Mind-blowing, causing me to question what I thought I knew about verbal aspect having ready many NT scholars who have written on the subject. Incredibly helpful - thank you!
Thanks. This has been really helpful. I concur with your assessment that definitions matter. While I am not in full agreement on the matter of Aspect (there may be place for a redefinition or contribution to the discussion, which Campbell seems to be doing). I think you dealt with your disagreement fairly and graciously. I applaud you for a scholarly response, yet, abounding in grace. Campbell does seem to suggest that his definitions are the standard or common understanding. However, linguistically, there is a difference. I don’t mind that. I think he has the right to contribute and even redefine terms for the purpose of his study. However, this redefinition may be a problem when linguists are using the same words but with different meaning or sense. My question (in the area of linguistics is), should we allow modern linguistic development to reshape how we interpret or perceive ancient texts? But that is a different discussion. I appreciate your post. It’s been most helpful. I hope Campbell does not take offense. I thought this video was better than your first.
40:17 - the paroxytone Greek surname Λασκαρίδης is pronounced like Laskaridis. The iota and eta of the last two syllables are both pronounced like /i/ in Modern Greek (iotacism).
I know you are currently writing a grammar, but are there any existing Greek grammars that present verbal aspect in the way you articulated in this video?
There are no grammars that do at this point (that I can think of at the moment). The Greek Verb Revisited does have some chapters that are approaching things from a similar perspective.
Great explanation and research! I have been persuaded to use Dana Harris for beginning Greek and Mathewson/Emig for intermediate. What would you recommend to supplement Biblingo?
I am not sure what the question is. Are you asking whether the grammars can supplement Biblingo? You will get a different analysis of the verbs in Biblingo than you will get in those grammars. We will be releasing a textbook in the next year or so. That will be paired with the Biblingo app.
Sorry for not being clear. I teach using Harris and Mathewson/Emig in more of a traditional setting. I wasn’t sure if there were grammars that would align with your findings until your textbook comes out.
Also, to be clear - you can certainly use those textbooks alongside Biblingo in a class setting. They just won't align on the verbal systems. But many teachers are using Biblingo alongside those textbooks and others, and finding it beneficial for their students.
Kevin, thanks for your work. I’m unclear on the example you give in English to argue that the English past “can refer to only part of the event.” - the example is, “Amos read the Bible during church” (57:04). But this does not seem to be an example of this; I think it is still perfective in aspect with an endpoint. In this sentence, due to the nature of the Bible (how long it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos only read part of the Bible. In this case the endpoint is still present: Amos completed reading (part of) the Bible during church. In contrast, if the sentence is “Amos read Cat in the Hat this morning,” due to the nature of the book (how short it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos read the whole book. In this case again the endpoint is still there: Amos completed reading (all of) the Cat in the Hat. But other cases may be ambiguous as to what all is implied, e.g., “Amos read The Great Gatsby yesterday,” which may be met with the question, “the whole book?” In all of these examples, the aspect is the the same, but the difference is in what is implied when talking about some activity with some thing (reading a certain book). So my questions are these: (1) Where am I going wrong in my framing of this? (2) Can you give another example in English of the past that refers “to only part of the event”? And (3) what is the resource you show at 57:04 that argues for this point? I couldn’t find it in the links you provide but maybe I’m missing it. Thanks again!
Good questions, Scott. The point of the example "Amos read the Bible during church" is that the predicate "read the Bible" has a natural endpoint. That endpoint is when the Bible has been completely read. You are correct that in the example, we infer that only part of the Bible has been read, but that is the entire point. We do not infer that the natural endpoint of the predicate has been reached. The reasons you give are probably correct, but we have to distinguish here between the event having stopped and the event having culminated. You are suggesting that because we infer that the event stopped, it is still perfective. That would be a certain definition of perfective (which I am actually calling imperfective), but that would be different than a perfective that necessarily involves culmination. As an aside, the inference that Amos stops reading the Bible during church is also cancellable. It is not a contradiction to say "Amos read the Bible during church, and he was so engrossed in it that he read it on the car ride home as well." Thus, even the inference that the event ends with the simple past in English is not coming from the form itself. It is not an entailment. In terms of your questions: (1) hopefully my answer addresses that question; (2) and (3) here's the article where you can find more discussion and examples starting on page 825: www.jstor.org/stable/43697740
Thank you for this! Campbell is right that people really can be acerbic and unkind when it comes to linguistics in biblical studies...but that's not characteristic of these reviews at all.
