Rethinking Greek Verb Tenses in Light of Verbal
Aspect: How Much
Do Our Modern Labels Really Help Us?
Dave
Mathewson
Spring,
2006
Introduction
As
an important foundation to theological education in our colleges and
seminaries, the study and teaching of biblical Greek constitutes a challenging
task as the
student of the Greek New Testament (NT) is required to master a variety of grammatical
forms and their functions. One of the more significant grammatical features of Greek that
demands the student’s (and teacher’s) attention is the Greek tense system, not least of all
because it differs so widely from the English tense system.1 In elementary Greek students
are taught forms and basic nuances of the different Greek tenses (present, imperfect,
future, aorist, perfect, pluperfect) along with general translational glosses.2 If the student
advances to a second year Greek grammar and syntax class, he/she will sooner or later
spend time acquiring a variety of labels which are supposed to reflect actual usages and
meanings of the various Greek tenses, but which also have ostensible exegetical payoff.
Thus, students acquire as part of their working “grammatical” vocabulary such labels as
“progressive present,” “conative present,” “ingressive imperfect,” “conative imperfect,”
“ingressive aorist,” “constative aorist,” “consummative aorist,” “intensive perfect,” and
so on. Grammatical analysis of verbs, then, consists partly of finding an appropriate label
for each verb encountered in a given text. These labels are time-honored ones and appear
in virtually every intermediate and advanced NT Greek grammar book (as well as a
1 At this point I am following fairly common parlance in speaking of Greek “tenses.” I am using “tense” in
a loose way simply to refer to the verb endings themselves without any implications regarding time (as in
English). However, as will emerge from the rest of the paper, “tense” is probably an inappropriate
description of this feature of the Greek verbal system (Greek verb endings, in addition to “tense,”
communicate voice, mood, person, and number). Due to its popularity, along with decades of standard
usage, this paper will continue to use the term “tense” in a rather loose way to refer to the formal endings of
verbs, though the rest of this paper will assume that another term (“aspect”) is a more apt description of
what is communicated by the Greek verb endings.
2 See William
D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek
(2nd edn;
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
number of classical ones), with the recent textbook by Daniel B. Wallace
providing a full
and in some cases expanded list of possible verb tense usages.3
However, despite the time-honored status of these tense labels, and the almost
sacrosanct character with which they are treated (or merely assumed) by virtually every
Greek grammar, this paper will take issue with this treatment of the Greek verb system
and suggest that these traditional labels (progressive present, iterative imperfect,
ingressive aorist, etc.) are neither helpful nor appropriate as descriptive labels for Greek
tenses.4 Although traditional theories die hard in that there is much at stake in them (and
who can fault those who cling to such verb tense labels when they are repeatedly taught
in all the major Greek grammars), as a result of the examination of the Greek tense
system in the ensuing study I will suggest that we abandon such labels in our study and
teaching of NT Greek as descriptive of Greek tenses. The following discussion will focus
mainly on the aorist, present and perfect tense forms, and more briefly the imperfect tense
form. The pluperfect tense is somewhat restricted in its usage in the Greek NT, often
being taken over by a periphrastic construction. Moreover, the future tense appears to be
an anomaly within the tense system of NT Greek and so will not be treated here.5
This study relies heavily on recent work done on the theory known as verbal
aspect, and suggests that verbal aspect not only renders the traditional method of treating
the Greek tense system more problematic, but also provides a more suitable model for
treating the Greek tense system. It is now becoming increasingly recognized that Greek
verbs do not signal time or kind of action, but verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to
represent the action. The most comprehensive and linguistically astute definition is
provided by Stanley E. Porter, one of the theory’s major advocates. Verbal aspect is “a
synthetic, semantic category (realized in the forms of verbs) used of meaningful
oppositions in a
network of tense systems to grammaticalize the author’s reasoned
3 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), pp. 494-586.
4 As will become evident later, I do not necessarily call into question the validity of these labels in and of
themselves; I do call into question their attachment to the Greek tenses as descriptions of the different kinds
of aorists, presents, perfects, etc.
5 For
arguments for this view of the future tense see esp. Stanly E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the
New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek, 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989),
pp. 403-39; K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in the New Testament (Studies in Biblical
Greek, 5;
periphrastic form.
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subjective choice of conception of a process.”6 More succinct is the definition by Buist
M. Fanning: “Aspects pertain…to the focus of the speaker with reference to the action or
state which the verb describes, his way of viewing the occurrence and its make-up,
without any necessary regard to the (actual or perceived) nature of the situation itself.”7
Or according to K. L. McKay, aspect is “that category of the Greek verb system by
means of which the author (or speaker) shows how he views each event or activity he
mentions in relation to its context.”8 Therefore, aspect needs to be distinguished from
another term that is often used to characterize Greek verbs, Aktionsart. The latter term is
used by grammarians to refer to the kind of action taking place, or “objectively” how the
action actually unfolded. The former term refers to how the author conceives of or views
the action. Greek verb endings indicate the latter. Thus, rather than telling the reader
when the action of the verb took place, or how the action actually unfolded and took place
(Aktionsart), verbal aspect as indicated by the verb endings tells
the reader how the
author chooses to represent the action. Porter postulates three primary aspectual
meanings: the action viewed as a complete whole; action viewed as in progress, as
developing; action viewed as a state of affairs.9 These three aspectual meanings are
grammaticalized in the aorist, present (imperfect), and perfect (pluperfect) tense forms
respectively. Thus, by selecting a given tense form, the author chooses to portray the
action in a certain way.
