Prominence and Markedness in New Testament Discourse 7 approach11, I determine that each language will have criteria for prominence separate from others, although the more related languages may have some overlapping criteria; for example, languages that are configurational will probably include word order as a criteria for prominence, and languages that are characterized by verbal aspect will also have similar schemes to each other, though the specifics may differ. The primary criterion I identify for Hellenistic Greek is verbal aspect, but other criteria also include mood and voice. There are other criteria that have been identified, but for purposes of this paper, I will focus on these12. 1) Verbal aspect. One of the primary ways in which the Hellenistic Greek writers (and probably speakers—though we have no audible record of this) convey prominence is their choice of tense-forms to convey aspect—in fact, since the verbal system in Greek is so central to the system of language, it should be no surprise that prominence is primarily conveyed through aspect. As a result, most of this section on criteria for prominence will be devoted to explaining determining prominence through verbal aspect. However, the problem is that there is still a debate as to outlining a precise aspect system13. Some posit a two-aspect system (Buist Fanning and Constantine Campbell), while others posit a three- aspect system (Stanley Porter and Rodney Decker). Since this is not the place to delve deeply into the verbal aspect debate, I will simply assume the three-aspect system, which includes 1) perfective, 2) imperfective, and 3) stative aspect14. Despite the surrounding debate regarding verbal aspect, there is still a common thread that unites all verbal aspect theorists; something that 11 Based on Halliday’s work, among others. Cf. M.A.K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar (1st ed.; London: 1985); Geoff Thompson, Introducing Functional Grammar (2nd ed.; London: 2004). 12 See below for other possible criteria for determining prominence in Hellenistic Greek. 13 See for example the collection of essays in Stanley E. Porter, and D. A. Carson, eds., Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research (JSNTSup 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), stemming from the SBL meetings of 1990 and 1991, as well as the recent SBL meeting in 2013 in the Greek language and linguistics section, “The Perfect Storm,” in which Stanley Porter, Constantine Campbell, and Buist Fanning debated the perfect tense-form and its aspectual value. 14 I find Porter’s case for a three-aspect system much more compelling and robust than some others; in fact, his theory in his Verbal Aspect is based on the markedness schemes of the Greek verbal system. The perfect tense-form is much more heavily marked, in all five categories mentioned above, than the aorist or present, that a third aspect seems to be justified. Cf. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, With Reference to Tense and Mood (SBG 1; New York: 1989) esp. 245–50. Cf. also Rodney J. Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect (SBG 10; New York: 2001) 148; Robert E. Picirilli, “The Meaning of the Tenses in New Testament Greek: Where Are We?” JETS 48 (2005) 533–55, who also adhere to the three-aspect model.