Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics, Volume 5
218 Pages

Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics, Volume 5

218 Pages


Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics (BAGL) is an international journal that exists to further the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis, and the organization ( in the sponsoring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and students working in Greek linguistics who are interested in contributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research. BAGL is a refereed on-line and print journal dedicated to distributing the results of significant research in the area of linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars, not just those connected to the Centre and the project.



Published by
Published 04 November 2016
Reads 0
EAN13 9781725250222
Language English
Document size 17 MB

Legal information: rental price per page €. This information is given for information only in accordance with current legislation.


Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics Volume 5 — 2016
STANLEYE. PORTER Editor’s Foreword
ALEXANDERANDRASONANDCHRISTIANLOCATELL The Perfect Wave: A Cognitive Approach to the Greek Verbal System
JAMESA. LIBBY The Pauline Canon Sung in a Linguistic Key: Visualizing New Testament Text Proximity by Linguistic Structure, System, and Strata
RONALDDEANPETERS A Response to Dan Wallace
Ancient Modern
Sources Index Authors Index
211 214
Senior Editors Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell
Assistant Editors Dr. Christopher D. Land Dr. Francis G.H. Pang
Editorial Board Dr. Martin Culy (Briercrest College and Seminary, Canada) Dr. Paul Danove (Villanova University, USA) Dr. Christopher D. Land (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Matthew Brook O’Donnell (University of Pennsylvania, USA | McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Professor Dr. Stanley E. Porter (McMaster Divinity College, Canada) Dr. Catherine Smith (University of Birmingham, UK) Dr. Jonathan Watt (Geneva College, USA) Dr. Cynthia Long Westfall (McMaster Divinity College, Canada)
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics(BAGL) is an international journal that exists to further the application of modern linguistics to the study of Ancient and Biblical Greek, with a particular focus on the analysis of texts, including but not restricted to the Greek New Testament. The journal is hosted by McMaster Divinity College and works in conjunction with its Centre for Biblical Linguistics, Translation and Exegesis and the organization ( in the spon-soring of conferences and symposia open to scholars and stu-dents researching in Greek linguistics who are interested in con-tributing to advancing the discussion and methods of the field of research.BAGLis a refereed on-line and print journal dedicated to distributing the results of significant research in the area of
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics5
linguistic theory and application to biblical and ancient Greek, and is open to all scholars, not just those connected to the Centre and the project. Accepted pieces are in the first instance posted on-line in page-consistent pdf format, and then (except for reviews) are published in print form each volume year. This format ensures timely posting of the most recent work in Greek linguistics with consistently referencable articles then available in permanent print form.
Submissions toBAGL BAGLaccepts submissions in five categories, and manuscripts are to be labeled as such at the time of submission:
Article Exploration Note Response Review/Review article Submissions should follow theBAGLstyle-guide which can be found at, and should include an abstract, not longer than 100 words, two to six keywords, and identification of the type of article (which will be noted at the time of posting and publication). Submissions not following the style-guide will be returned to the author for revision before being considered by the editors. Submissions should be sent in electronic form (Word or RTF) to Stanley E. Porter at Assessment and response will be made within approximately two months of submission. Accepted submissions should be posted online within two months of acceptance.
The online form ofBAGLis found at Copyright © 2016and Stock Publishers. All rights reserved. Wipf Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf th and Stock, 199 W. 8 Ave., Eugene, OR 97401. ISBN Manufactured in the U.S.A.
Stanley E. Porter McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, ON, Canada
Several important matters must be brought to the attention of readers of this volume ofBiblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics. The first is that with publication of this volume we have reached five years of successful production. No one connected with the academic world is oblivious to the fact that these are difficult times for academic publishing. We have been fortunate to have found an important niche among journals—a journal devoted to linguistics of ancient Greek, including and especially that found in the Bible. We have been pleased to find an increasing number of readers who are supporting the journal by accessing it online athttp://bagl.organd/or purchasing it from our cooperative publishers, Wipf and Stock, in Eugene, Oregon. We have also been pleased to find a growing number of scholars who have submitted their manuscripts for consideration. The number of submissions is steadily growing (as is the length of some of them!—see the further comments below), and we are pleased to report that the content of subsequent volume years is already being formed and readied for posting and publication. The second matter to bring to the attention of readers is the unusual length of this particular volume. All of the previous volumes ofBAGLhave been roughly 125-150 pages in length (our ideal size), but this volume runs to well over 200 pages. We assure you that this is not our rule for going forward, but was necessitated by two of the articles that have been accepted for publication, each one exceptional in its length. We did not want to delay publication of either. One of the advantages of publishing withBAGLis that we are not constrained by some of the traditional parameters of print publication. Therefore, we