The rest of this paper will rely on the above theory of verbal aspect in examining
the traditional method of treating Greek tenses and its accompanying labels. Given the
importance of verbal aspect, as well as other questions raised by the traditional approach
to treating Greek verb tenses, I will argue that such traditional labels are inappropriate
and unnecessary as descriptive of the Greek tense system in the NT. At the same time,
6 Porter, Verbal Aspect, p. 107.
7 Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990), p.
50.
8 McKay, New Syntax, p. 27.
9
postulates only two primary aspects, the simple opposition between aorist and present/imperfect, but
considers the perfect as a combination of aspect, Aktionsart, and time (anterior action) (Verbal Aspect, p.
290-91). For defense of the perfect tense as communicating stative aspect see K. L. McKay, “On the
Perfect and Other Aspects in NT Greek,” NovT 23 (1981), pp. 289-329; Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 245-59.
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
verbal aspect provides us with helpful avenues for exploring the
significance of Greek
tenses for teaching and studying the Greek of the New Testament.
A Survey of Some Recent Grammatical Discussion
As already discussed above, a feature considered germane to virtually every intermediate
or advanced NT Greek grammar is the inclusion of a discussion of the various possible
kinds of tense usages arranged under accompanying labels (for an easy example of
employing these labels consult the textbook by David A. Black).10 The following is a
representative sampling of some of the more prominent intermediate and advanced level
grammars and their treatment of the NT Greek tense system. As a starting point we can
begin with an earlier 19th
century grammatical discussion by Ernest de W.
of
Moods and Tenses in N. T. Greek.11 Without argumentation,
the various tense categories in his otherwise helpful treatment. For the present tense,
in progress as different kinds of present tenses. The imperfect tense is divided into the
following: progressive, conative, repeated action, unattained wish, of an action not
separated from the time of speaking, obligation or possibility, a present obligation, and
with verbs of wishing. The aorist tense can achieve the following usages: historical
(momentary, extended, aggregate), indefinite, inceptive, resultative, gnomic, epistolary,
dramatic, aorist for the perfect and pluperfect. The perfect tense reveals, according to
aoristic.12
In the exhaustive, historically oriented grammar by A. T. Robertson the Greek
aorist tense is divided into seven different usages (which he designates Aktionsart)
labeled constative, ingressive, effective, narrative, epistolary, future, in wishes.13
Likewise, Robertson classifies the present tense according to the following usages:
punctiliar, gnomic, historical, descriptive, progressive, iterative, conative, deliberative,
10 It’s Still Greek
to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek (
1998), chap. 9.
11 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898).
12 For additional discussion of the perfect tense see
13 A. T. Robertson, A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), pp. 831-47.
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perfective, futuristic. And for the imperfect tense Robertson utilizes such
common
descriptive labels as descriptive, iterative, customary, progressive, conative, and
potential. The perfect includes such usages and labels as present, intensive, extensive,
broken continuity, dramatic, gnomic, indirect discourse, futuristic, and aoristic.
Robertson is careful to note throughout his discussion, however, that these labels
are true only as descriptions of how the tenses function within and interact with features
of the surrounding context. That is, it is primarily broader contextual features, such as the
lexical meaning of the verb itself, which suggests notions of ingression, progression, etc.
For example, a verb expressing a state (za<w, live), when used in the aorist tense, can
suggest an ingressive idea (e]zh<sen, come to life); an adverb of time (toisau?ta e@th)
often accompanies a verb to express the notion of progression; or the constative aorist is
frequently signaled by a temporal
deictic indicator, such as e]basi<leusan
with xi<lia
e@th (Rev 20.4; they reigned over a period of 1000 years). Thus Robertson concludes his
discussion of the aorist tense: “It needs to be repeated that there is at bottom only one
kind of aorist.”14
Following in the spirit of Robertson’s grammar, the intermediate-level grammar
by H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, for years a standard intermediate grammar, provides
a similar classificatory scheme when it comes to its treatment of Greek tenses.15 Thus in
analyzing the present tense, Dana and Mantey suggest that at least three factors must be
taken into consideration: the force of the tense, the meaning of the verb root, the
significance of the context. The convergence of these factors account for the variety of
tense usages: progressive (subdivided into description, existing results, and duration),
customary, iterative, aoristic, futuristic, historical, tendential, and static.16 For the
imperfect Dana and Mantey include the descriptive labels progressive, customary,
iterative, tendential, voluntative, and inceptive. Their treatment of the aorist tense betrays
the same categories as found in Robertson: constative, ingressive, culminative, gnomic,
epistolary, and dramatic. Dana and Mantey round out their discussion of tense usage with
the perfect tense falling into the categories of intensive, consummative, iterative, and
14 Robertson, Grammar, p 835, though I would dispute Robertson’s faulty conception of the aorist as
punctiliar. See below.
15 H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (
Macmillan, 1955).
16 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, pp. 182-186.
