Idiolect is not the opposite of intellect.
— Anonymous
This chapter introduces recent advances in the areas of idiolect, genre, and register. Two of these three terms are poorly understood (if at all), yet all three have significant impact for our understanding of the Greek of the New Testament. The chapter will explore the exegetical implications of individual authors’ Greek style (idiolect) and the type of literature contained in the New Testament (register). The way in which Greek differs according to genre and text type also has bearing on exegesis.
These categories are relevant for the study of all texts, but in the New Testament they are especially interesting for understanding the Gospels. Synoptic criticism has long focused on differences and similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but much of that research (especially that from earlier periods) has not availed itself of the best thinking about idiolect, genre, and register. An obvious factor for this is that much Synoptic criticism was conducted before such thinking had developed into its modern form. As such, we will take note of the implications of idiolect, genre, and register with particular reference to the Gospels. The inclusion of John — alongside the Synoptics — actually helps us to understand the Synoptics better. To focus the issue further, we will concentrate on aspectual patterns across the Gospels, understood through the lenses of idiolect, genre, and register. This will also help to demonstrate how interrelated the three concerns are.
It should be noted, however, that all parts of speech are relevant for the study of idiolect, genre, and register. We could examine noun usage, use of the article, connectives, vocabulary, and so forth. The focus here on aspect is for the purpose of illustration, and it also demonstrates some of the wider applications of aspect studies.
When defining “idiolect” to students, I sometimes joke that it is not the opposite of intellect. Rather, idiolect is to an individual what dialect is to a group. As Crystal observes, idiolect refers to “to the linguistic system of an individual speaker — one person’s dialect. A dialect can be seen as an abstraction deriving from the analysis of a large number of idiolects.”1 To study idiolect, then, is to observe the ways in which an author (or speaker) uses language according to a personalized style. “Style” is a term that older grammarians may have used, understandably, to convey a similar notion, but idiolect is a more useful term. For instance, as with dialect, idiolect implies that the language user operates within the accepted bounds of the language in question, but puts an indelible stamp on how it “sounds.”
This is not simply the cultivation of a “writing style” that can be adopted to suit certain occasions, then is dropped when deemed inappropriate. In that sense, most writers are capable of executing different styles as they see fit (so too speakers). Idiolect, rather, is more of a permanent pattern of language use, regardless of occasion or, indeed, regardless of style. Idiolect is not “dropped” according to occasion — the writer cannot help but sound like herself in a broad sense. In fact, as Crystal claims, “idiolectal features are particularly noticeable in literary writing, as stylistic markers of authorship.”2 While an author’s style, or tone, might vary from one document to another, there will be relatively stable features that reveal an author’s hand — though it is also true that differing genres can greatly complicate the issue (see below, on genre).
Plenty of examples of idiolect abound in various types of literature. Avid theology readers will likely not have much trouble picking the writing of, say, N. T. Wright, Karl Barth, or John Calvin. Fiction readers might find it easy to pick out a few lines of Jane Austen, Tom Clancy, or Fyodor Dostoyevsky. We can discern their authorship through certain linguistic features that characterize their writing.
Applying such a concept to the Gospels, Wifstrand is able to conclude that Luke employs standard Hellenistic prose, which was more “Attic” in style than everyday spoken Hellenistic language.3 Nevertheless, while Luke demonstrates a more cultivated style than Mark, this does not make Luke an “Atticist.”4 Mark, however, is more representative of popular everyday language.5
Some of the points of interest in observing idiolect are vocabulary, syntactical constructions, patterns of verbal usage, and more macro features, such as those observed through discourse analysis (see chapter 7). Older analyses of style were primarily focused on vocabulary usage, which of course is a significant indicator of idiolect.
