THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN
NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS
by
John
A. Battle, Jr.
Submitted in partial
fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Theology in
Grace
Theological Seminary
May, 1975
Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrand
at: ted.hildebrandt@gordon.edu
Accepted by the Faculty of Grace
Theological Seminary
in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree
Doctor of
Theology
Grade A
Examining
Committee
James L. Boyer
Homer A.
Kent
Charles R.
Smith
PREFACE
The study of the Greek New
Testament is perhaps the most rewarding
and exhilarating task possible.
But this study requires exegetical tools.
The syntax of Greek verb tenses
stands at the center of accurate exegesis,
and this grammatical tool must
be formed and sharpened by inductive study
of New Testament usage.
It has been this writer's happy task to seek to define
more
closely the value of the Greek
present indicative verb. He wishes to
thank all those who have
assisted in this effort. First of all, thanks
are due to Dr. James L. Boyer,
the chairman of the examining committee,
and to its other members, Dr.
homer A. Kent, Jr., and Dr. Charles R. Smith,
for their patient and expert
advice at several important points. Also,
thanks are due to Dr. John C.
Whitcomb, Jr., who directs the Postgraduate
Division of Grace Theological
Seminary, for his help and encouragement
throughout the entire program.
In addition, this author wishes to express
his gratitude toward several of
his colleagues in the faculty of Faith
Theological Seminary who have
assisted with their advice, help, and per-
sonal libraries: Dr. A.
Franklin Faucette, Dr. Stephen M. Reynolds, Dr.
Sang Chan Lee, and Dr. Richard
C. Curry. But the one person who has
helped the most deserves
special thanks, the author's wife, Tammie. In
addition to spending many, many
hours in difficult work, she has always
been an inspiration and
encouragement during this paper's preparation.
Of course, our chief gratitude
must be directed to the One who inspired
the New Testament, and of whom
it speaks.
iv
It is
this author's hope that this study of the present indicative
will shed more light on the New
Testament. Julius R. Mantey has advised,
"I trust in your
dissertation you will cite several examples in the New
Testament where the present
tense functions remarkably well in exegesis,
so much so that its readers
would be deprived of much insight if it were
not used" (personal
letter, September 13, 1974). Indeed, if the reader
will more thoroughly appreciate
the meaning of the New Testament, this
paper's purpose will be
fulfilled.
v
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
PART
Chapter
I. THE PLACE OF TENSE IN GREEK
The Importance of Tense in Exegesis 1
Common Misunderstanding of Tense 4
Modern Translation Approach of Eugene
A. Nida 7
Complexity of the Present Indicative
16
Aktionsart and Aspect 18
II. THE PLAN OF ATTACK 24
An Inductive Approach 24
Method of Procedure 26
Summary of the Study's Results 28
III. THE FREQUENCY OF THE PRESENT
INDICATIVE 30
Total Occurrences 30
Present Indicative Frequency 35
Doubtful Cases 41
Morphological Note on Movable Nu 42
PART II. PRESENT INDICATIVE
EXEGESIS
I. THE USAGE CATEGORIES 45
Traditional Usage Classifications 45
Proposed Classifications 49
II. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN PRESENT TIME
53
Progressive Present 53
The Verb "To Be" 56
vi
Chapter Page
The Question of Aoristic Presents 58
Declarative Present 61
Customary Present 63
Abstract Present 68
Perfective Present 75
The Present in Kingdom Passages 81
Conclusion for Presents in Present Time 84
III. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN PAST TIME 85
Historical Present Frequency 85
Synoptic Comparison 90
The Zero Tense Controversy 107
Relevant New Testament Data 117
Exegesis of the Historical Present 130
Otter Past Time Usages 135
Conclusion 137
IV. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN FUTURE TIME 138
Futuristic Present Frequency 138
Futuristic Present Vocabulary 142
Futuristic Present Aspect 149
Futuristic Present Exegesis 151
Present for Immediate Future 154
Conclusion 157
V. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN RELATIVE TIME 159
Relative Present 159
Indirect Present 160
VI. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN CONDITIONAL
SENTENCES 163
Present of the Protasis 163
Other Uses with Ei]
172
Present of the Apodosis 173
Conclusion 179
PART III.
CONCLUSION
The Problem of the Present
Indicative 181
Suggested Solution 183
The Limits of Syntax 184
APPENDIX A. PRESENT INDICATIVE
VERB CLASSIFICATION 186
vii
Page
APPENDIX B. TIE MOVABLE NU IN MATTHEW
245
APPENDIX C. HISTORICAL PRESENT
CONTEXT 246
APPENDIX D. PRESENT OF THE
PROTASIS 252
BIBLIOGRAPHY 256
viii
LIST OF
TABLES
Table Page
1. Present Indicatives per Chapter 30
2. Present Indicatives per Book 34
3. Present Indicatives per 100 Words 35
4. Present Indicatives per 100 Verb Forms 39
5. Present Indicative Preference by Book 40
6. Present Indicative Preference by Author 40
7. Progressive Present Frequency 55
8. Declarative Presents 61
9. Customary Presents 67
10. Abstract Presents 74
11. Perfective Present 81
12. Historical Present Frequency 86
13. Synoptic Historical Presents 93
14. Synoptic Historical Present Figures 104
15. Historical Present Vocabulary 119
16. Historical Present Verb Types 122
16A. Verb Type Percentages 123
17. Historical Present Contexts 126
18. Historical Present Connections 127
19. Futuristic Present Frequency 138
20. Futuristic Present Vocabulary 142
21. Present for Relative Time 161
ix
Table Page
22. Protasis Present Frequency 165
23. Apodosis Present Frequency 176
4
PART
I. THE PLACE OF TENSE IN
GREEK
The verb is the center of the sentence. Verbs turn mere
phrases
into clauses. They supply the
heart, the force of the sentence. Accu-
rate exegesis must begin with
the verb.
The two primary features of verb syntax are mood and
tense. This
paper will deal exclusively
with the indicative mood. Within that mood
Biblical Greek has at least six
tenses: present, imperfect, future,
aorist, perfect, and
pluperfect.1 Each of these
tenses carries with it
an exegetical background and
flavor, implications and associations which
belong to that tense alone.2
The exact force of these tenses is still
highly debated. One of them,
the present tense, especially has become
the object of recent inquiry
and discussion. This paper shall concen-
trate on that single tense, the
present indicative.
The Importance of Tense
in Exegesis
The Bible student has a special interest in Greek exegesis.
The
New Testament in Greek is God's
last direct revelation to His people,
inspired and inerrant. Each
word reflects the meaning that God intended.
1 For the few possible NT
examples of the non-periphrastic future
perfect,
see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the
Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical
Research
(hereinafter referred to as Grammar;
Broadman
Press, 1934), pp. 906-07.
2 Ibid., p. 822: "In the beginning the verb-root was used with
personal
suffixes. At first this was enough. Some verbs developed some
tenses, others other tenses,
some few all the tenses."
2
Whatever meaning can be
extracted from a passage's syntax will be true,
useful, and profitable (2 Tim.
3:16).
The exegesis of the tenses stands at
the center of such study.
No element of the Greek language is of more
importance to the student
of the New Testament than the matter of
tense. . . . Though it is an
intricate nd difficult subject, no phase of
Greek grammar offers a
fuller reward. The benefits are to be reaped
only when one has invested
sufficient time and diligence to obtain an
insight into the idiomatic
use of tense in the Greek language and an
appreciation of the finer
distinctions in force.1
This attitude springs from the
conviction that the various authors selected
their tenses purposefully.
It is certainly unsafe, however, to proceed
upon any supposition other
than that he New Testament writer used the
tense which would convey
just the idea he wished to express. This is
the rule, and all seeming
exceptions are to be regarded with doubt.2
While ample provision must be
allowed for individual variations of style,
as this paper will demonstrate,
it should be assumed that each author em-
ployed tenses in accordance
with general usage and propriety.
Further, traditional grammarians have assumed that each
tense had
its own distinct usage and
force, and that one could not be switched with
another without changing the
flavor or even the meaning of the passage.
One hundred years ago Alexander
Buttmann defended the distinct meaning of
each tense:
In the use of the Tenses the N.T. writers
are by no means deficient
in the requisite skill. Consequently the
so-called Enallage Temporum
or Interchange of Tenses, which was applied
by some of the older inter-
preters of Scripture often and
indiscriminately, is to be opposed
1 H. E. Dana and Julius
R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek
New
Testament (hereinafter referred
to as Manual Grammar;
2 Ibid.
3
on behalf of the N.T. language at the
outset, and discarded on
principle.1
A. T. Robertson, with
characteristic care and caution and historical aware-
ness, likewise emphasizes the
unique aura of each tense:
The
point here is not whether the Greeks used an aorist where we
in English would use a perfect, but whether
Greeks themselves drew no
distinction between an aorist and a perfect,
a present and a future.
It is not possible to give a categorical
answer to this question when
one recalls the slow development of the
Greek tenses and the long his-
tory of the language. . . . It is a very
crude way of speaking to say
that one tense is used "for"
another in Greek. That would only be true
of ignorant men. In general one may say that
in normal Greek when a
certain tense occurs, that tense was used
rather than some other because
it best expressed the idea of the speaker or
writer. Each tense,
therefore, has its specific idea. That idea
is normal and can be
readily understood. Various modifications
arise, due to the verb it-
self, the context, the imagination of the
user of the tense. The result
is a complex one, for which the tense is not
wholly responsible. The
tenses, therefore, are not loosely
interchangeable. Each tense has a
separate history and presents a distinct
idea. That is the starting-
point.2
Thus, from the traditional view
at least, the study of Greek tenses should
bear rich fruit for Bible
students.
The use of the Tenses is a most important
subject for the exegesis of
the NT. The student cannot learn too soon
that the tenses are used
with absolute accuracy by the NT writers,
and he will soon realise
how
much is lost in meaning by inexactness.3
On the other hand, if
traditional grammarians have been mistaken, if in
certain situations certain
tenses are indeed interchangeable, then should
not the exegete be aware of
that fact? In fact, by making artificial and
arbitrary distinctions, would
not the interpreter, teacher, or preacher
1 Buttmann, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,
tr. by J. H. Thayer
(Andover:
Warren F. Draper, Publisher, 1873), p. 195.
2 Robertson, Grammar, pp. 829-30.
3 James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol.
I:
Prolegomena
(3
d ed.;
4
be adding his own ideas to the
Scripture and obscuring God's intended
meaning? Thus, in either case,
the study of Greek tenses is vital for New
Testament exegesis.
Common Misunderstanding
of Tense
Perhaps some of the present difficulties among
interpreters can be
traced to earlier neglect of
this subject by many Greek grammarians. A
typical example might be the
classical scholar Philip Buttmann (not to be
confused with Alexander
Buttmann quoted above). He exhibits a remarkably
carefree attitude toward the
peculiarities of Greek tenses:
As the present, the imperfect, the perfect,
the pluperfect, and the
future, agree in the main with the
corresponding tenses of other lan-
guages, it is necessary only to speak
briefly of the Aorist and the
3d Future of the Passive voice.1
F. W. Farrar was convinced that
similar delusions plagued the translators
of the venerable Authorized
Version; he wrote that "the translators of our
English version have failed
more frequently from their partial knowledge
of the force of the tenses than
from any other cause."2
On the other side, many modern writers overstep the rules
of syntax,
forcing every occurrence of a
particular tense into a supposed semantic
rule. Many examples of such
misuse of the present indicative will appear
1
Philip Buttmann, Greek Grammar for the
Use of Schools, tr. by
Edward
Everett (2nd ed.;
p.
277.
2 As quoted by Robertson,
Grammar, p. 821. Robertson quoted
from
the
1876 edition of Farrar's Greek Syntax,
p. 123 (see p. lxviii). The
edition
to which this writer had access, A Brief
Greek Syntax and Hints on
Greek Accidence (New ed.; London:
Longmans, Green, and Co., 1868), does not
seem
to contain the quotation in the relevant chapter, pp. 110-27. However,
Farrar
does criticize various practices, as using the auxiliary verb "have"
for Greek aorist verbs (pp.
118-19), which criticism appears unjustified.
5
in this paper. And other moods
and tenses receive similar arbitrary
classification in the
commentaries, in spite of the warnings issued in
standard grammars.
The present imperative, for example, when used with mh<, often
means "stop doing
such-and-such." Yet the pattern is by no means a rule.1
One need not claim that Paul
accused Timothy of neglecting his ministerial
gifts (1 Tim. 4:14)! And yet, surprisingly enough, even such a
highly
respected grammarian as Nigel
Turner, who wrote the third volume of
Moulton's Grammar himself appears to maintain that the rule is universal.2
The brilliant linguist Eugene
A. Nida follows suit.3 One need only consult
the various standard commentaries
at such a passage as John 20:17, "Jesus
says unto her, Do not touch
me," to observe the confidence with which most
commentators construct the
scene--Jesus trying to wrench his feet from the
woman's grasp. Comparatively
few commentators4 even mention the alternative
possibility that Mary was about
to touch the Lord.
Along similar lines, many writers misunderstand the
impact of the
1 Moulton, for example,
carefully explains the qualifications and
exceptions
involved, Prolegomena, pp. 125-26.
2 Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament
(hereinafter
referred
to as Insights;
is
not the only difference that separates the authors of Volumes I and III
of
the famous grammar! See E. V. McKnight, "The New Testament and 'Biblical
Greek,'"
The Journal of Bible and Religion,
XXXIV:l (January, 1966), 36-42,
and
Nigel Turner, "The Literary Character of New Testament Greek," New
Testament Studies, 20:2 (January, 1974),
107-14.
3 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1964),
pp.
199-200; and God's Word in Man's Language
(
Publishers,
1952), pp. 58-59.
4 As Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, in The New Inter-
national Commentary on
the New Testament,
ed. by F. F. Bruce (
Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), p. 840, n. 38, in spite of his
previous statement, p. 195, n.
65.
6
aorist tense. Frank Stagg in
his instructive article "The Abused Aorist,"1
faults such illustrious names
as F. W. Beare, Wilhelm Bousset, R. H.
Charles, Joachim Jeremias,
Robert Law, Leon Morris, J. A. Sanders,
Rudolf Schnackenburg, A. N.
Wilder, Raymond E. Brown, and C. H. Dodd with
misusing the aorist tense. They
apply it, he says, too readily to the
action itself as being
punctiliar, rather than to the author's presenta-
tion or view of the action. The
correct appreciation of the aorist as
mere "non-determined"
is not new. Ernest DeWitt Burton employed it
during the previous century in
the field of aorist prohibitions.2 More
recently James L. Boyer has
noted that the aorist expresses "simple occur-
rence," not "single
occurrence," citing several examples of aorists that
describe durative action which
is being conceived of as punctiliar.3
The aorist is the most colorless, the least
distinctive of all the
tenses in Greek. It is the catch-all tense
which was used whenever
there was no particular reason to emphasize
duration or abiding result.4
Hence, to continue in his
words, the interpretation of aorists should be
equally broad:
From the viewpoint of exegesis a safe rule,
perhaps slightly exag-
gerated, might be: When you come to a
present, or imperfect, or
perfect tense, dig into it and squeeze out
of it its full signifi-
cance. But when you come to an aorist tense,
translate it as
simply as possible and forget it.5
And yet respected scholars
still "abuse the aorist." Nigel Turner has
1
Stagg, in the Journal of Biblical
Literature, 91:2 (June, 1972),
esp.
222-28.
2
(hereinafter
referred to as Moods and Tenses; 3rd
ed.;
3 Boyer, "Semantics
in Biblical Interpretation," Grace
Journal,
3:2 (Spring, 1962), 32.
4 Ibid. 5
Ibid.
7
applied his understanding of
the aorist to the science of textual cri-
ticism. Admitting that external
manuscript evidence favors the inclusion
of "daily" in Luke
9:23, he yet believes that intrinsic "grammatical
evidence" rules it out,
since "the addition of 'daily,' which has excel-
lent manuscript authority, is
impossible with the aorist imperative, for
it makes the command
durative."1 Note the use of that word "impossible."
Should not grammar be derived
from the text, and not vice versa?
While misunderstanding may err on the side of a too
stringent
interpretation, it may also err
by overlooking subtle but important
shifts in tense. In a very
helpful article Julius R. Mantey disputes
with Dr. Henry Cadbury of
Harvard, who takes the periphrastic future
perfects in Matthew 16:19 and
18:18 to be equivalent to simple futures.
Mantey compares these passages
to the simple perfects of John 20:23 and
demonstrates that the future
perfect tense itself provides the key to
these difficult verses.2
The apostles simply will be ratifying in their
official capacity what has
already been decided and established in
heaven.
A false understanding of the Greek tenses can lead to
arbitrary
and misleading exegesis. A
correct understanding will throw light and
clarity upon God's true
revelation.
Modern Translation
Approach of Eugene A. Nida
Central to this study are the issues of translation and
1 Turner, Insights, p. 31.
2 Mantey, "Evidence
that the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and
Matthew
16:19 is Mistranslated," The Journal
of the Evangelical Theological
Society, 16:3
(Summer, 1973), esp. 129, 136.
8
interpretation. No modern
treatment of tense exegesis can ignore the
presuppositions of recent
translation theory. The word "presuppositions"
was chosen purposefully, since
many conclusions in this field stem from
admittedly theological
premises. Eugene Albert Nida is the best possible
spokesman for the new approach.
Born in 1914, he studied at the Univer-
sity of
nia, and received his Ph.D.
from the
An ordained Baptist minister,
he was honored with D.D. degrees from Phila-
delphia's Eastern Baptist
Seminary in 1956 and from
Baptist Seminary in 1959. Then
in 1967 he obtained the earned Th.D.
degree from the
1953 he was Professor of
Linguistics for the Summer Institute of Lin-
guistics, the
Secretary of Translations for
the American Bible Society. Internation-
ally, he is the Coordinator of
Research in Translations for the United
Bible Societies--a post from
which he exerts enormous influence over
virtually every new published
Bible translation throughout the world.
Also, he provides an excellent
focus for discussion since he is a pro-
lific writer. In addition to
being associate editor of Practical An-
thropology, he is
the author of numerous scholarly articles and of at
least ten books dealing with
Bible translation.1
The Essence of the Theory
The following diagram appears in a recent article by
1 Detals in this
paragraph are taken from "Nida, Eugene Albert,"
Who's Who in
Who's Who, Inc., 1972), II,
2334.