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dramatic. While their descriptions often appear to be more intuitive, at other
times they
point to contextual and lexical features as the deciding factor in classifying a given tense
usage. For example, the culminative aorist usually occurs with “verbs which signify
effort or process, the aorist denoting the attainment of the end of such effort or
process.”17
In what has come to be considered by many the standard reference Greek
grammar, the grammar of F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk assumes and
perpetuates the well-worn but time-honored classifications of various tense meanings.18
In their grammar they posit five important kinds of action (Aktionsarten), punctiliar,
durative, iterative, perfective, and perfectivizing by means of prepositions, but then
provide a more extensive categorization of possible usages. For the present tense some of
the possibilities are: conative, aoristic, historical, perfective, futuristic, and used to
express relative time. For the imperfect tense: iterative, conative, used to portray the
manner of action (progress), relative time. For the aorist tense: ingressive (inceptive),
complexive (constative), gnomic, futuristic, epistolary. For the perfect: present,
continuing effect, for the aorist, and used to express relative time.
Without any linguistic justification for the inclusion of the various categories,
Nigel Turner likewise follows a fairly standard classification of the Greek tenses.19
Turner discusses the nuances of the present tense under the following categories: historic,
perfective, continuance of an action during the past up until the present, futuristic,
conative, gnomic. For the imperfect tense Turner includes discussion of conative or
desiderative, descriptions of narrative, iterative, relative time, with verbs of speaking.
For the aorist he includes ingressive or inceptive, perfective (or effective), constative,
epistolary, gnomic, proleptic (future). Though he includes no clear scheme of classifying
perfect tense usage, Turner does discuss the resultative and the so-called aoristic use of
the perfect.
In a helpful volume devoted to the significance of syntax for Greek exegesis, M.
Zerwick discusses the various tenses in terms of three “aspects:” simple realization
17 Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, pp. 196-97.
18 F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early
Christian
Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961).
19 Nigel Turner, Grammar of the Greek New Testament. III. Syntax (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963).
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(aorist); activity in progress or habitual activity (present, imperfect); a
completed act
resulting in a state of affairs (perfect, pluperfect).20 Though Zerwick is more restrained
in his inclusion of categories, his classificatory scheme is still a standard one. Thus, for
the aorist tense Zerwick discusses inceptive, effective, global, gnomic, and proleptic
(dramatic) usages. Though he does not use precise labels, for the imperfect (present and
imperfect) Zerwick discusses its use with verbs of speaking or asking, use for an
attempted action which was not carried out, description of a continuous state, and
repeated action. In his discussion of the perfect tense Zerwick does not provide detailed
classifications, but rather demonstrates the exegetical significance of the perfect by
comparing it with the aorist (summary of the action), finding the semantics of “state of
affairs resultant upon the action” present in every case.21
C. F. D. Moule, in his engaging Idiom Book, discusses Greek tense usage along
the same lines as the grammar outlined above.22 Under the present tense Moule
discusses the historical present, present for the future, conative present, gnomic present,
present for action still in progress, present in reported speech. For the imperfect Moule
includes inceptive, conative, iterative, desiderative (a wish). The aorist evinces the
following meanings: ingressive, constative, of instantaneous action, epistolary (Moule
seems to deny the presence of the category “gnomic”23). Moule’s discussion of the
perfect tense largely emphasizes the “punctiliar event in the past, related in its effects to
the present” and distinguishes it from the English perfect tense.24
At a more basic level, the intermediate NT Greek grammar by James A. Brooks
and Carlton L. Winbery prefers the term Aktionsart, by which they mean the kind of
action found both in the verb root and in the tense ending.25 Without justification for their
method of treatment, Brooks and Winbery give a rather extensive list of tense categories,
along with brief discussion of their semantics and several illustrative examples. For the
20 M. Zerwick, Biblical
Greek Illustrated by Examples (trans. J. Smith;
Biblico, 1963), pp. 77-78.
21 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, p. 97.
22 C. F. D. Moule, An
Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (2nd edn;
Press, 1959).
23 Moule, Idiom Book, p. 12.
24 Moule, Idiom Book, pp. 13-16.
25 James A. Brooks and
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
present tense they suggest the following usages determined by both Aktionsart (root
meaning of verb) and context: descriptive, durative, iterative, tendential, gnomic,
historical, futuristic, aorist, perfective. For the imperfect tense they include the following:
descriptive, durative, iterative, tendential, voluntative, inceptive. Likewise their
categorization of the aorist is a standard one: constative, ingressive, culminative, gnomic,
epistolary, dramatic, futuristic. Finally, the perfect tense can be classified according to the
following usages: intensive, consummative, iterative, dramatic, gnomic, aoristic.
