of πείθω, whether active or passive, are used with the content of confidence,44 which is a unique feature of the perfect of πείθω. Table 5.8. One Case of πέποιθας and Three Cases of πέπεισμαι. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 Rom. 2:19 πέποιθάς τε σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι Rom. 2:19 and if you are convinced that τυφλῶν, φῶς τῶν ἐν σκότει, you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness,

R 2 Rom. 2:20 παιδευτὴν ἀφρόνων, διδάσκαλον Rom. 2:20 an educator of the senseless, νηπίων, ἔχοντα τὴν μόρφωσιν τῆς γνώσεως καὶ a teacher of little children, because you τῆς ἀληθείας ἐν τῷ νόμῳ· have in the law the essential features of knowledge and of the truth— R 2 Rom. 8:38 πέπεισμαι γὰρ ὅτι οὔτε θάνατος Rom. 8:38 For I am convinced that οὔτε ζωὴ οὔτε ἄγγελοι οὔτε ἀρχαὶ οὔτε neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor ἐνεστῶτα οὔτε μέλλοντα οὔτε δυνάμεις heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, R 2 Rom. 8:39 οὔτε ὕψωμα οὔτε βάθος οὔτε τις Rom. 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor κτίσις ἑτέρα δυνήσεται ἡμᾶς χωρίσαι ἀπὸ τῆς anything else in creation will be able ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ to separate us from the love of God in κυρίῳ ἡμῶν. Christ Jesus our Lord. R 2 Rom. 14:14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Rom. 14:14 I know and am convinced Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν. unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean. R 2 Rom. 15:14 Πέπεισμαι δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, καὶ Rom. 15:14 But I myself am fully αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ μεστοί convinced about you, my brothers and ἐστε ἀγαθωσύνης, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης [τῆς] sisters, that you yourselves are full of γνώσεως, δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 209

In contrast to the perfect, the aorists of πείθω in the NT45 are never used with the content of confidence. There is no present form of πείθω which is used with the content of confidence except for Hebrews 13:18.46 The present passive indicative in Hebrews 13:18 accompanies the content of confidence: ‘We are sure that we have a good conscience’ (NAS). However, I observe that the content of confidence in the present is the present state which comes from inside the speaker without indicating any influence from outside activity, whereas the content of confidence associated with the perfect occurs outside the speaker. Porter may not be much interested in these lexical and contextual situations when he focuses on prominence on a discourse level. In the following discussion, I suggest that the way that the perfect form of πείθω is connected with the content of confidence more effectively explains its appearance than does the notion of prominence. In Romans, the perfect indicative appears in four places: active with intransitive meaning (πέποιθας in 2:19) and passive (πέπεισμαι in 8:38, 14:14, and 15:14). All are used with the content of confidence that is indicated by the ὅτι clause (8:38; 14:14; 15:14) or by the infinitival clause that functions as like the ὅτι clause (2:19). The contents of confidence are underlined in Table 5.8. In the same way that γέγραπται and οἶδα are conventionally or idiomatically used with the contents of the OT and of knowledge, the perfect forms of πείθω are conventionally or idiomatically used with the contents of confidence. Thus, I put this perfect into the same category as γέγραπται and οἶδα, whether active (πέποιθας) or passive (πέπεισμαι). I understand that this perfect is chosen to indicate the subject’s present state of ‘confidence’ resulting from the content of confidence, which was obtained prior to the time of speaking. Fanning mentions that although the perfect (πέπεισμαι) is used as a form of passive, this perfect (πέπεισμαι) denotes active intransitive meaning. He understands that it indicates a present state without allusion to a previous action that produced the state.47 Smyth mentions the original meaning of πέποιθα as ‘have put confidence.’ However, it is used to mark the enduring result rather than the completed result, thus translated ‘trust’ with a present meaning.48 Hewett puts πέποιθα as one of the most common verbs that expresses an existing state.49 All agree that this perfect delivers a present meaning or a present state. Like them, I suggest that it indicates a present meaning, but I also suggest that the present meaning of ‘trust’ or ‘be convinced’ is based on the content of confidence indicated by the ὅτι clause, a noun phrase, etc. which I assume was obtained prior to the utterance. Thus, I apply Rule 2. I associate this perfect with the content of confidence.

πέποιθας in 2:19 In the larger context of Romans 2:17–24, two perfects occur in Romans 2:19 (πέποιθας) and 2:24 (γέγραπται). The latter (γέγραπται) has already been dealt with,

210 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

saying that it is not chosen for the highest prominence. How about the former (πέποιθας)? According to Porter, this perfect should be chosen for the highest prominence in this context of Romans 2:17–24. However, it seems to be chosen to deliver the subject’s present state of confidence, resulting from the content of confidence, and supporting the main theme (the problem of a Jew’s pride). Paul uses a long conditional clause for his argument (vv. 17–20). He uses six indicative verbs: five present tenses and one perfect tense. In expository discourse, the present tense is normally used for presentation. Thus, there is a question of why the perfect (πέποιθας) is chosen among the presents. Is it for the highest prominence, as Porter suggests? I answer that the choice of the perfect is conventionally related to its lexical use. As I have already discussed previously, the unique use of this perfect is connected with the content of confidence. Rule 2 is applied. This perfect delivers a present state of confidence resulting from the content of confidence in the immediate context (v. 19), not expressing the highest prominence in the larger context (vv. 17–20). Paul exposes the Jews’ pride—‘they have persuaded themselves’50 they are a guide of the blind, a light to people in darkness, an educator of the senseless, and a teacher of little children. Thus, the choice of this perfect is related to the introduction of the content of confidence and ends up supporting the main theme.

πέπεισμαι in 8:38 In the larger context of Romans 8:31–39, Paul discusses Christians’ security, reminding us that God is for us. Paul uses seven rhetorical questions, based on the ‘editorial we’ and using the future tenses (vv. 31–35) called the ‘deliberative future,’51 in order to draw a positive conclusion. Paul shifts the ‘editorial we’ to ‘I’ in Romans 8:38 which contains the perfect (πέπεισμαι). As I have already mentioned, this perfect accompanies the content of confidence (vv. 38–39). Paul’s personal present state of confidence, which results from the content of confidence, is expressed through ‘I.’ The content of confidence is indicated by the ὅτι clause. Using οὔτε repeatedly in the ὅτι clause, Paul emphasizes that nothing has shaken his assurance and he now stands confident. Dunn states, ‘The force of the perfect passive is to underline Paul’s complete certainty.’52 It appears that Paul demonstrates his personal confidence to support the main theme of ‘Christians’ security’ in the larger context of Romans 8:31–39. I connect the perfect with the content of confidence, of which Paul was confident prior to the utterance. Rule 2 is applied. The perfect highlights a present state of Paul’s confidence.

πέπεισμαι in 14:14 In the larger context of Romans 14:13–23, three perfects occur: οἶδα and πέπεισμαι in 14:14 and κατακέκριται in 14:23. I suggest that the latter (κατακέκριται) in 14:23

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 211

is chosen to support its immediate context (v. 23). I discuss this more in the individual treatments of ‘the one who …’ As for οἶδα, as I have already discussed in the individual treatments, it is chosen to introduce the content of knowledge and express Paul’s present state of ‘knowing.’ Likewise, as I have already mentioned, πέπεισμαι has a similar function to οἶδα. It indicates Paul’s present state of confidence resulting from the confidence that he had prior to the utterance. Both οἶδα and πέπεισμαι share the ‘ὅτι clause’ as the content of knowledge as well as confidence. Romans 14:14 begins with οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι … (‘I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that …’). Cranfield interprets that the first part of verse 14, which includes three parts (οἶδα, πέπεισμαι, and ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ), gives the greatest weight to the content of the ὅτι clause. The meaning of πέπεισμαι is strengthened with the preceding οἶδα as well as the following ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ.53 Cranfield believes that the use of these three parts highlights the content of confidence which was obtained prior to the utterance. Dunn understands that this triple expression is a ‘strong expression of the faith or conviction’ of Paul.54 I observe that both Cranfield and Dunn interpret πέπεισμαι based on the dual feature of the perfect. Cranfield focuses on the content of confidence, while Dunn focuses on Paul’s confidence. Accepting the dual feature, I explain the semantic function of πέπεισμαι by using Rule 2. When this perfect (πέπεισμαι) is connected with the content of confidence, it highlights the subject’s present state of confidence. Mounce interprets that ‘Paul himself was fully convinced that nothing was intrinsically unclean.’55 Whether the content of confidence (the ὅτι clause) or Paul’s present state of confidence is highlighted, the perfect is chosen to support the meaning of the immediate context of Romans 14:14. It is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context of Romans 14:13–23.

πέπεισμαι in 15:14 This perfect is discussed in the passage study of Romans 15:14–21.

γέγονεν: Rule 1 or 2 Six perfect forms of γίνομαι occur in Romans (Rom 2:25; 6:5; 11:5; 11:25; 15:8; 16:7). Here, I deal with five perfect active indicatives, excluding the perfect passive infinitive (15:8), which has been already discussed in the section of the perfect infinitive under the perfect non-indicative. Since they are all in active voice, they are supposed to focus on anterior action (completed action), whether logical or temporal. Actually, according to my approach, most of them highlight anterior activity when they are associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative. Rule 1 is applied. Only one case is found to highlight a present state when

212 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.9. Five Cases of γέγονεν. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 1 Rom. 2:25 Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν Rom. 2:25 For circumcision has its value νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ if you practice the law, but if you break περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. R 1 Rom. 6:5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ Rom. 6:5 For if we have become united ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς with him in the likeness of his death, ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα· we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; R 1 Rom. 11:5 οὕτως οὖν καὶ ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ Rom. 11:5 So in the same way at the λεῖμμα κατ᾿ ἐκλογὴν χάριτος γέγονεν· present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. R 2 Rom. 11:25 Οὐ γὰρ θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, Rom. 11:25 For I do not want you to ἀδελφοί, τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ ἦτε be ignorant of this mystery, brothers [παρ᾿] ἑαυτοῖς φρόνιμοι, ὅτι πώρωσις ἀπὸ and sisters, so that you may not be μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα conceited: A partial hardening has τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. R 1 Rom. 16:7 ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Rom. 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους my compatriots and my fellow prisoners. μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, They are well known to the apostles, and οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ. they were in Christ before me.

it is associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative (11:25). Rule 2 is applied.

γέγονεν in 2:25 Paul argues about the unrighteousness of the Jews in Romans 2. Paul points out the Jews’ stubbornness and unrepentant hearts, emphasizing that the Jews cannot escape God’s judgment. Paul points out the Jews’ pride in the law (2:12–16). He also points out their pride in circumcision (2:25–29). Verses 28 and 29 are the summary statement of the discussion in Romans 2. The main theme is that the Jews are not guaranteed salvation merely by outward circumcision while not practicing the law, but circumcision should be of the heart and the Spirit, not only outward in the flesh. In the larger context of Romans 2:25–29, only one perfect occurs in verse 25. Porter suggests the perfect (γέγονεν) is chosen for the highest prominence. However, if we look at the flow of Romans 2, the main theme appears in verses 28–29. Verse 25 seems to be a type of opening statement for the contrast between

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 213

circumcision and uncircumcision and between Jew and Gentile. Thus, the perfect in verse 25b is not used for the highest prominence in the larger context (vv. 25–29). Rather, it is background for the following discussion. In its immediate context, the perfect in verse 25b is used as an explanatory statement for verse 25a. Verse 25a, which uses the present tense, states, ‘Circumcision has its value if you practice the law.’ Verse 25b, which uses the perfect, further explains what verse 25a means by using the converse of the statement: ‘If you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.’ This statement supports verse 25a by reflecting the logical-anterior activity of being circumcised. Instead of the highest prominence (frontground), I suggest that this perfect (γέγονεν) is chosen to deliver the dual feature in the immediate context (v. 25). I explain it with Rule 1. The perfect indicative (γέγονεν) appears in the apodosis (‘then’ clause) of the conditional structure. It is associated with the present subjunctive (ᾖς) in the protasis (ἐάν). When the perfect is associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, it highlights anterior activity that led to a present state. Since the conditional structure is an irrealis situation with the notion of supposition, likelihood, or hypothesis, it has a hypothetical sense.56 Thus, it seems that the perfect indicative is used to logically indicate anterior activity, while still engaging a present state. I  interpret Romans 2:25b as, ‘If you continually break the law, you are doing it as if you were an uncircumcised Gentile.’

γεγόναμεν in 6:5 This perfect is discussed in the passage study of Romans 6:1–11.

γέγονεν in 11:5 Romans 11:1–10 has three perfects:  οἴδατε in verse 2, γέγονεν in verse 5, and γέγραπται in verse 8. The first (οἴδατε) and the third (γέγραπται) have already been discussed in the individual treatments. I  have argued that they are not related to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice for the highest prominence, rather to the conventional or idiomatic introduction to the content of knowledge and to OT quotations. Here, the second perfect (γέγονεν in v. 5) is dealt with to see if it is chosen to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context (vv. 1–11). The theme of this passage (vv. 1–10) is the remnant of Israel. Verse 5 highlights the theme, which is ‘the remnant of Israel is chosen by grace.’ Since verse 5 contains the perfect, Porter’s argument that prominence is based on a present state, disregarding anterior activity, seems to hold true in this case. However, I  argue that the perfect has the inherent-dual feature, which has both a present state and anterior activity. Using my rule, I demonstrate in the following discussion that my understanding based on the dual feature is more persuasive than Porter’s.

214 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

I attempt to associate the perfect indicative (γέγονεν in v. 5) with a present-referring situation (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ ‘at the present time’) because there is no other verb for the perfect to be connected with. The present time frame is established with the temporal indicator (ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ ‘at the present time’) and the present time of expository discourse. According to Rule 1, it is understood that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of a present situation, which is anterior activity, while still engaging the present state. Paul may have wanted to point out that God has already kept some remnant for Himself. In the previous verse (v. 4), Paul provides the example of the remnant that God has chosen by His grace (Kings 19:18). Thus, the perfect emphasizes God’s choice in advance by grace, indicating its present state as well.

γέγονεν in 11:25 In Romans 11:25–36, there are two perfects: γέγονεν (v. 25) and γέγραπται (v. 26). I exclude the latter perfect (γέγραπται), which is considered as using an ‘introduction formula.’ According to Porter, the first perfect (γέγονεν in v. 25) should be used for the highest prominence in this passage (vv. 25–36). However, in terms of content, verse 25 is background for the main theme of ‘the restoration of Israel.’ Using the perfect, Paul states that the present state of the Israelites is a partial hardening (v. 25) and expounds that the restoration of Israel will be fulfilled by God’s wisdom and mercy (vv. 26–36). Why does Paul use the perfect in the background (v. 25)? I explain this perfect with the dual feature, using my Three Rules, since Porter’s approach is not valid for this perfect. In Romans 11:25, the perfect indicative (γέγονεν) is associated with the aorist subjunctive (εἰσέλθῃ). Rule 2 is applied. The perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the aorist aspect (completed action) in the non-indicative, which is a present state of the hardened hearts of Israel. Since the aorist aspect appears as a subjunctive form, the sentence is affected by a futuristic sense. Thus, verse 25 means that the state of a hardened heart will continue until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. Dunn understands that Paul may point out ‘the continuing state which has afflicted Israel since the new age was brought in by Christ.’57 Since the subject of γέγονεν is a partial hardening (πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους), the common English translation takes ‘happen’ instead of ‘become’ to deliver an action-oriented nuance.58 However, I understand that the articulation of ‘a partial hardening has happened to Israel’ is a description of the present state of Israel.