Very helpful video! If ἐκπλήσσω can only be an achievement predicate, is there any difference in meaning between an aorist and imperfect form of the word? I had been reading it as describing a state, with imperfects expressing an sustained “state” of astonishment (or expressions of the same), and perfective instances (eg in the LXX) describing the onset of the state without reference to the state’s continuation. And Luke 9:43 seemed to hint this way with the genitive absolute of marveling in the next line providing the context for Jesus’ speech. Seemed like an expression of the ongoing amazement.
There is only one instance of an aorist form of ἐκπλήσσω in the NT, and that is Luke 2:48. It is, in my opinion, difficult to discern a distinction in meaning between this example and an example like Luke 4:32. Both seem to refer to a reaction of being astonished. In neither case would I say that the astonishment "continues." It is not as if being astonished goes on indefinitely with the imperfect forms. My point is that the assumption that the imperfect would not refer to a temporal boundary really stems from a wrong equation between the imperfective and progressive. The English progressive cannot refer to a boundary. The imperfective forms in Greek can. Examples with achievements like ἐκπλήσσω demonstrate that they do. In terms of the difference between it and the aorist, I am honestly not sure. My prediction would be that there is overlap, i.e. they can at least have the same interpretation. That seems to hold given the above two examples. I would also assume that there are some readings that are available to each form that are not shared with the other. I haven't done a deep dive into this verb, and it seems quite rare in the LXX as well (3 occurrences according to Logos). With such little data, it is hard to know the full range of meaning with both forms. If you looked outside the Bible, there might be more data to support a distinction.
Thanks! I did some cursory looking, and while it appears almost entirely in the imperfect in the NT (eg the gospels), the distribution seems to shift dramatically to the aorist in other literature (eg Josephus - which has a lot of instances - and the LXX). Quick question here though. Since astonishment is primarily an achievement but also conveys an emotional state, is it impossible for the imperfective aspect to describe the emotional state associated with the achievement? I ask because in English, I can say “I’m still astonished that you were able to do that.” This reflects the secondary emotional state conveyed by the verb. Could the imperfect forms (or presents) profile that emotional state? As part of this question, to what degree are emotional achievements worth considering distinctly from other achievements in this regard? Do you have examples of other kinds of achievements where the imperfective and perfective have significant overlaps?
I appreciate your eirenic tone at the beginning, and I rarely ever get involved with online discourse. I want to say up front that I appreciate the work you guys do to promote Biblical Language acquisition. However, I have to admit I am concerned that much of this review doesn't accurately reflect Campbell's view. When he says aspect is non-temporal, Campbell is talking about the time an action takes place, not its internal temporal structure and progress. I haven't read his second edition, but in the first, he takes that view. All the sources you cited seem to state aspect includes temporality in terms of how time passes in an action (temporal structure and progress), not when the action takes place. Campell's external and internal viewpoint language are attempts to capture this temporal structure and progress. He just doesn't use that language because his burden is to argue against temporality as a semantic marked feature of Koine tense forms in terms of past and present, not structure and progress, and using "temporal structure and progress" terminology muddies the waters. So he tries to get at it from another, less technical angle. Conceptually, it's there. He uses the analogy of a passing parade, and it seems to me to that your analysis of his less than technical picture is quite unfair. He literally says "it's like," and you cite that as his definition. His definition in the first edition is: "Perfective aspect is the external viewpoint, with which an author portrays an action, event, or state from the outside" (34). I would have preferred you interact with this definition or his more fuller definition given when he explains what verbal aspect is. His main point is never that aorist's provide no detail. That's something you latched on to from the analogy and some of his sloppy wording. Indeed, that seems to be a side point, an attempt to explain what it might mean to see an action from the outside. His point is that perfective aspect is external in focus. You then give a highly technical linguistic text which doesn't really disagree with Campbell at all (because if an action is seen externally then its end is in view), but is hardly a fair comparison. I think you miss the entire point of what Campbell meant by the aorist in your analysis of Christ's