Eric R. Naizer, «Discourse Prominence in Matthew 20,1-16: Stanley Porter's Verbal Aspect Theory applied» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 22 (2009) 41-54 page 46

Vol 22 (2009)

Eric R. Naizer, «Discourse Prominence in Matthew 20,1-16: Stanley Porter's Verbal Aspect Theory applied», Vol. 22 (2009) 41-54

While traditionally grammarians have understood the Greek verbal system as grammaticalizing time and/or Aktionsart, there is growing acknowledgment that the Greek verbal system is fundamentally aspectual. There is also increasing recognition that verbal aspect can function to provide the author with the subjective choice to define discourse prominence within any given context. Much of the scholarship done on the subject of verbal aspect with regard to discourse prominence has been done at a theoretical level leaving the majority of the New Testament open for the application of the theory. It is the purpose of this study to apply the results of verbal aspect theory articulated by Stanley E. Porter to the pericope found in Matthew 20,1-16 in order to test the viability of aspect functioning to indicate prominence.

TAGS

Greek verbal system

Page 46/54
‹
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
›

46 Eric R. Naizer 3.1. The Perfective Aspect Beginning with the background perfective aspect, in Matthew 20,1 the parable opens with two aorist tense verbs (ἐξῆλθεν and μισθώσασθαι). These two verbs both introduce and summarize Jesus’ description of what the kingdom of heaven is like while simultaneously providing background information to the narrative that is to follow. The verb ἐξῆλθεν employed in v. 1 is also used in its participial form in vv. 3.5b.6 which function as a way to frame segments within the larger narrative19. Donald Hagner states that the narrative is structured in four parts (vv. 1-2.3-5a.5b.6-7). Although he does not offer linguistic support for the narrative structure of the pericope, discourse prominence provides an explanation as to why the structure of the passage can be appropriately delineated in this way. The author’s choice to use the aorist tense in these four occasions provi- des a sense of cohesion in the first portion of the parable (vv. 1-7). The background information is extended into v. 2 by the author summarizing and backgrounding the landowner and laborers coming to an agreement concerning payment for their work before they were sent to the vineyard by using the aorist tense verbs συμφώνησας and ἀπέστειλεν. The narrative moves through a series of aorist forms of the verb ἐξῆλθον (vv. 3.5.6), which can not only be understood as functioning to mark smaller episodes within the parable, but are also coupled with a verb of observation/discovery in vv. 3.6 (εἶδεν and εὗρεν respectively) to summarize and background what the landowner came upon when he arrived. The speech of the landowner in v. 4 is summarized with an aorist (εἶπεν) as well as the laborers’ actions of going to the vineyard in v. 5a (ἀπῆλθον). The landowner's outing to the marketplace in order to recruit more laborers in v. 5b is lacking a verb of discovery seen in vv. 3.6. Both Ul- rich Luz and John Nolland suggest that the relatively limited narrative reference to the group of laborers in v. 5b suggests that this portion of the narrative is not of a significant nature20. Not only does the brief mention of the groups observed by Luz and Nolland indicate their lack of importance, linguistically this claim is supported by the author’s use of the aorist tense identifying it as background material. The incident is given as background information which provides a sharp contrast to the drastic shift in aspect that occurs immediately following in vv. 6-7. In the scene depicted in vv. 6-7 in which the landowner is conversing with a group of laborers, the incidental facts concerning the laborers are cf. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (Dallas 1993) 569. 19 Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8-20 (Minneapolis 2001) 525; John Nolland, The Gospel of 20 Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC Grand Rapids 2005) 807.