γέγοναν in 16:7 Romans 16:3–16 is Paul’s list of greetings, which includes the names of twenty-six people whom Paul has known. There is only one perfect tense in verse 7, which is in the middle of the list with the names Andronicus and Junia. Why does the

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 215

perfect occur in the middle of the list? Is it for the highest prominence in the larger context (vv. 3–16)? Or is it used to indicate the dual feature in the immediate context (v. 7)? I do not think that Paul puts Andronicus and Junia in the highest prominence in the list simply by describing them with the perfect (v. 7). Rather, it seems that Prisca and Aquila are highlighted because they have the first place on the list (v. 3). Paul introduces them as special to him—they risked their lives for Paul and committed their lives to all the churches of the Gentiles. In fact, their names appear in Paul’s ministry (Acts 18:18–19, 26) and in Paul’s other writings (1 Cor 16:19 and 2 Tim 4:19). However, the names of Andronicus and Junia do not appear in any other Pauline writings. The use of the perfect (γέγοναν in v. 7) does not seem to be related to the notion of prominence. Thus, I explain this perfect with the dual feature, using my Three Rules. According to Rule 1, the perfect (γέγονεν in v. 7) is associated with the present (εἰσιν). It is understood that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present, which is anterior activity. The perfect highlights the anterior activity of Andronicus and Junia—they became Christians prior to Paul and still are Christians. The perfect’s dual meaning is confined to the immediate context (v. 7), not extending to a larger context (vv. 3–16). The temporal adverbial phrase (πρὸ ἐμοῦ ‘before me’) clearly indicates a prior event. Thus, Porter understands this perfect (γέγοναν) as indicating anterior activity because of the past implicature (πρὸ ἐμοῦ ‘before me’).59 However, without considering the temporal adverbial phrase, I can decide that it highlights anterior activity by using Rule 1.

‘The One Who …’ In Romans, Paul, for his argument, uses the construction of ‘the one who …’ (the nominative article + the nominative participle). This construction appears in six places (Rom 6:7; 13:1, 2 (twice); 13:8; 14:23). With the feature that the implied subject is indefinite, some consider it to mean a general or gnomic statement. When the perfect appears related to the construction of ‘the one who …,’ they understand that the perfect is used to convey a gnomic idea, so the perfect needs to be interpreted to have a present meaning, that is, a present state. Porter is one of them. However, I  attempt to determine if the perfect used in this construction still retains the dual feature: a present state and anterior activity (or a completed action). Finally, I argue that the perfect appearing related to this construction still retains the dual feature, mostly logical. I explain this with my Three Rules.

δεδικαίωται in 6:7 This perfect is discussed in the passage study of Romans 6:1–11.

216 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.10. Six Cases of ‘The One Who …’. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R2

Rom. 6:7 (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.) Rom. 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Rom. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment

R3

R 1 R3 R1 R1

Rom. 6:7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Rom. 13:1 Πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω. οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ θεοῦ, αἱ δὲ οὖσαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ τεταγμέναι εἰσίν. Rom. 13:2 ὥστε ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστη κεν, οἱ δὲ ἀνθεστηκότες ἑαυτοῖς κρίμα λήμψονται. Rom. 13:8 Μηδενὶ μηδὲν ὀφείλετε εἰ μὴ τὸ ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν· ὁ γὰρ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν. Rom. 14:23 ὁ δὲ διακρινόμενος ἐὰν φάγῃ κατακέκριται, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως· πᾶν δὲ ὃ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἁμαρτία ἐστίν.

Rom. 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. Rom. 14:23 But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin.

τεταγμέναι in 13:1 The perfect participle (τεταγμέναι) in 13:1 is understood as a predicate adjective. It appears in a periphrastic construction (τεταγμέναι + εἰσίν). It describes the subject of ‘the authorities that exist’ with the dual feature of the perfect. Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect participle is in passive voice and appears in the construction of ‘the one who …,’ it logically highlights a present state of the subject’s ‘being instituted’ by God which results from the prior action of God’s institution. ἀνθέστηκεν, ἀνθεστηκότες in 13:2

In Romans 13:2, there are two grammatical constructions of ‘the one who …’: ‘ὁ ἀντιτασσόμενος …’ and ‘οἱ ἀνθεστηκότες …’ First, in 13:2a, the present participle (ἀντιτασσόμενος) describes an indefinite subject (‘a person’) and also functions as a finite verb in this construction. The perfect indicative (ἀνθέστηκεν) is put in association with the present aspect (kind of action) of the present participle in the immediate context. Even in a general or gnomic statement, it is understood that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present aspect by indicating logically anterior activity. Rule 1 is applied. Paul’s general statement is that if anyone continuously resists secular authority that has been ordained

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 217

by God, he is like the person who has already resisted the ordinance of God. The perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν) highlights logically anterior resistance, which leads to a present resistance. Second, in Romans 13: 2b, the perfect participle (ἀνθεστηκότες) occurs in the construction of ‘the one who …’ Since it is a participle, it describes an implied noun (‘those’) with the dual feature of the perfect. Rule 3 is applied. Although this is in active voice, it tends to highlight a present state of ‘resisting.’60 The logically anterior activity of ‘resisting’ alludes to the previous sentence (13: 2a). This perfect participle describes the present situation of ‘those,’ in the immediate context, who are in a state of resisting God that results from anterior resistance. In addition, the perfect participle occurring in the construction (‘those who  …’) can be connected with the future indicative (λήμψονται ‘will receive’). Paul may mean that if there is anybody who has resisted the authorities established by the ultimate ruler, that person will receive judgment in the future.

πεπλήρωκεν in 13:8 In 13:8, the perfect indicative (πεπλήρωκεν) is associated with the present participle (ἀγαπῶν). The present participle has the same function as indicated in 13:2a. It functions as describing an indefinite subject and delivers the present verbal aspect (kind of action, ‘ongoing action’). Rule 1 is applied. It is argued that, in a general or gnomic statement, this perfect highlights logically anterior activity or a completed action, still retaining its logically resulting state. One who loves his neighbor is like a person who has already fulfilled the law. Verses 9–10 further expound on the meaning of love in terms of the fulfillment of the law. Porter sees the perfect πεπλήρωκεν as a timeless use because it does not ‘carry any independent time-orienting information.’61 However, although this construction expresses a general statement or gnomic sense because of the indefinite subject, the interpretation based on the logical-dual feature is encouraged. In his logical argument, Paul highlights the completion of the fulfillment of the law through the action of love.

κατακέκριται in 14:23 The same previous explanation goes for Romans 14:23 here. The perfect indicative (κατακέκριται) is associated with the present participle (διακρινόμενος). Rule 1 is applied. The perfect logically highlights God’s completed condemnation, which has already been determined to occur on the one who doubts. The practical case of ‘eating’ is provided as an example for the effectiveness of God’s condemnation. Thus, it can be interpreted that: ‘The one who doubts is like the one having already been condemned’ because ‘Divine condemnation follows upon any action which does not express one’s creaturely dependence on God.’62

218 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

PA S S AG E S T U D I E S I select five passages (4:13–25; 5:1–5; 6:1–11; 9:19–29; 15:14–21) to see whether the perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) in a larger context or is chosen to indicate the dual feature in an immediate context, functioning as background for main events or themes.

Romans 4:13–25 In the larger context of Romans 4:13–25, seven perfects appear. According to Porter, these seven perfects are chosen for the highest prominence on a discourse level. However, all of them appear to be chosen for individual reasons in each one’s immediate context. Two perfects (κεκένωται and κατήργηται in v. 14) are chosen to support the argument in verse 13, making a supposition based on the anecdote of Abraham. Verse 14 begins with the explanatory marker (γάρ), which indicates that it is supporting material for verse 13. γέγραπται in verse 17 is conventionally chosen as an idiomatic expression. τέθεικα in verse 17 is copied from the OT. εἰρημένον in verse 18 functions as an adjective, ending up functioning as a noun in the immediate context. νενεκρωμένον in verse 19 is chosen to describe the situation of the body of Abraham. ἐπήγγελται in verse 21 occurs in the relative clause, connected to the verb (ἐστιν) within the ὅτι clause, which is subordinate to the main verb (πληροφορηθεὶς) that is outside the ‘ὅτι clause.’ Having examined all the functions of the perfects, I would argue that the speaker or writer chooses them to meet the requirements of their immediate contexts instead of indicating the highest prominence in the larger context. Romans 4 is expounded with the test case of Abraham. Its theme is ‘faith and promise.’ Romans 4:13–25 is part of the exposition of Romans 4. Not only perfects but also other words and structures are chosen to support the theme of faith and promise. Thus, it is hard to say that only the perfects are chosen for the highest prominence of the theme. In the following discussion, with my Three Rules I present that each perfect is chosen to meet the need of its immediate context with its inherent dual feature, functioning as supporting material for the main theme in the larger context.

κεκένωται, κατήργηται in 4:14 In Romans 4:13–25, the narrative illustration of Abraham is embedded in expository discourse. The story of Abraham is described with thirteen aorists (4:17–23). In connecting Abraham to Jesus, the event of Jesus is described with three aorists (4:24–25). Verses 13–16, which occur before the narrative illustration, present the theme. Verse 13 brings up the theme, which is ‘the promise to Abraham or to

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 219

Table 5.11. Romans 4:13–25. Source: Author Rule NA28 Rom. 4:13 Οὐ γὰρ διὰ νόμου ἡ ἐπαγγελία τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ἢ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, τὸ κληρονόμον αὐτὸν εἶναι κόσμου, ἀλλὰ διὰ δικαιοσύνης πίστεως. R2

Rom. 4:14 εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐκ νόμου κληρονόμ οι, κεκένωται ἡ πίστις καὶ κατήργηται ἡ ἐπαγγελία· Rom. 4:15 ὁ γὰρ νόμος ὀργὴν κατεργάζεται· οὗ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος οὐδὲ παράβασις. Rom. 4:16 Διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ πίστεως, ἵνα κατὰ χάριν, εἰς τὸ εἶναι βεβαίαν τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν παντὶ τῷ σπέρματι, οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ νόμου μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἐκ πίστεως Ἀβραάμ, ὅς ἐστιν πατὴρ πάντων ἡμῶν,

R 2 R1

Rom. 4:17 καθὼς γέγραπται ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε, κατέναντι οὗ ἐπίστευσεν θεοῦ τοῦ ζῳοποιοῦντος τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα.

R3

Rom. 4:18 Ὃς παρ᾿ ἐλπίδα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι ἐπίστευσεν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον· οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου, Rom. 4:19 καὶ μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει κατενόησεν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα [ἤδη] νενεκρωμένον, ἑκατονταετής που ὑπάρχων, καὶ τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σάρρας· Rom. 4:20 εἰς δὲ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ διεκρίθη τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ ἀλλ᾿ ἐνεδυνα μώθη τῇ πίστει, δοὺς δόξαν τῷ θεῷ Rom. 4:21 καὶ πληροφορηθεὶς ὅτι ὃ ἐπήγ γελται δυνατός ἐστιν καὶ ποιῆσαι.

R3

R1

NET Rom. 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. Rom. 4:14 For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. Rom. 4:15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either. Rom. 4:16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants—not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all Rom. 4:17 (as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations’). He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed—the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. Rom. 4:18 Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, ‘so will your descendants be.’ Rom. 4:19 Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. Rom. 4:20 He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. Rom. 4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able to do.

Continued 

220 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Table 5.11. Continued Rule NA28

NET

Rom. 4:22 διὸ [καὶ] ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δ Rom. 4:22 So indeed it was credited to ικαιοσύνην. Abraham as righteousness. Rom. 4:23 Οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι᾿ αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ

Rom. 4:24 ἀλλὰ καὶ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν,

Rom. 4:23 But the statement it was credited to him was not written only for Abraham’s sake,

Rom. 4:24 but also for our sake, to whom it will be credited, those who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Rom. 4:25 ὃς παρεδόθη διὰ τὰ παραπτώ Rom. 4:25 He was given over because of ματα ἡμῶν καὶ ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν our transgressions and was raised for the ἡμῶν. sake of our justification.

his descendants not through the law, but through the righteousness obtained by faith.’ Verse 16 wraps up the theme. The sandwich verses 14–15 between verse 13 and verse 16 are used as supporting material for the theme. Runge provides a similar view that verse 14 belongs to supporting material. He explains that verses 13–15 are supporting material for the theme line (v. 16) that begins with Διὰ τοῦτο (‘for this reason’), which ‘signals the resumption of the embedded theme of 4:13 by anaphorically referencing a specific proposition, i.e., that the promise came to Abraham and his heirs on the basis of faith.’63 Verse 14 uses the conditional structure. Since the protasis (the ‘if clause’ in v. 14a) does not have a verb, the two perfects (κεκένωται and κατήργηται) in the apodosis (the ‘then clause’ in v. 14b) are associated with an implied verb in v. 14a, which is assumed to be a past tense because the subject (οἱ) refers to those who lived according to the law, that is, Abraham or his descendants. If the article (οἱ) of the subject is used for a general statement, the implied verb may be a present tense. However, I attempt to interpret the article of the subject (οἱ) and the articles in front of faith and promise (ἡ πίστις and ἡ ἐπαγγελία) as pointing to Abraham’s descendants, or the Jewish people. Thus, applying Rule 2, I understand that the two perfects are chosen to complement the meaning of the aorist, which is a present state that results from anterior activity. As Burton mentions, Paul, through the two perfects in the apodosis (the ‘then clause’ in v. 14b), ‘states a conclusion conditioned on the fulfillment of the supposition stated’ in the protasis (the ‘if clause’ in verse 14a).64 Dunn’s exposition on Romans 4:14 shows a combination of the sense of a general statement and the sense of the perfect: ‘If the law becomes a determinative factor, then Abraham’s

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 221

acceptance of the promise has become and remains (perfect tense) invalid and meaningless.’65 I believe that Paul delivers a picture of reality through the conditional structure including the perfect.66 In the mode of supposition, Paul logically points out that the faith of Abraham becomes useless and that the promise of Abraham becomes nothing as a result of the prior situation of the Jews clinging to the law rather than to faith and the promise.67 Paul’s logical argument gives a warning that Jewish people cannot be Abraham’s descendants if they cling to the law and lack faith.

γέγραπται, τέθεικα in 4:17 In Romans 4:17, there are two perfects: γέγραπται and τέθεικα. The perfect indicative (γέγραπται) is an idiomatic expression, which is used to introduce a citation from the OT in the past. I apply Rule 2 to the perfect (γέγραπται) because it is connected to a past reference, which is the OT quotation. This perfect has been dealt with in the section of individual treatments. The perfect indicative (τέθεικα) is a citation from Genesis 17:5. The Greek OT citation is exactly the same as the translation of the LXX.68 It indicates that the choice of the Greek perfect (τέθεικα) here is not related to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice for the highest prominence. Its choice is due to the Hebrew perfect, which indicates a completed action. I associate this perfect (τέθεικα) with a present situation because this dialogue in Genesis 17:5 appears in direct discourse. Rule 1 is applied. I understand that this perfect is chosen to emphasize anterior activity, which is God’s choice of Abraham.

εἰρημένον in 4:18 In Romans 4:18, the perfect participle (εἰρημένον) is substantivally used as a noun (‘the pronouncement’). However, I regard the perfect participle as an adjective. The perfect participle (εἰρημένον) is chosen to describe an implied noun ‘something,’ which refers to a quotation from the OT (Gen 15:5). Rule 3 is applied. Since it is in passive voice, it tends to highlight a present relevance to the OT quotation that implies a present remembrance. The content of the OT quotation is a statement prior to the time of the speaker or writer. This perfect passive participle (εἰρημένον) occurs in four places in the NT (Luke 2:24; Acts 2:16; 13:40; Rom 4:18). All are substantivally used with the neuter article (τὸ εἰρημένον), which is the implied subject, ‘something,’ pointing to OT contents or quotations in the immediate context.

