Commentaries that take Verbal Aspect Seriously

I am trying to identify which of the commentaries in my Logos resources take developments in verbal aspect seriously. As a first attempt, I have searched for "Verbal Aspect" within "type:bible-commentary", but that is yielding results such as "As in the request, Luke describes both the nonverbal and verbal aspects of the response" (Bovon, F., & Koester, H. (2002). Luke 1: a commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (p. 175). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.)

First, can I restrict my search to "verbal aspect" so "verbal aspects" doesn't generate a result?

Second, is there a better way or somewhere I can reference that would identify commentaries that take verbal aspect seriously?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

First, can I restrict my search to "verbal aspect" so "verbal aspects" doesn't generate a result?

Uncheck "Match all forms" in the panel icon.

Second, is there a better way or somewhere I can reference that would identify commentaries that take verbal aspect seriously?

I'm not sure what you mean ... I'd have to see an example of a technical linguistic commentary that you put in the doesn't take verbal aspect seriously category ... and need to know what language you are asking about.

In the meantime you can search for specific aspects - e.g. perfect, imperfect ... It is also the sort of thing I would expect to see most commonly in academic papers so I'd search my journals, use the google scholar search ...

Andrew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/864837#Comment_864837

First, can I restrict my search to "verbal aspect" so "verbal aspects" doesn't generate a result?

Uncheck "Match all forms" in the panel icon.

Thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean ... I'd have to see an example of a technical linguistic commentary that you put in the doesn't take verbal aspect seriously category ... and need to know what language you are asking about.

I'm trying to identify which of the commentaries in my Logos resources "fails to recognize what all the major players of Greek grammar currently do and have for at least 2 decades: aspect, and not time, is the major contribution of the verbal tense-forms" (eg. https://andrewrozalowsky.wordpress.com/2012/03/29/keeping-up-to-date-with-greek-verbal-aspect/).

Andrew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/864841#Comment_864841

Can I dynamically create a collection of all resources that cite "Verbal aspect in the Greek of the new testament" or do I need to manually tag the relevant resources?

Andrew116

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865141#Comment_865141

Also worth noting that aspect and time in the Greek verb is still being debated, with some recent contributions arguing that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. See eg. "An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate" (D.A. Carson) - chapter 1 in in...

Porter, S. E., & Carson, D. A. (1993). Biblical Greek language and linguistics: open questions in current research. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Donnie Hale

Not a commentary, but this just came out (edited by Faithlife's own Steve Runge):

https://www.logos.com/product/53614/the-greek-verb-revisited-a-fresh-approach-for-biblical-exegesis

I'm several chapters into it. It's excellent.

-Donnie

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865181#Comment_865181

I have not read this commentary although I do have it. The page https://www.logos.com/product/38333/2-peter-and-jude-a-handbook-on-the-greek-text mentions:

"This astute and useful grammatical handbook goes beyond simply parsing forms and labeling constructions. Davids brings in some of the latest linguistic research—including elements of verbal aspect theory—to help him as he explicates these important epistles"

I cannot really evaluate this but may be worth checking.

Andrew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865181#Comment_865181

Not a commentary, but this just came out (edited by Faithlife's own Steve Runge):

https://www.logos.com/product/53614/the-greek-verb-revisited-a-fresh-approach-for-biblical-exegesis

I'm several chapters into it. It's excellent.

-Donnie

I have enjoyed:

The Greek Verb Revisited: A Fresh Approach for Biblical Exegesis looks interesting - Thank you.

Andrew

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/865143#Comment_865143

Also worth noting that aspect and time in the Greek verb is still being debated, with some recent contributions arguing that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. See eg. "An Introduction to the Porter/Fanning Debate" (D.A. Carson) - chapter 1 in in...

Porter, S. E., & Carson, D. A. (1993). Biblical Greek language and linguistics: open questions in current research. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

I'm not sure what exactly D.A. Carson contends in the work you reference, but 3 years later he writes:

A rising number of Greek grammarians argue that the fundamental semantic force of the Greek tense is “aspect”: it reflects the author’s choice of how to present an action. The time of the action is not conveyed by the Greek tense (which virtually all sides concede is true outside the indicative anyway), nor the kind of action that took place, but by the author’s conception of that action—for example, an author might think of a particular action as a “complete” action, even if it took a very long time, and choose to use the aorist tense.

Carson, D. A. (1996). Exegetical fallacies (2nd ed., p. 67). Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books.

Either way, one should likely refer to more recent books such as those by Constantine R. Campbell.