504 An ExegeticalSyntaxof theNan Testament
Tenses 505
,n
r\ n (X,
, n\\t'
, N\ lf\
\\' indicatives have an ingressiveforce (e.g.,Xprotbg an¿0ovevrai
É{r¡oev[Christ died and cameto life] in Rom 14:9).2
The point is that often the choiceof a tenseis made for a speakerby
the action he is describing.At times the tensechosenby the speaker
is the only one he cotild have used to portray the idea. Three major
factors determinethis: lexical meaning of the verb (e.g.,whether the
verb stem indicatesa terminal or punctual act, a state,etc.),contex-
tual factors,and other grammaticalfeatures(e.g.,mood, voice, tran-
sifiveness,etc).tsThis is preciselythe differencebetween aspectand
Aktionsart:Aspect is the basic meaning of the tense,unaffected by
considerations in a given utterance, whjle Aktionsart is the meaning
of the tenseas used by an author in a particular utterance,affected
as it were by other featuresof the language.
IV. Appendix:
An Assessmentof Time In Verb Tenses
This section is adt¡anced materi"al.
htermediate students shor.ildnormallv skip
over it, at the discretion of the teacher.
Traditionally, NT grammars have viewed time as a part of the Greek tenses,
when such tensescombine with the indicative mood.24I¡r recentvears.however,
this view has been challenged,principally by S. E. Portef *á f. L. McKay.
Si¡ce the tradiüona] view is pervasivein the Literatwe-and in facf assumedtobe
tme26-thissection will focus on üe arguments for the nontemporal view, fol-
iowed by ar evaluaüon.27
n rbid.,rz1.
t1 d ions of the a¡cient Greek verb signal aspect(aswell asvoice a¡d mood) but not time .'.."
" The major work in this areais FarrLing,VerbalAspect,especiallych. 3: "The Effect
of Inherent Meaning and Other Elements on Aspectual Fr:¡rction," 126-96. He views
i¡herent lexical meaning as the major influence (126).His material on this topic is partic-
r:larly helpftl (727-63).One shor¡-ldalso note Silva, "A Responseto Fanning and Porter,"
for an emphasison grammaticalintrusions on verbal aspect.
2aHowever, these same grammars usuaily point out that time is seconda¡y and that
originallythe Greek tensesdid not grammaticalizetime (so BDf, 166 [53181).
T Porter's VerbalAspect(1989)was done at almost the sametime üat Fa¡¡ring's work
bearing almost the samétitle was completed.Both were originally doctoral dissértations
done,respectively,at Sheffieldand Oxford. Although there aremarry agreementsbetween
Porter and Fanning (especiallyover the aspectualforce of the variow tenses),there is a
fu¡damental disagreementas to whether tenseinvolves hme.
: introduction(appendix)
A. Argumentsfor Tensezaithout Time
There are principally four arguments for the view that the Greek tensesdo
not grammaticalizetime.28
1. Phenomenology
Severalcategoriesof tensesin the indicative involve no time or an unex-
pected time: e.g.,historical present, futuristic present,proleptic aorist,
gnomic tenses.Theseexamplesare difficult to explain on the assump-
tion that time is a¡ element of the indicatives tenses.
2. Diachronics
Oider Greek (e.g.,Homer) has examplesof nonaugmentedaorist indic-
atives that are used for past time, as well as augmented aoriststhat are
not.
3. Linguistics
In nar¡ative literature,the imperfect is used for foregrounding,while the
aorist is used for backgror.rnding.That is to say,the imperfect dwells on
the event, whjle the aorist simpiy summa¡izesit, moving the narrative
along.The augment,then, doesnot indicate time, but becomesa literary
device.
Á Morphology
The pluperfect,in Hellenistic Greek,doesnot always have the augment.
Thus ausment is not a time marker.
26There is irony to the fact that occasionallythe nontemporal view ísnow assumedby
some, without an attempt to offer proof for it. McKay begirs his essayon "Time and
Aspect" with this line: "If it is tme, asnow appearsto be certainly the case,that the inflex-
(209). Elsewhere McKay put forth arguments for the nontemporal view, but he usually
restricted his caseto exceptionali¡stances (i.e., argument from phenomenology)rather
than Linguistic principle (for references,see McKay, "Time and Aspect," 209, n. 1)- There
is a maior flaw in this approach,as we will demonstratebelow.
z There have been some critiques of the nontemporal view, but nothing yet that is
systematic. Seeespecially the essaysby Fanning, Schmidt, and Silva ín Biblical Greekl-an-
guageand LingtListiu.
B Our interaction is primarily with Porter,for his argumentsare the most systematic'
McKay admits that although he ágreeswith Porter in piinciple, "I had formed opinions
intuitiíely rather than logiaxy," i'hile Porter has attempteá a systematic,linguistically
irrformed'exposition of this view (McKay, "Time and Aspect," 209-70)'
506 An Exegetical
Syntaxof the New Testament : introduction(appendix)
Tenses 507