baptism in Mark. Your concern with his understanding of the verb spatially seems to think Campbell's view is that God's place in heaven leads to use of the aorist.The part you highlighted is confusing and unfortunate language on Campbell's part, but his obvious point on the same page is that God's pleasure for Jesus' whole life and work is seen from a distance (verbally) and as a whole, in a single shot. Spatial realities are metaphorical in Campbell's analysis. Campbell's language might need to be cleaned up and maybe he is wrong, but he's NOT saying that the reason the aorist was used was God was spatially distant from Jesus in heaven (I attached some of Campbell's First Edition's PS below outlining the metaphorical nature of calling something proximate or remote). I stopped listening after the analysis of the aorist because I was so frustrated with what seemed to me mischaracterizations or misunderstandings, so I apologize if you visit some of my concerns later in the video or if I misunderstood your critiques. Additionally, if the second edition ditched all the parts I cite above... well, then I'm not sure what to say. I think that if you read his fairly introductory level book for what it is, that it compares quite favorably with other introductory works in terms of mixing pedagogy and technical terms. "A Concluding Postscript: Space and Time Some readers may find the connection between spatial and temporal concepts confusing, and this postscript is intended to further clarify this relationship without making the main body of the book more complicated than it need be. It is claimed in this book that Greek verbs semantically encode aspect along with the spatial value of remoteness or proximity (with the exception of the future tense-form, which encodes aspect and future temporal reference). The difference between this description of the semantics of verbs and that of traditional analyses is that semantic temporal reference (“tense”) has been replaced by semantic spatial categories. In other words, while traditional analyses might regard verbs as encoding aspect and tense, here verbs are regarded as encoding aspect and remoteness or aspect and proximity. It is also claimed that these spatial values of remoteness and proximity, which are semantic, normally express temporal reference on the pragmatic level. This means that remoteness, for example, will most often be pragmatically expressed as temporal remoteness-the action is past-referring. The spatial value of proximity will most often express temporal proximity-present time. The question that might be asked is: how does a spatial value transmute into a temporal one? Spatial Terms Are Metaphorical First, it should be understood that the terms “remoteness” and “proximity” are best regarded as metaphors. When an aorist is used, it does not mean that the action occurred far away in a geographical sense, just because it encodes the spatial value of remoteness. For example, if I were to describe an action that occurred on my street, I am not forced to employ a proximate tense-form simply because it happened close to me physically. By the same token, if the action occurred in Cuba, I would not be forced to use a remote tense-form simply because Cuba is on the other side of the planet from Australia. To conclude that an action must have occurred at a physical distance because remoteness is encoded by the verb is to take remoteness literally-or concretely-rather than metaphorically. It should be remembered that aspect itself is a subjective depiction of an action, event, or state. Remoteness and proximity are also employed as part of such a depiction. An action may be portrayed as remote without physically being distant. An action may be portrayed as proximate without physically being near. Spatial and Temporal Remoteness Second, remoteness and proximity are, by definition, spatial terms. The primary meaning of remoteness has to do with being far away, distant, and removed. It is by extension of this spatial meaning that remoteness can be applied to temporal expressions in English. For example, to speak of the remote past is to speak of time that is far away, distant, or removed. The spatial idea of remoteness has been applied to time. The “time” is remote. This can only really be a metaphorical expression, since time does not actually have a spatial dimension; it cannot actually be distant or near, because time is temporal, not spatial. But therein lies the point. In English, we use spatial terms to describe time, and most of the time we do it without even noticing. The remote past is just one example. The near future is another. Near is no more a temporal term than remote, and yet we use the term in order to express temporal ideas. Again, the use is metaphorical. The future cannot spatially be near or far; the future cannot be on my street, or in Cuba. Time just doesn’t occupy space, but this doesn’t stop us speaking of it as though it does. There are several other words in English that are actually spatial descriptors, but which are regularly employed for statements about time. Consider the word next. Is it temporal or spatial? You might answer, “Actually next has to do with