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics5
have taken the liberty to publish two exceptionally long articles that we believe merit publication. We are one of the few journals that allows such flexibility in publishing lengths, ranging from responses and notes to articles of significant size. The third matter to raise is that there are a number of graphics provided in these two articles that pose serious challenges for traditional print publication. Due to the parameters of page size and the configuration of some of the figures, we have had to print them in condensed format. If we were to print them at optimal size, we would have had problems not only with the format but with extending the length of the articles. However, due to our online digital publication, we have been able to provide higher resolution and in some instances larger displays of these items in the online configuration. I invite readers who wish to see these figures in larger and clearer format (and even in color) to visit our website. As a result, we are pleased to offer two articles and a response in this volume. The first article, by Alexander Andrason and Christian Locatell, is an examination of the meaning of the Greek perfect tense-form within a cognitive linguistic framework. There has been much discussion of the semantics of the perfect tense-form, and this article adds to the discussion, not by positing a new set of meanings, but by examining previous conclusions through the lens of a cognitive framework. The second article, by James Libby, is a consideration of Pauline authorship using a rigorous computational linguistic methodology. The author concludes that genre is more decisive than authorship in accounting for differences between individual books within the Pauline corpus. The third and final contribution is by Ronald Peters. Peters responds to a critical review of his recent volume on the Greek article by examining the notion of Kuhnian paradigms and how they are relevant in grammatical theorizing. As mentioned above, we are already in the process of editing for posting the initial contributions to next year’s volume of BAGL, but welcome submission of manuscripts for review that theorize about, utilize, and exemplify various approaches to biblical and ancient Greek linguistics.
[BAGL5 (2016) 7–121]
Alexander Andrason and Christian Locatell Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Abstract:The challenge of reconciling a verbal form’s variety of senses on the one hand and its conceptual coherence on the other is solved, not by positing a highly abstract, semantically invariant core from which each use is derived, nor by simply constructing taxonomies of contextually conditioned senses with “exceptions.” Rather a form’s senses can be arranged diachronically along cross-linguistically consistent and cognitively motivated paths of change from which it becomes apparent that each sense has a direct conceptual relation only to adjacent senses on the path of change. These senses are synchronically organized in terms of prototypicality and fall along a semantic-pragmatic continuum according to conventionalization. Furthermore, senses previously thought of as “exceptional” are also conceptually related, but only indirectly via their common relationship to the overarching path of change. (Article)
Keywords:Koine Greek,verbal system, cognitive linguistics, perfect tense-form, semantics, pragmatics, grammaticalization.
1.Introduction The past several decades have witnessed a marked rise of interest in the Ancient (and particularly Koine) Greek verbal system, especially the relationship between tense and aspect, and has produced many substantial monographs and multi-author 1 dialogues. Of the various verbal forms, the perfect (which we
E.g. McKay,New Syntax; Porter,Verbal Aspect; Fanning,Verbal
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics5
2 will refer to asléluka) has received considerable attention in the 3 past several decades. This renewed excitement has stimulated a large body of research and valuable insights into the complexity of the Koine Greek verbal system. However, entrenched positions have also developed, calling for fresh perspective. We propose that a cognitive linguistic approach offers the very sort of perspective needed to move forward. We will begin this analysis by describing what seems to be the fundamental problem posed bylélukaand how the model we employ hopes to address it (section 2). Next, our model, which has its roots in cognitive linguistics (semantic maps) and grammaticalization theory (paths), will be presented (section 3). We will then present the results of our empirical study, in which all the occurrences oflélukain the New Testament have been analyzed (section 4). Based in these findings, we will offer an explanation of the semantic potential oflélukain terms of a dynamic qualitative-quantitative map, or wave, which will then be corroborated by diachronic and comparative evidence (section 5). We will then compare this model with other approaches to léluka, showing in particular how our proposal hopes to advance
