3

IS VERBAL ASPECT
A PROMINENCE INDICATOR?
AN EVALUATION OF STANLEY PORTERS
PROPOSAL WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
JODY A. BARNARD
The purpose of this article is to evaluate Stanley Porters theory of
aspectual prominence. According to Porter the three verbal aspects of the
Greek language (perfective, imperfective and stative) operate at a discourse
level to indicate prominence (background, foreground and frontground). This
theory will be tested against the points of emphasis and climactic junctures
evident in a selection of Lukes miracle and pronouncement stories.

1. Introduction
The application of modern linguistics to the Greek of the New Testament has led to a major re-evaluation of traditional categories for understanding the Greek verb. One of the most controversial contributors to
this process is Stanley Porter and his aspectual approach. His suggestion
that the Greek verbal system does not express absolute temporal distinctions even in the indicative mood has received considerable attention.
But his proposal concerning the discourse function of verbal aspect as a
prominence indicator has been relatively neglected. Therefore, this study
will attempt to engage with this particular aspect of Porters theory and
evaluate the possibility that prominence is a factor in the appropriation
of verbal aspect in Lukes Gospel.
1.1. Prominence
Prominence, by definition, is the state of being prominent, conspicuous or contextually climactic. Every narrative leads to a climax or peak
and since the identification of the peak is vital to the appreciation of the
narrative; it is not surprising, therefore, to find that the peak of a narrative is often explicitly marked1. Prominence may also operate at the level
1
P. Cotterell and M. Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove,
Illinois 1989) 244-5; cf. S.H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek
(Dallas 2000) 197.

Filologa Neotestamentaria - Vol. XIX - 2006, pp. 3-29

Facultad de Filosofa y Letras - Universidad de Crdoba (Espaa)

Jody A. Barnard

of the word or clause and, like the discourse peak, may be signalled by
any device whatever which gives certain events, participants, or objects
more significance than others in the same context2. As Callow explains,
the devices by which prominence is signalled are legion3, but is verbal
aspect one of them?
1.2. Verbal Aspect
Not so long ago a definition of verbal aspect would have been considerably difficult due to the fact that it meant different things to different
people. But, as Carson celebrates4, the definition of verbal aspect is now
beginning to experience a consensus. Porter defines verbal aspect as
a semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes
(i.e. represents a meaning by choice of a word form) a [subjective] perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal
system5.

He then identifies the following three aspects in the Greek verbal system6.
1. Perfective (or external) aspect, grammaticalized by the aorist tense,
conveys action in summary, as a complete occurrence, without
regard for its internal unfolding.
2. Imperfective (or internal) aspect, grammaticalized by the present
and imperfect tenses7, conveys action in progress, the internal
structure of the action is in view and conveyed as a process in
ongoing development.
2
K. Callow, Discourse Considerations in Translating the Word of God (Grand Rapids
1974) 50.
3
Callow, Discourse, 51.
4
D.A. Carson, An Introduction to the Porter / Fanning Debate, in S.E. Porter and
D.A. Carson (eds.), Biblical Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research
(Sheffield 1993) 21-22.
5
S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield 1992) 21; cf. B.M. Fanning,
Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford 1990) 84-85.
6
Porter, Idioms, 20-25; cf. D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand
Rapids 1996) 499-501; Fanning, Aspect, 86-120; K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in
New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach (New York 1994) 7-8, 27-34.
7
Porter distinguishes between the present and the imperfect with the concept of
remoteness; the imperfect, he says, is best understood as the less heavily marked
imperfective form, grammaticalizing [+remoteness], i.e. it is used in contexts where the

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

3. Stative aspect, grammaticalized by the perfect and pluperfect tenses8, conveys the action as a state of affairs, stipulating the condition
of the grammatical subject.
Thus, when a writer of Hellenistic Greek conceived of an action they
had the choice of presenting it in one of three ways: perfective, imperfective or stative. It should not be assumed, of course, that this three-way
choice was available for every verb since many verbs are not conjugated
in every tense form necessary for the grammatical expression of all three
aspects. Porter describes such verbs as aspectually vague and lists
(I am), (I go), (I lie), (I say), (I sit) and (I
go) in this category9. Therefore, these verbs shall be excluded from the
present study.
1.3. Porters Proposal
In essence Porter proposes that verbal aspects are a means by which
the points of emphasis or peaks of a discourse may be indicated10. In his
Idioms of the Greek New Testament, Porter draws attention to the work
of discourse analysts who distinguish between three planes of discourse:
background, foreground and frontground. He then asserts that:
The aorist is the background tense, which forms the basis for the discourse11;
the present is the foreground tense, which introduces significant characters
or makes appropriate climactic references to concrete situationsl2; and the
perfect is the frontground tense, which introduces elements in an even more
discrete, defined, contoured and complex way13.
action is seen as more remote than the action described by the (non-remote) present
(Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament with Reference to Tense and Mood
[New York 1989] 207).
8
Porter also employs the concept of remoteness to distinguish between the perfect and
pluperfect, cf. Aspect, 289.
9
Porter, Aspect, 442-47.
10
Porter, Idioms, 302.
11
Porter suggests that the aorist is the predominant narrative tense of Greek, in the
sense that it is the tense which is relied upon to carry a narrative along when no attention
is being drawn to the events being spoken of (Idioms, 35).
12
Concerning the imperfect Porter writes it is the narrative form used when an action
is selected to dwell upon . . . [it] is similar in function to the historic use of the present.
Although they share the same verbal aspect, the present is used to draw even more attention
to an action (Idioms, 34; cf. Aspect, 198-208).
13
Porter, Idioms, 23; cf. Aspect, 92-93 and his In Defence of Verbal Aspect, in Porter
and Carson (eds.), Greek Language and Linguistics, 35.

Jody A. Barnard

He then proceeds to give an example from Acts 16,1-5, which has been
assimilated into a recent commentary on Acts14. But is such an apparently uncritical acceptance of Porters view legitimate? Almost the exact
opposite to Porters proposal is advocated by Fanning who states that
as a means of showing prominence, the aorist can be used to narrate
the main or foreground events, while the imperfect or present is used to
record subsidiary or background ones15.
Both Porter and Fanning articulate their views with regard to Stephen
Wallaces essay on Figure and Ground: The Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories in which he argues that:
If a language has a contrast between a perfective (completive, non-durative, punctual) aspect and other aspects, then part of the meaning of the
perfective aspect, at least in narration, is to specify major, sequential, foregrounded events, while the meaning of the contrasting non-perfective aspects,
particularly an imperfective, is to give supportive background information16.

It would seem that scholarship was driving the discourse prominence value of verbal aspect in a particular direction, whereas Porter has
applied the brakes and proposed a U-turn. Porter charges Wallace with
mistreating individual languages out of a desire for a universal grammar, meaning that Wallaces conclusion is not applicable to the Greek
of the New Testament17 whereas Fanning fully endorses the conclusions
of Wallace as applicable to the Greek of the New Testament18. So who is
correct? Is verbal aspect a prominence indicator, and if so, how?