B. An Eaaluation of the Nontemporal Vieut were presentfrom the speaker'sviewpoint. The very fact that Luke,
the literary writer, virtually refused to use it while it is frequent in
Mark [the less educatedauthor] fits in far better with the idea that
the Greeksthought of historical presentsmuch the sameway we do
today.)32

2. Diachronics

Therea¡e two basicproblems with the argument from diach¡onics.Fi¡st,

1.. Phenomenology
There are two major problems with the argument from phenomenology.
a. Analogieswith English
Although it wotild be linguistically absurd to assumea point_for_
point correspondencebetween English and Greek, some analogies
are appropriate.ln particular, both English and Greekhave a histor_
present.We all can seethat such an argument would not be valid.
Why, then, should we considerit to be valid for ancient G¡eek?
both in lexicographyand grarnmar,synchronicevidenceis consideredto
be far more relevant than diachronic.lndeed, thosewho offer this diach-
ronic argument elsewheresupport the supremevalue of synchronics.33
The diachronic argument suffers as well from the great distancebetween
the NT and Homer: \tVhatthe augmentwas doing in 900ncEmay not be
what it ended up doing in the Hellenistic or even classicalera.
Second,parallelswith Homer suffer another disadvantage,vu., a differ
encein genre. Homeric Greek is poetry(where meter may be a factor),
while the NT is by and large prose. h the least, in Greek as well as in
other languagesthe poetic devicesof that languagecontrol the form of
presentationso much that there is almostalwayssomesuspensionof nor-
mal grammatical rules.s
Linguistics

b. Affected UsagesVs. Unaffected Meaning
All of the examplesof nontemporal usesinvolve
fficted meanings
(i.e., phenomenological uses instead of ontological meaning). We
might even say ihat such categoriesare less than routine.2eÁs we
The fact that the imperfect is derived f¡om the present'sprincipal part
and the pluperfect from the perfect's principal parts suggeststhat there
must be somesimilarity and somedifferencebetweensuch correspond-
ing tenses.The nontemporal view does not easily handle either. Since
the and

rn
the ve and that tical
aspect
t would be

32More troubling is the gnomic aorist, for this finds no ready analogy with English
(but are there not EngJish tense uses that 6nd no ready analogy with Greek?). Neverthe-
less,there are explanations for this use of the aorist within the temporal view of the tenses
(e.g.,that such aoristswere originally standard,past-referringaoriststhat becameprover-
bial and timeless tluough repetition). The paucify of such aorists seemsto attest to their
exceptional nature.
$ E.9.,Porter,Idíoms,13.

' Cl., Bers, GreekPoetícSyntat in the Classical,ge (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University ".g.,V.
Press,1984);A. C. Moorhouse, TheSyntaxof Sophocles (Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1982)
7,70,73,135,743,I77;N. Cosmas,"SyntacticProjectivity in Romanianand GreekPoefry,"
Reoueroumainedelínguistique3l (7986)89-94.