order, which is neither temporal nor spatial.” If that’s what you’re thinking, I’d say you’re right and wrong. You’re right that next has to do with order, but you’re wrong that it’s neither temporal nor spatial. It is, in fact, spatial. Order itself is primarily a spatial concept. It has to do with one thing after another-like children standing in line. If they stand in alphabetical order, they arrange themselves spatially. Each child takes a position in relation to each other child’s position. Things in order denotes things in a particular spatial arrangement in relation to one another. The word next, then, is actually a spatial term: the next street, the next house, the next room. It is only by extension that this spatial word is applied to temporal situations. When we say next week, we are, of course, speaking about time-week tells us that. The contribution of next is to indicate that the week in question is following the current week. We think of it as next in the same way that we think of the next house as next. It is adjacent. And so we see that this spatial word is used to describe time, and that is normal in modern English usage. There are several other examples of this phenomenon. The following words are, I would argue, primarily spatial in meaning, yet may be applied to time in normal English usage: following (as in the following day), short (as in a short time), long (as in a long time), away (as in three weeks away), close (as in the day is getting close), distant (as in the distant past), far (as in far off into the future). The point of all this is simply to say that there is a much closer connection between time and space, even within our own language, than we may realize. We frequently use spatial descriptions in our communication of time, and we are capable of conceiving time through spatial metaphors." Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 129-131.
Kevin, I have taken 9 credit/hrs of Greek in bible college and 6 hours of exegesis im seminary (currently doing an exegesis of 1 Peter class). I still consider myself relatively new to Greek. I wanted to ask, have you read von Siebenthal's Ancient Greek Grammar? What do you think of his work? It seems he has some chapters that relate more to what you have been discussing in several videos I've watched (e.g., text-comprehension). If you have read it, I would love to hear your thoughts about the book in general. @biblingo
I have looked at it and found his explanations to be more linguistically sound than most, but I haven't looked at it deeply enough to really have a strong opinion of it. Sorry I can't be more helpful in this respect...
Hi Kevin, Gero & von Stechow is good for what it is, but they actually provide little data evidence for the grammaticalization path they describe. Specifically, at best, the data that supports the idea of the postclassical Greek perfect as an Anterior is ambiguous at best. This paper is diachronically wide, but nowhere for a given historical era is it deep in its data collection/documentation. Example: all their data for "experiential/existential perfects" (a classic representative for Anterior like the English perfect: "John has been to Chicago") are state predicates. The problem is that the perfect's actual distribution with state predicates doesn't fit and the Greek perfect is never realized with activity predicates. You can say in English: "I have walked in Grant Park" (=experiential perfect, i,e, anterior). There are no instances in Classical or postclassical Greek of the perfect being used with an atelic activity predicate like this.
Also: I think Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca (1994) would help you here for the perfect. There are other perfect-like grammatical categories that are relevant for understanding the Greek perfect in an example like John 7:22. Glad to see you discussing BPP for the space/time thing. I find myself quoting their statement on that all the time to people.
I am not going to defend Gero and von Stechow. I only touch on them as scholars that should have been consulted (since they are actually in the field of linguistics and are working on these problems). However, stative predicates can get an existential interpretation, so that they give examples with stative predicates does not disprove their claim. You are right that atelic activity predicates must get this interpretation, but any kind of predicate can actually get the existential interpretation. Your statement "There are no instances in Classical or postclassical Greek of the perfect being used with an atelic activity predicate like this" is incorrect. A verb like κράζω is an atelic activity (John 1:15 we have κέκραγεν). Again, λαλέω would also fit into this category. John 9:29 must be existential: ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός. There are many other examples.
Mind-blowing, causing me to question what I thought I knew about verbal aspect having ready many NT scholars who have written on the subject. Incredibly helpful - thank you!
Very helpful, looking forward to the rest of the analysis thanks Kevin.
Thank you for taking the time to present your analysis and explanations - it’s a lot to digest.