Two recent, major works, one a monograph, the other a major reference grammar,
discuss the Greek verbal tense system at a more methodologically rigorous level and in a
more extensive manner. Fanning, in an innovative book which endeavors to implement
insights from recent research into verbal aspect (see below), attempts to provide
justification for the various traditional categories which other grammarians have
sometimes simply assumed.26 Fanning begins by distinguishing verbal aspect, that is,
“‘the viewpoint or perspective which the speaker takes in regard to the action’,”27 and
procedural characteristics, that is the actual occurrence of the action (Aktionsart), the
lexical meaning of the verb, and the larger expression in which the verb occurs.28
However, Fanning goes on to argue that verbal aspect does not stand on its own but
interacts with and is in fact affected by the various procedural characteristics (the nature
of the action itself), especially the lexical meaning of verbs. Fanning appeals to and
develops the Vendler and Kenny taxonomy of the various actional characteristics of
verbs: States and Actions; Activities and Performances; Accomplishments and
Achievements; Climaxes and Punctuals.29 Furthermore, “these features of meaning are
characteristic ultimately of entire propositions or sentences.”30 However, according to
Fanning these actional characteristics have a profound affect on the usage of verbal
aspect, and can even restrict the way the action is viewed by the author (see below). That
is, the interaction of aspect and procedural characteristics creates the various tense
meanings (duration, iteration,
ingression, etc.). As D. A.
26 Fanning, Verbal Aspect.
27 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 83.
28 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, pp. 49-50.
29 See the helpful chart in Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 129 and the detailed description of the various
categories as they relate to Greek verbs on pp. 129-63.
30 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 127.
8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not merely saying that the sentence or discourse carries the additional
meaning, but that
the verbal form itself takes it on board.”31 In this way, Fanning attempts to provide
linguistic justification for traditional categories. Consequently, Fanning’s chap. 4 reads
like a traditional grammar where the reader is confronted with all the familiar
terminology utilized to characterize the various tenses/aspects.
Therefore, the present tense combines with various procedural characteristics to
produce the following usages: progressive, instantaneous, customary or iterative, gnomic,
past action still in progress, conative, futuristic, historical, perfective. For example, the
progressive present (action viewed as going on) occurs with verbs which are States,
Activities or Accomplishments (see the Vendler and Kenny taxonomy above). For the
imperfect Fanning discusses progressive, customary or iterative, conative, inceptive. The
aorist tense reveals the following usages: constative (of instantaneous action, extended
action, or repeated action), ingressive, consummative or effective, gnomic, proleptic or
futuristic, dramatic, epistolary. For instance, the ingressive aorist frequently occurs with
Stative verbs, while the consummative or effective aorist occurs with verbs of
Accomplishment or Climax, emphasizing the end-point of the action. In combination
with various lexis, the perfect tense can be used of resulting state, completed action,
present meaning, as an aorist, gnomically, proleptically. Again, these various meanings
come as a result of the combination of verbal aspect with the various procedural
characteristics, especially the meaning
of the verb itself. As
treatment the aspect is actually shaped by and takes on these meanings. As Fanning
concludes, “Aspect operates so closely with such features and is so significantly affected
by them that no treatment of it can be meaningful without attention to these
interactions.”32
A recent, major grammar by Wallace, a former student of Fanning, argues a
similar position as Fanning in relationship to the treatment of tense/aspect.33 Thus,
Wallace begins by maintaining a distinction between aspect (the portrayal of the action,
the unaffected meaning) and Aktionsart (the combination of aspect with lexical,
31 D. A.
Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series,
80;
32 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 50.
33 Wallace, Greek Grammar.
9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grammatical and contextual features).34 Based on this
distinction, Wallace concludes that
“Categories of usage are legitimate because the tenses combine with other linguistic
features to form various fields of meaning.”35 Therefore, Wallace’s discussion of verb
tenses follows traditional terminology in labeling the various tense usages. So Wallace
lists as possible meanings of the present tense instantaneous, progressive, extending from
past to present, iterative, customary, gnomic, historical, perfective, conative, futuristic,
retained in indirect discourse. For the imperfect Wallace includes the following:
instantaneous, progressive, ingressive, iterative, customary, “pluperfect,” conative,
retained in indirect discourse. The aorist tense combines with various lexical,
grammatical and contextual features to produce constative, ingressive, consummative,
gnomic, epistolary, proleptic, and dramatic aorists. The perfect tense can be used
intensively, extensively, aoristically, perfectively, gnomically, proleptically, and
allegorically. These various categories are justified based on the assumption that aspect
interacts with and is affected by the lexical meaning of verbs, grammar and context.
By way of summary, from the preceding survey of representative grammars
several observations can be made in connection with the treatment of the Greek tense
system in modern grammatical discussion. First, lists of possible usages of each of the
tenses are the accepted way to proceed in Greek grammars. A fairly standard set of
descriptive labels appears in all the grammars as descriptive of the range of meaning of
the different tenses. However, most grammars do not include any explicit justification for
these categories and tense terminology.
Second, these various categories of tense usage depend on judgments about
broader contextual features, not on the tense form alone. Such features as the lexical
meaning of the verb itself, grammar (adjuncts), and broader contextual features must be
taken into consideration in determining the usage of a given tense. Thus, an aorist in
combination with the appropriate contextual features can be labeled a “consummative
aorist.” Or within a certain contextual environment, a given imperfect tense can be
34 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 499. For Wallace, Aktionsart is not just the objective nature of the action,
or a reference to the occurrence of the action itself, but the combination of aspect with the various other
procedural characteristics. “Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical,
grammatical, or contextual
features” (p. 499). Thus, Wallace uses Aktionsart in a different way from how it is usually understood.
35 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 500.
10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
labeled an “inceptive imperfect.” The point is that such labels are due
primarily to
judgments about the meanings found in the broader contextual environment.