14
M.M. Culy and M.C. Parsons, Acts: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco 2003)
305-06, xv-xvi. See also J.T. Reed, Identifying Theme in the New Testament, in Porter
and Carson (eds.), Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (Sheffield 1995)
84-85; J.T. Reed and R.A. Reese, Verbal Aspect, Discourse Prominence and the Letter of
Jude, Filoga Neotestamentaria 9 (1996) 186-90; and more cautiously T. Klutz, Naked
and Wounded: Foregrounding, Relevance and Situation in Acts 19.13-20, in Porter and
Reed (eds.), Discourse Analysis and the New Testament (Sheffield 1999) 263-67, though his
caution seems to have disappeared in The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic
Reading (Cambridge 2004) 49-50, 107-09, 172-73.
15
Fanning, Aspect, 191. See also Levinsohn, Discourse, 173-5; Mckay, Syntax, 42.
16
S. Wallace, Figure and Ground: The interrelationships of Linguistic Categories, in
P.J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics and Pragmatics (Amsterdam 1982)
209.
17
Porter, Aspect, 92.
18
Fanning, Aspect, 75.

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

2. Method
If Luke could be interviewed, these questions could be settled with
relative ease. But in his absence an evaluation of Porters proposal must
take a more scientific form. This is easier said than done, however, since
the data is fossilized and therefore cannot be repeated or exposed to the
appropriate stimuli.
Some have contested this, however, and have argued that the conventions of Modern Greek are not so different from Hellenistic Greek. Chrys
Caragounis, for example, states that the Greek of today is not a different
language from ancient Greek ... Thus, on the basis of the unity of the
Greek language ... later Greek (that is, from NT times to the present) is
of relevance in interpreting the NT19. Concerning the prominence value
of verbal aspect he states ... nor is his [Porters] assertion (p.92) that the
aorist backgrounds an action, while the present and imperfect foreground
it, generally true20. Thus, if there is continuity between Hellenistic and
Modern Greek in this respect, then there is an evident discontinuity
between Porters proposal and the way in which the Greek language is
appropriated by its users.
Porter et al., however, would want to maintain a more profound distinction between the Hellenistic and Modern phase than Caragounis and
in preference of synchronic analysis Porter will be given the benefit of
any doubt21. So, we are left with the problem of how to test such a global
theory on the basis of the data in an ancient text.
Rodney Decker encountered the same problem in his attempt to
evaluate Porters non-temporal view of the verb and his comments are
helpful.
Direct proof for such a proposal is not possible due to the nature of the
theory. ...The theory can only be examined empirically for internal consistency and (especially) for conformity to the data available ... A negative approach

19

65.

C.C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament (Tbingen 2004)

Caragounis, The Development, 333, n.335.

The father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1913), insisted on the
priority of synchronic analysis since for the community of language users that is the one
and only reality (R. Harris [trans.], Course in General Linguistics [London 1983] 89). This
does not mean that there is no place for diachronic analysis, rather, as A.C. Thiselton states
the two methods are fundamentally different, and perform different tasks (Semantics
and New Testament Interpretation, in I.H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation
[Exeter 1997] 80).
20
21

Jody A. Barnard

might also be considered: can the theory be falsified? Are there examples
that are not explainable on the basis of the theory? Which contradict the
theory?22

Deckers comments are well observed and point towards a possible

means of testing Porters proposal, namely, does the supposed prominence value of the different verbal aspects cohere with Lukan peaks and
points of emphasis?
In a personal communication from Professor Porter on this subject
he noted that there are a variety of means by which prominence is indicated and stressed the importance of asking how aspect works alongside
these other features. Thus, by taking note of more widely recognised and
uncontroversial means of establishing prominence one can identify the
most probable points of emphasis in Lukes stories and observe whether
Porters hypothesis conforms to the data or if the data offers examples
which contradict the theory. In other words, is there an aspectual shift
from perfective to imperfective or stative at prominent points in Lukes
stories?
Every story has at least one climactic juncture, the point for which
the rest of the discourse exists. Thus, identifying the peak of a story will
provide a natural benchmark from which to test Porters proposal. The
discipline of form criticism, which attempts to classify the subgenres
within the gospels and establish the purpose for which they were preserved, is a helpful place to start in this regard. Of special relevance to
the evaluation of Porters proposal are the miracle and pronouncement
stories since they both contain a fairly obvious climactic juncture.
3. Miracle Stories
With miracle stories the focus tends to fall upon the supernatural act
of Jesus and, in contrast to pronouncements, they are characterised by
a lack of teaching material23. It has often been thought that they had an
apologetic purpose and were used to establish the superiority of Jesus over
rival supernatural powers24. Luke also seems to consider the successful

22
R.J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference
to Verbal Aspect (New York 2001) 61.
23
D.L. Bock, Form Criticism, in D.A. Black and D.S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament
Criticism and Interpretation (Grand Rapids 1991) 182-83.
24
S.H. Travis, Form Criticism, in Marshall (ed.), Interpretation, 156; cf. R. Bultmann,
History of the Synoptic Tradition, Translated by John Marsh (Oxford 1963) 368.

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

act of Jesus to be the main point of the miracle stories. But this probably has more to do with the fact that they demonstrate the fulfilment of
Isaianic soteriological texts, which, in Luke, become a kind of Messianic
manifesto (see 4,17-21; 7,21-22).
The discipline of discourse analysis offers additional support for equating the miraculous act of Jesus with the climax of the discourse. One
of the key considerations for discourse analysis is the identification of
the climactic resolution to the complicating action25. That is, Jesus
miraculous act typically resolves some previously mentioned problem.
Therefore, as we shall see, the structure of the plot suggests that the miraculous act of Jesus and the climax of the discourse are one.
A Synagogue exorcism (4,31-37)
Verses 31-32 describe the initial situation and add to the significance
of the exorcism by noting the important detail that it was the Sabbath
day. Verses 33-34 could be classified as the complicating action, which
identify the problem to be resolved. Thus, unsurprisingly, the climax of
the miracle story is the miracle itself (v. 35). Assuming Mark is Lukes
main source for this story, it would seem that he further heightens the
exorcism by adding the detail that (cf. Mk 1,26).
However, apart from the stereotypical , the entire climactic
episode is reported in the aorist tense, which, according to Porter, is the
background tense, the tense which is relied upon to carry a narrative
along when no attention is being drawn to the events being spoken of26.
But, in view of the storys form and the unfolding of the plot, it is highly
unlikely that no attention is being drawn to the miraculous and climactic
resolution.
Healing Simons mother-in-law (4,38-39)
Again, the point of this episode is that Jesus has the power to heal and,
like the previous pericope, it takes place on the Sabbath. Mark 1,30 simply reports that she was laid out with a fever ( ),
whereas Luke seems to intensify the description with his
(4,38). In view of the preceding and subsequent aorists,
the imperfective aspect of the periphrastic construction could be viewed
as contributing to this sense of prominence. But the meaning of
and the presence of could also, or even exclusively, be responsible
for this effect. Either way, this intensification of the complication increases the importance of the resolution.
25
26

See R.A. Dooley and S.H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse (Dallas 2001) 104-05.
Porter, Idioms, 23, 35.