Thanks. This has been really helpful. I concur with your assessment that definitions matter. While I am not in full agreement on the matter of Aspect (there may be place for a redefinition or contribution to the discussion, which Campbell seems to be doing). I think you dealt with your disagreement fairly and graciously. I applaud you for a scholarly response, yet, abounding in grace. Campbell does seem to suggest that his definitions are the standard or common understanding. However, linguistically, there is a difference. I don’t mind that. I think he has the right to contribute and even redefine terms for the purpose of his study. However, this redefinition may be a problem when linguists are using the same words but with different meaning or sense. My question (in the area of linguistics is), should we allow modern linguistic development to reshape how we interpret or perceive ancient texts? But that is a different discussion. I appreciate your post. It’s been most helpful. I hope Campbell does not take offense. I thought this video was better than your first.
40:17 - the paroxytone Greek surname Λασκαρίδης is pronounced like Laskaridis. The iota and eta of the last two syllables are both pronounced like /i/ in Modern Greek (iotacism).
Thank you! I did not recognize it as a Modern Greek name or else, yes, I would have just pronounced everything as /i/
I know you are currently writing a grammar, but are there any existing Greek grammars that present verbal aspect in the way you articulated in this video?
There are no grammars that do at this point (that I can think of at the moment). The Greek Verb Revisited does have some chapters that are approaching things from a similar perspective.
Great explanation and research!
I have been persuaded to use Dana Harris for beginning Greek and Mathewson/Emig for intermediate. What would you recommend to supplement Biblingo?
I am not sure what the question is. Are you asking whether the grammars can supplement Biblingo? You will get a different analysis of the verbs in Biblingo than you will get in those grammars. We will be releasing a textbook in the next year or so. That will be paired with the Biblingo app.
Sorry for not being clear. I teach using Harris and Mathewson/Emig in more of a traditional setting. I wasn’t sure if there were grammars that would align with your findings until your textbook comes out.
@@andrew7944 no worries. Not that I know of, unfortunately. Hoping to get my textbook out next year.
Blessings! Looking forward to it!
Also, to be clear - you can certainly use those textbooks alongside Biblingo in a class setting. They just won't align on the verbal systems. But many teachers are using Biblingo alongside those textbooks and others, and finding it beneficial for their students.
Kevin, thanks for your work. I’m unclear on the example you give in English to argue that the English past “can refer to only part of the event.” - the example is, “Amos read the Bible during church” (57:04). But this does not seem to be an example of this; I think it is still perfective in aspect with an endpoint. In this sentence, due to the nature of the Bible (how long it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos only read part of the Bible. In this case the endpoint is still present: Amos completed reading (part of) the Bible during church. In contrast, if the sentence is “Amos read Cat in the Hat this morning,” due to the nature of the book (how short it is, how we tend to read it, etc.), it is implied that Amos read the whole book. In this case again the endpoint is still there: Amos completed reading (all of) the Cat in the Hat. But other cases may be ambiguous as to what all is implied, e.g., “Amos read The Great Gatsby yesterday,” which may be met with the question, “the whole book?”
In all of these examples, the aspect is the the same, but the difference is in what is implied when talking about some activity with some thing (reading a certain book). So my questions are these: (1) Where am I going wrong in my framing of this? (2) Can you give another example in English of the past that refers “to only part of the event”? And (3) what is the resource you show at 57:04 that argues for this point? I couldn’t find it in the links you provide but maybe I’m missing it. Thanks again!
Good questions, Scott. The point of the example "Amos read the Bible during church" is that the predicate "read the Bible" has a natural endpoint. That endpoint is when the Bible has been completely read. You are correct that in the example, we infer that only part of the Bible has been read, but that is the entire point. We do not infer that the natural endpoint of the predicate has been reached. The reasons you give are probably correct, but we have to distinguish here between the event having stopped and the event having culminated. You are suggesting that because we infer that the event stopped, it is still perfective. That would be a certain definition of perfective (which I am actually calling imperfective), but that would be different than a perfective that necessarily involves culmination. As an aside, the inference that Amos stops reading the Bible during church is also cancellable. It is not a contradiction to say "Amos read the Bible during church, and he was so engrossed in it that he read it on the car ride home as well." Thus, even the inference that the event ends with the simple past in English is not coming from the form itself. It is not an entailment.