But there is much more to it than vocabulary. Syntactical constructions, for instance, can yield important results. The ways in which authors like to construct a sentence, with differing levels of clausal complexity and a variety of preferences for coordination and subordination within clause structure, are but a few examples of syntactical elements that are relevant to idiolect. These, however, are harder to observe than simple vocabulary usage, since they require careful consideration of clausal analysis (perhaps through syntax diagramming) and are not easily measured. Levels of clausal complexity are discerned through widespread patterns that leave an impression of authorial preference. This kind of thing becomes evident if one moves from, say, examining the syntax of Paul to the syntax of Peter. While Paul’s clausal syntax is far from simple, Peter’s syntax represents an unmistakable step up in complexity. This is most obviously appreciated through comparison of syntax diagrams. A syntax diagram of 1 Peter instantly reveals multiple layers of subordination and long and complex clauses. This feature alone — even apart from vocabulary usage — reveals a hand distinct from Paul’s.
6.2.1. Aspectual Patterns of the Gospels
Another important element of idiolect is the ways in which verbs are used. Analysis of verbal usage is more sophisticated than vocabulary usage, but it is easier to measure than clausal syntax. In terms of macro-patterns, how does Mark’s use of verbal aspect differ from that of Matthew and Luke? In what ways do their respective macro-patterns align? Some of the comparisons presented below will be intra-Synoptic, observing, for example, how Lukan usage differs from Markan. Other comparisons will be extra-Synoptic, such as how the Synoptics together differ from Johannine usage. The three focal points for this exploration into convergent and divergent patterns will be the use of the perfect indicative, pluperfect indicative, and historical present.
Let us first consider the use of the perfect indicative within the Gospels. Matthew employs 52 perfect indicatives, which represents 2.3 percent of the 2,245 indicatives in his gospel. Of these 52 perfects, 50 are found within direct discourse (96 percent). Mark employs 47 perfects, representing 3 percent of his 1,520 total indicatives. Of these, 44 are found in reported discourse (94 percent). Luke uses 60 perfect indicatives, representing 2.5 percent of 2,444 indicatives. In strong contrast to the Synoptics, however, John uses 205 perfects, representing 8 percent of his 2,556 total indicatives. Of these, 199 are within reported discourse (97 percent).6
Immediately noticeable is the fact that the Synoptics employ the perfect in frequencies ranging from 2 to 3 percent, while John’s frequency is 8 percent — more than triple that of Matthew and Luke (and nearly triple that of Mark). Nevertheless, there is also a convergent pattern to be observed between Synoptic and Johannine uses of the perfect indicative; this relates to distribution. Across all four Gospels, between 94 and 97 percent of perfect indicatives are found within reported discourse.
Let us turn now to consider the use of the pluperfect. Matthew employs 8 pluperfect indicatives, which represent 0.35 percent of his 2,245 total indicative verbs. All of these function to provide supplemental or explanatory material in offline narrative contexts. Likewise, Mark uses 8 pluperfects, which represent 0.5 percent of his 1,520 total indicative verbs. As with Matthew, all of these provide supplemental or explanatory material. Luke employs 16 pluperfect indicatives, representing 0.65 percent of 2,444 indicative verb forms. Of these, 15 pluperfects provide supplemental or explanatory material. Of 2,556 indicative verb forms, John employs 34 pluperfects, representing 1.3 percent of total indicative usage. All of these function to provide supplemental, explanatory, or descriptive material in offline narrative contexts.
Once again, Synoptic frequencies for the use of the pluperfect diverge from that of John. While the Synoptics exhibit pluperfect usage at a rate between 0.35 to 0.65 percent of total indicative verbs, John’s frequency of usage represents 1.3 percent of indicatives. Thus, John uses more than double the number of pluperfects relative to the Synoptic Gospels, and again the question is raised as to why this is so. As with the perfect, however, there is also a convergent pattern to be observed between Synoptic and Johannine uses of the pluperfect indicative, which is related to function. Virtually all pluperfects across all four Gospels provide supplemental, explanatory, or descriptive material, each being found within offline narrative contexts.
Let us turn now to consider the use of the historical present. Matthew’s gospel employs 89 historical presents, which represent 12 percent of the 753 present indicatives in the book. Of these historical presents, 70 function to introduce reported discourse, while 17 are verbs of propulsion, which are related to coming and going, moving from one place to another, giving and receiving, and so forth.7
Mark has 151 historical presents, representing 29 percent of his total 514 present indicatives. Of these, 90 historical presents introduce reported discourse, while 61 are verbs of propulsion. Mark also tends to use historical presents in paragraph-initial positions, to introduce new characters, and for scene changes. There are also some instances of clustering with 8 historical presents within 11 verses in 15:17 – 27.