Jody A. Barnard

10

In place of Marks historical present (Mk 1,30), Luke has

, which is a more clearly defined action than , but
aorist tense27. Finally, the fever is rebuked (aorist) yet its climactic departure is reported in the aorist tense (). The healing is further
highlighted by Lukes , which draws attention
to the instantaneous effectiveness of the healing (cf. Mk 1,31)28, yet it is
an aorist tense.
A miraculous catch of fish (5,1-11)
Bultmann identified this pericope as a miracle story29 whereas Fitzmyer considered it a pronouncement in view of the key saying in v. 1030.
But perhaps Bock is closer to the truth when he states that there is no
need to insist that a form must be simple and have only one point of focus31. Having said this there are several indicators that Luke considered
the catch of fish as the central point of the episode.
The phrase when he had finished speaking, (v. 4) forms a tail-head
linkage with v. 3, that is; the repetition in an adverbial or participial
clause at the beginning (the head) of a new sentence, of the main verb and
other information that occurred in the previous sentence (the tail)32. It
is unnecessary, since a simple would have been sufficient to introduce
the next event. But by employing this superfluous temporal clause, Luke
recalls vv. 1-3 and slows down the pace of the narrative. This is also
achieved by Simons remark in v. 5 which prolongs the story further and
heightens the anticipation.
Finally, we are brought to the edge of our seats with the words when
they did this ... and then satisfied with ... they caught a great multitude
of fish (v. 6). The story then continues to dwell upon the catch and the
commotion it caused until v. 8, again encouraging the reader to ponder
the miraculous event. Longacre describes such features as rhetorical underlining and explains that they are employed to ensure that the reader
does not miss the main point33. Even as the story draws to a close, it is
the miracle that dominates the scene since it is when Simon saw this that
he confessed his sinfulness (v. 8) and it is because everyone witnessed the
miracle that they were amazed (vv. 9-10).

See BDAG, 395.

See Dooley and Levinsohn, Discourse, 84.
29
Bultmann, History, 217.
30
J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (New York 1981; 1985) 1:562.
31
D.L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50; 9:51-24:53 (Grand Rapids 1994-96) 1:452.
32
Levinsohn, Discourse, 197.
33
R.E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse (New York 1996) 39-40.
27
28

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

11

The main verb employed at this climactic juncture, however, is the

aorist (v. 6). Given the discourse preponderance upon this
event, it is unlikely that no attention is being drawn to it, as Porters
proposal suggests. Furthermore, the so called frontground tense is used
by Luke to report the backgrounded introductory details (5,1-2). It would
seem that Luke felt that the perfect tense was a legitimate choice for documenting the initial situation.
Healing a Leper (5,12-16)
The cleansing of the leper is widely recognised as a healing story34,
so the high point of the pericope would seem to be v. 13. Luke confirms
this by drawing additional attention to the miracle by noting its instantaneous nature (). However, the tense that Luke uses to report
the departure of the leprosy is aorist (). Once again it is highly
unlikely that Luke is drawing no attention to the climactic resolution of
this socially ostracizing complicating action.
Healing a paralytic (5,17-26)
This account is particularly interesting in the light of Porters proposal since all three verbal aspects are scattered throughout the discourse.
Verse 17, for example, sets the scene for the paralytics healing, yet this
introductory material is reported with perfective (), imperfective
( ) and stative ( ) aspects. Nolland has observed that Luke uses periphrastic tenses ( [was teaching],
[were seated], [had come]) to set
the background for the action of the story35. This certainly seems to be
the case here, yet these constructions express imperfective and stative
aspects, Porters foreground and frontground aspects.
As with many of these stories there seems to be a mixture of forms.
In this instance both pronouncement (5,20.23-24) and miracle (5,25) can
be discerned36. But, in view of the fronted (v. 25) and the
repetition that each of Jesus instructions came to pass; it seems natural
to consider the miracle itself as the climactic point of the story. The key
actions, however, are reported with the aorist tense forms ...
... (v. 25).
Porters proposal would suggest that, in relation to ... ...
, Luke is highlighting and . But in view of the
34
Bultmann, History, 212; I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids 1979) 206;
Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:572; Bock, Luke, 1:470.
35
J. Nolland, Luke 1-9:20; 9:21-18:34; 18:35-24:53 (Dallas 1989-93) 1:233.
36
See Bock, Luke, 1:470.

Jody A. Barnard

12

grammatical subordination of these elements ( is introduced

with a relative pronoun and expresses the manner in which the
main verb is accomplished) this is unlikely. Alternatively, the
imperfect tense () could have been selected because it conveys
continuous action in the past, and the present tense () because
it conveys action concurrent with the main verb . Thus, a more
traditional understanding of the tenses seems to make more sense in this
instance.
Raising the widows son (7,11-17)
This pericope is widely recognised as a healing story, in which Jesus
raises the dead after the manner of the prophet Elijah (1 Kgs 17,17-24)37.
In the next episode (Lk 7,18-23) Jesus will inform John of his activities,
and raising the dead is among them. Once again Luke seems to be
presenting his stories as evidence that the Messianic manifesto is being
fulfilled. Thus, the climactic juncture is reached at v. 15 when the dead
boy sat up. Bock notes that the description of the boy as adds
a note of contrast to stress the healing, since dead people do not usually
move!38. Once again the most prominent part of the story is reported
with the aorist tense ( ... ) whereas the introduction
(vv. 11-12) contains the only occurrence of the perfect tense (),
the so called frontground tense.
Stilling the storm (8,22-25)
This story is also widely recognised as a miracle story in form39, indicating that the main point is v. 24b when Jesus successfully commands the
elements. This is confirmed by the plot in which the threat of perishing,
because of the storm, is quite clearly the complication which is resolved
by Jesus rebuke and the subsequent calm. But once again, this climactic
event is grammaticalized in the aorist tense ( ...
).
Berger has offered an alternative analysis and suggests that this
account is designed to inspire admiration40. This would push the focus
of the story towards the final question in v. 25, where there is a tense
shift from aorist to present. This could be taken as illustrative of Porters
hypothesis, but, if this is the climax (unlikely), we must ask whether the

Bultmann, History, 215; Marshall, Luke, 283; Bock, Luke, 1:648.