Third, the tense/aspect is not just a contributing factor to the broader meaning
complex, but, according to Fanning and Wallace, actually “takes on board” the meanings
provided by lexical meanings of verbs and other contextual factor. The various tenses are
actually shaped by contextual factors or procedural characteristics providing justification
for categories such as progressive present, inceptive imperfect, constative aorist,
intensive perfect, etc. Therefore, it is important to realize that for Fanning and Wallace in
particular it is not just a matter of the differing functions or usages of aspects in various
contexts, but the interaction of aspects with context to produce various fields of meaning.
Finally, these categories are deemed to have exegetical significance, so that the
task of the exegete is to move through the text and label each verb according to the
various categories. In this way verbs are usually treated in isolation.
Evaluation of Traditional Treatments of Tense
One might be tempted to think that virtually everything important has already
been said about Greek grammar. Despite the long-standing tradition of treating Greek
tenses in the above way, however, I wish to take issue with the traditional categories
which have become enshrined in much modern grammatical discussion. After
consideration of the shortcomings and problems of this traditional approach of
classification of Greek tenses, I will suggest some possible avenues for how the student
(and teacher) of NT Greek might approach Greek tenses. Most of the proceeding
discussion will focus on the works of Fanning and Wallace, since they represent the most
recent and thorough discussions of and attempts to provide justification for traditional
categorization of Greek tenses in the NT.
A
Failure to Distinguish Aspect from Aktionsart, or Semantics from Pragmatics
Most of the above categories reflect a failure to adequately distinguish aspect, that
is, how the author views the action, from Aktionsart, that is, the kind of action, or how the
action actually takes place. Another way of putting it is that grammarians who take this
approach fail to adequately distinguish semantics (the meaning of the aspect) from
11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pragmatics (the function of the aspects in various contexts). As most
grammarians
recognize, the majority of the commonly used labels derive primarily from information
gathered from the surrounding context, including the lexical meaning of verbs, adjuncts,
and other grammatical and contextual features, and not the tense forms themselves. Thus
Fanning flags the most important contextual features which would point to an “iterative
present:” adverbs, plural nouns, broader circumstances (the nature of the utterance is of
such that it must be repeated over a stretch of time; knowledge of the non-literary
context).36 For instance, Fanning’s sample of an iterative present from Matt 17.15
(polla<kij ga>r pi<ptei ei]j pu?r) depends largely on the presence of the adverb
polla<kij to suggest the notion of iteration or repetition. More telling is his inclusion and
discussion of the category “perfective present.”37 According to Fanning, this usage is
present with certain words which
denote a present state or condition (h!kw,
a]pe<xw,
a]kou<w, pa<reimi). However, this category results solely from the
meaning of the verb,
and raises the question as to semantically why the perfect tense, then, would need to be
used. Wallace also suggests that a perfective force may be due to certain contextual
factors. “This use of the present is especially frequent with le<gei as an introduction to an
OT quotation. Its usual force seems to be that although the statement was spoken in the
past, it still speaks today and is binding on the hearers.”38 Yet this is a theological, and
not a grammatical, statement. Such discussions confuse the semantics of the Greek
tense/aspect itself and the Aktionsart, that is, the nature of the action as can be derived
from lexical meaning of verbs and broader contextual and theological factors.
Several statements throughout Fanning’s work give the reader the impression that
it is the context, rather than the tense form, that is the deciding factor, leaving the reader
to wonder whether it is the verb tense itself or the context alone that communicates these
meanings. In his discussion of the so-called customary present, Fanning suggests that it is
“indicated by adverbs or plural
nouns…, but frequently it is shown only by contextual
factors of a vaguer sort (the nature of the prediction in that circumstance, knowledge of
36 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 206.
37 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, pp. 239-240, although Fanning concludes that this usage is rather minor in
importance.
38 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 532.
12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the non-literary context of the utterance, etc.).”39 Thus, this
category of usage can
apparently depend even on non-linguistic factors. Or on the constative aorist he
concludes that “in each case the sense is dependent on the lexical character of the verb
and other features, not on the use or non-use of the aorist.”40 Or regarding the present for
past action in progress, Fanning
notes that it “always includes an adverbial
phrase or
other time-indicators with the present tense to signal past time meaning.”41 Fanning
discusses the so-called consummative aorist, the use of the aorist to highlight the end
point of the action. See Gal 4.11 Paul states that “I have learned (e@maqon, a consummated
action) in which state I am to be content.” However, Fanning goes on to conclude that
“the conative or consummative sense is not automatic, and must be emphasized by the
contextual
tone of difficulty or resistance, since
the completion or lack of it would be a
minor point otherwise.”42 Likewise, in Wallace’s discussion of the ingressive (inceptive)
imperfect, he concludes that this use of the imperfect occurs in narrative literature when
there is a change in activity. But it is “the context in each instance [which] indicates a
topic shift or new direction for the action.”43 Fanning concludes that “the narrative
sequence produces an inceptive sense, since the verb in sequence denotes the process as
beginning and then proceeding on without limit….”44 Thus, in response to Jesus healing
Peter’s mother-in-law Matt 8.15 records that she h]ge<rqh kai> dihko<nei au]t&?. If the
action here is inceptive (cf. NIV), it owes this idea to the “narrative sequence” as Fanning
observes, and our need to bring this out in our English translation, not to the verbal
aspect. But even here in Matt 8.15 it could be disputed whether this is inceptive at all,
aspectually portraying instead the process of serving as action in progress.
