RandallButh wrote: ↑July 30th, 2018, 2:29 am
With infinitives "tense" is a fiction of metalanguage. (Tense only occurs in the indicative verbs.) The infinitive προσενέγκαι explains what they could not do. The aorist refers to the
complete event, including the end point of the event--they couldn't get the guy all the way to Yeshua.
As for the historical present, it sets up a situation, it is the setting for the important events that will follow but it itself is not "important". In other words, the "lowering" was NOT important to Mark. Again, calling the verb important to Mark is a misuse of metalanguage, possibly aided and abetted by a mistaken paradigm (Porterism).
The overall passage is interesting because of the sustained suspense in the speeches (historical presents), finally being resolved in the aorist, "online"/"foregrounded" events "he got up"..."walked out".
As far as the historical present goes, I was under the impression that it's a common argument that it gives prominence to some feature of the text. I've been reading Rijksbaron's book, The Syntax and Semantics of the Verb, and he uses a similar argument about them. "Unlike the imperfect and aorist indicative, the present indicative is, 'at heart,' not suitable for the expression of past states of affairs. As a result of this special status the historical present has a specific effect, or rather, effects, for a number of nuances may be distinguished. . . "When occurring in a narrative, the present 'enables the reader to distinguish between matter that relates to what is the writer's main concern, and other ingredients of the narrative.' (Sicking and Stork 1997, 156). In particular, the present marks states of affairs that are of decisive importance for the story" (Rijksbaron, 22).
So I don't know that Porter/Decker/Black is messing me up here. Can we call it giving the story vividness, or prominence, or highlighting something, or drawing attention to something? It's a present tense verb where we don't expect one.
In Mark, the present tense seems to be used in 4 ways so far: (1) to give prominence to specific verbs, (2) to draw attention to a speech that follows (2:5; λέγει), in direct speech (ἀφίενταί; 2:5), or (4) to mark a transition in the story (ἔρχονται; Mark 2:3).
I'm going to have to reread Mark to see if presents are the normal verb of choice for quotations still. I had originally thought Mark was making a big deal about Jesus eating with sinners using the historical present twice, but if that's his normal use within direct speeches, then I'm wrong.
Are you saying that aorists are more prominent in the story than presents?
I think the most important point in this story, for Mark, is that Jesus forgives sins. Not that he healed a paralytic.
"And seeing their faith, Jesus
is saying (present tense) to the paralytic,
"Child, your sins are being forgiven."
Mark then gives offline material (does that language work better?), describing the scribe's reaction, using an imperfect:
Now some of the scribes were there,
sitting and thinking in their hearts,
"Why is this one speaking thus? He is blaspheming. Who is able to forgive sins except one: God."
This has the effect of slowing down the narrative, forcing us to think about what Jesus just claimed. It doesn't advance the story like an aorist or present tense would've. But it draws further attention to Jesus' words about sins being forgiven (or maybe, further describes/explains it). Decker and Black call it background, Robie calls it descriptive?, would you call it offline?
Jesus then makes it even more obvious for everyone what he is claiming, switching from an ambiguous passive voice (sins are being forgiven by whom?) to an active (son of man is having authority to forgive sins).
And the healing of the paralytic is evidence that Jesus can do what he claims to do here, in forgiving sins. (If God wasn't pleased with him, he wouldn't be able to heal). But Mark uses aorists, not presents, to describe the paralytic getting up because that's not the point he's giving prominence to. It's proof that Jesus can forgive sins like he says, so if we want forgiveness, we go to Jesus (and not the temple?).
Sorry. I'm not trying to hijack this thread. This has been what I've been wrestling with lately. Apologies for the English translations, also...