9
Nida.1
S1 M1 R1
R2
S2 M2 R2
R3
S3
Source
Language Receptor
Language
The top horizontal arrow in the
diagram represents the original writing
of a Scriptural portion. The
square boxes indicate that the entire
process was carried out in the
original language--e.g., Greek. S1
is the original
"source" or author; M1 is the "message," or form of
the writing itself; and R1 is
the original "receptor" of the message.
The second horizontal arrow
represents a translation of the passage into
another language, the circles
indicating the new language--e.g., English.
The translator, R2 S2, fulfills
two functions, as the symbols indicate.
He must be first of all a
receptor of the message in the original lan-
guage, and then he must become
the source of the translated message,
M2, for the receptor, R2, who
knows only the second language. The
bottom symbol, R3 S3 represents the critic of the
translation--a
person who, even as the translator,
must be familiar with both the
original language and that of
the translation.
The modern theory can now symbolically be stated thusly:
( R1= R2 )
> (M1 = M2 )
1 The diagram and the
following explanation are found in
A.
Nida, "Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholar-
ship," Journal of Biblical Literature, 91:1
(March, 1972), 87-89.
10
Similar receptor response
outweighs similar message form or content.
Nida indicates with dotted
lines the traditional method of judging trans-
lations. The critic looks for
literary equivalence between M1 and M2--
that is, between the two
written texts. He expects literal translations
of vocabular and syntax. As
much as possible the exact form of the
original is ought in the
translation. Such a critic applauds what Nida
calls an "F-E"
translation ("Formal-Equivalence" translation), as, for
example, the American Standard
Version of 1901.1
But Nida defends the new method, indicated by the curved
arrows.
The critic should compare not
the formal equivalence of the texts, but
rather the response produced in
the two receptors. The modern reader
should have he same degree of
understanding as he reads the translation
as the original Greek readers
had in the first Christian centuries. The
modern critic, therefore, will
prefer a more free translation, what Nida
calls a "D-E” translation
("Dynamic-Equivalence" translation), as, for
example, the Phillips
translation.2 The D-E translation is characterized
by numerous departures from traditional
standards. Often words are not
translated literally, but are
adapted to different cultural milieus.
Thus "snow" becomes
"kapok down"3 and "blood" becomes
"death."4 Gram-
matical syntax also often is
changed radically; and verb tenses, of
course, need not be slavishly
reproduced in a D-E translation.
1 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, pp.
186, 192.
2 Ibid., p. 160.
3 Ibid., p. 171.
4 As The New Testament: Today's English Version
at
his
death" ( Gk. e]n t&? ai!mati), sponsored by the
American Bible Society
(New York: Pocket Books, 1966).
11
Nida attributes the phenomenal rapidity of this change in
trans-
lation theory from
"literalness" to "content transfer" to five major
developments in recent years:
(1) the rapidly expanding field of
structural linguistics, . . .
the liberation of translators from the
philological presuppositions
of the preceding generation.
(2)
the application of present-day methods in structural linguistics
to the special problems of Bible translation
by members of the
Summer Institute of Linguistics, also known
as the Wycliffe Bible
Translators.
(3)
the program of the United Bible Societies, . . . conferences,
its journal The Bible Translator, helps for translators, and its
own research and field work.
(4)
the publication since 1955 of Babel,
under the auspices of
UNESCO, a quarterly linguistic journal of
contemporary trends.
(5)
machine translation . . . particularly in such places as the
sity of
stitute of Technology,
There can be no doubt of Nida's
favoring the new trend. His strongest
criticism is reserved for such
literal translations as the English Re-
vised Version and the American
Standard Version--citing a particularly
obscurely worded example, he
upbraids the "pernicious effects of the
literal, awkward syntax,"
and continues, "The words may be English, but
the grammar is not; and the
sense is quite lacking."2
Conflict with Traditional
Theory
Deep crevices separate the two approaches. Nida is aware
of these.
He mentions two conflicts in
translation theory: "(1) literal vs. free
1 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, p. 22.
2 Ibid,
pp. 20-21.
12
translating, and (2) emphasis
on form vs. content";1 and also three con-
flicts in theological approach:
"(1) inspiration vs. philology, (2)
tradition vs. contemporary
authority, and (3) theology vs. grammar."2
While one may object to the
choice of terms, it is clear that Nida favors
the second alternative in each
case. Both translators and receptors must
fall into one of the two
categories. Nida asserts that superior trans-
lators will follow his method:
F-E translations tend to distort the message
more than D-E transla-
tions, since those persons who produce D-E
translations are in
general more adept in translating, and in
order to produce D-E
renderings they must perceive more fully and
satisfactorily the mean-
ing of the original text.3
Likewise, the more enlightened
readers will appreciate the new theory:
The degree of sophistication of the
receptors influences the extent
to which one can use functional equivalents.
In this connection it
is important to note that so-called
primitive peoples, whom we would
regard as entirely unsophisticated, are
usually quite ready to accept
radical departures in the direction of
functional rather than formal
equivalents. Similarly, highly educated
people in the Western world
will gladly accept such far-reaching
alterations. But partially edu-
cated persons, whether in folk or civilized
societies, appear to have
difficulty with anything but the most
literal renderings, for their
newly acquired respect for "book
learning" seems to prejudice them
against real comprehension and in favor of
literalistic obscurantism.
A little education can be a dangerous thing!4
And lest it be thought that
obscurantism is dead, translators and pub-
lishers are warned to proceed
with due strategy to overcome the resistance
of the newly literate.
The introductions of revisions is
essentially a matter of education.
A church that has used a traditional text of
the Scriptures for
several generations will obviously not find
immediately acceptable
a radically different translation,
reflecting contemporary insights
1 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, p. 22.
2 Ibid., p. 26. 3 Ibid., p. 192.
4 Ibid
, p. 172.
13
into
text, exegesis, and lexicon. Rather, it is necessary to prepare
a
whole series of such revisions, with definite grades of adjustment
to
the theoretical goal. Thus, over a period of some twenty to fifty
years
the people may become better prepared to accept what is more
nearly accurate and meaningful.1
But the heart of the matter is theological. At what point
is
"inspiration"
applicable, and what aspects of the original should the
translation thus seek to
preserve? Nida candidly discusses the problem
in the following definitive
paragraph:
One must recognize, however, that
neo-orthodox theology has given
a new perspective to the doctrine of divine
inspiration. For the
most part, it conceives of inspiration
primarily in terms of the re-
sponse of the receptor, and places less
emphasis on what happened to
the source at the time of writing. An
oversimplified statement of
this new view is reflected in the often
quoted expression, "The Scrip-
tures are inspired because they inspire
me." Such a concept of
inspiration means, however, that attention
is inevitably shifted from
the details of wording in the original to
the means by which the same
message can be effectively communicated to
present-day readers.
Those who espouse the traditional, orthodox
view of inspiration quite
naturally focus attention on the presumed
readings of the "autographs."
The result is that, directly or indirectly,
they often tend to favor
quite close, literal renderings as the best
way of preserving the
inspiration of the writer by the Holy
Spirit. On the other hand,
those who hold the neo-orthodox view, or who
have been influenced by
it, tend to be freer in their translating:
as they see it, since the
original document inspired its readers
because it spoke meaningfully
to them, only an equally meaningful
translation can have this same
power to inspire present-day receptors.2
If the new method were found
only among the neo-orthodox, the Bible
student could deal with it
easily. Yet, Nida continues by noting the
adherence of many evangelicals
as well to the new method:
It would be quite wrong, however, to assume
that all those who
emphasize fully meaningful translations
necessarily hold to a neo-
orthodox view of inspiration; for those who
have combined orthodox
theology with deep evangelistic or
missionary convictions have been
equally concerned with the need for making
translations entirely
meaningfu1.3
1 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating
2 Ibid
, p. 27. 3
Ibid.
14
No one would dispute the
essence of Nida's claim. For example, the para-
phrased Living Bible has received immense publicity from evangelist Billy
Graham. The controversy among
conservatives concerning such translation
theories will continue to rage
until a correct understanding of the place
of syntax in inspiration and
exegesis can be ascertained and defended.
May this study contribute to
that end.
Some Criticisms of the Modern
Theory
While a full analysis of this conflict deserves a
separate treat-
ment, two shortcomings of the
modern theory are relevant to this paper.
First, the orthodox doctrine of
inspiration does indeed place the vital
point on the written autograph,
not the original receptors. Nowhere does
the Bible claim that the R1 of
Nida's notation understood the full
import of the revelation.
Rather the message, M1, was inspired and
inerrant (cf. Isa. 6:9-10; 2
Pet. 3:16).
Second while almost all Scripture is lucid, each passage
is a
rich mine from which other
truth, not immediately apparent, can be
extracted. Using an analogy, an
electronic musical synthesizer can pro-
duce a "pure" musical
note, which would appear as a simple, perfect curve
on an oscilloscope. A fine
violin, playing the same note, will produce
in addition a innumerable
variety of overtones or harmonics, which would
cause the curve on the
oscilloscope to appear jagged and irregular. The
Bible resembles the violin, not
the synthesizer. All one has to do is
read the Scripture proofs
listed in any discussion in any standard sys-
tematic theology text to see
the point: many verses which are teaching
one main thought also contain
subsidiary words, phrases, or clauses which,
when compared to other
passages, may imply some doctrine or truth quite
15
unrelated to that main thought.
These are the "harmonics" of the Scrip-
ture. In a "free"
translation the main thought is often preserved, or
even emphasized. But in the
process many of these "harmonics" are of
necessity lost. In addition,
the new wording will often introduce new
subsidiary thoughts which are
foreign to both the original message and
the original receptors. And it
cannot be argued that the translator can
know what these points are and
can thus preserve them in his free trans-
lation. Biblical exegesis is
never complete, and no one knows what great
truths still lie hidden in the
vocabulary and syntax of Scripture.
It also should be mentioned that the "orthodox"
translator does
not seek "literalistic obscurantism."
Rather, he desires to reproduce
the exact meaning of the
passage, within the limits of translatability,
into modern speech. But he
tries to preserve as much of the passage
intact as possible. He seeks to
know the exact force of a present tense,
a dative pronoun, a particular
vocabulary term. Each and every item of
the sentence is weighed and
analyzed. And as far as is possible, each
part, along with the whole, is
reproduced with its nearest equivalent in
the new language. He thus must
master thoroughly the Biblical language,
and also the language of the
translation. Perhaps, as Tyndale and Luther,
the translator will even enrich
and expand the potential and force of
his own language, as he seeks
to adapt it to the sublime thoughts of
Scripture.
Concerning the present indicative tense in particular,
this
study was undertaken to see
just what that tense does imply in the New
Testament. If the tense was
used strictly, it should be translated
strictly. If it was used
loosely, it should be translated loosely.
16
In either case, the resulting
translation will be "orthodox."
Complexity of the Present
Indicative
At first thought, the present indicative should be the
easiest
of the tenses to understand.
Normally, it is the first to be learned.1
Yet, perhaps because of its
very commonness, its usage patterns bewilder
the investigator who feels at
home with consistent and dependable limi-
tations and rules. Some of its
perplexing features are here noted under
several heads.
Linguistic Questions
The linguistic status of the present indicative in both
classical
and koine Greek is now a live
issue. Older traditional grammar claims
the indicative mood establishes
the tenses as specifically defining time,
allowing several categories of
special usage exceptions. Most modern
grammarians claim that the type
of action, Aktionsart, or view of
action,
"aspect," is more
important even in the indicative. Some even believe
the present indicative to be a
"zero" tense, after the analogy of early
Indo-European languages, which
in many contexts is a simple substitute
for the prevailing tense of the
passage.
Translation Questions
In the more practical sphere, Bible translators must
grapple with
all the kinds of present
indicatives, including perfective, historical,
and futuristic usages. Should
the translator reproduce the present
tense, or should he use the
appropriate past or future tense?
1 E.g., J.
17
Translations differ: some keep
the present (as in Mark 10:1, KJV and ASV,
“cometh”); some change the
tense to suit the context (RSV and NIV, "went,"
also
using a cumbersome punctuation
system ("*went"). Which method best
conveys the meaning of the
Greek text?
Literary Questions
The use of the historical present also figures largely in
the
question of Synoptic origins.
The descending percentage uses from Mark
to Matthew to Luke often are
used as arguments to sustain the theory of
Markan priority. A careful
comparison of present indicative usage in the
Synoptic Gospels should help to
shed light on this question.
Exegetical Questions
The extremely frequent occurrence of the present
indicative
results in its inclusion in
many important historical, prophetical, and
doctrinal passages. At times
the meaning of the passage itself depends
on the understanding of the
verb's tense and mood usage. Some demand
a time interpretation (John
3:36, "He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life"; 8:58,
"Before Abraham was, I am"); others must be
interpreted in terms of aspect
(Hebrews 7:3, "abideth a priest continu-
ally"; 1 John 3:6,
"whosoever abideth in him sinneth not"). In some
passages a possible futuristic
use introduces various possible interpre-
tations (John 18:36, "My
kingdom is not of this world").
Another exegetical question concerns the use of the
present
indicative in various classes
of conditional sentences. There are two
variables: the degree of
certainty or uncertainty indicated by various
18
Biblical authors in these
constructions, and the time element, if any,
impliedjn the condition.
Aktionsart and Aspect
When one thinks of "tense," he automatically
relates the word
to time: past, present, or
future. Yet in Greek, careful study reveals
that tense often performs a
double function.
Every tense has generally speaking a double
function to perform, at
least in the indicative: it expresses at
once an action (continuance,
completion, continuance in completion), and
a time-relation (present,
past, future), and the latter absolutely,
i.e. with reference to the
stand-point of the speaker or narrator, not
relatively, i.e. with
reference to something else which occurs in
the speech or narrative.1
This double function is most
apparent in the indicative, but even in that
mood the time element is
secondary.
The
time of the action of the verb is often left to be inferred from
the
content, and cannot always be certainly told from the form of
the
verb. This is almost invariably the case with the moods other
than
the indicative, and is sometimes the case in the Indicative mood
itself.2
The non-time feature of Greek tenses perplexed
grammarians for
many years. Occasionally a
scholar with above average insight would
fleetingly touch the nerve, as
B. L. Gildersleeve, when he mused, "Moods
are temporal, tenses are modal.”3 Many older grammars neglect the
1 Friedrich Blass, Grammar of New Testament Greek, tr. by
Henry
p.
187.
2 H. P. V. Nunn, A Short Syntax of New Testament Greek
(5th ed.;
3 Basil Lanneau
Gildersleeve, Problems in Greek Syntax
(
The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1903), D. 127; this book is a reprint of articles
from
the American Journal of Philology,
XXIII (1902), of which he was the
editor (p. 3)
19
subject altogether in
discussions of the indicative.1 Although the ori-
ginal edition of Goodwin omits
the subject, the revision by Charles B.
Gulick remedies the deficiency.
Gulick notes in his preface,
Goodwin was a master in his own field of
moods and tenses, and his
exact knowledge combined with common sense
produced a lucidity of
statement that could hardly be improved. . .
. I have tried to empha-
size more distinctly the "character of
the action."2
And in the appropriate section
Gulick inserts his own understanding of
the dual nature of Greek verb
tense:
The tenses may express two relations. They
may designate the time
of an action . . . and also its character. . . The character of an
action appears in all the moods and in the infinitive
and participle;
the relation of time appears always in the
indicative, and to a cer-
tain extent in some dependent moods and in
the participle.3
This new understanding of tense significance sprang from
the inves-
tigations in
It was James Hope Moulton who
first popularized the terms "linear" and
"punctiliar" in
English New Testament Greek studies in his first edition
of his Prolegomena in 1906.4 At this stage the German word Aktionsart
("kind of act-on")
became a standard designation in English as well:
Our first subject under the Verb will be one
which has not yet achieved
an entrance into the grammars. For the last
few years the compara-
tive philologists--mostly in
1 William W. Goodwin, A Greek Grammar (Rev. ed.;
Company,
1879), pp. 246-56; and George Benedict Winer, A Grammar of the
Idiom of the New
Testament
(hereinafter referred to as Idiom),
rev. by
Gottlieb
Lunemann, tr. from the 7th
2 William Watson Goodwin,
Greek Grammar, rev, by Charles Burton
Gulick
(Boston: Ginn and Company, 1930), p. iv.
3 Ibid , p. 266.
4 C. F D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek
(hereinafter
referred
to as Idiom Book;
p. 5.
20
the problems of Aktionsart, or the "kind of action" denoted by dif-
ferent verbal formations.1
The term now is thoroughly
entrenched. "Tenses in Greek indicate the
kind of action, rather than the
time of the action. Hence grammarians
in
accepted."2
Grammarians have discerned three major types of action in
Greek.
The three essential kinds of action are thus
momentary or punctiliar
when the action is regarded as a whole and
may be represented by a
dot (•), linear or durative action which may
be represented by a
continuous line (----), the continuance of
perfected or completed
action which may be represented by this
graph (*------).3
Eugene Nida, using the
alternative term "aspect," to be defined later,
notes six possible categories
in Indo-European languages.
Aspect, which defines the nature of
the action, is a much more
frequently used grammatical category than
tense. Even within the
Indo-European languages it was at one time
more significant than at
present. As a description of the kind of
action involved in the verb,
aspect serves to differentiate a number of
contrasts, of which some
of the most common are: (1) complete vs.
incomplete, (2) punctiliar
vs. continuous, (3) single (or simulfactive)
vs. repetitive, (4)
increasing vs. decreasing, (5) beginning vs.
ending, and (6) single
vs. habitual or customary.4
According to these grammarians, in the earliest stages of
Greek
the stem of the verb indicated
its Aktionsart, as it is called.
Later
the verbal prefix and suffix
further defined its time or nature.5
Certain durative roots could be
made perfective, for example, by the
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 108.
2 Turner, Insights, D. 24.
3 Robertson, Grammar, p. 823.
4 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, p. 199.
5 Moule,
Idiom Book, p. 6.
21
addition of prefixed
prepositions.1 Classical Greek also sought to
maintain Aktionsart distinctions within the future tense.2 In any
case,
time distinctions in verbs
developed later.
