The last two Sunday mornings at church I’ve seen some lengthy strings of genitives. Last week was 1 Timothy 6:14, and this week was James 2:1. I remembered seeing some even longer ones in the past, so I thought I’d do a quick search and see what I would come up with.

This was pretty easy to do with the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament. I simply called for a genitive word and asked for it to be repeated x number of times. I refined the number to give me hits I was looking for. (Download the query if you want, and put it in your My Documents\Libronix DLS\SyntaxQueries folder.)

The award for longest string of genitives goes without contest to Luke, who in Luke 3:23–38 strings together a massive 153 genitives.

23 Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ 24 τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἰανναὶ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ 25 τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Ἀμὼς τοῦ Ναοὺμ τοῦ Ἑσλὶ τοῦ Ναγγαὶ 26 τοῦ Μάαθ τοῦ Ματταθίου τοῦ Σεμεῒν τοῦ Ἰωσὴχ τοῦ Ἰωδὰ 27 τοῦ Ἰωανὰν τοῦ Ῥησὰ τοῦ Ζοροβαβὲλ τοῦ Σαλαθιὴλ τοῦ Νηρὶ 28 τοῦ Μελχὶ τοῦ Ἀδδὶ τοῦ Κωσὰμ τοῦ Ἐλμαδὰμ τοῦ Ἢρ 29 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Ἐλιέζερ τοῦ Ἰωρὶμ τοῦ Μαθθὰτ τοῦ Λευὶ 30 τοῦ Συμεὼν τοῦ Ἰούδα τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἰωνὰμ τοῦ Ἐλιακὶμ 31 τοῦ Μελεὰ τοῦ Μεννὰ τοῦ Ματταθὰ τοῦ Ναθὰμ τοῦ Δαυὶδ 32 τοῦ Ἰεσσαὶ τοῦ Ἰωβὴδ τοῦ Βόος τοῦ Σαλὰ τοῦ Ναασσὼν 33 τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνὶ τοῦ Ἑσρὼμ τοῦ Φάρες τοῦ Ἰούδα 34 τοῦ Ἰακὼβ τοῦ Ἰσαὰκ τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ τοῦ Θάρα τοῦ Ναχὼρ 35 τοῦ Σεροὺχ τοῦ Ῥαγαὺ τοῦ Φάλεκ τοῦ Ἔβερ τοῦ Σαλὰ 36 τοῦ Καϊνὰμ τοῦ Ἀρφαξὰδ τοῦ Σὴμ τοῦ Νῶε τοῦ Λάμεχ 37 τοῦ Μαθουσαλὰ τοῦ Ἑνὼχ τοῦ Ἰάρετ τοῦ Μαλελεὴλ τοῦ Καϊνὰμ 38 τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ.

Second place goes to John for his two 10-word genitive strings:

Revelation 8:13

Καὶ εἶδον, καὶ ἤκουσα ἑνὸς ἀετοῦ πετομένου ἐν μεσουρανήματι λέγοντος φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· οὐαὶ οὐαὶ οὐαὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκ τῶν λοιπῶν φωνῶν τῆς σάλπιγγος τῶν τριῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν μελλόντων σαλπίζειν.

Revelation 19:15

καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος

Third place is a three-way tie between Luke, Paul, and John with these nine-word genitive strings.

Luke 3:1 (a total of 26 genitives in the verse)

Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος,

1 Thessalonians 1:3 (a total of 22 genitives in the verse)

μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν,

Revelation 14:10

καὶ αὐτὸς πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τῆς ὀργῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ βασανισθήσεται ἐν πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ ἐνώπιον ἀγγέλων ἁγίων καὶ ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου.

There are seven eight-word genitive strings: Acts 12:12, 1 Cor 1:9; Col 2:12; 2 Tim 1:10; Rev 3:12; 9:13; 16:14; and another 22 seven-word genitive strings: Mat 1:1; Acts 4:30; 12:11; 15:26; Rom 1:4; 1 Cor 1:10; 2:6; Eph 2:2; Phil 3:8; 1 Thess 5:9–10; 2 Thes 2:1; 1 Tim 6:14; Heb 11:9; Jas 2:1; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 17; Rev 12:17; 14:8; 16:19; 18:3; 21:9; 22:19.