In terms of your questions: (1) hopefully my answer addresses that question; (2) and (3) here's the article where you can find more discussion and examples starting on page 825: www.jstor.org/stable/43697740
@@Biblingoapp Thank you! I'll look further into it.
Thank you for this! Campbell is right that people really can be acerbic and unkind when it comes to linguistics in biblical studies...but that's not characteristic of these reviews at all.
Very helpful video! If ἐκπλήσσω can only be an achievement predicate, is there any difference in meaning between an aorist and imperfect form of the word?
I had been reading it as describing a state, with imperfects expressing an sustained “state” of astonishment (or expressions of the same), and perfective instances (eg in the LXX) describing the onset of the state without reference to the state’s continuation.
And Luke 9:43 seemed to hint this way with the genitive absolute of marveling in the next line providing the context for Jesus’ speech. Seemed like an expression of the ongoing amazement.
There is only one instance of an aorist form of ἐκπλήσσω in the NT, and that is Luke 2:48. It is, in my opinion, difficult to discern a distinction in meaning between this example and an example like Luke 4:32. Both seem to refer to a reaction of being astonished. In neither case would I say that the astonishment "continues." It is not as if being astonished goes on indefinitely with the imperfect forms. My point is that the assumption that the imperfect would not refer to a temporal boundary really stems from a wrong equation between the imperfective and progressive. The English progressive cannot refer to a boundary. The imperfective forms in Greek can. Examples with achievements like ἐκπλήσσω demonstrate that they do.
In terms of the difference between it and the aorist, I am honestly not sure. My prediction would be that there is overlap, i.e. they can at least have the same interpretation. That seems to hold given the above two examples. I would also assume that there are some readings that are available to each form that are not shared with the other. I haven't done a deep dive into this verb, and it seems quite rare in the LXX as well (3 occurrences according to Logos). With such little data, it is hard to know the full range of meaning with both forms. If you looked outside the Bible, there might be more data to support a distinction.
Thanks! I did some cursory looking, and while it appears almost entirely in the imperfect in the NT (eg the gospels), the distribution seems to shift dramatically to the aorist in other literature (eg Josephus - which has a lot of instances - and the LXX).
Quick question here though. Since astonishment is primarily an achievement but also conveys an emotional state, is it impossible for the imperfective aspect to describe the emotional state associated with the achievement?
I ask because in English, I can say “I’m still astonished that you were able to do that.” This reflects the secondary emotional state conveyed by the verb. Could the imperfect forms (or presents) profile that emotional state?
As part of this question, to what degree are emotional achievements worth considering distinctly from other achievements in this regard?
Do you have examples of other kinds of achievements where the imperfective and perfective have significant overlaps?
I appreciate your eirenic tone at the beginning, and I rarely ever get involved with online discourse. I want to say up front that I appreciate the work you guys do to promote Biblical Language acquisition. However, I have to admit I am concerned that much of this review doesn't accurately reflect Campbell's view. When he says aspect is non-temporal, Campbell is talking about the time an action takes place, not its internal temporal structure and progress. I haven't read his second edition, but in the first, he takes that view. All the sources you cited seem to state aspect includes temporality in terms of how time passes in an action (temporal structure and progress), not when the action takes place. Campell's external and internal viewpoint language are attempts to capture this temporal structure and progress. He just doesn't use that language because his burden is to argue against temporality as a semantic marked feature of Koine tense forms in terms of past and present, not structure and progress, and using "temporal structure and progress" terminology muddies the waters. So he tries to get at it from another, less technical angle. Conceptually, it's there. He uses the analogy of a passing parade, and it seems to me to that your analysis of his less than technical picture is quite unfair. He literally says "it's like," and you cite that as his definition. His definition in the first edition is: "Perfective aspect is the external viewpoint, with which an author portrays an action, event, or state from the outside" (34). I would have preferred you interact with this definition or his more fuller definition given when he explains what verbal aspect is. His main point is never that aorist's provide no detail. That's something you latched on to from the analogy and some of his sloppy wording. Indeed, that seems to be a side point, an attempt to explain what it might mean to see an action from the outside. His point is