νενεκρωμένον in 4:19 The perfect participle (νενεκρωμένον) in Romans 4:19 is a predicate adjective and describes ‘his own body’ of Abraham. Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect is in passive voice, it tends to highlight a present state of ‘being dead,’ which results

222 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

from the anterior activity of ‘dying’ in a past-referring situation (narrative past time). This belongs to the narrative regarding the account of Abraham. Abraham knew that his procreative ability had already been lost because of his old age. The perfect participle (νενεκρωμένον) is limitedly used to describe Abraham’s body in the immediate context without influencing a larger context. ἐπήγγελται in 4:21

The perfect (ἐπήγγελται) in Romans 4:21 appears in the relative clause and depends on the main verb (ἐστιν). The present (ἐστιν) accompanies the adjective (δυνατός) and the infinitive (ποιῆσαι), making a verbal phrase (‘is able to do’). The relative clause that includes the perfect (ὃ ἐπήγγελται) is used as the object of the infinitive (ποιῆσαι). In this situation, the perfect is associated with the present (ἐστιν). Rule 1 is applied. The perfect is chosen to highlight God’s anterior promise for Abraham.

Romans 5:1–5 In Romans 5:1–5, there are five presents, two aorists, and four perfects. Porter may argue, on a discourse level, that the two aorists are background material for the main theme. The five presents are prominent in meaning over the two aorists. The four perfects are the most prominent among the presents and the aorists. However, Table 5.12. Romans 5:1–5. Source: Author Rule NA28

R 1 R2 R2

R1

Rom. 5:1 Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rom. 5:2 δι᾿ οὗ καὶ τὴν προσαγωγὴν ἐσχήκαμεν [τῇ πίστει] εἰς τὴν χάριν ταύτην ἐν ᾗ ἑστήκαμεν καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐπ᾿ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ. Rom. 5:3 οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμεθα ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν, εἰδότες ὅτι ἡ θλῖψις ὑπομονὴν κατεργάζεται, Rom. 5:4 ἡ δὲ ὑπομονὴ δοκιμήν, ἡ δὲ δοκιμὴ ἐλπίδα. Rom. 5:5 ἡ δὲ ἐλπὶς οὐ καταισχύνει, ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡμῖν.

NET Rom. 5:1 1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. Rom. 5:3 Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, Rom. 5:4 and endurance, character, and character, hope. Rom. 5:5 And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 223

when we look at the semantic functions of three tenses in terms of contents and structures, Porter’s argument is not valid. In terms of content, if we take the theme as ‘believers’ enjoyment of righteousness,’ the present (ἔχομεν ‘have peace’ in v. 1), the present (καυχώμεθα ‘rejoice in the hope of God’s glory’ in v. 2), the present (καυχώμεθα ‘rejoice in sufferings’ in v. 3), and the present (καταισχύνει ‘hope does not disappoint’ in v. 5) are more pertinent to the theme (‘enjoyment of righteousness’) than the perfects. Further, in terms of structure, all the perfects appear in subordinate clauses, such as the relative clauses and the ὅτι clause, which indicate supporting material for the main theme. All the perfects explain why believers came to enjoy righteousness and so are explanatory background for the main theme. In his discussion of the perfect in Romans 5:1–3, Runge understands that verses 1 and 2b (with the presents) are a theme line, and verse 2a (with the perfects) is a supporting line.69 So he argues that the perfect is used as background, not prominence. Working on the following perfects, I argue that the perfect is not chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground) on a discourse level; I suggest that the perfect is chosen to exercise its dual feature in an immediate context, functioning as supporting material for the main theme. I use my Three Rules for the discussion. ἐσχήκαμεν in 5:2

According to Rule 1, the perfect indicative (ἐσχήκαμεν in v. 2) is associated with the present indicative (ἔχομεν in v. 1).70 Paul may have chosen the perfect to point out the anterior grace that has already been obtained—righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ—because the present (ἔχομεν) cannot denote the anterior activity of obtaining. Here, the present (ἔχω in v. 1) is contrasted with the perfect (ἐσχήκαμεν in v. 2) in terms of anterior activity. McKay mentions that when the present and the perfect are contrasted with each other: ‘The present state concept is predominant, but the past action reference is too strong to be ignored.’71 Perschbacher categorizes this perfect as an ‘intensive perfect,’ which indicates a ‘past action with emphasis placed on the results of the action.’72 Fanning suggests that this perfect (ἐσχήκαμεν) highlights an existing state, implying the act of entrance that led into that state.73 All of them recognize the dual feature of the perfect. McKay and Fanning are inclined to emphasize a present state of the perfect, and Perschbacher is inclined to emphasize anterior activity. I am inclined to emphasize anterior activity, applying Rule 1. Thus, I argue that this perfect is used to emphasize the anterior activity of ‘obtaining,’ while still engaging the present state of ‘having.’ ἑστήκαμεν in 5:2

In the lexical study of ἵστημι,74 the perfect of ἵστημι is always used as an active form (but with an intransitive meaning) and never takes a passive form. It is used to

224 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

indicate a present state. According to Rule 2, the perfect indicative (ἑστήκαμεν) of ἵστημι is associated with another perfect indicative (ἐσχήκαμεν) that highlights the anterior activity of ‘obtaining.’ Thus, the perfect indicative (ἑστήκαμεν) of ἵστημι emphasizes a present state of ‘standing,’ which implies the anterior activity of ‘standing.’ Paul may have wanted to point out the present identity of believers who have already stood in the grace of obtaining peace with God through Jesus Christ.

εἰδότες in 5:3 I have already discussed the function of οἶδα and its inflected forms in the individual treatments of Mark and Romans. In general, οἶδα is considered as having a present meaning, which expresses a present state of knowing. I observe that if οἶδα is present, there is an introduction to the content of a prior knowledge. Thus, I have attempted to connect οἶδα with the content of a prior knowledge. Although εἰδότες is a participial form, it is treated in the same way as the indicative because I believe that its choice is significantly influenced by the content of knowledge. Rule 2 is applied and shows that this perfect highlights a present state of the subject (‘we’). ‘We’ are in a state of knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope. ἐκκέχυται in 5:5

Porter understands that this perfect (ἐκκέχυται in v. 5) is used to make ‘a timeless theological point about God’s nature and activity.’75 Thus, he translates it as ‘the love of God is poured out in our hearts.’76 However, Fanning understands that the present resource of God’s love alludes to the time when it was given because he believes that the occurrence is anterior to its consequence whether logically or chronologically.77 Following Fanning, I  point out that the perfect (ἐκκέχυται) indicates anterior activity as well as a present state. According to Rule 1, I associate the perfect (ἐκκέχυται) with the present (καταισχύνει). The perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present, which is anterior activity. Thus, the perfect emphasizes the anterior activity of a ‘pouring out of God’s love’ while still engaging a present state. It may allude to the historical event of the death of Jesus and the coming of the Holy Spirit, which was completed prior to the speaker or writer. The view of the dual feature helps us to perceive a theologically important message—God’s love historically accomplished through Jesus.

Romans 6:1–11 In Romans 6:1–11, there are many verbal forms (regardless of mood distinction): ten presents, fifteen aorists, four futures, and three perfects. Porter presents Romans 6:7–10 as an exemplary passage to show the prominence values among

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 225

Table 5.13. Romans 6:1–11. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

Rom. 6:1 Τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ Rom. 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ; remain in sin so that grace may increase? Rom. 6:2 μὴ γένοιτο. οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν Rom. 6:2 Absolutely not! How can we who τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ; died to sin still live in it?

Rom. 6:3 ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι, ὅσοι Rom. 6:3 Or do you not know that as many ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, εἰς τὸν as were baptized into Christ Jesus were θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν; baptized into his death?

Rom. 6:4 συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν. R 1 Rom. 6:5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα

Rom. 6:6 τοῦτο γινώσκοντες ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ· R 2 Rom. 6:7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Rom. 6:8 εἰ δὲ ἀπεθάνομεν σὺν Χριστῷ, πιστεύομεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσομεν αὐτῷ, R 2 Rom. 6:9 εἰδότες ὅτι Χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει, θάνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει. Rom. 6:10 ὃ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν, τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ· ὃ δὲ ζῇ, ζῇ τῷ θεῷ. Rom. 6:11 οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς λογίζεσθε ἑαυτοὺς [εἶναι] νεκροὺς μὲν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ζῶντας δὲ τῷ θεῷ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Rom. 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life. Rom. 6:5 For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection. Rom. 6:6 We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. Rom. 6:7 (For someone who has died has been freed from sin.) Rom. 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. Rom. 6:9 We know that since Christ has been raised from the dead, he is never going to die again; death no longer has mastery over him. Rom. 6:10 For the death he died, he died to sin once for all, but the life he lives, he lives to God. Rom. 6:11 So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

the aorist, present, and perfects through his theory of verbal opposition,78 which is also connected to his theory of groundings (background, foreground, and frontground). His argument is that the aorist (perfective aspect) has the least prominence

226 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

(background) and ‘hence carries the least significant meaning’;79 the present or imperfect (imperfective aspect) is more prominent (foreground) than the aorist; and the perfect or pluperfect (stative aspect) is the most prominent (frontground).80 Based on his arguments, regarding Romans 6:7–10, Porter states, ‘The perfect verb form is used to introduce the section (δεδικαίωται), as well as to specify the content of the Christian’s knowledge (εἰδότες). Repeated aorist tense forms are used to lay down the fundamental events upon which the Christian’s status depends. The more emphatic present tense then describes the events.’81 For Porter, two perfects in this passage (δεδικαίωται in v. 7 and εἰδότες in v. 9) are used for the highest prominence (frontground). Thus, Porter understands verse 7 with the perfect (δεδ ικαίωται) as ‘an emphatic opening statement’ and verse 9 with the perfect (εἰδότες) as specifying ‘the content of the Christian’s knowledge.’82 However, for me, verse 7 is an explanatory general statement for verse  6. The connective γάρ, which is an explanatory conjunction, proves that verse 7 is supporting material for Paul’s theological argument.83 As for the second perfect (εἰδότες), Porter seems to say that its choice is the result of the author’s intention to emphasize the content of knowledge. However, as we have studied before, this verb is conventionally or idiomatically chosen as part of an introductory formula. Looking at the grammatical structure, this perfect participle is adverbially used, which means that it is subordinate to verse 8. Thus, it is supporting material for verse 8. Runge approaches the perfect in a different way. He explains 6:4–14 based on connectives. Runge believes that connectives, not verbs, play a major role in determining grounding.84 The connective, οὖν (‘therefore’), is used to signal the resumption of the theme line. The connectives, γάρ (‘for’) and οὕτως (‘so’), are used to indicate supporting material.85 Thus, according to Runge, the perfects (γεγόναμεν in v. 5, and δεδικαίωται in v. 7) are supporting material because of the use of γάρ. I believe that in an expository discourse the present is used to carry the theme forward. The aorist is used to describe a past event. The perfect is used to support the main theme and chosen to utilize its dual feature. Depending on its immediate context, one side of the dual feature can be emphasized and vice versa. Accordingly, while all the perfects in 6:1–11 are used as supporting material for the main theme in the larger context, the perfect (γεγόναμεν in v. 5) emphasizes anterior activity in its immediate context, the perfect δεδικαίωται in verse 7 emphasizes a present state in its immediate context, and the perfect εἰδότες in verse 9 is used like an introductory formula in its immediate context. The following discussion uses my Three Rules to show that they are not related to the speaker or writer’s intention to indicate the highest prominence.

γεγόναμεν in 6:5 The perfect indicative γεγόναμεν in 6:5 is compared to the perfect indicative γέγονεν in 2:25. The former occurs in the protasis (‘if clause’) of the conditional structure,

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 227

whereas the latter occurs in the apodosis (‘then clause’) of the conditional structure. In whatever clause they occur, it is found that they deliver the dual feature. Porter understands this perfect as ‘timeless’ because of the timeless implicature of the conditional structure.86 He explains that the perfect (γεγόναμεν) is marked because ‘it is a peroration of his numerous comparisons to assert the condition of the posited resurrection.’87 Porter’s understanding misses the anterior activity of a union with Christ, which cannot be separated from the present state of salvation or the final salvation. According to Rule 1, the perfect (γεγόναμεν in 6:5) in the protasis is associated with the future indicative (ἐσόμεθα) appearing in the apodosis. I understand that the perfect (γεγόναμεν) emphasizes logical-anterior activity in the conditional structure.88 Paul’s argument can be stated thus: ‘Let’s assume that we have already become united with Christ’s death in the past. Then, if so, as a result, we are in a state of union with Christ, ending up in a union with Christ’s resurrection in the future.’

δεδικαίωται in 6:7 Romans 6:7 has the grammatical construction of ‘the one who …,’ which is used for a general statement. The perfect (δεδικαίωται) in this construction is associated with the aorist participle (ἀποθανών), which is a substantival participle used for the subject. The perfective aspect of the aorist participle denotes that the action logically occurred in the past. Rule 2 is applied. It is understood that the perfect (δεδικαίωται) is chosen to emphasize the subject’s (the one who died) present state of ‘being justified’ because the aorist (the one who died) cannot express a present state. The perfect (δεδικαίωται) indicates that the one who logically died in the past is logically in a state of being justified at present. Verse 7 is closely related to the previous argument (in v. 6), which is a logical argument that death with Christ precedes ‘freedom from sin.’ The NET version understands Romans 6:7 as a parenthetical comment that provides a supplementary explanation. The lexical meaning of δικαιόω has a causative sense, which is ‘make free or pure’ (BDAG, 249). Connected to the previous verse (v. 6), the perfect highlights that the one who died with Christ is in a present state of ‘being set free from sin’ through Christ’s death on the cross, which is Christ’s justifying work of ‘making believers free.’ Crellin understands this perfect as expressing the state of the subject and admitting the anterior activity of the event of ‘justifying.’ He explains that the event of ‘justifying’ changes a state ‘from a non-justified state to a justified one.’89 However, Porter does not embrace the feature of anterior activity for the perfect itself. Porter interprets it as timeless with a general implicature of ‘the one who …’90 Thus, he translates the perfect as the present (‘the one who dies is justified from sin’)91 because there is no past reference in this verse.92 As Campbell deals

228 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

with Romans 6:7, he also does not connect the perfective aspect (the aorist participle) to the dual feature of the perfect, although he admits that the verbal nuance of the aorist participle is ‘normally antecedent in time frame,’ which is a clear past reference.93 For me, without considering any contextual factors, the perfect itself delivers the dual feature. Thus, I judge that it highlights a present state of ‘being justified’ but still denotes the anterior activity of Christ’s justifying work. Porter believes that this verse (v. 7) reflects a theological principle. However, if we miss the dual feature of the perfect, the theological implication may change. Porter may not draw out the anterior activity of Christ’s saving ministry. However, I believe, through the use of the perfect, Paul may have wanted to provide an additional explanation about the relationship between ‘death’ in the past and the present state of ‘freedom from sin.’ In fact, the present justification cannot be separated from the prior justifying activity of Jesus Christ.

εἰδότες in 6:9 The perfect participle (εἰδότες) is associated with the ὅτι clause, which introduces a prior knowledge. Rule 2 is applied and highlights a present ‘knowing’ about Christ’s death. I have already discussed the function of οἶδα in the individual treatments.