508 An ExegeticalSyntaxof theNew Testament
PRESENT FUTURE
Prest
I¡dicative
Imperf*t
Indicative
Chnñ 47
Similaritiesin Presentü ImperfectIndicatiae
Time-Aspect
s if the "time boxes" were removed,
As can be seen
would be no
chart could be pro-
duced for the perfect and pluperfect.)
To sum up: The nontemporal view does not easily handle the issue of
redundancy of tenses(e.g.,why have a Present and imperfect if both
share the same aspect?),nor the fact that two tensesdisappear outside
the indicative. If the "imperfective" tenses(i.e.,both presentand imper-
fect) are used for foregrounding, then one of them wou-ld seem to be
unnecessary.Why then areboth often seenin the samecontexts?It does
not explain why the pluperfect and imperfect orüy occur in the indica-
tive. The traditional view is that since time is relevant only in the indic-
ative, and since thesetenseshave a virtually identical aspectwith theír
respectivecounterparts(imperfect-present,pluperfect-perfect),outside
the indicative such secondarytensesare urtnecessary.
In addition, there are two other problems with this approach:
. Most grammarsregard the aspectual value of ihe historical presentto
be reduced to zeÍo.The verbs used, such as l,éyeiand Ép1etur,nor-
mally introduce an action in the midst of aoristswithout the slight-
est hint that an internal or ProgressiveasPectis intended. Yet if the
nontemporal view of tensewere true, we would expectthe aspectto
be in frill flower.36
3sThe pictorial representation of the fust principal part as linear is only meant to
show that the present and imperfect parallel each other aspectually, not that this is the
fundamental meaning of the aspect. (It is difficult to rePresent an "internal" porhayal.)
36Porter arguesthat this is indeed the case:"On the basis of the placeof the hístoric
Presentwithin tñe Greekverbai network, the historic Presentis to be corsidered aspectu-
than real.
: intr oduction(appendix)
Tenses 509
r If the aorist indicative is not linked to time, we should expectto see
the aorist indicative regularly used for an instanta¡eous present
event. The gnomic aorist occurs, but does the "instantaneous
aorist"? Further, we would not expect to see an instantaneous
present (in which the aspectis entirely suppressedand the present
time element is all that remains).37How can the nontemporal view
handle, for exa:nple,upnú(rrl("snatch") in the presenttensein Matt
13:19or ]ohn 10:29?
4. Morphology
The argument from morphology is ihat the pluperfect dropped its aug-
ment. Although this did happen with increasing frequenry,38it was
probably due to the fact that (1) the secondaryendings'of the pluperfect
were distinct enough from the perfect that its nature would always have
been revealed; and (2) since the pluperfect has a complicatedmorphoi-
ogy,3ethe tendency for secondary speakersof Greek to drop the aug-
ment was most likely due this compJicatedness, urged along as it were
by the clear secondaryfeaturesof the tenseat the end of the verb.ao
Ancient Greeks'Perceptionof the Tenses
Several ancient Greek writers (e.9., Protagoras,A¡istotle, Dionysius
Thrax) distinguished tense forms and describedthem in te¡ms of time.
37In Faffring's approach there a-lsoseernsto be a problem. He argues that the üme
element is "compressed"but not "suppressed" (VerbalAspect,202).His rationale is that
"the stess [is] on the exactsimultaneitywith the time of speaking Outside of the indica-
tive, the aorist is used for such i¡stantaneous occurrences, si¡ce the temporal value of
etc.l).
38By üe time of the NI, it was becoming more and more frequent to drop the aug-
ment. Still, even in this corpus there were more augmented pluperfects than nonaug-
mented (confuaPorter, Idíoms, 42, who says that the augmentedform is used oniy
occasionally).
3eEven Porter admits that the pluperfect has an "unwieldy morphologica.lbrilk"
(Idioms,42).
40TlLis finds a partial arnJogy in üe "helper verbs" such as 6Óvapar,0é1.41,
rt)'. For the
dassical form had an rpsilonat the front of the nonaugmented form, while the augment
lengtlrened this to an ¿fa.In Koine Greek the epsílondtopped out for the primary tenses
and the augmented form vacillated between ¿fn and epsilon.A diach¡onic exa¡n-inationof
the Greek languagethus revea-lslhal someaugmentchanges tookplacemorebecause of contte-
nimce thanprinciple.Technically,l8tvo- would have bem read as a Presentstem in Attic,
