I. Complexity of the Subject.

Probably nothing connected with syntax is so imperfectly understood by the average student as tense. This is due to various causes.

1. THE DIFFICULTY OF COMPARING GREEK TENSES WITH GERMANIC TENSES. "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."1 Ignorance, one may add, both of English and Greek still stands in the way of proper rendering of the Greek. The English, like the other Germanic tongues,2 has only two simple verb-forms. We have a great wealth of tenses in English by means of auxiliary verbs, but they do not correspond with any of the Greek tenses.3 It is the commonest grammatical vice for one to make a conjectural translation into English and then to discuss the syntactical propriety of the Greek tense on the basis of this translation.4 Burton5 indeed justifies this method for the benefit of the English student of Greek. But I submit that the practice brings more confusion than help. "The Aorist for the English Perfect, and the Aorist for the English Pluperfect" Burton urges as "a pertinent illustration." But that method keeps the student at the English standpoint, just the thing to be avoided. The Greek point of view affords the only sure basis of operation. Winer6 laments that "N. T. grammarians and expositors have been guilty of the greatest mistakes" here, though it cannot be said that Winer himself always lives up to his just ideal. Translation into English or German is the least point to note in judging a tense.


2. BAD INFLUENCE OF THE LATIN ON GREEK GRAMMARIANS. Most of the older Greek grammars were made by men who knew Latin better than Greek. Even to-day7 the study of the Greek tenses is hampered by the standpoint of Latin idioms which developed under very different conditions. This is true of school grammars8 in particular, whereas Latin has had no influence on the Greek tenses themselves by the time of the koinh,. The perfect and the aorist blend in Latin, while that is not true in Greek till a very late date (1000 A.D.).9 The separate Greek development (cf. the Sanskrit) was due to the genius and spirit of the Greek people and has continued throughout the history of the language,10 though in modern times the Greek tenses have suffered serious modification. The Latin tenses must be left to one side. The time element is more prominent in the Latin.

3. ABSENCE OF HEBREW INFLUENCE. There is no time element at all in the Hebrew tenses. Hence it is not strange that the LXX translators had much trouble in rendering the two Hebrew tenses (perfect and imperfect) into the Greek with its richness of tense. A similar difficulty exists for the English translators. Curious devices (possibly slips) sometimes occur, like evgw, eivmi. kaqi,somai (B in Ju. 6:18), e;somai dido,nai. (BA in Tob. 5: 15).11 But such translation Greek left no lasting impress on the Greek of the N. T. save in prose,qeto pe,myai (Lu. 20:12; cf. Ex. 25:21). The problems of the Greek tenses are not to be solved by an appeal to the Semitic influence.

4. GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE GREEK TENSES. There is no future optative in Homer and no future passive. The aorist passive is also rare.12 The past perfect is rare in Homer,13 and it does not occur with the idea of relative time. "In the examination of tense usages, we must be careful to observe that tenses, in the sense in which the word is now used, are of comparatively late development."14 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.


Addenda 2nd ed.

5. "AKTIONSART" OF THE VERB-STEM. Aktionsart ("kind of action") must be clearly understood. The verb-root plays a large part in the history of the verb. This essential meaning of the word itself antedates the tense development and continues afterwards. There is thus a double development to keep in mind. There were originally two verb-types, the one denoting durative or linear action, the other momentary or punctiliar action.15 Hence some verbs have two roots, one linear (durative), like fe,rw (fero), the other punctiliar (momentary), like h;negkon (tuli). So o`ra,w├ ei=don; tolma,w├ e;tlhn. With other verbs the distinction was not drawn sharply, the root could be used either way (cf. fh─mi,├ e;─fh─n; le,g─w├ e;leg─o─n). All this was before there was any idea of the later tense. So e;─fag─on, is punctiliar, while evsqi,w is linear or durative. Moulton16 rightly observes that this is the explanation of "defective" verbs. Moulton notes e;cw as a word that can be used either for durative, as in Ro. 5:1, or punctiliar, like aorist e;scon (cf. e;scej and e;ceij in Jo. 4:18). The regular idiom for a papyrus receipt is e;scon para. sou/. This matter of the kind of action in the verb-root (Aktionsart) applies to all verbs.17 It has long been clear that the "tense" has been overworked and made to mean much that it did not mean. The verb itself is the beginping of all. But scholars are not agreed in the terminology to be used. Instead of "punctiliar" (punktuelle Aktion, Brugmann), others use "perfective" (Giles, Manual, p. 478). But this brings inevitable confusion with the perfect tense. All verbs may be described as "punctiliar" (punktuell) and "non-punctiliar" (nichtpunktuell). But the "non-punctiliar" divides into the indefinite linear (durative) and the definite linear (completed or perfect). The notion of perfect action as distinct from point action came later. The three essential18 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 *------. The distinction between punctiliar and perfected action is not clearly drawn in the verb-root itself. That is a later refinement of tense. Brugmann19 credits this "perfected" idea to the perfect stem. "Iterative" action belongs to certain


stems (reduplicated, like gi,gnomai), but it is not a fundamental kind of action.

6. THE THREE KINDS OF ACTION EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF TENSE. These ideas (punctiliar, durative, perfected state) lie behind the three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) that run through all the moods. The forms of these tenses are meant to accentuate these ideas.20 The aorist stem presents action in its simplest form ( a;─oristoj, 'undefined'). This action is simply presented as a point by this tense. This action is timeless. The present is also timeless in itself as is the perfect.21 It is confusing to apply the expression "relations of time" to this fundamental aspect of tense, as is done by some grammars.22 Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 121) uses Zeitart and Zeitstufe, but why Zeitart instead of Aktionsart? It is better to keep "time" for its natural use of past, present and future, and to speak of "kind of action" rather than "kind of time."23 These three tenses (aorist, present, perfect) were first developed irrespective of time. Dionysius Thrax erred in explaining the Greek tenses from the notion of time, and he has been followed by a host of imitators. The study of Homer ought to have prevented this error. The poets generally do not bring the time relations to the fore.24 Even Paul (Principles of the History of Language, p. 300) falls into this error. It is doubtless easier25 to trace the history of the verb than of the noun, but as many mistakes lie along the way.

7. TIME ELEMENT IN TENSE. But for the indicative the Greek tenses would have had a simple history. There are no past tenses in the subjunctive. The future subjunctive is an anomaly of very late Greek. The future optative occurs only in indirect discourse and is not found in the N. T. The time element in the infinitive is confined to indirect discourse and me,llw. Time in the participle is only relative to the principal verb. It is thus kind of action, not the time of the action, that is expressed in these forms.26 But in the indicative the three grades of time had tenses of their own. The Greeks evidently felt that there was no need for time in the other modes except in a relative sense. As a matter of fact, the real time of subjunctive, optative, and imperative is future


in relation to speaker or writer.27 It was evidently with difficulty (cf. absence of time in Hebrew) that time was expressed in a positive (non-relative) sense even in the indicative. It is only by the augment (probably an adverb) that past time is clearly expressed.28 "Homer and later Greek writers often use the present with an adverb of time instead of a past tense, a construction which has an exact parallel in Sanskrit and which is therefore supposed to be Indo-Germanic."29 There is no really distinctive form for the present indicative. The future was a later development out of both the present and aorist. See chapter VIII, Conjugation of Verb. The augment was not always used. Homer used it only when it suited him. But past time was objective and the three kinds of action (punctiliar, durative, perfected) were regularly expressed with the tenses (aorist, imperfect, past perfect). There is Aktionsart also in the present and future time, but the tense development did not go on to the full extent here. There are only two tenseforms in the present and practically only one in the future. But both punctiliar and linear action are expressed, but not differentiated, in the present time by the same tense, as is true also of the future. The kinds of action exist, but separate tense-forms unfortunately do not occur.30 There might thus have been nine tenses in the indicative: three punctiliar (past, present, future), three linear (past, present, future), three perfect (past, present, future).31 Because of this difference between the indicative and the other moods in the matter of time some grammars32 give a separate treatment to the indicative tenses. It is not an easy matter to handle, but to separate the indicative perhaps accents the element of time unduly. Even in the indicative the time element is subordinate to the kind of action expressed. A double idea thus runs through tense in the indicative (kind of action, time of the action).

8. FAULTY NOMENCLATURE OF THE TENSES. There is no consistency in the names given the tenses, as has already been explained. Cf. chapter VIII, (b). The terms aorist, imperfect and perfect (past, present, future) are properly named from the point of view of the state of the action, but present and future are named from the standpoint of the time element. There is


no time element in the present subjunctive, for instance. But the names cannot now be changed, though very unsatisfactory.

9. THE ANALYTIC TENDENCY (Periphrasis). This is the Common way of expressing tense in the Germanic tongues. It was not unknown to the older Greek and was very frequent in the LXX under the Hebrew influence. See an extended list in Conybeare and Stock, Selections from the LXX, pp. 68-71 The tendency is strong in the N. T. See the summary already given (pp. 374-376). In the modern Greek the periphrastic form has displaced the usual inflected forms in all the tenses but the present, imperfect and aorist. These are "simple." The rest are "compound" (Thumb, Handb., p. 115).33 This analytic tendency affected the durative and perfect kinds of action. It did not suit the purely punctiliar idea.

10. THE EFFECT OF PREPOSITIONS ON THE VERB. This is another aspect of Aktionsart. This subject has already been briefly discussed from the standpoint of the prepositions.34 Delbruck35 has worked the matter out with thoroughness and he is followed by Brugmann.36 Moulton37 has applied the principle to N. T. verbs. The point is that often where the simple verb is durative it is rendered "perfective" by the preposition in composition. This peculiarity is common to all the Indo-Germanic tongues and reaches its highest development in the Germanic (cf. English and German) and the Balto-Slavic languages.38 Thus we in English say bring and bring up, burn and burn up, carry and carry off, come and come on, drive and drive away (home, in, off, out), drink and drink up, eat and eat up, follow and follow up, go and go away, grow and grow up, knock and knock down, make and make over, pluck and pluck out, run and run away, speak and speak out, stand and stand up, take and take up, wake and wake up, work and work out.39 The "imperfective" simplex becomes "perfective" in the compound. Prof. A. Thumb40 has a paper " Zur Aktionsart der mit Prapositionen zusammengesetzten Verba im Griechischen," in which he compares some tables of Schlachter for Thucydides with some by Prof. S. Dickey for the N. T. Thucydides shows for the present tense 260 simplicia verbs to 83 compound, for the aorist 158 to 199. Dickey has investigated about thirty N. T. verbs


like avpe,cw, etc. He reports for the present tense a proportion of 1160 simplicia to 83 compound, for the aorist 885 to 226. It is unfortunate that the term "perfective" is used for this idea, since it inevitably suggests the perfect tense. Some writers41 use "perfective" also for the aorist or punctiliar action, a means of still further confusion. Brugmann42 uses "Perfektive Aktion" for the effect of the preposition in composition and "Perfektische Aktion" for the perfect tense, a distinction hard to draw in English. Latin and Greek both show abundant illustrations of this use of prepositions. Cf. sequor and consequor, facio and efficio, teneo and sustineo. Moulton43 thinks that the freedom in the position of the preposition in Homer helped the adverb to retain its force longer than in later Greek and Latin. The point of the preposition here is best seen in the prepositions avpo──, dia──, kata──, sun--.44 But even in these the actual majority of examples preserve the original local meaning and so are not perfective. But in Lu. 8:29, polloi/j cro,noij sunhrpa,kei auvto,n, the perfective sense of su,n combines with the past perfect tense and the locative (or instrumental) polloi/j cro,noij to denote "not the temporary paroxysm, but the establishment of a permanent hold" (Moulton, Prol., p. 113). So ginw,skw is durative ('gaining knowledge,' as in Mk. 13:28), e;gnwn is effective ('grasping the point,' as in Lu. 16:4, e;gnwn ti, poih,sw), evpiginw,skw is perfective ('knowing my lesson,' as in 1 Cor. 13:12), and evpignw/nai also ('recognising,' as in Mt. 14:35). Moulton (ib., p. 114) calls particular attention to a oi` avpollu,menoi. (1 Cor. 1:18), 'the perishing,' where the destiny is accented by avpo,, and the process is depicted by the tense. In Heb. 6:18, oi` katafugo,ntej, the perfective sense of kata,, coincides with the effective aorist. So even when the tense is durative, the notion of completion is expressed in the preposition as contemplated or certain. In te,qnhken (Lu. 8:49) the perfect tense of the simplex is sufficient, but not so in avpe,qanen, (Lu. 8:53). qnh,skw as simplex became obsolete outside of the perfect, so that avpe,qnhsken (Lu. 8:42; cf. 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 11:21) occurs for the notion of 'dying.' "The linear perfective expressed its meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process leading up to an attained goal."45 Moulton notes also the iterative use of avpe,qnh,skw in 1 Cor. 15:31, and the frequentative in 1 Cor. 15:22. See also the "perfective" use of avpoktei,nw, the active of avpoqnh,skw. In avpo,llumi and avpo,llumai ( avpo,lwla) the sim-


plex is obsolete. Even in the present tense the force of avpo── is obvious. Cf. toi/j avpollume,noij (1 Cor. 1:18), avpo,llumai (Lu. 15:17), avpollu,meqa (Mt. 8:25), where Moulton46 explains avpo─ as suggesting "the sense of an inevitable doom." Cf. also evkfeu,gw (Mt. 2:13), 'to flee,' with diafeu,gw (Ac. 27:42), and evkfeu,gw (Heb. 2:3), 'to escape,' katafeu,gw (Heb. 6:18), 'to find refuge '; thre,w (Ac. 24:23), 'to watch,' with diathre,w, 'to keep continually' (Lu. 2:51), and sunthre,w (Lu. 2:19), 'to keep together (safely)'; spa,w (Mk. 14:47), 'to draw,' with diaspa,w (Mk. 5:4), 'to draw in two'; kai,w (Jo. 15:6), 'to burn,' with katakri,nw (Ac. 19:19), 'to burn up'; kri,nw (Jo. 5:30), 'to judge,' with kaatakri,nw (Mt. 12:41), 'to condemn'; lu,w 3:16), 'to loosen,' with katalu,w (Mt. 24:2), 'to destroy'; e;cw (Ac. 13:5; Rev. 10:2), 'to have' or 'hold,' with evpe,cw (Ac. 3:5), 'to hold on to,' and sune,cw (Lu. 8:45), 'to hold together' or 'press,' and avpe,cw (Mt. 6:5), 'to have in full,' etc. As to avpe,cw for 'receipt in full,' see Deissmann, Light, p. 110 f. The papyri and ostraca, give numerous illustrations. It is not necessary to make an exhaustive list to prove the point. Cf. menw/ kai. paramenw/ (Ph. 1:25), cai,rw kai. suncai,rwgrk grk(2:17), where the point lies in the preposition, though not "perfective" here. So ginwskome,nh kai. avnaginw─ skome,nh (2 Cor. 3:2), avnaginw,skete h' kai. evpiginw,sketegrk grk(1:13), metrei/te avntimetrhqh,setai (Lu. 6:38), e;contej──kate,contej (2 Cor. 6:10). Cf. e;kbale (Mt. 22:13). In some verbs47 the preposition has so far lost its original force that the "perfective" idea is the only one that survives. Dr. Eleanor Purdie (Indog. Forsch., IX, pp. 63-153, 1898) argues that the usage of Polybius as compared with Homer shows that the aorist simplex was increasingly confined to the constative sense, while the ingressive and effective simplex gave way to the "perfective" compounds. Moulton48 is inclined to agree in the main with her contention as supported by the papyri (and Thumb thinks that modern Greek supports the same view). At any rate there is a decided increase in the number of compound verbs. The ingressive and effective uses of the aorist would naturally blend with the "perfective" compounds. But it remains true that the Aktionsart of the verb-root is often modified by the preposition in composition.

11. "AKTIONSART" WITH EACH TENSE. It is not merely true that three separate kinds of action are developed (punctiliar, durative, perfected), that are represented broadly by three tenses in all the modes, though imperfectly in the present and future tenses of the indicative. The individual verb-root modifies greatly the


resultant idea in each tense. This matter can only he hinted at here, but must be worked out more carefully in the discussion of each tense. The aorist, for instance, though always in itself merely point-action, "punctiliar," yet may be used with verbs that accent the beginning of the action or the end of the action. Thus three distinctions arise: the unmodified point-action called "constative," the point-action with the accent on the beginning (inceptive) called "ingressive," the point-action with the accent on the conclusion called "effective." The names are not particularly happy, but they will answer. "Constative" is especially awkward.49 In reality it is just the normal aorist without any specific modification by the verb-meaning. Hirt50 does not use the term, but divides the aorist into "ingressive" and "effective" when there is this special Aktionsart. But the use of these demands another term for the normal aorist.51 As an example of the "constative" aorist for the whole action take evskh,nwsen (Jo. 1:14), for the earthly life of Jesus. So also evxhgh,satogrk grk(1:18), while evge,netogrk grk(1:14) is "ingressive," and accents the entrance of the Logos upon his life on earth (Incarnation). vEqeasa,meqagrk grk(1:14) is probably "effective " as is evla,bomen grk grk(1:16), accenting the result ("resultative," Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 475). So likewise in the so-called "present" tense various ideas exist as set forth by the various "classes" of verbs or "conjugations." The perfect and the future likewise have many variations in resultant idea, growing out of the varying verb-idea in connection with the tense-idea. These must be borne in mind and will be indicated in the proper place in discussing each tense.

12. INTERCHANGE OF TENSES. The point here is not whether the Greeks used an aorist where we in English would use a perfect, but whether the 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 history of the language. There was a time long after the N. T. period52 when the line between the aorist and the perfect became very indistinct, as it had been largely obliterated in Latin. It is a question for discussion whether that was true in the N. T. or not. The subject will receive discussion under those tenses. The future grew out of the present and the aorist. The present continued to be used sometimes as vivid future, as is true of all languages. But 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 itself, 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. Winer (Winer-Thayer, p. 264) is entirely correct in saying: "No one of these tenses strictly and properly taken can stand for another." Writers vary greatly in the way that the tenses are used. A vivid writer like Mark, for instance, shows his lively imagination by swift changes in the tenses. The reader must change with him. It is mere commonplace to smooth the tenses into a dead level in translation and miss the writer's point of view. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 124) is doubtful whether in the N. T. we are justified in making "sharp distinctions between the imperfect, aorist or perfect; a subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive of the aorist or present." But for my part I see no more real ground in the papyri and inscriptions for such hesitation than we find in the ancient Attic Greek. Thumb (Handb., p. 116) notes that modern Greek, in spite of heavy losses, has preserved the distinction between linear and punctiliar action even in the imperative and subjunctive. I shall discuss the tenses according to the three ideas designed by them rather than by the names accidentally given.

II. Punctiliar Action.

This is the kind of action to begin with. It is probably not possible always to tell which is the older stem, the punctiliar or the linear. They come into view side by side, though the punctiliar action is logically first. The aorist tense, though at first confined to verbs of punctiliar sense, was gradually made on verbs of durative sense. So also verbs of durative action came to have the tenses of punctiliar action.53 Thus the tenses came to be used for the expression of the ideas that once belonged only to the root. The Stoic grammarians, who gave us much of our terminology, did not fully appreciate the aorist tense. They grouped the tenses around the present stem, while as a matter of fact in many verbs that is impossible, the root appearing in the aorist,


not in the prsent. Cf. e;─sth─n ( i [─sth─mi), e;─lab─o─n ( lamba,n─w), etc. This error vitiated the entire theory of the Stoic grammarians.54 Grammatical forms cannot express the exact concord between the logical and the grammatical categories,55 but the aorist tense came very near doing it. By Homer's time (and Pindar's) the distinction between the aorist and imperfect tenses is fairly well drawn, though some verbs like e;─fh─n remain in doubt.56 So we start with th aorist tense. In modern Greek the ancient aorist is the base-form on which a number of new presents are formed (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). J. C. Lawson (Journ. of Th. St., Oct., 1912, p. 142) says that Thumb would have smoothed the path of the student if he had "dealt with the aorist before proceeding to the present."

1. THE AORIST ( avo,ristoj). The aorist, as will be shown, is not the only way of expressing indefinite (undefined) action, but it is the normal method of doing so. The Greek in truth is "an aoristloving language" (Broadus).57 In the koinh, the aorist is even more frequent thal in the classic Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120), especially is this true of the N. T.

Gildersleeve58 does not like the name and prefers "apobatic," but that term suits only the "effective" aorist. The same thing is true of "culminative." The name aorist does very well on the whole. I doubt if the aorist is a sort of "residuary legatee," taking what is left of the other tenses. The rather, as I see it, the aorist preserved the simple action and the other tenses grew up around it. It is true that in the expression of past time in the indicative and with all the other moods, the aorist is the tense used as a matter of course, unless there was special reason for using some other tense. t gives the action "an and fur sich." The common use of the "imperfect" with verbs of speaking ( e;fh├ e;lege) may be aorist in fact.

(a) Aktionsart in the Aorist.

(a) Constative Aorist. There is still a good deal of confusion in the use of terms. Gildersleeve (Syntax of Attic Gr., p. 105) prefers "complexive" to "constative." Moulton59 comments on Miss Purdie's use of "perfective" in the sense of "punctiliar."


So Giles60 uses "perfective or momentary" for the aoristic action, but he also (p. 478 note) uses constative. But Moulton61 also makes a distinction between "constative" and "punctiliar," using "punctiliar" for real point-action and "constative" for what is merely treated as point-action. That is a true distinction for the verb-root, but the growing number of constative aorists was in harmony with the simple idea of the tense. Brugmann62 rests constative, ingressive and effective aorists, all three on the punktuell idea and draws no sharp distinction between "punctiliar" and "constative." Delbruck63 divides the punktuell or aorist into Anlangspunkt or Ingressive, Mittelpunkt or Constative and Schlusspunkt or Effective. The constative accents the "middle point." The idea of Delbriick and Brugmann is that punktuell action is "action focused in a point."' "The aorist describes an event as a single whole, without the time taken in its accomplishment."64 It seems best, therefore, to regard "constative" as merely the normal aorist which is not "ingressive" nor "effective." The root-difference between the aorist and the imperfect is just this, that the aorist is "constative" while the imperfect "describes."65 The "constative" aorist just treats the act as a single whole entirely irrespective of the parts or time involved.66 If the act is a point in itself, well and good. But the aorist can be used also of an act which is not a point.. This is the advance that the tense makes on the verb-root. All aorists are punctiliar in statement (cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 109). The "constative" aorist treats an act as punctiliar which is not in itself point-action. That is the only difference. The distinction is not enough to make a separate class like ingressive and effective over against the purely punctiliar action. Thumb (Handb., p. 122) passes by "constative" as merely the regular aorist "to portray simply an action or occurrence of the past," whether in reality punctiliar or not. He finds both ingressive and effective aorists in modern Greek. But Thumb uses "terminative" for both "ends" (initial and final), a somewhat confusing word in this connection. The papyri show the same Aktionsart of the aorist. So note constative


o[ti me evpai,deusaj kalw/j, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Thus in Jo. 2:20, Tessera,konta kai. ea}x e[tesin oivkodomh,qh o` nao.j ou-toj, we have a good example of the constative aorist. The whole period of forty-six years is treated as a point. In Mt. 5:17, h=lqon, we have a very simple constative aorist, just punctiliar and nothing more, describing the purpose of Christ's mission. It is true that the constative aorist in this sense is far more frequent than the ingressive and the effective uses of the tense. This has always been so from the nature of the case. The increasing number of "perfective" compounds, as already shown, increased the proportion of constative aorists.67 When the action is in itself momentary or instantaneous no difficulty is involved. These examples are very numerous on almost any page of the N. T. Cf. in Ac. 10:22 f., evcrhmati,sqh├ metape,myasqai├ avkou/sai├ evxe,nisen├ sunh/lqon. See the aorists in Ac. 10:41 f. Cf. Mt. 8:3; Ac. 5:5. This is the normal aorist in all the moods. But verbs that are naturally durative may have the aorist. In evkarte,rhsen (Heb. 11:27) we have a verb naturally "durative" in idea, but with the "constative" aorist. Cf. also evkru,bh tri,mhnon (Heb. 11:23), where a period of time is summed up by the constative aorist. Cf. evbasi,leusen o` qa,natoj avpo. vAda.m me,cri (Ro. 5:14). A good example is e;zhsan kai. evbasi,leusan meta. tou/ Cristou/ ci,lia e;th (Rev. 20:4). Here e;zhsan is probably ingressive, though zh,swmen is constative in 1 Th. 5:10, but evbasi,─ leusan is clearly constative. The period of a thousand years is merely regarded as a point. Cf. also Jo. 7:9 e;meinen evn tw|/ Galilai,a|, 10:40 e;meinen evkei/. See also Ac. 11:26 evge,neto auvtoi/j evniauto.n o[lon sunacqh/nai evn th|/ evkklhsi,a|, 14:3 i`kano.n cro,non die,triyan, 18:11 e`ka,qisen evniauto.n kai. mh/naj e[x 28:30 evne,meinen dieti,an o[lhn) Cf. Eph. 2: 4. See avei.──diete,lesa in B.G.U. 287 (A.D. 250). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 105) calls this "aorist of long duration" (constative).

For a striking example of the constative (summary) use of the aorist, note evf v w|- pa,ntej h[marton (Rom. 5:12). Note in particular the summary statements in Heb. 11, , as avpe,qanon ou-toi pa,ntej (13), ou-toi pa,ntej- ouvk evkmi,santo (39). Gildersleeve's "aorist of total negation" (Syntax, p. 106) is nothing more than this. Repeated or separate68 actions are thus grouped together, as in Mt. 22:28, pa,ntej e;scon auvth,n. So tri.j evrabdi,sqhn├ tri.j evnaua,ghsa (2 Cor. 11: 20). In Mk. 12:44, pa,ntej- e;balon├ au[th de.──e;balen, the two actions are contrasted sharply by the aorist. There is no difficulty in ei-j u`pe.r pa,ntwn avpe,qanen\ a;ra oi` pa,ntej avpe,qanon (2 Cor. 5:14). The same verb may sometimes be used either as constative (like evbasi,-


leusan, 'reigned,' Rev. 20:4 above) or ingressive ( kai. evbasi,leusaj, 'assumed rule,' Rev. 11:17, though true here of God only in a dramatic sense). Thus evsi,ghsen (Ac. 15:12) is 'kept silence' (constative), but sigh/sai (verse 13) is ingressive as is evsi,ghsan (Lu. 9:36). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 21. In Gal. 5:16, ouv mh. tele,shte, we have the constative aorist, while plhrw/sai is effective in Mt. 5:17. In line with what has already been said, balei/n may mean 'throw' (constative), 'let fly' (ingressive) or 'hit' (effective). Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 130. Illustrations occur in the N. T. in e;balen auvto.n eivj fulakh,n (Mt. 18:30, constative, 'cast' or 'threw'), ba,le seauto.n evnteu/qen ka,tw (Lu. 4:9, ingressive, 'hurl.' Note evnteu/qen, as well as "perfective" force of ka,tw. Cf. Mt. 5:29), e;balen kat v auvth/j (effective, 'beat,' Ac. 27: 14).

(0) Ingressive Aorist. This is the inceptive or inchoative aorist. It is not, however, like the "constative" idea, a tensenotion at all. It is purely a matter with the individual verb.69 Thus evptw,ceusen, 2 Cor. 8:9, is 'became poor'; Ro. 14:9, is 'became alive' (cf. avpe,qanen just before).70 Perhaps in Jo. 16:3, ouvk e;gnwsan, the meaning is 'did not recognise.'71 But this could be constative. But it is clear in Jo. 1:10. So in o[soi e;labon auvto,n (Jo. 1:12) the ingressive idea occurs, as in ouv pare,la─ bon in verse 11. Cf. e;klausen (Lu. 19:41) = 'burst into tears' and e;gnwj (vs. 42) = 'camest to know.' So evda,krusen (Jo. 11:35). In Mt. 22:7 wvrgi,sqh = 'became angry.' Cf. also mh. do,xhte (Mt. 3:9), avfu,pnwsen (Lu. 8:23), evqumw,qh (Mt. 2:16). In Lu. 15:32 e;zhsen is ingressive, as is evkoimh,qh (Ac. 7:60), ivscu,samen mo,lij (Ac. 27:16), mish,swsin (Lu. 6:22), hvga,phsen (Mk. 10:21), evluph,─ qhte (2 Cor. 7:9), plouth,shte (2 Cor. 8:9). The notion is common with verbs expressing state or condition (Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 16). Moulton quotes basileu,saj avnapah,setai, 'having come to his throne he shall rest,' Agraphon, O.P. 654. See also e;laba bia,tikon para. Kai,saroj, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). Moulton (Prol., p. 248) cites Jo. 4:52, komyo,teron e;scen, 'got better,' and compares it with eva.n komyw/j scw/, Tb.P. 414 (ii/A.D.). Another instance is h;ggisan Mt. 21:1.72 Cf. evkth,sato (Ac. 1:18).

( g) Effective Aorist. The name is not particularly good and "resultant aorist" is suggested by some scholars. Gildersleeve73


suggests "upshot aorist." Giles74 calls it aorist of the "culminating point," following Monro.75 But the idea is that emphasis is laid on the end of the action as opposed to the beginning (ingressive). This is done (if done) by the verb itself (Aktionsart). The following examples will make the matter clear: poih,sate karpo,n (Mt. 3:8), klei,sajgrk grk(6:6), evte,lesengrk grk(7:28), w`moiw,qhgrk grk(13:24), evne,prh─ sengrk grk(22:7), evke,rdhsagrk grk(25:20), e;peisan,grk grk(27:20), evlu,qh (Mk. 7:35), evsta,qhsan (Lu. 24:17), evkru,bh grk(19:42), h;gagen (Jo. 1:42) avpe,─ sthse (Ac. 5:37), plhrw,santejgrk grk(12:25), e;pesengrk grk(20:9), evpau,santogrk grk grk(21:32), evkw,lusengrk grk(27:43), e;maqon (Ph. 4:11), evni,khsen (Rev. 5:5). A good example of the effective aorist in the papyri is e;swse, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.). So then in the case of each aorist the point to note is whether it is merely punctiliar (constative) or whether the verb-idea has deflected it to the one side or the other (ingressive or effective). It needs to be repeated that there is at bottom only one kind of aorist (punctiliar in fact or statement). The tense of itself always means point-action. The tense, like the mode, has nothing to do with the fact of the action, but only with the way it is stated. Sometimes it will not be clear from the context what the Aktionsart is. The "perfective" force of prepositions applies to all the tenses. It must be said also that the Aktionsart in the aorist (ingressive, effective) applies to all the modes. Indeed, because of the time-element in the indicative (expressed by the augment and secondary endings) the real character of the aorist tense is best seen in the other modes where we do not have notes of time.76 It is merely a matter of convenience, therefore, to note the aorist in the different modes, not because of any essential difference (outside of the indicative). One is in constant danger of overrefinement here. Gildersleeve77 criticises Stahl78 for " characteristic prolixity" in his treatment of the tenses. A few striking examples are sufficient here.