Romans 9:19–29 In the larger context of Romans 9:19–29, the theme is God’s sovereign choice of the objects of wrath or the objects of mercy. Four perfects occur: ἀνθέστηκεν (v. 19), κατηρτισμένα (v. 22), ἠγαπημένην (v. 25), and προείρηκεν (v. 29). According to Porter, all are chosen for the highest prominence based on one side of the dual feature, a present state. However, as we shall see, it appears that all are, in part, related to God’s sovereign choice without a predominant prominence and imply the other side of the dual feature, anterior activity. The first perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν in v. 19) is used to allude to Pharaoh who is a figure in the past. The second perfect (κατηρτισμένα in v. 22) is used to describe the objects of wrath already prepared. The third perfect (ἠγαπημένην in v. 25) points to ‘my people’ who have already been loved in the past. The fourth perfect (προείρηκεν in v. 29) emphasizes prophecy in the past. Using my Three Rules, the following discussion shows that the dual feature of these perfects is confined to an immediate context without extending to a larger context. In the larger context of 9:19–29, they support the main theme of God’s sovereign choice of the objects of wrath or the objects of mercy. ἀνθέστηκεν in 9:19

The lexical form of this perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν) is ἀνθίστημι, which means ‘be in opposition to,’ ‘oppose,’ ‘be resistant to power,’ or ‘resist’ (BDAG, 80). It belongs

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 229

Table 5.14. Romans 9:19–29. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 1 Rom. 9:19 Ἐρεῖς μοι οὖν· τί [οὖν] ἔτι μέμφεται; τῷ γὰρ βουλήματι αὐτοῦ τίς ἀν θέστηκεν; Rom. 9:20 ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μενοῦνγε σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ θεῷ; μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι· τί με ἐποίησας οὕτως;

Rom. 9:19 You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?’ Rom. 9:20 But who indeed are you—a mere human being—to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Rom. 9:21 Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? Rom. 9:22 But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction? Rom. 9:23 And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory— Rom. 9:24 even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Rom. 9:25 As he also says in Hosea: ‘I will call those who were not my people, “My people,” and I will call her who was unloved, “My beloved.” ’ Rom. 9:26 ‘And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,” there they will be called “sons of the living God.” ’ Rom. 9:27 And Isaiah cries out on behalf of Israel, ‘Though the number of the children of Israel are as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved, Rom. 9:28 for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth completely and quickly.’ Rom. 9:29 Just as Isaiah predicted, ‘If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have resembled Gomorrah.’

Rom. 9:21 ἢ οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν ὁ κεραμεὺς τοῦ πηλοῦ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ φυράματος ποιῆσαι ὃ μὲν εἰς τιμὴν σκεῦος ὃ δὲ εἰς ἀτιμίαν; R 3 Rom. 9:22 εἰ δὲ θέλων ὁ θεὸς ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν ὀργὴν καὶ γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ ἤνεγκεν ἐν πολλῇ μακροθυμίᾳ σκεύη ὀργῆς κατηρτισμένα εἰς ἀπώλειαν, Rom. 9:23 καὶ ἵνα γνωρίσῃ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ σκεύη ἐλέους ἃ προητοίμασεν εἰς δόξαν; Rom. 9:24 Οὓς καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς οὐ μόνον ἐξ Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐθνῶν, R 3 Rom. 9:25 ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει·καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην ἠγαπημένην· Rom. 9:26 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος. Rom. 9:27 Ἠσαΐας δὲ κράζει ὑπὲρ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ· ἐὰν ᾖ ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης, τὸ ὑπόλειμμα σω θήσεται· Rom. 9:28 λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων ποιήσει κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. R 1 Rom. 9:29 καὶ καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἠσαΐας· εἰ μὴ κύριος σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡμῖν σπέρμα, ὡς Σόδομα ἂν ἐγενήθημεν καὶ ὡς Γόμορρα ἂν ὡμοιώθημεν.

230 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

to the family of ἵστημι (ἵστημι, ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι). It is used in the same way as ἵστημι. It takes an active form but with an intransitive meaning. No passive form occurs. In the NT, three perfect forms of ἀνθίστημι occur, and all three appear in Romans: two perfect active indicatives (Rom 9:19; 13:2) and one perfect active participle (Rom 13:2).94 I have already mentioned in the individual treatments that most grammarians suggest that the perfect of the family of ἵστημι (ἵστημι, ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι) has a purely present meaning as if it were used instead of the present. However, I have attempted to show that the perfect of ἵστημι expresses not only a present state but also anterior activity. As for the perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν in v. 19) here, Porter may argue that it is used to indicate only a present state of the subject. However, in contrast to Porter, I attempt to interpret this perfect as highlighting anterior activity, still engaging its present relevance. In 9:19, Paul begins his argument with the introduction of two questions. The first question uses the present tense (μέμφεται), and the second question uses the perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν). I associate the perfect in the second question with the present in the first question. Rule 1 is applied. I understand that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present, which is the anterior activity of ‘resisting,’ connected to the present relevance. When Paul chose the perfect (ἀνθέστηκεν), he may have thought of previous human resistance against God’s will. Paul may have had in mind the example of Pharaoh, whom he had already mentioned in the previous verses (vv. 17–18). Jewish people may have argued, ‘We cannot say that anyone like Pharaoh resisted God’s will, because his resistance is not really resistance to God’s will if it is predetermined by God, rather it is the expression of God’s will.’ In verses 20–23, in response to their questions, Paul raises the issue of God’s sovereignty, ‘stressing God’s sovereign rights as Creator.’95 Paul cites the first question of Jewish people. In order to make it clear, Paul cites their second question. Thus, the second question with the perfect is chosen to support the first question. Cranfield sees these two questions as ‘closely connected, the latter supporting the former.’96 This view is opposite to Porter’s, who holds that the latter (perfect tense) is more prominent than the former (present tense), functioning to indicate the highest prominence in the larger context (9:19–29). However, as we have seen before, this perfect is used to highlight the anterior activity that brings about its result or experience of the present time.97

κατηρτισμένα in 9:22 The perfect participle (κατηρτισμένα) is connected with the objects of wrath (σκεύη ὀργῆς). It functions as an adjective, modifying the objects of wrath with the dual

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 231

feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity. Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect is in passive voice, it tends to highlight a present state of ‘being prepared for destruction’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘preparing for destruction,’ which implies a prior decision from God. Paul points out that God has endured with much patience the objects of wrath at present. ἠγαπημένην in 9:25

The perfect participle (ἠγαπημένην) functions as a substantive. However, I deal with it as an adjective. The perfect participle (ἠγαπημένην) describes the implied substantive ‘my people.’ Rule 3 is applied. Even though there is an adjective proper (ἀγάπην, which is similar to ἠγαπημένην in meaning), Paul does not use it, maybe because it cannot express the dual feature of the perfect. Romans 9:25 cites Hosea 2:23 MT (Hosea 2:25 LXX). However, Paul does not use the exact wording of the LXX. Instead of τὴν Οὐκ-ἠλεημένην, Paul uses τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, while inserting another ἠγαπημένην. We do not know for sure whether Paul himself revised this or if Paul used a later manuscript that had already contained the insertion.98 Two perfect participles in the same form (ἠγαπημένην) describe the implied noun, which is ‘my people,’ shown in the previous phrase (τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου). The state of ‘not my people’ in the past is changed to the state of ‘my people,’ whom God already had in mind according to His will. The two perfects are combined to indicate both a prior situation and a present situation. In order to deliver the dual feature, Paul may have used the perfect form instead of the adjective proper.99

προείρηκεν in 9:29 In Romans 9:24, Paul presents the theme of his argument of the pericope 9:24– 29—‘those called include both Jews and Gentiles.’100 Paul develops his argument through the following four consecutive quotations from OT prophesy. The first and second citations (Hos 2:23 and Hos 1:10) are introduced by the present tense (λέγει) in verses 25–26. The third citation (Isa 10:22) is introduced by the present tense (κράζει) in verse 27. The final citation (Isa 1:9) is introduced by the perfect tense (προείρηκεν) in verse 29. The first present tense, λέγει, is frequently used with the general meaning of ‘saying.’101 The second present tense, κράζει, lexically denotes ‘the urgent speech of the prophet’ (BDAG, 564). The third perfect tense, προείρηκεν, lexically means ‘say beforehand.’ I associate the perfect προείρηκεν with the other two presents λέγει and κράζει. Rule 1 is applied. I believe that the perfect is chosen to complement the meaning of the present, which is the anterior activity of ‘foretelling,’ so that the reader can pay attention to the prophecy of Isaiah (v. 29b).

232 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

It is found that προείρηκα is used along with the present tense. There are seven cases in the New Testament (Matt 24:25; Mark 13:23; Rom 9:29; 2 Cor 7:3; 13:2; Gal 1:9; Heb 4:7). All appear to be used to support the present situation, pointing to anterior activity.102 Hatina discusses the perfect form προειρήκαμεν (‘we have said before’) found in Galatians 1:9. He argues that this perfect is chosen instead of the aorist in order to convey the most semantic weight.103 He denies the dual feature of the perfect itself. However, here he finds the past reference and the present reference from indicators such as ‘ὡς (“as”) and ἄρτι πάλιν (“now again”)’, respectively.104 With these indicators, he explains that the perfect is chosen to convey prominence, drawing ‘attention to the previous warning that was given to the Galatians to reject every foreign gospel.’105 His approach appears to recognize the dual feature of the perfect, although he argues that the reason that Paul chose the perfect instead of the aorist is to convey ‘prominence.’ However, I argue that each tense is chosen based on its own semantic function. That is why all three different tenses appear in Galatians: προλέγω (the present) in 5:21, προεῖπον (the aorist) in 5:21, and προειρήκαμεν (the perfect) in 1:9. Thus, the choice of the perfect is based on its inherent-dual feature, not on prominence.

Romans 15:14–21 The theme of Romans 15:14–21 is ‘Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles.’ It is not likely that six perfects appearing in this passage are chosen for the highest prominence in the larger context (15:14–21). Rather, each perfect has its own reason to be used in an immediate context as follows. πέπεισμαι (v. 14) is used to express Paul’s personal confidence. πεπληρωμένοι (v. 14) is chosen to indicate Roman believers’ possession of full knowledge. ἡγιασμένη (v. 16) is used to describe the situation of the offering of the Gentiles. πεπληρωκέναι (v. 19) is chosen to indicate Paul’s accomplishment of his mission. γέγραπται (v. 21) is used to introduce an OT quotation. ἀκηκόασιν (v. 21) belongs to the OT citation. Porter’s suggestion of a third level of frontground (the highest prominence) for the perfect is discussed based on a present state, working in a larger context. However, it is found that the perfect works in an immediate context, expressing the dual feature. The following discussion uses my Three Rules to demonstrate that Porter’s suggestion is not valid.

πέπεισμαι in 15:14 In Romans, the perfect (πέπεισμαι) appears in four places (2:19; 8:38; 14:14; 15:14). I have already discussed the perfect form of πείθω in the individual treatments. This perfect has been generally considered to be purely stative, thus translated with a

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 233

Table 5.15. Romans 15:14–21. Source: Author Rule NA28

NET

R 2 R3

Rom. 15:14 But I myself am fully convinced about you, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another. Rom. 15:15 But I have written more boldly to you on some points so as to remind you, because of the grace given to me by God Rom. 15:16 to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. I serve the gospel of God like a priest, so that the Gentiles may become an acceptable offering, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Rom. 15:17 So I boast in Christ Jesus about the things that pertain to God. Rom. 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in order to bring about the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed, Rom. 15:19 in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem even as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.

R3

R1

R 2 R1

Rom. 15:14 Πέπεισμαι δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, καὶ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ περὶ ὑμῶν ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ μεστοί ἐστε ἀγαθωσύνης, πεπληρωμένοι πάσης [τῆς] γνώσεως, δυνάμενοι καὶ ἀλλήλους νουθετεῖν. Rom. 15:15 τολμηρότερον δὲ ἔγραψα ὑμῖν ἀπὸ μέρους ὡς ἐπαναμιμνῄσκων ὑμᾶς διὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ Rom. 15:16 εἰς τὸ εἶναί με λειτουργὸν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, ἱερουργοῦντα τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα γένηται ἡ προσφορὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν εὐπρόσδεκτος, ἡγιασμένη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ. Rom. 15:17 ἔχω οὖν [τὴν] καύχησιν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν· Rom. 15:18 οὐ γὰρ τολμήσω τι λαλεῖν ὧν οὐ κατειργάσατο Χριστὸς δι᾿ ἐμοῦ εἰς ὑπακοὴν ἐθνῶν, λόγῳ καὶ ἔργῳ,

Rom. 15:19 ἐν δυνάμει σημείων καὶ τεράτων, ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος [θεοῦ]· ὥστε με ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ κύκλῳ μέχρι τοῦ Ἰλλυρικοῦ πεπληρωκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Rom. 15:20 οὕτως δὲ φιλοτιμούμενον εὐαγγελίζεσθαι οὐχ ὅπου ὠνομάσθη Χριστός, ἵνα μὴ ἐπ᾿ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ, Rom. 15:21 ἀλλὰ καθὼς γέγραπται·οἷς οὐκ ἀνηγγέλη περὶ αὐτοῦ ὄψονται, καὶ οἳ οὐκ ἀκηκόασιν συνήσουσιν.

Rom. 15:20 And in this way I desire to preach where Christ has not been named, so as not to build on another person’s foundation, Rom. 15:21 but as it is written: ‘Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.’

present meaning. Applying Rule 2, I received the same result when I attempted to connect this perfect with the following content of confidence indicated by the ὅτι clause. Thus, I argue that this perfect (πέπεισμαι) emphasizes a present state based on a prior confidence in the immediate context (v. 14). Paul highlights his current confidence in Christians in Rome by stating that they are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to instruct one another.

234 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

πεπληρωμένοι in 15:14 The perfect participle (πεπληρωμένοι) can be understood as an adverbial participle, depending on the main verb (ἐστε). However, I regard the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένοι) as a predicate adjective that modifies the subject (‘you’) in a periphrastic construction (ἐστε + πεπληρωμένοι). Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect participle is in passive, it highlights the subject’s present state of ‘being filled’ which comes from anterior activity of ‘filling.’ In addition, I  examine the three predicates for one subject (‘you’). The first predicate is expressed with an adjective proper (μεστοί ‘full’). The second predicate is expressed with the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένοι ‘filled’). The third predicate is expressed with the present participle (δυνάμενοι ‘able’). The first and third are present-focused. As for the second, Paul may have had some intention to choose the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένοι ‘filled’) instead of the adjective proper (πλήρης ‘full’). Porter may say that the perfect participle is chosen to indicate the highest prominence. However, in light of three predicates paralleled, I  judge that the perfect participle is used to complement the meaning of the other two predicates, which is anterior activity. Robertson understands that the perfect participle (πεπληρωμένοι) points to an antecedent action.106 Thus, in the immediate context (v. 14), Paul may have wanted to point out, by using the perfect, that the Christians in Rome have already gained the full knowledge about God’s salvation and His purpose for the salvation, which results in the present state of being ‘filled with the knowledge.’ ἡγιασμένη in 15:16

The perfect participle (ἡγιασμένη in v. 16) can be understood to function as an adverbial participle, depending on the main verb (γένηται). However, I think, instead of indicating the relation with the main verb, it describes the state or condition of the subject (‘offering’). Thus, I connect the perfect participle (ἡγιασμένη) with the subject (ἡ προσφορὰ ‘offering’). Rule 3 is applied. Since the perfect is in passive voice, it highlights a current sanctified state of the Gentiles that results from the anterior activity of ‘sanctifying,’ completed by the power of the Holy Spirit. This work of the perfect is confined to the immediate context (v. 16).