Moreover, it is commonplace in most grammars to conclude that when used with
stative verb types (e.g., gi<nomai, e@xw, a]sqene<w, za<w, o[ra<w), the aorist tense
communicates an ingressive notion (entrance into the state; e]ge<nomhn, “I became” e@zhsa,
“I came to life”). However, given the distinction between aspect and Aktionsart, or
semantics and pragmatics, it may be more accurate to say that certain contexts implicate
39 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 206. Italics mine.
40 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 259. Italics mine.
41 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 217.
42 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 265. Italics mine.
43 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 544. Italics mine.
44 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, p. 146.
13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
an ingressive notion, usually being realized with the aorist tense. Yet it
simply cannot be
taken as some kind of a grammatical rule or axiom that the aorist tense with stative verbs
are ingressive, since it is unlikely that all of Fanning’s examples in his thorough
discussion of ingressive aorists are valid and many of them are patient of different
analyses. For example, Fanning suggests that out of the eight usages of the stative verb
za<w in the aorist tense, seven of them are ingressives: Luke 15.24, 32; Rom 14.9; Rev
2.8; 13.14; 20.4, 5.45 However, virtually all of his examples can be disputed. In the Luke
passages it is not necessary to take the aorist as ingressive at all, since the author may just
be comparing the lost son’s state of being dead (nekro>j h#n) with the state of being alive
(a]ne<zhsen/e@zhsen). Similarly, in Rom 14.9 and Rev 2.8 the authors may simply be
referring to Christ being in the state of living (e@zhsen), using the aorist to summarize this
state, rather than just his initial entry into the state of living. It is also not clear that the
use of the aorist in Rev 13.14 is ingressive, since the author once again could only be
summarizing the state of the beast as living.46 In Rev 20.4, 5 an ingressive notion does
seem to fit, especially with v. 5 since e]zh<san occurs with a precise temporal designation,
a@xri telesq^? ta> xi<lia e@th. In this latter case it is the adjunct which suggests the
ingressive notion, not primarily the aorist with a stative verb. As Robertson concluded,
the ingressive idea “is not…a tense notion at all. It is purely a matter with the individual
verb.”47 Based on these observations, we must refrain from concluding that the aorist
with stative verbs necessarily becomes ingressive. Only broader contextual factors can
determine if an ingressive notion is present at all. The problem that can be seen from
many of these examples in this paper is that usages of tenses are often forced into a
certain category of understanding based on assumed rules or principles of usage, ignoring
other possible or more likely conclusions regarding tense usage. It appears that Fanning
has been seduced by common tense terminology.
45 According to Fanning, the eighth instance in Acts 26.5 has a past stative sense (Verbal Aspect, p. 262 n.
141).
46 Even though the beast is described as being wounded by the sword, this does not justify giving the aorist
e@zhsen an ingressive idea, since it probably only refers to the fact that now he lives. Interestingly,
Fanning does admit of the usage of the aorist with stative verbs to indicate “a summary view of the entire
situation” (Verbal Aspect, p. 138). However, Fanning thinks that this is infrequent, though he does not tell
us why it is so. It only appears infrequent, though, when one accepts Fanning’s general discussion of
ingressive aorists and all the instances which he places within this category.
47 Robertson, Grammar, p. 834.
14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as seen above, rather
than Aktionsart (or even time) the
Greek verbal
system grammaticalizes aspect, or how the author chooses to view the action. Yet the
traditional classification of verbs typically and consistently confuses the two. But both
Fanning and Wallace attempt to show that aspect, though separate from Aktionsart,
interacts closely with Aktionsart and other contextual features to produce the meanings
suggested by the traditional labels. As seen in the survey above, Fanning concludes that
aspect is affected by 1) the lexical meaning of verbs; 2) compositional elements (adverbs,
adjuncts, etc.); 3) time reference; 4) discourse factors. For him the first category is the
most important. As
the discourse carries this additional meaning [e.g. inceptive, durative, constative, etc.],
but that the verbal form itself takes it on board.”48 Dependent on Fanning, Wallace
likewise suggests that aspect is the unaffected meaning of the verb tense, while
Aktionsart is aspect in combination with lexical, grammatical and contextual features.49
Therefore, the various “categories of usage are legitimate because tenses combine with
other linguistic features to form various fields of meaning.”50 In other words, it is not
merely a matter of the differing functions or usages of aspects, but the creation of various
fields of meaning. Yet it appears that Fanning and Wallace (as well as all the grammars
surveyed above) merely assume that aspect combines with Aktionsart and other
contextual features to produce the various semantic ranges of the tenses rather than
providing rigorous linguistic justification. They fail to raise the question as to whether
these meanings belong to the context, or adhere to the tense forms themselves. This
assumption points to another problem.
The
Confusion of Tense and Concept
Fanning’s assumption that the actual semantic freight carried by any particular
verbal form depends on a complex interaction with lexis (the basic semantic range of the
verb in question), context, temporal structures and more is unjustified given the
distinction between aspect and Aktionsart, but is also reminiscent of a similar error
48
49 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 499. Wallace uses Aktionsart in a different way than most grammars. For
Wallace, Aktionsart does not just refer to contextual kinds of action, but aspect in combination with
context, or aspect as it had been affected by context. See p. 504.