(b) Aorist Indicative. The caution must be once more repeated that in these subdivisions of the aorist indicative we have only one tense and one root-idea (punctiliar action). The variations noted are incidental and do not change at all this fundamental idea.

(a) The Narrative or Historical Tense.79 It is the tense in which


a verb in ordinary narrative is put unless there is reason for using some other tense. Hence it is enormously frequent, in the Greek historians. Writers vary greatly, of course, in the use of the tenses as of words, but in the large view the point holds. The aorist holds its place in the papyri and in the modern Greek as the usual tense in narrative (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). Almost any page in the Gospels and Acts will show an abundance of aorist indicatives that illustrate this point. Cf., for instance, the eight aorists in Ac. 13: 13 f. (no other tense), the eight aorists in 21:1 f. (no other tense), the three aorists in 25:1 f. (no other tense). In these instances the tenses are not all in indicative mood, though predominantly so. See again the fifteen aorists in Ac. 28:11-15 (one perfect). The aorist was used in narrative as a matter of course. Note the many aorists in Heb. 11.

The redundant use of the verb as in labw.n e;speiren (Mt. 13:31) = took and sowed' is not a peculiarity of the aorist tense. Cf. avph/lqen kai. ei=pen (Jo. 5:15) = 'went and told.' Nor is it a peculiarity of Greek. It belongs to the vernacular of most languages. But we no longer find the iterative use of a;n with the aorist according to the classic idiom (Moulton, Prol., p. 167).

( b) The Gnomic Aorist. Jannaris80 calls this also "empiric aorist," while Gildersleeve81 uses "empirical" for the aorist with a negative or temporal adverb, a rather needless distinction. The real "gnomic" aorist is a universal or timeless aorist and probably represents the original timelessness of the aorist indicative.82 This aorist is common in Homer83 in comparisons and general sayings. The difference between the gnomic aorist and the present is that the present may be durative.84 But general truths may be expressed by the aoristic present. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 109) compares this use of the aorist to the generic article. Winer85 denies that this idiom occurs in the N. T., but on insufficient grounds. Abbott86 rather needlessly appeals to the "Hebrew influence on Johannine tense-construction" to explain evblh,qh kai. evxhra,nqh (Jo. 15:6) after eva.n mh, tij me,nh| evn evmoi,. It is a general construction here and is followed by three presents (aoristic). This is a mixed condition certainly, the protasis being future


(third class, undetermined with some likelihood of determination). But evdoxa,sqh (Jo. 15:8) is possibly also gnomic. Cf. pa,ntej ha}mar─ ton kai. u`sterou/ntai (Ro. 3:23). But in Jo. 15:6, 8, we may have merely the "timeless" aorist, like o[tan qe,lh|j├ evxh/lqej, in Epictetus, IV, 10, 27. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 124) so thinks and adds, what I do not admit: "The genuine gnomic aorist appears to be foreign to the Hellenistic vernacular." It survives in modern Greek, according to Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436. Moulton (Prol., pp. 135, 139) admits it in N. T., but (p. 134) considers Jo. 15:6 the "timeless" aorist, like avpwlo,mhn ei; me lei,yeij in Eur., Alc., 386. There are other examples, like e;kruyen (Mt. 13:44) which is followed by presents u`pa,gei├ pwlei/├ hvgo,rasengrk grk(13:46), sune,lexan- e;balon grk(13:48), w`moiw,qhgrk grk(18:23), evka,qisangrk grk(23:2), euvdo,khsa (Lu. 3:22), evdikaiw,qhgrk grk(7:35), evdi,daxen (Jo. 8:28), avne,teilen and the other aorists in Jas. 1:11, evka,lese- evdo,xase (Ro. 8:30), evxhra,nqh── evxe,pesen (1 Pet. 1:24; LXX, Is. 40:7). It is true that the timeless Hebrew perfect is much like this gnomic aorist, but it is a common enough Greek idiom also. Cf. further Lu. 1:5153. It is not certain that euvdo,khsa (Mt. 3:17; 17:5; Mk. 1:11; Lu. 3:22) belongs here. It may be merely an example of the timeless aorist used in the present, but not gnomic. See under ( e). Burton (N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 29) finds it difficult and thinks it originally "inceptive" (ingressive).

( g) Relation to the Imperfect. The aorist is not used "instead of" the imperfect.87 But the aorist is often used in the midst of imperfects. The Old Bulgarian does not distinguish between the aorist and the imperfect. In modern Greek, aorists and imperfects have the same endings (Thumb, Handb., p. 119), but the two tenses are distinct in meaning. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that in the koinh, he finds the imperfect used as aorist, as in evk tw/n ivdi,wn evpu,ei $evpoi,ei% to.n bwmo,n (Inscr. de la Syrie 2413a), and diesa,feij for diesa,fhsaj (P. Lond., XLII, Kenyon 30). But I venture to be sceptical. In both passages the imperfects make perfectly good sense. Radermacher urges the common use of evteleu,ta, but that may be merely descriptive imperfect. I grant that it is "willkurlich" in Herodotus (in 1214) to say diefqa,rh kai. teleuta|/, as in Strabo (C 828) to have evteleu,ta- diade,dektai. It is "rein stilistisch," but each writer exercises his own whim. Winer88 properly remarks that it "often


depends on the writer" which tense he will use. Why "often"? Why not "always"? The presence of aorist, imperfect and past perfect side by side show how keen the distinction was felt to be.89 Blass90 seeks to distinguish sharply between e;legon and ei=pon, but with little success. The trouble, as already stated, is probably that e;legon may be either aorist (like e;lipon) or imperfect. He admits that Thucydides introduces his speeches either with e;lege or e;lexe. Gildersleeve,91 like Stahl, denies "an actual interchange of tenses." In any given incident the speaker or writer may have the choice of representing it in narrative by the aorist (punctiliar) or the imperfect (durative). An interesting example is found in Mk. 12:41-44.92 The general scene is presented by the descriptive durative imperfect evqew,rei and the durative present ba,llei. It is visualized by polloi,──e;ballon. But the figure of the widow woman is singled out by the aorist e;balen. The closing reference by Jesus to the rest is by the constative aorist pan,tej e;balon. Note also the precise distinction between ei=cen and e;balen at the end. Where the aorist and the imperfect occur side by side, it is to be assumed that the change is made on purpose and the difference in idea to be sought. In juxtaposition the aorist lifts the curtain and the imperfect continues the play. Cf. evnu,staxan (ingressive, 'fell to nodding') and evka,qeudon ('went on sleeping') in Mt. 25:5. So Ti,j mou h[yato* kai. perieble,peto (Mk. 5:32). 'He began to look around because of the touch.' See also evlu,qh o` desmo.j th/j glw,sshj auvtou/├ kai. evla,lei ovrqw/jgrk grk(7:35). A similar distinction appears in a;ggeloi prosh/lqon kai. dihko,noun auvtw|/ (Mt. 4:11); e;pesen kai. evdi,dougrk grk(13:8); kate,bh lai/lay- kai. suneplhrou/nto (Lu. 8:23); h=re to.n kra,batton auvtou/ kai. periepa,tei (Jo. 5:9); avne,bh- kai. evdi,daskengrk grk(7:14); evxh/lqon kai. evkrau,gazon,grk grk(12:13). In Lu. 8:53 note katege,lwn and avpe,qanen. Once again note ei;damen──kai. evkwlu,omen in 9:49 and kateno,oun kai. ei=don (Ac. 11:6). Cf. further Ac. 14:10; 1 Cor. 3:6; Mt. 21:8; Mk. 11:18; Jo. 20:3 f. In 1 Cor. 10:4 note e;pion ──e;pion* in 11:23, pare,dwka├ paredi,deto. The same sort of event will be recorded now with the aorist, as polu. plh/qoj hvkolou,qhsen (Mk. 3:7), now with the imperfect, as hvkolou,qei o;cloj polu,j (5: 24). Cf. Lu. 2:18 and 4:22.93 But the changing mood of the writer does not mean that the tenses are equivalent to each other. A word further is necessary concerning the relative frequency of aorists and imperfects. Statistical syntax is interesting,


Addenda 3rd ed.

laborious and not always conclusive. Schlachter94 has applied statistics to Homer. In both Iliad and Odyssey the aorists in the indicative are more numerous than the imperfects. Gildersleeve95 found a similar result in Pindar. Jacobsthal (Der Gebrauch der Tempora und Modi in den kretischen Dialektinschriften) finds the aorist surpassing the imperfect. But Hultsch96 found the imperfect very abundant in Polybius, and Prof. Miller97 has added statistics for other writers. "The imperfect divides the crown with the aorist in different proportions at different times and in different spheres."98 A further extended quotation from Gildersleeve99 is pertinent: "Not the least interesting is the table in which Schlachter has combined his results with Professor Miller's and from which it appears that the use of the aorist indicative gradually diminishes until it finds its low-water-mark in Xenophon. Then the aorist thrusts itself more and more to the front until it culminates in the N. T. The pseudo-naivete of Xenophon suggests an answer to one problem. The Hellenica has the lowest percentage of imperfects, but it mounts up in the novelistic Kyropaideia. The other problem, the very low percentage of the imperfect in the N. T. - e.g. Matthew 13 per cent., Apocalypse 7 - Schlachter approaches gingerly, and well he may. It stands in marked contrast to Josephus whose 46 per cent. of imperfects shows the artificiality of his style, somewhat as does his use of the participles (A. J. P., IX 154), which, according to Schlachter, he uses more than thrice as often as St. John's Gospel Gospel(41:12). This predominance of the aorist indicative can hardly be dissociated from the predominance of the aorist imperative in the N. T. (Justin Martyr, Apol. I, 16. 6), although the predominance of the aorist imperative has a psychological basis which cannot be made out so readily for the aorist indicative. Besides, we have to take into consideration the growth of the perfect and the familiar use of the historical present, which is kept down in St. Luke alone (A. J. P., XX 109, XXVII 328)." The personal equation, style, character of the book, vernacular or literary form, all come into play. It largely depends on what


the writer is after. If he is aiming to describe a scene with vividness, the imperfect predominates. Otherwise he uses the aorist, on the whole the narrative tense par excellence.100 "Hence the aorist is the truly narrative tense, the imperfect the truly descriptive one; and both may be used of the same transaction."101

( d) Relation to the Past Perfect. It is rather shocking, after Winer's protest that the tenses are not interchanged, to find him saying bluntly: "In narration the aorist is used for the pluperfect."102 Burton103 helps the matter by inserting the word "English" before "pluperfect." Winer meant "German pluperfect." Gildersleeve104 does much better by using "translated." "We often translate the aorist by a pluperfect for the sake of clearness." Goodwin105 adds more exactly that the aorist indicative merely refers the action to the past "without the more exact specification" which the past perfect would give. That is the case. The speaker or writer did not always care to make this more precise specification. He was content with the mere narrative of the events without the precision that we moderns like. We are therefore in constant peril of reading back into the Greek aorist our English or German translation. All that one is entitled to say is that the aorist sometimes occurs where the context "implies completion before the main action,"106 where in English we prefer the past perfect. This use of the aorist is particularly common in subordinate clauses (relative and temporal and indirect discourse).107 It must be emphasized that in this construction the antecedence of the action is not stressed in the Greek. "The Greeks neglected to mark the priority of one event to another, leaving that to be gathered from the context."108 Strictly therefore the aorist is not used for the past perfect. The Greeks cared not for relative time. In Mt. 14:3 it is plain that e;dhsen and avpoe,qeto are antecedent in time to h;kousen, verse 1, and ei=pen in verse 2, but the story of the previous imprisonment and death of John is introduced by ga,r in a reminiscential manner. In Mt. 2:9 oa}n ei=don points back to verse 2. Cf. also o[ti evgi,mwsen (Mt. 22:34); o[te evne,paixan auvtw|/ evxe,dusan auvto,ngrk grk(27:31). So in 28:2


evge,neto is antecedent to h=lqen in verse 1. In 27:18 note in particular h|;dei o[ti pare,dwkan and compare with evgi,nwsken o[ti parade─ dw,keisan in Mk. 15:10 (cf. oi[tinej pepoih,keisan in verse 7). Here Mark did draw the distinction which Matthew did not care to make. In Lu. 19:15 we have oi-j dedw,kei, but ti, diepragmateu,santo. Other examples where the antecedence is not expressed, though true, and the aorist is used, are evpela,qonto (Mk. 8:14), evpeidh,per evpeceirhsan (Lu. 1:1), w`j evte,lesangrk grk(2:39), evpeidh. evplh,rwsengrk grk(7:1), evnedu,satogrk grk(8:27), aa} h`toi,masan (Lu. 24:1), w`j evgeu,sato (Jo. 2:9), o[ti h;kousangrk grk(4:1), oa}n ei=pengrk grk(4:50), evxe,neusen,grk grk(5:13), w`j evge,netogrk grk(6:16), o[ti avne,bleyen grk(9:18), o[ti evxe,balon grk(9:35), o[pou u`ph,nthsengrk grk(11:30 and note evlhlu,qei), oua}j proe,gnwgrk grk(13:12); w`j avpe,bhsangrk grk(21:9), oua}j evxele,xato (Ac. 1:2), o[te e;niyen (Ro. 8:29. Cf. 30 also). In Jo. 18:24, avpe,steilen ou=n, the presence of ou=n makes the matter less certain. If all is transitional, there would be no antecedence. But if ou=n, is inferential, that may be true, though Abbott considers it "impossible."109 Clyde110 calls the aorist "an aggressive tense, particularly in the active voice, where it encroached on the domain of the perfect, and all but supplanted the pluperfect." That is true, and yet it must not be forgotten that the aorist was one of the original tenses, much older than the perfects or the future. In wishes about the past (unattainable wishes) the N. T. uses o;folon (shortened form of w;felon) with the aorist indicative (1 Cor. 4:8) o;felo,n ge evbasileu,sate. A similar remark applies to use of the aorist indicative in conditions of the second class (past time), without a;n in apodosis (Gal. 4:15) or with a;n (Jo. 11:21). In both cases in English we translate this aorist by a past perfect.

(e) Relation to the Present. The so-called Dramatic Aorist is possibly the oldest use of the tense. In Sanskrit this is the common use of the tense to express what has just taken place.111 One wonders if the gnomic or timeless aorist indicative is not still older. The absence of a specific tense for punctiliar action in the present made this idiom more natural.112 This primitive use of the aorist survives also in the Slavonic.113 Giles suggests that "the Latin perfect meaning, like the Sanskrit, may have developed directly from this usage." The idiom appears in Homer114 and is


found chiefly in the dramatic poets where a sudden change comes,115 or in colloquial speech or passionate questions.116 It is a regular idiom in modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 123) as pei,nasa, I grew hungry,' 'am hungry still.' This aorist is used of actions which have just happened. The effect reaches into the present. Moulton (Prol., p. 247) quotes a traveller in Cos who "had a pleasant shock, on calling for a cup of coffee, to have the waiter cry " ;Efqasa." The Greek can still use a past tense in passionate questions affecting the present.117 Moulton118 speaks of "cases where an aorist indicative denotes present time," though he adds: "None of these examples are really in present time, for they only seem to be so through a difference in idiom between Greek and English." This latter statement is the truth. The aorist in Greek, particularly in dialogue, may be used for what has just happened. It seems awkward in English to refer this to past time, but it is perfectly natural in Greek. So we translate it by the present indicative. From the Greek point of view the peculiarity lies in the English, not in the Greek. The examples in the N. T. are numerous enough in spite of Winer119 to be worth noting. Moulton120 has made a special study of Matthew concerning the translation of the aorist. "Under the head of 'things just happened' come 9:18 evteleu,thsen (with a;rti), 5:28 evmoi,─ ceusen, and 14:15 parh/lqen and 17:12 h=lqe (with h;dh); 6:12 avfh,kamen, 12:28 e;fqasen, 14:2, etc., hvge,rqh, 16:17 avpeka,luye├ 18:15 evke,rdhsaj, 20:12 evpoi,hsan ──aj, 26:10 hvrha,sato, 26:13 evpoi,hse, 26:65 evblasfh,mhsen, hvkou,sate, 26:25, 64 ei=paj, 27:19 e;paqon, 27:46 evgkate,lipej, 28:7 ei=pon, 28:18 evdo,qh (unless 11: 27 forbids) and perhaps evgenh,qh." Certainly this is a respectable list for Matthew. Add evmeri,sqh (Mt. 12:26). These all can be translated by the English 'have.' Euvdo,khsa (Mt. 3:17 and parallels) is a possible example also. Cf. oa}n euvdo,khsen h` yuch, mougrk grk(12:18, LXX). It is a "timeless" aorist121 and may be gnomic, as already pointed out. Cf. 2 Pet. 1:17; Mk. 10:20, evfula─ xa,mhn evk th/j neo,thtoj* evxe,sth in Mk. 3:21; avpe,cei├ h=lqen- paradi,dotaigrk grk(14:41). Other examples of the aorist for what has just happened are in hvge,rqh├ ouvk e;stin w-de (Mk. 16:6); hvge,rqh───evpeske,yato (Lu. 7:16); hvgo,rasa├ e;ghmagrk grk(14:18-20); e;zhsen├ eu`re,qhgrk grk(15:32); e;gnwngrk grk(16:4); evkru,bhgrk grk(19:42); o;ntwj hvge,rqhgrk grk(24:34); proseku,nhsan (Jo.


4:20); h;kousajgrk grk(11:41); avph/lqengrk grk(12:19); h=lqon eivj th.n w[ran tau,thngrk grk grk(12:27); h=lqengrk grk(13:1); nu/n evdoxa,sqhgrk grk(13:31), but evdo,xasagrk grk(17:4) points backward, 'I did glorify thee,' while evdoxa,sqh in 15:8 is possibly gnomic; evpia,sate nu/ngrk grk(21:10); evdou,lwsa├ evgeno,mhn (1 Cor. 9:19, 20, 22. Cf. poiw/ in verse 23); e;pesen├ e;pesen (Rev. 14:8; 18:2).122 With this use of the aorist adverbs of time are common to make clear the present relation of time. Cf. touto h;dh tri,ton evfanerw,qh (Jo. 21:14) where tou/to has the effect of bringing the action forward. For a sharp contrast between the aorist and present see e;scej├ kai. nu/n oa}n e;ceij (Jo. 4:18). So e;qusa kai. avxi[ w/], B.G.U. 287 (A.D. 250). Cf. also Lu. 10:24. See in particular e;gnw├ e;gnwn and e;gnwsan in Jo. 17:25. The timeless aorist is well illustrated in the participle in Lu. 10:18, evqew,roun to.n Satana/n peso,nta.

( z% Relation to Present Perfect. The problem just here is not whether the present perfect is ever used as an aorist. That will be discussed under the present perfect. If the distinction between the two tenses was finally123 obliterated, as early happened in Latin,124 there would be some necessary confusion. But that has not happened in the N. T. period. Jannaris125 notes it regularly about 1000 A.D. It is undeniable that the early Sanskrit used the aorist chiefly for "something past which is viewed with reference to the present" and it disappeared before the growth of the other more exact tenses.126 The perfect may be said to be a development from the aorist, a more exact expression of completed action than mere "punctiliar" (aorist), viz. state of completion. But in the Greek the aorist not only held its own with the other tenses, but "has extended its province at the expense of the perfect," particularly in the N. T. period, though different writers vary greatly here.127 But was the aorist used "for" the perfect? Clyde128 says: "The aorist was largely used for the perfect." Winer129 replies: "There is no passage in which it can be certainly proved that the aorist stands for the perfect." Gildersleeve130 more correctly says: "The aorist is very often used where we should expect the perfect," i.e. in English. But the trans-


Addenda 2nd ed.

lation of the aorist into English will call for special discussion a little later. What is true is that the action in such cases "is regarded as subordinate to present time,"131 in other words, the precise specification of relative time which we draw in our English perfect is not drawn in the Greek. The Greek states the simple undefined punctiliar action in a connection that suggests present time and so we render it in English by our "have."132 But Farrar133 is right in insisting that we do not explain the Greek tense by the English rendering. In truth, the examples given under the head of "Relation to the Present" ( e) may often be rendered by the English "have" with tolerable accuracy.134 Sometimes the use of an adverb or particle helps the English. The examples are rather numerous in the N. T., as in the papyri,135 where the aorist and the present perfect occur side by side. Thus cwri.j w-n avpegra─ ya,mhn kai. pe,praka, 0.P. 482 (ii/A.D.); th/j genome,nhj kai. avpopepemme,nhj gunaiko,j, N.P. 19 (ii/A.D.). Moulton adds: "The distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries." In most instances in the N. T. the distinction is very sharply drawn in the context, as in o[ti evta,fh├ kai. o[ti evgh,gertai $1 Cor. 15:4). So evkti,sqh├ e;ktistai (Col. 1:16). Cf. Ac. 21:28. In most instances where we have trouble from the English standpoint it is the perfect, not the aorist that occasions it, as in pe,praken kai. hvgo,rasen (Mt. 13:46). We shall come back to this point under the present perfect. As a rule all that is needed is a little imagination on the part of the English reader to sympathize with the mental alertness expressed in the changing tenses, a sort of "moving picture" arrangement. Cf. kateno,hsen ga.r e`auto.n kai. avpelh,luqen kai. euvqe,wj evpela,qeto o`poi/oj h=n (Jas. 1:24). The single point to note concerning the aorist in those examples where we use "have" is that the Greeks did not care to use the perfect. Cf. ouvk evlh,luqa ka─ le,sai dikai,ouj (Lu. 5:32) with ouv ga.r h=lqon kale,sai dikai,ouj (Mt. 9:13), just two ways of regarding the same act. That is the whole story and it is a different thing from saying that the aorist is used "for" the present perfect. Here are some of the most interesting examples in the N. T. where "we" in English prefer "have": hvkou,sate (Mt. 5:21); eu-rongrk grk(8:10); avne,gnwte grk grk grk(12:3); evpacu,nqh kai. h;kousan kai. evka,mmusangrk grk(13:15, LXX, Is. 6:10.


Likely enough the timelessness of the Hebrew perfect may have caused this translation into the aorist so common in the LXX), hvkurw,sate (Mt. 15:6); sune,zeuxengrk grk(19:6); avne,gnwte o[ti kathrti,sw (21: 16); avfh,kategrk grk(23:23); kate,sthsengrk grk(24:45); evpoi,hsengrk grk(27:23)136; hvge,rqh grk grk grk(28:6), evxe,sth (Mk. 3:21), avpe,qanen $5:35; cf. ti, e;ti sku,lleij; 5: 35. Cf. avlla. kaqeu,dei); ei;damen (Lu. 5:26); paredo,qhgrk grk(10:22); h[marton grk grk(15:21); e;gnwsan (Jo. 7:26); avfh/kengrk grk(8:29); e;labongrk grk(10:18); e;deixagrk grk(10:32); evdo,xasagrk grk(12:28. Cf. doxa,sw); e;niyagrk grk(13:14); evxelexa,mhngrk grk grk(13:18); hvga,phsagrk grk(13:34); evgnw,risagrk grk(15:15); ouvk e;gnwsangrk grk(16:3); h=ran- e;qhkangrk grk(20:2); evpia,sate grk(21:10).137 Cf. Mk. 14:8. Abbott remarks, that the Greek perfect does not lay the same stress on what is recently completed as does the English "have." Cf. also ouvk e;gnw (1 Jo. 4:8. Cf. 1 Cor. 8:3); evfanerw,qh (1 Jo. 4:9. Contrast avpe,stalken in verse 9 and hvgaph,kamen├ hvgaph,samen in margin, in verse 10 with hvga,phsen and avpe,steilen in verse 10); e;labon (Ph. 3:12); e;maqongrk grk(4:11); evka,qisen (Heb. 1:3); evxe,sthmen (2 Cor. 5:13). The same event in Mk. 15:44 is first mentioned by h;dh te,qnhken and is then referred to by h;dh (or pa,lai) avpe,qanen. The is not here very great, but each tense is pertinent. However, te,qnhken means practically 'to be dead,' while avpe,qanen = 'died,' 'has died.' Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 108.

( h) Epistolary Aorist. This idiom is merely a matter of standpoint. The writer looks at his letter as the recipient will. It is probably due to delicate courtesy and is common in Latin as well as in the older Greek, though less so in the later Greek.138 The most frequent word so used was e;graya, though e;pemya was also common. The aorist has its normal meaning. One has merely to change his point of view and look back at the writer. In 1 Jo. 2:12-14 we have the rhetorical repetition of gra,fw, e;graya (note the perfects after o[ti). But in 1 Jo. 2:21 e;graya may be the epistolary use, though Winer139 protests against it. Here as in 2:26, tau/ta├ e;graya, the reference may be not to the whole epistle, but to the portion in hand, though even so the standpoint is that of the reader. Cf. also 5:13. In 1 Cor. 9: 15 also the reference is to the verses in hand. In Eph. 3:3, kaqw.j proe,graya evn ovli,gw|, the allusion may be to what Paul has just written or to the whole epistle, as is true of evpe,steila (Heb. 13: 22). Certainly gra,fw is the usual construction in the N. T. (1 Cor. 4:14; 14:37; 2 Cor. 13:10, etc.). ;Egraya usually refers


to an epistle just finished (Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 5:12; 1 Jo. 5:13), but even so the standpoint veers naturally to that of the reader. This is particularly so in Gal. 6:11 which probably refers to the concluding verses 11-18 and, if so, a true epistolary aorist. In Ro. 15:15 the reference may be140 to another portion of the same epistle or to the epistle as a whole. In 1 Cor. 5:9, 11, e;graya refers to a previous letter, as seems to be true also in 2 Cor. 2:3, 4, 9; 3 Jo. 1:9. But e;pemya is found in undoubted instances as in Ac. 23:30; Eph. 6:22; Ph. 2:28; Col. 4:8. So avne,pemya in Phil. 1:12 and hvboulh,qhn in Text. Rec. 2 Jo. 1:12. Curiously enough Gildersleeve141 says: "The aorist in the N. T. [Ep. aor.] is clearly due to Roman influence, and is not to be cited." The epistolary aorist is more common in Latin (cf. Cicero's Letters), probably because of our having more epistolary material. The idiom occurs often enough in the papyri. Cf. e;pemya, B.G.U. 423 (ii/A.D.), e;graya u`pe.r auvtou/ mh. ivdo,toj gra,mmata, P.Oxy. 275 (A.D. 66). There is therefore no adequate reason for denying its presence in the N. T. examples above.

( q) Relation to the Future. The future was probably (cf. Brugmann, Griech. Gr., p. 480) a late development in the language, and other devices were at first used, like the present indicative, the perfect indicative, the aorist subjunctive. The aorist indicative was also one of the expedients that never quite disappeared. It is not exactly, like the epistolary aorist, a change of standpoint. It is a vivid transference of the action to the future (like the present e;rcomai, Jo. 14:3) by the timeless aorist. The augmented form is still used, but the time is hardly felt to be past. This idiom, survives in the Slavonic also.142 It is a vivid idiom and is still found in modern Greek.143 Thumb (Handb., p. 123) cites ki a'n me, soubli,sete├ e[naj Graiko.j evca,qh, 'even if you impale me only one Greek perishes.' Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 124) cites from Epictetus, o[tan qe,lh|j evxh/lqej. Gildersleeve144 calls it "a vision of the future." Burton145 considers it "rather a rhetorical figure than a grammatical idiom," but the idiom is not so strange after all. Cf. Eur., Alc., 386, avpwlo,mhn ei; me lei,yeij='I perish if you leave me.' The examples are not numerous in the N. T. and some of them may be gnomic. Cf. eva,n sou avkou,sh|├ evke,rdhsaj to.n avdelfo,n sou (Mt. 18:15. Cf. para,labe as the next apodosis in verse 16 and e;stw in verse 17); eva.n kai. gamh,sh|j├ ouvc h[martej (1 Cor. 7:


Addenda 3rd ed.

28); o[tan me,llh| salpi,zein├ kai. evtele,sqh (Rev. 10:7), probably also eva.n mh, tij me,nh| evn evmoi,├ evblh,qh- kai. evxhra,nqh (Jo. 15:6), though this may be merely gnomic, as already stated. Cf. the use of evmeri,sqh and e;fqasen in Mt. 12:26, 28 in a condition of the present time. In Jo. 13:31 evdoxa,sqh (twice) is explained (verse 32) by doxa,sei kai. euvqu.j doxa,sei. Cf. p. 1020 (standpoint).

( i) Aorist in Wishes. The special use of the aorist indicative in wishes about the past and conditions determined as unfulfilled will be discussed in chapter XIX, Modes.

( k) Variations in the Use of Tenses. Where so much variety is possible, great freedom is to be expected. In modern English we make a point of uniformity of tense in narrative. The Greeks almost made a point of the opposite. It is jejune, to say no more, to plane down into a dead level the Greek spontaneous variety. Cf. h`marton kai. u`sterou/ntai (Ro. 3:23). In Matt. 4:11, for instance, we have avfi,hsin, (historical pres.), prosh/qon (aor.), dihko,noun (imperfect). In Mt. 13:45 f. note evsti,n├ zhtou/nti├ eu`rw,n├ avpelqw,n├ pe,praken├ ei=cen├ hvgo,rasen. "When they wished to narrate a fact, or to convey a meaning, there is good ground for holding that they employed the tense appropriate for the purpose, and that they employed it just because of such appropriateness."146 That is well said. The explanation is chiefly psychological, not mere analogy, which is true of only a few tenses, especially in late Greek (Middleton, Analogy in Syntax, 1892, p. 6). Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437, lays probably too much stress on "the terminal homophony of the two tenses" (aor. and perf.).

( l) Translation of the Aorist into English. The Greek aorist ind., as can be readily seen, is not the exact equivalent of any tense in any other language. It has nuances all its own, many of them difficult or well-nigh impossible to reproduce in English. Here, as everywhere, one needs to keep a sharp line between the Greek idiom and its translation into English. We merely do the best that we can in English to translate in one way or another the total result of word (Aktionsart), context and tense.147 Certainly one cannot say that the English translations have been successful with the Greek aorist.148 Weymouth in his New Testament in Modern Speech has attempted to carry out a consistent principle with some success. Moulton149 has thought the matter


Addenda 3rd ed.

important enough for an extended discussion. He makes clear that the Greek aorist is true to itself, however it is rendered into English. Take tine.j evkoimh,qhsan (1 Cor. 15:6), for instance, 'fell asleep (at various times),' Moulton explains, "and so have fallen asleep." In Mt. 3:7 u`pe,deixen may be translated by 'has warned,' but 'warned' will answer. The English past will translate the Greek aorist in many cases where we prefer "have." Burton150 puts it clearly thus: "The Greek employs the aorist, leaving the context to suggest the order; the English usually suggests the order by the use of the pluperfect." The Greek aorist takes no note of any interval between itself and the moment of speaking, while the English past takes note of the interval. The Greek aorist and the English past do not exactly correspond, nor do the Greek perfect and the English perfect.151 The Greek aorist covers much more ground than the English past. Cf. dio. evklh,qh o` avgro.j evkei/noj vAgro.j Ai[matoj e[wj th/j sh,meron (Mt. 27:8), where the Greek aorist is connected with the present in a way that only the English perfect can render. See also e[wj a;rti ouvk h|vth,sate (Jo. 16:24). From the Greek point of view the aorist is true to its own genius. The aorist in Greek is so rich in meaning that the English labours and groans to express it. As a matter of fact the Greek aorist is translatable into almost every English tense except the imperfect, but that fact indicates no confusion in the Greek.152

(c) The Aorist Subjunctive and Optative. The aorist of these two " side-moods"153 may very well be discussed together. The two moods are not radically different as we shall see.