It may be more of a surprise to be told that
in our own family of
languages Tense is proved by scientific
inquiry to be relatively a
late invention, so much so that the
elementary distinction between
Past and Present had only been developed to
a rudimentary extent
when the various branches of the family
separated so that they ceased
to be mutually intelligible.3
Ideally, assuming three types of action and three sorts
of time,
the language could have
developed nine tenses. However, language being
a human creation, it hardly
develops along theoretically, mechanically
precise lines.
A completer system of Tenses would include
the nine produced by
expressing continuous, momentary, and
completed action in past,
present, and future time. English can
express all these, and more,
but Greek is defective.4
Unfortunately, terms and titles often fail to indicate
precisely
the concept involved. Such is
the case with the term Aktionsart.
When
one hears "kind of
action," he easily falls into a trap. The next logical
deduction is that the verbal
tense can define the sort of action which
occurs in reality. Nigel
Turner, as shown earlier, tends to follow this
lead. This theoretical basis
appears clearly in this statement:
Examining carefully the kind of action . . .
grammarians have analysed
it as either Durative (lasting) or iterative
(repeating) in all moods
of the present tense. The Aktionsart of the present must be
clearly
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, pp. 111-13.
2 Blass, Grammar, pp. 36-37.
3 Robertson, Grammar, D. 108.
4 James Hope Moulton, An Introduction to the Study of New Testa-
ment Greek (hereinafter referred
to as New Testament Greek; 4th ed.;
22
distinguished from that of the aorist, which
is not durative or
iterative) and expresses no more than one
specific instance of the
action of the verb, involving usually a
single moment of time.1
Even when distinguishing Aktionsart from the corrected term,
"aspect,"
he mixes his definition:
Essentially the tense in Greek expresses the
kind of action, not
time, which the speaker has in view and the
state of the subject, or
as the Germans say, the Aspekt. In short, the tense-stems indicate
the point of view from which the action or
state is regarded.2
While properly noting the
"point of view from which the action or state
is regarded," he defines
"aspect" as "the state of the subject," which
definition clouds the issue. A
clearer definition of the two terms is
this: "The original
function of the so-called tense stems of the verb in
Indo-European languages was not
that of levels of time (present, past,
future) but that of Aktionsarten (kinds of action) or
aspects (points of
view)."3 Note
there the contrasting emphases in the terms Aktionsart
and
1 Turner, Insights, p. 29.
2 Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol.
III: Syntax
(Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1963), p. 59.
3 F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament
and Other Early
Christian Literature
(hereinafter referred to as BDF), tr.
and
rev. from the 9th-10th
sity
of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 116. Here is a good opportunity to com-
pare
two English editions of Blass's Grammar:
Thayer's translation of
Blass,
and Funk's translation of Blass-Debrunner. The former is very
readable
and lucid, and provides an invaluable help to understanding the
latter
work, with its large mass of detail and extreme abbreviation, which
render
it hardly discernable to most Greek students. In Thackeray's
"Preface
to the English Edition," written in 1905, he compares Blass's
grammar
to that of Winer: "The books to which the author expresses his
obligations
are the grammars of Winer and Buttmann, Jos. Viteau, and Bur-
ton.
The first-named of these works having grown to such voluminous
proportions,
the present grammar, written in a smaller compass, may,
the
author hopes, find a place beside it for such persons as maintain
the
opinion me<ga bibli<on me<ga kako<n." Indeed, there
has been an ironic
turn
of events. Imagine how dismayed Thackeray would be, were he to
discover
that Blass's latest edition has far surpassed even the me<geqoj
of Winer!
23
"aspect." Aktionsart draws one's attention to the
event itself; "aspect"
more properly emphasizes the
vantage point of the author.
This label (Aktionsart) has since become well known among New Testa-
ment grammarians, but it is possible that
its significance is less
well understood. In common with most
English-speaking classical
scholars, I prefer to use another label,
"aspect," for what is refer-
red to is not the kind of action, but the
way in which the writer
or speaker regards the action in its
context--as a whole act, as a
process, or as a state.1
To avoid the confusion inherent
in the term Aktionsart, many Greek
scholars
now prefer the term
"aspect" as designating the chief meaning of the ten-
ses. For example, Maximilian
Zerwick consistently prefers "aspect" to
the term "tense" in
his grammar, and does not use the term Aktionsart.2
The new term provides an
accurate insight into the syntactical data.
The aorist tense can describe
durative action; the present can describe
punctiliar action; both tenses
can describe perfected action. As W. D.
Chamberlain has put it,
"Remember that the same act may be looked at
from any of these three
viewpoints."3
The aspect of the present indicative will be seen to be
complex,
since the aspect is influenced
also by the verbal root and by the his-
torical evolution of present tense
usage. However, a correct understand-
ing of the concept of aspect
itself will enable one to profit most greatly
in any inductive study of the
data.
1 K. L. McKay,
"Syntax in Exegesis," Tyndale
Bulletin, 23 (1972),
44.
2 Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples
(hereinafter re-
ferred
to as Biblical Greek), tr. from the 4th Lat. ed. by Joseph P. Smith
(Rome:
Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963), e.g., pp. 77-78.
3 William
New
Testament (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941), p. 67.
II. THE PLAN OF
ATTACK
An Inductive
Approach
The most valuable data for the study of any Greek point
of syntax
in the New Testament is found
in the Biblical text itself. Especially
when the occurrences are
frequent, the knowledge of New Testament usage
provides the best
guide--whether in lexicography or in syntax.
The opposite method seeks absolute grammatical rules
first, and
then seeks to impose these
rules on every Biblical example. An outstand-
ing example of the extremes to
which this method can lead was cited
earlier1--Nigel
Turner's attempt to impose an inferior reading on the
text because of supposed
"grammatical evidence."
The method of this paper is inductive. The primary
material shall
be the New Testament examples.2
With over five thousand occurrences of
the present indicative in the
New Testament, the material is more than
ample to form valid
conclusions. And these conclusions, in turn, should
provide the most relevant
guidelines to the exegesis of the present
1 See above, p. 7.
2 The superiority of the
inductive method in grammatical research
does
not necessarily imply the superiority of that method in teaching a
new
language to beginners. For an interesting conflict of viewpoints,
compare
Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, Hellas and
Hesperia, or the Vitality
of Greek Studies in
29-30,
who offers an amusing yet stringent criticism of inductive teaching
methods,
with William Sanford LaSor, Handbook of
New Testament Greek: An
Inductive Approach Based
on the Greek Text of Acts (2 vols.; Grand
Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), I, vii-ix. LaSor's
text,
in fact, outlines a one year Greek course for beginners, using the
inductive approach.
24
25
indicative.
The best preparation for proper Biblical
exegesis, particularly in
matters of semantics, the meaning of words,
including both lexical
and grammatical study, is the widest
possible experience with and
constant practice in the use of the original
languages. One dare not
look up a word in the analytical lexicon,
discover it is a verb in
the aorist tense, turn to the aorist tense
section of Dana and Mantey,
then say, "The original Greek says so
and so."1
Previous investigations have failed to treat the New
Testament
verb exhaustively. Normally,
each writer will list a particular usage
category and will offer three
to six examples for each. Comparing the
grammars, one notices that the
examples are nearly always the same, lead-
ing one to suspect that they
merely have been handed down and received
from one generation to the next
without independent investigation. For
example, Zerwick's discussion
of concessive clauses2 cites, with one ad-
dition, a long list of
illustrative references--which are identical, even
in their order, with an earlier
list compiled by Burton.3 In addition,
the failure to be exhaustive
often has resulted in an unbalanced cate-
gorization. For example, the
so-called "conative present" is catalogued
in nearly every grammar as a
major category. Yet an inductive search
reveals fewer than five New
Testament examples, each of which would fall
more logically into another
category with nearly fifty examples. An-
other drawback of previous
investigations has been the retention of the
older categories, even after
the developments in the field of verbal
aspect. Statements like this
one by Chamberlain--"Those futuristic
presents are usually
aoristic"--appear with regularity, but without
1 Boyer, "Semantics
in Biblical Interpretation," p. 33.
2 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 102.
3
26
proof.1 Also, recent
studies in comparative linguistics, including the
"zero tense"
hypothesis, have raised serious questions regarding the in-
terpretation and force of the
present tense when used for non-present
time; and these questions have
yet to be faced by Biblical scholars.
Finally, an exhaustive,
inductive study brings to light many thoughts and
suggestive examples which lead
to the formation of newer, more relevant
categories.
Method of
Procedure
Since every inductive study must begin with a full
collection of
data, the first step was to
locate and record every present indicative
verb in the New Testament. This
was no small task. The search began with
a careful reading of the Greek
New Testament, underlining every occurrence
of a present indicative verb
form. Each of these was written on a sepa-
rate file card with the
reference. The text used was the United Bible
Societies' Greek New Testament,
second edition.2 In order to
check the
list for omissions, it was
compared with Nathan E. Han's A Parsing
Guide
to
the Greek New Testament (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald Press,
1971).
This work lists and parses most
of the verb forms verse by verse through-
out the New Testament. While
Han's list is based on the twenty-fifth
edition of the Nestle-Aland
Greek text (p. vii), it still provides an
effective check, since the two
texts normally are quite similar. However,
Han's list is not complete. It
omits repeated verb forms which have been
listed already within the
previous several verses, and it omits many
1 Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New
Testament,
p.
71.
2 Ed. by Kurt Aland,
Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metz-
ger, and Allen Wikgren (2nd
ed.;
27
first person singular forms. In
addition, it contains several omissions
and numerous errors.1
Hence it has been necessary to correct the original
data from time to time--adding
overlooked examples, and deleting misread
ones. The final result is
listed in Appendix A. It is believed this
list is complete. If anyone
should find a missed example, the author
would appreciate the
information.
The second step was perhaps the most demanding of all.
The over
five thousand verb cards were
repeatedly analyzed and distributed among
various exegetical or
syntactical categories. These categories often
shifted as the study
progressed, with resulting mergers, divisions, ex-
pansions, and multiplications.
Some verbs, like people, just seem to
dislike fitting in with the
others, no matter how the arrangements are
made. Finally, however, the
basic lines began to form and solidify, re-
sulting in the categories
presented in Part II.
The third step involved a detailed study of each category.
The
lines of study were determined
by the nature of the category, the exege-
tically significant issues
involved, and the variety of the Biblical
examples. In each case there is
at least an effort to state a conclusion
regarding any controversy
concerning the particular category (e.g., the
aspect of "punctiliar
presents," the zero tense concept for historical or
1 E.g. proseu<xesqe
in Mt. 5:44
and 6:9 is parsed as an indicative,
as
is mh> gi<nesqe in 6:16; Mt. 16:8 and Mk. 8:17 dialogi<zesqe is listed as
imperfect;
the three dative participles penqou?si, klai<ousin, and peripa-
tou?sin in Mk. 16:10, 12, are parsed as
indicatives, whereas the indicative
pra<ssousi in Acts 17:17 is parsed
as a dative participle. These mistakes
are
typical of many others--e.g., the verb "ye sin against Christ" in 1
Cor.
8:12
is parsed as either indicative or imperative! Yet a work of this much
detail,
especially in its first edition, must necessarily contain many
typographical
and editorial errors which will undoubtedly be corrected
subsequently.
In spite of these, it represents a major accomplishment,
and a welcome balm to Greek
students everywhere.
28
futuristic presents, or the
precise force of simple conditional presents).
The final step was to compare the results of the study
with tra-
ditional and contemporary
literature about the Greek present indicative.
The wide divergencies in this
literature make it impossible to analyze
it as a block. Rather, it appears that various authors seem
to explain
the data better at various
points, and are less adequate elsewhere. As
a result; the literature must
be considered in the discussion of each
category rather than as a unit
at the end. Likewise, various Bible verses
or passages will be discussed
in the chapter dealing with the appropriate
category.
Summary of the Study's
Results
It is the conclusion of this author that most previous
definitions
of the exact nature and force
of the present indicative are inadequate.
The tense can describe action
in any time--past, present, or future; and
it can describe action of any
kind--durative, punctiliar, or perfective.
In short, time and Aktionsart are both inadequate concepts
to define the
present tense.
Concerning the modern zero-tense claim, it is concluded
that the
concept is valid for certain
roots and certain authors. But it is be-
lieved that in portions of
Mark's and John's writings the historical pre-
sent is a vivid, narrative form,
and that in Revelation many futuristic
presents are likewise vivid.
Concerning the tense's use in conditions, it is concluded
that
a present indicative protasis
implies nothing as to the truth of the
protasis; but, rather, that it
establishes the subject as a question
of fact.
29
Finally, concerning the aspect of the present indicative,
it is
conclusions that the tense
has--except in zero usages--a legitimate aspect.
It normally signifies a
durative and/or present time aspect. The aspect
is not related to the type of
action, but to the force and attention
with which the author perceives
and relates it.
III. THE FREQUENCY OF THE PRESENT
INDICATIVE
Total
Occurrences
The present indicative occurs with consistently high
regularity.
As A. T. Robertson has put it,
"The present indicative, from the nature
of the case, is the most
frequent in actual usage and hence shows the
greatest diversity of
development."1 This author counted over five
thousand present indicatives in
the New Testament. The count includes
the verb oi#da, which has "come to be used as a practical
durative pre-
sent,"2 in spite
of its perfect form.3 The following table shows the
number of present indicatives
counted in each chapter of the New Testa-
ment.
TABLE 1
PRESENT INDICATIVES PER
CHAPTER
chapter occurrences chapter
occurrences
Matthew 1 2 Matthew 15 34
2 8 16 26
3 17 17 21
4 11 18 26
5 40 19 27
6 42 20 28
7 21 21 30
8 22 22 31
9 33 23 44
10 21 24 27
11 32 25 12
12 43 26 63
13 59 27 29
14 13 28 6
1 Robertson, Grammar, p. 350. 2 Ibid., p. 881.
3 In the same category is e@oiken in James 1:6, 23.
30
31
TABLE 1--Continued
chapter occurrences chapter occurrences
Matthew total
768 John 3 57
4 69
Mark 1 20 5 65
2 40 6 67
3 28 7 66
4 49 8 101
5 28 9 59
6 23 10 71
7 39 11 45
8 38 12 38
9 43 13 62
10 44 14 56
11 31 15 31
12 36 16 48
13 18 17 21
14 61 18 41
15 24 19 32
16 7 20 36
total 529 21 54
total 1,083
Luke
1 8
2 6 Acts 1 5
3 10 2 19
4 12 3 11
5 24 4 10
6 41 5 7
7 46 6 2
8 32 7 16
9 31 8 14
10 23 9 16
11 54 10 27
12 61 11 --
13 30 12 6
14 24 13 16
15 22 14 4
16 29 15 10
17 16 16 11
18 27 17 21
19 22 18 5
20 32 19 19
21 10 20 15
22 37 21 22
23 20 22 16
24 19 23 21
total 636 24 13
John 25 19
1 50 26 30
2 14 27 11
32
TABLE 1--Continued
chapter occurrences chapter occurrences
Acts 28 7 2
Corinthians 10 13
total 379 11 40
Romans 12 27
1 20 13 18
2 28 total 216
3 22
4 12 Galatians 1 13
5 9 2 15
6 15 3 25
7 34 4 30
8 43 5 22
9 19 6 10
10 21 total 115
11 18
12 7 Ephesians 1 5
13 10 2 9
14 30 3 8
15 12 4 11
16 14 5 22
total 314 6 9
total 64
1 Corinthians 1 16
2 12 Philippians 1 17
3 30 2 12
4 24 3 13
5 6 4 16
6 31 total 58
7 49
8 17 Colossians 1 17
9 40 2 14
10 38 3 8
11 39 4 9
12 39 total 48
13 23
14 45 1
Thessalonians 1 3
15 56 2 11
16 13 3 9
total 478 4 14
5 13
2 Corinthians 1 20 total 50
2 10
3 16 2
Thessalonians 1 7
4 14 2 8
5 20 3 14
6 9 total 29
7 11
8 10 1
Timothy 1 11
9 8 2 7
33
TABLE 1—Continued
chapter
occurrences chapter occurrences
1 Timothy 3 10 2
Peter 1 10
4 8 2 9
5 14 3 15
6 13 total 34
total 63
1
John 1 20
2 Timothy 1 12 2 55
2 15 3 42
3 3 4 45
4 6 5 46
total 36 total 208
Titus 1 9 2
John 12
2 1
3 5 3
John 19
total 15
Jude 13
Philemon 11
Revelation 1 13
Hebrews 1 7 2 46
2 12 3 35
3 7 4 6
4 7 5 6
5 9 6 5
6 6 7 6
7 20 8 1
8 10 9 11
9 14 10 4
10 20 11 15
11 15 12 6
12 14 13 12
13 14 14 12
total 155 15 1
16 7
James 1 18 17 22
2 25 18 7
3 22 19 14
4 32 20 5
5 9 21 13
total 106 22 14
total 261
1 Peter 1 8
2 9
3 6
4 10
5 7
total 40
34
Before summarizing these results, it might be profitable
to note
a single instance of style
variation within a single book. Notice that
chapters 2-3 of Revelation each
contain many more present indicatives
than any of the other chapters
of the book. Of course, these chapters.
the Letters to the Seven
Churches, comprise a different literary genre
from the others. Yet both
portions come from John's pen. This example
should warn the investigator to
refrain from construing differences in
present indicative frequency as
evidence for divergent authorship.
The findings of Table 1 are summarized below:
TABLE 2
PRESENT INDICATIVES PER BOOK
book occurrences book occurrences
Matthew 768 1
Timothy 63
Mark 529 2
Timothy 36
Luke 636 Titus 15
John 1,083 Philemon 11
Acts 379 Hebrews 155
Romans 314 James 106
1
Corinthians 478 1 Peter 40
2
Corinthians 216 2 Peter 34
Galatians 115 1
John 208
Ephesians 64 2
John 12
Philippians 58 3
John 19
Colossians 48 Jude 13
1
Thessalonians 50 Revelation 261
2 Thessalonians 29 total NT 5,740
With the number of occurrences
in hand, one can see that he is working
with a great deal of data. He
also begins to feel that the tense is used
differently by the different
authors. Both these conclusions are true.
But more data is needed. Total
occurrence is not enough; there needs to
be a frequency evaluation for
each book and author.