but in fact was often an imperfect in Koine. This is not much different from a pluperfect
verb, whose endingsare longer and more cumbersomethan other verb forms (not to men-
tion, quite distinct), dropping its augment.
510 AnExegeticalSyntaxof theNfln Testamffit
Trnses
Although we cannotbasetoo much on the ancientGreeks'perceptionof
their own language (they demonstrate their lack of sophisücaüon in
many areas),it doesnot seemtoo much to expectthem to know whether
thei¡ verb tenses grammaticalized time.
6. Occam'sRazor
As McKay correctly notes, "The test of any hypothesis thereforeis not
that it resolvesall doubts but that it offers the most consistentexplana-
üon, leaving few anomalies."alBut there seemto be too many problenrs
and inconsistenciesin the nontemporal approach.Further, of two com-
peting theories that both explain the data, the simplest is the best
(ktrowt as Occam'srazor, named'after the medieval philosophe¡.Will-
iam of Occam).Which view is the most streamlined,yet accountssuffi-
ciently for the data? In our view, the haditional approach (with some
modifications) is still to be preferred. Note, for example,McKay's sum-
mary of how to determine time in Greek:
Llltimately we needto weigh up the evidenceof the whole context,verb
forms, time markers,sentenceshucture,the nature of the paragrapluthe
chapter,eventhe book,andbeyondthat the personal,social,politicaland
othérassumptions which thewriter broughtio his task.4
This view involves too many complefties and subtleties-Not only does
it not employ Occam'srazor,but it implies two things: (1) One needed
massive áoses of context and preunderstanding if an ancient Greek
utterance was to have been understood in its temporal refermce. This
puts too much of a bu¡den on the communicants'(2) In daily discourse,
conversational speech, and minimally contextualized utterances,we
should have expecteda great deal of ambiguity asto the time meant,but
there seemsto be little or no evidencefor this.4
7. Root Fallacv
Finall the non vlew hurts itself the verb's
present
involves zero ) On the other ha¡d, tradiüoTffsTs also
en in constantluseeingan tnv tenses5urely the present (seediscussionunder "Linguistics").
suppressed,on occasion,bi
time element can be enti
andPorÍer," 78-79):
41K. L. McKay, "Aspect in Impe¡atival Constructionsin the New TestamentGreek,"
NoaT27 (7985)21,4.This is approvingly quoted by Porter (vubal Aspect,7s)as he begins
his chapter,"A SystemicAnalysis of Greek VerbalAspect."
eMcKay, "Time andAspecr," 227-28.
Iowing English analogies.
: introiluction(appendix)
511
e"@.4 Linguists have iong noted the
eq¡mologrca.tta-Llacy
when it comesto word meanings.But grammarians
tend to- hang on to a controlling nua.ce for the varioui s¡mtactical
forms.s
In our view, the u indicatir¡e inaolztes
Iexemic,
view of
doesnot attempt to weave a th¡ead of instances
of a given forr4. Too many
Because¡oot fallary is still prevalent in grammars(not just regardingthe
tenses),it might be helpful to note a few English examplesthat i¡volve
either suppressionor serious alteration of basic syntacticalbehavior.aT
r "Those kids will come up here and throw rocks every day" (the use
of the future for a customary event in past time)
. "I could ca¡e less" (the negative has dropped out, most likely for
euphony's sake)
¡ "near miss" (Shouldn't we expect a "near miss" to mean that two
objectsactually struck one another,althoughjust barely?)
r The use of the present i¡finitive for a perfect infinitive: "Yesterday,
when the game started,he would have liked to seefhe roster ahead
of time."
. "IfIwas apirate" (the past indicaüve is usedfor the past subjunctive
i¡ r¡n¡ealcondiüons)
. "You don't know nothing" (a double negative that functions like an
emphaticnegative in Greek)
. The use of the futu¡e for the future perfect:"If he wins the next race,
he will break the schoolrecord" (insteadof "if he wins the next race,
he will have broken the schoolrecord")
4 We have already noted our disagreement with Fanning over the instantareous
asSilva offers a similar critique of both Porter and Fanning ("A Responseio Farming
howeveq,the goal seemsu¡realistic.
aóThesewill be developed in the chapterson the various tenses'
47Thanks a¡e due io my colleague,R. Elliott Greene,for supplying some of the fol-
512 An ExegeticalSyntaxof theNan¡Testamettt