(a) No Time Element in the Subjunctive and Optative.154 There is only relative time (future), and that is not due to the tense at al1.155 The subjunctive is future in relation to the speaker, as is often true of the optative, though the optative standpoint is then more remote, a sort of future from the standpoint of the past.

( b) Frequency of Aorist Subjunctive. As between the aorist and present in subjunctive and optative, the aorist is far more common. For practical purposes the perfect may be almost left out of view; it is so rare. As a rule in these moods the action is either punctiliar (aorist) or durative (present). The contrast between point and linear action comes out simply and clearly here. It is just that


seen between the aorist and the imperfect indicative.156 In the classical Sanskrit the subjunctive exists only in a remnant of the first person, which is treated as an imperative, but it is common enough in the early language.157 In Homer (both Iliad and Odyssey) the aorist is in great preponderance over the present (65 to 35 for the average between subjunctive and optative, about the same for each).158 Gildersleeve159 considers the difference due to the nature of the constructions, not to mere lack of differentiation in the early stage of the language. The subj. is more common in Homer than in the later Greek and the aorist subj. is correspondingly abundant. There is no doubt that the aorist is gaining in the koinh, over the present in the subj., opt., imper. (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 123). The distinction is understood. Cf. me,crij a'n h[lioj du,h| (aim) and a;crij a'n evpi,kairon dokh|/ (duration), I. G., XII, 5, 647. Radermacher cites also o[pwj lamba,nwsin and o[pwj la,bwsin, o[pwj u`pa,rch| and i[na doqh|/ from a Pergamum inscr., N.13 (B.C. 300). He fears that this proves confusion between the tenses, and appeals also to the papyrus example i[na gra,fw kai. fluarh,sw (Deissmann, Light, p. 204). But there is no necessary confusion here. The modern Greek preserves clearly the distinction between punctiliar and linear action in the subj. and uses the aorist and present side by side to show it (Thumb, Handb., p. 124). The situation in the N. T. is even more striking. Mr. H. Scott, Birkenhead, England, writes me that he finds only five present subjs. in Acts and one one(13:41) is a quotation. In the Pauline Epistles (13) he notes 258 dependent aorist subjs. and 161 dependent pres. subjs. Gildersleeve160 complains of Stahl's wearisomeness in proving what "no one will dispute." The point is that the aorist subj. or opt. is used as a matter of course unless durative (linear) action is to be emphasized or (as rarely) the completed state is to be stressed (perfect). But variations occur even here. Thus Abbott161 notes only two instances of the pres. subj.


with eva,n in Mk. Mk.(9:45; 14:31) and two in Lu. Lu.(6:33; 19:31), apart from and except clauses with e;cw and qe,lw. The aorist subjunctive with eva,n occurs in Synoptics 24 times, present 79. But in John there is more diversity between the two tenses. "Most Greek writers observe the distinction between the aorist and present subjunctive, as Englishmen observe that between 'shall' and unconsciously and without any appearance of deliberately emphasizing the difference. But we have seen above (2511) that John employs the two forms with great deliberateness, even in the same sentence, to distinguish between the beginning of 'knowing' and the development of it."162 Cf. i[na gnw/te kai. ginw,skhtegrk grk(10:38) and eiv tau/ta oi;date├ maka,rioi, evste eva.n poih/te auvta,grk grk(13:17), where the pres. is again used purposely. Note also John's ti, poiw/mengrk grk(6:28) and Luke's ti, poih,swmengrk grk(3:10). We need not follow all the details of Abbott,163 but he has made it perfectly clear that John makes the sharp distinction between the aor. and pres. subj. that is common between the aor. and imperf. ind. Cf. eva,n tij thrh,sh| (Jo. 8:51) and eva.n thrw/men (1 Jo. 2:3); o[ti a'n aivth,shte (Jo. 14:13) and oa} a'n aivtw/men (1 Jo. 3:22). But Paul also knows the punctiliar force of the aor. subj. Cf. a`marth,swmen (Ro. 6:15) with evpime,nwmengrk grk(6:1), where the point lies chiefly in the difference of tense. See also 2 Tim. 2:5, eva.n de. kai. avqlh|/ tij├ ouv stefanou/tai eva.n mh. nomi,mwj avqlh,sh|. Cf. poih/te in Gal. 5:17. In deliberative questions the aorist subj. is particularly common, as in dw/men ha} mh. dw/men (Mk. 12:14). In eivrh,nhn e;cwmen (Ro. 5:1) the durative present occurs designedly = 'keep on enjoying peace with God,' the peace already made ( dikaiwqe,ntej). Moulton (Prol., p. 186) thinks that the aorist subj. in relative clauses like oa}j a'n foneu,sh| (Mt. 5:21), or o[pou eva.n katala,bh| (Mk. 9:18), or conditional sentences like eva.n avspa,shsqe (Mt. 5:47) "gets a future-perfect sense." But one doubts if after all this is not reading English or Latin into the Greek. Cf. Mt. 5:31. The special construction of the aorist subj. with ( ouv mh,) (Jo. 6:35; 18:11) comes up for discussion elsewhere (pp. 929 f., 1174 f.).

( g) Aktionsart. The three kinds of point-action occur, of course, in the aorist subj. Thus in i[na marturh,sh| (Jo. 1:7) the aorist is merely constative, as is eva.n mei,hnte evn evmoi, (Jo. 15:7). Cf. eva.n mh, tij me,nh| evn evmoi,grk grk(15:6). In Jo. 6:30, i[na i;dwmen kai. pisteu,sw─ me,n soi├ the ingressive use is evident in pisteu,swmen = 'come to believe' (cf. i[na pisteu,hte in verse 29). Cf. also i[na pistue,swmen kai. avgapw/men (1 Jo. 3:23); peripath,swmen (Ro. 6:4; 13:13). The


effective aorist is seen in pw/j plhrwqw/sin (Mt. 26:54). Cf. o[tan katargh,sh| (1 Cor. 15:24) for the "perfective" use of the preposition also. In the modern Greek the aorist subj. preserves Aktionsart (Thumb, Handb., p. 124).

( d) Aorist Subjunctive in Prohibitions. It seems clear164 that originally both in Sanskrit and Greek prohibition was expressed only by the subj. Hence the growth of the imperative never finally displaced it. In particular the aorist subj. held its place in prohibitions as against the aorist imper. (a late form anyhow). This distinction has held in the main right on through. In the N. T. examples of the aor. imper. in prohibitions do occur in the third person, but the aor. subj. survives. In the second person the rule is still absolute. Moulton165 has given a very interesting discussion of the development of the discovery of the distinction between the two constructions. The aor. subj. is of course punctiliar, and the present imper. linear. Inasmuch as the prohibition is future, the aorist subj. would naturally be ingressive. Gottfried Hermann long ago made the distinction, but a few years ago Dr. Henry Jackson tells how one day he got the idea from a friend (quoted by Moulton166): "Davidson told me that, when he was learning modern Greek, he had been puzzled about the distinction, until he heard a Greek friend use the present imperative to a dog which was barking. This gave him the clue. He turned to Plato's Apology, and immediately stumbled upon the excellent instance, 20 E, mh. qorubh,shte, 'before clamour begins,' and 21 A, mh. qorubei/te, 'when it has begun.' "This distinction is clearly in harmony with the punctiliar aorist subj. and the durative present imper. It is maintained in ancient Greek and in modern Greek, and Moulton167 shows how the papyri abundantly illustrate it. Unfortunately the present imperative is rare in the papyri from the nature of the. subject-matter, but the few examples agree to the distinction drawn. The aorist subjunctive is abundant enough. Moulton (Prol., p. 123) finds in O.P. (all ii/A.D.) six aorist subjs. with mh,. Thus mh. avmelh,sh|j refers to a request in a letter. Cf. also mh. a;llwj poih,sh|j├ o[ra mhdeni.──proskrou,sh|j) But tou/to mh. le,ge, 'stop saying this,' is in a letter in reference to what had already been said. So mh. avgwni,a, 'don't go on worrying' Another good example is in Hb.P. 56 (iii/B.C.), su. ou-n mh. evno,clei auvto,n. Moulton clinches it by the modern Greek mh. gra,fh|j (to one already writing) and mh. gra,yh|j (to one who has not begun),


The distinction is not admitted by all modern scholars.168 But the difficulty lies mainly in the use of the present imperative, not in the aorist subj. Examples like mh. qauma,sh|j (Jo. 3:7) do occur, where the thing prohibited has begun. Here it is the constative aorist rather than the ingressive which is more usual in this construction. Moulton169 quotes Dr. Henry Jackson again: " Mh. dra,sh|j always, I believe, means, 'I warn you against doing this,' 'I beseech you will not'; though this is sometimes used when the thing is being done; notably in certain cases which may be called colloquial or idiomatic, with an effect of impatience, mh, fronti,sh|j, 'Oh, never mind!' mh. dei,sh|j, 'Never fear!' mh. qauma,sh|j, 'You mustn't be surprised!'" Add also mh. fobhqh|/j (Mt. 1:20). But, as a rule, it is the ingressive aorist subj. used in prohibitions to forbid a thing not yet done or the durative present imper. to forbid the continuance of an act. The N. T. is very rich in examples of both of these idioms because of the hortatory nature of the books.170 Moulton171 finds 134 examples of mh, with the pres. imper. and 84 of mh, with the aorist subj. In Matthew there are 12 examples of mh, with the pres. imper. and 29 of mh, with the aorist subj. But these figures are completely reversed in the Gospel of Luke (27 to 19), in James (7 to 2), in Paul's Epistles (47 to 8) and John's writings (19 to 1). The case in Jo. 3:7 has already been noticed. It may be said at once that the excess of examples of pres. imper. over aorist imper. is the old situation in Homer.172 In the Attic orators, Miller (A. J. P., xiii, 423) finds the proportion of mh. poi,ei type to mh. poih,sh|j type 56 to 44, about the same as that in the N. T., 134 to 84. In the N. T. this predominance holds except in Matthew, 1 Peter and Rev. (Moulton, Prol., p.124). The aorist imper. was an after-growth, and yet is very common in the N. T. (and LXX) as compared with the older Greek.173 In a the Lord's Prayer, for instance, every tense is aorist (Mt. 6:9-13). Gildersleeve remarks that the aorist suits "instant prayer." But cf. Lu. 11: 2-4. However, the point is


here that in the N. T., as a rule, the idiom gives little difficulty. Cf. mh. nomi,shte (Mt. 5:17); mh. eivsene,gkh|j h`ma/j (Mt. 6:13; Lu. 11:4); mh. sth,sh|j auvtoi/j tau,thn (Ac. 7:60). Cf. mh. salpi,sh|j (Mt. 6:2), 'don't begin to sound,' and mh. qhsauri,zetegrk grk(6:19), 'they were already doing it.' Note again mh. dw/te mhde. ba,lhte (Mt. 7:6) and mh. kri,netegrk grk(7:1). With Mt. 3:9 mh. do,xhte le,gein compare Lu. 3:8 mh. a;rxhsqe le,gein. But in Lu. 3:14, mhde,na diasei,shte mhde. sukofanth,shte, we have the constative aorist rather than the pres. imper. (the soldiers were present, if John spoke in Greek to them, more restrained at any rate). In Lu. 11:7, mh, moi ko,pouj pa,rece╩ 'quit troubling me,' while in Rev. 10:4, mh. auvta. gra,yh|j╩ 'do not begin to write.' (Cf. h;mellon gra,fein in same verse.) It is not necessary to labour the point. But in Mt. 6:25 we have mh. merimna/te, implying that they were anxious in 6:34, mh. ou=n meri─ mnh,shte, a general warning in conclusion. Once more, in Mt. 10:26, note mh. ou=n fobei/sqe auvtou,j, the warning against fearing evil men; in 10:31, mh. ou=n fobei/sqe╩ 'quit being afraid.' In Jo. 5:45, mh. dokei/te, it is implied that 'they had been thinking that'; in 2 Cor. 11:16, mh, ti,j me do,xh|, 'no one did, of course.'174 In Jo. 6:43 mh. goggu,zete is interpreted by evgo,gguzon in verse 41. Cf. mh. klai,ete (Lu. 8:52), 'they were weeping.' In mh. do,xh| (2 Cor. 11:16) and mh. evxouqenh,sh| (1 Cor. 16:11) the normal use of mh, with the aorist subj. occurs with the third person. A good double example occurs in Lu. 10:4, mh. basta,zete balla,ntion ('don't keep carrying'), and in mhde,na avspa,shsqe ('don't stop to salute'). In Col. 2:21 mh. a[yh| a warning to the Colossian Christians not to be led astray by the gnostic asceticism. In 2 Cor. 6:17, avkaqa,rtou mh. a[ptesqe, the prophet (Is. 52:11) assumes that the people were guilty, if aAQ be followed as by Paul, but B has a[yhsqe. In Jo. 20:17, mh, mou a[ptou, Jesus indicates that Mary must cease clinging to him. Cf. mh,te ovmo,sh|j (Mt. 5:36) and mh. ovmnu,ete (Jas. 5:12). As to the present imperative further discussion belongs elsewhere, but a word is necessary here. Moulton175 thinks that "rather strong external pressure is needed to force the rule upon Paul." John has only one case of mh, with the aorist subj., and yet Moulton holds that all his uses of the present imper. fit the canon completely. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 164) says: " mh, with the present imperative has to do with a course of action and means sometimes 'keep from' (resist), sometimes 'cease to' (desist)." So 'continue not doing,' or 'do not continue doing.' One of the imper. presents is merely exclama-


Addenda 3rd ed.

Addenda 3rd ed.

tory (cf. a;ge, Jas. 5:1). Another, like o[ra with mhdeni. ei;ph|j (Mt. 8:4), is almost like a "sort of particle adding emphasis."176 If "a negative course of action" (Gildersleeve) is enjoined, it is not necessarily implied that one is doing the thing. Moulton's difficulty about Paul is thus obviated. Hence the answer177 to mh. poi,ei, which usually= 'Stop doing,' may be in a given case= 'Do not from time to time,' 'Do not as you are in danger of doing,' 'Do not attempt to do' or simply 'Continue not doing.' In Eph. 5:18 mh. mequ,skesqe may mean that some of them were getting drunk (cf. even at the Lord's Table, 1 Cor. 11:21), or a course of action (the habit) may be prohibited. In mh. a`marta,nete (Eph. 4:26) the imminent peril of sin may be implied (cf. ovrgi,zesqe). So in in mh. yeu,desqe (Col. 3:9) we may have the course of action, though the usual linear notion is pertinent. But cf. mh. avme,lei (1 Tim. 4:14), mhdeni. evpiti,qei, and mhde. koinw,neigrk grk(5:22),178 and mh. gi,ne─ sqe w`j oi` u`pokritai, (Mt. 6:16), as illustrations of the point in dispute. In the modern Greek "as a prohibitive the aorist subj. is on the whole less commonly used than the pres. subj." (Thumb, Handb., p. 127). Mh, with the present imper. survives in a few instances, but the subj. in modern Greek does practically all the work of prohibiting.

( e) Aorist Subjunctive with ouv mh,. It is merely the tense that calls for comment here, not the mode nor the negative. The present subj. was sometimes used with ouv mh, in the ancient Greek, but no examples occur in the N. T. The aorist is very natural as the action is distinctly punctiliar. Of the 100 examples of ouv mh, in the W. H. text, 86 are with the aorist subj., 14 are future inds.179 Cf. ouv mh. eivse,lqhte (Mt. 5:20); ouvke,ti ouv mh. pi,w (Mk. 14:25). The other aspects of the subject will be discussed elsewhere (chapters on Modes and Particles).

( z% Aorist Optative. It is more frequent than the present in the N. T. This is partly due to the relative frequency of mh. ge,noito (cf. Gal. 6:14) and the rarity of the optative itself. The distinction of tense is preserved. Cf. mhdei.j fa,goi (ingressive, Mk. 11:14); plhqunqei,h (effective, 1 Pet. 1:2); kateuqu,nai- pleona,sai kai. perisseu,sai (constative, 1 Th. 3:11 f.). Cf. dw|,h (2 Tim. 1:16, 18). Cf. 2 Tim. 4:16. These are wishes. The aorist occurs also with the potential opt. as in ti, a[n poih,saien, (Lu. 6:11). Cf. Ac. 26:29. In the N. T. certainly the optative usually refers to the future (relatively), though Gildersleeve180 is willing to admit


that Homer uses the potential opt. with to a few times of the past. The opt. in indirect questions has to be noted.

(d) The Aorist Imperative. In Homer the aorist imperative, as already stated, is not so common as the present, while in the N. T. it is remarkably frequent.181 This frequency of the imper. is characteristic of the koinh, generally,182 though in the end the subj. came to be used in positive commands like the Latin.183 There is no complication in the positive command, like the ban put upon mh. poi,hson from the beginning of our knowledge of the Greek language.184 Hence in the positive imperative we are free to consider the significance of the aorist (and present) tense in the essential meaning. Here the distinction between the punctiliar (aorist) and the durative (present) is quite marked.185 Indeed Moulton (Prol., p. 129) holds that to get at "the essential character of aorist action, therefore, we must start with the other moods" than ind. It is easier, for the time element is absent. Cf. peribalou/ to. i`ma,tio,n sou kai. avkolou,qei moi (Ac. 12:8). It is exactly the distinction between the aorist and imperf. ind. (cf. evxelqw.n hvkolou,qei in verse 9). The constative aorist, peribalou/, is like the preceding, zw/sai kai. u`po,dhsai ta. sanda,lia, sou) In Jo. 5:8 note a-ron to.n kra,batto,n sou kai. peripa,tei (the ingressive aorist and the durative, 'walking,' 'went on walking'), and the same tensedistinction is preserved in verse 9, h=re───kai. periepa,tei (cf. further 5:11). In u[page ni,yai (Jo. 9:7) the present u[page is exclamatory (cf. e;geire a=ron in 5:8). Cf. Mk. 2:9, 11. In the midst of the aorists in Jo. 2:5-8 (the effective poih,sate├ gemi,sate├ avntlh,sate nu/n) the present fe,rete stands out. It is probably a polite conative offer to the master of the feast. In the Lord's Prayer in Mt. Mt.(6:911) note a`giasqh,tw├ genhqh,tw├ do,j├ a;fej and ei;selqe──por,seuxai in 6:6. In opposition to do.j sh,meron in Matthew we have di,dou to. kaq v h`me,ran in Lu. 11:3, a fine contrast between the punctiliar and the linear action.186 So tw|/ aivtou/nti do,j (Mt. 5:42) and panti. aivtou/nti di,dou (Lu. 6:30); ca,rhte evn evkei,nh| th|/ h`me,ra| (Lu. 6:23) and. cai,rete (Mt. 5:12); a;rate tau/ta evnteu/qen├ mh. poiei/te (Jo. 2:16, a, very fine illustration). In Ro. 6:13 a pointed distinction in. the tenses is drawn, mhde. parista,nete ta. me,lh u`mw/n o[pla avdiki,aj th|/ a`marti,a|├ avlla. parasth,sate e`autou,j (one the habit of sin forbidden, the other the instant surrender to God enjoined). Cf. also nu/n


Addenda 3rd ed.

parasth,sate in verse 19. In Lu. 7:8, poreu,qhti - poreu,etai├ poi,h─ son- poiei/, the presents are also aoristic. As with the ind. the aorist (constative) may be used with a durative word. So mei,nate evn th|/ avga,ph| th|/ evmh|/ (Jo. 15:9). The action, durative in itself, is treated as punctiliar. Cf. Mt. 26:38, mei,nate w-de kai. grhgorei/te met v evmou/ (Mk. 14:34). So with makroqumh,sate e[wj th/j parousi,aj tou/ kuri,ou (Jas. 5:7); th.n paraqh,khn fu,laxon (1 Tim. 6:20. Cf. 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Jo. 5:21); tau/ta para,qou (2 Tim. 2:2); sunako─ pa,qhsongrk grk(2:3); spou,dasongrk grk(2:15). Cf. the aorists in Jas. 4:9. Most of them call for little comment. Cf. Jo. 4:16, 35. Abbott187 notes the avoidance of the aorist imper. of pisteu,w, possibly because mere belief (aorist) had come to be misunderstood. The pres. imper. presses the continuance of faith (cf. Jo. 14:11). The real force of the effective aorist is seen in lu,sate to.n nao.n tou/─ ton (Jo. 2:19). In Mk. 15:32, kataba,tw nu/n, the "perfective" force of the preposition is added. Moulton188 notes that 1 Peter shows a marked liking for the aorist (20 aorists to 5 presents in commands, H. Scott), while Paul's habit, as already noted, is just the opposite. Moulton189 has an interesting comment on the fact that "in seven instances only do the two evangelists [Mt. 5-7 and Luke's corresponding passage] use different tenses, and in all of them the accompanying variation of phraseology accounts for the differences in a way which shows how delicately the distinction of tenses was observed." There may be variations in the translation of the Aramaic original (if the Sermon on the Mount was spoken in Aramaic?), "but we see no trace of indifference to the force of the tenses." In the imperative also different writers will prefer a different tense. One writer is more fond of the aorist, another of the present. Note the impressive aorists, a;rate to.n li,qon├ lu,sate auvto.n kai. a;fete auvto.n u`pa,gein (Jo. 11:39, 44). Abbott190 rightly calls the aorist here more authoritative and solemn than the present would have been. The aorist here accords with the consciousness of Jesus Jesus(11:41, h;kousaj). The aorist imper. occurs in prohibitions of the third person, like mh. gnw,tw (Mt. 6:3); mh. kataba,twgrk grk(24:17); mh. evpistreya,twgrk grk(24:18). This construction occurs in ancient Greek, as mhde, se kinhsa,tw tij├ Soph. Ai. 1180. But mh, and the aorist subj. was preferred. In the N. T. this is rarely found (1 Cor. 16:11; 2 Th. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:16).

(e) The Aorist Infinitive. In Homer the durative (present) idea is more common than the punctiliar (aorist) with the infini-


Live, as with the imperative.191 There is, of course, no time in the inf. except relative time in indirect discourse. The history of the inf. belongs elsewhere, but here we have only to do with the excellent illustration of punctiliar action afforded by the aorist inf. Radermacher, p. 123, finds the aorist and the pres. inf. together in the Carthaginian inscr. (Audollent, 238, 29, Hi/A.D.), mhde. tre,─ cein mhde. peripatei/n mhde. nikh/sai mhde. evxelqei/n. So in the papyri B.G.U., I, 183, 25. The features of the tenses in the inf., once they are fully established, correspond closely to the use in the moods.192 As a matter of fact originally the inf., because of its substantival origin, was devoid of real tense-idea (Moulton, Prol., p. 204), and it was only by analogy that tense-ideas were associated with the inf. But still the aorist inf. deserves a passing word. Take Ac. 15:37 f., for instance,193 Barna,baj de. evbou,leto sun─ paralabei/n kai. to.n vI) to.n kal) Ma,rkon. Here the constative aorist is perfectly natural for the proposed journey. But see the outcome, Pau/loj de. hvxi,ou- mh. sunparalamba,nein tou/ton. Paul was keenly conscious of the discomfort of Mark's previous desertion. He was not going to subject himself again to that continual peril (durative). Cf. also Mt. 14:22, hvna,gkase tou.j maqhta.j evmbh/nai (constative aorist), kai. proa,gein auvto,n (durative, 'go on ahead of him'). An interesting example occurs in Jo. 13:36 f., ouv du,nasai, moi nu/n avkolouqh/sai (constative aorist most likely); dia. ti, ouv du,namai, soi avkolouqei/n a;rti (durative, 'keep on following,' is Peter's idea).194 The aorist inf. is the predominant construction with du,namai├ du─ nato,j├ qe,lw├ keleu,w, etc.195 The distinction in tenses is well observed. For du,namai see further lamba,nein (Jo. 3:27) and labei/n grk(14:17); basta,zeingrk grk(16:12) and basta,sai (Rev. 2:2); pisteu/sai, (Jo. 5:44) and pisteu,eingrk grk(12:39).196 Abbott notes also that poih/sai occurs in John with du,namai, only in Jo. 11:37, whereas ivdei/n├ eivselqei/n├ gennh─ qh/nai are natural natural(3:3 ff.). So with qe,lw note labei/n (Jo. 6:21); pia,saigrk grk(7:44), but evrwta/ngrk grk(16:19). In Mt. 5:17 f. katalu/sai and plhrw/sai are effective, but sigh/sai (Ac. 15:13) is ingressive, while aivth/sai (Mt. 6 : 8) is constative. Cf. Lu. 7:24 f. The aorist inf. is rare with me,llw ( avpokalufqh/nai, Ro. 8:18; Gal. 3:23, though avpokalu,ptesqai in 1 Pet. 5:1). So e;melon avpoqanei/n (Rev. 3:2). Cf. Rev. 3:16; 12:4. A good example of the constative aorist


Addenda 3rd ed.

inf. occurs in Ro. 14:21.197 The aorist inf. is used with an aorist as the ind., ouvk h=lqon katalu/sai (Mt. 5:17), the subj., ei;pwmen pu/r katabh/nai (Lu. 9:54), the imper., a;fej qa,yai (Mt. 8:22). But the aorist inf. is common also with durative tenses like evzh,toun krath/sai (Mk. 12:12); ouvk h;qelen──evpa/rai (Lu. 18:13). There is apparently no instance in the N. T. of an aorist inf. used to represent an aorist ind. in indirect discourse.198 In Lu. 24:46, o[ti ou[twj ge,graptai paqei/n kai. avnasth/nai evk nekrw/n, we have the usual timeless aorist, the subject of ge,graptai. So mh. ivdei/n grk(2:26). In Ac. 3:18 paqei/n is the object of prokath,ggeilen. The aorist and pres. inf. with prepositions vary a good deal. The aorist occurs with meta, (Mt. 26:32; Lu. 12:5, etc.), with pro, (Lu. 2:21; Jo. 1:48); pro,j (Mt. 6:1); eivj (Ph. 1:23); and even with evn sometimes (Lu. 2:27), but only once with dia,, (Mt. 24:12). Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f. The following are Mr. H. Scott's figures for the Synoptics:

to, tou/ dia. to, eivj to, evn tw|/ meta. to, pro. tou/ pro.j to, Total  
P A P A P A P A P A P A P A P A P A Perf.
2 4 9 22 12 1 1 6 31 8 - 6 - 3 2 5 57 55 4
6 31 13 7 39     7 116
  Perf. 4  

There are more articular presents than aorists in N. T.

(f) The Aorist Participle. The tenses got started with the participle sooner than with the inf. (cf. Sanskrit), but in neither is there time except indirectly. The Sanskrit had tenses in the participles. The aorist part. is not so frequent in Homer as is the present.199 But "the fondness of the Greeks for aorist participles in narrative is very remarkable."200

(a) Aktionsart. That is present here also. Thus we find the ingressive aorist, metamelhqei, (Mt. 27:3); fobhqei/sa (Mk. 5:33); avgnoh,santej (Ac. 13:27); avgaph,saj (2 Tim. 4:10). The effective


aorist appears in plhrw,santej (Ac. 12:25), the constative in sun─ paralabo,ntej (ib.). Further examples of the effective aorist are pei,santej tou.j o;clouj kai. liqa,santej to.n Pau/lon (Ac. 14:19); dikaiw─ qe,ntej (Ro. 5:1). The constative is seen again in paradou,j (Mt. 27:4); pisteu,santej (Jo. 7:39). The aorist participle in itself is, of course, merely punctiliar action.

( b) `O and the Aorist Participle. The punctiliar force of the aorist part. is well illustrated in this idiom. It differs from the relative ( o[j + verb) in being a more general expression. In Mt. 23:20 f., o` ovmo,saj ovmnu,ei, we have identical action, not antecedent. The aorist is, strictly speaking, timeless (Burton, Moods and Tenses, p. 69). `O ovmo,saj╩ 'the swearer,' o` labw,n= 'the receiver,' etc. Cf. Seymour, "On the Use of the Aorist Part. in Greek," Transactions of the Am. Philol. Ass., 1881, p. 89. In John the examples, however, are usually definite.201 Contrast o` labw,n (Jo. 3:33) probably= 'the Baptist' with pa/j o` avkou,saj - maqw,n (6: 45) and oi` avkou,antej├ oi` poih,santejgrk grk(5:25, 29). `O+ aorist part. may be used with any tense of the ind. Thus o` labw,n in Jo. 3: 33 occurs with evsfara,gisen├ pa/j o` avkou,sajgrk grk(6:45) with e;rcetai, oi` poih,santejgrk grk(5:29) with evkporeu,sontai. Cf. Mt. 26:52, pa,ntej oi` labo,ntej ma,cairan evn macai,rh| avpolou/ntai. In simple truth the aorist in each instance is timeless. It is not necessary to take it as= future perf.202 in an example like o` u`pomei,naj eivj te,loj ou-toj swqh,setai (Mk. 13:13). So Mt. 10:39. Note the resumptive ou-toj. Cf. o` gnou,j- kai. mh. e`toima,saj h' poih,saj darh,setai (Lu. 12: 47). Cf. Jo. 7:39; 16:2; 20:29, in all of which examples the simple punctiliar action is alone presented in a timeless manner. But in Jo. 3:13, ouvdei.j avnabe,bhken eivj to.n ouvrano.n eiv mh. o` evk tou/ ouv─ ranou/ kataba,j, the content suggests antecedent action. Cf. also 6:41, evgw, eivmi o` a;rtoj o` kataba,j203; to.n avpostei,lanta in Mt. 10: 40; Jo. 5:15, o` poih,saj; Heb. 10:29. `O and the aorist part. is sometimes used of an act past with reference to the time of writing, though future with reference to the action of the principal verb.204 This classic idiom occurs in the N. T. also. Cf. vIou,daj o` vIskariw,thj o` kai. paradou.j auvto,n, (Mt. 10:4; cf. also 27:3); usually the phrase is o` paradidou,jgrk grk(26:25; Jo. 18:2, 5). So in Ac. 1:16 both genome,nou and sullabou/sin are future to proei/pe. In Col. 1:8 o` kai. dhlw,saj is future to evma,qete. So Jo. 11:2 (cf. 12:3) h=n de. Maria.m h` avle,yasa to.n ku,rion mu,rw| kai. evkma,xasa tou.j


po,daj auvtou/. Cf. Ac. 7:35 tou/ ovfqe,ntoj, 9:21 o` porqh,saj. This development, though apparently complex, is clue to the very indefiniteness (and timelessness) of the aorist participle and the adjectival force of the attributive participle.