Bock, Luke, 1:652.
39
Bultmann, History, 215-6; Bock, Luke, 1:758.
40
Berger, Formgeschichte, 312, cited by Bock, Luke, 1:758.
37
38

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

13

tense has been chosen to mark it as such or was it just the most natural
tense to use for this kind of generalizing utterance?
The use of the genitive absolute construction (v. 23) in this passage is
also intriguing. According to Levinsohn the employment of the G[enitive]
A[bsolute] with the same subject as the previous clause ... gives natural
prominence to the event described in the following nuclear clause41. In v.
23, however, the genitive absolute employs a present tense, Porters foreground tense, whereas the following nuclear clause employs an aorist (cf.
9,57; 13,17; 17,12). Porters theory of aspectual prominence, therefore,
clashes with Levinsohns observation; they cannot both be correct.
Exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac (8,26-39)
This account not only displays all the typical features of an exorcism42
but also deliberately dwells upon the mans plight by including more detail than is characteristic for Luke. Although the whole of vv. 26-29 could
be classified as introductory, it would be a loss to conclude that this is all
it is. Verse 26 assumes the same participants as those who survived the
storm in 8,22-25, i.e. Jesus and the disciples, and identifies a new location
for the following story.
Verse 27 introduces one of the main participants and provides a fairly
detailed description of him, which also anticipates the problem to be
resolved. The detailed description and the plural serve to intensify the gravity of the problem and so the story is infused with tension
from the outset. Verse 28 selects one of those whose presence is assumed
by explicitly naming him () and then proceeds to document the
initial meeting of the two main participants. Thus, the stage is set; the
two main participants have been introduced and brought together.
Verse 29, however, interrupts the chronological sequence, by providing
an explanatory flashback. This background information not only explains
the conflict reported in v. 28, but also further elucidates the gravity of the
problem thereby increasing the importance of the solution. It is unlikely
that the discovery of the demons name (v. 30) had anything to do with
the belief that knowing the demons name unlocked the power to perform
the exorcism43. Rather, it further intensifies the severity of the problem
since a Legion denoted a military unit of approximately six thousand
soldiers. Luke has presented this mans condition as virtually impossible

Levinsohn, Discourse, 182.

Bultmann, History, 210; Bock, Luke, 1:769.
43
So Nolland, Luke, 1:409.
41
42

Jody A. Barnard

14

to cure. The gravity of his condition and the quantity and power of the
demons makes Jesus ability to expel them all the more important.
There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have reached the high point
and climax when the demons came out of the man and entered the pigs,
which rushed down the hillside into the lake and drowned (v. 33). Jesus
transforms the situation by allowing the demons entry into the herd of
pigs and his power is climactically demonstrated by the effortless resolution of a particularly profound case of demonic possession.
This entire climactic incident, however, is exclusively reported in the
aorist tense ( ... ... ... ... ).
It is highly unlikely that Luke is drawing no attention to Jesus climactic victory over such a powerful enemy. Despite his agreement that the
severity of the demoniacs condition serves to elevate the importance of
the exorcism, Klutz continues to maintain the validity of Porters proposal in this passage44. Although many of the aorists could be classified
as background, his uncritical acceptance of Porters hypothesis seems to
have blinded him to the appropriation of the aorist at the most significant
juncture in the story.
Assuming Mark was Lukes source for this story it is very intriguing
that in place of Marks imperfect (cf. Mk 5,13) Luke has substituted an aorist but, as we have seen, it is unlikely that Luke
was reducing the prominence. It is more likely that he wanted to stress
the completeness of the action, hence the perfective aspect.
The use of the stative aspect in this passage is also intriguing. According to Porter, the stative aspect reports frontground narration and
carries the highest degree of prominence. The first and last use of this aspect, however, occurs during an episodic flashback (v. 29.38), and such an
interruption to the chronological time line typically reports background
narration45. It might be significant that these two verbs are conjugated
in the pluperfect tense (, ), which concurs with
Levinsohns observation that this tense always reports background narration46. Contrary to Levinsohns beliefs about aspectual prominence,
however, these flashbacks also include aorist tense forms.
Of the remaining uses of the stative aspect, (v. 35) comes
closest to illustrating Porters view of the discourse function of this aspect. Klutz is probably correct to understand the use of the stative aspect
in this instance as underscoring the change from nakedness (8,27) to

Klutz, Exorcism, 107.

Callow, Discourse, 55; cf. Bock, Luke, 1:773.
46
Levinsohn, Addenda to Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, re p. 173.
44
45

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

15

a condition of having been clothed47. This underscoring, however, may

owe more to the former (Lukan) detail that the man had not worn clothes
for a long time (8,27, absent in Mk 5,1-5), than to the use of the perfect.
Besides, the perfect tense would have been the most conducive tense for
expressing the resultant state of the man and so might not have anything
inherently to do with frontground prominence.
The same could be said for the remaining two uses of the stative aspect
in vv. 34-35. It would seem that this was the most conducive
aspect to use since the herdsmen were not so much concerned about
the exorcism as they were about the resultant state. This is indicated by
the fact that the herdsmen and the others see what happened (v. 35).
They did not see the exorcism since that had already happened, but they
did see the results, i.e. the restored man and absence of pigs, hence the
perfect tense. The nature of what they saw, therefore, might have been
more determinative of the perfect tense than an alleged desire to indicate
prominence.
Feeding the five thousand (9,10-17)
The extent to which the aorist tense is used in this passage is striking
and, in itself, raises questions for Porter since his hypothesis would lead
us to the unlikely conclusion that virtually everything is backgrounded!
Nevertheless this phenomenon would seem to make any changes in tense
all the more significant. In view of Porters proposal the most interesting
feature of this passage is v. 16 when the tense changes from aorist to
imperfect (). The aspect of suggests that Jesus continued
giving, and implies, or is at least consistent with, the idea that Jesus was
in the process of multiplying food.
If it is legitimate to interpret the verb in this way then this is the
closest the passage comes to describing the miracle itself and Luke could
have marked the climactic point of the story by selecting the imperfect
tense form instead of the aorist48. However, if verbal aspect is indicating
prominence, what are we to make of the fact that the majority of the
imperfective verbs appear in the introductory episodes? Is it an adequate
analysis of the text to say, for example, that Luke is foregrounding the
time (v. 12), whereas the fact that everyone ate and was satisfied (v. 17)
is receiving no attention?

Klutz, Exorcism, 108.

Cf. Matthews (13,19), though it is unlikely to be any less prominent than
Lukes .
47
48

16

Jody A. Barnard

Marshall has offered an alternative analysis and suggests that: the

emphasis is not on the miracle ... but on the results49. In view of the
absence of an actual description of the miracle this makes good sense of
the passage. Indeed, if the results had not been recorded, there would be
little, if any, indication that a miracle had taken place at all. However,
this places the climactic point of the story at v. 17, which is reported
entirely with aorist tense forms.
Healing a possessed boy (9,37-43)
This pericope is widely recognised as a miracle story in form50, indicating that the main point of the story is the effortless exorcism of v. 42b.
This is confirmed by Lukes plot-line, which, after the initial situation
has been documented (v. 37), takes great care to build the tension of the
complicating action (vv. 38-42a)51. Assuming Mark was one of Lukes
sources, he has omitted the dialogue between Jesus and the boys father
thereby concentrating attention on the miracle of Jesus rather than the
lesson about faith (cf. Mk 9,21-24). Thus, the rebuke of the spirit, the
healing of the boy, and safe return to his father, stands as the climactic
point of the story.
Although Klutz would agree that the severity of the boys condition
elevates the importance of the exorcism, surprisingly, he concludes that
none of the aorists are particularly noteworthy ... they provide a background against which other forms and processes are allowed to stand out
and be seen as more prominent52. Although some of the verbs could be
construed as illustrative of Porters proposal, Klutz fails to appreciate the
fact that the entire climactic resolution is reported in aorist tense forms
( ... ... ), v. 42b.
Healing a blind beggar (18,35-43)
Although the miracle stories in Lukes journey narrative (9,51 - 19,44)
tend to be incidental rather than central, this particular pericope seems
to be an exception since there is no accompanying teaching or climactic
pronouncement. Verses 35-39 introduce the scene and create a sense of
anticipation with the detail that, at first, the blind man was rebuked. This
introductory material, however, contains ten imperfective verbs compared with only three in vv. 40-43. It seems unlikely that the imperfective
aspect is indicating prominence for all these actions since this would
Marshall, Luke, 363.
Bultmann, History, 211; Marshall, Luke, 389; Bock, Luke, 1:879.
51
See Klutz, Exorcism, 155-58.
52
Ibid., 172.
49
50