πεπληρωκέναι in 15:19 I have already discussed this perfect infinitive in the category of the non-indicative. The perfect infinitive functions as a finite verb in the idiomatic structure of ‘ὥστε + infinitive,’ depending on the main verb. Thus, I associate the perfect infinitive (πεπληρωκέναι in v. 19) with the main verb (τολμήσω ‘the future’ in v. 18).107 Rule 1 is applied, showing the perfect infinitive is chosen to emphasize anterior activity. Paul states his anterior activity—he has fulfilled his mission from Jerusalem to

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 235

Illyricum by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even according to the perfect infinitive’s own rule, it is chosen to indicate anterior temporality, regardless of any associated part.108

γέγραπται in 15:21 As I have already discussed in the individual treatments, γέγραπται (v. 21) is used to introduce an OT citation, and is connected with a past reference to the OT. Rule 2 is applied. It emphasizes a present state of ‘being written’ resulting from the anterior activity of ‘writing.’ ἀκηκόασιν in 15:21

The perfect (ἀκηκόασιν in v.  21)  appears in the verse’s OT citation. The perfect (ἀκηκόασιν) is associated with συνήσουσιν (‘will understand’) within the citation. Rule 1 is applied. The perfect highlights the anterior activity of ‘not hearing,’ which led to the present state of the subject (‘those’) who does not understand. The future of the associated verb (συνήσουσιν) also points to the present messianic era. Paul quotes from Isaiah 52:15b, using exactly the same wording as Isaiah 52:15b found in the LXX. It is found that the Greek perfect is a translation of the Hebrew perfect. Thus, the use of this perfect comes from the copy of the Hebrew perfect and is not related to the speaker or writer’s intentional choice to indicate the highest prominence. This happening is confined to the immediate context (v. 21).

CO N C LU S I O N In this chapter, I discussed seventy-nine perfects and one pluperfect (ᾔδειν Rom 7:7) in Romans: fifty-seven perfect indicatives, nineteen perfect participles, three perfect infinitives, and one pluperfect indicative. Just as I had done it in ch 4, I used my Three Rules for discussion. I divided all the perfects into four categories for discussion:  perfect indicative, perfect non-indicative, individual treatments, and passage studies. In the perfect indicative, I evaluated fourteen perfect indicatives that are associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative and attempted to interpret them with Rule 1. These perfects are accordingly understood to highlight anterior activity, denoting a present state. Also, I analyzed seven perfect indicatives that are associated with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative and attempted to interpret them with Rule 2. These perfects are understood to highlight a present state, which results from logically anterior activity. In the perfect non-indicative, I discussed fourteen perfect participles and three perfect infinitives. I connected the perfect participles with substantives (Rule 3).

236 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

I interpreted them as describing their connected substantives with the dual feature of the perfect. Although there are four cases (Rom 1:29; 7:14; 15:14; 15:16) that can be considered adverbial, I attempted to put them into the category of the predicate adjective, applying Rule 3. The perfect infinitives in Romans 4:1, 15:8, and 15:9 were used to indicate anterior temporality in any context (Rule 1). In the individual treatments, I  dealt with five words and one grammatical structure. First, I discussed γέγραπται, which is conventionally or idiomatically used as part of a citation formula. This perfect is always used to introduce an OT citation with words such as καθώς or γάρ, which hint that the perfect is used as supporting material for main events or themes. I connected the perfect (γέγραπται) with an OT citation. Rule 2 was applied. Then I suggested that the perfect (γέγραπται) is used to highlight a present state of ‘being written’ resulting from the OT citation being written in the past. Second, I worked on οἶδα. Generally, it is conventionally or idiomatically understood to deliver a present meaning, although it is in the perfect form. I attempted to connect the perfect (οἶδα) with the ὅτι clause or the τί clause, both of which introduce a prior knowledge. Rule 2 was applied. The perfect (οἶδα) highlights a present state of ‘knowing’ resulting from a prior knowledge. Third, I dealt with the family of ἵστημι. I discussed four perfect indicatives of ἵστημι and ἀνθίστημι and two perfect participial forms of ἐνίστημι and ἀνθίστημι. This family is generally considered as having a present meaning because of its lexical character. However, I  demonstrated that the family of ἵστημι needs to be interpreted based on the dual feature. I attempted to associate two perfect indicatives (5:2; 11:20) with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative. Rule 2 was applied. I argued that they are chosen to highlight a present state that results from anterior activity. The other two perfect indicatives (9:19; 13:2) were associated with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative. Rule 1 was applied. I argued that they are chosen to highlight anterior activity. As for the two participial forms (8:38; 13:2), I attempted to connect them with the substantive, arguing that they are chosen to describe the substantive with the dual feature of the perfect. Rule 3 was applied. Fourth, I dealt with the perfect forms of πείθω. In the same way as γέγραπται and οἶδα, the perfect (πέποιθα or πέπεισμαι) is connected with the content of confidence, indicated by the ὅτι clause, which presents the confidence that was obtained prior to the utterance. Rule 2 was applied. This perfect highlights a present state of ‘being confident’ resulting from the content of a prior confidence. Fifth, I gathered together the various instances of γέγονεν appearing in Romans so that I could determine if this word were used conventionally or idiomatically (as evidenced by the fact that it occurs frequently). However, it was found that the perfect (γέγονεν) is not used conventionally or idiomatically; but, like other

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 237

normal perfects, it highlights anterior activity or a present state, depending on its associated verb. Finally, I studied the grammatical structure of the phrase ‘the one who …’ Paul uses this structure for his argument, delivering a general statement or gnomic state. I  evaluated six occurrences (6:7; 13:1, 2, 8; 14:23). The question was how to interpret the perfect tense in this structure. I suggested that, even in a general statement or gnomic state, the dual feature of the perfect needs to be regarded as delivering logical-dual feature:  a logically present state resulting from logically anterior activity, instead of a temporally present state resulting from temporally anterior activity. In the passage study, I discussed five passages (4:13–25; 5:1–5; 6:1–11; 9:19– 29; 15:14–21) so that I could see whether the perfects were chosen for the highest prominence in a larger context or if they were chosen to indicate the dual feature of the perfect in the immediate context. I found that all the perfects are used to deliver the dual feature of the perfect in the immediate context, highlighting either side of their dual feature. Overall, I demonstrated that, in Romans, the perfect is to be interpreted with its dual feature and that the dual feature should not be ignored by considering any temporal indicators or other contextual factors. Those indicators could help to understand the dual feature of the perfect but cannot replace the dual feature. I argued that the perfect is chosen to indicate the dual feature in association with other parts in an immediate context, functioning as background for main events or themes in a larger context. notes 1. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 623. 2. See James D.  G. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 38A (Dallas:  Word, 1998), 165. 3. Fanning considers the lexical situation in order to understand the semantic function of the perfect. He explains that πεφανέρωται belongs to the verb of accomplishments, which ‘indicates that the action is carried to its completion and highlights, in addition, continuing consequence from the action.’ Fanning also considers the voice of the perfect. Since πεφανέρωται is used in the passive form, he suggests that it highlights the state of the subject. See Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1990), 153. 4. Douglas J. Moo, ‘Romans,’ in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. Donald Arthur Carson et al. (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 1137. 5. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 268.

238 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

6. The Greek word δέω (‘bind’) does not have a present from. However, the aorist form (nineteen instances) and perfect form (twenty-three instances) of δέω occur in the NT. 7. This perfect (ἤγγικεν) occurs fourteen times in the NT: eleven times in narrative discourse (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 26:45, 46; Mark 1:15; 14:42; Luke 10:9; 10:11; 21:8; 21:20) and three times in expository discourse (Rom 13:12; James 5:8; 1 Pet 4:7). 8. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 268; Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., Biblical Languages: Greek (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 41. 9. Herbert Preisker, ‘Ἐγγύς, Ἐγγίζω, Προσεγγίζω,’ in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 331. 10. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 785–787. 11. Preisker, ‘Ἐγγύς, Ἐγγίζω, Προσεγγίζω,’ 331. 12. There are four perfects in Romans: Romans 1:29 (πεπληρωμένους the perfect participle—examined through Rule 3), Romans 13:8 (πεπλήρωκεν the perfect active indicative—examined through Rule 1), Romans 15:14 (πεπληρωμένοι the perfect participle—examined through Rule 3), and Romans 15:19 (πεπληρωκέναι the perfect active infinitive—examined through Rule 1). 13. For the adjectival sense (‘open’), both the perfect active and passive are used. The perfect active is used with an intransitive meaning to express a present state: John 1:51 (participle); 1 Cor 16:9 (indicative); 2 Cor 6:11 (indicative). The perfect passive participle occurs ten times (Acts 9:8; 10:11; 16:27; Rom 3:13; 2 Cor 2:12; Rev 3:8; 4:1; 10:2, 8; 19:11). 14. Wallace understands it this way. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 649. 15. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Commentary on Romans IX–XVI and Essays, vol. 2, International Critical Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 1979), 810. 16. Wallace explains that a controlling verb, such as a verb of perception or communication, introduces indirect discourse, of which the infinitive is the main verb. See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 603. 17. The present infinitive delivers the same time as the controlling verb. The aorist infinitive delivers anterior time to the controlling verb. The perfect infinitive also delivers the anterior time to the controlling verb. See ibid., 594. 18. Moo, ‘Romans,’ 1130. 19. John A. Witmer, ‘Romans,’ in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 453–454. 20. This phrase appears thirteen times in Genesis, four times in Exodus 33, six times in 1 Samuel, and others. For more information, see Dunn, Romans 1–8, 198. 21. Ibid. 22. It is found that the perfect indicative appears in Johannine literatures: εὑρήκαμεν ( John 1:41, 45), εὕρηκα (2 John 4; Rev 3:2). 23. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 198. 24. Using Romans 4:1, Crellin discusses that Campbell’s view of the perfect, which is imperfective aspect with heightened proximity, is not appropriate for the understanding of the Greek perfect because the action of the perfect cannot deliver ‘in progress, or dynamic.’ For more information, see Robert Crellin, ‘Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek,’ JSNT 35 (2012): 200–202. 25. See Dunn, Romans 9–16, 847. 26. There are five cases appearing in the present and the aorists in Romans (4:23; 10:5; 15:4; 15:15; 16:22). Out of five cases, two are related to the OT citation (4:23; 10:5).

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 239

27. Romans 10:5 Μωϋσῆς γὰρ γράφει τὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ [τοῦ] νόμου ὅτι ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ἄνθρωπος ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. ‘For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: ‘The one who does these things will live by them.’’ 28. Romans 4:23 Οὐκ ἐγράφη δὲ δι᾿ αὐτὸν μόνον ὅτι ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ ‘But the statement it was credited to him was not written only for Abraham’s sake.’ 29. Thomas R. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study,’ FN 15 Vol.8 (1995): 12. 30. There are 263 occurrences of οἶδα in the NT. 31. In Rom 13:11, the perfect participle (εἰδότες) is unusually connected with the noun (τὸν καιρόν). τὸν καιρόν (‘the time’) is expounded in the following ὅτι clause in which the content of a prior knowledge is introduced. 32. Although this is all the time used as transitive, it delivers a state of the subject ‘knowing,’ not the action of the subject ‘coming to know.’ Haug explains that οἶδα has an archaic formation. Its root was ‘weyd- (“to see”).’ According to him, the meaning of the perfect was ‘I have seen,’ which indicated the state of the subject. Later οἶδα has been conventionally or idiomatically used to mean ‘I know’ to still indicate the state of the subject although it is used as transitive. See Dag T. T. Haug, ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect,’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 396. 33. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 695. It can be explained as the second type of a conditional clause. There are two apodoses (‘then’ clauses) that are expressed with aorists (ἔγνων and ᾔδειν). They deliver the past contrary-to-fact. See ibid., 689. Fanning also says, ‘The reference is to an unreal condition in regard to the past.’ See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 309. 34. Buist M. Fanning, ‘Defining the Ancient Greek Perfect: Interaction with Recent Alternatives to the Traditional View of the Perfect,’ in The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson (New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming), 17. Fanning regards ἕστηκα and οἶδα as fossilized forms that carry ‘a purely present stative meaning with no implication of the prior act that produced that state.’ See Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 299. 35. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 517. 36. Ibid., 650. 37. Steven E. Runge, ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E.  Runge and Christopher J.  Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 465. 38. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 663. 39. All six are perfect participial forms except for the perfect indicative (ἐνέστηκεν in 2 Thess 2:2). 40. There is only one future form (2 Tim 3:1). 41. These two substantivals are found to have been in contrast in extra-biblical literature. For more information, see BDAG, 337. 42. The perfect active indicatives occur six times (Matt 27:43; Rom 2:19; 2 Cor 10:7; Gal 5:10; Phil 2:24; 2 Thess 3:4). The content of confidence is introduced with the ὅτι clause, except in Romans 2:19 where the content is presented with the infinitival clause, which has the same function as the ὅτι clause. 43. As for the perfect passive indicatives (Rom 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Tim 1:5; 1:12; Heb 6:9), five out of six are used with the ὅτι clause, which introduces the content of confidence. The remaining one (Heb 6:9) is used with a word (τὰ κρείσσονα ‘better things’) which also has the content of confidence.