( g) Antecedent Action. This is the usual idiom with the circumstantial participle. This is indeed the most common use of the aorist participle. But it must not be forgotten that the aorist part. does not in itself mean antecedent action, either relative or absolute.205 That is suggested by the context, the natural sequence of events. As examples of the antecedent aorist part. (antecedent from context, not per se) take nhsteu,saj- evpei,nasen, (Mt. 4:2); ivdw.n- metamelhqei.j e;streyen,grk grk(27:3); r`i,yaj - avnecw,rhsen, avpelqw.n avph,gxato grk(27:5). These so-called antecedent aorists do not have to precede the principal verb in position in the sentence. Thus h;geiren auvth.n krath,saj th/j ceiro,j (Mk. 1:31), euvca─ ristou/men- avkou,santej (Col. 1:3, 4), me,llei kri,nein- parascw,n (Ac. 17:31), evka,qisen- geno,menoj (Heb. 1:3). This idiom is very common in the N. T. as in the older Greek.206 Indeed, one participle may precede and one may follow the verb as in Lu. 4:35, r`i,yan- evxh/lqen- bla,yan. In Heb. 6:10 the aorist is distinguished from the present, evnedei,xasqe- diakonh,santej toi/j a`gi,oij kai. diakonou/ntej. In Ro. 5:16, div e`no,j a`marth,santoj, there is a reference to Adam (verse 14). The principal verb may itself be future as in a;raj──poih,sw (1 Cor. 6:15). In Lu. 23:19 h=n blhqei,j is punctiliar periphrastic (aorist passive), h=n being aoristic also. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites h=n avkou,sasa from Pelagia (inscr. 18). Cf. h=san geno,menoi in Thuc. 4, 54, 3, and ei=h fanei,j in Herod. 3:27. See Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 125.

( d) But Simultaneous Action is Common also. It is so with the circumstantial participle as with the supplementary. Here again it is a matter of suggestion. It is simple enough with the supplementary participle as in e;laqon xeni,santej (Heb. 13:2), though rare, the present suiting better (cf. Mt. 17:25). The usual idiom is seen in evpau,sato lalw/n (Lu. 5:4). Indeed this simultaneous action is in exact harmony with the punctiliar meaning of the aorist tense. It is a very common idiom (chiefly circumstantial) in the N. T.207as in the older Greek.208 So pe,myaj- ei=pen (Mt. 2:8); avpokriqei.j ei=pengrk grk(22:1); h[marton paradou.j ai-ma di,kaiongrk grk(27:4);


te kalw/j evpoi,hsaj parageno,menoj (Ac. 10:33); crhsa,menoj evpe,streyen,grk grk(27:3). Cf. Ac. 1:24; Ro. 4:20; Heb. 2:10. It is needless to press the point except to observe that the order of the part. is immaterial. Note Ac. 10:33 above. So in sw/son kataba,j (Mk. 15:30); h=lqan speu,santej (Lu. 2:16. Cf. sw/son kataba,j, Lu. 19:5); evmartu,rhsen dou.j to. pneu/ma (Ac. 15:8); die,krinen kaqari,sajgrk grk grk(15:9); evpoi,hsan avpostei,lantejgrk grk(11:30); evgkate,leipen avgaph,saj (2 Tim. 4:10); evla,bete pisteu,santej (Ac. 19:2). This construction of the part. after the verb is very common in the N. T. The coincident use of the aorist tense occurs also with the imperfect, as evkpeplh,rwken- avnasth,saj (Ac. 7:26), evvpibalw.n e;kaien (Mk. 14:72); the present, as avpokriqei.j le,gei (Mk. 8:29); the perfect, as sunh,llassen- eivpw,n (Ac. 13:33); and the future, as kalw/j poih,seij prope,myaj (3 Jo. 1:6).209 In many examples only exegesis can determine whether antecedent or coincident action is intended, as in Heb. 9:12 eivsh/lqen- eu`ra,menoj (Moulton, Prol., p. 132). So Moulton (ib., p. 131) notes eivpou/sa a for antecedent and ei;pasa (BC*) for coincident action in Jo. 11:28. The coincident aorist part. is common enough in the ancient Greek (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 141). The papyri show it also. Cf. euv poih,─ seij dou,j, F.P. 121 (iii A.D.), a constant formula in the papyri (Moulton, Prol., p. 131). Moulton (ib.) illustrates the obscure evpibalw,n in Mk. 14:72 by evpibalw.n sune,cwsen Tb.P. 50 (B.C.), 'he set to and dammed up.' If it is coincident in Mark, it is so "with the first point of the linear e;klaien."

( e) Subsequent Action not Expressed by the Aorist Participle. Some writers have held this as possible, though no satisfactory examples have been adduced. Gildersleeve210 denies that Stahl succeeds in his implication. "Coincidence or adverbiality will explain the tense." Burton211 likewise admits that no certain instance of an aorist part. used to express subsequent action has been found. He claims the idiom in the N. T. to be due to "Aramaic influence." But we can no longer call in the Aramaic or Hebrew, alas, unless the Greek itself will not square with itself. The instances cited by Burton are all in Acts Acts(16:23; 22:24; 23:35; 24:23; 25:13). "In all these cases it is scarcely possible to doubt that the participle (which is without the article and follows the verb) is equivalent to kai, with a co-ordinate verb and refers to an action


subsequent in fact and in thought to that of the verb which it follows."212 This view is held by Prof. Sir W. M. Ramsay213 to apply to Ac. 16:6, and is in fact essential to his interpretation of that passage. Rackham214 adds Ac. 12:25 and regards these examples as "decisive." Another instance urged is Ac. 21:14. But are they "decisive" after all? Gildersleeve215 is still unconvinced. Blass216 bluntly says that such a notion "is not Greek" and even refuses to follow the uncials in Ac. 25:13 in reading avspasa,menoi rather than avspaso,menoi. Moulton217 refuses to follow Rackham in his interpretation of Ac. 12:25: "But to take sunparalabo,ntej in this way involves an unblushing aorist of subsequent action, and this I must maintain has not yet been paralleled in the N. T. or outside." And, once more, Schmiedel218 comments on Ac. 16:6: "It has to be maintained that the participle must contain, if not something antecedent to 'they went' ( dih/lqon), at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and all sure understanding of language are not to be given up." The matter might safely be left in the hands of these three great grammarians. But an appeal to the examples will be interesting. As to Ac. 12:25, u`pe,streyan- plhrw,santej th.n diakoni,an├ sunpara─ labo,ntej vIwa,nhn, there is no problem at all unless eivj be read rather than evx or avpo,. It is true that aBL read eivj, but that reading is contradicted by the context. In 11:30 it is plain that Barnabas and Saul were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, and in 13:3, 5, they are in Antioch with John Mark. The great uncials are not always correct, but if they are right in reading eivj, the text has been otherwise tampered with. Even granting the genuineness of eivj and the "subsequent" aorist, we are absolutely in the dark as to the sense of the passage. With eivj the coincident aorist is good Greek, but still leaves us in the dark. With evx or avpo, there is no problem at all, plhrw,santej being antecedent, and sunpara─ labo,ntej coincident. In 16:6, dih/lqon de. th.n Frugi,an kai. Galatikh.n


cw,ran├ kwluqe,ntej u`po. tou/ a`gi,ou pneu,matoj lalh/sai to.n lo,gon evn th|/ vAsi,a|, the participle is naturally antecedent (or coincident). Paul was headed west for Asia, but, being forestalled by the Spirit, he turned farther north through "the Phrygian and Galatic region." Later he tried to push on into Bithynia, but the Spirit again interposed and he deflected northwest to Troas Troas(16:7 f.). One is not entitled to make kwluqe,ntej╩ kai. evkwlu,qhsan because of the exigencies of a theory that demands that "the Phrygian and Galatic region" be Lycaonia (southern part of the Roman province of Galatia), which had already been traversed traversed(16:1 f.). Besides, the narrative in 16:6 seems to be not resumptive, but a new statement of progress. Whatever the fate of the much discussed "South Galatian" theory, the point of grammar here is very clear. Another so-called instance is in 16:23, e;balon eivj fulakh,n├ paraggei,lantej tw| / desmwfu,laki. This is so obviously a case of coincident action that it would never have been adduced but for need of examples to support a theory elsewhere. Certainly "in 17:26 o`ri,saj is not 'later' than the evpoi,hsen in time (Moulton, Prol., p. 133). Still worse is the instance in 21:14, mh. peiqome,nou de. auvtou/ h`ruca,samen eivpo,ntej \ Tou/ kuri,ou to. qe,lhma gine,sqw. The participle is here necessarily antecedent or coincident (this last remark of acquiescence). So in 22:24, evke,leusen- ei;paj, the participle is coincident like the common avpokriqei..j ei=pen. Cf. le,gwn in Heb. 2:11 f.; Ac. 7:35. Precisely the same thing is true of e;fh - keleu,saj in 23:35. In 24:23, avneba,leto is expanded by three coincident aorist participles, eivdw,j - ei;paj──diataxa,menoj. There remains 25:13, kath,nthsan eivj Kaisari,an avspasa,menoi to.n Fh/ston. Here Blass, as already noted, accepts the future avspaso,─ menoi, but the aorist is probably correct. But even so, if one simply notes the "perfective" force of the preposition in kath,nth─ san, 'went down,' he will have no difficulty at all with the coincident action of the aorist part. Kath,nthsan is the effective aorist and accents the end (reinforced by kat--). They came down saluting' ('by way of salutation'). The salutation took place, of course, when they were "down" ( kat-). Findlay (in loco) connects avsp. with the initial act of kath,nthsan. Thus vanish into air the examples of "subsequent" action with the aorist part. in the N. T., and the construction is not found elsewhere. Moulton (Prol., p. 132) cites from the papyri, evx w-n dw,seij S) - lutrw,sasa, mou ta. i`ma,tia dr) e`kato,n O.P. 530 (ii/A.D.), a clear case of coincident action. The redemption of the clothes is obtained by paying the hundred drachma.


( z) Aorist Participle in Indirect Discourse (Complementary Participle). It is a rare construction on the whole,219 though more frequent with o`ra,w than with avkou,w.220 This aorist part. is absolutely timeless, not even relatively past. It is another instance of the coincident aorist part. So o[sa hvkou,samen geno,mena (Lu. 4:23), evqew,roun to.n Satana/n w`j avstraph.n evk tou/ ouvranou/ peso,nta grk(10:18). In peso,nta we have the constative aorist.221 Contrast the perfect in Rev. 9:1, ei=don avste,ra evk tou/ ouvranou/ peptwko,ta eivj th.n gh/n├ and the present in Rev. 7:2, ei=don a;llon avnabai,nonta (linear), and ei;dame,n tina evn tw| / ovno,mati, sou evkba,llonta daimo,nia (Lu. 9:49). Cf. ei=den a;ndra──eivselqo,nta kai. evpiqe,nta (Ac. 9:12. So in 10:3; 26:13); hvkou,samen- evnecqei/san (2 Pet. 1:18).

2. PUNCTILIAR (AORISTIC) PRESENT ( o` evnestw.j cro,noj). The present tense is named entirely from point of time which only applies to the indicative. But a greater difficulty is due to the absence of distinction in the tense between punctiliar and linear action. This defect is chiefly found in the indicative, since in the subj., opt., imper., inf. and part., as already shown, the aorist is always punctiliar and the so-called present practically always linear, unless the Aktionsart of the verb itself is strongly punctiliar. Cf. discussion of the imper. But in the ind. present the sharp line drawn between the imperf. and aorist ind. (past time) does not exist. There is nothing left to do but to divide the so-called Pres. Ind. into Aoristic Present and Durative Present (or Punctiliar Present and Linear Present). The one Greek form covers both ideas in the ind.222 The present was only gradually developed as a distinct tense (cf. the confusion about e;─fh─n, whether aorist or imperf.). The present is formed on punctiliar as well as linear roots. It is not wise therefore to define the pres. ind. as denoting "action in progress" like the imperf. as Burton223 does, for he has to take it back on p. 9 in the discussion of the "Aoristic Present," which he calls a "distinct departure from the prevailing use of the present tense to denote action in progress." In sooth, it is no "departure" at all. The idiom is as old as the tense itself and is due to the failure in the development of separate tenses for punctiliar and linear action in the ind. of present time. "The forms eivmi,├ ei=mi├ fhmi,├ a;gw├ gra,fw, etc., in which the stem has the form generally found only in aorists (ž 11, ž 31) may be


regarded as surviving instances of the 'Present Aorist,' i.e. of a present not conveying the notion of progress. We may compare the English use of I am, I go (now archaic in the sense of I am going), I say, (says she), etc."224 Hear Monro again: "The present is not a space of time, but a point," and, I may add, yields itself naturally to aoristic (punctiliar) action. Some presents are also "perfective" in sense like h[kw. The so-called "present" tense may be used, therefore, to express an action simply (punctiliar), a process (durative or linear), a state (perfective or perfect).225 Some of the root-presents (like fh─mi,) are aoristic. The perfect came originally out of the root-meaning also (cf. h[kw├ oi=da) and grew out of the present as a sort of intensive present.226 The notion of state in nikw/├ kratw/├ h`ttw/mai is really that of the perfect. So the momentary action in bh ( e;─bh─n) becomes linear in the iterative ( bi─ba,─w, 'patter, patter.' Moulton227 clearly recognises that "the punctiliar force is obvious in certain presents." The original present was probably therefore aoristic, or at least some roots were used either as punctiliar or linear, and the distinctively durative notions grew up around specially formed stems and so were applied to the form with most verbs, though never with all. In the modern Greek we find "the creation of a separate aorist present ( pa,gw)," while pagai,nw is linear. So pagai,nw is 'I keep going,' while pa,gw is 'I go' (single act). Cf. Thumb, Handb., p. 119. "As a rule the present combines cursive (durative, continuous, etc.) and aorist action" (ib., p. 120). The aoristic present= undefined action in the present, as aoristic past (ind.) =undefined action in the past. In the case of a;gw we see a root used occasionally for punctiliar, linear and even perfected action. There are, besides the naturally aoristic roots, three special uses of the aoristic present (the universal present, the historical present, the futuristic present).228

(a) The Specific Present. Gildersleeve229 thus describes this simplest form of the aoristic present in contrast with the universal present. It is not an entirely happy description, nor is "effective present," suggested by Jannaris,230 since there may be ingressive and constative uses also. The common eivmi, (Jo. 10:11) is often aoristic. A fine example of the constative aorist present occurs in Lu. 7:8, poreu,qhti├ kai. poreu,etai- e;rcou├ kai. e;rcetai── poi,hson├ kai. poiei/. Cf. evxoriki,zw se (Mt. 26:63); o`rw/ (Ac. 8:23);


a;rti ble,pw (Jo. 9:25). The frequent evgw. de. le,gw (Mt. 5:22, 28, etc.) is example of the specific aoristic present (constative). So avlhqw/j le,gw (Lu. 12:44). Cf. soi. le,gw (Mk. 5:41); fhsi,n (Mt. 14:8); ouv lamba,nw- avlla. le,gw (Jo. 5:34), etc. In Mk. 2:5 avfi,entai is effective aorist present as in iva/tai. (Ac. 9:34). Cf. o[soi ouvk e;cousin├ oi[tinej ouvk e;gnwsan (Rev. 2:24); po,qen h=lqon and po,qen e;rcomai (Jo. 8:14); e;cei──h=lqen (Jo. 16:21). Moulton (Prol., p. 247) notes how in Mt. 6:2, 5, 16, avpe,cousi, the combination of the aoristic pres. and the perfective use of avpo, makes it very vivid. "The hypocrites have as it were their money down, as soon as their trumpet has sounded." The "perfective" avpe,cw (Mk. 14:41) is copiously illustrated in the papyri and ostraca (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 111).

(b) The Gnomic Present. This is the aorist present that is timeless in reality, true of all time. It is really a gnomic present (cf. the Gnomic Aorist) and differs very little from the "Specific Present." In Mt. 23:2 evka,qisan is gnomic, and in verse 3 we have the aoristic presents (gnomic also), le,gousin ga.r kai. ouv poiou/sin. Note Jo. 9:8. Cf. also w`j le,gousin (Rev. 2:24). Good instances are found in 1 Cor. 15:42 ff., spei,retai) So w[sper oi` u`pokritai. poiou/si (Mt. 6:2). Abbott231 has great difficulty with evk th/j Gali─ lai,aj profh,thj ouvk evgei,retai (Jo. 7:52). It is this gnomic present. It is not true, to be sure, but this was not the only error of the Sanhedrin. Cf. Mt. 7:8.

(c) The Historical Present. This vivid idiom is popular in all languages,232 particularly in the vernacular. "We have only to overhear a servant girl's 'so she says to me' if we desiderate proof that the usage is at home among us."233 Cf. Uncle Remus. Curiously the historic present is absent in Homer.234 But Gildersleeve235 applauds Stahl for agreeing with his position "that it was tabooed as vulgar by the epos and the higher lyric" (A. J. P., xxiii, 245). It is absent from Pindar and the Nibelungenlied. Gildersleeve236 also observes that it is much more frequent in Greek than in English and is a survival of "the original stock of our languages." "It antedates the differentiation into imperfect and aorist." The "Annalistic or Note-Book Present" (like gi,g─ nontai pai/dej du,o) is practically the same use of the aorist present. Moulto237 excludes genna/tai in Mt. 2:4, for that is more like the


futuristic (prophetic) use of the present. Brugmann238 divides the hist. pres. into "dramatic" and "registering" or annalistic presents (cf. Gildersleeve). This vivid idiom is preserved in the modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 120). It is common enough in the LXX, since Thackeray (Gr., p. xx) notes 151 examples in 1 Samuel, though it is rare in 2 Samuel and 2 Kings ("absent," Thackeray, Gr., p. 24). But Hawkins (Horae Synopticae, p. 213) finds it 32 times in 2 Samuel and twice in 2 Kings. Hawkins (ib.) finds the hist. pres. in the LXX 337 times. Josephus uses it also. The N. T. examples are thus "dramatic." The hist. pres. is not always aoristic. It may be durative like the imperfect.239 This point has to be watched. Blass240 considers that the historical present "habitually takes an aoristic meaning," but room has to be left for the durative meaning also. It is common in the Attic orators and in the N. T., except in Luke where it is rare.241 Luke's Gospel has it only 9 times (possibly 11) and the Acts 13 times. Hawkins, from whose Horae Synopticae (2d ed., pp. 143 ff.) these figures are taken, finds 93 historic presents in Matthew (15 of them in Parables), but 162 in John and 151 in Mark. It is rare in the rest of the N. T. It is most frequent in Mark, John, Matthew and in this order. Mark indeed uses it as often as 1 Samuel, though a much shorter book. John's Gospel is much longer than Mark's, but when the discourses and dialogues are eliminated, the difference between John and Mark is not great.242 Moulton243 adds that the idiom is common in the papyri. Cf. Par. P. 51 (ii/B.C.) avnu,gw- o`rw/- kla,gw evporeuo,mhn- kai. e;rcomai──e;legon, etc. Moulton illustrates le,gei vIhsou/ in the Oxyrhynchus Logia by Kai/sar le,gei, Syll. 376. See also avfh,rpasen kai. bou,letai, P. Oxy. 37 (A.D. 49). Luke's manifest reluctance to use it (changing Mark's historical presents except in 8:49) is due to the fact that in Luke's time the construction was regarded as "too familiar for his liking." He is the scientific historian, while Mark and John are the dramatists. Different writers would feel differently about it. "Josephus would use the tense as an imitator of the classics, Mark as a man of the people who heard it in daily use around him; while Luke


would have Greek education enough to know that it was not common in the cultured speech of his time, but not enough to recall the encouragement of classical writers whom he probably never read and would not have imitated if he had read them."244 But what about John? Jannaris245 remarks that the idiom was common in the late Greek as in the early. The personal equation may have to explain the variations in the Gospels. Blass246 undertakes to give a philosophy of the matter on the theory that the "circumstances," "incidentals" and "final results" are expressed in the past tenses of the ind., while the "principal actions" are found in the historical present. He cites Jo. 1:29-42 in illustration ( ble,pei- le,gei- e`maru,rhsen- i`sth,kei- le,gei- h;kou─ san- le,gei- ei=pan- le,gei- h=lqan kai. ei=dan - h=n - h=n - eu`ri,skei- le,gei- h;gagen──ei=pen). One doubts if the phenomena can be brought under any rule. Matthew and Luke use ivdou,, to enliven the narrative, while Mark and John avoid it.247 Mark has a habit of using kai, before the historical present, while John often employs asyndeton.248 But there is no doubt of the vividness of the narrative in Mark and John which is largely due to the historical presents. Modern literary English abhors this idiom, but it ought to be preserved in translating the Gospels in order to give the same element of vividness to the narrative. The historical present may begin249 a paragraph (often so), occur in the midst of aorists and imperfects, or alternate with aorists. In Mt. 3:1 paragi,netai vIwa,nhj is preceded by a note of past time. In Mk. 5:15 e;rcontai kai. qewrou/sin occur between aorists. In Mk. 4:37 the realistic gi,netai lai/lay is followed by the imperfect. As specimens of this present in parables see Mt. 13:44. Sometimes the MSS. vary as between fai,netai and evfa,nh (Mt. 2:13). The variation in parables may be partly due to obscuration of the gnomic nature of the narrative. In such a wealth of material for illustration it is hard to select, but note John 20. In verse 1 f. note e;rcetai──ble,pei──tre,cei──e;rcetai, all indicating the excitement of Mary. Then the narrative goes on with aorists and imperfects till Peter and John draw near the tomb, when we have ble,pei- e;rcetai──qew,rei (5-7) with two parenthetic aorists interjected ( ouvk eivsh/lqen├ eivsh/lqen). In verse 8 the narrative is resumed by aorists. In verse 12 again qewrei/ shows the surprise of Mary at seeing the angels ( le,gousin- le,gei, verse 13), as in verse 14


the present is used when she sees Jesus. Historical presents run through the dialogue with Jesus (15-18). Then the resumptive tau/ta ei=pen. That is enough to say on the subject.

(d) The Futuristic Present. This futuris)ic present is generally punctiliar or aoristic.250 The construction certainly had its origin in the punctiliar roots,251 but some of the N. T. examples (cf. English "I am going," as well as "I go") are durative, as Moulton252 shows. Thus in 1 Cor. 16:5 die,rcomai, (in contrast with die,lqw) means 'I am going through' (Macedonia). Gi,nomai leans to the aoristic253 and so gi,netai (Mt. 26:2) may be punctiliar. "In au;rion avpoqnh,skomen (1 Cor. 15:32) we have a verb in which the perfective prefix has neutralized the inceptive force of the suffix - i,skw: it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever to borrow a durative action."254 The aoristic origin of many present-stems has already been shown (and some perfectives like h[kw. Thus all three kinds of action are found in the present (punctiliar, durative, perfect). All three kinds of time are also found in the present ind. (historical present= past, futuristic present= future, the common use for present time). Some of these "momentary presents" are always future. So ei=mi in old Greek prose,255 but Homer uses ei=mi also as a present.256 The N. T. uses e;rcomai and poreu,omai in this futuristic sense (Jo. 14:2 f.), not ei=mi. Indeed "the future of Greek was originally a present" (Jebb in Vincent and Dickson's Handbook, p. 323). That is too strong, for the future ind. often comes from the aorist subj. In the N. T. such so-called futures as pi,esai and fa,gesai, (Lu. 17:8) are really old aorist subjs. Cf. Mt. 24:40 f. The futuristic pres. occurs in the inscriptions and papyri, as in Petersen-Luschan, p. 160, N. 190, a'n de, tij avdikh,sh|├ u`po,keitai. See a'm mh. pau,setai├ e;rcetai, B. M. II, 417 (iv/A.D.), avnti,grayon kavgw. avnabai,nw, 0. P. 1157, 25 f. (A.D./iii), gra,yon moi kai. pe,mpw auvtw|/ evpiqh,khn, 0. P. 1158, 23 f. (A.D./iii). Cf. Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 124. In South Italian Greek the futuristic present is the only means of expressing the future incl.257 The other use of the futuristic present is the dramatic or prophetic.258 "This present - a sort of counterpart to the historic present - is very frequent in


the predictions of the N. T."259 It is not merely prophecy, but certainty of expectation that is involved. As examples note Mt. 17:11 vHlei,aj e;rcetai kai. avpokatasth,sei pa,nta, 24:43 poi,a| fulakh|/ o` kle,pthj e;rcetai├ 26:2 gi,netai kai. ──paradi,dotai, 26:18 poiw/ to. pa,sca, 27:63 evgei,romai Lu. 3:9 evkko,ptetai kai. ba,lletai, 19:8 di,dwmi kai. avpodi,dwmi, Jo. 4:35 o` qerismo.j e;rcetai, 8:14 pou/ u`pa,gw├ 8:21 u`pa,gw kai. zhth,sete, 10:15 th.n yuch,n mou ti,qhmi, 12:26 o[pou eivmi. evgw, 20:17 avnabai,nw, 21:23 ouvk avpoqnh,skei, 1 Cor. 15:26 katargei/tai. In Jo. 10:15 ff. ti,qhmi really covers the whole of Christ's life viewed as a unit (constative aorist).260 In Mk. 9: 31 we have paradi,dotai, in Mt. 17:22 me,llei paradi,dosqai. This use of me,llw and inf. is a sort of half-way station between the futuristic present and the punctiliar future. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. The futuristic pres. startles and arrests attention. It affirms and not merely predicts. It gives a sense of certainty. Cf. in Mt. 18:12, avfh,sei kai. poreuqei.j zhtei/ together, and feu,gei (Rev. 9:6).

3. THE PUNCTILIAR (AORISTIC) FUTURE ( o` me,llwn cro,noj).

(a) Punctiliar or Durative. The future is a "mixed tense" both in origin and meaning.261 The mixed origin was discussed in ch. VIII, (g). It was a late tense, little used in the early Vedic Sanskrit, and as a distinct form gradually disappeared from the modern Greek, where the periphrastic forms like qa. lu,w ( lu,sw) alone occur. But the modern Greek has developed thus two futures, qa. lu,sw punctiliar, qa. lu,w durative (Thumb, Handb., pp. 116, 125). The Germanic languages (cf. English shall and will) have only the periphrastic future. For the history of the future ind. see Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., pp. 552 ff. In Sanskrit the fut. had no modes, i.e. it was confined practically to the ind. (Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201). The oldest roots are derived either from punctiliar presents (ind.) or aorist (punctiliar) subjunctives.262 Cf. pi,omai├ bh,somai. Gradually the future was formed on durative roots also. Thus menw/ 'I shall remain.' Some verbs formed two futures,263 one punctiliar, like sch,sw from e;scon= 'I shall obtain,' the other durative, like e[xw 'I shall have.' The koinh, has dropped sch,sw├ as it has "generally got rid of alternative forms."' So also qre,xomai ( tre,cw) was durative and dramou/mai ( e;dramon) punctiliar,264 though both are absent in the N. T. It is probable


that in the future passive we have with most verbs a purely punctiliar future formed on the aorist stem. The middle future was usually durative, the future passive punctiliar.265 Very few of the list of examples given by Jannaris can be illustrated in the N. T. owing to the disappearance of the future middle before the future passive. In 1 Pet. 4:18 fanei/tai (LXX, Prov. 11:31) is durative and certainly fanh,setai (Mt. 24:30) is punctiliar. So in Lu. 16:31 peisqh,sontai is punctilian, (effective), but pei,somai does not occur in the N. T. So kth,sesqe ta.j yuca.j u`mw/n (Lu. 21:19) seems to be durative, though no fut. passive of this verb appears in the N. T. So also sunacqh,sontai (Mt. 24:28) is punctiliar (effective). But the very disappearance of the future middle (as with the Attic fobh,somai) threw the burden of the durative future266 on the future passive. So fobhqh,somai in Heb. 13:6 is durative. Cf. the durative avrkesqhso,meqa (1 Tim. 6:8). So also avlla. kai. carh,─ somai (Ph. 1:18) is durative. Cf. also Jo. 16:20, 22, though carh,sontai in Lu. 1:14 is ingressive punctiliar, as plhsqh,setaigrk grk grk(1:15) is effective punctiliar. But in Jo. 16:20 both luphqh,sesqe and genh,setai seem ingressive. In Heb. 9:28 ovfqh,setai (cf. Ac. 26:16) is ingressive, but o;yomai may be either durative (Mt. 5: 8; Jo. 1:50; 19:37; Rev. 22:4) or punctiliar (Jo. 1:39; Heb. 12:14, etc.). An excellent example of the effective future is found in o` u`pomei,naj eivj te,loj swqh,setai (Mt. 10:22). So the same form in the future may be either punctiliar or durative, as proa,xw u`ma/j (Mk. 14:28) is durative, while a;xei is punctiliar (effective= 'bring').267 Pei,somen, is punctiliar (effective) in Mt. 28:14 and durative in 1 Jo. 3:19. So gnw,somai is punctiliar or durative (Rev. 2:23). As punctiliar this verb may be either ingressive (1 Cor. 14:7, 9), effective (1 Cor. 4:19) or merely constative (Jo. 8:28, 32). From the nature of the action as future this Aktionsart of the verb will not be as prominent268 in the future aorist as in the other punctiliar constructions. Blass269 even goes so far as to say that the future "is the one tense which does not express action [kind of action, he means], but simply a time relation, so that completed and continuous action are not differentiated." But it must be borne in mind that the future tense in itself makes as much distinction between punctiliar and dura-


tive action as the present tense does. The difference is that the future is usually punctiliar, while the present is more often durative. The point need not be pressed. Other examples of the punctiliar aorist are kale,seij (Mt. 1:21) ingressive; paraklhqh,sontai (Mt. 5:4) effective, and so cortasqh,sontai, but evlehqh,sontai is ingressive while klhqh,sontai is effective. In 1 Cor. 15:22, 28 note zwopoihqh,sontai, and u`potagh,setai (effective). In Jo. 8:32 note evleuqew,sei effective= 'set free' (cf. evleu,qeroi genh,sesqe, verse 33).270 So then both in origin and use the future is chiefly punctiliar.