"are" is used with a plural subject;but is commonly used with th9

first person singular in contractions:"I'm doing a good job, aren't The PresentTense
r?"48
"Can I have some milk?" in which "can" is used for permission
(="may") Overview of Uses
The use of the obiectivecasefor the subjective,especiallyafter pro-
nominal subjects:"It is me" (cf. also "who" for "whom") I. Narrow-BandPresents. .516
ln older English "was, is" was correctly used of the secondPerson
+ A. Insta¡taneousPresent
(a.k.a.Aoristic or Punctiliar Present)
singular to áistinguish it from the secondperson plural ("you was" . SIT
insteadof "you were") + B. ProgressivePresent(a.k.a.Descriptivepresent) . 51g
il. Broad-BandPresents . 519
A. Extending-From-PastPresent. . 519
+ B. IterativePresent .520
+ present
C. Customary @abitual or Genera_l) . SZI
+ D. Gnomic P¡esent . 5Zg
[II. SpecialUses of the Present . 526
") A. Historical Present(Dramaüc present) . . 526
B. PerfectivePresent. . Sg2
C. Conative (Tendential,Voluntaüve) present . SZ4
7. In Progress,but not Complete (TrueConative) . Sg4
2. Not Begun,but About/Desired to be Attempted
(Voluntative/Tendential) . . 535
+ D. Futuristic Present. 535
1. CompletelyFuturishc . 536
2. Mostly Fufu¡istic (Ingressive-Futuristic?) . 537
+ E. PresentRetainedin Indi¡ect Dscourse . 537

SelectBibliography
BDF,167-69,772,774 (5319-24,335-36,338-39);
Burton,MoodsandTenses,T-II,46,
5&55 (58-20,96-97, 779-731);Fanning, VerbalAspect, 798-240,325-473;K. L.

J1J
 5¿J
tense:broad-band
Present Qnomic)
Syntaxof theNatt Testament
An Exegetical ts
524
I
e

u
1-

- LMTT JJ l-
Presatt
oJtheGnomic
TheForce

4. Illustrations
*"viry';z8 Thiscertainlyfits thePattern' o
"ti"¡itJ n
a. Clear ExamPles
),
Matt 5:32 noq ó ürol,óov d1vlovoira oüto027
everyonewho divorces his wife
L
Émpúntetbr\ ipútrov nul"sróv
Mark2:21- oü6eiqbniBl.qroiúror4 ü'yvúqou
garment
no one sews a piece of unshru¡k cloth on an old

3:8 ¡véi
tb nvetPu 6¡or¡ Oétr'et
John
'
the wind blows where it desres
while unbelievers are
2 Cor9'.7 il'apbv 1üp 6ótrlv ú14ÍQ ó Oeóq the author statesrn an
giver,
Goá loves [as a gmeral, timeiessfact] a c]reerful ute
present speaks of someihingthat doeshappm' rather
ff,ut tn. Áo#ic within
üan of tffi;'hü th;1 is'happening'canbé rye1.fr'9mthis example:
co¿ ao"s"ioil;e;;fi'1 g""i 1t"*'L than"God is loving a cheerful
brttpÉnrooü6buó0ewervüv6póq
giver"). 1,Ttm2:12 6r6úorerv'ytva'rrtoür
or exerciseauthority over a man
Heb 3:4 roq úroq rutcoreld(etcr óló ttvoq' I do not permit a woman to teach
everyhouseis built by someone . -- on
^- an
^- actlon
^^1. Pro-
As ilIustratedhere,ihe gnomicpresentoftenfocuses
verbialin character
Cf.alsoLuke3:9;iohn 2:10;Acts7:48;1'Cor9:9;Ga13:13;lJo}m2:23;3:3'20'