Luke has only 12 historical presents, which constitutes 1.9 percent of his 623 present indicatives. Of these 12 historical presents, 11 are used to introduce reported discourse, and 1 is the verb of propulsion, ἔρχομαι. Luke does not appear to use these historical presents in paragraph-initial positions or to introduce new characters or scenes. Apart from introducing reported discourse, therefore, Lukan usage of the historical present does not have an obvious role in shaping the structure of units.
John employs 167 historical presents, representing 16 percent of 1,027 present indicatives in total. Of these, 144 historical presents are used to introduce reported discourse, while 23 are verbs of propulsion. There are also several clusters of historical presents, in chapters 1, 4, 13, 20, 21 — all being units of heightened significance.
Casting the net a little wider, the Koine fictional biography of Aesop, Vita Aesopi G, contains 769 present indicatives, 253 of which are historical presents representing 33 percent of present indicatives. In Vita Aesopi G reported discourse is more frequently introduced by historical presents than by aorists, with 230 historical presents performing this function compared to 208 aorists. Of these historical presents, 12 are verbs of propulsion, while 1 is found at the beginning of a pericope. There are no clusters of historical presents in the book.
The first book of Chariton’s Koine novel The Story of Callirhoe contains 20 historical presents, which constitutes 16 percent of the 123 present indicatives therein. Of these, 19 function to introduce reported discourse, while 1 is a verb of propulsion. There are no clusters of historical presents, and none are to be found at the beginning of pericopae.
Moving outside Koine literature altogether, a sample of 41 chapters from Thucydides contains 39 historical presents, representing 46 percent of 84 present indicatives.8 Of these, 11 historical presents introduce reported discourse, while 28 are verbs of propulsion. Four historical presents are found in pericope-initial positions, but there are no clusters of historical presents.
This brief overview of several documents reveals at least two divergent patterns in the use of the historical present. First, there are different frequencies of usage. Luke displays a low frequency of usage with historical presents, forming only 1.9 percent of present indicatives. Matthew, John, and Chariton each exhibit a midrange frequency of historical present usage at 12 percent, 16 percent, and 16 percent of total present indicatives respectively. Mark, Vita Aesopi G, and Thucydides each display a high frequency of historical present usage with 29 percent, 33 percent, and 46 percent of present indicatives respectively.
Second, there are divergent patterns of historical present usage with respect to discourse functions. Mark uses historical presents in pericopae-initial positions or to signal a change of speaker or scene. Mark also exhibits some clusters of historical presents, as does John. On the other hand, Matthew, Luke, Vita Aesopi G, Chariton, and Thucydides do not clearly follow such patterns. In spite of these strongly divergent patterns, there are two convergent patterns of usage that pervade all the documents surveyed. Virtually all historical presents are used either to introduce reported discourse or as verbs of propulsion. This holds true regardless of frequency of usage and perceived discourse patterns.
By examining verbal use alone — and only three tense-forms at that — it is already clear that authors display distinct patterns of frequency that mark them out. Their use of verbs partially reveals their idiolect.
There is some looseness in the literature as to what constitutes genre and how it is to be defined. Porter and Pearson distinguish between literary genres — which are used to describe whole works — and literary forms, such as parables, embedded narratives, and so forth.9 This distinction between genre and form is useful and is adopted here. Furthermore, while Halliday regards genre to be identical to register, this is not the position held here, since it is useful to maintain a distinction between these things.
With respect to literary genre, the Pauline epistles adhere to Hellenistic letterform, while the Gospels align with Greco-Roman biography, as Richard Burridge has identified.10
While literary genre is usefully distinguished from literary form, there is an obvious relationship between the two. Ancient biographies are normally narrative in form as they are today, and so the Gospels, while being biographical in genre, are also narrative in form. Their form is narrative; their genre is biography. As we investigate the function of verbal aspect within the Gospels, we are therefore looking at its function in narrative forms, since biographical genre implies narrative form.
