Historical Present - Mark 1-12-13, Matt 4 - 1-2, Luke 4 - 1-2 - NT Discourse

Historical present: Mark 1:12-13, Matt 4:1-2, Luke 4:1-2 | NT Discourse
Skip to content
NT Discourse Removing the mystery from discourse grammar

q q q q q
q q
Home About Archives On Porter, Prominence and Aspect Publications and Papers r Glossary of Discourse Devices Sitemap Videos
Sep 2 / Steve Runge
Historical present: Mark 1:12-13, Matt 4:1-2, Luke 4:1-2

Discontinuity, Luke, Mark, Matthew Here is the analysis for this passage. I am primarily looking at the historical presents (HP) in Mark to determine how the same material was handled in the synoptic parallel. Since I am following Mark, I have included only the parallel text. I will save Mt 4:3-11 for another post.
http://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/09/historical-present-mark-112-13-matt-41-2-luke-41-2/ (1 of 9)7/28/2011 6:27:52 AM
Comments:
New pericopes begin in a context of natural discontinuity, at a transition from one event, scene, or argument to the next. This natural discontinuity is accentuated through the use of various segmentation devices to ensure that the reader properly processes the transition. Marks version signals the beginning of the new pericope using his preferred attention-getter, a topical frame of reference for a more prominent change of subject from John the Baptists ministry to the Spirit. Finally, there is an historical present. Note that the conjunction is the simple paratactic which does not signal a new development. The use of a development marker like in Marks gospel is far more rare than in Luke or Matthew. Note also that what follows are imperfective clauses introducing states of affairs for the main line that follows. Matthew begins with narrative along with a topical frame of reference to add prominence to the introduction of the Spirit, switching from the Fathers speech at Jesus baptism. Whereas Mark reports the entire temptation sequence as an offline event, both Matthew and Luke recount it as mainline. In preparation for this, Matthew establishes the states of affair using circumstantial participles, effectively backgrounding these actions with respect to the main verb . Had finite indicative verbs been used, all of the backgrounded actions would have appeared equally prominent. The adverb serves a culminating function, referring back to the fasting for forty days, setting the stage for the resultant action: being hungry. Lukes version begins with a topical frame of reference coupled with the development marker . The transition here is from the genealogy of Jesus to the temptation. Luke is typically understated in his pericope transitions in comparison to mark, relying much more upon the traditional formal discontinuity markers such as conjunctions. Following the intial event clause about being lead by the Spirit, Luke establishes the needed context through the use of imperfective aspect, marking the clauses as offline. Note the capitalization at v. 2b at the transition from offline to mainline events, supplied by the editors. They reflected the natural discontinuity at this transition with a marker to aid the processing: capitalization. In contrasting Marks version with the other two, he is the only one that places the Spirit in a prominent role as the topicalized subject of an active verb. The Spirit plays an indirect role in the other gospels thanks to the use of a passive verb in Matthew and and essentially a stative verbless clause in Luke. Interestingly there are a number of historical presents in the balance of Matthews account (vv. 5, 6, 8 (2x), 10, 11), yet they do not coincide with the one in Mark. This is leading me to think that there are stylistic factors driving the usage, and that each writer has their preferred technique. Filed under Historical present, Synoptic Gospels
One Comment leave a comment 1. John Hobbins / Oct 1 2009
I missed this earlier, Steve. Another aspect of this is the synoptic problem. When is Mark, Matthew, or Luke following a source? When are they revising a source? This complicates the question.
Leave a Comment
Name (required) Email (required, will not be published) Website
Comment
Comments Feed Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Submit Comment
Search
Type and press enter
Textbook:
"This book is five starsone of the most significant contributions to Greek grammar in the last twenty years!" Peter J. Gentry, Professor of Old Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary "In short, Runge has made discourse analysis accessible, systematic, comprehensive, and meaningful to students of the New Testament. His presentation is clear, straightforward, and well researched." From the foreword by Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary
Suite of Discourse Resources
Recent Posts
r r r r r
Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London John 16:23 in SBLGNT vs. NA27 Rethinking Genre: Participant-focused narrative Rethinking narrative genre Instantaneous Imperfects in the Greek New Testament
Tags
Analyze this Background/Foreground C.S. Lewis Choice and meaning Conjunctions Discontinuity Form Criticism ForwardPointing Devices Galatians Genre Humor Imperfect Introduction Luke Mark Markedness Matthew Metahttp://www.ntdiscourse.org/2009/09/historical-present-mark-112-13-matt-41-2-luke-41-2/ (5 of 9)7/28/2011 6:27:52 AM
comments Near/far Pedagogy Philippians Point-Counterpoint Pragmatic effect Referential devices Scholarship SFL
Synoptics
Tense/Aspect Text-Criticism
Recent Comments
r r r r r
Phillip Marshall on Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London Ann White on Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London Rod Decker on Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London Refe on Honoring Stephen Levinsohn in London Randall Tan on John 16:23 in SBLGNT vs. NA27
Similar Posts
r r r r r
Segmentation in Mark 4:13, Matthew 13:18, and Luke 8:11 Segmentation on the Sabbath-Mark 2:23, Mt. 12:1, Lk. 6:1 Discourse feature Markup Key Matt 3:11-Mark 1:7-Luke 3:16 The wonders of Discontinuity in discourse-II
Archives
r r r r r r r r r r r r r
July 2011 June 2011 March 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010

r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008
September 2009 M T W T F S S Aug Oct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

q
Search the Bible
Verse:
John 3:16; Jn 3:16; John 3
Keyword:
Salvation, Jesus, Gospel
With Operators:
AND, OR, NOT,
Online Bible by Logos
Blogroll
q q q q q q
Blogos Logos Bible Software Blog Mike Heiser's Blogs NT Resources Blog Ricoblog
Pages
q q q q q
q q
About Archives Knox knotes On Porter, Prominence and Aspect Publications and Papers r Glossary of Discourse Devices Sitemap Videos
Categories
q q q q q q q q q
Background/Foreground BHS/LXX Connectives Exegetical syntax Forward-Pointing Devices Historical present Information Structure Pauline Epistles Personal

q q q q q
Synoptic Gospels Thematic Highlighting Theoretical Framework Uncategorized Verbal aspect
Random Posts
q q q q q
Meta-comment paper and PP presentation Restructuring of Judah's speech in LXX of Gen 44 Taking discontinuity to the kitchen Discourse workshop in June Introducing new entities, again
Meta
q q q q
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org
Copyright 2011 Steve Runge. All rights reserved. Built by Phil Gons | Powered by WordPress | Designed by The Theme Foundry | Hosted by HostMonster

Historical Present - Mark 1-12-13, Matt 4 - 1-2, Luke 4 - 1-2 - NT Discourse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historical Present - Mark 1-12-13, Matt 4 - 1-2, Luke 4 - 1-2 - NT Discourse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historical present: Mark 1:12-13, Matt 4:1-2, Luke 4:1-2 | NT Discourse

NT Discourse Removing the mystery from discourse grammar

Sep 2 / Steve Runge