That’s as far as I’m going to go, since the numbers are starting to increase rapidly. :)

It’s noteworthy that Revelation wins for the highest number of large genitive strings with 12. Oddly enough, though, John’s Gospel and letters don’t have a single genitive string with seven or more consecutive genitives. (If we take the number down to six, two turn up: John 5:25 and 2 John 3.)

Some of these strings pose some real challenges to unpack, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.

Surely someone has already analyzed patterns in long genitive strings like these. Anyone know of any significant work on the subject?

About two months ago, I happened to catch a Zondervan blog post that mentioned that they were giving away 20 review copies of Constantine Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. I enjoy studying Greek, needed to learn more about the verbal aspect theory, and like free books, so I sent off my email and managed to snag a copy.

I got a friendly email yesterday reminding me that I still needed to write my review and mentioning the week-long series of blog posts on verbal aspect from the book’s author next week at the Zondervan Koinonia blog. It appears that I’m not alone as I’ve seen several other reviews coming out today.

Though I had 11 semesters of Greek classes in college and seminary and taught elementary and intermediate Greek for six semesters, my exposure to the verbal aspect theory has been rather limited. In fact, I don’t recall its ever being mentioned in any of my Greek courses with the one exception of the 15- or 20-minute overview in Advanced Greek Grammar. But by that time, I had already done some reading on my own, first prompted by a question from one of my first-year Greek students (he had a friend from another school whose teacher was a proponent of the verbal aspect theory) and then by my preparing to teach tense uses to my fourth semester students. But the extent of my reading was the section in Wallace’s Grammar, “An Assessment of Time in Verb Tenses,” and a smattering of articles and papers that I found online. I have since read and would recommend an article written by my friend Andy Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect Theory in New Testament Greek.”

All this to say that I was excited to have an opportunity to dig a little bit deeper.

Contents

Verbal Aspect Theory

1. What is Verbal Aspect?
2. The History of Verbal Aspect
3. Perfective Aspect
4. Imperfective Aspect
5. The Problem of the Perfect

Verbal Aspect and New Testament Text

6. Verbal Lexeme Basics
7. Present and Imperfect Tense-forms
8. Aorist and Future Tense-forms
9. Perfect and Pluperfect Tense-Forms
10. More Participles

Summary

BVABG brings a technical and controversial subject down to a level that most Greek students can understand and benefit from. It’s a fairly easy read, even for those with little to no exposure to the details of the verbal aspect debate.

What follows is a brief summary of Campbell’s positions on some of the main issues.

Aspect and Aktionsart are distinct and must not be confused.

1. Aspect is the author’s subjective viewpoint or way of portraying action. A tense-form is always either perfective or imperfective. That never changes.
2. Aktionsart refers to the various kinds of action that a verb can perform based on the semantics, the lexeme, and the context. A tense-form can have many different Aktionsarten as those influencing factors change.

There are only two aspects—perfective and imperfective—not three (stative is not an aspect but an Aktionsart) or four as some have suggested.

1. Perfective aspect views the action externally, as a whole, in summary. It’s like a reporter watching a parade from a helicopter.
2. Imperfective aspect views an action internally, as it unfolds. It’s like a reporter watching a parade from the street.

Aspect corresponds to semantics, which is contrasted with pragmatics. Pragmatics corresponds to Aktionsart.

1. Semantics (or more properly verbal or grammatical semantics) refers to the “values that are encoded in the verbal form” (22). They are always present and uncancelable. Semantics answers the question “Who am I?”
2. “Pragmatics refers to the semantic values in context and in combination with other factors” (23). As such, they are changing. Pragmatics answers the question “What do I do?”

This semantics–pragmatics dichotomy is what leads Campbell and others to exclude time from the tense-forms, for if the time element is changeable or cancelable (and it is), then it must be part of pragmatics and thus a part of the verbs Aktionsart, not a part of semantics, what the tense-form always communicates. And to say that time belongs to pragmatics is to say that the tense-forms don’t encode temporal reference.

As Campbell puts it,

The remaining question related to the distinction, however, is this: Is temporal reference semantic or pragmatic? If temporal reference is semantic, then Greek verbs truly are tenses. A verb’s temporal reference is uncancelable and is a core part of its meaning. An aorist is a past tense and must always be a past tense.