35
Present Indicative
Frequency
Due to the detailed research of Robert Morgenthaler,1
it is pos-
sible to compare the findings
recorded above with other relevant statisti-
cal data, and to determine the
frequency of the present indicative in each
New Testament book and author.
Morgenthaler's Greek text is Nestle's
twenty-first edition;2
but due to the large numbers involved and the basic
similarity of that edition to
the text used in this study, his figures
are close enough for the
purposes of this study.
Frequency per 100 Words
Morgenthaler lists a total of 137,490 words in the Greek
New
Testament.3 The
number of words in each book is listed below, along with
the number of present
indicative verbs, and the resulting percentage:
the number of present
indicative verbs per one hundred words, to the
nearest hundredth of a percent.
TABLE 3
PRESENT INDICATIVES PER 100 WORDS
book words P.I.
verbs P.I. verbs/100 words
Matthew 18,305 768 4.20
Mark 11,242 529 4.71
Luke 19,428 636 3.27
John 15,416 1,083 7.03
Acts 18,382 379 2.06
Romans 7,105 314 4.42
1 Corinthians 6,811 478 7.02
2 Corinthians 4,469 216 4.83
Galatians 2,229 115 5.16
Ephesians 2,418 64 2.65
Philippians 1,629 58 3.56
1 Statistik des Neutestumentlichen Wortschatzes (hereinafter re-
ferred
to as Statistik; Frankfurt am Main:
Gotthelf-Verlag Zurich, 1958).
2 Ibid.
p. 9. 3
Ibid., p. 164.
36
TABLE
3--Continued
book words P.I.
verbs P.I.
verbs/100 words
Colossians 1,575 48 3.05
1
Thessalonians 1,475 50 3.39
2
Thessalonians 821 29 3.53
1
Timothy 1,588 63 3.97
2
Timothy 1,236 36 2.91
Titus 658 15 2.28
Philemon 33.3 11 3.28
Hebrews 4,951 155 3.13
James 1,749 106 6.06
1
Peter 1,678 40 2.38
2
Peter 1,098 34 3.10
1
John 2,137 208 9.73
2
John 245 12 4.90
3
John 219 19 8.68
Jude 457 13 2.84
Revelation 9,834 261 2.65
___________________________________________________
total NT 137,490 5,740 4.17
One notes several interesting phenomena. John's books
have the
highest usage, far above the
New Testament average of 4.17 present indi-
catives per 100 words. His
Gospel and epistles are very high; yet his
Revelation is quite low, with
only 2.65 present indicatives per 100 words;
only four books have a lower
rating. The nature of the Apocalypse's
content accounts for the
difference, as will be seen later.1 Also it is
of interest that Paul's
epistles tend to fall into natural groups:
Eschatological-- 1 Thessalonians 3.39
2
Thessalonians 3.53
Soteriological-- Romans 4.42
1
Corinthians 7.02
2
Corinthians 4.83
Galatians 5.16
Christological-- Ephesians 2.65
1 However, the
"letter" genre of Rev. 2-3, mentioned earlier, has
a
percentage more in line with John's other books. Independent count of
the
Nestle-Aland text, 25th ed., shows 1146 words for Rev. 2-3. With 81
present
indicatives in the two chapters, the resulting percentage is 7.07
present indicatives per, 100
words, a typical figure for John.
37
Philippians 3.56
Colossians 3.05
Philemon 3.28
Pastoral-- 1
Timothy 3.97
2 Timothy 2.91
Titus 2.28
Obviously, the lines are not
absolute, but in general there is a pattern.
From the highest percentages
downward this order appears: Soteriological
Epistles Eschatological
Epistles, Christological Epistles (with Philip-
pians reaching up and Ephesians
down), then the Pastoral Epistles (over-
lapping the Christological
Epistles).
While this frequency list is highly instructive, another
frequency
base would be even more
helpful. Next shall be shown the frequency of
the present indicative as
compared with other tenses and moods, including
infinitives d participles. This
information will give a better idea of
each author's style and tense
preference.
Frequency per 100 Verb Forms
In order to compute the number of present indicatives per
100
verbs, it was necessary first
to determine the total number of verb forms
in each book. The author was
unable to locate this information already
published; so it was necessary
to add up the occurrences listed under
every verb in a New Testament
concordance. The concordance of Jacob Bru-
baker Smith1 would
be suited admirably for the project, since each entry
charts the number of
occurrences in each book, but his concordance is
based on the Textus Receptus
rather than on a later critical text.2 The
1 J. B. D Smith, ed., Greek-English Concordance to the New
Testament
(Scottdale,
Pennsylvania: Herald Press, 1955).
2 Ibid.,
p. v.
38
closest work to J. B. Smith's
based on a critical text, was found in the
vocabulary list of Robert
Morgenthaler.1 Using Nestle's
twenty-first
edition, Morgenthaler charts
every vocabulary word in the New Testament,
showing how many times it
occurs in each book. The one drawback is that
Morgenthaler combines John's
epistles into a single entry. Hence, for
John's epistles this author
obtained the information from Moulton and
Geden's Greek concordance.2
In order to ascertain the number of verbs in each book it
was
necessary to pick out the verbs
from the other vocabulary words, to write
them down ,with the number of
occurrences in each book, and to add up the
totals. Morgenthaler's list
contains 1,846 verbs. Many occur only one
time in the New Testament; the
others range all the way up to the most
common one, ei#nai, which is found in the New Testament 2,450
times.3
In all, the New Testament
contains 27,714 verb forms. Table 4 lists the
number of verbs in each book,
and the number of present indicatives per
100 verb forms. Notice that this
table, while generally agreeing with
the previous one, gives a much
more accurate assessment of each book's
preference for the present
indicative. For example, Table 3 showed that
the Gospel of John and 1
Corinthians have nearly identical P.I./100 words
frequency. Yet Table 4 shows
that Paul in 1 Corinthians actually is much
1 Morgenthaler, Statistik, pp. 67-157.
2 W. F. Moulton and A. S.
Geden, eds., A Concordance to the Greek
New Testament According
to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf
and the English Revisers (2nd ed.;
3 Morgenthaler, Statistik, p. 91. The task of recording
these
words
and statistics was a strenuous one, involving nearly 48,000 entries
in
a difficult chart format. This author wishes to thank his wife,
Tammie, for cheerfully doing
this work with exemplary care and precision.
39
TABLE 4
PRESENT INDICATIVES PER 100 VERB
FORMS
book P.I. verbs verb forms P.I. verbs/100 verbs
Matthew 768 3,948 19.45
Mark 529 2,612 20.25
Luke 636 4,388 14.49
John 1,083 3,535 30.64
Acts 379 3,874 9.78
Romans 314 1,159 27.09
1
Corinthians 478 1,288 37.11
2
Corinthians 216 758 28.50
Galatians 115 407 28.26
Ephesians 64 325 19.69
Philippians 58 254 22.83
Colossians 48 234 20.51
1
Thessalonians 50 243 20.58
2
Thessalonians 29 122 23.77
1
Timothy 63 299 21.07
2
Timothy 36 224 16.07
Titus 15 112 13.39
Philemon 11 44 25.00
Hebrews 155 916 16.92
James 106 347 30.55
1
Peter 40 275 14.55
2
Peter 34 194 17.53
1
John 208 436 47.71
2
John 12 48 25.00
3
John 19 51 37.25
Jude 13 84 15.48
Revelation 261 1,537 16.98
_________________________________________________________
total NT 5,740 27,714 20.71
more fond of the tense than
John is in his Gospel. The reason for this
variation is that Paul in 1
Corinthians uses all verb forms less frequently
than John, thus having a lower
P.I./word rating; but when he does use a
verb form, he favors the
present indicative, thus raising the P.I./verb
rating. These findings can be
summarized by listing the books in descen-
ding order of preference for
the present indicative. This follows in
Table 5, along with the rounded
off percentage of present indicative usage,
as opposed to other moods and
tenses.
40
TABLE 5
PRESENT INDICATIVE PREFERENCE
BY BOOK
rank book P.I.
usage rank book P.I.
usage
1
1 John 48% 15 Colossians 21%
2
3 John 37% 16
Mark 20%
3
1 Corinthians 37% 17 Ephesians 20%
4
John 31% 18
Matthew 19%
5
James 31% 19
2 Peter 18%
6
2 Corinthians 28% 20 Revelation 17%
7
Galatians
28% 21 Hebrews 17%
8
Romans
27% 22 2 Timothy 16%
9
2 John 25% 23
Jude 15%
10
Philemon
25% 24 1 Peter 15%
11 2
Thessalonians 24% 25 Luke 14%
12
Philippians
23% 26 Titus 13%
13
1 Timothy 21% 27
Acts 10%
14
1 Thessalonians 21% ________________
NT
average 21%
Finally, with the above information in hand, one can
ascertain
each Biblical author's style
and preference for the present indicative.
These findings are tabulated
below; the authors are arranged in the order
of the amount of their material
in the New Testament.
TABLE
6
PRESENT INDICATIVE PREFERENCE BY
AUTHOR
author words verbs P.I.
verbs %--P.I. verbs/100 verbs
Luke 37,810 8,262 1,015 12%
Paul
(incl. 37,300 6,385 1,652 26%
Hebrews)
Paul
(excl. 32,349 5,469 1,497 27%
Hebrews
John 27,851 5,607 1,583 28%
Matthew 18,305 3,948 768 19%
Mark 11,242 2,612 529 20%
Hebrews
(if 4,951 916 155 17%
non-Pauline)
Peter 2,776 469 74 16%
James 1,749 347 106 31%
Jude 457 84 13 15%
__________________________________________________
total NT 137,490 27,714 5,740 21%
41
Therefore, the authors with above average present indicative
usage, in descending order, are
James, John, and Paul, while those below
average are Mark, Matthew,
Hebrews (if non-Pauline), Peter, Jude, and
Luke.
Doubtful Cases
In a few forms the present indicative is identical to
either a
subjunctive or an imperative.
Normally the context clearly indicates
which parsing is intended. However,
occasionally both are possible with-
in the context. In these cases the examples are included in
this paper's
discussion, bit they are here
listed:
Mt.
11:3, prosdokw?men, ind. or subj. (
ative questions use either the
Subjunctive or the Future Indi-
cative," Moods and Tenses, p.
77.)
Mt.
24:43, ginw<skete, ind. or impv.
Mt.
26:45, kaqeu?dete
and a]napau<esqe, ind. or impv., decided
by punc-
tuation
Lk.
7:19, 20, prosdokw?men, see Mt. 11:3 above
Lk.
12:39, ginw<skete, ind. or impv.
Jn.
12:19, qewpei?te, ind. or impv.
Jn.
14:1a, pisteu<ete, ind. or impv.
Jn.
15:27, marturei?te, ind. or impv.
Acts
25:24, qewpei?te, ind. or impv.
1
Cor. 1:26, ble<pete, ind. or impv.
1
Cor. 6:4, kaqi<zete, ind. or impv., depends
on punctuation
Eph.
5:5, i@ste, ind. or impv.
1
Th. 2:9, mnhmoneu<ete, ind. or impv.
1
Pet. 1:6, a]gallia?sqe, ind. or impv.
1 Jn. 2:27, me<nete, ind.
or impv.
With the inclusion of this list, the raw data for this
study is
complete. Part II will show the
division of these occurrences into their
respective categories and will
develop the evidence for the conclusions
of this study delineated in
Part III.
42
Morphological Note on Movable
Nu
Students in first year Greek learn the following rule:
When the -ousi of the third person
plural of the verb comes either
before a vowel or at the end of a sentence,
a n,
called movable n,
is added to it. Thus ble<pousin
a]posto<louj.
Sometimes the movable
n is added even before a
word that begins with a consonant. Thus
either lu<ousi
dou<louj or lu<ousin
dou<louj is correct.1
Of course, the movable Nu also
appears in the present indicative on the
third person, singular and
plural, of non-thematic verbs. The impression
given in Machen's textbook is
that seldom--"sometimes . . . even"--the
movable Nu is used when the
"rule" does not require it. However, it ap-
pears that the "rule"
cited applies more to Byzantine and modern Greek
than to classical or koine
Greek. The movable Nu
is so universal in the forms which admit it
at all, that it is only
necessary to take note of omissions. Modern
use, by which n is in-
serted before vowels only, is known to be
wrong even for classical
writers, and in Hellenistic it is
altogether to be set aside.2
Actually, in Hellenistic Greek,
it often runs counter to the rule:
Its particular place . . . is the pause,
i.e. the end of a sentence or
clause.
Moreover, from the v BC on the tendency to employ n to avoid
hiatus, and therefore to comply with the
modern rule which stems from
the Byzantine period, betrays itself in an
increasing degree. It is
very popular in the Hellenistic language,
but e.g. in the papyri of
the Ptolemaic period it is omitted often before vowels and appears
still more often before consonants. . . .
The standard MSS of the NT
almost always employ it, whether a
consonant or vowel follows, or the
word stands at the end of a sentence.3
Interest in this subject began
when it was noticed that in the New Testament
examples of the present
indicative, the movable Nu was nearly always present.
1 Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p.
27.
2 James Hope Moulton and
Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New
Testament Greek, Vol. II: Accidence and Word-Formation (
3 BDF, p. 12.
43
In fact, a careful search
revealed that in only ten instances was the
final Iota left final:
Mt. 18:10, ble<pousi Acts 17:7, pra<ssousi
Mk. 2:4, xalw?si Acts 18:10, e]sti<
Lk. 16:29, @Exousi Acts 19:38, e@xousi
Jn. 5:23, timw?si Acts 26:4, i@sasi
Jn. 10:14, ginw<skousi Rev. 9:4, e@xousi
In each of these places the
word is followed by a consonant, thus up-
holding the rule; but in one of
them, Acts 17:7, the form is followed
immediately by a comma, which,
while allowed by Machen's wording, contra-
dicts that of BDF, "Its
particular place . . . is the pause, i.e. the end
of a sentence or clause."1
However, these references do support this
further statement in BDF:
It is omitted here and there (never,
however, before a vowel and in
pause) following e and with e]sti<, somewhat more often
after the -si
of the 3rd pl., most frequently by
comparison after the -au of the
dat. plur.2
In order to see how often the movable Nu could have been
omitted,
according to the rule, compared
to the number of times it was omitted,
this author selected at random
the book of Matthew. Every potential case
of a present indicative with
the movable Nu was located. Then those ex-
amples were eliminated which
were followed by a vowel or which were fol-
lowed by any mark of
punctuation in the UBS text. All of these occur-
rences, as expected, had the
movable Nu. The remaining list, therefore,
consisted solely of examples in
which the verb was followed by a consonant
and was not in pause--in other
words, cases in which the movable Nu was
not necessary. In only one case was the Nu missing (Mt.
18:10), but in
1 BDF, p. 12. It should
be noted that the Nestle text, used by
BDF,
inserts the Nu in Acts 17:7.
2 Ibid.
44
sixty-six cases it was still
present. These cases are identified in Ap-
pendix B. As stated by
Moulton-Howard, "The irrational addition of -n
may be set beside its
irrational omission."1 Hence, an easier rule to
remember, and more accurate, is
this one: "The rule of the koine was to
use the n movable
irrespective of what followed."2
1 Moulton and Howard, Accidence and Word-Formation, p. 113.
2 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 24.
PART II. PRESENT INDICATIVE
EXEGESIS
I. THE USAGE
CATEGORIES
Before the present indicative can be treated as a whole,
it must
be considered in its various
exegetical usages separately. This chapter
shall define the categories to
be explored in this paper.
Traditional Usage
Classifications
Earlier grammarians were aware of the broad use of the present
indicative found in the New
Testament. W. H. Simcox, for example, wrestling
with this problem, sought the
solution in "foreign influence" and in "the
special requirements of the
Scriptural order of thought."1 Subsequently,
A. T. Robertson noted simply,
All three kinds of action are found in the
present (punctiliar,
durative, perfect). All three kinds of time
are also found in the
present ind. (historical present = past,
futuristic present = future,
the common use for present time), 2
thus adding to the time
variations already noted by Simcox the aspect
variations as well.
The difficulty and complexity of this subject becomes
evident as
one examines the various
schemes which have been proposed for classifying
the uses of the present
indicative. No two systems are the same. How-
ever, in spite of the numerous
differences, a few categories are so out-
standing or unique that they
appear in virtually every list:
1 William Henry Simcox, The Language of the New Testament (4th
ed.;
2 Robertson, Grammar, p. 869.
45
46
a) Progressive present, action going on at
the same time as the
speaking or writing
b) Conative present, attempted action not
carried out
c) Gnomic present, general truth
d) Iterative present, repeated or customary
action
e) Aoristic present, punctiliar action in
present time
f) Historical present, past action
g) Futuristic present, future action
h) Perfective present, past action, with
either the action itself or
its effects continuing into present time
In spite of this general
consensus grammarians have never fully agreed.
In fact, none of the grammars
consulted in this study had even the nine
categories listed above.
The classical grammarian H. W. Smyth omits the aoristic
category,
and adds two others. He adds
another perfective category for continuing
action, and he adds the
annalistic present, a present which "registers
historical facts or notes
incidents," in addition to the historical pres-
ent.1
Another classical scholar, B. L. Gildersleeve, uses
categories
similar to these used later by
Smyth.2 He calls the progressive present
the specific present, and the
gnomic present the universal present. He
includes the classical
annalistic present under the head of historical
present. But he leaves out the iterative as well as the
aoristic cate-
gories.
1 Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar (
Company,
1916 , pp. 276-78.
2 Basil Lanneau
Gildersleeve and Charles William Emil Miller, Syntax
of Classical Greek from
Homer to Demosthenes
(hereinafter referred to as
Syntax; 2
vols.;
47
Among scholars of Biblical Greek the variation is even
greater.
R. T. France, for example,
lists only five categories, omitting the gnomic,
iterative, and perfective
categories.1 And in his discussion of the aoris-
tic present he shows some
confusion.2
C. F. D. Moule's analysis conforms fairly well to the
list above,
except there is no category for
the perfective present whose effects con-
tinue into the present.