50 Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 500.
15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
committed at the lexical level. In his magisterial and provocative work on
lexical
semantics, James Barr inveighed against the tendency of modern biblical lexical studies
(namely TDNT51) to persistently confuse word and concept.52 That is, words were made
to bear the broader theological concepts derived from broader contextual features such as
sentences and paragraphs, such as when e]kklh<sia is made to bear the entirety of the
theological concept of “church” as treated throughout the NT.53 In other words, the NT
concept of “church” is reflected in sentences, paragraphs, and ultimately the entire
discourse rather than on the lexical definition of e]kklh<sia. Moreover, Barr also warned
against what he dubbed “illegitimate totality transfer” which refers to the error of reading
all that a word could possibly mean in its various contexts into the word in any given
context, a sort of semantic overload. It appears that the tendency to find multiple
meanings of different tenses/aspect which depend on the interaction of aspect with
various features from the broader context commits at a grammatical level the fallacies
which Barr and others have warned of at a lexical level. To suggest as Fanning and others
do that the tense grammaticalized in the verbal form (and only one element of the verb so
grammaticalized [cf. mood, voice, person, number] at that) carries all the semantic freight
derived from lexis, context, temporal structures and the discourse smacks of the
confusion of word and concept endemic in Kittle’s TDNT and of semantic overload akin
to Barr’s “illegitimate totality transfer.” Rather, according to Rodney J. Decker, verbal
aspect is just one factor, along with lexis, adjuncts, and other broader contextual features
which contributes to the whole complex of the verbal notion.54 Verbal aspect as
grammaticalized in the verb endings, then, contributes the notion of “the author’s
51 Gerhard Kittle and Gerhard Friedrich (eds), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (10 vols.;
trans. G. Bromiley;
52 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961). Cf. also Peter
Cotterell & Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP, 1989), chap. 4 for
discussion of Barr’s important insights.
53 “[T]he great weakness is a failure to get to grips with the semantic value of words in their contexts, and
a strong tendency to assume that this value will on its own agree with and illuminate the contours of a
theological structure...”(Barr, Semantics, p. 231).
54 Rodney J. Decker, Temporal
Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal
Aspect
(Studies in Biblical Greek, 10;
web of semantic factors comprised by aspect, lexis, and Aktionsart, along with other grammatical and
contextual factors (adjuncts, deixis, etc.) is referred to in this volume as the verbal complex. Thus a
statement that ‘the meaning of the verbal complex of x…’ is to be understood as an inclusive, pragmatic
statement (usually employed at the level of clause) summarizing the total semantic value of the verb and its
adjuncts in a particular context, including aspect, lexis, Aktionsart, and contextual factors” (p. 27).
16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conception of a process” to the entire complex, which may include notions of
inception,
duration, iteration, etc. However much these notions may be reflected in our translation
of a given tense form, given the above observations it is illegitimate to transfer these
meanings onto the tense form itself, resulting in a kind of semantic overload or “tense and
concept confusion.”
Fanning and Wallace seem to only assume, but do not clearly demonstrate, that
aspect interacts with and is affected by contextual features to produce these various
meanings. Moises Silva has raised the pertinent question: “how does one distinguish
between the information conveyed by the aspect itself and the information conveyed by
the context as a whole?”55 According to Silva, if the context is sufficient to indicate
notions such as duration, iteration, ingression, etc., is this the same as saying that the
aspect indicates this meaning? It is best, therefore, to see tense/aspect as just one factor,
along with the lexical meaning of the verb, adverbs, and broader contextual features that
contribute to the whole complex of the verbal notion. Therefore, this means that it may be
legitimate at times to speak of ingressive, constative, iterative, durative, etc. meanings.
However, these meanings are pragmatic categories and are the property of the entire
proposition and broader context, including lexical meanings of the verb, adjuncts, and
other contextual features, and not the aspect of the verb itself. Furthermore, as Porter has
noted, if we are to create labels to reflect the semantic categories of tense usage we would
need far more than just the traditional handful of labels, since “the number of objective
classifications of events is potentially as great as the number of events themselves….”56
For example, virtually no grammar includes a category of an “iterative aorist.”57 Yet
under the traditional scheme this would certainly be a valid category based on Aktionsart
and other contextual factors. Even if the traditional manner of labeling tenses were valid,
we would need a lot more categories than just the traditional ones usually discussed.
Two studies have in a more limited way raised the question of tense usage and
labels. Limited to discussion of the aorist tense, Charles R. Smith laments the abuse of
55 Moises Silva, “A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect,” in S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson
(eds.), Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in the Current Debate (Journal for the
Study of the New Testament Supplement Series, 80;
56
57 However, cf.
7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the aorist tense, and in doing so suggests that the interpreter exercise caution
in the use of
such labels as ingressive aorist, constative aorist, culminative aorist, etc.58 While Smith is
to be lauded for pointing out the difficulty of appealing to such labels (such notions
belong to the context and not to the tense form), his reason for doing so remains
problematic. Smith argues that at bottom the aorist is noncommittal regarding the action,
that is, it does not assert anything about the action, and therefore cannot be seen in
contrast to the present or perfect tenses. In other words, it is apparently devoid of any
semantic content. However, as Porter has demonstrated it is necessary and beneficial to
see the aspect as consisting of a network of semantic choices, with the aorist not being
undefined or semantically empty, but as the least heavily marked aspect which portrays a
certain perspective or view of the action, externally as a complete whole.59 Thus, the
aorist does contribute semantically to the discourse: a particular way of viewing the
process. Smith’s reasons for abandoning the traditional labels for aorist usage are
illegitimate in that they are based on a misunderstanding of the semantics of the aorist
tense. Nevertheless, he is correct in criticizing the value of traditional labels, and at least
this feature of his insight should be extended to include other tenses.