Aspect; Porter and Carson, eds.,Biblical Greek Language, 18–83; Olsen, “Semantic and Pragmatic Model”; Evans,Greek Pentateuch; Decker,Temporal Deixis; Campbell,Basics of Verbal Aspect; Campbell,Indicative Mood; Campbell,Non-Indicative Verbs; Baugh, “Greek Tense Form Choice”; Mathewson,Verbal Aspect; Runge, ed.,Discourse Studies, 139–224; and Tresham, “Aspect in Paul’s Epistle.” 2. We use the designationlélukafor the Greek perfect form in order to avoid possible baggage that may come from referring to it with a particular temporal or aspectual value. This also allows us to describe it in terms of semantic potential rather than a semantically invariant core. 3. E.g. McKay, “Greek Non-Literary Papyri”; McKay, “New Testament Greek”; Drinka, “Periphrastic Perfects and Passives”; Gerö and Stechow, “Tense in Time”; Haug, “Kinesis/Energeia-Test”; Haug, “Resultatives to Anteriors”; Ruijgh, “Griekse Perfectum”; Orriens, “Past in the Present”; Campbell, “Breaking Perfect Rules”; Campbell, “Greek Perfect”; Bentein, “Periphrastic Perfect”; Porter,Linguistic Analysis, 195–218; Porter, “Perfect isn’t Perfect”; Fanning, “Ancient Greek Perfect”; Runge, “Markedness and Grounding”; Runge, “Reconsidering the Semantics”; and Crellin, “The Greek Perfect Active System.”
the debate surrounding the Koine Greek verbal system (section 6). Lastly, we will summarize the main advantages of this model, point out possible limitations, and propose future lines of 4 research that can further enhance the model (section 7). While all sections work together to offer a comprehensive presentation of this approach, each section is also written so as to be somewhat self-contained. Although this has resulted in some repetition of key ideas, we hope that this will only serve to highlight the main components of this approach and aid readers who may be familiar with certain aspects of the content (e.g. the linguistic concepts) but not others (e.g. how it works out in the Koine Greek verbal system) in being able to work through the content more selectively.
2. The Perfect Problem Here we focus on two seemingly conflicting goals that appear to characterize the study oflélukaand contribute to the lack of consensus on the form’s meaning. That is the tension between (1) recognizing the form’s semantic diversity and (2) seeking to discern the form’s conceptually coherent meaning based on a
4. It should also be noted that our article only deals with the indicative active type of thelélukagram. The basic reason for this is that active indicative post-resultative grams (such asléluka) develop differently than their middle-passive and modal counterparts. Specifically, the middle-passive variant favours de-transitive senses which are typical of resultative proper but which are regularly lost in perfects that arise from such de-transitive constructions. This distinction is also evident from the fact that the active and middle-passive lélukatypes are of a distinct age, the former being an older, Proto-Indo-European construction and the latter a posterior Greek innovation. Modal types (such the subjunctive or optative) also tend to acquire senses that are different from those that are accessible on the path typical of the indicative post-resultative grams. In other words, the most consistent path has been established for original indicative resultatives and their grammaticalization in active contexts, while values offered by middle-passive and modal equivalents of such indicative constructions necessitate the use of different paths (e.g. genuine modal paths or modal contamination paths). Thus, it should be noted that this model applies to all forms, but different forms may require analyses with different grammaticalization paths in mind.
Biblical and Ancient Greek Linguistics5
rigorous linguistic model. This will set the stage for our proposal that gradual, cognitively motivated language change requires us to regard the form’s meaning, not as a highly abstract and semantically invariant sense, nor as an ad hoc taxonomy of senses with arbitrary exceptions, but as a dynamic semantic potential with more or less prototypical meanings that develop in motivated ways along a cross-linguistically consistent path of change. Different categorizations have been suggested for grouping 5 the various approaches to the Greek verbal system. However, the variety of approaches may be grouped together according to which of the two goals mentioned above is most emphasized. The crux of this tension has often been characterized as the distinction between a form’s semantics and pragmatics. Some approaches claim thatlélukahas a diverse semantic potential, but struggle to offer a satisfyingly coherent account of their relationship to each other and how they came to be communicated by a single form. Others claim that it has a single, semantically invariant meaning present in every use, giving it a coherent core meaning, and that any variation in meaning is contextually derived from the same semantic core by pragmatic 6 implicatures. Yet, this approach has often led to what many find to be a forced exegesis of passages where the putative invariant meaning does not seem to fit. As one author has recently summarized the basic disagreement, “The postulation of semantic invariance vs. polyvalence of the grammatical sign appears to underlie a good part of the divergence among modern
5. For surveys of the various approaches to the Koine Greek verbal system, we refer the reader to the treatments in Porter,Verbal Aspect; Fanning, Verbal Aspect; Decker,Temporal Deixis. Also see Campbell’s,Indicative Mood, 161–211, for a discussion of various approaches to the perfect tense-form. For a more introductory level survey, see Campbell,Basics of Verbal Aspectand Naselli, “Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect.” For a recent overview of the approaches tolélukain particular, see Porter,Linguistic Analysis, 195–218. 6. E.g. Porter, “In Defence of Verbal Aspect,” 256; Porter,Verbal Aspect, 256; Mathewson,Verbal Aspect, 11, 26–27; and Campbell,Non-Indicative Verbs, 22–24.