Instead, another category of "present in reported
speech" is introduced.3
The older grammarian S. G. Green notes only four
categories, omit-
ting these categories: conative
(his is the only grammar seen to omit this
category), gnomic (unless it be
included under "habitual or usual act"),
aoristic, and perfective. The
last omitted category is, however, brought
forward in th discussion of the
"certain futurity" category.4
and two additional, the
periphrastic present (present of ei#nai plus a
present participle) and the
present in indirect discourse. In addition,
he divides the perfective
present into its two natural parts.5
A. T. Robertson's scheme is a little harder to follow and
compare,
since he analyzes his Aktionsart categories rather than the
tenses as
such. Under “aoristic present”
he includes the specific or constative
1
Notes on Translation, 46 (December, 1972), pp.
4-5.
2 Ibid., cf. pp. 6-7. 3 Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 7-8.
4 Samuel G. Green, Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek
Testament
(Rev.
ed.; New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1912), pp. 297-98.
5
48
present (as “I say” in the
Gospels) along with the gnomic, historical,
and futuristic categories.1
Under "durative action" he includes the ob-
viously progressive examples
("descriptive present"), past continuing ac-
tion ("progrssive
present"), and iterative and conative Presents. He
allows some historical and
futuristic presents, and adds "deliberative"
and "periphrastic"
presents.2 Finally, under "perfected action" he
includes "presents as
perfects."3
Blass gives many examples of each category he lists.
However, he
does not include the gnomic,
iterative, or perfective categories. He
does add the "relative
present," which is similar to the present in indi-
rect discourse, only is limited
to verbs of perception and knowledge.4
One of the few grammars to attach any priority to the
categories
is that of Dana and Mantey.
Listed under "regular uses of the present"
are the "progressive"
and iterative categories. "Progressive" presents
are divided into what has
earlier been listed as progressive and perfective
presents. An Dana and Mantey
see two types of iterative presents, repe-
titive ("iterative")
and habitual ("customary"). Under "special uses of
the present" are listed
the aoristic, futuristic, historical, conative
("tendential" , and
gnomic ("static") categories.5
The only writer this author discovered who tried to
actually count
the number of usages in each
exegetical category was G. Mussies,6 His
1 Robetson, Grammar, pp. 864-70. 2
Ibid., pp. 970-82.
3 Ibid. pp. 881, 903. 4
BDF, pp. 167-69.
5 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, pp. 182-86.
6 Mussies, The Morphology of Koine Greek as Used in the
Apocalypse
of
1971), p. 333.
49
categories are sufficiently
different from the average that they deserve
a separate listing, along with
an example and the number of occurrences
in Revelation:
1) General present, Rev. 10:3, 6 times
2) Direct address to the reader, Rev. 16:15, 11 times
3) Explanatory remarks in visions, Rev. 17:18, 42 times
(including
13 which should also be listed under #4, but
are not counted
there)
4) Reported speech, mainly Rev. 2-3, 121 times
5) Historical present, Rev. 19:12, 43 times
6) Future present, Rev. 14:9, 39 times
While this author would dispute
the assignment of several examples to these
categories, the list does
demonstrate three things: the unusual grammatical
character of the Apocalypse,
the approximate weight of the major categories,
and the difficulty of defining
exegetically significant categories.
Proposed
Classifications
The exegetical categories arrived at by this author are
here out-
lined, with an example of each
usage, and the symbol used for each cate-
gory (as in Appendix A).
I. Present indicative in present time
A. Progressive
present (10), describes action or state of being
going on during
the time of speaking or writing.
Mt. 9:4,
"Why are you thinking evil things in your hearts?"
B. Declarative present (11), introduces a
statement of the
speaker or
writer.
Lk. 7:28, “I
say to you, . . .”
C. Customary present (12), describes
habitual, customary, or
repeated
action.
1.
General
customary present (121), describes customary
action without reference to its repetition for any
individual.
50
1 Cor. 1:22,
"The Jews seek a sign."
2. Singular iterative present (122),
describes action re-
peated by
one individual.
Jn. 14:10,
"The Father abiding in me does his works."
3. Plural iterative present (123),
describes action repeated
by each
member of a plural subject.
Lk. 5:33,
"The disciples of John fast often."
4. Non-iterative customary present (124),
describes customary
action which
occurs only once to any individual.
Mt. 11:5,
"The blind receive sight."
5. Parabolic customary present (125),
describes the expected
action of a
typical person in a parable.
Mt. 13:44,
"From joy he goes and sells all he has."
D. Abstract
present (13), describes truth or fact which is theo-
retical or abstract, and
therefore always valid.
1. Explanatory present (131), explains
relevant facts and
information
to help the reader.
Lk. 2:4,
"the city of
2. Factual present (132), describes a
natural, theological,
or
theoretical truth.
Jn. 15:5,
"Without me you are not able to do anything."
3. Impersonal present (133), expresses what
is right, proper,
advantageous,
or necessary.
2 Cor. 5:10,
"It is necessary for all of us to appear."
4. Interpretive present (134), explains the
theological sig-
nificance of
an item in the text.
Mt. 13:38,
"The field is the world."
5. Comparative present (135), compares the
similarities of
two items.
Mk. 4:26,
"The
E. Perfective
present (14), describes a present state resulting
from past action.
1. General perfective present (141),
describes perfected
action with
a simple present tense.
Jn. 11:28,
"The teacher has come."
2. Present in periphrastic perfect (142),
provides the helping
verb for a
perfect participle.
Col. 2:10,
"You are completed in him."
51
3. Present in citation periphrastic perfect
(143), provides
the helping
verb in the phrase "it is written."
Jn. 6:31, "even as it is
written."
4. Citation present (144), describes the
actions or previous
Scriptural
writers or characters.
Rom. 10:5,
"Moses writes concerning the righteousness
which is of the law."
II. Present indicative in past
time
A. Historical
present (21), describes simple past action in a
narrative.
Mk. 7:28, "She answered and says."
B. Present
for immediate past (22), describes action immediately
completed.
Jn. 13:22, "being uncertain concerning whom he
says."
C. Imperfective
present (23), describes past action continuing into
the present.
Lk. 13:7, "For three years I come seeking
fruit."
III. Present indicative in
future time
A. Futuristic
present (31), describes future action.
Jn. 20:17, "I ascend to my Father."
B. Present
for immediate future (32), describes action just about
to happen.
Lk. 19:8, "Lord, I give to the poor."
IV. Present indicative in
relative time
A. Relative
present (41), describes action which is present to
the verbal context of the clause,
but not necessarily to the
speaker or writer.
1 Cor. 7:36, "That which he wishes let him
do."
B. Indirect
present (42), describes action presented in indirect
discourse, thought, or perception.
Lk. 18:37, "They declared to
him that Jesus the Nazarene is
coming."
V. Present indicative in
conditional sentences
A. Present
of the protasis (51), describes the condition necessary
to produce the apodosis.
Ja. 4:11, "if you judge the law."
B. Concessive
present (52), describes the condition in spite of
which the apodosis will take place.
52
Heb. 6:9, "though we speak thus."
C. Substantive
present (53), describes the content of desired
information.
Lk. 6:7, "They were watching . . . if he heals
on the Sabbath."
VI.
Modal use of the present indicative (60), employs the word as
a subjunctive or an imperative.1
1 In a few places the
present indicative seems to take on the
meaning
of another mood. It appears to be used as a subjunctive in de-
liberative
questions with prosdokw?men (Mt. 11:3; Lk. 7:19,
20), a form
which
can be either indicative or subjunctive; likewise, a subjunctive
sense
seems best for gi<netai, in Rom. 11:6 and ginw<skomen
in 1 Jn.
5:20.
In
two places the present indicative resembles the imperative mood: Lk.
2:29,
a]polu<eij; and 2 Tim. 1:15, oi#daj. These few cases
evidently should
be
treated as with the other mood and do not fall into the purview of
this study.
II. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN
PRESENT TENSE
By far the largest number of usages lie within this
category.
Except for the perfect tense
and specialized uses of the aorist, the pres-
ent tense monopolizes
expressions of present time. But within this gen-
eral category are numerous
subtypes. Each of these shall be examined in
this chapter.
Progressive
Present
This constantly used designation finds various
interpretations
among grammarians.
The most constant characteristic of the
Present Indicative is that
it denote action in progress. It probably
had originally no reference
to present time. But since, in the
historical periods of the language,
action in progress in past time is
expressed by the Imperfect, and the
Future is used both as a progressive and as
an aoristic tense for fu-
ture time, it results that the Present
Indicative is chiefly used to
express action in progress in present time.
Hence in deciding upon
the significance of any given instance of
the Present Indicative in
the New Testament as well as in Classical
Greek, the interpreter may
consider that there is, at least in the
majority of words, a certain
presumption in favor of the Progressive
Present rather than any of
the other uses mentioned below.1
This author concluded that
nearly 40% of the New Testament's present in-
dicatives are progressive
presents. Robertson tends to lean more toward
an "aoristic"
present--i.e., no aspect distinction--as the basic idea of
the tense, with the progressive
feature being added later.
The original present was probably therefore
aoristic, or at least some
roots were used either as punctiliar or
linear, and the distinctively
durative notions grew up around specially
formed stems and so were
applied to the form with most verbs, though
never with all. 2
1
2 Robertson,
Grammar, p. 865.
53
54
However, he admits that it is
the largest category in the New Testament.1
He calls it "descriptive
present," and reserves "progressive present" for
presents that carry on past
action (e.g., 1 John 2:9),2 which
cases will
be treated later in this
chapter.
In this study the term "progressive present"
describes any present
which describes an action or
state of being which is present to the speaker
or writer, and which does not
fall into another, more specialized category.
Some examples often given for
this category, as Matthew 25:8 ("our lamps
are going out") or 8:25
("Lord, save, we perish"), are included rather
in the "immediate
future" category for reasons which will be argued in
that discussion.3
The title "progressive present" is indeed
vague. But the alter-
natives are misleading. Thus
"simple present" might be assumed to be
aoristic; "general
present" might be confused with "present of general
truth," the
"gnomic" category.
Translating the progressive present often leads to the
English
periphrastic present--"he
is drinking milk"--to avoid confusing it with
the English general present of
customary action--"he drinks milk."4
Sometimes the Greek stresses
the progressive idea by combining the present
indicative of ei#nai with a present participle--the
"periphrastic present."
In these cases, the participle
takes on the nature of a predicate adjective:
The Greek has no special form
for the progressive present of English,
nor for the progressive tenses
generally. In the periphrasis with the
1 Robertson, Grammar, p. 879.
2 Ibid.
3 Cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 879;
4 Moule,
Idiom Book, p. 7; cf. Robertson, Grammar, p. 879.
55
present participle, the participle is
generally equivalent to a
characteristic adjective or substantive,
with which it is often cou-
pled.1
The progressive present is the largest single category of
present
indicative verbs, being used
frequently by all authors. The following
table notes its frequency in
each book, as compared with other uses of
the present indicative.
TABLE 7
PROGRESSIVE PRESENT
FREQUENCY
book prog. pres. P.I. verbs %--prog.
pres.
Matthew 210 768 27%
Mark 136 529 26%
Luke 201 636 32%
John 404 1,083 37%
Acts 204 379 54%
Romans 124 314 39%
1
Corinthians 174 478 36%
2
Corinthians 122 216 56%
Galatians 55 115 48%
Ephesians 38 64 59%
Philippians 42 58 72%
Colossians 33 48 69%
1
Thessalonians 29 50 58%
2
Thessalonians 12 29 41%
1
Timothy 19 63 30%
2
Timothy 19 36 53%
Titus 5 15 33%
Philemon 5 11 45%
Hebrews 50 155 32%
James 28 106 26%
1
Peter 17 40 42%
2
Peter 16 34 47%
1
John 120 208 58%
2
John 3 12 25%
3
John 11 19 58%
Jude 4 13 31%
Revelation 84 261 32%
__________________________________________________________
total
NT 2,165 5,740 38%
It is noticeable that the
highest frequencies are found in Paul's Prison
1 Gildersleeve,
Syntax, I, 81.
56
Epistles, Acts, and scattered
epistles of Paul and John. In these books
more than half of the present
indicatives are simple progressive presents.
Yet one should beware of
generalizations, as, for example, the difference
between Second and Third John
might prove.
The
Verb "To Be"
The most common verb, ei#nai, is
also one of the most complex.
Its aspect is basically
durative.1 In
this sense it is contrasted with
gi<nesqai, which
denotes "temporal existence which has a beginning and
ending."2 It
especially is durative as a present tense helping verb in
a periphrastic construction.3
General agreement prevails concerning the verb's linking
capa-
bilities:
a) x equals y,
b) x is described by y, or
c) x is located at y,4
as well as its primary
syntactical usage:
Ei#nai is mainly a structure
signaling word in Greek. As such, it is
nearly lexically empty, in distinction from
all other verbs in Greek.
On the basis of this study, one may
formulate the following generali-
zations with respect to ei#nai: ei#nai, belongs to a
restricted class
of verbs, consisting of one member; ei#nai is primarily a
syntactic
rather than a lexical item in the
vocabulary stock of Greek: ei#nai,
determines one sentence type that plays a
fundamental role in the
structure of Greek.5
1 Charles H. Kahn,
"The Greek Verb 'To Be' and the Concept of Be-
ing,"
Foundations of Language, 2 (1966),
254-55.
2 Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of "Einai
as a
Linking Verb in New
Testament Greek
(hereinafter referred to as "Einai),
Dissertation
Series, No. 6, The Society of Biblical Literature (
3 Ibid., p. 7. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.,
pp. 150-51.
57
Where disagreement arises is in
understanding its lexical status when used
absolutely, as in the famous
statement, "I am." Some writers vehemently
deny any "existential
meaning" for ei#nai, and
assume a predicate comple-
ment should be supplied.1 Kahn even goes so far as to assert that
the
Greeks' understanding of the
verb ei#nai led to certain
distinguishing
points in Greek philosophy.2
On the other side, however, the verb seems to have
"existential"
force in the statement "I
am." In John 8:58, for example, "It stands in
unmistakable contrast to pri>n ]Abraa>m
gene<sqai. This is the only passage
in the NT where we have the
contrast between ei#nai and gene<sqai. The
verse ascribes to Jesus
consciousness of eternity or supra-temporality."3
A crucial passage is John
8:24-29. In verse 24 Jesus says, "If you be-
lieve not that I am, you shall
die in your sins," and similarly in verse
28, "then shall you know
that I am." This expression is tied closely
to the description of Jehovah
in the Old Testament.4 In this
understand-
ing Abbott is joined by
Ethelbert Stauffer, who notes the special Messi-
anic use of e]gw< ei]mi in Mark and John.5 Some writers see the possibility
1 McGaughy, @Einai, pp. 119-25; Kahn, "The Greek Verb 'To Be' and
the
Concept of Being," pp. 250-54.
2 Ibid., p. 260.
3 Friedrich Bachsel,
"ei]mi<," Theological
Dictionary of the New
Testament, Vol. II, ed. by
Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), p. 399.
4 Edwin A. Abbott, Johannine Gramar (
Black,
1906), pp. 183-86, notes Isa. 43:10-13; 46:4; 48:12; Dt. 32:39;
also
the parallel phrases "from the beginning," "working," and
"speaking"
in
John 6:68-69 and Isa. 43:10; 52:6.
5 "e]gw<," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
Vol. II, ed.
by
Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1964), pp. 352-54.
58
of the simple translation
"I am he" or "it is I" in many instances, as
B. F. Westcott at John 6:20.1 But "I am he" is clearly
rendered by e]gw<
ei]mi<
au]to<j, as in Luke 24:39.2 Rather, e]gw<
ei]mi,
in the Gospels often
has the added significance of
"I am the Savior," "I am the Son of God."3
The phrase "seems to call
upon the Pharisees to believe that the Son of
man is not only the Deliverer
but also one with the Father in the unity
of the Godhead."4
The Question of
Aoristic Presents
Most grammars have a major category of admittedly few
examples
for "punctiliar
presents."
In those few cases where a punctiliar act
taking place at the moment
of speaking is to be denoted, the present
is usually used since the
punctiliar aorist stems form no present. 5
1 Westcott, The Gospel According to
Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1881), p. 98. Westcott lists the following
verses
under his explanation: Mk. 13:6; Lk. 21:8; Jn. 4:26; 8:24, 28, 58;
(9:4);
13:19; 18:5, 6, 8. However, Abbott is wrong to assume that Westcott
favors
the same translation in each passage, as an examination of each in
Westcott's
commentary will prove (Johannine Grammar,
p. 183).
2 Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 182.
3 Cf. Mk. 13:6 and Lk.
21:8 with Mt. 24:5, which adds, o[ Xristo<j.
4 Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 187; an
interesting issue of similar
import
is the possible Messianic claim in Christ's answers to the Sanhedrin
and
Pilate: "Are you the Son of God?" Jesus says, "You have
said." For
a
convincing defence of the claim, see D. R. Catchpole, "The Answer of Je-
sus
to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)," New
Testament Studies, 17:2 (January,
1971),
213-26. On pp. 217 and 226 Catchpole summarizes the statement's
force:
"In Matt. 26:25 su> ei#paj contains an affirmation
modified only by
a
preference for not stating the matter expressis
verbis. . . . In each
case
considerations of the literary background of su>
ei#paj or u[mei?j
le<gete converge with the
position of the phrases at the turning point of
the
hearing to recommend the following meaning: affirmative in content,
and
reluctant or circumlocutory in formulation."
5 BDF,
p. 167.
59
However, the argument is
lacking, since the aorist indeed can describe
events in present time, as
examples of the so-called "dramatic aorist"
show.1 On the other hand, some claim the present
tense cannot be aoristic,
it "cannot denote the
completion of an act."2
ficulty by defining the present
indicative as "action in progress" and
then having to allow for a
large exception category.
The Present Indicative is sometimes used of
an action or event coinci-
dent in time with the act of speaking, and
conceived of as a simple
event. Most frequently the action denoted
by the verb is identical
with the act of speaking itself, or takes
place in that act. . . .
This usage is a distinct departure from the
prevailing use of the
Present tense to denote action in progress.