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

17

mean that virtually everything is prominent, which is tantamount to

virtually nothing being prominent.
The reception of sight (v. 43) is quite clearly the main point for Luke.
The importance of the blind receiving sight is evident from the fact that
Luke makes it one of the features anticipated in Jesus programmatic
sermon (4,16-21 cf. Mk 6,1-6), yet this is the first actual narrative of such
a healing. Not only is it explicitly marked with the fronted ,
but the entire discourse deliberately dwells upon the theme of the presence or absence of sight.
Apart from Jesus, whose presence is assumed, the is the first
participant to be introduced, and thus the complicating action is already
implicit from the outset. Yet the climactic resolution is delayed by the
dialogue between Jesus and the blind man (vv. 41-42). In these verses the
mans request () and Jesus solution () are made explicit. The discourse preponderance upon sight is all the more significant
when compared to Marks simple (Mk 10,52). Although the Markan counterpart is present tense it is unlikely to be any more prominent
than Lukes . Indeed, assuming Mark was Lukes source for
this pericope, it could be argued that Lukes deliberate alteration is more
significant, yet it is aorist. Finally, the climactic resolution is presented
with yet another occurrence of , but it is conjugated in the
aorist tense ().
3.1 Observations
The overwhelming testimony of these passages leads one to doubt
Porters understanding of the discourse function of, at least, the aorist
tense since so many prominent events and actions are grammaticalized
in that tense form. This does not deny that background information is
expressed with the aorist; indeed, it is frequently found in such contexts.
Rather, it calls into question the bold statement that the aorist is the
background tense [italics mine]53. It would seem that background is
not inherent to the aorist; therefore, one cannot say that no attention is
being drawn to an action simply because it is grammaticalized in this
tense.
According to Porters system the stative aspect communicates the
highest level of prominence and admittedly some important events are
grammaticalized in this aspect (e.g. 5,20; 18,42). However, some relatively
53

Porter, Idioms, 23.

18

Jody A. Barnard

unimportant details are also grammaticalized in this aspect (e.g. 5,1-2.17;

8,29). It would seem, therefore, that there are at least some examples that
are not explainable on the basis of Porters theory.
Reed seems to anticipate such exceptions and attempts to account
for them thus, in the event that the aspectual function conflicts with its
value of prominence, verbal aspect takes precedence54. So, according
to Reed et al., the reason that the aforementioned climactic events are
grammaticalized in the aorist tense form is because the verbal aspect
(i.e. perfective) has eclipsed its prominence value. Although this may
explain why the choice of verbal aspect might conflict with the supposed
prominence value, Reed offers no reason for ascribing prominence to
verbal aspect in the first place.
If it is possible for verbal aspect to be void of prominence, what are
the criteria for establishing that verbal aspect is being appropriated to
indicate prominence? If verbal aspect takes precedence in the event that
it conflicts with the supposed prominence value, perhaps verbal aspect
takes precedence when it does not conflict with the supposed prominence
value? Reeds explanation seems a little too convenient; since it removes
all possibility of testing whether or not verbal aspect is a prominence
indicator. It is tantamount to saying that prominence is a factor when
the verbal aspect coheres with Porters hypothesis but it is not a factor
when it does not. Such a position, however, is unscientific and therefore
contrary to the principles of modern linguistics; it cannot be tested and
so remains unproven. Rather, in view of Lukes miracle stories, one must
question Porters theory of aspectual prominence.
In fact, the findings so far seem to support Fannings position on two
counts. Firstly, the above analysis is entirely coherent with Fannings
understanding of the narrative discourse function of the perfective and
imperfective aspects. He maintains that when these two aspects are woven together, the aorist is the foreground tense, which narrates the main
events, while the imperfect and present tenses give body to the story by
providing supplementary background details55. Secondly, Fanning states
that aspect has nothing inherently to do with ... prominence in discourse56. So, although he believes that verbal aspect might be a means of
distinguishing background from foreground, he wisely avoids the mistake
of making prominence a part of the semantics of verbal aspect. It still
may be the case, however, that the category has been misplaced and that

Reed, Theme, 85; cf. Reed & Reese, Aspect, 191.

Fanning, Aspect, 191, 248-49.
56
Fanning, Aspect, 85.
54
55

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

19

prominence was not even a consideration in Lukes appropriation of

verbal aspect.
4. Pronouncement Stories
Also known as apophthegms and paradigms, pronouncement stories
are short stories about an action of Jesus whose primary purpose is to
lead up to a climactic pronouncement on a given topic57. It has often
been thought that they had a didactic purpose and were probably used
as edifying paradigms for sermons58. It is important to bear in mind
that Luke has reworked the pronouncement stories and appropriated
them in accordance with his theological purposes. Therefore, although
the climactic pronouncement is often the same in Luke as it was in the
supposed oral tradition, sometimes Luke has constructed the story in
such a way that the climax does not correspond to the earlier tradition.
The Centurions faith (7,1-10)
Although this story is concerned with the healing of the centurions
servant, as Nolland says, the actual healing is anticlimactic59. Most
commentators, therefore, identify this pericope as a pronouncement
story, the main point being Jesus commendation of the centurions faith
(v. 9)60. The emphatic nature of this statement is further signalled by the
presence of , which adds significance to the words that follow.
The main verb, however, which is positioned at the end of the sentence61, is in the aorist tense (), Porters background tense, the tense
which is relied upon to carry a narrative along when no attention is
being drawn to the events being spoken of62. But in view of Lukes historical context (i.e. the controversy concerning the inclusion of Gentiles),
it is unlikely that such a statement was intended to receive no attention
(see Ac 10-11, 15).

57
C.L. Blomberg, Form Criticism in J.B. Green, S. McKnight and I.H. Marshall (eds.),
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Illinois 1992) 244.
58
Bultmann, History, 61; cf. Bock, Form Criticism, 181-82.
59
Nolland, Luke, 1:319.
60
Bultmann, History, 38-9; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:649; Bock, Luke, 1:633; Nolland, Luke,
1:314, 318.
61
J. Duff considers this an emphatic position (Elements of New Testament Greek
[Cambridge 2005] 61).
62
Porter, Idioms, 23, 35.

