Commentaries that take Verbal Aspect Seriously

Page 1 of 1 (9 items)
This post has 8 Replies | 2 Followers

Posts 341
Andrew | Forum Activity | Posted: Sat, Nov 12 2016 3:16 PM

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?

Posts 31316
Forum MVP
MJ. Smith | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 12 2016 3:31 PM

Andrew:
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.

Andrew:
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 ...

Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."

Posts 341
Andrew | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Nov 12 2016 4:19 PM

MJ. Smith:

Andrew:
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.

MJ. Smith:
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/).

Posts 341
Andrew | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 14 2016 8:36 PM

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?

Posts 72
Andrew116 | Forum Activity | Replied: Mon, Nov 14 2016 9:14 PM

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. 

Posts 1984
Donnie Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 15 2016 5:37 AM

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

Posts 1613
Forum MVP
Veli Voipio | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 15 2016 6:22 AM

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. 

Gold package, and original language material and ancient text material, SIL and UBS books, discourse Hebrew OT and Greek NT. PC with Windows 8.1

Posts 341
Andrew | Forum Activity | Replied: Tue, Nov 15 2016 9:04 AM

Andrew116:

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.

Page 1 of 1 (9 items) | RSS