There being in the Indi-
cative no tense which represents an event
as a simple fact without at
the same time assigning it either to the
past or the future, the Pre-
sent is used for those instances, in which
an action of present time
is conceived of without reference to its
progress.3
Robertson is quick to point out
this inconsistency:
A greater difficulty is due to the absence
of distinction in the tense
between punctiliar and linear action. This
defect is chiefly found
in the indicative. . . . There is nothing
left to do but to divide
the so-called
(or
Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form covers
both ideas in the
distinct tense. . . The present is formed on punctiliar as well as
linear roots. It is not wise therefore to
define the pres. ind. as
denoting "action in progress"
like the imperf. as
he has to take it back on p. 9 in the
discussion of the "Aoristic
Present," which he calls a
"distinct departure from the prevailing use
of the present tense to denote action in
progress." In sooth, it is
no "departure" at all. The idiom
is as old as the tense itself and is
due to the failure in the development of
separate tenses for punctiliar
and linear action in the ind. of present
time. 4
Due to the combined
durative-punctiliar history of the present indicative,
1 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 198.
2 Goodwin-Gulick, Greek Grammar, p. 268: this statement
was not made
in
Goodwin's own edition, cf. A Greek
Grammar, p. 246.
3
4 Robertson,
Grammar, p. 864.
60
it appears that the tense
cannot be limited to either category.
It must not be thought, however, that the
durative meaning monopolises
the present stem. In the prehistoric period
only certain conjugations
had linear action; and though later
analogic processes mostly levelled
the primitive diversity, there are still
some survivals of importance.1
The only limitation would come
through the nature of the action itself.
If the action takes any time at
all, it could be classed as progressive.
On this basis, K. L. McKay has
denied a punctiliar present:
Some grammarians write as if the present
may be used to express a
punctiliar action in present time
("aoristic present"), but can it?
If a real action is really in present time
it is almost inevitably
in process. In the rare cases where an
aoristic sense in present
time is appropriate--mainly in the
colloquial language of comedy--
the aorist is used.2
But in view of the many
examples of presents with "undefined" action, it
seems best to define the
aoristic present as Robertson does: "The aoristic
present = undefined action in
the present, as aoristic past (ind.) = un-
defined action in the
past."3 In the
New Testament, it "may be interpre-
ted either as durative or as
aoristic, depending on the context."4
In this study the common examples of aoristic presents
have been
switched to other--it is hoped,
better--categories. Thus Robertson's
example of Luke 7:8, "I
say go, and he goes," is listed under customary
present; and his "common ei]mi<" is under progressive presents.5 The only
special category derived from
these "aoristic presents" shall be the
declarative category discussed
next.
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 119.
2 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," p. 49.
3 Robertson, Grammar, p. 865. 4 Mussies, Apocalypse, p. 276.
5 Robertson,
Grammar, p. 865.
61
Declarative
Present
The largest single category normally listed under
"aoristic pres-
ents" is "le<gw in the Gospels."1 This category was considered sufficiently
large and distinctive to be
included as a separate category. Other ex-
amples belong with it, as
"says the Lord" in Old Testament quotations,
and the frequent "I
exhort," "I command" and "I make known" statements
throughout the New Testament,
especially in the epistles. At first the
category was entitled "presents
of self-expression." But the strongly
assertive quality of the
examples made the title "declarative present"
more appropriate. The following
table delineates this category in the
major New Testament sections.
TABLE 8
DECLARATIVE
PRESENTS
1 3 2 8 5 11 66 2 97
2 - - - - - 33 - 33
3 27 3 36 3 1 4 1 75
4 - 2 5 - - - - 7
5 27 12 6 - - - - 45
6 - 1 - - - - - 1
7 - - - 20 - - - 20
8 - - - 5 - - - 5
9 - - - - 4 8 16 28
____________________________________________________
total 57 20 55 33 16 111 19 311
Key:
1--miscellaneous: "I exhort,
command, ask, adjure, etc,"
2--"I say" introducing the
speech
3--"I say to you (pl.)"
4--"I say to you (sing.)"
5--"truly I say to you
(pl.)"
6--"truly I say to you
(sg.)"
7--'truly truly I say to you
(pl.)"
8--"truly truly I say to you
(sg.)"
9--"says the Lord (or the
Spirit)"
1
Moule, Idiom Book, p. 7.
62
As expected, books with more
homiletic material rate higher than histori-
cal or prophetical books.
However, authorship style here has an important
bearing. Paul often
"beseeches," "commands," and "exhorts." Jesus, on
the other hand, as reported by
all four Evangelists, merely "says." Yet
the form of "I say"
varies from book to book: Mark prefers "truly I say
to you"; Luke prefers to
omit "truly"; Matthew balances the two forms.
John, who only three times has
"I say to you," never writes "truly I say
to you." Instead,
twenty-five times John has the formula "truly truly I
say to you," a form found
nowhere else in the New Testament.
In almost all these instances the declarative verb is
followed by
the content of the speech.1 The declarative verb can therefore be
under-
stood as either durative,
emphasizing the process of making the speech, or
aoristic, emphasizing the
content of the speech as a unit. The latter
seems the most likely. The
introduction probably is intended to add force
to what is said. This
understanding is that of the United Bible Societies'
translating rule #19:
"Introductory expressions such as 'verily, verily,'
must be related to the content
of what is said, not to the fact of saying."2
But one must be careful to
distinguish Aktionsart and aspect in
these verbs.
The speech itself is not
punctiliar, but it is merely viewed as aoristic,
with no reference to its linear
or punctiliar nature, but concentrating
on the matter only.
1 Sometimes "says
the Lord" comes within or after the speech. Bruce
M.
Metzger notes, "Paul occasionally adds within or at the end of the quo-
tation
the words le<gei ku<rioj," "The Formulas Introducing
Quotations of
Scripture
in the New Testament and in the Mishnah" (hereinafter referred
to
as "Formulas"), Historical and
Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, and
Christian, Vol. VIII of New Testament Tools and Studies, ed. by
Bruce M.
Metzger
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968),p. 55.
2 Nida, Toward a Science of Translating, p.
182.
63
Customary
Present
This category, as many others, covers a wide territory
and finds
various definitions in the
grammars. Robertson calls it "iterative" or
"customary," and
charts it as a series of punctiliar dots (• • • •).1
Dana and Mantey find a
subdivision, calling "iterative" those presents
which recur at successive
intervals, and "customary," those which denote
habitual action.2 Thus "I brush my teeth" would be
customary, while
"I still get
cavities" would be iterative. On the whole, however, this
method seems artificial and is
difficult to carry out when assigning
categories—What does one do
with "I sin"?
Other grammarians lump several categories together.
separate category for repeated
action, except what might be implied in
"General or Gnomic
Present."3 H. M. Smyth, on the other hand, divides the
category into
"customary," i.e., repeated by one person, and "factual,"
for "general truth."4
It appears that the most cogent subdivision is that
offered by
Moulton, who uses the terms
"frequentative" and "iterative." Using the
word a]poqn^<skw, he notes,
We find the present stem used as an
iterative in 1 Cor. 15:31, and as
frequentative in Heb. 7:8; 10:28; 1 Cor. 15:22;
Rev. 14:13: the latter
describes action which recurs from time to
time with different indi-
viduals, as the iterative describes action
repeated by the same agent.5
This division seems the best,
and more objective than that suggested by
Dana and Mantey. Eventually,
this author divided customary presents into
1 Robertson, Grammar, p. 880. 2 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p.
184.
3
5 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 114. In this sense he,
as opposed to Bur-
ton,
includes aa]fi<omen in Luke 11:4 as frequentative, since the same
indi-
viduals "habitually
forgive," p. 119.
64
five groups. Each of these will
be noted in turn.
General Customary Present
This is the largest section, and includes repeated,
customary, or
habitual action, whether the
subject is singular or plural. None of these
examples fits certainly in any
of the following four categories.
Usually the subject is plural, and the action described
may or may
not be repeated by any
particular individual. This category does not
stress the repetitive nature of
the act for any particular individual;
rather, it stresses the
repetitive nature of the act itself. In the case
of a singular subject, this
category stresses not so much the repetitive
nature of the act, as it
emphasizes its dependability in any particular
case; thus John 10:27-28,
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and
they follow me; and I give unto
them eternal life." The plural verbs
(hear, follow) are
customary--whether each sheep hears and follows once
or more than once is not the
question in view. Also the singular verbs
(know, give) are customary,
since each individual instance is more in view
than the mere repetition
required for Christ to know and give life to
all the sheep throughout
history.
An interesting example of this usage is a]pe<xousin in Matthew
6:2, 5, 16, "they have
their reward." Adolf Deissmann has compared this
usage to the common use of a]pe<xw on papyri and ostraca business and tax
receipts: "I have received
payment in full--nothing more is due."1 Jesus
was speaking of the Pharisees
as a class, not necessarily of individuals.
As Moulton has put it,
"The hypocrites have as it were their money down,
1 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, tr. by
Lionel R. M.
Strachan (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1927), pp. 110-12.
65
as soon as their trumpet has
sounded."1
Singular Iterative Present
This category includes cases where a singular verb
represents re-
peated action for that one
subject. For example, John the Baptist says
in Matthew 3:11, "I
baptize with water." The action is not progressive,
but rather repetitive or
habitual. Many times Jesus says, "The things
which I say unto you." Yet
the verb refers primarily to His repeated
speeches made throughout His
ministry, not primarily to the speech He is
making at the time. Paul uses
this category in Romans 7, where he des-
cribes his constant struggles
with his sinful nature. It is wrong to sup-
pose that he is describing his
earlier life.2
Plural Iterative Present
Often the present verb is plural and the action is
customary.
But, in addition, it is clear
from the context and important in the
statement, that each individual
in the plural subject repeatedly does the
action. Thus the disciples of
John ask, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast
often, but thy disciples fast
not?" (Mt. 9:14). The point of the question
is not that fasting as such is
at issue, but repeated fasting is the norm.
Often the subject is
"we," as with Paul's frequent "we preach Christ,"
"we boast on you," or
"we give thanks often for you."
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 247.
2 Charles Horne, Salvation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971),
p.
113;
cf. Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the
Greek New Testament (Ander-
son, Indiana: The Warner Press,
n.d.), p. 67.
66
Non-Iterative Customary Present
This title may sound incongruous or self contradictory.
Yet there
are several New Testament
examples which need such a category. In these
cases the action occurs only
once to each particular individual, but the
action is considered repetitive
as it occurs with many different indivi-
duals at different times. There
is a close relationship between this
category and the factual or
gnomic present. The dividing line is a matter
of emphasis, and thus of
personal judgment. This category stresses the
repetitive--and thus
inevitable--nature of the action. The gnomic present
instead emphasizes the
physical, logical or legal basis of the action.
Thus Matthew 7:19, "Every tree that brings not forth
good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the
fire," is non-iterative, since it obvi-
ously can happen only once to
each tree; yet it is customary, since it hap-
pens to many trees over the
years. When Jesus declared in Matthew 11:5
that "the blind receive
their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, and the deaf hear,
the dead are raised up, and the poor have the
gospel preached to them,"
He was referring to the sun of the single heal-
ings of each person as
repetitive, since many people were being healed.
Perhaps the finest example is
Paul's in 1 Corinthians 15:22, "In Adam all
die." Each person dies
once; yet Paul uses the present tense because
the action constantly repeats
itself with different individuals.1
1 James Oliver Buswell is
a bit unclear when he says, "The present
tense
of the verb justifies the implication of a continuous process. All
men
are subject to death," A Systematic
Theology of the Christian Religion
(2
vols.;
word
"continuous" is better replaced by "continuously repeated";
the
action itself is not durative.
67
Parabolic Customary Present
Often as He related a parable, Jesus would describe a
hypotheti-
cal situation, and would
describe the actions of the character which
would be expected in that
situation. For example, the man in Matthew
13:44, having found the
treasure-field, "goes and sells all that he has,
and buys that field." This
action is not iterative, but it is customary
for a person in his
circumstances. Similarly, the plants in shallow
ground "have no root"
(Mk. 4:17) because there is no soil. Since these
examples occur in parables and
hypothetical situations, they are divided
from the general customary
presents.
Having seen all the types of customary presents, it is
now possible
to delineate the occurrences of
each type in the New Testament books.
TABLE
9
CUSTOMARY
PRESENTS
book 1 2 3 4 5 total
Matthew 99 31 14 13 17 174
Mark 21 15 10 - 21 67
Luke 73 27 13 12 25 150
John 55 47 8 5 2 117
Acts 10 14 4 - - 28
Romans 25 36 8 - - 69
1
Corinthians 82 15 15 3 - 115
2
Corinthians 33 4 2 - - 39
Galatians 10 2 - - - 12
Ephesians 4 - - - - 4
Philippians 4 1 - - - 5
Colossians 2 - 1 - - 3
1
Thessalonians 5 - 2 - - 7
2
Thessalonians 5 - 1 - - 6
1
Timothy 12 2 - - - 14
2
Timothy 6 1 - - - 7
Titus 3 - - - - 3
Philemon - 1 - - - 1
Hebrews 33 3 - 1 - 37
James 40 - - - - 40
68
TABLE
9--Continued
book 1 2 3 4 5 total
I
Peter 9 - - - - 9
2
Peter 8 - - - - 8
1
John 24 1 2 - - 27
2
John - - - - - -
3
John - 7 - - - 7
Jude 8 - - - - 8
Revelation 18 - 1 - - 19
___________________________________________
total NT 589 207 81 34 65 976
Key: 1--general customary presents
2--singular iterative
presents
3--plural iterative
presents
4--non-iterative
customary presents
5--parabolic customary presents
Abstract Present
Often the present indicative indicates a general truth or
a time-
less statement or idiom. Unlike
the previous category of customary or
repeated presents, this
category is necessarily durative. Yet the action
itself need not be durative,
only the truthfulness or validity of the
statement within the context of
the speaker or writer. Thus Jesus can
say, "The seed is the word
of God," and the context is established--the
parable of the sower. In
another parable the seed may represent something
else entirely. There are five
major types of abstract presents, and they
are examined below.
Explanatory Present
Often the Biblical writer will step aside to interpret or
explain
some item in his account to the
reading audience. The very second occur-
rence of the present indicative
in the New Testament falls into this
group, " . . . which is
interpreted, With us is God" (Mt. 1:23). Matthew
uses this device only four
times (above, and in 27:33, 46, 62), and Luke
69
only twice (2:4; 8:26). But it
is frequent in Mark (12 times: 3:17; 5:41;
7:2, 4, 11, 34; 12:18, 42;
15:16, 22, 34, 42), and John (10 times: 1:38,
41, 42; 4:9; 5:2; 9:7; 19:17,
40; 20:16; 21:24), and Acts (9 times: 1:12,
19; 4:36; 8:26; 9:36; 13:8;
16:12; 23:8, 8). It is found only once in
the epistles (Heb. 9:2) and
three times in Revelation (2:24; 21:17;
22:20). It is possible to
include some citations under other categories
as well; for example, the verbs
in Acts 23:8, "The Sadducees say that
there is no resurrection,
neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees
confess both," could be
classified as customary presents as well as ex-
planatory presents. Yet here it
seems that the confidential tone of Acts
calls for classing those verbs
as primarily explanatory.
Factual Present
This category, often called the "gnomic"
present, has a fairly
high number of occurrences.
Unfortunately, the line separating this cate-
gory and several others is not
always clear, and the confusion is evident
in the grammars. While all recognize
a sort of "gnomic" present,1 the
definitions and examples for
the category are far from uniform. The dif-
ficulty arises from the nature
of the category. If every statement of the
Bible is true, is it not a
fact, and is it not, therefore, factual?
Furthermore, many progressive
presents as well as customary presents lend
themselves to this grouping.2
Perhaps one helping factor is the durative nature of
these verbs'
aspect. K. L. McKay goes so far
as to distinguish gnomic presents from
1 Dana and Mantey call it
"static" present, Manual
Grammar, p. 186.
2
70
gnomic aorists on the basis of
aspect alone:
The difference between the present and the
aorist in these timeless
contexts is the normal aspectual difference
between process and com-
plete action, and we need not apologize for
it.1
While this estimation appears a
bit sweeping, it seems reasonable to re-
strict this category to more or
less "timeless" expressions of fact. The
aspect of these verbs could be
either durative or "non-determined."
Robertson thinks that gnomic
presents are aoristic, and defines the gnomic
present as "the aorist
present that is timeless in reality, true for all
time."2 Of course, "aoristic" here means
"non-determined" aspect, not
"punctiliar" in
reality. Likewise, the timeless idea influences Dana
and Mantey, who define their
"static" present as "practically the present
of duration applied to a verb
of being."3
The examples chosen for this category are those which
appear too
uniform or durative to be
included under the customary presents. The
statement is a matter of fact,
theoretical or actual. Thus, Matthew 5:14,
"A city that is set on an
hill cannot be hid" is a theoretical statement;
there need be no historical
example of such a city. On the other hand,
Matthew 5:37, "whatsoever
is more than these is of evil," is a theoretical
statement which has many sad
examples in reality. Matthew 6:22,
"The light
of the body is the eye,"
expresses a general truth of relative nature;
that is, it is valid within the
present created human race. Finally,
1 John 4:8, "God is
love," declares a truth which is universally valid
for all time.
1 McKay, "Syntax in
Exegesis," p. 49. 2 Robertson, Grammar, p. 866.
3 Dana
and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p. 186.
71
Impersonal Present
The little expressions "it is necessary,"
"it is lawful," "it is
good," "it is
proper," "it is better," and a few others pop up throughout
the New Testament. They trace
their descent to the ancient Greek language.
"In the present tense the
idiom is on purely Greek lines, not Semitic.
. . . So the impersonal verbs
(and e@xw) stand to themselves in
support
from ancient Greek and the koinh<."1 The
identity of these has been
disputed by some, as Nigel
Turner, who maintains that the verbs quoted
above are not impersonal if
followed by "an infinitive as subject."2
For truly impersonal verbs,
Turner finds their origin at least partially
in the desire to avoid God's
name when He is the implied subject)
In this study the idiomatic phrases o! e]stin and tou?t’
e@stin
are
not normally included as
impersonal presents (as in Robertson, Grammar,
p. 881), but are classed under
such categories as explanatory or interpre-
tive presents. One particular
example stands out as highly problematical.
It is a]pe<xei, in Mark 14:41, translated, "It is
enough." That particular
usage is included as
impersonal, since the verb allows that meaning in
contemporary koine Greek.
Deissmann reproduces an ostracon from
dated 32-33 A.D., with
identical usage in the first singular.4
What does the present tense of the impersonal verbs
signify? Ex-
amining the examples, one
concludes that the present tense normally stresses
the present time application of
the statement. "It is necessary (dei?)"
applies to the present;
"it was necessary (e@dei)"
applies to the past.