(b) The Modal Aspect of the Future. The future indicative is not merely a tense in the true sense of that term, expressing the state of the action. It is almost a mode on a par with the subjunctive and imperative. Gildersleeve271 puts the matter plainly when he says: "The future was originally a mood." In both Greek and Latin the forms of the future come for the most part from the subj. and it must be treated as a mode as well as a tense. Indeed Delbruck272 and Giles273 put it wholly under moods. It partakes, as a matter of fact, of the qualities of both mood and tense, and both need to be considered. The modal aspect of the fut. ind. is seen in its expression of will and feeling. Like the subj. the fut. ind. may be merely futuristic, volitional or deliberative. We have a reflection of the same thing in our shall and will. The fut. ind. has had a precarious history in Greek. Its place was always challenged by the present and even by the aorist ind., by the subj. and imper. modes, by periphrastic forms. It finally gave up the fight as a distinct form in Greek.274 See under 3, (a). In the modern Greek the distinction between the periphrastic fut. and the subj. is practically lost.275 The modal aspects of the fut. ind. appear clearly in subordinate clauses where the tense is common. In indirect discourse the future ind. merely represents the direct discourse (cf. Ro. 6: 8). The future with the descriptive or identifying relative276 (Jo. 6:51) shows no modal features. But it is found in other relative clauses where purpose (Lu. 7:27) or result (Lu. 7:4) is expressed. The future has also a modal value in temporal clauses (Rev. 4:9; 17:17), in final clauses (Lu. 20:10; Heb. 3:12), in


conditional sentences (Lu. 19:40), in wish (Gal. 5:12). In Rev. 3:9 the fut. ind. and the aorist subj. occur side by side with i[na. But in independent sentences also the modal aspects of the future appear.

(a) Merely Futuristic. This is the most common use of the future and in itself would not be modal. It is the prospective, what lies before the speaker.277 The predictive278 (or prophetic) future has to be classed as aoristic (usually constative), though the question as to whether the action is durative or punctiliar may not have crossed the speaker's mind. Cf. Mt. 21:37 evntra─ ph,sontai├ 41 avpole,sei├ 43 avrqh,setai- doqh,setai, 24:31 avpostelei/, etc. Cf. Mk. 13:24-27. Further good examples of the predictive future are in Mt. 11:28 f.; 12:31. Unfortunately in English we have no established principle for the translation of the predictive future. In the first person it is done by "shall," and naturally by "will" in the second and third persons. It is not always easy to distinguish the merely futuristic from the volitive future, "but we have to reckon with an archaic use of the auxiliaries which is traditional in Bible translations."279 The use of "shall" in the second and third persons is almost constant in the R. V. both for the volitive and the futuristic uses. If "shall" could be confined in these persons to the volitive and "will" to the futuristic, even "the solemnly predictive,"280 it would be a gain.281 Thus in Mk. 14:13 avpanth,sei would be 'will meet.' In Mt. 11:28 f. avnapau,sw would be 'shall give you rest' (R. V. will'), eu`rh,sete will find' (R. V. 'shall'). But avnapau,sw here may be volitive. If so, 'will' is correct. So in Mt. 12:31 avfeqh,setai would be 'will be forgiven' (R. V. 'shall'). Cf. also Mt. 26:13, lalhqh,setai= 'will be preached.' Moulton282 notes that avparnh,sh| (Mt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Lu. 22:61) is often misunderstood because of the rendering 'shalt deny me.' "It could not therefore be Peter's fault if Jesus commanded him." Here "will" is free from that peril. Cf. Mt. 25:29, 32; Lu. 19:43. With the negative the English "shall" becomes volitive when the Greek is not. Cf. Mk. 13:31, ouv paraleu,sontai, (cf. ouv mh. pare,lqh| in 13:30). Sometimes (very rarely) ouv mh, occurs with the predictive fut. (cf. the usual aorist subj.) as in ouv mh. paraeleu,sontai (Lu. 21:33); ouv mh. eu`rh,sousin (Rev. 9:6); ouvke,ti ouv mh. eu`rh,sousingrk grk(18:14; cf. avph/lqen,


avpw,leto). The construction of ouv mh, with the fut. ind. is "moribund" in the N. T.,283 only 14 and some of these doubtful (MSS. vary greatly between aorist subj. and fut. ind.). Some of the 14 are examples of the volitive future. In Mt. 15:5 ouv mh. timh,sei is probably volitive,284 though some hold it predictive.

( b) The Volitive Future. The three divisions (futuristic, volitive, deliberative) glide into one another both in the subjunctive and the future incl.285 The volitive future is practically an imperative in sense, for the will is exercised. The futuristic glides imperceptibly into the volitive "as in the colloquial su. o;yh|, 'you will see to that,' Mt. 27:4."286 Cf. u`mei/j o;yesqe (Mt. 27:24), evkko,─ yeij (Lu. 13:9). In Heb. 8:5 the imperative and the fut. ind. occur together, o[ra poih,seij. The impatient ouv pau,sh| diastre,fwn (Ac. 13:10) is almost imperatival, certainly volitive. "The future ind. is exceedingly common in this sense (volitive)."287 In legal precepts the fut. ind. is unclassical.288 But the idiom itself is classical and "is not a milder or gentler imperative. A prediction may imply resistless power or cold indifference, compulsion or concession."289 It is exceedingly frequent in the LXX. It is chiefly found in the N. T. in quotations from the O. T. Cf. kale,seij (Mt. 1:21), ouvk e;sesqegrk grk(6:5); evrei/te grk(21:3) = ei;pate (Mk. 11:3). Cf. Jas. 2:8; Ro. 13:9; Gal. 5:14. The volitive future really includes purpose (will) in the first person, as well as in the second and (rarely) in the third. Thus proseu,xomai├ yalw/ (1 Cor. 14:15) = 'I will pray,' 'I will sing,' not mere futurity. So in avnasta.j poreu,somai (Lu. 15: 18) we seem to find 'will,' not mere declaration. Most of the examples are in the second person, like ouvk e;sesqe (Mt. 6:5), and are chiefly negative negative(4:7; Ac. 23:5; Ro. 7:7). But some examples occur in the third person also; though Burton290 is sceptical. Cf. e;stai in Mt. 20:26 f. (note qe,lh|). So Mk. 9:35. In Lu. 10:6 we have evpanapah,setai evp v auvto.n h` eivrh,nh|, while in Mt. 10:13 evlqa,tw h` eivrh,nh u`mw/n evp v auvth,n.291 In the volitive future 'will' is the English translation for the first person, 'shall' for the second and third. The rare use of mh, with the fut. ind. shows a volitive use. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 117) is sceptical, but Moulton (Prol., p. 177) cites from Demosthenes mh. boulh,sesqe eivde,nai and from B. U. 197 (i/A.D.) mh. evxe,stai, B. U. 814 (iii/A.D.)


mh. avfh,sij, B. M. 42 mh. - krath,seij (ii/B.C.). Blass292 quotes mhde,na mimh,sete from Clem., Hom., III, 69, and Moulton (Prol., p. 240) adds mh. qhsauri,setai, D in Mt. 6:19, and le,xeij de. mhde,n, Eurip., Med. 822, and observes (p. 248) that MS. evidence should be watched on the point. Sometimes ouv mh, occurs with the volitive future as in ouv mh. timh,sei. (Mt. 15:5); ouv mh. e;stai soi tou/togrk grk(16:22). In Mt. 26:35 ouv mh. avparnh,somai is also volitive (cf. Mk. 14:31). The volitive future seems to be found in Lu. 10:19, ouvde.n ouv mh. u`ma/j avdikh,sei (W. H. text), but it is durative. But ou alone is the usual negative in the volitive future, as in ouvc a`pra,sei tij evk th/j ceiro,j mou (Jo. 10:28. Cf. ouv mh. avpo,lwntai). Cf. pres. imper. and fut. ind. side by side in Jo. 1:39 (cf. 1:46). On ouv mh, see Modes and Particles. It is possible that ouv katiscu,sousin auvth/j (Mt. 16:18) is volitive.

( g) Deliberative Future. Burton293 has pointed out that questions are of two kinds (questions of fact or questions of doubt). Questions of fact make an inquiry for information about the past, present or future. These questions employ the moods and tenses as other simple declarative sentences in both direct and indirect discourse. But deliberative questions ask not for the facts, but about the "possibility, desirability or necessity" of a proposed course of action. The subj. as the mood of doubtful assertion is perfectly natural here. The future is also doubtful from the nature of the case. So deliberative questions use either the subj. or the fut. ind. Deliberative questions (like questions of fact) may be merely interrogative or they may be rhetorical. The deliberative questions in the N. T. with the fut. ind. are all direct questions except Ph. 1: 22, ti, ai`rh,somai ouv gnwri,zw, where the punctuation is doubtful. (W. H. marg. have ti, ai`rh,somai.)294 In scw/ ti, gra,yw (Ac. 25:26) it is not certain whether gra,yw is fut. ind. or aorist subj. In Lu. 11:5, ti,j evx u`mw/n e[xei fi,lon kai. poreu,setai- kai. ei;ph| auvtw|/, the fut. ind. (rhetorical) and aorist subj. occur side by side if we can trust the reading. Cf. Mt. 7: 6, with mh,pote; Eph. 6:3, with i[na (0. T.). The examples of the fut. ind. in deliberative questions are all disputed by some MSS. which have the aorist subj., so that Blass295 remarks that "the N. T. in this case practically uses only the conjunctive"; but that is an overstatement, since the best MSS. (see W. H. and Nestle texts) support the fut. ind. in some instances. As an example of merely interroga-


tive deliberative questions with fut. ind. take eiv pata,xomen evn ma─ cai,rh| (Lu. 22:49). In Jo. 18:39, bou,lesqe avpolu,sw, we may have the fut. ind. or the aorist subj., but note bou,lesqe. The N. T. examples are nearly all rhetorical. So Mt. 12:26 pw/j staqh,setai, Mk. 4:13 pw/j- gnw,sesqe, Jo. 6:68 pro.j ti,na avpeleuso,meqa. Cf. further Ro. 3:5; 6:1 (the common ti, evrou/men); 9:14; 1 Cor. 14:7, 9, 16; 15:29, 51; 1 Tim. 3:5. Cf. Lu. 20:15. Cf. avgora,swmen kai. dw,somen (Mk. 6:37).

(c) The Future in the Moods. The future differs from the other tenses in this respect, that in the moods where it occurs it has always the element of time. This is not true of any other Greek tense.296

(a) The Indicative. It is far more common here than in the other moods. In direct discourse the fut. ind. expresses absolute time. Cf. to,te o;yontai (Lu. 21:27). In the gnomic future the act is true of any time (cf. gnomic aorist and present). So mo,lij u`pe.r dikai,ou tij avpoqanei/tai (Ro. 5:7); crhmati,seigrk grk(7:3), etc. In indirect discourse the time is relatively future to that of the principal verb, though it may be absolutely past. So with evno,─ misan o[ti lh,myontai (Mt. 20:10); ei=pen shmei,nwn poi,w| qana,tw| doxa,sei to.n qeo,n (Jo. 21:19).297

( b) The Subjunctive and Optative. There never was a fut. imperative. The so-called fut. subjs. in the N. T. have already been discussed. W. H. admit o;yshqe to the text in Lu. 13:28, but claim it to be a late aorist subj.298 The same thing may be true of dw,sh|, read by MSS. in Jo. 17:2; Rev. 8:3, but not of kauqh,swmai in 1 Cor. 13:3. This may be a lapsus calami299 for kau─ ch,swmai. Harnack (The Expositor, May, 1912, p. 401) quotes Von Soden as saying: " Kauqh,swmai - not kauqh,somai - is to be recognised as the traditional form in families of MSS. which do not give kauch,swmai." But Harnack refuses to "saddle" Paul with this Byzantine "deformity." Jannaris300 thinks that these sporadic examples in late Greek are the fut. ind. "spelt with the thematic vowel ( h and w) of the subjunctive." One naturally thinks of the Latin subj. future. The fut. opt. never had a place save in indirect discourse, and that is lost in the N. T.

( g) The Infinitive. The future inf. was never a common construction and was almost confined to indirect discourse.301 The six


examples in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar save two (Ac. 11: 28; Jo. 21:25). Me,llw has the fut. inf. three times, but only in the case of e;sesqai (Ac. 11:28; 24:15; 27:10). The three other instances of the fut. inf. in the N. T. belong to ind. discourse. One ( cwrh,sein) occurs with or oi=mai (Jo. 2:25), one ( e;sesqai) with mhnu,w, or more exactly after evpiboulh, (Ac. 23:30, genitive absolute, mhnuqei,shj moi evpiboulh/j e;sesqai),302 one ( eivseleu,sesqai) with ovmhu,w (Heb. 3:18). So that the fut. inf. "was already moribund for practical purposes."303 In the papyri Moulton found the fut. inf. often a mere blunder for an aorist. In Ac. 26:7, B has the fut. inf. after evlpi,zw. In the fut. inf. the time relation is only relative, as with all infinitives, not absolute as in the incl.304 Elsewhere with such verbs the aoristoccurs as with evlpi,zw (1 Cor. 16:7); me,llw (Ro. 8:18); ovmu,w (Ac. 2:30); o`mologe,w (Mt. 14:7); prosdoka,w (Ac. 27:33); prokatagge,llw (Ac. 3:18); or the present inf. as with me,llw (Ac. 3:3); or the perfect inf. as with evlpi,zw (2 Cor. 5:11).

(5) The Participle. The future part. was later in its development305 than the other tenses of this very ancient, even prehistoric,306 verbal adjective. The fut. part. was never developed in the Boeotian Dialect.307 It is by no means dead in the papyri. Moulton308 notes "the string of final fut. participles in 0. P. 727 (ii/A.D.); B. U. 98 (iii/A.D., etc." See also koinologhso,menon P. Goodspeed 4 (ii/B.c.) ta. - ( s) taqhso,mena P. Tb. 33 (B.C. 112), and the list in 0. P. 1118, 10 f (i/A.DB.). It seems to me to be more common in the papyri than in the N. T. Simcox309 suggests that its rarity in the N. T. is due to the use of other phrases. Cf. me,llw in Ac. 18: 14; 20:3, 7 and evrco,menoj in Rev. 1:4, etc. The time is, of course, only relative to that of the principal verb, as in evlhlu,qei proskunh,swn (Ac. 8:27). The anarthrous examples are volitive310 and are the most frequent.311 They are used for purpose or aim. Cf. Mt. 27: 49 e;rcetai sw,swn, Ac. 8:27 evlhlu,qei proskunh,swn, 22:5 evporeuo,mhn a;xwn, 24:11 avne,bhn proskunh,swn, 24:17 poih,swn paregeno,mhn, Heb. 13:17 avgrupnou/sin w`j avpodw,sontej. Cf. also v. 1. w`j eu`rh,swn in Mk. 11:13. These all seem to be punctiliar. Some MSS. also read avspaso,menoi in Ac. 25:13. This is surely a slim showing corn-


pared with the classic idiom.312 Some MSS. read komiou,menoi in 2 Pet. 2:13, rather than avdikou,menoi) The future participle with the article is futuristic, not volitive. So with to. evso,menon (Lu. 22:49); o` paradw,swn (Jo. 6:64); ta. sunanth,sonta (Ac. 20:22); o` kakw.swm (1 Pet. 3:13); to. genhso,menon (1 Cor. 15:37); o` katakrinw/n, (Ro. 8:34); tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn (Heb. 3:5).

(d) The Periphrastic Substitutes for the Future. The periphrastic future is as old as the Sanskrit and has survived the inflected form in Greek. Some of these forms are durative, probably most of them, but a few are punctiliar. Tannaris notes in Sophocles, 0. C. 816, luphqei.j e;sei, and O. T. 1146, ouv siwph,saj e;sei├ but no examples of the aorist participle and e;somai occur in the N. T. They are all present parts. (like e;sesqe misou,menoi, Lu. 21: 17) and so durative. In the LXX we actually have the inf. with e;somai (Num. 10:2; 2 Sam. 10:11; Tob. 5:15). The use of me,llw with the aorist inf. approaches the punctiliar future.313 Cf. h;mellen prosagagei/n (Ac. 12:6); me,llousan avpokalufqh/nai (Ro. 8: 18. Cf. Gal. 3:23), with which compare the pros. inf. in 1 Pet. 5:1. The aorist inf. occurs also in Rev. 3:2, 16; 12:4. The volitive future was sometimes expressed by qe,lw and in the later Greek helped drive out the future form. It is disputed whether in the N. T. qe,lw is ever a mere future. But in a case like qe,leij ei;pwmen (Lu. 9:54) we note the deliberative subj.314 Cf. Mt. 13: 28. So bou,lesqe avpolu,sw (Jo. 18:39). Bou,lomai is less frequent in the N. T. than qe,lw and can hardly be resolved into a mere future. It is purpose. Cf. examples with the aorist inf. in Mt. 11:27; Ac. 5:28; 17:20. With qe,lw the aorist inf. is the usual construction, and it is nearly always easy to see the element of will as dominant. In a few cases qe,lw seems to shade off towards the volitive fut. ind. Cf. Jo. 5:40, ouv qe,lete evlqei/n pro,j me├ Ac. 25:9, qe,─ leij- kriqh/nai; Here we have an approach to the later usage, but the auxiliary has not yet lost its force. Cf. also Jo. 6:67; 9:27; Jas. 2:20, where the formula is polite. But in Jo. 7:17 the R. V. rightly preserves "willeth." So in Mt. 16:24. Herodotus shows a fondness for evqe,lw as a quasi-auxiliary, and the connection between him and the modern Greek usage is doubtless through the vernacular. Cf. Jebb in Vine. and Dickson, p. 326. Even


du,namai may contain an "inceptive future."315 In Lu. 20:36 the MSS. vary between du,nantai, and me,llousin. But in the N. T. du,namai retains its real force even in examples like Mk. 2:19; 3:24; 10:38; 14:7; Jo. 13:37; Ac. 17:19. In Ac. 25:26 note gra,yai ouvk e;cw (cf. scw/ ti, gra,yw).

III. Durative (Linear) Action.

The principles underlying the use of the tenses have now been set forth with sufficient clearness to justify brevity.


(a) The Present ( o` evnestw,j) for Present Time. It has already been seen that the durative sense does not monopolize the "present" tense, though, it more frequently denotes linear action.316 The verb and the context must decide.

(a) The Descriptive Present. Its graph is (---). As with the imperfect, so with the present this is the most frequent use. Cf. avpollu,meqa (Mt. 8:25. Contrast aorist sw/son. So Mk. 4:38; Lu. 8:24); sbe,nnuntai (Mt. 25:8); evn w|- e;comai (Jo. 5:7); fai,nei (1 Jo. 2:8) ; suncu,nnetai (Ac. 21:31); telei/tai (2 Cor. 12:9); qau─ ma,zw o[ti ou[twj tace,wj metati,qesqe (Gal. 1:6); evpistre,fetegrk grk(4:9); e;cousin, (Mk. 2:19). Cf. 1 Th. 3:8. In these examples the durative action is very obvious and has to be translated by the progressive (periphrastic) form in English, 'We are perishing,' 'Our lamps are going out,' etc. But in the case of qauma,zw (Gal. 1:6) 'I wonder' brings out the durative idea, though 'ye are changing' is necessary for metati,qesqe. Cf. e;cei (Jo. 3:36) where 'has' is durative. Cf. zhtou /men (Lu. 2:48), ouv qe,lomen (Lu. 19:14).

( b) The Progressive Present. This is a poor name in lieu of a better one for the present of past action still in progress. Usually an adverb of time (or adjunct) accompanies the verb. Gildersleeve317 calls it "Present of Unity of Time." Cf. evsti.n e[wj a;rti (1 Jo. 2:9). Often it has. to be translated into English by a sort of "progressive perfect" ('have been'), though, of course, that is the fault of the English. "So in modern Greek, e`xh/nta mh/naj s v avgapw/ (Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 222). The durative present in such cases gathers up past and present time into one phrase" (Moulton, Prol., p. 119). Cf. vIdou. tri,a e;th avf v ou- e;rcomai (Lu. 13:7); tosau/ta e;th douleu,w soigrk grk(15:29); polu.n h;dh cro,non e;cei (Jo. 5:6); tousou/ton cro,non meq v u`mw/n eivmi, grk(14:9); avp v avrch/j met v evmou/ evste (15: 27); pa,lai dokei/te (2 Cor. 12:19). Cf. avpo. bre,fouj oi=daj (2 Tim.


Addenda 2nd ed.

3:15). It is a common idiom in the N. T. Cf. 2 Pet. 3:4; 1 Jo. 3:8. In Jo. 8:58 eivmi, is really absolute.

( g) The Iterative or Customary Present. Its graph is (. . . . ) Cf. evgkrateu,etai (1 Cor. 9:25); pukteu,w and u`pwpia,zw kai. doulagwgw/grk grk(9:26 f.). So nhsteu,w di.j tou / sabba,tou├ avpodekateu,w pa,nta o[sa ktw/mai (Lu. 18:12); di,dwmi kai. avpodi,dwmi,grk grk(19:8, more likely it is a new purpose in Zaccheus, when it would be aoristic); oa} euvlogou/men (1 Cor. 10:16); oa}n klw/mengrk grk(10:16); prolamba,neigrk grk(11:21); katagge,l─ lete grk(11:26); evsqi,ei kai. pi,neigrk grk(11:29); koimw/ntaigrk grk(11:30); ouvc a`mar─ ta,nei (1 Jo. 3:6); a`marta,neigrk grk(3:8). Cf. Mt. 9:17. Probably also afi,omen (Lu. 11:4).

( d) The Inchoative or Conative Present. Either an act just beginning, like gi,netai. (Mk. 11:23), euvqu.j skandali,zontaigrk grk(4:17), liqa,zete (Jo. 10:32), ni,pteijgrk grk(13:6), poiei/jgrk grk(13:27), a;gei (Ro. 2:4), or an act begun but interrupted like pei,qeij (Ac. 26:28; cf. 2 Cor. 5:11), avnagka,zeij (Gal. 2:14), dikaiou/sqe grk(5:4), avnag─ ka,zousingrk grk(6:12). Indeed liqa,zete (Jo. 10:32) and ni,pteijgrk grk(13:6) may be regarded as conative also. This idiom is more common in the imperfect. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 82. In English we have to use "begin" or "try."

( e) The Historical Present. These examples are usually aoristic, but sometimes durative.318 In Mk. 1:12 we have evkba,llei which is durative. Cf. h;geto in Lu. 4:1 (but Mt. 4:1, avnh,cqh). So in Mk. 1:21 eivsporeu,ontai is durative. The same thing seems to be true of avkolouqou/sin in 6 : 1.

( z% The Deliberative Present. Rhetorical deliberative questions may be put by the present ind., but it is rather a rhetorical way of putting a negation than a question of doubt. Cf. ti, poiou/men* (Jo. 11:47), 'What are we doing?' Cf. ti, poih,sei (Mt. 21:40) with ti, poiw/mwn (Jo. 6:28) and ti, poih,swmen (Ac. 4:16). The implication of the question in Jo. 11:47 is that nothing was being done. In Mt. 12:34, pw/j dunasqe avgaqa. lalei/n * a durative deliberative question is expressed by means of du,nasqe and the pres. inf. Cf. a similar construction with dei/ in Ac. 16:30.319 Cf. the same idiom in an indirect question (Col. 4:6; 2 Th. 3:7; 1 Tim. 3:15). The use of the pres. ind. in a deliberative question is a rare idiom. Blass320 finds parallels in colloquial Latin and an example in Herm., Sim., IX, 9, 1.

( h) The Periphrastic Present. The examples are not numerous in the LXX.321 Cf. Num. 14:8; 1 Ki. 18:12, etc. It is rare in


the N. T. Moulton322 warns us that " e;cwn evsti, and de,on evsti, (with other impersonal verbs) are both classical and vernacular." In the present tense the idiom is on purely Greek lines, not Semitic. For classical examples see Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 81). So the impersonal verbs (and e;cw) stand to themselves323 in support from ancient Greek and the koinh,. Cf. e;stin e;conta (Col 2:23); pre,─ pon evsti,n (Mt. 3:15); evxo,n (sc. evsti,) in Ac. 2:29 and 2 Cor. 12: 4; de,on evsti,n (Ac. 19:36. Cf. 1 Pet. 1:6). Other examples are e`stw,j eivmi, (Act 25:10), e;stin katercome,nh (Jas. 3:15), evsti.n prosana─ plhrou/sa - avlla. kai. perisseu,ousa (2 Cor. 9:12), evstin avllhgorou,─ mena (Gal. 4:24) and, in particular, explanatory phrases with o [ evstin (Mt. 1:23; 27:33; Mk. 5:41; Jo. 1:41). Cf. further Ac. 5:25; Col. 1:6; 3:1; 2 Cor. 2:17.

( q) Presents as Perfects. Here the form is that of the present, but the root has the sense of completion. The action is durative only in the sense of state, not of linear action. This is an old use of these roots.324 Cf. Lu. 15:27, o` avdelfo.j h[kei ('has come,' 'is here'). Cf. evxh/lqon kai. h[kw (Jo. 8:42). See ch. VIII. So with kei/tai (Mt. 3:10), 'the axe lies at the root of the trees' (has been placed there); o` dida,skaloj pa,restin, (Jo. 11:28) = 'the Teacher is come.' Sometimes nika,w is so used (cf. Ro. 12:21; Rev. 15:2). So h`ttw/ntai (2 Pet. 2:20). Cf. avkou,w in 1 Cor. 11:18. See also avkou,etai (1 Cor. 5:1) which is rather iterative. vAdikw/ in Mt. 20:13 is durative, but approaches a perfect in Ac. 25:11 (cf. pe,praca).

( i) Perfects as Presents. Some perfect forms have come to be used as practical durative presents, though not of the same word. Thus oi=da from ei=don= 'I have seen,' 'I know' (cf. Mt. 6:8). So e[sthka (Lu. 8:20), me,mnhmai (1 Cor. 11:2). As to avpo,lwla that occurs in the N. T. in the participle (Mt. 10:6) and the same thing is true ei;wqa (Lu. 4:16), which occurs in past perfect. So be,bhka├ ge,gona├ de,doika├ hvmfi,esmai├ evgrh,gora├ e;oika├ ke,klhmai├ ke,kthmai├ pe,poiqa├ pe,fuka├ te,qnhka. Cf. Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 438.

( k) Futuristic Presents. These are usually punctiliar, but some are durative.325 Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 83) calls this "Praesens Propheticum." The absence of ei=mi in the N. T. is noticeable. The papyri illustrate abundantly this futuristic present (Moulton, Prol., p. 120). Since the pres. ind. occurs for past, pres-


ent and future time it is clear that "time" is secondary even in the ind. In the other moods it has, of course, no time at all. As examples of the durative present in this sense take paradi,dotai (Mt. 26:45), avnabai,nomen (Mk. 10:33), u`pa,gw a`lieu,ein and evrco,meqa (Jo. 21:3), dei,rcomai (1 Cor. 16:5), e;comen (2 Cor. 5:1). Me,llw and the pres. inf. is, of course, a prospective present. This idiom is very common in the N. T., 84 examples with the pres. (6 aor., 3 fut.) inf., though, of course, me,llw is not always in the pres. ind. Cf. Mt. 2:13; 16:27, etc.

(b) The Imperfect for Past Time ( o` paratatiko,j). Here we have the time-element proper, the augment probably being an old adverb for "then," and the action being always durative. "The augment throws linear action into the past."326 The absence of a true imperfect in English makes it hard to translate this Greek tense.

(a) Doubtful Imperfects. They are sometimes called "aoristic" imperfects. This term is not a happy one, as Gildersleeve327 shows in his criticism of Stahl for his "synonym-mongering" and "multiplication of categories." The only justification for the term is that, as already shown in the discussion of the aorist, it is not possible always to tell whether some forms are aorist ind. or imperf. ind. The same root was used for both forms, as only one form existed and it is hard to tell which tense the form is. A certain amount of obscurity and so of overlapping existed from the beginning.328 We see this difficulty in h=n├ e;fhn├ e;legon, etc., particularly in verbs of saying, commanding, etc.329 Modern Greek conceives of u`ph/ga├ evph/ga and e;fera as aorists (Thumb, Handb., p. 143). Thumb (Th. L.-Z., xxviii, 423) thinks that in the N. T. e;feron had begun to be treated as aorist, but Moulton (Prol., p. 129) demurs, though he admits the possibility of punctiliar action in pro,sfere to. dw/ron in Mt. 5:24 (ib., p. 247). See also fe,re kai. i;de├ fe,re kai. ba,le in Jo. 20:27. But one must not think that the Greeks did not know how to distinguish between the aorist and the imperfect. They "did not care to use their finest tools on every occasion,"330 but the line between aorist and imperf. was usually very sharply drawn.331 The distinction is as old as the Sanskrit.332 In modern Greek it still survives, though the differ-


ence between e;legen and ei=pen, is well-nigh gone,333 if it ever existed. The same thing is true of the usage of Achilles Tatius.334 Hence we need not insist that h=n (Jo. 1:1) is strictly durative always (imperfect). It may be sometimes actually aorist also. So as to e;fh (Mt. 4:7); e;legen (Mk. 4:21, 24, 26, 30, etc.), etc. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192, fails to make a clean distinction. Note evke,leuon (Ac 16:22).

$b) The Descriptive Tense in Narrative. But the linear action may be insisted on in the true imperfect. It is properly "nichtpunktuell." Though less frequent in Homer than the aorist it often "divides the crown with the aorist."335 The imperfect is here a sort of moving panorama, a "moving-picture show." The modern Greek preserves this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 121). In 1 Cor. 10:3 f. e;fagon and e;pion give the summary (constative) record, while e;pinon, presents an explanatory description. See further prosh/lqon kai. dihko,noun (Mt. 4:11); e;pesen kai. evdi,dougrk grk(13:8); evnu,staxan kai. evka,qeudongrk grk(25:5). Sometimes the change from aorist to imperf. or vice versa in narrative may be due to the desire to avoid monotony. In Mt. 26:60 we have ouvc eu-ron, in Mk. 14:55 ouvc eu[riskon. The aorist tells the simple story. The imperfect draws the picture. It helps you to see the course of the act. It passes before the eye the flowing stream of history. It is the tense of Schilderung.336 Cf. ei=cen to. e;nduma auvtou/ (Mt. 3:4), evxeporeu,eto $3:5 %├ evbapti,zonto $3:6 %) The whole vivid schen at the Jordan is thus sketched. Then Matthew reverts to the aorist aorist(3:7). Cf. h;rconto in Jo. 19 :2. So oa}j w;feilen auvtw|/ (Mt. 18:28) aptly describes a debtor as e;pnigen, 'the choking in his rage.' See the picture of Jesus in evqew,rei (Mk. 12 :41). Cf. evqew,roun (Lu. 10 :18), evxele,gonto (14 :7), perieble,peto (Mk. 5 :32), evxi,stanto (Ln. 2:47; cf. Ac. 2:12). Cf. Lu. 9:43-45; 16:19; Mt. 8:24. A good example is evkuli,eto avfri,zwn (Mk. 9:20). Cf. further, e;pipten kai. proshu,ceto (Mk. 14:35), the realistic scene in Gethsemane (Peter's description probably); evpequ,mei kai. ouvdei.j evdi,dou (Lu. 15:16); w`mi,loun pro.j avllh,loujgrk grk(24:14); evxeplh,ssounto (Mt. 7:28); evti,qei, (2 Cor. 3:13); hvkolou,qei kai. evka,qhto (Mt. 26: 58). A splendid example of the descriptive durative is evsiw,pa (Mt. 26:63)= 'kept silent.' So evple,omen (Ac. 21:3). Note evno,─ mizon (Ac. 21:29) between past perfect and aorist. Cf. evvfi,lei


(Jo. 11:36), dieth,rei (Lu. 2:51. Cf. 2:19). See the picture of Noah's time in Lu. 17:27. Cf. evporeu,onto cai,rontej (Ac. 5:41). Quite striking is hvlpi,zomen, in Lu. 24:21. See further for the "imperfect and aorist interwoven" in narrative Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 91. An artist could describe his work by evpoi,hsa or evpoi,oun. Gildersleeve notes (ib., p. 93) that in the inscriptions of the fourth cent. B.C. the imperfect is absent. It becomes common again in the imperial time.