b. DebatableExamPles capriciousandrudicrousT:',Jl|i!i;ffi:'il#;;;ñiáT#iiff
mea
bvnveóÉonin EPh 5:18 that
noq ó qrapró"ov oó1 bópcmev but be filied at the presenttit' Uy tftJ Splrit" with- the implication
l John 3:6,9r0g ó év aütQ pávr'rvot'¡ ,afrcl.L{t'
uitbv oósi td;; ot't¿"' isi rl&q ó lelevvr¡pévoqir ,tot 0eo0 .Y"*i,lqily,:l ffitr
ffih; ;;ñááL'might
oneppoáütot'-bv uütQ páveurs\ ot Eóvctar
a¡Loptiov.l;;téL;tt
ü¡rcrptúverv,6trLr toO0eo0"yelewr¡tar'
Everyone*ho te*uitt' in him does not sin' Everyone
who sins has i;
H"S.Hts".r,r'fi'6'üÑ;sii.utirt¡'o"labetakenasasnom
not Seent,i*,,o. has he known hjfn'
(9) Everyone
bon-,of Coá doesnot sin, becausehis seedremai¡s
in
who
him'
has been
and he is :::"$'rr:*
ffffiT;t'*:1t*#r,iti;*+ls;::il:rff
not able to sin, becausehe has beenborn of God' porarysituation.
ManYoldercorimentane
as othersin w 4"10)as c
British scholars'PrinciPa
notcontinuallY sin" ' doe:
Takingthe Presents this'

D E G s u v (0250)579et pltt have6qciv

z Insteadof the participialconstructiory
ürolúor.
 An Exegetical
Syntar of theNew Testamenl Presenttense:specialuses(historical) 531

k 6:1 élr¡l,eevbrúOevroi Épletar eiq d.¡vnotpí6a q,óroO,rsi oKol,ooeo0orv or 'The I Am') at Exodus 3:14,LXX." In effect,this is a negative
uütó oi ¡ru0¡tui oütot6 admission that if blrir ú¡íis not a historical present,then Jesusis
he went out from there and came into his homerand.and his disci- here claiming to be the one who spoke to Mosesat the burning
ples followed him bush, the I AM, the eternally efsting One, Yahweh (cf. Exod
O-therexamplesof Ép;¿erar
indude Matt 26:36;Mark 1:40;3:20;S:22; 3:14in the DC(, Llrb eipr ó óv).a8
10:7; 14:77
; Lttke8:49.

b. DebatableTexts 2l John 5:2

The text reads: éonv 5b bv tor6 'Iepoootróporq . . . rol,upBí¡0po

1) John 8:58
The text reads:npiv 'Appcrüp"yevÉo0ur
blril erpi(,,beforeAbraham
was, I am"). On this text, Dennis Lighf wrote an arbicle in
defenseof the Nc¿uWorldTranslatlonin the BibleCollector(July_
Decembe¡,1977).h his article he discussesLyó eipi, which the
("Now there ís in Jerusalem. . . a pool"). Sinceeipi is nowhere
elseclearly used as a historicai present,the presenttenseshould
be taken as indicating present time from the viewpoint of the
speaker.aeThe implication of this seemsto be that this Gospel
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C¡.s0
Although many object to a pre-70 date for John's Gospel,they
must, in support of their view, reckon with this text.