1 Robertson, Grammar, p. 881. 2 Turner, Syntax, pp. 291-92.
3 Ibid., p. 291.
4 Deismnann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 111-12;
photograph,
p. 111; cf. Robertson's
comments, Grammar, p. 866.
72
Yet, even here, usage is more
subtle. Thus, Jesus says, "These things it
was necessary (e@dei) to do" (Mt. 23:23), and yet it is still
necessary:
here the imperfect may be used
because it was more important that they do
something else also. Most of
the impersonal verbs are found in the
present tense, indicating that
the time is indeed abstract, the aspect
"non-determined."
Interpretive Present
These verbs seek to explain the meaning of events, sayings,
or
parables from the theological
perspective. They differ from explanatory
presents, which explain more
technical matters of language or custom.
Thus e]stin in Matthew 3:3 is interpretive, "This is
that which was spoken
through Isaiah," and in
7:12, "This is the law and the prophets." Mat-
thew 11:14 provides an
important interpretive use as well: "and if you
wish to receive (it), he is
Elijah who is about to come." Often this
present is used in the
explanation of parables--e.g., "The one sowing
the good seed is the son of
man" (Mt. 13:37). This author included the
crucial passage Matthew 26:26
in this category: "Take, eat, this is my
body." The identity of the
bread with Christ's body springs from theo-
logical truth and symbolism,
not physical equality (Jn. 6:63). Sometimes
the wording of the passage
causes another verb to be used besides e]sti<n,
as Mark 4:14, "The sower
sows the word."
Often in the book of John Jesus or the author explains a
term or
fact introduced into the
narrative, as "the witness of John" in 1:19,
"the judgment" in
3:19, "the work of God" in 6:29, "the bread of God" in
6:33, "the will of my
Father" in 6:40, and many other examples. Also in-
cluded are the famous "I
am" passages in John, already discussed in this
73
chapter.
The interpretive present is frequent in epistolary
literature
(e.g., Rom. 5:14), especially
in Paul's more "theological" longer epistles;
and in Hebrews, with that
book's continual interpretation of Old Testament
symbolism and prophecy. An
example in Hebrews is at 10:20, "the veil,
that is, his flesh." The
verse has caused difficulty for some. Hebrews
often uses the form tou?t ] e@stin (2:14;
7:5; 9:11; 11:16; 13:15; and here
at 10:20). N. H. Young has shown that word order is not a
factor in de-
termining the antecedent in
these cases.1 Yet
the natural interpretation
is to tie "veil" to
"flesh," and the structure of the passage bears it
out.2 The
usage occurs with greatest frequency (23 times) in Revelation,
interpreting the apocalyptic
visions (1:20a, b; 4:5; 5:6, 8; 11:4; 13:10,
18a, b; 14:12; 16:14; 17:9a, b,
11b, c, 12, 15, 18; 19:8; 20:2, 12, 14;
21:8). In fact, the abundance
of these interpretive presents should en-
courage the student toward a
literal, futuristic interpretation of Reve-
lation, since John goes out of
his way to avoid a mystical understanding
by frequently employing
interpretive presents.
Comparative Present
In a few places the interpretive present is modified or
softened
by stating the interpretation
as a "similarity,"--"is similar to"--much as
a simile is distinguished from
a metaphor by the addition of "like" or
"as." Also, this
category of verbs ushers the reader from the reality to
the figure, while the
interpretive present brings him back from the figure
1 Young, "tou?t
] e@stin th?j sarko>j au]tou? (Heb. x. 20):
Apposition,
Dependent
or Explicative?" New Testament
Studies, 20:1 (October, 1973), 101.
2 Ibid., pp. 102-04; cf.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the
Hebrews;
a Commentary (Winona Lake, Indiana: B.M.H Books, 1972), pp.
198-99.
74
to the reality.
Usage for this category in the New Testament is limited
primarily
to the Synoptic Gospels (Mt.
11:16; 13:31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52; 20:1; Mk.
4:26; Lk. 6:47, 48, 49; 7:31,
32; 13:18, 19, 21). The only other exam-
ples in this category are the
two occurrences of eouxcy in the book of
James (1:6, 23).
This last group brings to an end the category of abstract
pres-
ents. The occurrences of each
type in the books of the New Testament are
here listed.
TABLE 10
ABSTRACT
PRESENTS
book 1 2 3 4 5 total
Matthew 4 54 21 22 8 109
Mark 12 33 23 6 1 75
Luke 2 35 30 9 8 84
John 10 66 15 22 - 113
Acts 9 4 21 5 - 39
Romans - 25 4 8 - 37
1
Corinthians - 69 15 5 - 89
2
Corinthians - 4 4 - - 8
Galatians - 9 - 7 - 16
Ephesians - 4 5 2 - 11
Philippians - - 1 - - 1
Colossians - 1 3 3 - 7
1
Thessalonians - - 1 - - 1
2
Thessalonians - - 1 - - 1
1
Timothy - 8 5 - - 13
2
Timothy - - 2 - - 2
Titus - 1 5 - - 6
Philemon - - - 1 - 1
Hebrews 1 8 3 7 - 19
James - 18 1 - 2 21
I
Peter - 1 - 1 - 2
2
Peter - 1 2 - - 3
1
John 1 38 - 3 - 41
2
John - 3 - 3 - 6
3
John - 1 - - - 1
Revelation 3 1 7 23 - 34
_________________________________________________
total NT 41 384 169
127 19 740
75
TABLE
10--Continued
Key: 1--explanatory present
2--factual present
3--impersonal present
4--interpretive present
5--comparative present
While these verbs may be
considered timeless, the present tense is appro-
priate since the truth is
applicable to present time--whether to the
speaker at the time of
speaking, or the the author at the time of writing.
The aspect, therefore, is
aoristic, in the sense of the "undetermined"
view of the action's duration.
Perfective
Present
The perfect aspect describes a present, continuing effect
produced
by a past event. Many times in
the New Testament a present indicative is
used in contexts where the
perfective meaning is obvious. The unqualified
denial of this fact by G.
Mussies appears forced: "The present indicative
does not express any view
except the non-perfective view, and as such it
is unmarked as opposed to the
perfect indicative."1 The perfective present
is indeed found in the New
Testament, and can be divided into the follow-
ing four heads.
General Perfective Present
Often the stem of the verb itself is made perfective by
the ad-
dition of a prepositional prefix,
as a]poqn^<skw and
only gradually does
1 Mussies, Apocalypse, p. 275. If it be thought
that the wording
of
this sentence is unclear, perhaps J. Neville Birdsall rightly attributes
Mussies's
awkward writing style to the fact that he, a German, himself
wrote
his book in English; review in the Evangelical
Quarterly, XLV:1
(January-March, 1973), esp. p.
49.
76
it resume its durative nature.1 Such is also the case with pa<reimi,
which can mean "I have
come," as well as "I am present."2 In
other cases
the roots themselves evidently
had a perfective meaning, as h@kw or a]kou<w.3
A. T. Robertson notes that in
these cases the "root has the sense of
state, not of linear action.
This is an old use of these roots."4 When
the stems themselves are perfective,
as h@kw or pa<reimi (often), it is
important to remember that
"this is not a Present for the Perfect of the
same verb, but a Present
equivalent to the Perfect of another verb."5
On the other hand, is there any
contrast between a perfect verb and a
present used as a perfect?
But it seems better to see with
Dana and Mantey a greater stress on the
present state in the perfective
present than in the simple perfect tense.
To say that this use is "present for
perfect" is not accurately rep-
resenting the case. It does approach quite
closely the significance
of the perfect, but stresses the
continuance of results through
present time in a way which the perfect
would not do, for the perfect
stresses existence of results but not their
continuance.7
New Testament examples of perfective presents are not
lacking.
John asks Jesus, "Do you
come to me?" (Mt. 3:14); Jesus had already come
and was there as a result.
Jesus consoles the paralytic, "Your sins are
forgiven" (Mt. 9:2), for
Jesus had seen his faith already shown. This
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 114.
2 William F. Arndt and F.
Wilbur Gingrich, eds., A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New
Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (
The
3
Exegetical Grammar of
the Greek New Testament, p. 71.
4 Robertson, Grammar, p. 881. 5
6 Ibid. 7
Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, p.
182.
77
last example is often listed
under the category "aoristic present," but
truly it better is
perfective--God had already forgiven his sins, which
forgiveness Jesus declared with
authority (cf. v. 6). An undebatable
example is found in Luke 1:34,
where Mary protests to the angel, "How will
this be, since I know not a
man?" Her previous chastity resulted in her
present virginity. Often in
court scenes this usage comes forth. Pilate
declares, "I find no fault
in him" (Jn. 19:4), speaking of the results of
the previous interrogation.
Some controversy surrounds Acts 26:31, "This
man has done nothing worthy of
death or bonds." Winer believes the present
is customary, his conduct in
general.1
However, it seems better to class
pra<ssei there
as perfective, since Paul's previous conduct was at issue,
not his conduct, for example,
while being held two years in
To strengthen this claim, note
the strongly parallel wording in Luke 23:15,
"Nothing worthy of death
has been done by him." Here the form is e]sti>n
pepragme<non, the
periphrastic perfect. If this be the case, then Acts
26:31 parallels the force of
Acts 25:11: "if I am guilty," a conditional
present which is also
perfective,2 and
also "if I have done (pe<praxa<)
anything worthy of death,"
a normal perfect tense verb.
Present in Periphrastic Perfect
A periphrastic construction combines the present
indicative of
the helping verb--normally ei]mi<3--with
a participle, to form a synthesis.
The helping verb does influence
to a degree the aspect of the resulting
1 Winer, Idiom, p. 267; also BDF, p. 168.
2 Ibid., for both Winer
and BDF.
3 But e@xw appears in Mk. 8:17.
78
tense--making it more linear.
"The periphrastic use of ei#nai must
be
clearly distinguished from its
equative function."1 Normally the con-
struction is the present
indicative of ei#nai with
either the present
participle, forming the
periphrastic present, discussed earlier, or the
perfect participle, forming the
periphrastic perfect, which McGaughy holds
to be a simple equivalent to
the perfect tense.2 The
other possibility,
the periphrastic aorist, using
the imperfect form h#n with
the aorist
participle (blhqei<j), is "quite exceptional," being
limited in the New
Testament to Luke 23:19.3
A good example of the aspectual contribution of the
Present indi-
cative to the periphrastic
perfect is in Ephesians 2:5, 8. Kenneth S.
Wuest observes,
Not content with the details offered by the
perfect tense, Paul uses
a periphrastic construction consisting of a
participle in the perfect
tense and the verb of being in the present
tense. The perfect tense
speaks of the existence of finished results
in present time, whereas
Paul wanted to express persistence of
finished results through present
time. So he borrows the durative aspect of
the present tense verb to
give persistence to the existing results. .
. . The security of the
believer could not have been expressed in
stronger terms.4
Present in Citation
Periphrastic Perfect
This category is merely a subdivision of the previous
one. It
consists of periphrastic
perfects applied to Scripture citation--i.e.,
the form ei]stin gegramme<non, "it is written."
The form is found only six
times, and always in John's
Gospel (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 20:30).
1 L. C. McGaughy, @Einai, p. 82.
2 Ibid., p. 81. 3
4 Wuest, "The
Eloquence of Greek Tenses and Moods," Bibliotheca
Sacra,
117:46 (April, 1960), 135.
79
The first five refer to Old
Testament Scripture; the last reference re-
fers to his own book,
"which things are not written in this book." He
then employs the normal New
Testament perfect form, "but these things are
written (ge<graptai) that you might believe."
Since this periphrastic
form is a special Johannine
idiom, it appears best to understand its
aspect as perfective, the
equivalent of the perfect indicative, and not
as especially durative. This
form thus constitutes an idiomatic exception
to the conclusion of the
previous section.
Citation Present
Often when one quotes from a written source, he thinks of
the
author as speaking still, in
his writings. Thus in English, as well as
other languages, the citation
present is actually a perfective present--
e.g., "Shakespeare extols
the quality of mercy." The saying is past,
yet the saying continues as an
echo.
Some writers have sought to identify various Biblical
citation
formulas with the intended
interpretation of the citation. Thomas
Hartwell Horne has shown the
fallacy of this method in practice.1
However,
the form of citation presents
does show the high regard of the New Testa-
ment writers for the Old
Testament Scriptures. For the subject of the
verbs "he says,"
"it says," and so forth, is often "God" or "the Holy
Spirit," as well as
"the Scripture."2 For an extremely important
discussion
1 Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and
Knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures (8th ed.; 5 vols.;
1839),
II, 336-46.
2 Turner, Syntax, p. 293; Turner notes the textual
variant supplying
h[
grafh< in Rom. 10:8 in MSS D and G; see the Nestle-Aland text.
80
of the theological importance
of citation presents, see Benjamin Breckin-
ridge Warfield, "'It Says:’ ‘Scripture Says’ ‘God Says'"; he shows
how
these formulas confirm the
orthodox doctrine of verbal inspiration.1
Bruce M. Metzger notes that
there needs to be an investigation comparing
the New Testament citation
formulas with those of the Mishnah, to show the
difference between the
Christian and the Orthodox Jewish attitudes toward
the Old Testament in the first
century A.D.2 While
Metzger in his article
does not discuss the
significance of the present tense in citation for-
mulas, he does observe that
"the New Testament writers allow themselves
more freedom in attributing
personality to the Scriptures than do the
Tannaim."3
Sometimes the human author is regarded as still speaking,
as in
Matthew 22:43, "How does
David call his Lord?" Jesus considered David as
still speaking, even though he
was dead and buried (Acts 2:29). Other
times the Scripture itself
speaks (Jn. 19:37), or God in Scripture (Acts
13:35; Gal. 3:16). This form of
citation present is especially frequent
in the books of Romans and
Hebrews, both of which make extensive theolo-
gical use of the Old Testament.
The occurrences of the perfective present are enumerated
in the
following table.
1 Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible,
ed. by
Samuel
G. Craig (
Company,
1948), pp. 299-348; the chapter originally appeared in The Pres-
byterian and Reformed
Review,
X (1899), 472-510.
2 Metzger,
"Formulas," pp. 52-53.
3 Ibid., p. 55; this is especially true of Hebrews; see the appendix
in
Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (2nd ed.:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1892), pp. 474-76.
81
TABLE
11
PERFECTIVE
PRESENT
book 1 2 3 4 total
Matthew 5 2 - 1 8
Mark 3 1 - 1 5
Luke 8 5 - 3 16
John 13 2 6 1 22
Acts 8 4 - 6 18
Romans 1 1 - 24 26
1
Corinthians 2 3 - 4 9
2
Corinthians - 1 - 1 2
Galatians 1 - - 2 3
Ephesians 1 2 - 2 5
Philippians 2 - - - 2
Colossians - 1 - - 1
1
Thessalonians 2 - - - 2
2
Thessalonians 1 - - - 1
1
Timothy 1 - - 1 2
2
Timothy 1 - - - 1
Hebrews 9 4 - 14 27
James 1 - - 2 3
2
Peter - 1 - - 1
1
John 1 1 - - 2
Jude 1 - - - 1
__________________________________________
total NT 61 28 6 62 157
Key: 1--general perfective present
2--present
in periphrastic perfect
3--present
in citation periphrastic perfect
4--citation present
The Present in Kingdom
Passages
Twenty three times the present indicative describes some
truth
specifically about the
a category for this study, but
will be scattered among the other cate-
gories. However in view of
their exegetical importance, they are here
mentioned together.
This author believes the theocratic Kingdom of the Bible
to be
still in the future, to be
ushered in by Christ after His personal, physical
return to the earth. In many
cases when the Kingdom is mentioned in the
82
Gospels, therefore, the usage
is taken as futuristic, especially when
grammatical factors in the
context suggest a futuristic usage. However,
in some of these instances, the
presents could also be factual--describing
what the Kingdom is like
without stating the time of its manifestation.
Included as futuristic presents
are the following references:
a. Mt. 5:3, e]stin;
parallel beatitudes are future
b. Mt. 5:10, e]stin; see
"a"
c. Mt. 11:11, e]stin: they will be greater
in the future; note future
in Lk. 13:30
d. Mt. 18:1, e]sti>n; see
"c"
e. Mt. 1 :4 e]stin; see
"c"
f. Lk. 6:20, e]sti>n: see
"a"
g. Lk. 7:28b, e]stin; see
"c"
h. Lk. 17:20a, e]rxetai; po<te shows Pharisees
expected a future
kingdom
One additional reference
qualifies as expressing immediate future, even
though it is listed under the
interrogative substantive category:
i. Acts 1:6, a]pokaqista<neij: immediate future
implied by "at this
time"; future implied by "to
Even though the kingdom is future in its manifestation,
it is
present in it representatives
and in many of its blessings for believers.
The Church and the Kingdom are
different. Yet the Church experiences spiri-
tual blessings promised in the
New Covenant.1 Even before Christ's death
and resurrection, the Kingdom
was present in Himself and in His appointed
delegates; and after Pentecost
the Kingdom was present in the Church
1 Kent, The
Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, pp. 158-60.
83
through the Holy Spirit in many
of its spiritual manifestations.1 This
idea does not contradict the
truth that Jesus and the apostles taught an
earthly futuristic Kingdom of
both physical and spiritual aspects, in line
with literal Old Testament
prophecy.2 All these remarks lead to the
following two usages of the
present indicative as progressive presents:
j. Lk. 17:21, e]stin; i]dou< calls attention to the present time;
"as
to the personal presence of its King, the
Kingdom was actually
'in the midst' of men."3
k. Lk. 22:29, diati<qemai; for
both the disciples and Jesus, the con-
ferring takes place before the realization
One case is relative:
1. Lk. 21:31, e]]stin;
"when you see" sets the time
Occasionally the present indicative is customary,
describing "how
things happen" concerning
the Kingdom:
m. Mt. 21:31, proa<gousin;
speaks of new birth
n. Lk. 17:20b, e@rxetai;
Pharisees do not recognize the King4
o. Lk. 18:24, ei]sporeu<ontai;
compare with "m"
Closely related to the
customary presents are the factual presents. Each
of these states a truth about
the Kingdom, its source, character, or its
1 George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (
William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), pp. 271-73.