( g) The Iterative (Customary) Imperfect. Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether an act is merely descriptive or is a series. Cf. polloi. plou,sioi e;ballon (Mk. 12:41); evpni,gontogrk grk(5:13), where the separate details are well described by the vivid imperfect. The notion of repetition is clearly present in hvrw,ta evlehmosu,nhn (Ac. 3:3); hvrw,ta auvto,n (Mk. 7:26). Cf. Jo. 4:31. The modern Greek keeps this usage (Thumb, Handb., p. 122). It is not necessary to see any "aoristic" notion here.337 Cf. pareka,loun spoudai,wj (Lu. 7:4, W. H.); parh|,nei (Ac. 27:9). It is well shown in Barna,─ baj evbou,leto├ Pau/loj hvxi,ou grk(15:37 f.), the one opposing the other. In Ac. 24:26 repetition is shown in w`mi,lei by pukno,teron meta─ pempo,menoj. Cf. a;lloi de. a;llo ti evpefw,noungrk grk(21:34); evpunqa,neto in verse 33; kaq v h`me,ran evkaqezo,mhn (Mt. 26:55); e;tuptongrk grk(27:30); o[pou h;kouon (Mk. 6:55), kathro,roun polla,grk grk(15:3); avpe,luen o[n parh|tou/ntogrk grk(15:6. Cf. eivw,qei avpolu,ein oa}n h;qelon, Mt. 27:15); evne,─ neuon (Lu. 1:62); evba,ptizen (Jo. 3:22); e;lue grk(5:18); evdi,dosan (19: 3); evzw,nnuejgrk grk(21:18); evti,qoun (Ac. 3:2); evpi,praskon kai. dieme,rizon (2: 45. Cf. 4 : 34). Moulton (Prol., p. 128) represents the iterative imperfect by the graph (. . . . . . ) Cf. Ac. 16:18; 18:8; Mk. 3:11; 4:33 f. A good example is in Lu. 2:41, evporeu,onto kat v e;toj.

( d) The Progressive Imperfect. Sometimes the imperfect looks backward or forward, as the case may be.338 Thus Ti, o[ti evzhtei/te, me (Lu. 2:49); ha}n ei;cete avp v avrch/j (1 Jo. 2:7); evnekopto,mhn (Ro. 15:22); e;mellon (Rev. 3:2). This idea is, however, often expressed by me,llw,339 but without the backward look also. Cf. Lu. 9:31; 10:1; Jo. 4:47; 6:71, etc. In evkindu,neuon (Lu. 8:23) the verb itself expresses peril or danger. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 97) calls this idiom "Imperfect of Unity of Time." Cf. the "progressive" present in ( a), ( b). The Text. Recept. gives a good example in h=n pa,lai to. ploi/on evn me,sw| th/j qala,sshj (Mk. 6:47). See also h=n ga.r evx i`kanw/n cro,nwn qe,lwn ivdei/n auvto,n (Lu. 23:8).


( e) The Inchoative or Conative Imperfect. Here the accent is on the beginning of the action either in contrast to preceding aorists (just begun) or because the action was interrupted (begun, but not completed). The two sorts of inchoative action may be represented by two graphs, thus ( - -) for the first, (- ) for the second.340 In English we have to say "began" for the one, "tried" for the other. The modern Greek maintains this idiom (Thumb, Handb., p. 121). As examples of the first sort where "began" brings out the idea, note evdi,daske (Mt. 5:2. Cf. Jo. 7: 14); evla,lei (Mk. 7:35. Cf. Lu. 1:64); e;klaiengrk grk(14:72); dierh,sseto (Lu. 5:6); diela,loun grk(6:11); suneplhrou /ntogrk grk(8:23); evpeski,azen (9: 34. Note ingressive aorist evfobh,qhsan); evpe,fwsken grk(23:54); evpe─ gi,nwskon (Ac. 3:10); evkh,russengrk grk(9:20); diekri,nontogrk grk(11:2); kath,g─ gellongrk grk(13:5); evqoru,boungrk grk(17:5); parwxu,netogrk grk(17:16); avpelogei/togrk grk(26:1); evpoiou/ntogrk grk(27:18); evlu,eto grk(27:41). Cf. Lu. 13:13, 17. In evka,loun (Lu. 1:59) we see both ideas combined. The action was begun, but was sharply interrupted by ouvci,├ avlla,, from Elizabeth. Cf. nu/n evzh,toun, (Jo. 11:8). A good instance of the interrupted imperf. is prose,feren in Heb. 11:17. Examples of the conative imperfect (action begun, but interrupted) are diekw,luen (Mt. 3:14); evdi,doun, (Mk. 15:23, in contrast with ouvk e;laben); evkwlu,omen (Lu. 9:49); evzh,toun (Jo. 10:39; cf. 19:11); evno,mizen (Ac. 7:25. Note ouv sunh/kan); sunh,llassengrk grk(7:26. Note avpw,sato); e;peiqen (Ac. 18:4); hvna,gkazongrk grk(26:11); but not Gal. 1:13. Moulton (Prol., pi 247) cites the conative pres. avnagka,zousin (Gal. 6:12).

( z% The "Negative" Imperfect. This is not a very happy piece of nomenclature, to use Gildersleeve's remark about Stahl's overrefinement, and yet it is the best one can do. "The negative imperfect commonly denotes resistance to pressure or disappointment."341 As examples note o` de. ouvk h;qelen, (followed by e;balen, Mt. 18:30) and preceded by pareka,lei (iterative), ouvdei.j evdi,dou (Lu. 15:16), ouvk h;qelengrk grk(15:28. Note wvrgi,sqh), ouvk evpi,steuen (Jo. 2:24), ouv ga.r h;qelen (Jo. 7:1), ouvdei.j evto,lmagrk grk(21:12), ouvk ei;wn (Ac. 19:30). Cf. Mt. 22:3.

( h) The "Potential" Imperfect. This is a peculiar use of the tense for pres nt time, where the present ind. fails to meet the requirement o the situation. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 97) calls it "modal" use, e;dei, etc. The unfulfilled duty comes as a surprise. This "modal" force of the imperfect ind. appears still in the


modern Greek (Thumb, Handb., p. 128). There are several varieties of it. Verbs of wishing form one class of passages. In a case like evboulo,mhn (Ac. 25:22), bou,lomai would be too blunt (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). The exact idea is 'I was just on the point of wishing.' It is freely rendered 'I could wish' or 'I should wish.' I In 2 Cor. 1:15 evboulo,mhn pro,teron has its usual signification. In Phil. 1:13 f. evboulo,mhn (a past preference) is set over against ouvde.n hvqe,lhsa (a past decision).342 Another example is h;qelon parei/nai pro.j u`ma/j a;rti (Gal. 4:20). Note a;rti. For the force of the present see 1 Cor. 10:20; Col. 2:1; and especially Lu. 19:14, of qe,lomen. In Jo. 6:21, h;qelon, the usual notion occurs. An example is found in Ro. 9:3, huvco,mhn, where Paul almost expresses a moral wrong. He holds himself back from the abyss by the tense. He does not say eu;comai (cf. 2 Cor. 13:7), nor euvxai,mhn a;n (Ac. 26:29). Note ouv yeu,domai in Ro. 9:1. In Ac. 27:29 hu;conto has its usual force.

Wishes about the present are naturally unattainable. In the ancient idiom ei;qe or eiv ga,r was used with the imperf. ind. or w;felon and the inf. Callimachus, B.C. 260, uses w;felon with the ind. The augmentless form o;felon appears in Herodotus (Moulton, Prol., p. 201). In the N. T. only o;felon is used with the perf. for wishes about the present. Cf. o;felon avnei,cesqe (2 Cor. 1:1); o;felon h=j (Rev. 3:15).

Verbs of propriety, possibility, obligation or necessity are also used in the imperfect when the obligation, etc., is not lived up to, has not been met. Winer343 has stated the matter well. The Greeks (and the Latins) start from the past and state the real possibility or obligation, and the reader, by comparing that with facts, notes that the obligation was not met. The English and the Germans start from the present and find trouble with this past statement of a present duty (an unfulfilled duty). A distinction is usually drawn between the present and the aorist infinitives when they occur with these verbs ( evdu,nato├ w;feilon├ e;dei├ kalo.n h=n├ krei/tton h=n├ avnh/ken├ kaqh/ken). The present inf. refers more directly to the present, the aorist to an action in the past. This is, however, only by suggestion. Thus in Mt. 18:33, ouvk e;dei kai. se. evleh/sai├ note w`j kavgw. se. hvle,hsa. Cf. also Mt. 23:23 tau/ta de. e;dei poih/sai kavkei/na mh. avfei/nai,grk grk(25:27) e;dei se balei/n,grk grk(26:9) evdu,nato praqh /nai kai. doqh /nai,grk grk(26:24) kalo.n h=n auvtw| / (no inf. here), (Ac. 22: 22) ouv ga.r kaqh,ken auvto.n zh/n,grk grk(24:19) oua}j e;dei evpi. sou / parei/nai, (26: 32) avpolelu,sqai evdu,nato (note perf. inf.),inf. inf.(27:21) e;dei mh. avna,gesqai


kerdh/sai, te, (2 Pet. 2:21) krei/tton h=n auvtoi/j mh. evpegnwke,nai (perf. inf.), (2 Cor. 2:3) avf v w-n e;dei me cai,rein, (Col. 3:18) w`j avnh/ken evn kuri,w| (Cf. Eph. 5:4.) But it must not be supposed that these imperfects cannot be used in the normal expression of a past obligation or possibility that was met. The context makes the matter clear. Cf. Lu. 13:16; 22:7; 24:26; Jo. 4:4, etc. In Lu. 15:32 e;dei applies to both the past and present, probably with an implication against the attitude of the elder brother. In Heb. 2:10 e;prepen and 2:17 w;feilen have their natural past meaning.

Another instance where the imperfect refers to present time is in the second-class conditional sentences (see chapter XIX, Mode). When a condition is assumed as unreal and refers to present time, the imperfect tense is used both in the protasis and the apodosis in normal constructions. See apodosis in Mt. 26:24 and in Ac. 26:32 (both quoted above). It is only the tense that calls for discussion here. Cf. a`marti,an ouvc ei;cosan (Jo. 15:22, 24), where nu/n de, is used to explain the point. So ouvk ei=cej (Jo. 19: 11). In 1 Cor. 5:10, wvfei,lete a;ra──evxelqei/n, and Heb. 9:26, evpei. e;dei──paqei/n, we only have the apodosis. Cf. eiv h=n - evgi,nwsken a;n) (Lu. 7:39) as a type of the more usual construction with a;n) Cf. Lu. 17:6. In Heb. 11:15 the imperfects describe past time.

( q) In Indirect Discourse. In general the imperfect in indir. discourse represents an imperfect of the direct discourse. But sometimes with verbs of perception it is relative time and refers to a time previous to the perception.344 Thus ei=con to.n vIwa,nhn o[ti profh,thj h=n (Mk. 11:32); ei=don o[ti ouvk h=n (Jo. 6:22. Cf ouvk e;stin in verse 24); o[ti prosai,thj h=n grk(9:8); evpegi,nwskon o [ti h=n o` kaqh,menoj (Ac. 3:10) while in 4:13 h=san is rightly antecedent to evpegi,nw─ skon├ h;deisan o[ti- u`ph/rcengrk grk(16:3). In Ac. 3:10 the idiom approaches that in Jo. 1:15, ou-toj h=n o` eivpw,n (a parenthesis), where the verb is thrown back to past time. Our idiom more naturally calls for evsti,n, here. Gildersleeve345 calls this the "imperfect of sudden appreciation of real state of things."

(c) The Periphrastic Imperfect. It is easy to see how in the present, and especially in the future, periphrastic forms were felt to be needed to emphasize durative action. But that was the real function of the imperfect tense. The demand for this stressing of the durative idea by h=n and the present participle was cer-


Addenda 3rd ed.

tainly not so great. And yet it is just in the imperfect in the N. T. that this idiom is most frequent. It is not unknown in the ancient Greek.346 Schmid347 finds it rare in the koinh,, especially in the imperfect, where the N. T. is so rich in the idiom. He suggests the Aramaic influence, particularly as that language is fond of this periphrasis. Periphrasis is thoroughly Greek, and yet in the N. T. we have unusual frequency of a usage that the koinh, has not greatly developed except "where Aramaic sources underlie the Greek" (Moulton, Prol., p. 226). Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 124) gives classical examples from Pindar, Thuc., Isocrates, etc. It is true that in the N. T. the pres. participle with h=n occurs chiefly in Mark (19 times), Luke (31), Acts (28, but 17 of them in chapters 1-12), and just in those portions most subject to Aramaic influence (possible Aramaic sources). Only 7 occur in Acts 1328, , and these mainly in the speech in 22 delivered in Aramaic.348 The LXX349 gives abundant illustration of this analytic tendency in the imperfect. Cf. Gen. 37:2; Deut. 9:24; Judg. 1:7. Cf. Thackeray, Gr., p. 24. From Pelagia (p. 18) Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites h;mhn avperco,menoj. For a papyrus illustration see o[sa h=n kaqh,konta, P. Oxy. 115 (ii/A.D.). The idiom itself is therefore Greek, but the frequency of it in the N. T. is due to the Hebrew and Aramaic. Matthew has it 10 times, John 11, , Paul 5.350 The Pauline examples (Gal. 1:22 f.; Ph. 2:26) are more like the classic independence of the participle. It is usually the descriptive imperfect that uses the periphrastic form. So h=n dida,─ skwn (Mt. 7:29); h=n e;cwn (Mk. 10:22); h=san avnabai,nontej (10: 32); h=n proseuco,menon (Lu. 1:10); kaiome,nh h=n (Lu. 24:32). But sometimes it is the iterative imperfect as in h=n dianeu,wn (Lu. 1: 22); h=n dida,skwn to. kaq v h`me,rangrk grk(19:47).351 In Lu. 5:17 the periphrastic imperfect and past perfect occur in the same sentence. In Lu. 23:12 note prou?ph/rcon o;ntej (cf. Ac. 8:9).

( k) Past Perfects as Imperfects. The present perfects of these verbs are merely presents in sense when compared with other verbs. So the past perfects have only an imperfect force. Thus h|;dei (Mt. 27:18); eivw,qeigrk grk(27:15); i`sth,kei. (Jo. 18:5).

(c) The Future for Future Time. The future is mainly aoristic (punctiliar), as has already been shown, but sometimes durative.352 The broad lines of the problem have already been


Addenda 2nd ed.

drawn. As already shown, the modern Greek has a special durative future by means of qa. lu,w (pres. subj.). See Thumb, Handb., p. 160. A summary statement of the durative future is given.

(a) The Three Kinds of Action in the Future (futuristic, volitive, deliberative). These occur here also. Thus merely futuristic are sw,sei (Mt. 1:21); bapti,sei (Mt. 3:11); evlpiou/sin (12: 21); e;stai (Lu. 1:14 f.); evpistre,yei and proeleu,setaigrk grk(1:16 f.); e`l─ ku,sw (Jo. 12:32); zh,somen (Ro. 6:2); kurieu,seigrk grk(6:14); basta,sei (Gal. 6:5); evpitele,sei (Ph. 1:6); carh,somaigrk grk(1:18); zhth,sou─ sin (Rev. 9:6). Burton353 calls this "the progressive future." Cf. Ac. 7:6. Durative also is avdikh,sei with ouv mh, (Lu. 10:19). So ouv mh. diyh,sei (Jo. 4:14; cf. 6:35); ouv mh. avkolouqh,sousin (Jo. 10: 5). Examples of the volitive durative future are the legal precepts (common in the LXX) so often quoted in the N. T. Cf. ouv foneu,seij (Mt. 5:21); ouv moiceu,seijgrk grk(5:27); ouvk evpiorkh,seij├ avpodw,─ seijgrk grk(5:33); avgaph,seijgrk grk(5:43; cf. avgapa/te, verse 44); e;sesqe (5: 48), etc. Perhaps oivkodomh,sw (Mt. 16:18)= 'I will' rather than 'I shall.' In 1 Tim. 6:8, tou,toij avrkesqhso,meqa, the resolution is volitive. It is possible that we have the volitive use in Mt. 4:4, ouvk evp v a;rtw| mo,nw| zh,setai o` a;nqrwpoj. The deliberative future may also be durative. Cf. Mt. 18:21, posa,kij a`marth,sei; (merely interrogative) and Lu. 14:34, evn ti,ni avrtuqh,setai; (rhetorical). Cf. aor., pres. and fut. ind. in Mt. 28:7.

( b) The Periphrastic Future. The very failure of the future to express durative action clearly354 led to the use of the present participle e;somai. In Lysias (2), 13, note e;sontai geno,menoi more like a future punctiliar (or perfect). Cf. Mt. 10:22 and 24:9, e;sesqe misou,menoi (Mk. 13:13; Lu. 21:17); (Mk. 13:25) e;sontai pi,ptontej (Lu. 1:20) e;sh| siwpw/n,grk grk(5:10) e;sh| zwgrw/n,grk grk(17:35) e;sontai avlh,qousai,grk grk(21:24) e;stai patoume,nh, (1 Cor. 14:9) e;sesqe lalou/ntej. Cf. Gen. 4:12, 14; Deut. 28:29; Mal. 3:3, etc. The frequent use of me,llw and the pres. inf. (durative) has already been mentioned. The fut. of me,llw itself occurs (Mt. 24:6) with the pres. inf.

2. SUBJUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE. The rarity of the press subj. (and opt., of course) has already been commented upon. The aorist is used as a matter of course here unless durative action is to be expressd. A few examples will suffice. Thus ti, poiw/men; (Jo. 6:28); eva.n e;chte (Mt. 17:20); e;cwmen (Ro. 5:1). The subjunctive is very common indeed, but not in the present tense. There is in the N. T. no instance of a periphrastic present subj.


or optative. John's free use of the pres. subj. has already been noted (Abbott, Joh. Gr., pp. 369 ff.). Cf. eva.n poih/tegrk grk(13:17); eva.n marturw/grk grk(5:31). In Col. 1:18 note ge,nhtai prwteu,wn like evge,neto sti,lbonta (Mk. 9:3). The present opt. survives in dunai,mhn (Ac. 8:31); e;coi, (Ac. 17:11); bou,loito (Ac. 25:20); qe,loi (Ac. 17:18; Lu. 1:62); ei;hgrk grk(9:46; 15:26; 18:36; 22:23; Ac. 10:17).

3. IMPERATIVE. The contrast between the present imperative and the aorist subj. in prohibitions had to be set forth in connection with the punctiliar-aorist subj. The present imper. was found to be regularly durative. In Paul's frequent use of the pres. imper. with mh. the inchoative or conative or customary (prohibiting a course of conduct) use of the present is noticeable, as in mh. avme,lei (1 Tim. 4:14); mhdeni. evpiti,qeigrk grk(5:22); mhde. koinw,nei (ib.); mh. mequ,skesqe (Eph. 5:18); mh. yeu,desqe (Col. 3:9).355 Cf. mh. avpai,tei (Lu. 6:30). In general mh, is used with the present imper. to forbid what one is already doing. Cf. mh. fobei/sqe (Jo. 6:20); mh. kri,nete (Mt. 7:1); mhke,ti a`ma,rtane (Jo. 5:14); mh. qauma,zete grk(5:28); mh. dokei/tegrk grk(5:45); mhke,tei sku,lle (Lu. 8:49). The durative force of the pres. imper. is well seen in kaqeu,dete kai. avnapau,esqe (Mt. 26:45). Cf. also pa,ntote cai,rete├ avdialei,ptwj proseu,cesqe├ evn panti. euvcaristei /te (1 Th. 5:16-22). A good example is seen in Ac. 18:9, Mh. fobou /├ avlla. la,lei kai. mh. siwph,sh|j├ 'He had been afraid, he was to go on speaking, he was not to become silent.' Cf. 2 Tim. 2:16, 22 f. The contrast between aorist and pres. imper. is often drawn in the N. T., as in Jo. 5:8; Mt. 16:24. We note the periphrastic pres. imper. in i;sqi euvnow/n (Mt. 5:25); i;sqi e;cwn (Lu. 19:17); i;ste ginw,skontej (Eph. 5:5)356; e;stwsan kaio,menoi (Lu. 12:35). Cf. Judg. 11:10; Prov. 3:5; gi,nou grhgorw/n (Rev. 3:2); 2 Cor. 6:14. Moulton (Prol., p. 249) cites from Pelagia (p. 26) e;so ginw,skwn)

4. INFINITIVE. The present inf. can be assumed to be durative. The matter has had some discussion in connection with the aorist inf. (punctiliar), but a few further examples will illustrate the usage. Cf. ta. auvta. gra,fein u`mi/n (Ph. 3:1) and to. avgapa/n auvto,n (Mk. 12:33) where the linear action is obvious.357 Indeed the force of the pres. inf. is so normal as to call for little cornment.358 Cf. ouv du,namai poiei/n (Jo. 5:30. Cf. Mt. 6:24); to. qe,lein Ro. 7:18); a`marta,nein (1 Jo. 3:9); proseu,cesqai (1 Cor. 11:13); tou/ ptatei/n (Lu. 10:19), etc. For the distinction between the


Addenda 3rd ed.

aorist and pres. inf. see evmbh/nai- kai. proa,gein (Mt. 14:22). Cf. aivtei/n in Ac. 3:2. The frequent use of me,llw and the pres. inf. has already been twice mentioned. In indirect discourse the pres. inf. merely represents the pres. ind. of the direct discourse. Cf. ei=nai (Mt. 22:23; Ro. 1:22); evkba,llein (Lu. 11:18), etc. There is one instance in the N. T. of a pres. inf. in indir. discourse representing an imperfect incl.359 Luke has a periphrastic pres. inf., evn tw| / ei=nai auvto.n proseuco,menon, which occurs twice twice(9:18; 11:1). Cf. 2 Chron. 15:16. Only two fut. infs. in the N. T. seem to be durative (Ac. 11:28; Jo. 21:25). The pres. inf. is most natural with evn (cf. Lu. 8:40), and is common with dia, (cf. Mt. 13:f.); eivj (Ro. 12:2); but not (pres. 3, aor. 9) with pro,j (Mk. 13:22). It is used only once with pro, (Jo. 17:5) and is not used with meta,. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f.

5. PARTICI PLE. The present participle, like the present inf., is timeless and urative.

(a) The Time of the Present Participle Relative. The time comes from the principal verb. Thus in pwlou/ntej e;feron (Ac. 4:34. Cf. pwlh,saj h;negken in verse 37) the time is past; in merimnw/n du,natai (Mt. 6:27) the time is present; in e;sesqe misou,menoi (Mt. 10:22), o` ble,pwn avpodw,sei (Mt. 6:18), o;yontai to.n ui`o.n tou / avnqrw,pou evrco,─ menon,grk grk(24:30) it is future. Cf. Mt. 24:46; Lu. 5:4; 12:43. Further examples of the pres. part. of coincident action are seen in Mt. 27:41; Mk. 16:20; Jo. 6:6; 21:19; Ac. 9:22; 10:44; 19:9.

(b) Futuristic. Just as the pres. ind. sometimes has a futuristic sense, so the pres. part. may be used of the future in the sense of purpose (by implication only, however). Cf. euvlogou/nta (Ac. 3: 26); avpagge,llontajgrk grk(15:27); diakonw/n (Ro. 15:25). In Ac. 18:23, evxh/lqen dierco,menoj th.n Galatikh.n cw,ran, the pres. part. is coincident with the verb. In 21:2 f. the pres. parts. diaperw/n and avpoforti─ zo,meon are futuristic (cf. 3:26; 15:27). Blass, page 189, notes o` evrco,menoj (Jo. 11:27) and evrco,menongrk grk(1:9). This use of the pres. part. is common in Thuc. (Gildersleeve, A. J. P., 1908, p. 408).

(c) Descriptive. But usually the pres. part. is merely descriptive. Cf. Mk. 1:4; Ac. 20:9; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:18. There is no notion of purpbse in a;gontej (Ac. 21:16). In tou.j swzome,nouj (Ac. 2:47) the idea is probably iterative, but the descriptive durative is certainly all that is true of tou.j a`giazome,nouj in Heb. 10:14 (cf. 10:10).


(d) Conative. It may be conative like the pres. or imperf. ind. as in pei,qwn (Ac. 28:23) or tou.j eivsercome,nouj (Mt. 23:14).

(e) Antecedent Time. By implication also the pres. part. may be used to suggest antecedent time (a sort of "imperfect" part.). So tuflo.j w'n a;rti ble,pw (Jo. 9:25). See further Mt. 2:20; Jo. 12:17; Ac. 4:34; 10:7; Gal. 1:23. Cf. o` bapti,zwn (Mk. 1:4).

(f) Indirect Discourse. Cf. p. 864. An example of the pres. part. with the object of a verb (a sort of indir. disc. with verbs of sensation) is found in ei;dame,n tina evkba,llonta daimo,nia (Lu. 9:49). The pres. part. is common after ei=don in Rev. Rev.(10:1; 13:1, 11; 114:6; 18:1; 20:1, etc.). Cf. Ac. 19:35, ginw,skei th.n po,lin ou=san.

(g) With the Article. The present participle has often the iterative (cf. pres. ind.) sense. So o` kle,ptwn (Eph. 4:28)='the rogue.' Cf. o` katalu,wn (Mt. 27:40); oi` zhtou /ntejgrk grk(2:20). The part. with the article sometimes loses much of its verbal force (Moulton, Prol., p. 127; Kuhner-Gerth, I, p. 266). He cites from the papyri, toi/j gamou/si, C. P. R. 24 (ii/A.D.). Cf. tou.j swzome,nouj (Ac. 2:47). So in Gal. 4:27, h` ouv ti,ktousa├ h` ouvk wvdi,nousa.

(h) Past Action Still in Progress. This may be represented by the pres. part. So Mk. 5:25; Jo. 5:5; Ac. 24:10. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 59.

(i) "Subsequent" Action. Blass360 finds "subsequent" action in the pres. parts. in Ac. 14:22 and 18:23. But in 14:22 note u`pe,streyan eivj th.n Lu,stran- evpisthri,zontej ta.j yuca.j tw/n maqh─ tw/n the aorist ind. is "effective" and accents the completion of the action. The pres. part. is merely coincident with the "effective" stage. It is a point, not a process in the aorist.

(j) No Durative Future Participles. The few fut. parts. in the N. T. seem to be punctiliar, not durative, unless to. genhso,menon (I Cor. 15:37) be durative, but this example is pretty clearly ingressive punctiliar.

IV. Perfected State of the Action ( o` te,leioj h' sunteliko,j).


(a) The Present Perfect. The oldest of the perfects. "The perfect is a present perfect."361 Such it was in the beginning undoubtedly . The past perfect and future perfect are both built upon the present perfect stem. Both are comparatively rare, especially the future perfect. The use was at first also confined to the indicative. Moulton (Prol., p. 140) calls it the most important exegetically of the Greek tenses.


(b) The Intensive Perfect. This use (or the iterative) was probably the origin of the tense. So o;llumai='I perish,' o;lwla= 'I perish utterly.'362 Cf. also qnh,skw├ te,qnhka * mimnh,skw├ me,mnhmai. The iterative process is seen in avpe,stalka (2 Cor. 12:17), e`w,raken (Jo. 1:18). The "effective" aoristic present is close kin to the perfect, as we have already seen, in (Lu. 15:27); avkou,w (1 Cor. 11:18); avdikw/ (Ac. 25:11). Reduplication, though not always used, was an effort to express this intensive or iterative idea. So likewise the aorist of an action just accomplished, like e;gnwn ti, poih,sw, (Lu. 16:4), is near in idea to the present perfect, though there is a difference. More about the intensive perfect a little later.

(c) The Extensive Perfect. This comes to be the usual force of the tense, Gildersleeve363 has put the thing finely: "The perfect looks at both ends of an action." It "unites in itself as it were present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of completed action."364 That is to say, the perfect is both punctiliar and durative. The aorist (punctiliar) represents an action as finished, the linear present as durative, but the perfect presents a completed state or condition. When the action was completed the perfect tense does not say. It is still complete at the time of the use of the tense by speaker or writer. In Jo. 1:32 teqe,amai in the mouth of John the Baptist refers to the baptism of Jesus some week before, but he still has the vision. Cf. 1:34, e`w,raka kai. memartu,rhka├ where there is a difference of time between the two words. When Andrew said to Peter eu`rh,kamengrk grk(1:41) his discovery is recent and vivid. No single graph for the perfect can therefore be made. In some cases the line of connection from the act (punctiliar) to the time of speaking would be very short, in others very long. This line of connection is just the contribution of the perfect tense as distinct from aorist and present. As a matter of fact, in the combination of punctiliar and durative in the perfect it begins with the punctiliar and goes on with the durative thus (o-----), but the emphasis may be now on the punctiliar, now on the durative. In others the two are drawn almost to a point, but not quite. In still others there is a broken continuity thus (A o o o o > o o o o B).365 It is the perfect of repeated action. Cf. Jo. 1:18; 5:37; 2 Cor. 12:17.


Addenda 3rd ed.

(d) Idea of Time in the Tense. In the ind. it appears in three forms with the notion of time (past perfect, present perfect, future perfect). In the other modes only the present perfect occurs, but it has no time in itself and in the imper. and subj. is naturally future. Often in the N. T., as in the Attic writers,366 a sharp distinction is drawn between the perfect and the aorist or the present. Cf. marturei/ with avpe,stalken and memartu,rh─ ken in Jo. 5:36 f.; eivsh,gagen- kai. kekoi,nwken, (Ac. 21:28); o[ti evta,fh, kai. o[ti evgh,gertai (1 Cor. 15:4); evkti,sqh─e;ktistai (Col. 1:16); h;san, e;dwkaj├ teth,rhkaj (Jo. 17:6). The perfect active is frequently intransitive,367 as has been already shown under Voice. Cf. i[sthmi, e[sthka├ avpo,llumi├ avpo,lwla, etc.