20

Jody A. Barnard

Jesus answers John (7,18-23)

This pericope is a fairly typical pronouncement story which culminates with Jesus climactic reply to Johns question (v. 22-23)63. Interestingly, Craghan considered Lukes addition of v. 21 (cf. Mt 11,1-6) to be
the most prominent point of the Lukan redaction64, but it is probably
better to view it as a summary of Jesus ministry which prepares for
Jesus climactic pronouncement65. Assuming Matthew and Luke have
a common source for this story, the only noteworthy difference to the
pronouncement concerns which are present tenses
in Matthew 11,4. It is highly unlikely, however, that these two verbs are
any less prominent in Luke than they are in Matthew. Indeed, in view of
v. 21, it could be argued that they are more important for Luke, yet they
are aorists.
But it is probably the words that follow that are
to be considered central. In view of v. 21, and the importance of Isaianic
soteriological texts for Luke, it would seem that he is drawing particular
attention to the fact that , ,
, ,
(cf. Is 32,3; 35,5-6; 61,1). Significantly, all these verbs are
present tense, which coheres nicely with Porters hypothesis.
It must be asked, however, if any other tense would be plausible. Immediately prior to this pronouncement Luke documents an instance of
healing (7,1-10) and raising the dead (7,11-17), and he will proceed to
give an example of good news announced to the poor (7,36-50). Thus,
the present tense would have been the most obvious tense to use in such
a general statement about activities that were unfolding at the time of
speaking. It is also possible that one of the Greek translations of Isaiah or
one of Lukes sources (cf. Mt 11,5) has influenced the use of the present
tense. This may be indicated by the fact that occurs in the
present tense only twice in the New Testament (here and the Matthean
parallel), all the other occurrences are aorist.
A sinful woman forgiven (7,36-50)
The form critical issues presented by this pericope are described by
Bultmann as both difficult and uncertain but he nevertheless identifies
the statement in v. 47 as the main point66. The fact that Lukes account
Bock, Luke, 1:661; Marshall, Luke, 287; Bultmann, History, 23.
J.F. Craghan, A Redactional Study of Lk 7, 21 in the light of Deut 19, 5, Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967) 357-58.
65
So Nolland, Luke, 1:329-30.
66
Bultmann, History, 21; for a discussion of the form critical issues see Marshall, Luke,
304-7.
63
64

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

21

repeats the words of v. 47 in the form of a direct address to the woman (v.
48) and then reflects on the words in v. 49 suggests that
represents the climactic pronouncement in the Lukan discourse67. Indeed, the whole episode revolves around the scandalous display
of gratitude (vv. 37-39), which is implicitly explained by the parable (vv.
40-43) and then, having reminded Simon of the womans deeds (vv. 4446), it is openly declared to him (v. 47) and climactically pronounced
to the woman (v. 48). Significantly, the story is told with the perfective
and imperfective aspects until v. 47 at which point there is a shift into
the stative aspect grammaticalized by the perfect tense . Thus,
Porters hypothesis offers a possible explanation for the use of the perfect
tense in this story since it is only when the story reaches its climax that
the stative aspect is appropriated.
It should perhaps be noted, however, that the stative aspect was a particularly appropriate aspect to employ at this point. The stative aspect
conveys an existing state, a state that is usually the result of some previous action. This womans premeditated act of thankfulness is interpreted
as evidence that she has been forgiven a great debt. Thus, she is in a
forgiven state, hence the perfect tense. It may also be relevant that Luke
characteristically conjugates in the perfect tense when its object
is your sins (cf. 5,20.23). So, it is also possible that the perfect tense
owes more to a pattern of usage than to an alleged desire to indicate
prominence.
Jesus teaches Martha (10,38-42)
Widely recognised as a pronouncement in form68, Fitzmyer describes
the most memorable part as the pronouncement about Marys portion69. The most significant comment in this pronouncement, however,
seems to be the short phrase (v. 42) since the following
subordinate clause explains and reinforces it and the preceding statement
prepares for it. Thus, this striking contrast and implicit rebuke naturally
suggests itself as the most salient feature. Although the verb is present
tense, it cannot be taken as illustrative of Porters hypothesis since is
aspectually vague i.e. it is not conjugated in every tense form necessary
for the grammatical expression of all three aspects70.

See Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics, 273.

Bultmann, History, 33; Bock, Luke, 2:1039.
69
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:891-92.
70
See Porter, Aspect, 442-47.
71
Bultmann, History, 54; Bock, Luke, 2:1148.
67
68

22

Jody A. Barnard

Jesus and possessions (12,13-15)

Bultmann et al. have identified this short episode as a pronouncement
story with the climactic saying appearing in v. 1571. Although Luke has
appropriated it as an introduction to the subsequent parable (vv. 16-21),
in itself, it could be considered as a nice example of Porters hypothesis.
The stage is set with the aorist tense form (vv. 13-14), but when the
climactic pronouncement is uttered the tense shifts into the present (v.
15).
It may be significant, however, that when Jesus spoke , he used
the aorist tense form (v. 14). But when he spoke ,
which most probably refers to the crowd, the present tense is employed.
Thus, the use of the tenses in this episode could also be explained by
the fact that an aorist is the most conducive tense to describe a single
act, such as dividing an inheritance. The present tense, however, is the
most conducive tense for a general statement that has more universal and
ongoing applicability.
Jesus and those who perish (13,1-5)
Most commentators identify this episode as a pronouncement story
which introduces the subsequent parable (vv. 6-9)72. In the Lukan redaction
vv. 3 and 5 are most probably intended as the climactic pronouncement(s).
The overarching theme of chapter 12 could be paraenetically summarised
as be prepared for the coming judgment! It is fitting, therefore, that
Luke would proceed to stress the need for repentance. Furthermore, not
only is the saying repeated, but it is also emphatically introduced with
. Thus, Porters hypothesis, that the present is the foreground
tense, coheres entirely with the tense form that is appropriated at this
climactic juncture.
It should noted, however, that if vv. 3 and 5 are foregrounded, then it
would seem that the future tense () can also be used in such
contexts. Furthermore, if vv. 1-2, 4 are introductory and supportive, then
it would seem that the aorist, imperfect, present and perfect tenses are
suitable tenses for background information.
Healing on the Sabbath (13,10-17)
Bultmann identified this pericope as a pronouncement story, with the
climactic saying appearing at v. 15 in the form of a rhetorical question73.
Fitzmyer, however, describes it as a miracle story74, which would shift
Nolland, Luke, 2:716-17; Bock, Luke, 2:1203.
Bultmann, History, 12.
74
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1010-11.
72
73

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

23

the focus of the story to v. 12. Bock recognises elements of both forms75
and Marshall describes it as a healing story which ... culminates in a
pronouncement76. The problem of identification is complicated by the
fact that the categories of form criticism (pronouncement, miracle, etc.)
are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Luke did not confine himself to
one form at a time but apparently felt free to combine and rework the
traditions he received in accordance with his own purposes.
For Luke the climactic point of this discourse seems to be the pronouncement in vv. 15-16. Although there is evidence of a miracle tradition
behind this story, the miracles in Lukes journey narrative (9,51 - 19,44)
tend to be incidental rather than central. Bock has astutely observed that
each miracle emphasizes not the healing but the teaching that followsby.
In view of this, the healing of the crippled woman is probably to be taken
as setting the scene for the subsequent pronouncement in vv. 15-16. Longacre has observed that rhetorical questions may be used with effect at
the peak of a story78, which certainly seems to be the case in this instance. It is fitting that Jesus last appearance at a Synagogue is epitomized
by scandalous rhetoric that puts his opponents to shame.
Although this climactic pronouncement contains several present tense
forms, it also contains several aorist tense forms. This is not dissimilar
from the introductory details except that there we also find Porters
frontground tense (), but in a background context (v. 12).
Furthermore, within the pronouncement, it is the practice of loosing
() oxen and donkeys and giving them a drink () that supports
Jesus release () of the woman from her sickness (vv. 15-16).
Thus, although this discourse provides some present tense verbs precisely
where Porters proposal would anticipate, it also presents some examples
that are not explainable on the basis of his hypothesis.
Jesus destiny (13,31-33)
Although Taylor considered the main point to be the narrative incident
rather than the pronouncement79, given the significance of the journey to
Jerusalem in this part of Lukes gospel, the emphasis is more likely to
lie with the pronouncement80. This is confirmed by the presence of the

Bock, Luke, 2:1213.

