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