(a) The Present Perfect ( o` evnesw.j sunteliko.j h' parakei,menoj). It is not clear how the notion of present time is conveyed by this tense in the ind. since it is absent in the subj. and imper., not to say inf. and part. Gildersleeve suggests that it "comes from the absence of the augment and from the fact that a completed phenomenon cannot complete itself in the future." But that explanation is not very satisfactory. The tense does occur sometimes in the future, and the present perfect is older than the past perfect which rests on it. Perhaps at first it was just the perfect tense (cf. aoristic presents and timeless aorists) and was timeless. By degrees it came to be used only for present time. The rise of the past perfect made it clear. The pres. perf. is much more common in the koinh, than in the earlier Greek. "The perfect was increasingly used, as the language grew older, for what would formerly have been a narrative aorist" (Moulton, Prol., p. 141). In particular is this true of the vernacular as the papyri show.

(a) The Intensive Present Perfect. Moulton368 calls these "Perfects with Present Force." They are Perfecta Praesentia. In reality they are perfects where the punctiliar force is dropped and only the durative remains (cf. past perfect). Gildersleeve369 distinguishes sharply between the intensive use of emotional verbs and what he calls the "Perfect of Maintenance of Result." But it is questionable if the difference does not lie in the nature of the verb rather than in a special modification of the tense. A real distinction exists in 1 Jo. 4:14 between teqea,meqa and marturou /─ men. Burton370 follows Gildersleeve, but he admits the doubt on


Addenda 2nd ed.

the subject.371 In these verbs when the perfect has lost the punctiliar notion it is due to the change in meaning of the verbs.372 The list is rather large in Homer, particularly where attitude of mind is expressed.373 Giles (Man., p. 481) thinks that originally the perf. was either intensive or iterative like e[sthka, and that the notion of recently completed action (extensive) is a development. These almost purely durative perfects in the N. T. may be illustrated by e;oika (Jas. 1:6); avne,w|ga (2 Cor. 6:11); oi=da (Mt. 6:8); e[sthka (Rev. 3:20); evne,sthka (2 Th. 2:2); pe,poiqa (Ph. 2:24); ke,kragen (Jo 1:15) which is an example of Gildersleeve's emotional intensives and due according to Blass374 to the "literary language," me,mnhmai (1 Cor. 11:2); te,qnhka (Lu. 8:49). Most of these verbs have an inchoative or conative or iterative sense in the present. Moulton375 has shown from the LXX and the papyri that ke,kraga, is vernacular koinh, and not merely literary. He thinks that, while kra,zw in the LXX is durative, ke,kraga is merely punctiliar. See ( q) The Aoristic Perfect. It is possible also that pepisteu,kamen kai. evgnw,kamen (Jo. 6:69) belong here. It is less open to dispute that katabe,bhka (Jo. 6:38) is a present state. Cf. kekoi,mhtai (Jo. 11:11). But more doubtful are h;lpika (Jo. 5:45); h[ghmai (Ac. 26:2); pe,peismai. (Ro. 8:38).376 But tea,raktai (Jo. 12:27) seems to fall under the intensive perfect. Cf. e`stw.j eivmi, (Ac. 25:10).

( b) The extensive Present Perfect = a completed state. This act may be durative-punctiliar like h;ggiken (Mt. 3:2) with a backward 1ook (-----o). Cf. thus hvgw,nismai├ tete,leka├ teth,rhka (2 Tim. 4:7). This consummative effect is seen in teth,rhkan (Jo. 17:6), evlh,luqengrk grk(12:23) and peplhrw,kate (Ac. 5:28). Cf. Heb. 8:13; 10:4. In Jo. 20:29, o[ti e`w,raka,j me pepi,steukaj the culmination is just reached a few moments before. But more frequently it is the punctiliar-durative perfect where the completed act is followed by a state of greater or less duration (o-----). In Jo. 19:22, o[ ge,grafa ge,grafa, we have an example of each. Cf. the common ge,graptai (Mt. 4:7). 'It was written (punctiliar) and still is on record' (durative). Thus is to be explained instances like ei;rhken in Heb. 10:9 (cf. ei=pon in 10:7). 'The statement is on record.' It is only in appearance that prosenh,nocen and pepoi,hken (Heb. 11:17, 28) seem different. This common usage in Hebrews has been compared to that in Thuc. vol. I, pp. 2, 6, etc.


Cf. further Heb. 7:6, 9, 11, 13, 16, 20, 23, where the permanence of the Jewish institutions is discussed. Jo. 6:25 ge,gonaj has punctiliar and durative ideas ('earnest and art here'). Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347. In Col. 1:16 evkti,sqh is merely punctiliar, while in same verse e;ktistai adds the durative idea, whereas in verse 17 again sune,sthken has lost the punctiliar and is only durative. In 1 Cor. 15:4 evgh,gertai stands between two aorists because Paul wishes to emphasize the idea that Jesus is still risen. Usually hvge,rqh was sufficient, but not here. Cf. evsth,riktai (Lu. 16:26). Cf. avfe,wntai (Lu. 5:23); evkke,cutai (Ro. 5:5). John is especially fond of this use of the present perfect. Cf. 1:32, 34, 41; 5:33, 36 ff. In chapter 17 the present perfects call for special attention. Cf. 1 Jo. 1:1 for contrast between the present perfect and the aorist.

( g) The Present Perfect of Broken Continuity.377 As already explained, we here have a series of links rather than a line, a broken graph (o o o o > o o o o). Perhaps pe,praca, ti in Ac. 25:11 is to be so understood. But certainly it is true of avpe,stalka (2 Cor. 12:17) where Paul refers to various missions to the Corinthians. In particular Moulton378 notes the examples with pw,pote, as ouvdei.j e`w,raken pw,pote (Jo. 1:18). Cf. further memartu,rhkengrk grk(5:37); dedou─ leu,kamengrk grk(8:33).

( d) The Dramatic Historical Present Perfect. Here an action completed in the past is conceived in terms of the present time for the sake of vividness. Burton379 doubts if any genuine examples of the vivid historical perfect occur in the N. T. Certainly ke,kragen (Jo. 1:15) is a vivid historical tense even if only intensive in sense. Cf. marturei/ just before. But by the term "historical" it is not meant that this use of the perfect is common in all narrative. But the Vedic Sanskrit has it often in narrative. It is a matter of personal equation after all. Thus Xenophon, who "affects naivete," uses the present perfect much more frequently than Herodotus and Thucydides.380 It is rather the tense of the orator or the dramatist and is often rhetorical.381 Hence Isocrates and Demosthenes surpass Plato in the use of the present perfect. "The nearness of any department of literature to practical life may readily be measured by the perfect."382 Moulton383 notes how in the papyri there is an increasing use of the present perfect just


because it is so largely the language of life. He notes also how Socrates in Plato's Crito uses this vivid present perfect: " tekmai,─ romai e;k tinoj evnupni,ou├ oa} e`w,raka ovli,gon pro,teron tau,thj th/j nukto,j, where point of time in the past would have ei=don, as inevitable as the aorist is in English, had not Socrates meant to emphasize the present vividness of the vision." This vivid perfect is found in John's Gospel in particular. One only needs to have some imagination himself. Cf. teqe,amai. grk(1:32). John still has that vision. So eu`rh,kamengrk grk(1:41). The aorist would have been prosaic. Cf. also avpesta,lkate grk(5:33), a realistic change. (Cf. 1:19 ff.). So also avpe,stalken, in Ac. 7:35; kekoi,nwken in 21:28 and pepoi,hka in 2 Cor. 11:25. A striking instance of it is seen in Rev. 5:7, ei;lhfen, where John sees Jesus with the book in his hand. It is dull to make an ei;lhfen here= e;laben. Another example of this vivid perfect is evsch,kamen (2 Cor. 1:9), a dreadful memory to Paul. So with e;schken in 7:5. A particularly good instance is ge,gonen (Mt. 25: 6), where the present perfect notes the sudden cry (cf. aorist and imperf. just before). Cf. ei;rhken in 2 Cor. 12:9. Blass384 has observed that it occurs sometimes in parables or illustrations, and quite naturally so, for the imagination is at play. Thus is to be explained avpelh,luqen, (Jas. 1:24) between two aorists. James sees the man. 'He has gone off.' Cf. Mt. 13:46, avpelqw.n pe,praken pa,nta o[sa ei=cen kai. hvgo,rasen auvto,n. In Lu. 9:36 e`w,rakan is "virtually reported speech."385 Cf. avkhko,amen (Ac. 6:11, but hvkou,samen in 15:24).

( e) The Gnomic Present Perfect. A few examples of this idiom seem to appear in the N. T. The present was always the more usual tense for customary truths,386 though the aorist and the perfect both occur. Cf. tetelei,wtai (1 Jo. 2:5); de,detai (1 Cor. 7: 39)387; ke,kritai and pepi,steuken (Jo. 3:18); katake,kritai (Ro. 14:23); peplh,rwkengrk grk(13:8). Cf. Jo. 5:24; Jas. 2:10.

( z) The Perfect in Indirect Discourse. It is misleading to say, as Blass388 does, that "the perfect is used relatively instead of the pluperfect" in such instances. This is explaining Greek from the German. Blass does not call this construction "indirect discourse," but merely "after verbs of perception"; but see my discussion of Indirect Discourse in ch. XIX. Cf. Lu. 9:36 ouvdeni. avph,ggeilan ouvde.n w-n e`w,rakan, Ac. 10:45 evxe,sthsan o[ti evkke,cutai. In Mk. 5:33, eivdui/a oa} ge,gonen auvth|/ h=lqen, the perfect preserves the


vividness of the woman's consciousness. Here the past perfect or the aorist could have been used (cf. Mk. 15:10; Mt. 27:18; Ac. 19:32). It is akin to the reportorial vividness of the historical perfect. It is not the perfects here that call for explanation from the Greek point of view. It is rather the occasional aorists, imperfects or past perfects. Cf. MS. differences in Mk. 3:8.

( h) Futuristic Present Perfect. Since the present so often occurs in a futuristic sense, it is not strange if we find the present perfect so used also future perfect. This proleptical use of the perfect may be illustrated by dedo,xasmai (Jo. 17:10), de,dwka (17: 22), tete,lestaigrk grk(19:28), se,shpen and ge,gonen and kati,wtai in Jas. 5:2 f. (cf. e;stai kai. fa,getai). This use is sometimes called "prophetico-perfect." Indeed some of the examples classed as gnomic are really proleptical also. Cf. Jo. 3:18; 5:24; Jas. 2:10; Ro. 13:8; 14:23.389

( q) The "Aoristic" Present Perfect. The Present Perfect is here conceived as a mere punctiliar preterit like the aorist ind. We have seen how in some verbs the punctiliar idea drops out and only the durative remains in some present perfect forms (like oi=da). It is not per se unreasonable to suppose that with some other verbs the durative idea should disappear and the form be merely punctiliar. We seem to have this situation in ke,kraga in the LXX (Moulton, Prol., p. 147). The action itself took place in the past though the state following its completion is present. "By centering attention on the former, while forgetting the latter, \the perfect becomes aoristic. We must distinguish between the aoristic (punctiliar) and the preterit notions. We have seen that originally the tense was probably timeless. Nothing, then, but an appeal to the facts can decide whether in the N. T. the present perf. ind. ever= the aor. ind. (i.e. is preterit punctiliar). The Sanskrit390 shows a deal of confusion and freedom in the use of the pres. perf. ind. The blending of the perfect and aorist firms in Latin is also a point to note in spite of the independence of the Greek tense development. E. J. Goodspeed (Am. J. Theol., X, 102 f.) regards Latin as having some influence on the ultimate confusion in the Greek. There is no doubt of the ultimate confusion in the late Greek391 (from A.D. 300 on) between the perfect and the aorist (see later). The use of -- qhka and - hka in the aorist pass. ind. in modern Greek illustrates one way confusion could


arise (Thumb Handb., p. 144). Cf. e;dwka├ de,dwka. In the modern Greek all other remnants of the old perfect form are gone save in the participle, which has lost its reduplication, like deme,noj. But had it begun in the older Greek? Jannaris392 answers Yes and cites Thuc. 1, 21, ou;te w`j poihtai. u`mnh,kasi- ouvte wpj logogra,foi xune,qesan. But this may be the dramatic historical perfect. Jebb393 answers Yes and quotes Demosthenes and Lucian; but these again may be merely the rhetorical dramatic perfect. The grammarians and scholiasts, under the influence of the Latin, did come to lose all consciousness of any distinction and explained one tense by the other.394 The present perfect was always more common in every-day life, as we have noted. The papyri prove this abundantly.395 Moreover, the present perfect grew in popular use at the expense of the aorist, where the aorist might have been employed. There is thus no strong presumption against the possibility of such confusion in the N. T. Besides, "the line between aorist and perfect is not always easy to draw."396 This is especially true of an event just past which may be described by either tense. Moulton397 admits that "the LXX and inscriptions show a few example of a semi-aoristic perfect in the pre-Roman age, which, as Thumb remarks (Hellenismus, p. 153), disposes of the idea that Latin influence was working" thus early. But Moulton rightly rejects ivdw.n o` lao.j o[ti kecro,nike Mwu?sh/j (Ex. 32:1) as an instance (merely oratio obliqua). Simcox398 says that "no one but a doctrinaire special pleader is likely to deny that in Rev. 5:7; 8:5, ei;lhfen, and in 7:14, ei;rhka are mere preterits in sense." Well, I do deny it as to ei;lhfen in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5, where we have the vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect. The same thing is possible with ei;rhka in 7:14, but I waive that for the moment. Burton399 is more cautious. He claims that the N. T. writers "had perfect command of the distinction between the aorist and the perfect," but admits that "there is clear evidence that the perfect tense was in the N. T. sometimes an aorist in force," though the idiom is confined within narrow limits." Some of the examples claimed by him for this usage I have explained otherwise already. Moulton400 sees that this confusion may exist in one writer, though not in another, but he admits a


"residuum of genuinely aoristic perfects." He admits ge,gona to be "perplexing," though in the 45 examples in the ind. in the N. T. "it has obviously present time" and "the aoristic sense is not really proved for any of them." That is certainly true. There are instances in the N. T., as in the later Greek generally,401 where ge,gona approaches a present in sense, as in 1 Cor. 13:11, but its use as a mere preterit is not shown, not even by the examples quoted by Moulton402 from the papyri (0. P. 478 and B. U. 136). The first has prosbebhke,nai- gegone,nai teteleuke,nai, all three apparently vivid historical perfects. The example in Josephus (Apion, 4:21) may be the same. We have left ei;lhfa├ ei;rhka├ e;schka├ pe,praka. The last Moulton403 refuses to admit as an aorist in sense, since "the distinction is very clearly seen in papyri for some centuries" between pepraka and hvgo,rasa. He cites 0. P. 482 (ii/A.D.), cwri.j w-n avpegraya,mhn kai. pe,praka. Besides in Mt. 13:46 pe,praken is in a vivid parable (dramatic historical perfect). Moulton notes the confusion as worse in illiterate papyri, like ouvk evlousa,mhn ouvk h;lime $╩h;leimmai), 0. P. 528 (ii/A.D.). As to e;schka the matter is more plausible in one example (2 Cor. 2:13). Blass404 affirms the true present perfect sense for e;schka elsewhere in the N. T. (Mk. 5:15; 2 Cor. 1:9; 7:5; Ro. 5:2). Moulton405 replies that "we must, I think, treat all the Pauline passages alike." But why? He does not claim such uniformity for ge,gona in any N. T. writer.406 There is some analogy between e;schka and e;qhka and avfh /ka, and e;scon may be ingressive, not constative. Moulton (Prol., p. 145) makes a good deal out of the fact that e;scon occurs only 20 times in the N. T. and that thus e;schka may have come to mean 'possessed' (constative), but he admits that this does not suit in Ro. 5:2. He cites a possible example from B. U. 297 (ii/A.D.) toi/j dikai,an aivti,an evschko,si kai. a;neu tino.j avmfisbhth,sewj evn th|/ nomh|/ genome,nouj (=- oij). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 122) thinks that the perfect in the koinh, comes within the sphere of the aorist at times. Thackeray (Gr., p. 24) thinks that ei;lhfa in Dan. q 4:30b and e;schka, 3 M. 5:20, belong here. But if the whole case has to be made out from one example (2 Cor. 2:13; cf. 2 Cor. 7:5), it is at least quite problematical. The only substantial plea for taking e;schka as preterit here is the fact that Paul did have a;nesij for his spirit after Titus


came. But it was a partial a;nesij as the Epistle shows. It is therefore possible that in 2 Cor. 2:13 we do have a present perfect= preterit punctiliar (cf. evxh/lqon), possible but not quite certain. Paul may have wished to accent the strain of his anxiety up to the time of the arrival of Titus. The aorist would not have done that. The imperfect would not have noted the end of his anxiety. It was durative plus punctiliar. Only the past perfect and the present perfect could do both. The experience may have seemed too vivid to Paul for the past perfect. Hence he uses the (historical dramatic) present perfect. That is certainly a possible interpretation of his idea. Moulton (Prol., p. 238) in the Additional Notes draws back a bit from the preterit use of e;schka. He had advanced it "with great hesitation" and as " a tentative account." "The pure perfect force is found long after Paul's day: thus in the formula of an IOU, o`mologw/ evschke,nai para. sou/ dia. ceiro.j evx oi;kou crh/sin e;ntokon (B. U. 1015 in the early iii/A.D.), 'to, have received and still possess.'" We have ei;lhfa and ei;rhka left. Take ei;lhfa. In Rev. 3:3 we have mnhmo,neue ou=n pw/j ei;lhfaj kai. h;kousaj kai. th,rei├ kai. metano,hson. It is preceded by eu[rkhka in the proper sense. This is an exhortation about the future. If h;kousaj had been avkh,koaj no difficulty would exist. The perfect would emphasize the permanence of the obligation. It is as easy to say that h;kousaj = a perfect as that ei;lhfaj = an aorist. Both are abstractly possible and neither may be true. The reception may seem more a matter to be emphasized as durative than the hearing (punctiliar). It is a fine point, but it is possible. Cf. pepoi,hken kai. evle,hsen in Mk. 5:19. Cf. Jo. 3:32. The mere fact of the use of aorists and perfects side by side does not prove confusion of tenses. It rather argues the other way. It is possible with Blass407 to see the force of each tense in e`w,raken and h;kousen in Jo. 3:32 (cf. 1 Jo. 1:1-3). Note also eivsh,gagen kai. kekoi,nw─ ken, (Ac. 2:28). Cf. Lu. 4:18 where the change is natural. Moulton408 does find such confusion in the illiterate documents among the papyri. Simcox (Lang. of the N. T., p. 105) wishes to know what "distinction of sense" exists between e;labon and tete─ lei,wmai in Ph. 3:12. It is very simple and very clear. ;Elabon denies the sufficiency of Paul's past achievement, tetelei,wmai, denies it as a present reality. Cf. Ro. 13:12. I have already explained ei;lhfa in Rev. 5:7 and 8:5. There is surely no trouble about ei;lhfa in 2:28. In 11:17 again, o[ti ei;lhfej th.n du,nami,n sou th.n mega,lhn kai. evbasi,leusaj, it is not ei;lhfej (punctiliar-durative,


'receivedst and still hast') that calls for explanation, but evbasi,─ leusaj, which may be used to accent the ingressive idea or as a practical equivalent of the perfect. The use of ei;rhka (Rev. 7: 14) and ei;rhkangrk grk(19:3) seems more like a real preterit than any other examples in the N. T. In 7:14, B reads ei=pon. I would not labour the point over these two examples. If such a confusion of tenses occurred anywhere in the N. T., the Apocalypse would be the place to expect it. And yet even the Apocalypse is entitled to a word in its defence on this point in spite of the fact that Moulton409 "frankly yields" these instances and Blass410 says that "the popular intermixture of the two tenses appears undoubtedly in the Apocalypse." It is to be remembered that the Apocalypse is a series of visions, is intensely dramatic. It is just here that the rhetorical dramatic (historical) perfect so freely granted in the orators would be found. It is wholly possible that in this use of ei;rhka we have only this idiom. "In history the perfect has no place outside of the speeches and the reflective passages in which the author has his say."411 It is curious how aptly Gildersleeve here describes these very instances of the present perfect which are called "aoristic." So I conclude by saying that the N. T. writers may be guilty of this idiom,412 but they have not as yet been proven to be. Cf. evca,rhn o[ti eu[rhka in 2 Jo. 1:4. The distinction between the perf. and pres. is sharply drawn in Jas. 3:7, dama,zetai kai. deda,mastai.

( i) The Periphrastic Perfect. For the origin of this idiom see discussion in connection with the Past Perfect, (b), (n). The use of e;cw (so common in later Greek and finally triumphant in modern Greek) has a few parallels in the N. T.413 Cf. e;ce me parh|thme,non (Lu. 14:19) with Latin idiom "I have him beaten." Cf. e;cw kei,mena (Lu. 12:19, pres. part. used as perf.), evxhramme,nhn e;cwn th.n cei/ra (Mk. 3:1). Cf. Mk. 8:17; Heb. 5:14; Jo. 17:13, e;cwsin ──peplhrwme,nhn. Here the perf. part. is, of course, predicate, but the idiom grew out of such examples. The modern Greek uses not only e;cw deme,no, but also deme,na, but, if a conjunctive pron. precedes, the part. agrees in gender and number (cf. French). So th.n e;cw ivdwme,nh, 'I have seen her' (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). Passive is ei=mai deme,noj. The use of gi,nomai is limited. Cf. evge,neto


Addenda 3rd ed.

evskotwme,nh (Rev. 16:10), a mixture of tenses (cf. Mk. 9:3). See Ex. 17:12; Ps. 72:14. Peculiar is gego,nate e;contej in Heb. 5:12. It is eivmi, that is commonly used (about 40 times in the N. T.) with the perfect part. Cf. Num. 22:12; Is. 10:20. Burton414 notes that the intensive use of the perfect tense (cf. past perfect) is more common than the extensive. As examples of the intensive (=present) take pepeisme,noj evsti,n (Lu. 20:6). So Jo. 2:17; Ac. 2:13, etc. For the extensive use (= completed act) note evsti.n pepragme,non (Lu. 23:15). So Jo. 6:31; Heb. 4:2, etc. In Ac. 26:26 the main accent is on the punctiliar aspect (at the beginning, as in Jo. 6:31).

( k) Present as Perfect. These examples, like h[kw├ pa,reimi├ h`tta,─ omai├ kei/mai, have already been discussed under 1, (a), ( h). Cf. avpo, keitai, (2 Tim. 4:8).

(b) The last Perfect ( o` u`persunteliko,j).

(a) The Double Idea. It is the perfect of the past and-uses the form of the present perfect plus special endings and often with augment. The special endings415 show kinship with the aorist. As the present perfect is a blending in idea of the aoristic (punctiliar) and the durative present (a sort of durative aoristic present combined), so the past perfect is a blend of the aorist and the imperfect in idea.416 It is continuance of the completed state in past time up to a prescribed limit in the past. As in the present perfect, so here the relation between the punctiliar and the durative ideas will vary in different verbs. The name u`persunteliko,j (plus-quamperfectum)= more than perfect in the sense that it always refers to an antecedent date, "a past prior to another past"417 is no, always true.

( b) A Luxury in, Greek. The Greeks cared nothing for relative time, though that was not the only use for the past perfect, as just statd.418 Ordinarily the aorist ind. was sufficient for a narrative unless the durative idea was wanted when the imperfect was ready to hand. Herodotus shows a fondness for the past perfect.419 It disappeared in Greek before the present perfect,420 though in the N. T. it still survives in current, but not common, usage.421 It was never so frequent in Greek as the past perfect


was in Latin. The N. T. idiom conforms to that of the older language.

( g) The Intensive Past Perfect. Present perfects that had come to be mere presents through accent on the durative idea and loss of emphasis on the aoristic (punctiliar) are virtual imperfects when turned into the past. Cf. w`j eivw,qei (Mk. 10:1). So h|;dein (Jo. 1:31), i`sth,keisan (Jo. 19:25; cf. Ac. 1:10 f.), evpi─ poi,qei. (Lu. 11:22) and even evgnw,keite (Mt. 12:7),422 for e;gnwka sometimes is used like oi=da (1 Jo. 2:4). So with h=n avpolwlw,j (Lu. 15:24; cf. eu`re,qh). Here we have a mere existing state in the past with the obscuration of the idea of completion (aoristicpunctiliar). But it is to be noted that the durative sense is usually a changed meaning from the aoristic sense. Cf. oi=da from ei=don. For this idiom in classic Greek see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 103. Cf. also E. Schwartz, Index to Eus., pp. 214

( d) The Extensive Past Perfect. The past perfect usually presents a completed state or fixed condition in past time. As already said, it is not necessarily "a blend of past and praeterpast."423 In Latin the past perfect shows no trace of the Aktionsart of the perfect; the past perfect is just time relatively past. The Greek past perfect expresses a state following a completed act in past time.424 Sometimes it is made clear by the context that a considerable space of time had intervened, though this is quite incidental with the Greek. Take Jo. 6:17, kai. skoti,a h;dh evgego,nei kai. ou;pw evlhlu,qei pro.j auvtou.j o` vIhsou/j. The verb in the sentence before is h;rconto (descriptive) and the verb following is diegei,reto (inchoative). The time of these imperfects is, of course, past. But the two intervening past perfects indicate stages in the going ( h;rconto) before they reached the shore. Both h;dh and ou;pw help to accent the interval between the first darkness and the final appearance of Jesus which is soon expressed by the vivid historical present, qewrou/singrk grk(6:19). Here we have a past behind a past beyond a doubt from the standpoint of the writer, and that is the very reason why John used the past perfect here. In verse 16, w`j de. ovyi,a evge,neto kate,bhsan oi` maqhtai,, he had been content with the aorist in both the principal and the subordinate clauses. He had not cared there to express relative time, to stress the interval at all. The tenses in Jo. 6:16-21, by the way, form a very interesting study. John425 does, as a matter of fact, use the past perfect more


frequently th n do the Synoptists. He uses it to take the reader "behind the scenes" and often throws it in by way of parenthesis. Thus in 1:4 the past perfect avpestalme,noi h=san points back to the aorist avpe,steilan in 1:19. In 4:8 avpelhlu,qeisan is a parenthetical explanation of what the disciples had done before this incident with the woman. So in 9:22 sunete,qeinto has h;dh and notes a previous agreement. In 11:13 eivrh,kei points to a time just before, but note e;doxan. The tenses in 11:11-13 are, all interesting ( ei=pe├ le,gei├ ei=pon├ eivrh,kei├ kekoi,mhntai├ poreu,omai├ swqh,setai). In 11:19 evlhlu,qeisan denotes antecedent action, and in 11:30, teqeime,noj, the interval is marked. Cf. also 11:44, periede,deto. In 11:57 dedw,keisan points backward as is true of ouvde,pw ouvdei.j h=n teqeime,nojgrk grk(19:41). In 3:24 and 7:30; 8:20, the standpoint is later than the event described, but none the less it stretches backward though from a relatively future time. But this distinction is not confined to John. Cf. Mt. 7:25, teqemeli,wto, which points pack to verse 24. So in Mk. 14:44 dedw,kei refers to Judas' previous arrangement. Cf. also evkbeblh,kei in Mk. 16:9 with evfa,nh. The tenses in Mk. 15:6-10 are interesting. The three past perfects all refer to antecedent action. Cf. w|vkodo,mhto with h;gagon in Lu. 4:29, and with evporeu,eto in verse 30. In Lu. 16:20 evbe,blhto suggests that the poor man had been at the door some while. In Ac. 4:22 gego,nei (cf. tw|/ gegono,ti% does not precede avpe,lusan verse 21) by any great amount of time, yet the interval is real (cf. 3:1-10).426 In Ac. 9:21 evlhlu,qei is contrasted with evstin o` porqh,saj. In 14:23 cf. pepisteu,keisan with pare,qento. Cf. Ac. 4:27 and 31. In 14:26 the reference is to the beginning of the tour from Antioch. In 20:16, kekri,kei, and 20:38, eivrh,kei, the two ends of the action nearly come together, but in 21:29 the antecedent action is clear. In Jo. 11:30, ou;pw evlhlu,─ qei- avll v h=n e;ti──o[pou u`ph,nthsen, the three past tenses of the ind. come out well. In 11:56 f. ti, dokei/ u`mi/n* o[ti ouv mh. e;lqh| eivj th.n e`orth,n dedw,keisan, the three kinds of time (present, future, past) are all employed. But in 12:16 the aorist ind. is employed, ouvk e;gnw─ san to. prw/ton- to,te evmnh,sqhsan, though antecedent time is indicated by to. prw/ton and to,te. Here the past perfect would more exactly have marked off to. prw/ton. If the previous time is to be depicted in its course, the past perfect is used (Thumb, Handb., p. 163).

( e) The Past Perfect of Broken Continuity427 (o o o > o o o). This is true of Lu. 8:29, polloi/j cro,noij sunhrpa,kei auvto,n. It is an


Addenda 3rd ed.

iterative past perfect in a series of links instead of a line, like the present perfect of broken continuity in Jo. 1:18. Cf. the perf. inf. in Ac. 8:11.

( z% Past Perfect in Conditional Sentences. Usually the aorist ind. occurs in these conditions of the second class determined as unfulfilled in relation to the past. But sometimes the past perfect appears. Cf. Jo. 19:11; Ac. 26:32; 1 Jo. 2:19. See Conditional Sentences, ch. XIX.

( h) The Periphrastic Past Perfect. This construction had already begun in ancient Greek. In the third person plural of liquid and mute verbs it was uniformly done for the sake of euphony. It was occasionally found also with other verbs. In the modern Greek428 we find ei=ca deme,no, 'I had bound,' h;moun deme,noj or ei=ca deqei/) ;Ecw was at first more than a mere auxiliary, though in Herodotus it appears as a true auxiliary. The dramatists also use it often.429 In the N. T. the examples with ei=con are not pertinent. Cf. sukh/n ei=ce,n tij pefuteume,nhn (Lu. 13:6); ha}n ei=con avpo─ keime,nhn, (Lu. 19:20), really predicative accusative participles with e;cw. But the past perfect with the perfect partic. and h=n is rather common. Cf. Jo. 19:11. Burton430 notes that about two-thirds of them are intensive, and only one-third extensive. As examples of the intensive use see Mt. 26:43, h;san bebarhme,noi; Lu. 15:24, h=n avpolwlw,j. Cf. also Lu. 1:7. Examples of the extensive type are h=san evlhluqo,tej (Lu. 5:17); h=san proewrako,tej (Ac. 21:29). For examples in the LXX see 2 Chron. 18:34; Judg. 8:11; Ex. 39: 23, etc. See also bebaptisme,noi u`ph/rcon (Ac. 8:16).