In narratives, there are many pragmatic similarities that may be accounted by genre, since the narrative form employs predictable aspectual patterns.11 Aorist indicatives, which are perfective in aspect, normally carry the mainline of narrative proper, marking out its skeletal structure. Imperfect indicatives, which are imperfective in aspect, are normally used for offline material. Likewise, pluperfect indicatives, which I regard as imperfective in aspect,12 are also used for offline material that supplements, describes, and explains other events, characters, or situations. Present indicatives, which are also imperfective in aspect, find their default usage in direct and indirect discourse. They also function as historical presents in the narrative mainline. Perfect indicatives, which I regard as imperfective in aspect,13 are nearly exclusively found in reported discourse. In the Synoptics, the convergent patterns of aspectual usage are determined by their shared genre and form.
Indeed, aspectual usage within the narrative genre/form contrasts with the usage within the epistolary genre. Epistles generally do not contain narrative structures such as mainline,14 offline, and reported discourse, though embedded narratives can be found in which such structures do exist. Thus, while the semantics of the verbal forms are the same in any genre, the change in genre and form produces different aspectual functions.
According to Halliday, in differing situations individuals select particular configurations of the semantic options available to them, which are in turn realized in the lexicogrammatical system.15 This definition of register is synonymous with genre for Halliday. Reed, however, more simply defines register as referring to language according to use.16 It corresponds to linguistic expressions occasioned by common, social activities, such as telephone conversations, teacher – pupil interchanges, doctor – patient appointments, or ancient letters.17 Register may be defined as a configuration of meanings that is associated with a particular situation.18
Take blogs, for example. Blogs have become their own online genre, offering discussion or information published on the Internet, consisting of individual entries called posts, which can be single or multi-authored. The genre of a blog is understood. But different blogs can exhibit an array of different registers. Some blogs are personal “journals” shared online for friends and family. Others are high-end, official publications of corporations such as The New York Times. Most blogs are somewhere on a spectrum between the two. They are all blogs, but they can have radically different social functions. And the point is that the language of each blog will be shaped according to its social function. This is what is meant by register.
As O’Donnell observes, language serves as a social tool through which individuals manipulate and communicate with the environment: “Thus two significantly different varieties of language may be produced by the same speaker in close temporal succession on account of the differing goals for which language is being utilized.”19 The relationship between register, so described, and genre may be illustrated with reference to Paul’s epistles. While these share the same genre — being all letters — they nevertheless exhibit a certain amount of register variation as a result of their being written at different times in the apostle’s life, for different purposes, and to different audiences.20 Letters written to individuals, for instance, clearly differ from congregational correspondence. Just compare Philemon to Romans to appreciate how the differing purposes and recipients of each epistle affect their content. And yet they are both letters.
Ferguson distinguishes between “high” and “low” forms of language, in which “high” forms are used for public, formal, and official situations, while “low” forms are spoken and not normally written down. Religious texts tend to pertain to the first category, while the second category captures the language of the collective soul.21 Porter, however, prefers not to make rigid distinctions between “high” and “low” codes, in order to allow for multivariate analyses of individual registers as they are used in various communicative settings.22
The relationship between register and the New Testament is not straightforward. Against popular consensus, Rydbeck does not regard the New Testament, or the papyri for that matter, as “vulgar.” The various collections of papyri range from extremely carefully written official documents, through business letters, to vulgar private letters.23 Contra Deissmann and Moulton, Rydbeck argues that the New Testament does not exhibit any really vulgar characteristics.24
With respect to Luke’s gospel, Wifstrand argues that Luke has to a great extent consciously patterned his style on the Septuagint’s manner of expression.
The sum of it all is that Luke, in contrast to the other synoptics, sought to give his narrative a more elevated and dignified style by consciously and deliberately associating it with the peculiar style of Greek prevalent in the LXX which . . . had acquired a sacred status in the eyes of Hellenized Jews and proselytes as well as of the first Christians.25
Thus, according to Wifstrand, it would be appropriate to describe Lukan register as prestige language, deliberately emulating the Septuagint. It might be speculated that this is in order to present his work as “Scripture,” alongside the Greek Old Testament.