240 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

44. There are twelve active or passive participles in the NT. It is found that most of them, whether active or passive, are used with the ὅτι clause which introduces the content of confidence: the ὅτι clauses (Luke 18:9; 20:6; Rom 2:19; 8:38; 14:14; 15:14; 2 Cor 2:3; 10:7; Gal 5:10; Phil 1:6; 25; 2 Thess 1:5; 3:4; 2 Tim 1:12; Phlm 21), noun phrases (Phil 1:14; Heb 6:9), following verses (Matt 27:43; Phil 1:14; 3:3–4), or the previous sentence (2 Cor 1:9). 45. There are seven aorists of πείθω used in the NT. They are transitive and used with accusative nouns, indicating action-oriented persuasion (Matt 27:20; Acts 12:20; 14:19; 19:26). There are three aorist passives. One is used as passive (‘were persuaded’) (Acts 17:4), and the other two are used as intransitives with a dative noun: ‘allow or release’ (Acts 5:39) and ‘obey or listen’ (Acts 23:21). 46. In the NT, the present form of πείθω occurs twelve times. The present active form of πείθω is transitive (‘persuade someone’); it is action-focused and used with an accusative noun (Acts 19:8; 26:28; 28:23; 2 Cor 5:11; Gal 1:10). The present passive form of πείθω is used to show a passive action (‘someone is persuaded’), indicating a present state regardless of anterior activity (Acts 21:14; 26:26). The present passive form of πείθω can also be intranstive (‘obey’) when it is used with the dative noun (Rom 2:8; Gal 5:7; Heb 13:17; James 3:3). 47. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 154. 48. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book, 1920), 434. 49. James Allen Hewett, New Testament Greek:  A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986), 76. 50. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 112. 51. ‘The deliberative future asks a question that implies some doubt about the response.’ See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 570. 52. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 506. 53. Cranfield, Romans 9–16, 712. 54. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 818. 55. Robert H. Mounce, Romans, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995), 255. 56. According to Wallace, if the conditional structure uses the protasis (ἐάν with the subjunctive) and the apodosis (any indicative), it is categorized as the third class condition, which denotes ‘uncertain of fulfillment, but still likely.’ Wallace also states that, according to context, it can have a broad semantic range. It can be a logical connection of ‘if A, then B.’ It can also be a merely hypothetical situation. Or it can be ‘a more probable future occurrence.’ Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 696. 57. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 679. 58. Anterior action-oriented translation:  ‘has come’ (ESV) and ‘has happened’ (NET and NAS). The present state-oriented translation: ‘is happened’ (KJV) and ‘have’ (NLT). 59. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 262. 60. As mentioned before in the part of ἵστημι under the section of individual treatments, ἀνθεστηκότες belongs to the family of ἵστημι. This perfect is idiomatically constrained to take the active voice in form but intransitive meaning, highlighting a present state, while still implying anterior activity. 61. Porter, Idioms, 42. 62. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 828. 63. Runge, ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse,’ 246. 64. Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898; reprint, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 100.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 241

65. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 214. 66. According to Wallace, ‘εἰ + the indicative verb’ is categorized as the first class of the conditional structure. The conditional structure indicates ‘the assumption for the sake of argument.’ The conditional structure delivers a picture of reality. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 687–690. 67. In regard to the conditional structure, most understand verse 14 as a general statement or timeless statement without considering the inherent-dual feature of the perfect. Porter puts these perfects as ‘timeless’ because of timeless implicature in the conditional statements. He does not accept the anterior feature of the perfect. Rather he categorizes it as a general statement. Thus, his translation is ‘faith stands empty and the promise stands nullified,’ which misses the important reference of Abraham’s faith and promise. See Porter, Idioms, 42. In fact, two perfects are rendered as the present tense in English, which is appropriate to express a present general statement, e.g. KJV, NET, NIV, ESV, NLT. However, the Korean version is translated with the sense of the perfect. Refer to Romans 4:14 in NKRV: ‘만일 율법에 속한 자들이 상속자이면 믿음은 헛것이 되고 [되었고] 약속은 파기되었느니라’ (New Korean Revised Version). In Korean grammar, ‘었’(ut) in bold letters is used for two meanings; one is an action occurring in the past, and the other is a present state resulting from a completed action. Refer to Andrew Sangpil Byon, Modern Korean Grammar: A Practical Guide (New York: Routledge, 2017), 54. 68. ὅτι πατέρα πολλῶν ἐθνῶν τέθεικά σε (Gen 17:5 LXX Septuagint by Alfred Rahlfs), generated by BibleWorks. 69. Steven E. Runge, ‘Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse,’ in The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch (Bellingham, WA: Lexham 2016), 237. 70. There is a textual problem for this verb. Some important manuscripts have the present subjunctive form (ἔχωμεν). Even in this situation, Rule 1 is applicable. 71. K. L. McKay, ‘The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century A.D.,’ BICS 12 (December 1965): 12. 72. W. J. Perschbacher, New Testament Greek Syntax (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 310. 73. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 139. 74. Regarding ἵστημι, in the Greek lexicon the present has the intransitive meaning ‘be in a stationary position or stand’ (BDAG, 482). However, the present does not appear in the NT except for Romans 3:31, where it has the transitive meaning ‘uphold’ (BDAG, 482). The aorist appears sixty-five times in the NT. Forty-five of these aorists are in active voice, have an object, and have a transitive meaning. Twenty of these aorists are in passive voice and have an intransitive meaning; and out of these, in Romans, two aorist infinitives are used with transitive meaning and an object (Rom 10:3, 14:4), which focus on action. The perfect form of ἵστημι appears sixty-four times in the NT, every time in active voice and as intransitive. In Romans, two perfect indicatives of ἵστημι appear in Romans 5:2 and 11:20, indicating a present state of ‘standing.’ It is generally agreed that the perfect tense form of ἵστημι is used with a present meaning. Most English translations take the present tense: e.g. NET, NIV, KJV, and NLT. 75. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 270. 76. Ibid. 77. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 112–113. 78. Porter explains, ‘For the one who dies (ἀποθανών) is justified (δεδικαίωται) from sin [an emphatic opening statement]; but if we die (ἀπεθάνομεν) with Christ, we believe (πιστεύομεν) that indeed we can expect to live (future—see section 2.4) with him, knowing (εἰδότες) that Christ, being raised (ἐγερθείς) from the dead, no longer dies (ἀποθνῄσκει); death no longer dominates (κυριεύει) him.

242 

79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84.

85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

94.

95. 96. 97.

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

For the death he died (ἀπέθανεν), he died (ἀπέθανεν) to sin once; But what he lives (ζῇ) to God.’ See Porter, Idioms, 22. Ibid. Ibid., 23. See ibid., 22. Ibid. Dunn suggests that Paul uses the general statement of non-Christians to deliver his Christian argument: ‘death is the end of sin’s dominion for man (everybody); but only one man (Christ) has died a death which broke the final grip of death.’ See Dunn, Romans 1–8, 321. Cranfield argues that it is not a general statement about dead men but a specific theological statement that the man who has died with Christ in God’s gracious decision has been justified from his sin. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII, vol. 1, International Critical Commentary (London: T & T Clark, 1975), 311. Based on the connectives, Runge explains, ‘The analogy of burial and resurrection symbolized by baptism in 6:4 serves as the ground for the exhortation that follows in 6:11. The use of οὕτως καί correlates how we consider ourselves with our identification in baptism from 6:4. The οὖν in 6:12 signals progression to the next theme line exhortation in the discourse, building upon the preceding one.’ Runge, ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse,’ 245–246. Ibid., 243. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 268. Ibid. This conditional structure is considered as belonging to the first class condition, which indicates ‘the assumption of truth for the sake of argument.’ See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 690. Robert Crellin, ‘The Greek Perfect Active System: 200 BC–AD 150,’ TynBul 64 (2013): 160. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 270. Ibid. Porter persists that ‘temporal reference in Greek is a matter of pragmatic interpretation.’ See ibid. Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 123. Campbell argues that the aspect of the perfect is identical to the imperfective aspect of the present, believing that the perfect behaves similarly to the present. Using his illustration of the reporter and the street parade, the perfect is distinguished with the spatial value of proximity. Campbell does not consider the dual feature of the perfect. Rather, he understands that the perfect indicates heightened proximity than the present. For more information, see ibid., 50–51. In the NT only one present middle form (ἀνθίστανται) occurs in 2 Timothy 3:8, expressing a present state. It is observed that this present tense is used to contrast between the present state of people at present and the past state of Jannes and Jambres who opposed Moses. There are nine aorist actives with intransitive meaning, expressing a past state (Matt 5:39; Luke 21:15; Acts 6:10; Gal 2:11; Eph 6:13; 2 Tim 3:8; 4:15; James 4:7; 1 Pet 5:9). Dunn, Romans 9–16, 556–557. Cranfield, Romans 9–16, 489. Comrie discusses four types of the perfect:  the perfect of result, the experiential perfect, the perfect of persistent situation, and the perfect of recent past. He puts the perfect of ἵστημι into the category of ‘the perfect of result.’ See Bernard Comrie, Aspect (Cambridge:  Cambridge

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 243

University Press, 1976), 56–57. According to Comrie, since ἀνθίστημι belongs to the family of ἵστημι, it should belong to the perfect of result. However, the perfect of ἀνθίστημι can be understood to belong to ‘the perfect of experience.’ At any rate, this perfect is used to highlight the anterior resistance that can bring about its result or experience. 98. For more information, See Dunn, Romans 9–16, 571. 99. Hatina also discusses ἠγαπημένοι in Colossians 3:12 (Ἐνδύσασθε οὖν, ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι, ‘Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved clothe yourselves’). He raises the question of why Paul uses the perfect participle instead of the adjective proper. He concludes that Paul may have wanted to draw attention to God’s love. Among three descriptions about God’s people (the elect, holy, and beloved), Hatina understands the choice of the perfect participle as having more emphasis than the other two. Further he mentions that another reason why the perfect participle is considered emphatic is that it is morphologically bulkier than other two. He does not consider the dual feature of the perfect but simply the function of emphasis. He explains, ‘In this context the perfect refers temporally to a present time, and not to an anterior action with continuing results.’ See Thomas R. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Colossians: Verbal Aspect, Temporality and the Challenge of Translation,’ in Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 173 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 244. However, according to the grammatical structure, the description ‘the elect’ seems to be more emphasized than the ‘holy’ and ‘beloved’ because ‘the elect’ appears first in the phrase (ὡς ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ ἠγαπημένοι). In the larger context (Col 3:12–4:6), the main theme is the identity of a new man, who is a chosen one. Thus, the perfect participle is chosen for support of the identity of the elect with the dual feature. For Paul, the state of ‘beloved’ means the new status of one who was received through Christ and presently is loved by Him (Col 3: 10–11). 100. Dunn, Romans 9–16, 569. 101. With the introductory verb, Dunn mentions that the point is not emphasized and does not reduce the scriptural authority. See ibid., 571. 102. ἰδοὺ προείρηκα ὑμῖν (Matt 24:25), ὑμεῖς δὲ βλέπετε· προείρηκα ὑμῖν πάντα (Mark 13:23), καὶ καθὼς προείρηκεν Ἠσαΐας· (Rom 9:29, the present tense appears in the previous verse), πρὸς κατάκρισιν οὐ λέγω· προείρηκα γὰρ ὅτι …(2 Cor 7:3), προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω (2 Cor 13:2), ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω· (Gal 1:9), and πάλιν τινὰ ὁρίζει … καθὼς προείρηται· (Heb 4:7). 103. Hatina, ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study,’ 9. 104. Ibid., 8. 105. Ibid., 9. 106. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 910. 107. The perfect infinitive (πεπληρωκέναι in v. 19) is not associated with κατειργάσατο (‘accomplished’) in v. 18 because the aorist (κατειργάσατο) appears in the relative clause depending on the main verb (τολμήσω ‘the future’ in v. 18). The subject of the main verb (‘I’) is the same as that of the perfect infinitive (‘I’). Thus I prefer to associate the perfect infinitive with the main verb (τολμήσω). In fact, whether the perfect infinitive is associated with non-past indicative or past indicative, it indicates anterior temporality according to the idiomatic function of the perfect infinitive. 108. Robertson understands that this perfect infinitive is chosen to convey antecedence. See Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 909.

244 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

bibliography Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003. Byon, Andrew Sangpil. Modern Korean Grammar: A Practical Guide. New York: Routledge, 2017. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan, 2008. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Cranfield, Charles Ernest Burland. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:  Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII. Vol.  1. International Critical Commentary. London: T & T Clark, 1975. Cranfield, Charles Ernest Burland. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Commentary on Romans IX–XVI and Essays. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary. London: T & T Clark, 1979. Crellin, Robert. ‘Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek.’ JSNT 35 (2012): 196–202. Crellin, Robert. ‘The Greek Perfect Active System: 200 BC–AD 150.’ TynBul 64 (2013): 157–160. Dunn, James Douglas Grant. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary, vol.  38A. Dallas, TX: Word, 1998. Dunn, James Douglas Grant. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary, vol.  38B. Dallas, TX: Word, 1998. Fanning, Buist Martin. ‘Defining the Ancient Greek Perfect: Interaction with Recent Alternatives to the Traditional View of the Perfect.’ In The Perfect Volume: Critical Discussion of the Semantics of the Greek Perfect under Aspect Theory, ed. Donald Arthur Carson, 1–19. New York: Peter Lang, forthcoming. Fanning, Buist Martin. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Recent Debate: Galatians as a Case Study.’ FN 15 8 (1995): 3–22. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘The Perfect Tense-Form in Colossians: Verbal Aspect, Temporality and the Challenge of Translation.’ In Translating the Bible: Problems and Prospects, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 173, 224–252. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Haug, Dag T. T. ‘Aristotle’s Kinesis/Energeia-Test and the Semantics of the Greek Perfect.’ Linguistics 42, no. 2 (2004): 387–418. Hewett, James Allen. New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986. McKay, Kenneth Leslie. ‘The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect Down to the Second Century A.D.’. BICS 12 (December 1965): 1–21. Moo, Douglas J. ‘Romans.’ In New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. Donald Arthur Carson et al., 4th ed., 1115–1160. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Mounce, Robert Hayden. Romans. NAC. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995. Perschbacher, W. J. New Testament Greek Syntax. Chicago: Moody, 1995. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages:  Greek. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Porter, Stanley E. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.

the pe rf e c t t e n s e i n   r o ma n s  | 245

Preisker, Herbert. ‘Ἐγγύς, Ἐγγίζω, Προσεγγίζω.’ In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, vol.  2. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1965. Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934. Runge, Steven E. ‘The Contribution of Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Chirstopher J. Fresch, 221–272. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Runge, Steven E. ‘Discourse Function of the Greek Perfect.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited:  A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 458–485. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Runge, Steven E. ‘Verb Forms, Connectives, and Dependency to Grounding Status in Nonnarrative Discourse.’ In The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis, ed. Steven E. Runge and Christopher J. Fresch, 220–272. Bellingham, WA: Lexham 2016. Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book, 1920. Wallace, Daniel Baird. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Witmer, John A. ‘Romans.’ In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2, 435–503. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.

Conclusion

Stanley E. Porter presents an understanding of the ancient Greek perfect tense form that differs from the traditional understanding. Disregarding anterior activity, Porter suggests that the perfect is chosen only to deliver a present state of the subject. Further, he connects the choice of the perfect to the notion of prominence on a discourse level, arguing that the perfect is chosen to indicate the highest prominence (frontground). In contrast, based on the traditional understanding that the perfect tense combines the present and the aorist, I  have suggested that the perfect is chosen to indicate its inherent dual feature. In an immediate context, the perfect indicates both a present state and the anterior activity which resulted in that present state; and these indications function as background for main events or themes in a larger context. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate Porter’s suggestions of ‘frontground’ (the highest prominence) for the perfect tense form and to resolve the conflict between the traditional understanding and Porter’s by verifying that the traditional understanding is more appropriate for exegesis. In ch 2, I evaluated Porter’s theories of markedness and grounding because his theory of frontground (the highest prominence for the perfect) was based on those theories. Through my study of Porter’s theory of markedness, I found that markedness values (or prominence values) are to be discussed in binary oppositions, indicating that one half of the binary pair is more prominent than the other. However, Porter suggests multiple oppositions in the Greek verb, placing