3) Romans 7:14-24

t@u.uo@ Throughout this sectionof Romans,Paul speaksin the first per-

do @fact, son singular in the present tense. For example, in 7:15 he
historical presJnrs
are usually wedged in between aorist (or imperfect) indicatioes, declares,'Tor that which I am doing I do not understand; for I
am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the
very thing I hate" (b 1opratep'yú(oparoó yrvóorol oó yüp 6 OáIot
e'rpl The burden of ploof, therefore, Iies with one who seeseipi to0to npúooo,s7'I b ¡no6 totto noú).S,9melgggld_!9c.lhpÉ-
as nerbeingused as a historical present.G)-U.lhllis¡.trislorical sents here as dramatic or historical presents.But since Paul is
preseni,it is apparentlythe only historical presentin the NT that ,p" i,",
is in other than the [ffifu-erionT.aTs wor resent
for support of the üew ttr3t Paul is referring to his past, non-
tm world Tianslafronunderstand the Ch¡istian life in this text.sl If one wants to hold the viéw that
implications of byrbeipíhere,for in the footnote to this text in the Paul is either not describing himself i¡ this text, or else he is
NI,[f they reveal thei¡ motive for seeing this as a historical
present:"It is not the sameas ó 6v (hoohn',meaning ,TheBeing, 6 More nuanced is the view ihat ei¡ri is a present tenseextendi¡g from the past (so
McKay, Nriu Syntax,42).However, John 8:58lacks sufficient parallels to be conüncing
aeSo McKay,New Syntax,40.
s0By arguing that botiv is a stative present,we a¡e admittedly going againstthe tide
of NT schola¡ship.Generally,NT scholarshave attempted to circumvent thepríma facie
lo¡ce of boav by adopting one of five approachesin this text: (1) bodv is a histo¡ical
present(soSchnackenburg,Knabenbauer,Carson,etal.);(2)Lodv is an anomalouspresent
McNeile); (3) the author erred, not knowing that the pool had been destroyed (Bleek?);
(4) the pool of Bethesdamust have survived the Jewish War (Plummer, Dods, Tholuck,
Weiss,et alii suggestthis, but prefer the historical presentview lbut Jeremiasassumesit]);
(5) ihe redactionaiview: John 5:2 belonged to an earlier sl¡atum of the Gospel,only to go
uncorrectedin the final publication (MacGregor,
It
Brown?).Each of theseviews has severe
tt -
problems. SeeWallace, iotn5,2," 777-205.
k sl Cf. Shive,"Historical Present,"67-70,74,for a critique of the historical presentview
in Rom 7:74;25.Cranfield, Romans0CC) 1.34445, has the right instincts against these
verbs being historical presents,but his argument could have been strengthenedhad he
been aware of the semanticsituation.
 )2 An Exegetical
Syntaxof theNetaTestament Presenttense:specialuses(perfectiae) s33