Marshall, Luke, 556.
77
Bock, Luke, 2:1397. The only exception to this is the healing of the blind beggar
(18:35-43), which is a fairly typical miracle story (see above).
78
Longacre, Grammar, 42.
79
Taylor, Formation, 75, 153, cited by Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1028.
80
So Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1028-29; Bultmann, History, 35; Nolland, Luke, 2:738-9.
75
76

24

Jody A. Barnard

emphatic discourse marker (v. 32)81 and the strong adversative

(v. 33)82. Thus, the use of the present tense at this climactic juncture
could be explained on the basis of Porters hypothesis.
It should not be overlooked, however, that the present tense is also
employed in the initial situation (v. 31) and that some of these verbs may
owe more to a pattern of usage than to an alleged attempt to indicate prominence. , for example, occurs 100 times in the New Testament, all of
which are imperfective83 and () seems to be a fixed idiom
(cf. Ac 20,15; 21,26)84. Thus, Porters proposal may be in danger of exaggerating the significance of the present tense in these particular instances.
Healing on the Sabbath (14,1-6)
According to Bultmann the point of this story is the saying of v. 5, for
which the scene has been composed85. Apart from his unnecessary dismissal of the historicity of this episode86, Bultmanns analysis is a good one.
The miracle itself is no more than the instance in relation to which the
matter in dispute is considered87. For Luke the climactic juncture would
seem to be Jesus rhetorical question (v. 5). The presence of indicates
the anticipation of an affirmative answer and adds intensity to
. Thus, when the climactic pronouncement is uttered there
is a tense shift, but not from aorists to one of the imperfective or stative
aspects, but to the aspectually vague88 future tense (cf. 19,40.42-44). It
should also be noted that the imperfective aspect is exclusively found in
the clauses that set the scene for the climactic pronouncement (vv. 1-3).
The lepers gratitude (17,11-19)
Although this pericope displays a mixture of forms (miracle and
pronouncement), Bultmann was probably correct to identify vv. 17-18
as the climactic point of the story89. Given Lukes desire to show that the
in-breaking kingdom includes those who were typically considered outsiders, it seems natural to consider Jesus commendation of the Samaritan
as climactic (vv. 17-18). The fact that this commendation takes the form
81
J.P. Louw and E.A. Nida, A Greek-English Lexicon based on Semantic Domains
(New York 1989) 91:10, 13.
82
Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1031.
83
An Accordance search uncovered 84 instances of the present and 16 imperfects.
84
BDAG, 422.
85
Bultmann, History, 12.
86
See Marshall, Luke, 578.
87
Nolland, Luke, 2:746.
88
Porter, Aspect, 409-16.
89
Bultmann, History, 33.

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

25

of rhetorical questions90 highlighting what did not happen (discourse

irrealis)91 makes it all the more likely that we have reached the climactic
pronouncement. These questions, however, contain only aorist tense
forms, whereas the initial orientation contains a cluster of present and
imperfect tenses (vv. 11-12a).
It could be argued that the final sentence your faith has saved (perfect)
you, is the most important detail. Indeed, the fact that Luke repeatedly
employs this phrase (e.g. 7,50; 8,48; 18,42) clearly indicates its prominence. It must be asked, however, if this is due to the use of the perfect
tense; would it not be equally prominent, by virtue of the repetition, if
Luke had used the aorist? Furthermore, it may be significant that Luke
typically conjugates in the perfect when it is preceded by
. The perfect , therefore, may owe more to a pattern of usage
than to an alleged desire to indicate prominence, which is adequately
communicated by the repetition.
The salvation of Zacchaeus (19,1-10)
Bultmann identified the saying of v. 9 as the climactic point of the
story92, which may have been the case in the oral tradition, but does not
adequately account for the Lukan redaction. Not only is v. 9 reported
indirectly, which tends to background the speech with respect to what
follows93, but the statement in v. 10 is a fitting climax to a paradigmatic
account of Jesus mission and ministry of salvation94. It is both the climactic pronouncement of the pericope and a climactic pronouncement
of Lukes entire gospel.
Although the sentence includes the perfect this can hardly
be separated from the main verb () and its complements (
), which are aorist. It is intriguing that the final word of the
discourse is a perfect tense form, but it is the sentence as a whole that is
contextually climactic and this includes three aorists and one perfect.
Jesus warns the daughters of Jerusalem (23,27-31)
Bultmann et al. have identified this episode as a pronouncement, the
main point being Jesus declaration in vv. 28b-3195. Interestingly, Jesus
speech is introduced with aorist tense forms ( ... ) but
reported with present tense forms (, ), which is accomLongacre, Grammar, 42.
Dooley and Levinsohn, Discourse, 82.
92
Bultmann, History, 34.
93
See Levinsohn, Discourse, 262.
94
Bock, Luke, 2:1523.
95
Bultmann, History, 37; Fitzmyer, Luke, 2:1494-95; Bock, Luke, 2:1839.
90
91

26

Jody A. Barnard

panied by emphatic linguistic features (, ). Thus, Porters theory

could explain the use of verbal aspect in vv. 28b-29a. But when the tense
changes to future () and aorist (, ) his theory
is more difficult to maintain since it is the fact that childless mothers will
be considered blessed that makes the coming days significant. It is also
possible that the phrase is an attempt to indicate
prominence by echoing the Prophets (cf. Jer 7,32; 16,14; 38,31) rather
than by selecting the present tense.
4.1 Observations
Although the pronouncement stories offer a few more instances of
tense usage that could be explained on the basis of Porters proposal (e.g.
7,22.47; 12,15) the evidence is not overwhelming. There are also many
examples that are not explainable on the basis of Porters proposal (e.g.
7,9; 13,15-16; 17,17-18; 19,9). Furthermore, on those occasions where
tense usage coheres with Porters theory, there is often an alternative,
and sometimes more convincing, explanation for its appearance.
In addition to this it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain
that Luke was invariably free to choose the aspect of his verb. Porter is
undoubtedly correct to draw attention to the subjectivity involved in the
appropriation of verbal aspect but he appears to have exaggerated this
point out of proportion. Occasional reference has been made to some of
the factors that might have influenced the appropriation of verbal aspect
so we will now consider these in a little more detail.
4.2 Pattern of Usages and Lexis
Moiss Silva has suggested that significant patterns of usage may
be far more determinative [of verbal aspect] than the desire to convey a
semantic point96. It has already been suggested that this might account
for the perfect in the phrase (5,20.23; 7,4748) and (7,50; 8,48; 17,19; 18,42) or the present
in the temporal idiom () (Lk 13,33; Ac 20,15; 21,26)
but the point deserves more attention than a passing reference.
It is beyond doubt that certain verbs typically occur in one aspect
rather than another. (9,59-60; 16,22), for example, always occurs
96
M. Silva, A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect, in Porter and Carson
(eds.), Greek Language and Linguistics, 80-81.