248 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

the markedness values of the Greek verb on a cline of ‘least, more, most.’ Based on his theory of markedness, Porter suggests that the perfect is to be placed in the highest prominence on a discourse level. I pointed out two problems with the concept of markedness values. The first problem is that there is no unity among the criteria for markedness values that have been suggested by various scholars. The second problem is that the criteria already determined for markedness values can change according to various contexts. I discussed Porter’s criteria to see why he determined the perfect as indicating the heaviest markedness. In 1989, Porter presented four criteria for determining the perfect’s markedness values: material, implicational, distributional, and semantic. In 2009, he suggested five criteria: material, implicational, distributional, positional, and cognitive. Through working on each criterion, I observed that most of them are unsatisfactory for verifying the heaviest markedness of the perfect. Rather, I found that the perfect’s morphological bulkiness, regularity, and small distribution result from the historical process of formation and that the choice of the perfect is constrained by grammatical convention. Porter’s 2009 additions of positional and cognitive criteria (as opposed to semantic criteria) are unsatisfactory to verify the author’s intention for the highest prominence. In order to explain ancient Greek’s semantic complexity, Porter uses the picture of a parade, arguing that the perfect functions like the parade manager. Also, in order to explain Greek’s semantic delicacy, he uses the illustration of ‘planes of discourse,’ arguing that the perfect functions like ‘a single book’ drawn off a shelf in a bookcase. His explanations sound theoretically persuasive but are ineffective in actual texts. Thus, I argued that Porter’s criteria for markedness values are inappropriate for explaining the perfect’s prominence on a discourse level. We cannot say that the perfect’s markedness is related to the author or writer’s intentional choice to indicate the highest prominence. I investigated the concept of grounding in general linguistics because Porter used the theory of grounding for the perfect’s prominence. The concept of grounding started from the concept of ‘foregrounding’ in poetic texts. I observed three different understandings of the concept of foregrounding. First, in poetic texts, foregrounding is ‘deviation from a norm,’ which is a foreground device or a prominence device that draws the reader’s attention. On the other hand, normal text functions as background. Second, in non-poetic texts, foregrounding is ‘mainline information,’ while supportive information is background. Third, in non-poetic texts, some observe deviations from two normal types of information (mainline and supportive). These deviations function the way foreground devices or prominence devices function in poetic texts, drawing the reader’s attention. Thus, scholars have suggested that, in non-poetic texts, there are three types of information, or three grounds: two normal types of information (mainline and supportive) and

co n c lu si o n  | 249

a deviation from mainline and supportive information. They understand that the deviation indicates the highest prominence as a foreground device or a prominence device. Porter adopts three grounds to explain the functions of three Greek tenses as relating to prominence values. He coined a new term, ‘frontground,’ for the third ground. Thus, Porter suggests that the perfective aspect (aorist) is the background tense indicating the least prominence, the imperfective aspect (present or imperfect) is the foreground tense indicating more prominence than the background, and the stative aspect (perfect or pluperfect) is the frontground tense indicating the highest prominence. However, Porter’s grounding theory creates two issues. First, Porter mismatches the concept of foregrounding in poetic texts (abnormal) to supportive information in non-poetic texts (normal). Thus, for Porter, in non-poetic texts mainline information is background and supportive material is foreground. Porter uses the terms of foreground and background in the opposite way of general linguistics where mainline information is foreground, and supportive material is background. Second, Porter mismatches a foreground device (or a prominence device) in poetic texts to the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts. As a result, Porter argues that the perfect tense form in non-poetic texts is the highest prominence-indicator called ‘frontground.’ I have argued that the perfect is not a deviation from a norm but belongs to supporting material for main events or themes. The perfect is chosen not to indicate the highest prominence in a larger context but to indicate the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity in an immediate context. In ch 3, I concentrated on the validity of the traditional understanding of the perfect compared with Porter’s. The dual feature of the perfect has been recognized from earlier studies of Greek until today, although one side of the dual feature can be more highlighted than the other—like a pendulum movement. I  found that various categories of the use of the perfect that scholars have suggested are rooted in its dual feature. Porter denies temporality of the Greek perfect, relies on a present state of the perfect, and disregards anterior activity. However, I found that the semantic function of the perfect has developed toward anterior activity with a resultant state, finally happening to merge with the aorist. This means that anterior activity has not been disregarded. Thus, I suggested that we should interpret Greek texts in light of the dual feature of the perfect (although there are cases where anterior activity cannot be seen clearly). I suggested that on a discourse level the perfect is not used to carry events or themes forward (whether in narrative or expository discourse) and thus functions as background in a larger context. I suggested my Three Rules as a means of examining examples of Greek perfects in chs 4 and 5. I  assumed that the native speaker has an unconscious

250 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

knowledge of grammar that ‘provides a system for pairing sound and meaning.’1 Based on this assumption, I hypothesized that the speaker or writer would have chosen the perfect thinking of its inherent-dual feature and with the intention of complementing the meaning of the text. I formulated my Three Rules using two diagrams based on the perspectives of a finite verb and an adjective. Rule 1 and Rule 2 belong to the first diagram, and Rule 3 belongs to the second diagram. Rule 1 states that when the speaker or writer chooses the perfect as a finite verb in association with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative, the perfect complements the meaning of a present state by indicating anterior activity. A perfect in this situation highlights the subject’s anterior activity (either temporal or logical) while still engaging its present state. Rule 2 states that when the speaker or writer chooses the perfect as a finite verb in association with the past indicative or aorist non-indicative, the perfect complements the meaning of anterior activity by describing a present state. Thus, it appears that a perfect in this situation highlights the subject’s present state, while still implying its anterior activity. Rule 3 states that when the speaker or writer chooses the perfect participle in connection with a substantive, the perfect participle describes a substantive with the dual feature of the perfect. The perfect active participle tends to highlight anterior activity. The perfect middle/passive participle tends to highlight a present state. In chs 4 and 5, I selected two books in the NT as test cases for the perfect: the Gospel of Mark for narrative discourse and the Epistle to the Romans for expository discourse. In Mark I found ninety-two perfects and eight pluperfects. For discussion, I divided them into five categories: perfect indicative, perfect non-indicative, individual treatments, pluperfect, and passage studies. In Romans I found seventy-nine perfects and one pluperfect. For discussion, I divided them into four categories:  perfect indicative, perfect non-indicative, individual treatments, and passage studies. I used my Three Rules as a means of discussion to demonstrate that the traditional understanding of the perfect has more explanatory power for exegesis than Porter’s. I found it possible to interpret all the perfects in Mark and Romans in light of the perfect’s inherent dual feature, even in cases where anterior activity was not clearly evident. My argument is that, regardless of genre difference, the perfect is chosen to indicate the dual feature of a present state resulting from anterior activity in an immediate context and function as background for main events or themes in a larger context. Thus, Porter’s suggestions of a third level of ‘frontground’ (the highest prominence) for the perfect are not valid.

co n c lu s i o n  | 251

notes 1. The unconscious knowledge, which is tacit or implicit, is called ‘linguistic competence.’ See A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 910.

bibliography Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th ed. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934.

Index of biblical references

Biblical references in bold are featured in the test cases. Page numbers with appended ‘t’ indicate a table.   Old Testament Malachi 3:1 101 Genesis 4:5–6 101 1:31 103   17:5 221 New Testament Psalms 5:10 193 Matthew 118:26 154 13:46 111 Isaiah 15:32–39 104 1:9 231 20:23 108 6:9–10 99 24:25 232 10:22 231 27:15 139 35:5 103 28:5 164 52:15 235 Mark 56:7 103 1:1–3 101 Jeremiah 1:1–8 141 7:11 103 1:2 125–127, 126t Hosea 1:6 140, 140t, 141 1:10 231 1:14–15 94–98 2:25 231 1:15 94–98, 95t, 121

254 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

1:24 127–129, 128t 1:25 124 1:32–34 141 1:33 140, 140t, 141 1:34 138–139, 138t 2:10 129, 130t 3:1 114, 115t 3:1–6 114 4:10–12 99 4:11 95t, 99 4:13 127–129, 128t 4:13–20 117–118 4:13–23 99 4:15 115t, 117–118 4:26–29 133 4:27 127–129, 128t 4:29 131t, 133–134 4:35–41 123–124 4:39 123–124, 123t 5:1–20 142–146, 143–144t 5:3 125 5:4 79, 123t, 124–125, 143t, 145 5:14 144t, 145 5:15 144t, 145–146 5:19 109t, 144t, 146 5:25–34 147–150, 148t 5:29 93, 147, 148t 5:33 93, 112t, 113, 129, 130t, 147, 148t 5:34 148t, 149–150 6:7–13 100, 119 6:8–9 119 6:9 115t, 119 6:14 95t, 99–101 6:14–29 99–101 6:17–29 101 6:20 129, 130t 6:30 100 6:45–52 141–142 6:52 140, 140t, 141–142 7:6 125–127, 126t 7:24–30 150–152, 150t 7:31–37 102–103 7:37 95t, 102–103 8:1–9 104 8:3 96t, 104 8:14–21 119–120 8:17 116t, 119–120

8:34–38 120 9:1 116t, 120–121, 131t, 132 9:2–8 120 9:6 138–139, 138t 9:9–13 101–102 9:11–13 101 9:12 125–127, 126t 9:13 95t, 101–102, 125–127, 126t 9:14–29 105 9:21 96t, 105 9:42 96t, 107–108 9:42–50 108 10:1 138, 138t, 139 10:4 125–126 10:5 125–126 10:19 127–129, 128t 10:28 109t, 110–111 10:28–31 110–111 10:35–45 108–109 10:38 127–129, 128t 10:40 96t, 108–109 10:42 127–129, 128t 10:52 148t, 149–150 11:1–11 152–154, 153t 11:5 131t, 132, 153t, 154 11:15–19 103–104 11:17 96t, 103–104, 125–127, 126t 11:20 114–117, 115t 11:20–24 111–112, 117 11:21 109t, 111–112 11:33 127–129, 129t 12:14 127–129, 129t 12:15 129, 130t 12:19 125–126 12:24 129, 130t 13:14 131t, 132 13:14–23 105–107, 132 13:19 96t, 105–106 13:23 232 13:32 127–129, 128t 13:33 127–129, 128t 13:35 127–129, 128t 14:3–9 107 14:4 96t, 107 14:12–16 121 14:15 116t, 121–122 14:17–26 121

index o f b i b l i c a l r e f e r e n c e s  | 255

14:21 125–127, 126t 14:27 125–127, 126t 14:32–42 98 14:40 138–139, 138t 14:42 95t, 98 14:43–47 137 14:44 136, 136t, 137 14:47 131t, 133 14:51 114 14:68 127–129, 128t 14:69 131t, 133 14:70 131t, 133 14:71 127–129, 128t 15:6–15 154–156, 155t 15:7 136, 136t, 137, 140, 155t, 156 15:10 136, 136t, 137 15:22–32 157–159, 157t 15:26 140, 157t, 158, 159 15:35 131t, 133 15:39 131t, 133 15:42–47 159–162, 160t 15:44 93, 160–162, 160t 15:46 140, 160t, 162 15:47 93, 160t, 162 16:1–8 162–165, 163t 16:4 93, 112t, 113, 163, 163t, 164 16:9 136, 136t, 137–138 16:14 117t, 122 16:14–18 122 Luke 1:30 198 2:24 221 John 3:1–15 127 7:22 110 8:19–20 135 Acts 2:16 221 13:40 221 15:29 124 17:23 159 18:18–19 215 18:26 215 Romans 1:1 190t, 191–192 1:1–7 191–192 1:18–32 192–193

1:29 189, 190t, 192–193 2:2 202t, 204 2:12–16 212 2:17–24 209–210 2:19 208t, 209–210 2:20 208t 2:25 181t, 211, 212–213, 212t, 226–227 2:25–29 212–213 3:9–20 193 3:13 190t, 193 3:19 202t, 204 3:21 180–183, 181t 3:21–26 180–183, 193–194 3:25 190t, 193–194 4:1 79, 196, 197–198, 197t 4:1–12 197–198 4:13–25 218–222, 219–220t 4:14 185t, 218–221, 219t 4:17 181t, 219t, 221 4:18 190t, 219t, 221 4:19 190t, 219t, 221–222 4:21 181t, 219t, 222 4:23 199 5:1–5 222–224, 222t 5:2 181t, 205t, 222t, 223–224 5:3 203t, 204, 222t, 224 5:5 181t, 222t, 224 6:1–11 224–228, 225t 6:5 182t, 211, 212t, 225t, 226–227 6:6 225t, 227 6:7 185t, 216t, 225t, 226, 227–228 6:7–10 21 6:7–11 79 6:9 203t, 204, 225t, 226, 228 6:16 202t, 204 7:1–6 186 7:2 185t, 186–187 7:7 135, 203t, 204 7:14 189, 190t, 194–195, 202t, 204 7:14–25 194–195 7:18 202t, 204 8:22 202t, 204 8:26 202t, 204 8:27 202t, 204 8:28 202t, 204 8:31–39 206–207, 210 8:38 205t, 206–207, 208t, 210

256 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

8:39 208t 9:6 181t, 184 9:6–13 184 9:17–18 230 9:19 205t, 228–230, 229t 9:19–29 228–232, 229t 9:20–23 229t, 230 9:22 190t, 228, 230–231 9:25 191t, 228, 229t, 231 9:25–26 229t, 231 9:27 229t, 231 9:29 181t, 229t, 231–232 10:5 199 11:1–10 213–214 11:5 182t, 211, 212t, 213–214 11:11–24 205–206 11:12 202t, 204 11:20 205–206, 205t 11:25 185t, 211–212, 211t, 214 11:25–36 206, 214 13:1 189, 191t, 215, 216, 216t 13:2 205t, 215, 216–217, 216t 13:8 182t, 215, 216t, 217 13:9–10 217 13:11 203t, 204 13:11–14 187–188 13:12 185t, 187–188 14:13–23 210–211 14:14 208t, 210–211 14:23 182t, 210–211, 215, 216t, 217 15:1–6 198 15:7–13 198 15:8 79, 196, 197t, 198–199 15:14 189, 191t, 208t, 209, 232–234, 233t 15:14–21 232–235, 233t 15:16 189, 191t, 233t, 234 15:19 79, 196–197, 197t, 233t, 234–235 15:21 181t, 233t, 235 16:3–16 214–215 16:7 182t, 211, 212t, 214–215 16:25 191t, 195–196 16:25–27 195–196

1 Corinthians 1:23 164 2:2 164 3:22 207 7:26 207 16:19 215 2 Corinthians 7:3 232 13:2 232 Galatians 1:4 207 1:9 106–107, 232 3:1 164 3:10 199 3:16 199 4:30 199 Ephesians 5:5 124 Philippians 4:5 188 Colossians 2:1 75 2:18 75 4:3 75 2 Thessalonians 2:2 207 2 Timothy 4:19 215 Hebrews 4:7 232 9:9 207 13:18 209 James 1:19 124 5:8 188 1 Peter 4:7 188 1 John 2:19 135 Revelation 5:7 76, 111 21:12 159

Index of Greek terms

Page numbers with appended ‘t’ indicate a table.