( q) Special Use of evkei,mhn. This verb was used as the passive of ti,qhmi. The present was= a present perfect. So the imperfect was used as a past perfect, as in Jo. 20:12, o[pou e;keito to. sw/ma= 'where the body had lain' or 'had been placed.' So in Jo. 2:6 h=san kei,menai is a periphrastic past perfect in sense. Cf. Lu. 23:53, h=n kei,menoj. See also 19:20. Perhaps a similar notion is seen in o`moqumado.n parh/san (Ac. 12:20).

(c) The Future Perfect ( o` me,llwn sunteliko,j). There was never much need for this tense, perfect action in future time.431 It is rare in ancient Greek and in the LXX (Thackeray, Gr., p. 194). The only active forms in the N. T. are eivdh,sw, (Heb. 8:11, LXX, possibly a mere future) and the periphrastic form e;somai pepoiqw,j (Heb. 2:13, LXX also). Both of these are intensive. Most of the MSS.


Addenda 2nd ed.

read kekra,xontai in Lu. 19:40, but aBL have kra,xousin. This is also intensive (cf. ke,kraga), if it is accepted, as it is not by W. H. nor by Nestle. I note e;sh| moi mega,lhn ca,ritan kat[ a] teqeim[ e,] no$j%, B. G. U. 596 (A.D. 84). The modern Greek has a fut. perf. in qa. e;cw deme,no (Thumb, Handb., p. 162). In h[xousin (Lu. 19:43) we have a practical future perfect (intensive). For the rest the futurum exactum is expressed only by means of the perfect part. and eivmi,. This idiom is found in the LXX (the active in Gen. 43:8; 44:32; Is. 58:14, etc. The passive in Gen. 41:36; Ex. 12:6). N. T. examples are e;stai dedeme,non and e;stai lelume,non (Mt. 16: 19); e;stai lelume,nagrk grk(18:18); e;sontai diamemerisme,noi (Lu. 12:52). These all seem to be extensive. For a sketch of the future perfect see Thompson, Syntax of Attic Greek, p. 225 f. This tense died before the I future did.

3. THE SUBIUNCTIVE AND OPTATIVE. The perfect optative is not found in the N. T. It was always rare in the Greek of the early period. See Hatzidakis, Einl., p. 219. The only inflected perf. subj. in the N. T. is eivdw/, which occurs ten times (Mt. 9:6; Mk. 2:10; Lu. 5:24, etc.). But in this form the perfect sense is gone. See i[na eivdh/te, P. B. M. 1178 (A.D. 194). Indeed, the perf. subj. was always very rare in Greek. In the Sanskrit the perf. tense, outside of the Vedic language, never developed to any extent except in the ind. and the participle.432 In the classic Greek it was in subj. and opt. a mark of the literary style and did not really belong to the life of the people. The perf. subj. is absent from the vernacular modern Greek. A little reflection will slow how usually there was no demand for a true perfect, combining punctiliar and durative, in the subj. Even in the literary style of the older Greek, when the perf. subj. did occur it was often the periphrastic form in the active and nearly always so in the passive.433 "The perfect of the side-moods is true to the kind of time, completion, intensity, overwhelming finality."434 By "kind of tine" Gildersleeve means kind of action, not past, present or future. Cf. the LXX also, Is. 8:14; 10:20; 17:8. In Lu. 14:8 there appears to be a conscious change from klhqh|/j to mh,pote h|- keklhme,noj, possibly suggesting a long-standing invitation by the latter. In Jo. 3:27, eva.n mh. h|= dedome,non, it is punctiliar-durative. In 16:24, i[na h|= peplhrwme,nh (cf. 1 Jo. 1:4), the consummation is emphasized (durative-punctiliar), extensive per-


Addenda 3rd ed.

feet (completed act). The same thing is true of 17: 19, i[na w=sin h`giasme,noi, and 17:23, i[na w=sin teteleiwme,noi. In Jas. 5:15, ka'n h|= pepoihkw,j, we seem to have the perfect of "broken continuity." In 2 Cor. 1:9, i[na mh. pepoiqo,tej w=men, it is merely intensive.

4. THE IMPERATIVE. What has been said of the rarity of the perf. subj. can be repeated concerning the perf. imper. Out of 2445 imperatives in the Attic orators the speeches themselves show only eight real perfects (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part I, p. 158. Cf. also Miller, "The Limitation of the Imperative in the Attic Orators," A. J. P., xiii, 1892, pp. 399-436). In Is. 4:1 one may note kelh,sqw intensive. The perfect imper. is common in Homer.435 In the late Greek it occurred most frequently in the purely intensive perfects or in the third person singular of other verbs.436 But it is gone from the modern Greek and is nearly dead in the N. T. In Jas. 1:19 i;ste may be imperative (intensive) or ind. See the formula e;rrwsqe (Ac. 15:29) and e;rrwso in Text. Rec. Rec.(23:30).437 The only other example is found in Mk. 4:39, siw,pa├ pefi,mwso, where it is also intensive like the others. The durative idea is in both siw,pa (linear pres.) and pefi,mwso, 'put the muzzle on and keep it on.' The periphrastic perf. imper. occurs in Lu. 12:35, e;stwsan periezwsme,nai (intensive). Cf. kaio,menoi. The time of the perf. imper. and subj. is, of course, really future. Cf. p. 848 (a).

5. THE INFINITIVE. There were originally no tenses in the inf. (see Sanskrit), as has already been stated. But the Greek developed a double use of the inf. (the common use, and indir. discourse).

(a) Indirect Discourse. In indir. discourse (cf. ch. XIX) the tenses of the inf. had the element of time, that of the direct. But in the N. T. there is no instance of the perf. inf. representing a past perf. ind.438 The tense occurs in indir. discourse, but the time is not changed. Cf. Ac. 14:19 e;suron e;xw th/j po,─ lewj├ nomi,zontej h;dh teqnhke,nai,grk grk(12:14) avph,ggeilen e`sta,nai. So eivde,nai in Lu. 22:34; gegone,nai (Jo. 12:29); gegone,nai, (2 Tim. 2:18). These examples are also all intensive perfects. So with Col. 2:1, qe,lw u`ma/j eivde,nai. In 1 Tim. 6:17, para,ggelle u`pyhlogfronei/n, mhde. hvlpike,nai (indir. command), the intensive perf. again occurs. In Lu. 10:36, dokei / soi gegone,nai, we have "the vivid present of story-telling."439 Cf. peprace,nai (Ac. 25:25). On the whole the


Addenda 3rd ed.

perf. inf. is rather common (47 times, according to H. Scott) in the N. T.440 See further Jo. 12:18; Ac. 16:27; 27:13; Ro. 15: 8; Heb. 11:3.

(b) Perfect Infinitive not in Indirect Discourse.

(a) Subject or Object Infinitive. Cf. 2 Pet. 2:21, mh. evpegnw─ ke,nai, where the tense accents the climacteric aspect (durativepunctiliar) of the act and rather suggests antecedence (extensive) to h=n. In Ac. 26:32, avpolelu,sqai evdu,nto, we have an instance of the obj. inf. with implied antecedence (extensive). Note also do.j evrgasi,an avphlla,cqai (Lu. 12:58). In Ac. 19:36 katestalme,nouj u`pa,rcein is a periphrastic form of the subject inf. In 2 Cor. 5:11 note pefanerw/sqai with evlpi,zw. Cf. 1 Pet. 4:3 (with avrke─ to,j. Not very different is the use with w[ste (Ro. 15:19).

( b) With Prepositions. At first it may seem surprising that the perfect tense should occur with the articular inf. after prepositions. But the inf. does not lose its verbal character in such constructions. It is still a verbal substantive. It is, of course, only by analogy that the tense function is brought into the infinitive. For the papyri note evpi. tw| / gegone,nai, P. Oxy. 294 (A.D. 22); u`pe.r tou / avpolelu,sqai se, P. B. M. 42 (B.C. 168). Cf. meta. to. eivrhke,nai (Heb. 10:15), the only instance with meta,. Here the tense has the same force as ei;rhken in 10:9. It stands on record as said. We find it with eivj (twice), as in Eph. 1:18, eivj to. eivde,nai (intensive) and eivj to. gegone,nai (Heb. 11:3). It is most frequent with dia, and the acc. (7 times). So Mk. 5:4, dede,sqai kai. diespa,sqai kai. suntetri,fqai (extensive). See oivkodomh/sqai (Lu. 6:48). Cf. Ac. 18: 2; 27:9. In 8:11 we have the perf. inf. of "broken continuity." In the N. T. the perf. inf. with prepositions appears only with dia,├ eivj and meta,)


(a) The Meaning. The perf. part. either represents a state (intensive) or a completed act (extensive). Examples of the former are kekopiakw,j (Jo. 4:6); e`stw,jgrk grk(18:18); to. eivwqo,j (Lu. 4:16). Instances of the latter occur in o` eivlhfw,j (Mt. 25:24); pepoihko,tej (Jo. 18:18). The perf. part. is quite common in the N. T. and preserves the usual idea of the tense.

(b) The Time of the Tense. It is relative, not absolute. It may be coincident with that of the principal verb, usually so in the intensive use.441 Cf. Jo. 4:6 kekopiakw.j evkaqe,zeto,grk grk(19:33) ei=─ don h;dh teqnhko,ta, (Ro. 15:14) evste- peplhrwme,noi. But by suggestion the act may be represented as completed before that of


Addenda 2nd ed.

the principal verb and so antecedent action. Thus i`sth,keisan- pepoihko,tej (Jo. 18:18); prosfa,twj evlhluqo,ta (Ac. 18:2); avpolelu─ me,nhn (Lu. 16:18); eivrhko,toj (Mt. 26:75). This antecedent action may be expressed also by the intensive perfect as in evxh/lqen o` te─ qhnkw,j (Jo. 11:44), but dedeme,noj is coincident action. So in Mk. 5:15 i`matisme,non is coincident, but to.n evschko,ta antecedent. Cf. Rev. 6:9. The modern Greek keeps the perf. part. (Thumb, Handb., p. 167).

(c) The Perfect Tense Occurs with Various Uses of the Participle. The part. is used as attributive. Cf. oi` avpestalme,noi (Ac. 10:17). Sometimes a distinction is drawn between the aorist and the perf. part. Cf. o` labw,n in Mt. 25:20 with o` eivlhfw,jgrk grk(25:24); o` kale,saj in Lu. 14:9 with o` keklhkw,jgrk grk(14:10). Cf. 2 Cor. 12:21; 1 Pet. 2:10. The predicate participle also uses it. Cf. Lu. 8: 46; 16:18, 20 f.; Jo. 19:33; Ac. 18:2; Heb. 13:23. With Rev. 9:1, ei=don peptwko,ta, compare Lu. 10:18, evqew,roun peso,nta (the state, the act).

(d) The Periphrastic Participle. There are two examples of this unusual idiom. Cf. Eph. 4:18 evskotwme,noi th| / dianoi,a| o;ntej, (Col. 1:21) o;ntaj avphllotriwme,nouj. The durative aspect of the perfect is thus accented. Cf. Heb. 5:14 for e;cw used periphrastically.

1 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 123.

2 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 129.

3 Weymouth, On Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perf., 1894, p. 11.

4 Cf. Broadus, Comm. on Matthew, p. 54 note.

5 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 4 f.

6 W.-Th., p. 264.

7 Mutzbauer, Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. i.

8 K. Roth, Die erzalllenden Zeitformen bei Dion. von Hal., p. 5.

9 Ernault, Du Parfait en Gree et en Lat., 1886, p. 164. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440.

10 Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1893, p. vi f.

11 Cf. Swete, Intr. to 0. T. in Gk., p. 308.

12 Sterrett, Dial. of Hom., N. 42.

13 Monro , Hom. Gr., p. 44.

14 Giles, Man. of Comp. Philol., p. 482.

15 Giles, Man., etc., p. 477 f.

16 Prol., p. 110 f.

17 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469.

18 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131; Stahl, brit.-hist. Synt. d. griech. Verbums, p. 86 f.

19 Griech. Gr., p. 472.

20 K.-G., Bd. I, p. 130.

21 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 469.

22 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433; Gildersleeve, Synt. of Class. Gk., p. 79.

23 Cf. Benard, Formes Verb. en Grec, 1890, p. 279.

24 Mutzb., Die Grundl. d. griech. Tempusl., 1890.

25 Sayce, Intr. to the Sci. of Lang., vol. II, 1880, p. 149.

26 Cf. Spyridis, Lang. grec. actuelle ou mod., 1894, p. 287.

27 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, 1890, pp. 23, 27.

28 Cf. Seymour, Trans. of the Am. Philol. Asso., 1881, p. 89.

29 Giles, Man., etc., p. 487.

30 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 131.

31 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f.

32 Cf. Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, pp. 8, 22.

33 Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., pp. 323, 326.

34 Cf. ch. XIII, iv, (i).

35 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 146-170.

36 Griech. Gr., pp. 482 ff.

37 Prol., pp. 111-115.

38 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482.

39 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 112.

40 Indoger. Forsch., XXVII.

41 So Giles, Man., p. 478; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 187.

42 Griech. Gr., p. 472.

43 Prol. p. 112.

44 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 482.

45 Moulton, Prol., p. 114.

46 Moulton, Prol., p. 114.

47 Ib., p. 112.

48 Ib., pp. 115-118.

49 Moulton, Prol., p. 109.

50 Handb. d. Griech etc., p. 392.

51 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 475.

52 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440.

53 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, pp. 241, 316.

54 Steinthal, Gesch. d. Sprach., p. 306 f.

55 Paul, Prin. of the Hist. of Lang., p. 300.

56 Cf. Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1883, p. 161; Monro, Hom. Gr., pp. 32, 45.

57 Robertson, Short Gr. of the Gk. N. T., p. 137.

58 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397 f.

59 Prol., p. 116.

60 Man., p. 481 f.

61 Prol., p. 116, but not on p. 109.

62 Griech. Gr., pp. 475-477.

63 Vergi. Synt., Bd. II, p. 230.

64 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 184. But Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 157, "momentan, effektiv, ingressiv."

65 Moulton, Intr. to the Stu. of N. T. Gk., 1895, p. 190,

66 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 302.

67 Moulton, Prol., p. 109, prefers "summary" to "constative."

68 Moulton, Prol., p. 115.

69 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193.

70 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 193. See Gildersl., Synt., p. 105.

71 Ib.

72 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 328.

73 These ingressive aorists are often denominative verbs. Cf. Gildersl., Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 104.

74 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 104.

75 Man., p. 498.

76 Hom. Gr., p. 48.

77 Moulton, Prol., p. 129.

78 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 400.

79 Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 148-220.

80 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 19. It is the characteristic idiom in the indicative. Cf. Bernhardy, Wiss. Synt., 1829, p. 380.

81 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436.

82 Synt., p. 112.

83 J. Schmid, Uber den gnomischen Aorist der Griech., 1894, p. 15. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 278.

84 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48 f.

85 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 54.

86 W.-Th., p. 277.

87 Joh. Gr., p. 327.

88 Monro, Hom Gr., p. 46; Leo Meyer, Griech. Aoriste, p. 97; Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 243; Moulton, Prol., p. 128. =Hn may be either aorist or imperfect.

89 W.-Th., p. 276.

90 Gildersl., Synt., p. 114.

91 Or. of N. T. Gk., p. 192.

92 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 398.

93 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 30.

94 Ib.

95 Stat. Unters. Uber den Gebr. der Temp. und Modi bei einzelnen griech. Schriftst., 1908.

96 Am. Jour. of. Philol., 1876, pp. 158-165.

97 Der Gebr. der erzahlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb. (1898).

98 Am. Jour. of Philol., XVI, pp. 139 ff. Cf. also L. Lange, Andeut. uber Ziel und Meth. der synt. Forsch., 1853.

99 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242.

100 Ib., p. 244.

101 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 158.

102 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 77.

103 W.-M., p. 343.

104 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 22.

105 Synt. of Att. Gk., p. 109.

106 Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 109.

107 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 47.

108 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437.

109 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 76. Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 169.

110 Joh. Gr., p. 336. Cf. Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23.

111 Gk. Synt., p. 76.

112 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 329.

113 Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 129.

114 Giles, Man., etc., p. 498. "The aorist is used not uncommonly of present time." Ib., p. 497.

115 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48.

116 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18.

117 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437.

118 Gildersl., Synt., p. 113.

119 Prol., p. 134.

120 W.-Th., p. 278.

121 Prol., p. 140.

122 Moulton, Prol., p. 134 1.

123 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 135.

124 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440.

125 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 78. Still, in Lat. the aorist must be noted for sequence of tenses. Cf. Meillet, L'Aoriste en Lat., Revue de Phil., 1897, p. 81 f.

126 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437. Cf. Hatz., Einl., p. 204 f.

127 Whitney, Sans. Gr., pp. 298, 329.

128 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199.

129 Gk. Synt., p. 78.

130 W.-M., p. 344.

131 Synt., p. 107,

132 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 48.

133 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 18; P. Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 24.

134 Gk. Synt., p. 125.

135 Moulton, Prol., p. 140,

136 Ib., p. 142 f.

137 Most of these exx. from Mt. come from Moulton, Prol., p. 140.

138 Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 324.

139 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437.

140 W.-Th., p. 278.

141 Blass,. Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194.

142 Synt., p. 128.

143 Giles, Manual, p. 499.

144 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 437.

145 Synt. of Attic Gk., p. 114.

146 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 23.

147 P. Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 17.

148 Weymouth, On the Rendering into Eng. of the Gk. Aorist and Perfect, 1894, p. 15,

149 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 23.

150 Prol., pp. 135-140.

151 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 27.

152 Ib., p. 24 f.

153 Thompson, Gk. Synt., 1883, p. xix.

154 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of 1908, p. 401.

155 K.-G., Bd. Up. 182.

156 Stahl, Hist.-krit. Synt., p. 171.

157 Clyde, Gk. Synt., p. 82; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 194.

158 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 298.

159 Schlachter, Statist. Unters., pp. 236-238.

160 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 245.

161 Ib., p. 400.

162 Joh. Gr., p. 370 f. But there is little point in these exceptions. Abbott rightly notes the variations in the major uncials between - i,sh| and - i,zh| in Mk. 9:43-47. Mr. H. Scott finds eva,n with pres. subj. also (W. H.) in Mk. 1:40; 9:47 (4 in all). In Lu. he adds 5:12 (=Mk. 1:40); 10:6, 8, 10 ( eva,n to be supplied); 13:3; 20:28 (8 in all). In Mt. he notes 5:23; 6:22, 23; 8:2 (=Mk. 1:40); 10:13 bis; 15:14; 17:20; 21:21; 24:49 bis; 26:35 (12 in all). But he makes 78 aor. subjs. with eva,n in the Synoptics.

163 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 381.

164 Ib., pp. 369-388.

165 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 240.

166 Prol., p. 122.

167 Ib., p. 122 f.

168 Cf. R. C. Seaton, Cl. Rev., Dec., 1906, p. 438.

169 Prol., p. 126.

170 Ib., p. 123. Mr. H. Scott properly observes that "the correctness of these figures will depend upon how a repeated mh, or mhde, without a verb is to be counted. E.g. is Mt. 10:9 f. to be counted as one or as seven? The same question arises with a verb without a repeated eva,n or i[na, etc. It seems to me that these are merely abbreviated or condensed sentences and should be counted as if printed in extenso - as separate sentences. In that case Mt. 10:9 f. would count seven instances of mh, with subj. aor."

171 Ib.

172 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244,

173 Gildersl., Justin Martyr, p. 137.

174 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196.

175 Prol., p. 125.

176 Moulton, Prol., p. 124.

177 Ib., p. 125 f.

178 Ib.

179 Ib., p. 190.

180 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 403.

181 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244 f.; Apr., 1909, p. 235.

182 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 451.

183 Ib., p. 449.

184 Moulton, Prol., p. 173.

185 Thomson, The Gk. Tenses in the N. T., p. 29.

186 Moulton, Prol., p. 129.

187 Joh. Gr., p. 319 f.

188 Prol., p. 174.

189 Ib.

190 Joh. Gr., p. 318 f.

191 ideaGildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 244. In Sans. the inf. has no tenses at all.

192 Moulton, Prol., p. 204. Cf. Gildersl., Synt., p. 133 f.; Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 30. Plato, Theat., 155 C, a;neu tou/ gi,gnesqai gene,sqai avdu,naton.

193 Moulton, ib., p. 130.

194 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 361.

195 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 196 f.

196 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 360 f.

197 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197.

198 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 53.

199 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 244.

200 Thompson, Synt. of Att. Gr., p. 213.

201 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 363.

202 As Abbott does, Joh. Gr., p. 362.

203 Ib., p. 364 f.

204 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 52 f.; Humphreys, Cl. Rev., Feb., '91.

205 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197; Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 70; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 160.

206 W.-M., p. 433.

207 Moulton, Prol., p. 131.

208 Goodwin, Gk. Moods and Tenses, p. 49 f.

209 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 65. Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 50.

210 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408.

211 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 66.

212 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 66.

213 St. Paul the Traveller, p. 212. Cf. discussion in The Expositor in 1894 and The Exp. Times, Aug., 1894. In The Exp. Times (1913) Ramsay has sought another interpretation of the passage without the notion of "subsequent" action.

214 Comm. on Acts, p. 183 f.

215 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408. Cf. also his Pindar Pyth., IV, 189.

216 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 197 f.

217 Prol., p. 133.

218 Encyc. Bibl., II, p. 1599.

219 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 408.

220 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 51.

221 Moulton, Prol., p. 134.

222 Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 120 f.; Sayce, Intr. to the Science of L., vol. II, p. 152 f.

223 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 6.

224 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 45.

225 Giles, Man., p. 484.

226 Ib., p. 491 f.

227 Prol., p. 119 f.

228 Giles, Man., p. 485. Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 120.

229 Synt. of Cl. Gk., p. 81,

230 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 433,

231 Joh. Gr.,358.

232 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434.

233 Moulton, Prol., p. 120 f.

234 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 47.

235 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393.

236 Syntax of Cl. Gk., p. 86.

237 Prol., p. 120.

238 Gk. Gr., p. 484 f. The hist. present demands merely that the reader take his stand with the writer in the midst of the moving panorama. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 261.

239 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 11.

240 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 188.4 Ib.

241 Hawkins, Horae Synopticae, p. 143 f.

242 Prol., p. 121.

243 Prol., p. 12k

244 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434.

245 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 18.S.

246 Hawkins, Hor. Synop., p. 144.

247 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 350.

248 W.-Th., p. 267.

249 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 484.

250 Giles, Man., p. 485.

251 Prol., p. 120. Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189.

252 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 393.

253 Moulton, Prol., p. 120.

254 Gildersl., Synt., p. 84.

255 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 10.

256 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 434.

257 Giles, Man., p. 485.

258 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189.

259 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 352.

260 Brug., Griech Gr., p. 479.

261 Giles, Man., p. 447.

262 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 480.

263 Moulton, Prol., p. 150.

264 Thompson, Synt., p. 219.

265 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 114 ff., 170 ff.; Giles, Man., p. 483; Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441.

266 Moulton, Prol., p. 150.

267 Ib., p. 149.

268 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 33.

269 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201.

270 Moulton, p. 149.

271 Synt., p. 115.

272 Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 320 f.

273 Man., pp. 500, 505; Thompson, Synt., p. 218.

274 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 552.

275 Blass, Hermeneutik and Krit., 1892, p. 199.

276 Gildersl., Synt., p. 115.

277 Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 309.

278 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34 f.

279 Moulton, Prol., p. 150.

280 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 34.

281 Moulton, Prol., p. 151.

282 Ib., p. 150.

283 Prol., p. 190.

284 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35.

285 Moulton, Prol., p. 18J

286 Ib., p. 177.

287 Ib., p. 176.

288 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209.

289 Glidersl, Synt., p. 116.

290 N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 35.

291 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 209.

292 Ib.

293 N. T. Moods and Tenses, pp. 36, 76 f.

294 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 211.

295 Ib., p. 210. Cf. W.-Th., p. 279.

296 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201.

297 Ib.

298 Appendix, p. 172.

299 Ib.; Moulton, Prol., p. 151.

300 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 556.

301 See the list in Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 486.

302 Simcox, Lang. of the N. T., p. 120, suggests omission of me,llw.

303 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. Cf. Hatz., Einl., pp. 190 ff.

304 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 202.

305 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 71.

306 Moulton, Prol., p. 151.

307 Claflin, Synt. of the B. Inscr., p. 73.

308 Prol., p. 230.

309 Lang. of the N. T., p. 126.

310 Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 496.

311 Moulton, Prol., p. 151. That is, in the old Gk. Both volitive and futuristic are rare in the N. T.

312 Cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 335.

313 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 443. Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 253. "The difference between pres. and aor. furnishes the explan. of me,llw with aor. ind." Giles, Man., p. 479.

314 Moulton, Prol., p. 185.

315 Jann., Hist. Gk. Cr., p. 443.

316 Moulton, Prol., p. 119.

317 Synt., p. 86. Cf. Blass, Cr. of N. T. Gk., p. 189; Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 10.

318 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 11.

319 Cf. Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 210.

320 Ib.

321 C. and S., Sel., p. 68.

322 Prol., p. 226. Cf. also Schmid, Atticismus, III, p. 114; K.-G., Bd. I, pp. 38 ff.

323 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204.

324 Goodwin, M.1 and T., p. 9; Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 10; Gildersl., Synt., p. 87.

325 Moulton, Prol., p. 120.

326 Moulton, Prol., p. 128.

327 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 394.

328 Giles, Man., p. 488; Brug., Griech. Gr., p. 487; Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 46.

329 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., XXIV, p. 180; XXIX, p. 4.

330 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, p. 17.

331 Gildersl., Synt., pp. 91, 94.

332 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 201 f.

333 Moulton, Prol., p. 128. Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 436.

334 Sexauer, Der Sprachgebr. d. rom. Schriftst. Achilles Tatius, 1899, p. 29.

335 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 242.

336 Hultsch, per Gebr. d. erzahlenden Zeitf. bei Polyb.

337 Blass, Gr. 7 N. T. Gk., p. 191.

338 Burton, N. C. Moods and Tenses, p. 13 f. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 13.

339 Gildersl., Synt., p. 94 f.

340 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 128.

341 Gild sl., Synt., p. 95. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339.

342 Burton, N. T. Moods and Tenses, p. 15.

343 W.-Th., p. 282.

344 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 192; Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 339. This imperfect is particularly common in John.

345 Synt., p. 96 f.

346 Cf. K.-G., Bd. I, p. 38 f.

347 Atticismus, III, p. 113 f.

348 Moulton, Prol., p. 227.

349 C. and S., Sel., p. 69.

350 Moulton, Prol., p. 227.

351 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 16.

352 Moulton, Prol., p. 149.

353 N. T. M. and T., p. 32.

354 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 444. l> Moulton, Prol., p.

355 Blass, Cr. of N. T. Gk., p. 204.

356 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 46.

357 Moulton, Prol., p. 204.

358f. Cf. Naylor, Cl. Rev., 1906, p. 348.

359 Lu. 20:6, contrary to Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52.

360 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 198. Cf. K.-G., Bd. II, p. 121 f.

361 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., p. 395.

362 Jebb in V. and D.'s Handb., p. 327. Cf. Giles, Man., pp. 449, 491 f.

363 Synt., p. 99. Cf. also Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395 f.

364 Blass, Cu of N. T. Gk., p. 198.

365 Moulton, Prol., p. 144.

366 Giles, Man., p. 493.

367 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 23.

368 Prol., p. 147.

369 Synt., p. 99 f.

370 N. T. M. and T., p. 37 f.

371 Cf. Delbruck, Vergl. Synt., Bd. II, p. 269 f.

372 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15.

373 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22.

374 Gr. of N. IT. Gk., p. 198. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 347 f.

375 Prol., p. 147.

376 Ib.; Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 199.

377 Cf. Moulton, Prol., p. 144.

378 Ib.

379 N. T. M. and T., p. 38.

380 Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., XXIX, p. 396.

381 Thompson, Synt., p. 216.

382 Gildersl., Am. Jour. Philol., 1908, p. 396.

383 Prol., p. 141.

384 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200.

385 Moulton, Prol., p. 144.

386 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 53 f.

387 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 39

388 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200,

389 Cf. Goodwin, M. and T., p. 15; Gildersleeve, Synt., p. 101.

390 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 296.

391 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 440; Moulton, Prol., p. 142.

392 Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 439.

393 V. and D., Handb., p. 328.

394 Ib.; Jann., Gk. Gr., p. 339 f.

395 Moulton, Prol., p. 141.

396 Ib.

397 Ib., p. 142.

398 Lang. of the N. T., p. 104.

399 N. T. M. and T., p. 44.

400 Prol., pp. 143 ff.

401 Cf. Buresch, Ge,gonan (Rh. M., 1891, p. 231 note).

402 Prol., p. 146.

403 Ib., p. 142.

404 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200.

405 Prol., p. 145.

406 Ib., p. 146.

407 G . of N. T. Gk., p. 199.

408 Prol., p. 142 f.

409 Prol., p. 145.

410 Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 200.

411 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 396.

412 E. J. Goodspeed (Am. Jour. of Theol., Jan., 1906, p. 102 f.) shows that the ostraca confirm the pap. in the free use of the perfect.

413 Cf. Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 438.

414 N. T. M. and T., p. 40.

415 Giles, Man., p. 457.

416 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201.

417 Thompson, Synt., p. 217.

418 Moulton., Prol., p. 148. It is absent from the Boeotian dial. (Claflin, Synt., etc., p. 72).

419 Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., p. 122.

420 Jann., Hist. Gk. Gr., p. 441.

421 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201.

422 Moulton, Prol., p. 148.

423 Gildersl., Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 397.

424 Brugmann, K. Vergl. Gr., pp. 569, 576. Cf. Stahl, Krit.-hist. Synt., pp. 120 ff.

425 Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 349.

426 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 201.

427 Moulton, Prol., p. 148.

428 Thumb, Handb., pp. 161, 165.

429 Jebb in Vine. and Dickson's Handb., p. 329.,

430 N. T. M. and. T., p. 45.

431 Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 395.

432 Whitney, Sans. Gr., p. 292.

433 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 31 f. Cf. Farrar, Gk. Synt., p. 140.

434 Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., 1908, p. 01.

435 Monro, Hom. Gr., p. 22.

436 Goodwin, M. and T., p. 23 f.

437 Blass, Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 2001,

438 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 52.

439 Moulton, Prol., p. 146. So Heb. 4:1.

440 W.41., p. 334.

441 Burton, N. T. M. and T., p. 71.