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

27

in the aorist in the New Testament, whereas (7,2; 9,44; 19,11),

as Porter himself admits97, is never conjugated in the aorist tense in the
New Testament98. We might add and to this list, which
always occur in the imperfective aspect or , which virtually always
grammaticalizes imperfective aspect99, or , which usually
grammaticalizes imperfective aspect100. The list could be multiplied, of
course, but suffice it to say that a pattern of usage or the lexical meaning
of a verb might be more determinative of aspect than an alleged desire to
background, foreground or frontground.
McKay, for example has observed that stative verbs (3.1.4) tend to be
in the imperfective, and action verbs tend to be in the aorist unless there
is a need or desire for another aspect101. By stative verbs he means verbs
that convey a state of being such as be, have, feel, remain etc. whereas action verbs describe definite activities such as do, run, say, touch, make,
see, hear, suffer, etc102. There are, of course, reasons why a stative verb is
grammaticalized in the aorist or an action verb in the imperfective103, but
McKays observation warns against placing too much significance on an
imperfective stative verb or an aorist action verb. In other words, certain
verbs are shut up to a particular tense104, their meaning demands, or at
least suggests, a particular aspect.
In a personal communication Chrys Caragounis suggested that Porter
et al. over-subjectivize aspect, since, if the author is the genuine determiner of verbal aspect, then there ought to be other possible choices, but, as
we have seen, this is not always the case. Fanning is more sensitive to this
issue105 and states that fully subjective choices between aspects are not
common, since the nature of the action or the procedural character of the
verb or verb phrase can restrict the way an action is viewed by a speaker106.
4.3 Grammar
Porter has been criticised for not adequately accounting for the fact
that aspectual choices may be greatly restricted by a variety of factors,
Porter, Aspect, 489.
An Accordance search uncovered 86 presents, 18 imperfects and 2 future tenses.
99
Porter, Aspect, 488.
100
Porter, Aspect, 487.
101
McKay, Syntax, 77.
102
McKay, Syntax, 28.
103
McKay, Syntax, 28-34, 77-78.
104
Wallace, Grammar, 503.
105
McKay suggests that he is too sensitive to this issue (Syntax, 36-37).
106
Fanning, Aspect, 85, see 42ff.
97
98

28

Jody A. Barnard

such as the grammatical system itself107. This is indeed a great weakness

of Porters aspectual approach, and throws doubt on the idea that an
author was invariably free to select tenses on the basis of what he wanted
to emphasize. It is a pity that Silva does not develop his comment about
the grammatical system further since there is probably a lot to be learned
from such an investigation.
Nevertheless there is at least one grammatical factor, relevant to both
miracle and pronouncement stories, which supports his comment. As
is well known, when one transfers the words of direct speech to indirect speech, despite several other changes which may be made (usually
regarding person), the verbal aspect of direct speech is retained108. In
other words, in the event of indirect discourse, the rules of the language
have already determined which verbal aspect will be used. With regard to
Acts 16, for example, Porter suggests that (v. 3) is imperfective
() to reinforce the reason for Timothys circumcision109, but the
imperfective aspect had already been determined by virtue of its position
within indirect discourse110.
5. Conclusion
This study has attempted to engage with Porters theory of aspectual
prominence and evaluate the possibility that prominence was a factor in
Lukes appropriation of verbal aspect. His theory has been tested against
the points of emphasis and climactic junctures evident in Lukes miracle
and pronouncement stories, which seem to be based on a variety of sources (Mark, Q and L).
With regard to the miracle stories it was discovered that the aorist tense is typically employed at the climax of the discourse, which is entirely
contrary to Porters proposal. It was also seen that it is not unusual to
find Porters foreground and frontground tenses in background contexts.
These findings, therefore, are more consistent with the models of aspectual prominence advocated by Wallace, Fanning and Levinsohn.
With regard to the pronouncement stories it was discovered that
many of the prominent points or climactic sayings employ the present
107
Silva, Response, 79; cf. B.M. Fanning, Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New
Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method, in Porter and Carson (eds.), Greek
Language and Linguistics, 50-53.
108
Porter, Idioms, 269 (italics mine); cf. Wallace, Grammar, 457.
109
Porter, Aspect, 93.
110
This does not necessarily mean that the direct discourse was imperfect however, since
an imperfect sometimes stands for a present; see M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by
Examples, Translated by J. Smith (Rome 1963) 119, n.12.

Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator?

29

tense or sometimes the perfect tense, which is entirely consistent with

Porters proposal. It was also observed, however, that some of these so
called foreground and frontground tenses occur in background contexts.
Furthermore, it became evident that Porters system does not adequately
account for certain restrictions upon aspectual choice, which reduces the
likelihood that Luke was invariably free to choose verbal aspect.
Not only can prominent points and climactic junctures be discerned
by the careful reader without the aid of verbal aspect, but it is evident
that every aspect occurs in every plane of discourse. For Luke, the aorist,
the present and the perfect tenses were legitimate tenses to place in background, foreground and frontground narration. This not only undermines
Porters proposal but also alternative models of aspectual prominence
such as that advocated by Fanning and others111. Indeed, the fact that
Porters hypothesis has achieved a measure of acceptance demonstrates
the inadequacy of the more traditional models.
We began by asking is verbal aspect a prominence indicator? and,
although the texts considered in this study are too small a sample to
generalize, they offer little or no reason for answering yes to this
question. Although Porters model of aspectual prominence sometimes
coheres with emphatic or climactic junctures, this might owe more to
coincidence than to an intentional marking of prominence. It is possible,
if not probable, that verbal aspect communicates aspect in these instances and has nothing to do with the indication of prominence. Further
research would be required to substantiate this claim, of course, but with
regard to the data evaluated in this study it makes just as much sense
as Porters proposal. It would also explain why two virtually opposite,
though equally credible, branches of scholarship have emerged on this
issue. Although disagreement is often the nature of scholarship, in this
instance the disagreement may be due to category misplacement.
Jody A. BARNARD
London School of Theology
Green Lane, Northwood
Middlesex, HA6 2UW
UNITED KINGDOM

In contrast to Fanning et al. S.J.J. Hwang has disputed the widely accepted belief
that the imperfective aspect signals background information. He has observed that it is
often employed simply to convey simultaneous action with another foregrounded event
(see Foreground Information in Narrative, Southwest Journal of Linguistics 9.2 [1990]
78-82).
111