7 Is Verbal Aspect a Prominence Indicator? 2. Method If Luke could be interviewed, these questions could be settled with relative ease. But in his absence an evaluation of Porter’s proposal must take a more scientific form. This is easier said than done, however, since the data is fossilized and therefore cannot be repeated or exposed to the appropriate stimuli. Some have contested this, however, and have argued that the conven- tions of Modern Greek are not so different from Hellenistic Greek. Chrys Caragounis, for example, states that “the Greek of today is not a different language from ancient Greek ... Thus, on the basis of the unity of the Greek language ... later Greek (that is, from NT times to the present) is of relevance in interpreting the NT”19. Concerning the prominence value of verbal aspect he states “... nor is his [Porter’s] assertion (p.92) that the aorist backgrounds an action, while the present and imperfect foreground it, generally true”20. Thus, if there is continuity between Hellenistic and Modern Greek in this respect, then there is an evident discontinuity between Porter’s proposal and the way in which the Greek language is appropriated by its users. Porter et al., however, would want to maintain a more profound dis- tinction between the Hellenistic and Modern phase than Caragounis and in preference of synchronic analysis Porter will be given the benefit of any doubt21. So, we are left with the problem of how to test such a global theory on the basis of the data in an ancient text. Rodney Decker encountered the same problem in his attempt to evaluate Porter’s non-temporal view of the verb and his comments are helpful. Direct proof for such a proposal is not possible due to the nature of the theory. ...The theory can only be examined empirically for internal consisten- cy and (especially) for conformity to the data available ... A negative approach C.C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament (Tübingen 2004) 19 65. Caragounis, The Development, 333, n.335. 20 The father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand De Saussure (1857-1913), insisted on the 21 priority of synchronic analysis “since for the community of language users that is the one and only reality” (R. Harris [trans.], Course in General Linguistics [London 1983] 89). This does not mean that there is no place for diachronic analysis, rather, as A.C. Thiselton states “the two methods are fundamentally different, and perform different tasks” (“Semantics and New Testament Interpretation”, in I.H. Marshall (ed.), New Testament Interpretation [Exeter 1997] 80).