2 Ibid., pp. 319-20.
3 Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive
Study
of the Kingdom of God (Chicago: Moody Press,
1959), p. 272.
4 This passage has been
variously interpreted. Arndt and Gingrich
make
it progressive: "the
i.e.,
in such a way its rise can be observed," Greek-English Lexicon, p.
628.
Premillennialists can understand it either as in this paper, or by
meta> parathrh<sewj as prophetic
date-setting. This author prefers the
former,
since the reference in Jesus' answer seems to be to the Pharisees'
blindness.
84
subjects. The category is like the
comparative present in the Kingdom
Parables.
p. Mt. 19:14, e]sti>n:
describes the nature of its subjects
q. Mk. 10:14, e]sti>n: see
"p"
r. Lk. 18:16, e]sti>n: see
"p"
s. Jn. 18:36a, e@stin;
describes its source
t. Rom. 18:36b, e@stin: see
"s"1
u. Rom. 14:17, e]stin:
describes its character
v. 1 Cor. 15:50, du<natai;
describes the necessary nature of its
rulers
w. Eph. 5:5, e@xei; see
"v"
These few passages provide rich material for fascinating
discussion,
and for further specialized
research in other tenses and moods.
Conclusion for Presents
in Present Time
So far the study has consisted of present indicative
usage which
directly bears on present time.
The major categories--progressive present,
declarative present, customary
present, abstract present, and perfective
present--contribute various
aspectual emphases. Even in present time the
present indicative expresses
both durative and aoristic points of view. In
order to work out a general
conclusion, it is necessary to push the tense
to its time-limits, past and
future, and to its modal limit in conditional
sentences. This plan provides
the basis for the rest of Part II.
1 The "but now"
indicates a future reversal when the Kingdom shall
be
more worldly in its influence, if not in its source; cf. George N. H.
Peters,
The
1884; reprinted;
III. THE PRESENT INDICATIVE IN PAST
TIME
Since Greek was a living language, it took on character
and flavor
by use, which still confuses
the grammarian desiring "the rule of law" in
language. The use of the
present tense for past time, while it sounds
incongruous, is actually common
to all language. This chapter shall deal
with three types of present
indicatives: the historical present, the
present for immediate past, and
the imperfective present. The largest and
most debated category is that
of historical presents, and it will require
the bulk of this chapter. The
other two categories will be discussed at
the end.
Historical
Present Frequency
The historical present is simply a present indicative in
past nar-
ration, where one would expect
a "past" tense, such as an imperfect or
an aorist. The first one in the
New Testament is fai<netai in
Matthew
2:13, "And after they had
departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appears
to Joseph in a dream."
Since the historical present is limited to narration, it
is rare
in epistles, being encountered
only in Hebrews. It is found chiefly in
the Gospels, Acts, and
Revelation (ch. 4-22). The individual occurrences
of all the historical presents
in the New Testament are listed in Appendix
C. The following table shows
the frequency of the historical present in
each book in which it occurs.
In addition to these there is a possible
historical present in Hebrews
11:15 (mnhmoneu<ousin); but
since it is
conditional, it is included in
that list. This table is more accurate
85
86
TABLE 12
HISTORICAL PRESENT FREQUENCY
book hist. pres. verb forms hist.
pres./100 verb forms
Matthew 94 3,948 2.38
Mark 150 2,612 5.74
Luke 13 4,388 0.30
John 163 3,535 4.61
Acts 14 3,374 0.36
Revelation 54 1,537 3.51
and helpful for comparing
frequencies than earlier attempts. John C.
Hawkins, not knowing the total
number of verbs in each book, had to
estimate frequency by figuring
the average number of historical presents
on each page of the Westcott
and Hort printed Greek text.1 Hawkins thus
estimates: "it appears
that Mark uses it more freely than John":2 now an
exact comparison is possible:
5.74 to 4.61, a difference of just under
25%.
Obviously, the frequency of the historical present varies
con-
siderably from book to book
throughout the New Testament. This fact fits
with the general usage of
historical presents in all language. "It is a
well-known idiom in all periods
of Greek, particularly in popular, non-
literary usage."3
Various strata of writing styles reflect various usage
patterns:
It was indeed a permanent element in prose
narrative, whether colloquial
or literary; but it seems to have run much
the same course in English,
where the historic present is not normally
used in educated conversation
or in literature as a narrative form. It
carries a special effect of
1 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae (2nd e.;
House,
1909), p. 143.
2 Ibid.
3
87
its own, which may be a favourite
mannerism of a particular author,
but entirely avoided by others.1
The historical present is so
universal that Paul Kiparsky can cite a
usage even from a Hittite
inscription: "He went to his grandfather and
speaks to him.2
It is interesting to note how other Greek writings use
the histori-
cal present. It is not found at
all in Homer.3 However, it is frequent
in other classical writers.4
This variation in classical authors invites
speculation. Gildersleeve
suggested that the tone of content influences
the use or disuse of the
historical present.
This use of the present belongs to the
original stock of our family
of languages. It antedates the
differentiation into imperf. and
aorist. Being a familiar form, it is set
down as a mark of simplicity
(a]fe<leia) of style. By reason,
therefore, both of its liveliness
and its familiar tone it is foreign to the
leisurely and dignified
unfolding of the epos, and is not found in
Homer, whereas it is very
common in the rhetorical Vergil, as it is
very common in the Attic
orators. Nor is it used to any extent, if
at all, in the statuesque
Pindaric ode, whereas it is frequent in
the Attic drama, which seems
to have introduced it to higher
literature.5
The usage finds a home among the neo-classicists as well.
Nigel
Turner quotes the statistics
produced by K. Eriksson (Das Praesens
His-
toricum
in der nachclassischen griechischen Historiographie, Diss.
of
1 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 121.
2 Tense and Mood in
Indo-European Syntax" (hereinafter referred
to
as "Tense and Mood"), Foundations
of Language, 4(1968), 32.
3 Goodwin-Gulick, Greek Grammar, p. 268.
4 Several examples in
classical literature are cited by Winer,
Idiom, p. 267. H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev, by Gordon M. Messing
(Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 277, offers an example
of
the similar "annalistic present."
5 Gildersleeve, Syntax, I, 86.
88
present in the Archeology of Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Arrian's Anabasis,
and Xenophon's Anabasis.1 He also notes a few samplings from Josephus,
showing a high ratio of
historical presents per page.2 This author spot
checked a page of Josephus
selected at random. One page of Greek contains
several aorists and many
imperfects, and in addition, three historical
presents: paragi<netai,
eu]ri<skei, and a]polu<ei.3
The historical present occurs often in the LXX. Winer's
statement,
"as to the Sept., in which
this usage is extremely rare,"4 is misleading.
Parts of the LXX, especially
the books of Kings, have many historical
presents. Thackeray's classic
work notes that even within the books of
Kings, vocabulary and style
vary sharply. He uses the following notations:5
earlier portions: K.a (= 1
K.)
K. bb (= 2 K.
1:1 - 11:1)
K.gg (= 3 K. 2:12 - 21:43)
later portions: K.bg (= 2 K. 11:2 - 3 K. 2:11)
K. gd (= 3 K. 22:1 - 4 K. end)
K.bd = K.bg + K.gd
He then states that K.bd shows an "almost complete absence of the
histori-
cal present," while the
other sections show varying amounts (145 in K.a,
28 in K. bb, 47 in K.gg).6
He notes the resulting contrasts within
1 Turner, Syntax, p. 61. 2 Ibid.
3 Josephus, The Jewish War, 1:301, in The Jewish War, Books I-III
With
a translation by H. St J. Thackeray, Loeb Classical Library (
William
Heinemann, Ltd., 1927), p. 140.
4 Winer, Idiom, p. 267.
5 Henry
according to the
Septuagint
(hereinafter referred to as Septuagint;
bridge:
6 Ibid.
89
the LXX:
The
historic present tends to be used with verbs of a certain class;
apart from le<gei, etc. it is
specifically used of verbs of seeing in
the Pentateuch, of verbs of motion (coming
and going) in the later
historical books: its absence from K. bd, distinguishes the
later from
the earlier portions of the Kingdom books.1
Hawkins enlarges on Thackeray's
list, and offers the following occurrences
in LXX books:2
Genesis, 9 2 Esdras, 8
Exodus, 24 --Ezra,
3
Numbers, 7 --Nehemiah,
5
Joshua, 1 Job, 25
Judges, 2 Esther, 2
Ruth, 1 Tobit, 10
1 Kingdoms, 151 Daniel, 1
2 Kingdoms, 32 Bel and the Dragon, 1
3 Kingdoms, 47 1 Maccabees, 2
4 Kingdoms, 2 2 Maccabees, 1
1 Chronicles, 2 3 Maccabees, 3
1 Esdras, 3 4
Maccabees, 3
total LXX, 337
Having tabulated the total, he
observes that the historical present is
still more rare in the LXX,
even in narrative portions, than in Mark's
Gospel.3 Moulton has
suggested that the difference is due, at least in
part, to the lack of le<gei, in LXX narration.4
As would be expected, the historical present is most
common in
popular speech. This fact is
borne out by its very common use in the
papyri,5 and even in
modern Greek.6
1 Thackeray, Septuagint, p. 24.
2 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 213.
3 Ibid., p. 214.
4 Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 121.
5 Ibid. Moulton includes examples.
6 BDF, p. 167.
90
Synoptic
Comparisons
One of the most interesting fields of Bible study is the
subtle
and intricate nuances of the
three Synoptic Gospels. The so-called "Synop-
tic Problem" has intrigued
scholars for centuries, and has produced a pro-
found as well as elaborate
literature. Entering into this picture is the
historical present. Those who
defend the Markan priority claim the higher
frequency of the historical
present in that book as evidence that the
other authors
"corrected" his usage by supplying past tenses.1 While
this
study cannot cover the point
completely, a few comments are in order.
General Data
First, it is evident from Table 12 that Mark does use the
historical
present much more frequently
than Matthew and Luke. But the distance be-
tween Matthew and Luke far
exceeds that between Matthew and Mark. Hence,
the remark, "Matthew and
Luke do not favor the historic present,"2 tends
to be misleading.
The Case of Luke 24:12
It has been assumed by many that Luke corrected Mark's
grammar,
deleting "Mark's
historical presents except in 3:49."3 Hence, the appear-
ance of any historical present
in Luke is immediately suspect. One
celebrated case is Luke 24:12,
"Peter having arisen ran unto the tomb,
1 For example, Ned B.
Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic
Gospels,
Some Basic Questions (
pany,
1963), pp. 61-62.
2 Charles H. Talbert and
Edgar V. McKnight, "Can the Griesback
Hypothesis
Be Falsified?" (hereinafter referred to as "Griesback"),
Journal of Biblical
Literature,
91:3 (September, 1972), 350.
3 Robertson, Grammar, p. 367.
91
and having stooped down sees
the linen cloths alone; and he departed
wondering to himself what had
happened." The UBS text includes the verse,
but with a "D"
rating.1 This rating appears strange in view of the verse's
overwhelming textual support,
including Aleph, A, B, and the Byzantine
text, along with the Bodmer
Papyrus, p75. Against the verse stands the
western D alone.2 Three reasons have been advanced against the
verse:
the parallel wording in John
20, indicating (to some) an interpolation;
the textual "Western
Non-Interpolations" in Luke;3 and the presence in
the verse of a historical
present. Metzger reports that a "sharp difference"
prevailed in the Committee as
they debated these verses:
During the discussions a sharp difference
of opinion emerged. Accor-
ding to the view of a minority of the
Committee, apart from other ar-
guments there is discernible in these
passages a Christological-
theological motivation that accounts for
their having been added,
while there is no clear reason that
accounts for their having been
omitted. Accordingly, if the passages are
retained in the text at
all, it was held that they should be
enclosed within square brackets.
On the other hand, the majority of the
Committee, having evaluated
the weight of the evidence differently,
regarded the longer readings
as part of the original text.4
And the Committee also refected
theological borrowing from John as an
explanation for Luke 24:12.
A majority of the Committee regarded the
passage as a natural ante-
cedent to ver. 24, and was inclined to
explain the similarity with
the verses in John as due to the
likelihood that both evangelists
had drawn upon a common tradition.5
Recently two scholars have attempted to disqualify the
verse.
1 The Greek New Testament, pp. 314-15. 2 Ibid.
3 The nine so-called
Western Non-Interpolations are Mt. 27:49;
Lk.
22:19b-20: 24:3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52; Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual
Commentary on the Greek
New Testament
(hereinafter referred to as Textual
Commentary;
4 Metzger, Textual
Commentary, p. 193. 5 Ibid., p. 184..
92
K. P. G. Curtis considers the
"linguistic evidence" as "most weighty" for
excluding the verse. He does
not mention such niceties as textual evidence.1
Raymond E. Brown is more
cautious, but he also considers "the Western text
as original not because of
better transmission but through correct emen-
dation."2 Both
these critics are answered on their own ground by John
Muddiman, who notes that the
verse now "has at last been put up for re-
habilitation.3 Muddiman asserts that, if Luke had a redactor,
he would
no doubt have
"corrected" the historical present in 24:12, just as he
supposedly had corrected the
others taken from Mark.4 He continues with
this bit of wisdom:
The uncorrected historic present . .
. is a good illustration of
the frequent inconclusiveness of the
stylistic criterion in textual
criticism.
Unless we resort to emendation, we must admit that the
Third Gospel contains at least two
"scandalous" historic presents.
Our author, then, is not infallible, but
if he slipped twice, why not
a third time, considering human rather
than mathematical probability.5
F. Neiynck, following up
Muddiman's article, adds the obvious fact that
John could very well have
referred to Luke when writing John 20,6 adding
significant details, or perhaps
relating a separate but similar event.
Furthermore, he sees as a
possible "'source' of the uncorrected historic
present" in Luke 24:12,
the historical present qewrou?sin, which
is found
1 Curtis, “Luke xxiv. 12
and John xx. 3-10," Journal of
Theological
Studies, XXII (1971), esp. 515.
2 Brown, The Gospel According to John (xiii-xxi), in The Anchor
Bible,
ed. by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden
City,
3 Muddiman, "A Note
on Reading Luke XXIV. 12," Ephemerides
Theolo-
gicae Lovanienses, XLVIII:3-4 (December,
1972), 542.
4 Ibid., p. 544. 5
Ibid.
6 Neiynck, "The
Uncorrected Historic Present in Lk. xxiv. 12,"
Ephemerides
Theologicae Lovanienses, XLV11.1:3-4 (December, 1972), 553.
93
in Mark 16:4.1
Thus it appears that Luke really did use historical
presents.2
Once again, grammar must
proceed from the text, not the reverse.
Specific Data
In order to compare accurately the three Synoptics' use
of the
historical present, one must
examine the individual examples for each of
the Gospels. The occurrences
are here tabulated, along with the parallel
usages (if any) in the other
Synoptic Gospels. This table is a compila-
tion of several charts in
Hawkins's Horae Synopticae (pp.
144-49), along
with the results of this
author's research. The parallelism followed is
that worked out by
(*) are historical presents.
TABLE 13
SYNOPTIC HISTORICAL
PRESENTS
Matthew Mark Luke
*2:13 fai<netai - -
*2:18 ei]si<n - -
*2:19 fai<netai - -
*3:1 paragi<netai 1:4 e]ge<neto 3:2 (e]ge<neto)
1 Neiynck, "The
Uncorrected Historic Present in Lk. xxiv. 12,"
p.
551.
2 Thus Abbott is wrong to
say that John is the only Evangelist to
use
ble<
3 Ernest DeWitt
the Synoptic Gospels in
Greek
(2nd ed.;
Press, 1947).
94
TABLE
13--Continued
Matthew Mark Luke
*3:13 paragi<netai 1:9
h@lqen -
*3:15 a]fi<hsin - -
4:1 a]nh<xqh *1:12 e]kba<llei 4:1 h@geto
*4:5 paralamba<nei - 4:9
h@gagen
*4:5 i@sthsin - 4:9
e@sthsen
*4:6 le<gei - 4:9
ei#pen
*4:8 paralamba<nei - 4:5 a]nagagw<n
*4:8 dei<knusin - 4:5
e@deicen
*4:9 le<gei - 4:6
ei#pen
*4:10 le<gei - 4:8
ei#pen
*4:11 a]fi<hsin - 4:13
a]pe<sth
*4:19 le<gei 1:17 ei#pen 5:10 ei#pen
- *1:21 ei]sporeu<ontai 4:31 kath?lqen
- *1:30 le<gousin 4:38 h]rw<thsan
- *1:37
le<gousin -
- *1:38 le<gei 4:43 ei#pen
8:2 i]dou<. . . proselqw<n *1:40 e@rxetai 5:12 e]ge<neto. . . kai> i]dou<
8:3
le<gwn *1:41 le<gei 5:13 le<gwn
*8:4 le<gei *1:44 le<gei 5:14 parh<ggeilen
*8:7 le<gei - -
- - *7:40
fhsi<n
*8:20 le<gei - 9:58
ei#pen
*8:22 le<gei - 9:60
ei#pen
*8:26 le<gei - -
95
TABLE
13--Continued
Matthew Mark. Luke
9:2 i]dou< *2:3 e@xretai 5:18 kai> i]dou< .
. .
proselqw<n fe<rontej fe<rontej
- *2:4 xalw?si 5:19 kaqh?kan
9:2 ei#pen *2:5 le<gei 5:20 ei#pen
9:4 ei#pen *2:8 le<gei 5:22 ei#pen
*9:6 le<gei *2:10 le<gei 5:24 ei#pen
*9:9 le<gei *2:14 le<gei 5:27 ei#pen
9:10 e]ge<neto *2:15 gi<netai -
9:12 ei#pen *2:17 le<gei 5:31 ei#pen
*9:14 le<gontej *2:18 e@rxomai -
9:14 le<gontej *2:18 le<gousin 5:33 ei#pan
12:3 ei#pen *2:25 le<gei 6:3 ei#pen
- *3:3 le<gei 6:3 ei#pen
12:11 ei#pen *3:4 le<gei 6:9 ei#pen
*12:13
le<gei *3:5 le<gei 6:10 ei#pen
- *3:13 a]nabai<nei 6:12 e]ge<neto . . . e]celqei?n
- *3:13 proskalei?tai 6:13 prosefw<nhsen
- *3:20 e@rxetai -
- *3:20 sune<rxetai -