With respect to Mark’s gospel, Porter observes that it appears to be written in a literate culture, and the context of situation seems to be one in which the recipient community was already convinced of who Jesus was.26 Though this is certainly debatable, if Porter is correct it might be concluded that Mark is not persuasive in register, but is intended to teach believers.
With respect to John’s gospel, it is important to take heed of the direct appeals that the author makes to his readers, such as is found in 20:31. In this connection, the book exhibits relatively frequent instances of “authorial discourse,” in which the author effectively “speaks” to the reader.27 O’Donnell points to John’s much higher frequency of so-called “private” verbs, such as πιστεύω and γινώσκω.28 John is also comparatively low on features that are normally associated with informational production.29 Thus Johannine register appears to be more explicitly persuasive and personal, which accords with the stated purpose of the book.
6.5 Divergent Aspectual Patterns: Pragmatics, Idiolect, and Register
The differences in the usage of aspect across the Synoptics occur within the realm of pragmatics. For example, the use of the historical present to introduce paragraphs is apparently a cancelable feature, since not all authors use the historical present this way. While the semantic constituency of the historical present remains constant, there are different pragmatic uses for which it may be employed.
Some of the differences in aspectual usage are shaped by idiolect. The frequency of the historical present is probably idiolectal. Perhaps the high frequency of historical present usage in Mark and John indicates a more “flamboyant” style, while Luke is much more reserved. Luke’s restraint might also be shaped by register in that his apparent “prestige” language, emulating the sacred Septuagint, might have led to a reserved usage of “flamboyant” devices.
However, it is here that Thucydides provides an important comparison since his is also regarded as “prestige” language, written in Attic historical prose — Attic itself being a prestige dialect. Thucydides has been dubbed the father of “scientific history” because of his strict standards of evidence-gathering. And yet, Thucydides displays a high frequency of historical presents. It is not likely, therefore, that historical presents were repugnant to the more elevated registers. As such, Luke’s restraint is tentatively regarded as idiolect rather than register-specific. It was simply part of Luke’s style to use the historical present sparingly.
Some differences in aspectual usage are shaped by register. John’s high frequency of the perfect indicative may be idiolectal, especially since the Johannine Epistles also demonstrate a high frequency of perfect usage. However, this phenomenon may also be related to register, since John’s gospel has been described as persuasive and personal in function. With respect to historical present frequency, John parallels Mark, and both authors demonstrate free use of it as a highlighting device. Mark’s use of the perfect, however, parallels the other Synoptics, with the perfect accounting for only 2 – 3 percent of all indicatives, while John demonstrates perfect usage at 8 percent of total indicatives. If the perfect functions to express prominence — as many scholars have argued30 — this highlighting device is favored by John, but not by Mark (nor the other Synopticists).
If John’s register is regarded as persuasive and personal — and therefore less informational — this could in part account for the high frequency of perfects. Such frequency is no doubt related to idiolect, but the point here is that it may also be influenced by the register of the document. Conversely, this conclusion also fits with Markan register, which (as suggested above by Porter) is nonpersuasive and more informational. Mark’s ordinary use of the perfect therefore fits such a profile.
What may be concluded from all this? Four things may be suggested. First, semantics are semantics. That is, regardless of genre, form of literature, idiolect, or register, the semantic values of verbs remain constant.
Second, genre and form account for the convergent aspectual patterns observed. The patterns of narrative structure are predictable and verbal aspect usage fits within such patterns. Furthermore, aspectual usage in the epistles is markedly different from that in narratives.
Third, idiolect and register account for the divergent aspectual patterns detected throughout the documents in view. Certain authors demonstrate a preference for certain verbal phenomena, while other authors have a preference against such. It is sometimes difficult to determine if divergent patterns are due to either idiolect or register, though these may often go hand in hand. Indeed, the extant samples of each author’s writing are probably too small to make definitive statements one way or the other. This process would be easier if multiple examples of each author’s writing across varying registers were available to us. Then we could discern which patterns belong to idiolect alone and which relate to register. There is some potential for progress, however, in comparing different authors writing within similar registers.