that perfective aspect is external in focus. You then give a highly technical linguistic text which doesn't really disagree with Campbell at all (because if an action is seen externally then its end is in view), but is hardly a fair comparison. I think you miss the entire point of what Campbell meant by the aorist in your analysis of Christ's baptism in Mark. Your concern with his understanding of the verb spatially seems to think Campbell's view is that God's place in heaven leads to use of the aorist.The part you highlighted is confusing and unfortunate language on Campbell's part, but his obvious point on the same page is that God's pleasure for Jesus' whole life and work is seen from a distance (verbally) and as a whole, in a single shot. Spatial realities are metaphorical in Campbell's analysis. Campbell's language might need to be cleaned up and maybe he is wrong, but he's NOT saying that the reason the aorist was used was God was spatially distant from Jesus in heaven (I attached some of Campbell's First Edition's PS below outlining the metaphorical nature of calling something proximate or remote). I stopped listening after the analysis of the aorist because I was so frustrated with what seemed to me mischaracterizations or misunderstandings, so I apologize if you visit some of my concerns later in the video or if I misunderstood your critiques. Additionally, if the second edition ditched all the parts I cite above... well, then I'm not sure what to say. I think that if you read his fairly introductory level book for what it is, that it compares quite favorably with other introductory works in terms of mixing pedagogy and technical terms.
"A Concluding Postscript: Space and Time
Some readers may find the connection between spatial and temporal concepts confusing, and this postscript is intended to further clarify this relationship without making the main body of the book more complicated than it need be. It is claimed in this book that Greek verbs semantically encode aspect along with the spatial value of remoteness or proximity (with the exception of the future tense-form, which encodes aspect and future temporal reference). The difference between this description of the semantics of verbs and that of traditional analyses is that semantic temporal reference (“tense”) has been replaced by semantic spatial categories. In other words, while traditional analyses might regard verbs as encoding aspect and tense, here verbs are regarded as encoding aspect and remoteness or aspect and proximity.
It is also claimed that these spatial values of remoteness and proximity, which are semantic, normally express temporal reference on the pragmatic level. This means that remoteness, for example, will most often be pragmatically expressed as temporal remoteness-the action is past-referring. The spatial value of proximity will most often express temporal proximity-present time. The question that might be asked is: how does a spatial value transmute into a temporal one?
Spatial Terms Are Metaphorical
First, it should be understood that the terms “remoteness” and “proximity” are best regarded as metaphors. When an aorist is used, it does not mean that the action occurred far away in a geographical sense, just because it encodes the spatial value of remoteness. For example, if I were to describe an action that occurred on my street, I am not forced to employ a proximate tense-form simply because it happened close to me physically. By the same token, if the action occurred in Cuba, I would not be forced to use a remote tense-form simply because Cuba is on the other side of the planet from Australia. To conclude that an action must have occurred at a physical distance because remoteness is encoded by the verb is to take remoteness literally-or concretely-rather than metaphorically.
It should be remembered that aspect itself is a subjective depiction of an action, event, or state. Remoteness and proximity are also employed as part of such a depiction. An action may be portrayed as remote without physically being distant. An action may be portrayed as proximate without physically being near.
Spatial and Temporal Remoteness
Second, remoteness and proximity are, by definition, spatial terms. The primary meaning of remoteness has to do with being far away, distant, and removed. It is by extension of this spatial meaning that remoteness can be applied to temporal expressions in English. For example, to speak of the remote past is to speak of time that is far away, distant, or removed. The spatial idea of remoteness has been applied to time. The “time” is remote. This can only really be a metaphorical expression, since time does not actually have a spatial dimension; it cannot actually be distant or near, because time is temporal, not spatial.
But therein lies the point. In English, we use spatial terms to describe time, and most of the time we do it without even noticing. The remote past is just one example. The near future is another. Near is no more a temporal term than remote, and yet we use the term in order to express temporal ideas. Again, the use is metaphorical. The future cannot spatially be near or far; the future cannot be on my street, or in Cuba. Time just doesn’t occupy space, but this doesn’t stop us speaking of it as though it does.