But here, of course, lies a problem. We learn early on that aorist are not always past referring. Therefore, we are led to ask: Is past temporal reference a semantic value of the aorist? . . . Even though the aorist often ends up expressing past temporal reference when used in Greek texts, this is a pragmatic implicature rather than semantic encoding. (24)

The most important players in the history of verbal aspect are Georg Curtius, K. L. McKay, Stanley Porter, Buist Fanning, Mari Broman Olsen, Rodney J. Decker, T. V. Evans, and—the author himself—Constantine R. Campbell.

The present points of disagreement among scholars are

1. whether time is intrinsic to the tense-forms in the indicative mood,
2. how many aspects there are, and
3. which tense-forms belongs to which aspects—a point that Campbell leaves off.

Perfective Tense-Forms

Campbell argues that both the aorist and future tense-forms are perfective. Many have maintained that the future is aspectually vague or non-aspectual, but Campbell disagrees. In addition to being perfective, the aorist is remote, which can take the form of spatial, temporal, or logical remoteness. The future is also perfective, but, unlike all the other tense-forms, it is a true tense in that it always conveys future time, and by extension remoteness. I’m not sure why Campbell feels the need to make an exception with the future in terms of time. It seems that this is a similar move to Olsen’s when she maintains that some lexemes convey temporal reference in their semantics, but others do not. The bigger problem is the overlap between the aorist and the future. Since (1) both are perfective, (2) both are remote, and (3) both can be future, what’s the difference between them when they are both future referring. Why choose one over the other? Campbell’s attempt to differentiate between them in this case is less than satisfying.

Imperfective Tense-Forms

Since there are only two aspects in Campbell’s system, he puts the remaining tense-forums in the category of imperfective.

1. Present is imperfective and proximate.
2. Imperfect is imperfective and remote.
3. Perfect is imperfective and more proximate.
4. Pluperfect is imperfective and more remote.

Campbell defends his view based on the similar roles that the present and perfect on the one hand and the imperfect and pluperfect on the other hand play in narrative.

The rest of the book goes on to discuss the Aktionsarten of each of the tense-forms. Chapters 7–10 include examples as well as exercises, with an answer key in the back. Oddly enough, Campbell’s system results in something not too different from the tense uses that you find in Wallace’s Grammar. Though I do think that Campbell’s system does provide a more linguistically informed and organized approach to the Greek verbal system, I’m not yet convinced that it really changes as much as proponents seem to suggest.

Evaluation

As one who has not delved into the technical literature on this subject, I find Campbell’s book informative, accessible, and fairly well reasoned. It doesn’t answer all of the questions, but it certainly provides one with a nice introduction to the major players and contours of the issues involved in the verbal aspect debate. I highly recommend it to those wanting to learn more about verbal aspect.

Finally, one grammatical error that was missed: “Thus, the semantic values of the future indicative tense-form is [are] perfective aspect and future temporal reference” (39).

Endorsements

Other Reviews

Mike Aubrey at his ἐν ἐφέσῳ: Thoughts and Meditations blog:

• The Basics of Verbal Aspect
• The Basics of Verbal Aspect – A Review Part I
• The Basics of Verbal Aspect – A Review Part II

Michael Hanel at the BibleWorks Blog:

• Review of Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek – Introduction
• Review of Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek – Part Two
• More on Campbell and Verbal Aspect

Donald Kim at his blog:

• Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, A Review

Matthew Malcolm at his Crypto-theology blog:

• Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek

Andy Naselli at his blog:

• Con Campbell’s Primer on Verbal Aspect Theory

William Varner at Amazon:

• A Good Start, But…

At BibleTech:2008 James Tauber of MorphGNT.org gave the opening presentation in Room 1, “MorphGNT and the Building of Linguistic Databases for New Testament Greek,” during which he shared a little bit about his work on a graded Greek reader. Unfortunately, he ran out of time and had to rush through his material. The MP3 audio is available at the BibleTech Conference website. He discusses the graded reader at the tale end of his presentation (50:15–55:30).

He argues for a more inductive approach to learning Greek, and suggested that word frequency is not the best choice for the order in which students should learn new words. Students should first learn the words that occur together most frequently, allowing them to read a broader base of the Greek New Testament earlier on. He also suggests learning the inflected forms first, and then learning the lemmas and other deductive categories later.

The biblical text would be a combination of Greek and English words (following Greek word order) that would take into consideration the vocabulary that the students have learned. As they learn more, the English words would become Greek words. This approach allows students to dive in just about anywhere in the Greek New Testament without the clunkiness of multiple levels of text that you get with interlinears.

