I was brought back here by your link in the NBLM discussion and noticed it seems like I didn't comment last time. I just wanted to say that this is the best and most coherent engagement on the topic I have seen from non-Porter perspective. I lean towards Porter/Campbells grammar of the verb because the arguments against it dont engage directly with their thesis. Here you are attempting to not just "explain it away" but also provide a test that would _predict_ why this tense form would be chosen. People like to argue forever (from the English) why one English tense-form better matches one Greek tense-form because of how that author subjectively understand a Greek phrase or sentence. I don't think the 'debate' can ever be resolved until a frameworks is presented that can properly predict the choice of tense-form.
Have you guys saw the article from Timothy Brookins, "A Tense Discussion: Rethinking the Grammaticalization of Time in Greek Indicative Verbs". If so, what do you think of his approach?
Yes, we're familiar with the article! He's correct that tense is indeed encoded in the indicative mood, but we would not agree with his framework. Both tense and aspect are temporal, and no semanticist working on tense and aspect in general linguistics would claim that they are spatial rather than temporal. That's what we would most strongly disagree with.
@@Biblingoapp Cool. If you don't mind, I have one more question: I am beginning in the studies of linguistic theory and, at first, the cognitive approach seems more coherent to me. Would you guys have some recommendation on this topic?
That's exciting that you're diving into linguistics! Kevin (in the video) actually has more of a focus in generative linguistics rather than cognitive. But a good place to start in general is an introductory series we did on linguistics. Part 1 is on semantics, and Kevin actually touches on the distinction between generative and cognitive linguistics. You can check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/Ul_4JWrx0O4/v-deo.html Part 2 is on morphology, Part 3 is on syntax, and Part 4 is on pragmatics.
The term "performative" was coined by J.L. Austin in "How To Do Things With Words" (1962). A great place to read more on performatives or the "tragic aorist" in Ancient Greek is Corien Bary "The Ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited" (2012).
The Textual Bible of the Ibero-American Bible Society translates it in the past tense: "Y de los Cielos vino una voz: Tú eres mi Hijo amado; en Ti me complací." (And a voice came from heaven: You are my beloved Son; in You I was pleased), giving the following comment: "I was pleased...". The aorist is very important. It expresses a punctual action, in this case, occurring before the foundation of the world → Ps 40.6-7, Is 42.1; Mt 12.18; 17.5; Mr 9.7; Lk 9.35; Jn 3.16."
It's certainly interesting that the translation attempts to maintain the past tense meaning of the aorist! Even the idea of a "punctual action" is close to the meaning of the perfective aspect, though not exactly. However, the "before the foundation of the world" part seems like a bit of a stretch *just* based off of the meaning of the aorist form. The performative interpretation, as explained in the video, seems like a simpler explanation that makes better sense of the context. Regardless, thanks for sharing!
Starting at 6:29, you've made a good case for an adoptionist reading of Mark, i.e., God declaring for the first time that right now, at this point in the narrative, Jesus is performatively made the beloved son.
I was brought back here by your link in the NBLM discussion and noticed it seems like I didn't comment last time. I just wanted to say that this is the best and most coherent engagement on the topic I have seen from non-Porter perspective. I lean towards Porter/Campbells grammar of the verb because the arguments against it dont engage directly with their thesis. Here you are attempting to not just "explain it away" but also provide a test that would _predict_ why this tense form would be chosen. People like to argue forever (from the English) why one English tense-form better matches one Greek tense-form because of how that author subjectively understand a Greek phrase or sentence. I don't think the 'debate' can ever be resolved until a frameworks is presented that can properly predict the choice of tense-form.
Have you guys saw the article from Timothy Brookins, "A Tense Discussion: Rethinking the Grammaticalization of Time in Greek Indicative Verbs". If so, what do you think of his approach?
Yes, we're familiar with the article! He's correct that tense is indeed encoded in the indicative mood, but we would not agree with his framework. Both tense and aspect are temporal, and no semanticist working on tense and aspect in general linguistics would claim that they are spatial rather than temporal. That's what we would most strongly disagree with.
@@Biblingoapp Cool. If you don't mind, I have one more question: I am beginning in the studies of linguistic theory and, at first, the cognitive approach seems more coherent to me. Would you guys have some recommendation on this topic?
That's exciting that you're diving into linguistics! Kevin (in the video) actually has more of a focus in generative linguistics rather than cognitive. But a good place to start in general is an introductory series we did on linguistics. Part 1 is on semantics, and Kevin actually touches on the distinction between generative and cognitive linguistics. You can check it out here: ua-cam.com/video/Ul_4JWrx0O4/v-deo.html
Part 2 is on morphology, Part 3 is on syntax, and Part 4 is on pragmatics.
Very interesting! Besides Biblingo, would you have any bibliography to recommend on this topic?
The term "performative" was coined by J.L. Austin in "How To Do Things With Words" (1962). A great place to read more on performatives or the "tragic aorist" in Ancient Greek is Corien Bary "The Ancient Greek tragic aorist revisited" (2012).
@@Biblingoapp Thank you! 😊
The Textual Bible of the Ibero-American Bible Society translates it in the past tense: "Y de los Cielos vino una voz: Tú eres mi Hijo amado; en Ti me complací." (And a voice came from heaven: You are my beloved Son; in You I was pleased), giving the following comment: "I was pleased...". The aorist is very important. It expresses a punctual action, in this case, occurring before the foundation of the world → Ps 40.6-7, Is 42.1; Mt 12.18; 17.5; Mr 9.7; Lk 9.35; Jn 3.16."
It's certainly interesting that the translation attempts to maintain the past tense meaning of the aorist! Even the idea of a "punctual action" is close to the meaning of the perfective aspect, though not exactly. However, the "before the foundation of the world" part seems like a bit of a stretch *just* based off of the meaning of the aorist form. The performative interpretation, as explained in the video, seems like a simpler explanation that makes better sense of the context. Regardless, thanks for sharing!
@@Biblingoapp Yes, it's nice to see another point of view, thank you.
Starting at 6:29, you've made a good case for an adoptionist reading of Mark, i.e., God declaring for the first time that right now, at this point in the narrative, Jesus is performatively made the beloved son.
????? 😅🤣