There are several other words in English that are actually spatial descriptors, but which are regularly employed for statements about time. Consider the word next. Is it temporal or spatial? You might answer, “Actually next has to do with order, which is neither temporal nor spatial.” If that’s what you’re thinking, I’d say you’re right and wrong. You’re right that next has to do with order, but you’re wrong that it’s neither temporal nor spatial. It is, in fact, spatial. Order itself is primarily a spatial concept. It has to do with one thing after another-like children standing in line. If they stand in alphabetical order, they arrange themselves spatially. Each child takes a position in relation to each other child’s position. Things in order denotes things in a particular spatial arrangement in relation to one another. The word next, then, is actually a spatial term: the next street, the next house, the next room.
It is only by extension that this spatial word is applied to temporal situations. When we say next week, we are, of course, speaking about time-week tells us that. The contribution of next is to indicate that the week in question is following the current week. We think of it as next in the same way that we think of the next house as next. It is adjacent. And so we see that this spatial word is used to describe time, and that is normal in modern English usage.
There are several other examples of this phenomenon. The following words are, I would argue, primarily spatial in meaning, yet may be applied to time in normal English usage: following (as in the following day), short (as in a short time), long (as in a long time), away (as in three weeks away), close (as in the day is getting close), distant (as in the distant past), far (as in far off into the future).
The point of all this is simply to say that there is a much closer connection between time and space, even within our own language, than we may realize. We frequently use spatial descriptions in our communication of time, and we are capable of conceiving time through spatial metaphors."
Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 129-131.
Kevin, I have taken 9 credit/hrs of Greek in bible college and 6 hours of exegesis im seminary (currently doing an exegesis of 1 Peter class). I still consider myself relatively new to Greek.
I wanted to ask, have you read von Siebenthal's Ancient Greek Grammar? What do you think of his work? It seems he has some chapters that relate more to what you have been discussing in several videos I've watched (e.g., text-comprehension).
If you have read it, I would love to hear your thoughts about the book in general.
@biblingo
I have looked at it and found his explanations to be more linguistically sound than most, but I haven't looked at it deeply enough to really have a strong opinion of it. Sorry I can't be more helpful in this respect...
Hi Kevin,
Gero & von Stechow is good for what it is, but they actually provide little data evidence for the grammaticalization path they describe. Specifically, at best, the data that supports the idea of the postclassical Greek perfect as an Anterior is ambiguous at best. This paper is diachronically wide, but nowhere for a given historical era is it deep in its data collection/documentation. Example: all their data for "experiential/existential perfects" (a classic representative for Anterior like the English perfect: "John has been to Chicago") are state predicates. The problem is that the perfect's actual distribution with state predicates doesn't fit and the Greek perfect is never realized with activity predicates. You can say in English: "I have walked in Grant Park" (=experiential perfect, i,e, anterior). There are no instances in Classical or postclassical Greek of the perfect being used with an atelic activity predicate like this.
Also: I think Bybee, Perkins, & Pagliuca (1994) would help you here for the perfect. There are other perfect-like grammatical categories that are relevant for understanding the Greek perfect in an example like John 7:22.
Glad to see you discussing BPP for the space/time thing. I find myself quoting their statement on that all the time to people.
Is there a link to Campbell’s response?
@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews It's public on his FB page and on Twitter.
@@MichaelGAubrey thanks
I am not going to defend Gero and von Stechow. I only touch on them as scholars that should have been consulted (since they are actually in the field of linguistics and are working on these problems).
However, stative predicates can get an existential interpretation, so that they give examples with stative predicates does not disprove their claim. You are right that atelic activity predicates must get this interpretation, but any kind of predicate can actually get the existential interpretation. Your statement "There are no instances in Classical or postclassical Greek of the perfect being used with an atelic activity predicate like this" is incorrect. A verb like κράζω is an atelic activity (John 1:15 we have κέκραγεν). Again, λαλέω would also fit into this category. John 9:29 must be existential: ἡμεῖς οἴδαμεν ὅτι Μωϋσεῖ λελάληκεν ὁ θεός. There are many other examples.