Based on the feedback he got, James decided to put together a roughly nine-minute video giving an overview of his work with the graded reader. It’s worth watching.

(Video below.)

Rod Decker, Professor of Greek and New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, recently blogged about how new Vista fonts Cambria, Calibri, Candara, Consolas, Constantia, and Corbel unfortunately do not support polytonic Unicode Greek. Be sure to check out the PDF where he evaluates them.

In a comment, I noted that another new Vista font, Segoe UI, does support polytonic Unicode Greek. I also mentioned some nice polytonic Unicode Greek fonts that come with Adobe’s Creative Suite: “Arno Pro (serif), Garamond Premr Pro (serif), and Hypatia Sans Pro (sans serif)—a free gift downloadable after registering the product.” Decker responded and asked if I would post a PDF with samples, so that’s what I’m doing.

Here is a PDF with every polytonic Unicode Greek font that I’ve been able to get my hands on. Some of them are ugly; some are nice. Most of them are free. The ones that aren’t free have come with products I own.

Gentium has been my font of choice for most circumstances. Minion is also quite nice and would perhaps be my top choice were it not for the spacing problem it has with capital letters bearing diacriticals. (See my comment to Decker for more on this.)

What is your favorite polytonic Unicode Greek font? Did I miss any important ones?

David Instone-Brewer (also here and here), the Technical Officer and Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament at Tyndale House, has posted his review of version 2 of the Stuttgart Electronic Study Bible (SESB).

Here are some selections from his section “Overall Usefulness: much better than paper”:

Using these resources in electronic form makes me wonder if I will ever want to use the paper versions again. First the obvious—it is easier to zoom in on tiny details like pointing; information like morphology, roots or meaning appear by hovering or clicking; and the text can be searched in a variety of ways. . . .

. . .

What makes SESB so useable is the ability to understand the apparatus without needing to memorise all the arcane abbreviations. Remembering that codex B is 4^th C Vaticanus and D is 5^th C Bezae is easy compared to trying to remember that “28″ refers to an 11^th C Minuscule or that Hilary is a mid 4^th C Father, or that “Diatessaron^arm” refers to the Armenian translation within Ephraem’s commentary for passages where it differs from the Syriac original. The linking between them and the text is also very useful, because there is no need to constantly take one’s eye off the text to try and [sic] identify the relevant note. At last, the Apparatus is usable.

Here’s how he concludes his review:

If you are a PC user, this decision is a no-brainer. Sell your paper BHS, NA27 & UBS4, and buy this package. You don’t need to stop using BibleWorks but you will soon want to have both open. BibleWorks integrates itself well with Libronix and with internet resources via the built-in Link Manager. Even by itself, this package gives you a fully working Logos Libronix workface, and soon you will want to dip your toe in for other resources.

Read the entire review.¹

I heartily agree with his conclusion, though I do have three complaints about the product—actually about the UBS4 resource included with it.

1. The SESB UBS4 textual apparatus is not a separate resource, even though it is listed as a separate resource in the product description. This greatly decreases the functionality of the apparatus.
2. The SESB UBS4 lacks morphology. Though there are other Greek texts with morphology, its absence here makes the UBS4 unusable as a primary Greek text.
3. The SESB UBS4 forces the system to use BibliaLS instead of the default Greek font (in my case, Gentium). Minor, but annoying.

Update: I need to verify the accuracy of the following paragraph, particularly with regard to whether the condensed version is SESB 1 or SESB 2. I thought it was newly updated to 2 based on Rick Brannan’s comment in the Logos newsgroups. I will double check and post what I find here.

SESB 2 comes in two different versions: the full version (sale price: $324.95; academic $324.95) and the condensed version² (sale price $159.95; academic: $129.95), which lacks the foreign modern-language Bibles and other resources. The condensed version is the better choice and better value for most English-speaking users. Logos is the exclusive North American distributor for SESB.

See also these reviews:

• Rubén Gómez, review of SESB 1 and 2
• Sarah Lind, review of SESB 1 (Word)
• Jan Krans, review of SESB 1

Footnotes

1. You may want to sign up to receive his nearly monthly tech email (HT: Andy Naselli). ↩
2. It has just recently been updated to include the new resources in SESB 2. ↩