Α ἀκηκόασιν 181t, 233t, 235 ἀνεῳγμένος 190t, 193 ἀνθέστηκεν 205t, 216–217, 216t, 228–230, 229t ἀνθεστηκότες 205t, 216–217, 216t ἀνθίστημι 81, 204–205, 205t, 228–230, 229t ἀποθνῄσκω 161 ἀποκεκύλισται 112t, 113, 163, 163t, 164 ἀφωρισμένος 190t, 191–192

γέγραπται 79, 125–127, 126t, 199–201, 200– 201t, 206–207, 219t, 221, 233t, 235

Δ

βεβλημένον 150t, 151–152 βέβληται 96t, 107–108

δέδεμαι 75 δεδεμένον 152–154, 153t δεδεμένος 155t, 156 δεδέσθαι, 123t, 124–125, 145 δέδεται 185t, 186–187 δεδικαίωται 79, 185t, 216t, 225t, 226, 227–228 δέδοται 95t, 99 δεδώκει 136t, 137 διεσπάσθαι 123t, 124–125, 145

Γ

Ε

γεγενῆσθαι 197t, 198–199 γεγόναμεν 182t, 211t, 225t, 226–227 γέγοναν 182t, 214–215 γέγονεν 96t, 105, 105–106, 107, 112t, 113, 147, 148t, 181t, 182t, 185t, 211–215, 226–227 γεγονός 144t, 145

ἐγηγερμένον 117t, 122 ἐγήγερται 95t, 99–101 εἰδῆτε 129, 130t εἰδότες 129, 130t, 203t, 204, 222t, 224, 225t, 226, 228 εἰδυῖα 112t, 113, 129, 130t, 147, 148t

Β

258 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

εἰδώς 129, 130t εἴληφεν 76 εἰρημένον 190t, 219t, 221 εἰώθει 138, 138t, 139 ἐκβεβλήκει 136t, 137–138 ἐκκέχυται 181t, 222t, 224 ἐκπέπτωκεν 181t, 184 ἐλήλυθεν 95t, 101–102 ἐληλυθυῖαν 116t, 120–121 έλπίζω 74 ἐνδεδυμένος 140t, 141 ἐνεστῶτα 205t, 206–207 ἐνίστημι 81, 204–205, 205t, 206–207 ἐξελήλυθεν 150t, 151 ἐξεληλυθός 150t, 152 ἐξηραμμένην 114–117, 115t ἐξήρανται 109t, 111–112 ἑόρακαν 75 ἑόρακεν 75 ἐπήγγελται 181t, 219t, 222 ἐπιγεγραμμένη 157t, 158, 159 ἐπισυνηγμένη 140t, 141 ἐσμυρνισμένον 157t, 158 ἐσπαρμένον 115t, 117–118 ἐσταυρωμένον 163t, 164, 165 ἑστήκαμεν 205t, 222t, 223–224 ἕστηκας 205–206, 205t ἑστηκότα 131t, 132 ἑστηκότων 132, 153t, 154 ἐστρωμένον 121–122 ἐσχήκαμεν 181t, 222t, 223 ἐσχηκότα 144t, 145–146 εὐλογημένος 153t, 154 εὐρηκέναι 197–198, 197t

Η ἠγαπημένην 191t, 228, 229t, 231 ἤγγικεν 94–98, 95t, 98, 185t, 187–188 ἡγιασμένη 191t, 233t, 234 ᾔδει 138–139, 138t ᾔδειν 138–139, 138t, 203t, 204 ᾔδεισαν 138–139, 138t ἥκασιν 96t, 104 ἠκολουθήκαμέν 109t, 110–111 ἡτοίμασται 96t, 108–109

Θ θεωροῦσιν 112t, 113 θνῄσκω 161

Ι ἴαται 147, 148t ἱματισμένον 144t, 145–146 ἵστημι family (ἵστημι, ἐνίστημι, ἀνθίστημι, παρίστημι) 74, 81, 130–134, 131t, 189, 204– 208, 205t, 223–224, 228–230

Κ κατακέκριται 182t, 210–211, 216t, 217 κατήργηται 185t, 186–187, 218–221, 219t κατηρτισμένα 190t, 228, 229t, 230–231 κεκένωται 185t, 218–221, 219t

Λ λελατομημένον 160t, 162

Ν νενεκρωμένον 190t, 219t, 221–222

Ο οἶδα 79, 112t, 113, 127–129, 128–129t, 129, 130t, 138, 138t, 147, 148t, 201–204, 202– 203t, 222t, 224, 225t, 226, 228

Π παραδεδώκεισαν 136t, 137, 155t, 156 παρέστηκεν 133–134 παρεστηκότων 131t, 133 παρεστηκώς 131t, 133 παρεστῶσιν 131t, 133 παρεστῶτες 131t, 133 παρίστημι 81, 130–134, 131t πείθω (πέπεισμαι, πέποιθας) 79, 206–207, 208– 211, 208t, 209, 232–233, 233t πεπλήρωκεν 182t, 216t, 217 πεπληρωκέναι 197t, 234–235 πεπληρωμένοι 191t, 233t, 234 πεπληρωμένους 190t, 192–193 πεπλήρωται 94–98, 95t πεποίηκα 77 πεποιήκατε 96t, 103–104

i n d e x o f g r e e k   t e r m s  | 259

πεποιήκεισαν 136t, 137, 155t, 156 πεποίηκεν 95t, 102–103, 144t, 146 πέποιθας 79, 208t, 209–210 πεπραμένος 190t, 194–195 πεπωρωμένη 140t, 141–142 πεπωρωμένην 116t, 119–120 περιβεβλημένον 163–165, 163t περιβεβλημένος 115t, 118 πεφανέρωται 180–183, 181t πεφίμωσο 123–124, 123t ποιέω 74 προγεγονότων 190t, 193–194 προείρηκα 96t, 105, 106–107, 232 προειρήκαμεν 232 προείρηκεν 181t, 229t, 231–232

Σ σεσιγημένου 191t, 195–196 σέσωκεν 148t, 149–150 συνεσταυρωμένοι 157t, 158, 159 συντετρῖφθαι 123t, 124–125, 145

Τ τέθεικα 181t, 219t, 221 τέθειται 160t, 162 τέθνηκεν 160–162, 160t τεταγμέναι 191t, 216, 216t

Υ ὑποδεδεμένους 115t, 119

Index

Greek terms which appear as subheadings are filed after the English subheadings. (There is also a separate index of Greek terms.) Page numbers with appended ‘t’ indicate a table.

A active voice vs. middle/passive 80–81, 82t, 130–132, 140, 146, 230–231 Aktionsart 3–5 Allan, Rutger K. 72 Andersen, Henning 23, 27 anterior activity 71–77, 80, 81 aorist indicative 97, 109–112 aorist non-indicative 2, 80, 185–188, 185t, 214, 227 aorist tense 34, 35, 37, 38, 160–162 See also aorist indicative; aorist nonindicative aspect 1–8, 27, 34–35, 37, 42, 70, 76, 79 aspectual distinction (aspectual opposition) 5–6, 79 augments 2

B Bache, Carl 4

background 30, 37–39 See also foreground Barnard, Jody A. 18, 42 Battistella, Edwin 21, 22, 24, 25 Bentein, Klaas 72 Bhat, D. N. Shankara 34, 73 binary oppositions 20–21, 78 Blass, F. (‘BDF’) 71 Brooks, James A. 71 Burton, Ernest De Witt 6, 110, 220 Buth, Randall 77 Bybee, Joan 71–72, 73

C Campbell, Constantine R. 3, 7, 32, 71, 77, 227–228 categories of the perfect 71, 79–82 Cirafesi, Wally V. 27 Cole, R. Alan 102 Comrie, Bernard 4, 5, 22, 73

262 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

Cook, Guy 35–36 Cotrozzi, Stefano 36, 39 Cranfield, C. E. B. 211, 230 Crellin, Robert 7–8, 198, 227

D Dahl, Östen 4, 22 Dasher, Richard B. 75 Debrunner, A. (‘BDF’) 71 Decker, Rodney J. 3, 43, 76, 97, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 109, 112, 134, 147, 156, 161 DeLancey, Scott 33 direct discourse 93, 94–112, 95–96t, 109t, 146, 151, 221 discourse and grammar-integrated methodology (defined) xxii discourse genre direct discourse 93, 94–112, 95–96t, 109t, 146, 151, 221 expository discourse 34–35, 38, 117, 180–184, 181–182t, 185–188, 185t, 210, 211–215, 216, 217, 223, 224, 226, 227–228, 231–232, 235 grounding and 30–37, 38 narrative discourse 30–31, 32–37, 38, 161, 162 non-direct discourse 112–113, 112t, 161 poetic texts 30, 31–32 Douthwaite, John 36, 41 Dry, Helen Aristar 33, 39 dual feature of the perfect 69–71 Dunn, James D. G. 183, 197–198, 206, 210, 211, 214, 220–221

foreground 30, 31–39 as additional information 35–37 as deviation from a norm 31–32, 43 as mainline information 32–35, 39, 43 in Porter’s theory 37–39 prominence and 39 Forsyth, James 34 Friedrich, Paul 3, 5 frontground xxi–xxii, 17–18, 27, 30–31, 39–44 Funk, Robert W. (‘BDF’) 71

G genre of discourse. See discourse genre Gerö, Eva-Carin 72 Givón, T. 23, 24 grammaticalizing xxi Grassmick, John D. 151 Greek verb (overview) 1–8 Greenberg, J. H. 22–23, 25, 27 Grimes, J. E. 32 grounding 17–18, 29–44 introduction 29–31 foreground 30, 31–39 as additional information 35–37 as deviation from a norm 31–32 as mainline information 32–35 prominence and 39 Porter’s theory 37–45 foreground and background 37–39 frontground xxi–xxii, 17–18, 27, 30– 31, 39–44 Guelich, Robert A. 97 Gundry, Robert Horton 102

E

H

Eakin, Frank 110 Evans, Trevor V. 76–77, 102, 121, 154 expository discourse 34–35, 38, 117, 180–184, 181–182t, 185–188, 185t, 210, 211–215, 216, 217, 223, 224, 226, 227–228, 231– 232, 235

Haspelmath, Martin 22, 24–25, 26, 72 Hatina, Thomas R. 75–76, 106, 199, 232 Haug, Dag T. T. 72, 75 Hewett, James Allen 209 historical present 41, 113, 158, 164 Homeric Greek 5, 72 Hopper, Paul J. 32–33, 34 Horrocks, Geoffrey C. 74

F Fanning, Buist M. 1–3, 4, 5, 7, 23–24, 41, 42, 71, 73, 102, 110, 137, 149, 205, 209, 223, 224

I imperfective aspect 7, 27, 34, 35, 37, 70

i n d e x  | 263

imperfect tense 2, 34, 37 indicative mood 2 See also aorist indicative; perfect indicative indirect discourse. See non-direct discourse

J Jakobson, Roman 5, 20, 32 Janda, Laura A. 22, 23 Jannaris, Antonius Nikolaus 72 Jones, Larry B. 37, 41 Jones, Linda K. 37, 41

K Klutz, Todd 41, 43 Kümmel, Werner Georg 97

L Labov, William 33 Levinsohn, Stephen H. 34–35, 42–43, 139–140 Longacre, Robert E. 34–35, 36, 40, 41 Lyons, John 4, 23

M markedness 17, 18–29 Martín-Asensio, Gustavo 33 Mathewson, David 76 McKay, K. L. 4, 6, 18, 74–75, 77, 110, 111, 124, 129, 223 Merkle, Benjamin L. 18 middle/passive voice vs. active 80–81, 82t, 130–132, 140, 146, 230–231 Moravcsik, Edith 29 Moule, C. F. D. 6 Moulton, J. H. 6, 110 Mounce, Robert H. 211 Mukarovsky, Jan 31–32

N narrative discourse 30–31, 32–37, 38, 161, 162 non-direct discourse 112–113, 112t, 161 non-indicative moods 2

O Olsen, Mari Broman 4–5 Orriens, Sander 73–74, 93 Ozete, Oscar 34

P Pagliuca, William 71–72 Palu, Ma’afu 97 passive voice vs. active 80–81, 82t, 130–132, 140, 146, 230–231 perfect imperative. See under perfect nonindicative perfect indicative with the historical present (Rule 2) 164 with the non-past indicative or present non-indicative (Rule 1) 79–80, 179 in direct discourse 94–109, 95–96t, 151, 221 in expository discourse 180–184, 181–182t, 211–215, 216, 217, 223, 224, 227, 231–232, 235 with the past indicative or aorist nonindicative (Rule 2) 80, 179 in direct discourse 109–112, 109t, 146 in expository discourse 185–188, 185t, 211–212, 214, 227–228 in narrative discourse 161, 162 in non-direct discourse 112–113, 112t, 161 ἀνθίστημι (Rule 1) 204–205, 205t, 228– 230, 229t γέγραπται (Rule 2) 125–127, 126t, 199–201, 200–201t, 235 ἵστημι (Rule 2) 204–206, 205t, 223–224 οἶδα (Rule 2) 127–129, 128–129t, 201–204, 202–203t παρίστημι (Rule 1) 131t, 133–134 πείθω (Rule 2) 208–211, 208t perfect infinitive. See under perfect nonindicative perfective aspect 7, 27, 34, 35, 37, 70 perfect non-indicative perfect imperative (Rule 1) 123–124, 123t perfect infinitive (Rule 1) 79, 123t, 124– 125, 196–199, 197t, 234–235 perfect participle (Rule 3) 80–82, 113–122, 115–117t, 130–133, 131t, 145–146, 151–156, 157–159, 163–165, 189–196, 205t, 207, 216, 217, 221–222, 230– 231, 234 in pluperfect periphrastic construction 139–142, 154, 162

264 

| 

the greek perfect tense in the gospel of mark and the epistle to the   romans

perfect participle οἶδα (Rule 2) 129, 130t, 203t, 204, 228 perfect subjunctive 129, 130t ἀνθίστημι (Rule 3) 204–205, 205t ἐνίστημι (Rule 3) 204–205, 205t, 206–207 ἵστημι (Rule 3) 130–133, 131t οἶδα (Rule 2) 129, 130t, 201–204, 203t, 224 παρίστημι (Rule 3) 130–133, 131t perfect participle. See under perfect nonindicative perfect subjunctive 129, 130t perfect tense 6–8, 69–82 anterior activity and 71–77, 80, 81 author’s Three Rules 78–82, 81t, 82t, 179 categories of 71, 79–82 dual feature of 69–71 Porter’s grounding and 37–38, 39–44 Porter’s markedness in 26–29 See also perfect indicative; perfect nonindicative Perkins, Revere 71–72 Perschbacher, W. J. 71, 223 Picirilli, Robert E. 42 Pitts, Andrew W. 127 pluperfect tense 2, 134–142 periphrastic construction (Rule 3) 139– 142, 154, 162 pluperfect active indicative (Rule 1) 79, 136–138, 156 Porter and 37, 134–135 Reed and 43 ᾔδειν and εἰώθει (Rule 2) 138–139, 138t, 203t, 204 poetic texts, grounding and 30, 31–32 Polanyi-Bowditch, Livia 36, 40, 41 Porter, Stanley E. xxi–xxii, 17–18 on the future as aspectually vague 94 on Greek verbal aspect 1–3, 5, 7, 79 on grounding 37–45 foreground and background 37–39 frontground xxi–xxii, 17–18, 27, 30– 31, 39–44 on Mark 5:19 146 on Mark 5:33 147 on Mark 7:24–30 151 on Mark 9:21 105

on Mark 11:1–11 152 on markedness 19, 21, 23, 26–29 on the perfect 26–29, 70, 71, 75, 78, 110 on the pluperfect 37, 134–135 on Romans 5:5 224 on Romans 6:1–11 79, 224–226, 227, 228 on οἶδα 127 present tense 37, 38 See also perfect indicative,with the nonpast indicative or present non-indicative (Rule 1) prominence 17–18, 19, 26–28, 30–31, 35–45, 70, 224–226

R Reed, Jeffrey T. 39, 41–42, 43 Reese, Ruth A. 39, 41–42 Reinhart, Tanya 33–34, 39 remoteness 3, 134–135 Robertson, A. T. 6, 71, 234 Ruipérez, M. S. 27 rules (author’s Three Rules) 78–82, 81t, 82t, 179 Runge, Steven E. 19, 39, 41, 43, 104, 134, 206, 220, 223, 226

S Shklovsky, Viktor 31 Sicking, C. M. J. 72 Silva, Moises 42 Smith, Carlota S. 73 Smyth, Herbert Weir 161, 209 stative aspect 7, 27, 37, 40, 70, 76 Stoic grammar 6 Stork, P. 72 Stovell, Beth M. 127

T Talmy, Leonard 33, 38–39 temporality 2, 33 See also anterior activity ‘the one who …’ construction 215–217, 216t, 227 Thompson, Steven 32–33 Thrax, Dionysius 6 Tiersma, Peter Meijes 25

i n d e x  | 265

time. See temporality Tomlin, R. S. 36, 40 transitivity, foreground and 32–33 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 75 Trubetzkoy, N. S. 20 Turner, Nigel 69–70, 161

V verbal aspect 1–8, 27, 34–35, 37, 42, 70, 76, 79 Vincent, Marvin Richardson 152 voice, active vs. middle/passive 80–81, 82t, 130–132, 140, 146, 230–231

von Stechow, Arnim 72

W Wallace, Daniel B. 3–4, 5, 7, 71, 127 Wallace, Stephen 33 Westfall, Cynthia Long 21, 43–44 Wirth, Jessica 29

Z Zerwick, Maximilian 6