Fourth, further research into idiolect and register with respect to the Greek New Testament will no doubt yield greater understanding of aspectual usage, as determined by each author’s style and the social context and purpose of each document.
As mentioned in this chapter’s introduction, verbal aspect is but one area of investigation when it comes to idiolect, genre, and register. By increasing the parts of speech under consideration, we will exponentially increase the amount of data that may be processed through these lenses. This will aid our appreciation of the nature of New Testament literature as well as enhance our understanding of the Greek language.
Burridge, R. A. What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. SNTSMS 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.
Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. “Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation.” Pages 255 – 97 in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. JSNTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Pearson, Brook W. R., and Stanley E. Porter. “The Genres of the New Testament.” Pages 131 – 65 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Porter, Stanley E. “The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek.” Pages 53 – 75 in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. JSNTSup 193. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000.
Rydbeck, L. “On the Question of Linguistic Levels and the Place of the New Testament in the Contemporary Language Milieu.” Pages 191 – 204 in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays. JSNTSup 60. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991.
Wifstrand, Albert. “Language and Style of the New Testament.” Pages 71 – 77 in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era. Edited by Lars Rydbeck and Stanley E. Porter. Translated by Denis Searby. WUNT 179. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
———. “Luke and Greek Classicism.” Pages 17 – 27 in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era.
———. “Luke and the Septuagint.” Pages 28 – 45 in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era.
1. Crystal, Linguistics and Phonetics, 235.
2. Ibid.
3. Albert Wifstrand, “Luke and Greek Classicism,” in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era (ed. Lars Rydbeck and Stanley E. Porter; trans. Denis Searby; WUNT 179; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 19.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. These statistics are gathered from the NA28-T module of the Accordance Bible Software.
7. For more on verbs of propulsion, see Campbell, Verbal Aspect (Indicative Mood), 46 – 47.
8. The Peloponnesian War, 1.89 – 118, 128 – 38.
9. Brook W. R. Pearson and Stanley E. Porter, “The Genres of the New Testament,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 134.
10. Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
11. Campbell, Verbal Aspect (Indicative Mood), 239 – 41.
12. Ibid., 228 – 29.
13. Ibid., 184 – 89.
14. Though Levinsohn does discern theme line in epistles, which normally consists of hortatory material. See Stephen H. Levinsohn, “Self-Instruction Materials on Non-Narrative Discourse Analysis” (www.sil.org/~levinsohns/, 14 – 16).
15. M. A. K. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (London: Edward Arnold, 1978), 141.
16. Jeffrey T. Reed, “Discourse Analysis,” in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 198.
17. Ibid.
18. M. A. K. Halliday and R. Hasan, Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 38 – 39. See also Dooley and Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse, ch.3.
19. Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation,” in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (JSNTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 255.
20. Ibid., 280.
21. C. A. Ferguson, “Diglossia Revisited,” Southwest Journal of Linguistics 10 (1991): 227 – 29.
22. Stanley E. Porter, “The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek,” in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics (JSNTSup 193; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 62.
23. L. Rydbeck, “On the Question of Linguistic Levels and the Place of the New Testament in the Contemporary Language Milieu,” in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays (JSNTS 60; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 200.
24. Ibid., 200 – 203.
25. Albert Wifstrand, “Luke and the Septuagint,” in Epochs and Styles: Selected Writings on the New Testament, Greek Language and Greek Culture in the Post-Classical Era (ed. Lars Rydbeck and Stanley E. Porter; trans. Denis Searby; WUNT 179; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 41.
26. Stanley E. Porter, “Verbal Aspect and Discourse Function in Mark 16:1 – 8: Three Significant Instances,” in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J. (ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp; CBQMS 44; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2008), 123 – 37.
27. Campbell, Verbal Aspect (Indicative Mood), 42 – 43.
28. Brook O’Donnell, “Register – Balanced Corpus,” 282 – 83.
29. Ibid., 283.
30. Campbell, Verbal Aspect (Indicative Mood), 195 – 210.