More recently, from a different perspective than Smith, Robert Picirilli has
attempted to wrestle with some of these issues relating to categorizing the various
meanings of Greek tenses.60 Picirilli correctly distinguishes between the perspective of
the author on the action (aspect) and the pragmatic function of the context (Aktionsart, or
kind of action) and expresses commendable caution in the use of traditional categories.
Therefore, “such syntactical distinctions as iterative, inceptive, and the like should be
seen as pragmatic functions of context and not of tense.”61 However, he still wonders
what there is about the action that may have led the author to choose a particular tense
58 Charles R. Smith, “Errant Aorist Interpreters,” Grace Theological Journal 2.2 (1981), pp. 205-26. Smith
builds on an earlier and important (but often ignored)
article by Frank Stagg (“The Abused Aorist,” Journal
of Biblical Literature 91 [1972], pp. 222-31).
59 For the concept of markedness as it relates to the Greek tenses/aspects see Porter, Verbal Aspect, pp. 89-
90, 178-81; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, pp. 50-72. Over against Smith, both Porter and Fanning correctly see
the opposition between the tenses as equipollent rather than privative. That is, the aorist tense is marked for
meaning, but is the least heavily marked member of the systemic network. See K. L. McKay’s comment
that the aorist tense was used “when the speaker or writer had no special reason to use any other” (“Syntax
in Exegesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 23 [1972], p. 46).
60 Robert E. Picirilli, “Meaning of the Tenses in New
Testament Greek: Where Are We?,” Journal
of the
Evangelical Theological Society 48/3 (2005), pp. 533-55.
61 Picirilli, “Meaning of the Tenses,” p. 548. Italics his.
18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
form and therefore finds it worth discussing possible categories of meaning.
Using Mark
1.5 as an example, he notes the use of the imperfect “were going out” (e]ceporeu<eto) and
asks “what there might have been about these actions that made it appropriate for his to
choose to express them progressively.”62 In addition, Picirilli wonders whether it might
also communicate an inceptive, iterative, or simply a descriptive idea. Picirilli concludes
that if it can be determined that in Mark 1.5 the scene was repeated over and over
(iteration), then it was appropriate for Mark to express the action imperfectively.
However, while Picirilli’s comments demonstrate considerable improvement over
traditional treatments of tense categories, and while Picirilli is perhaps fully justified in
discussing such decisions and distinctions, I would still question whether his assumption
is correct that there is something inherent in the actions that may have made it more
appropriate for the author to choose one aspect over another. First, as Picirilli himself
recognizes, the context, which is the determining factor, may still be ambiguous,
including little if any indication at all of how the action objectively took place (Picirilli
himself seems unclear about how to label e]ceporeu<eto in Mark 1.5). The danger is that
the student may still feel compelled, constrained under the traditional scheme, to select an
appropriate label. Secondly, Picirilli’s comments still make it clear that the deciding
factor for making such distinctions between ingression, iteration, description, etc. is the
context. “The key is context and interpretation rather than the imperfect tense itself as
such.”63 But then we are back to the question, is it legitimate do “dump” all of the
contextual information on the tense form itself, committing at a grammatical level Barr’s
illegitimate totality transfer, or confusion of tense and concept? Thirdly, Picirilli seems to
assume that the imperfect tense was the most appropriate tense to represent the action in
Mark 1.5. However, it must be questioned what in the “objective” nature of the action in
Mark 1.5 (if we can determine this) made the imperfect more appropriate, since the aorist
can be (and could have been) used of all three of his suggestions for the imperfect in
Mark 1.5: ingressive, iterative (so
difference seems to be whether the author wanted to view the action externally, as a
complete whole, or internally, as in progress, not whether the action occurred in a certain
62 Picirilli, “Meaning of the Tenses,” p. 548.
63 Picirilli, “Meaning of the Tenses,” p. 548.
19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
way or not. Picirilli’s comments seem to be at odds with his own (correct)
distinction
between the author’s perspective on an action (aspect) and the pragmatics of the
context.64 Picirilli may be correct that such distinctions regarding the kind of action are
important and perhaps worth listing and discussing, but I disagree that such discussion
belongs at the level of tense-form and aspect. Rather, they belong solely at the level of
context and pragmatics.
Overdependence
on English Translation
A further difficulty with the traditional scheme is that some categories seem to be
merely the result of an inability to draw out an aspectual distinction in English
translation, or they depend more on English translation than on the semantics of Greek
aspects. A good example of this is the inclusion of the label “aoristic perfect” found in
several grammars.65 According to Fanning, in this usage the perfect functions as a
“simple narrative tense to report p