Kang - Three Nuances of the Perfect Indicative in the Greek NT

[Stephen Carlson]

It’s completely what I would expect.

Is that related to the thesis as a whole or just the review section? Would be interested to hear your thoughts if you have any on the conclusions Kang makes

I’m referring to what he’s covering in the detailed table of contents. I haven’t read the full thesis (yet), so I don’t know his conclusions.

[MAubrey]

"In Classical Greek, the perfect went through a transition from resultative to anterior (current relevance) with increasing transitivity."

This is a flawed premise to build a book on. Classicists assume this position as a given and then NT people assume that they're right without actually checking. And it's not right.

Classicists are always right. Just ask us... But as amusing as it is, your observation seems quite... well, simplistic and over-broad.

Well, its a single sentence. But it's also a single sentence summarizing the past 10 years of my research life, based on reading nearly everything written on the Greek perfect and examining thousands of perfect verbs. The anterior analysis of the post-Classical perfect cannot account for the distribution of the perfect across verb classes.

I talk about this in my thesis and in my chapter on the perfect in Linguistics and New Testament Greek. I have a draft of the chapter on Academia.edu, here: https://www.academia.edu/40272144/Aubre ... nd_meaning

For the most part, there's not much difference between the semantics of the perfect in the Classical and post-Classical periods. Classicists have done excellent analyses of their own era, but they assume a semantic change for the Koine without having done the work on that period themselves. They defer to our 19th century NT grammars which are unreliable and disagree with each other.

I look forward to reading Kang. I have a copy in the mail. What he's doing is narrowly defined in the NT. I'm just saying that the historical summary presented in this product description is well, to borrow a turn of phrase, simplistic and over-broad.

[Barry Hofstetter]

Well, its a single sentence. But it's also a single sentence summarizing the past 10 years of my research life, based on reading nearly everything written on the Greek perfect and examining thousands of perfect verbs. The anterior analysis of the post-Classical perfect cannot account for the distribution of the perfect across verb classes.

I talk about this in my thesis and in my chapter on the perfect in Linguistics and New Testament Greek. I have a draft of the chapter on Academia.edu, here: https://www.academia.edu/40272144/Aubre ... nd_meaning

For the most part, there's not much difference between the semantics of the perfect in the Classical and post-Classical periods. Classicists have done excellent analyses of their own era, but they assume a semantic change for the Koine without having done the work on that period themselves. They defer to our 19th century NT grammars which are unreliable and disagree with each other.

I look forward to reading Kang. I have a copy in the mail. What he's doing is narrowly defined in the NT. I'm just saying that the historical summary presented in this product description is well, to borrow a turn of phrase, simplistic and over-broad.

Good, I was hoping to provoke you into a more fulsome response, and this is helpful. Don't think I intended any disrespect, please! You have lots of excellent material which is thought provoking, even when the reader might disagree. Deo et tempore volentibus, I look fowarding to having a more in depth look at your research and look forward to any comments you may have about Kang.

[Matthew Longhorn]

I look forward to reading Kang. I have a copy in the mail.

Hey Mike, did you receive your copy / read it yet? If so, any preliminary thoughts?
I got side-tracked by the book on voice and mood, along with other topics so didn't get round to reading mine yet