speaking corporately (so as to indude himself only in a general 3. Illust¡ations

way), syntax is not the route to get there.s2
Lukel:34 fr¡¿v 6b Mopdp npbq rbv riyye)wv, flóq Éorur totto, bmi dvSpc oü
pvéorro;
But Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have not
B. PerfectioePresent known ana¡.?"
7. Definition Rom 10:16 'Hootag yqp teyel' rópre, tí6 bnioter¡oev tñ orot rUróv;
For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
The present tense may be used to emphasize that the results of a past
The way in which Paul int¡oduces the quotation from Isa 53 implies
action are still continuing. This usageis not very corunon.
that Isaiah's words were still applicable to Pau-l'ssituation Typically
quotations of the OT other than prophecies, are introduced by ^¡é^¡pur-
2. Clarification rsr, "It stands written." It is difficult to assessthe difference in force
between thesetwo intuoductory formulas, but it ís possible that the con-
There are two types:one lexical, the other contexfual. The lexícal tvpe notation of the tensesis the following: (1) "yLypaxwr,being a perfect
involves certain words (most notably iiror,which almost always hás a tense, shesses üe abíding authority of scripture; (2) Ltye¡ being a
perfective force to it).53The other type is conteúual:This use of the present tense,shessesfhe applicabilityof scripture to the present situa-
presentis especiallyfrequentwith l"é"yer üon.
asan introduction to an OT quo-
tation.il Its usual force seemsto be that although ihe statementr"umpo- Eph 4:8 lefei
ken in the past, it still speakstoday and is binding on the hearers.ss [God] says or [scripture] says
Occasionally the NT writers do not name the subiect of l"é"yer when
Past Present Future introducing a quotation from the OT. A most probable explanation is
that to them, what the scipture says is what God says and, conse-
quently. there is no difference befween scripture and God's word. A
slgrufiéanttext, in light of this discussion,is Eph 5:14.Although i.É1er
Chnrt 55 introduces ihe quotatior¡ it is probably not from the OT. Rathe¡ it may
presmt
TheForceof thePerfectiue well be a quotation of an eariy Ch¡istian creedalhymn.
Note: The symbol (-) indicates the results of an action l Tim 5:18 l.éyeti¡ lpugi¡'Bo0vül,oóvrsoóQrpóoerE
thescripLure says,"Youshallnot mttzzlethe ox while it is treading
out the grain"
l Iohn 5:20 ó uibqtoO0eoifireurs\ 6á6r¡rcev
ffiv 8rúvoruv
theSonof Godhascomeandhasgivenus understanding
The perfectivepresent is here joined by roi to a perfect tense,illustrat-
ing its force.5o
I
. . .52 have slyegled with this text for many years (in more ways than one!), and have
held to tfuee different vrews.My presentview is that the apostle i! speaking as universal For lexicalpeúective presents,cf. also Matt 6:2;Lr;Jrre
15:27;Jotn 8:42;2 Thess3:11.
ma¡ a¡d^is descrüing th! expelienceof anyone who attempts to pléasecóa ry submit-
ting the flesh to the law. By application, thjs could be true of a¡r unbeliever or á belierrer. For contextual(intoductory formula) perfecüve preserits,cf. also Rom 9:1.5;70:8,11,,19;
; 12:19; 2 Cor 6:2;Gal 3:16; 4:30; Jas 4:5,6.
71.:9

s3According. to Fanning, the_following verbs

also occasionally function as perfective
presents:orÉ10r,orcoóo,noperyt(verbalAspict,239-40,fora discussion).Note abb
1rvóorar
in Luke 1:34.
s This rrsagejs so distinct that ii could
be given a different label, someihing like the
introductoryformrilapresent.
ssln some resp€ctsit could be treated s Some instancesof iirco are linked to an aorist; there is some doubt about whether
as a testimonimpresent, which is followed by
a content dause: "This is the statement of scripture. . . ., Cf. ]ohn 1:19 (oiq boüv 11 they are perfective in such places (d. Luke 15:27;JoLn8:42),though most likeiy they are
popr4iu roi'Iolriwor). perfective even here.
 560 An Exegetical
Syntaxof theNrw Testament
B. Illustrations
Mark 5:39 tb ¡ral8íov oór anÉOaveva1"1,ürs0eó6er
the little girl has not died, but ls sleeping
Many modem t¡arslafions render this "the little girlis not dead, but is
sieeping." The whole point of the na¡rative is to come to this conclu-
sion. The diffe¡ence befween the aorist a¡d the present are dearly seen
in this dominical saying: Her life is not at a¡ end (aorist); there is more
to come (present).
Luke 19:16 ,tdp€Tévero6b ó npdtog l,é1rov. . .
Now, when the fust man arrived, he said . . .
flopoyivopcr is a lexically-colored verb that almost always has a con-
summative force to it. It occu¡s 37 times in the NT, 33 of which a¡e in
the aorist. The tfuee present forms are all historical presents (and thus,
equivalent to an aorist aspectually [d. Matt 3:1, 13; Mark 14:43]).The
orüy other f orm is imperf ect, functioning iteratively/ distributively
Sohn 3:21"üe people were coming and were being baptized" lnap¿-
.yivovtol).
loknl;42 frycyevaütbv npb6tbv lr¡ootv
he brought him to ]esus
Acts 5:39 Éneio0r¡oav
ootó
they persuadedhim
Rev 5:5 Lvírr¡oevó i.éov ó br t?¡qQD).iq'Ioó6u
the Lion from the tribe of ]udah has overcome
Joln2:20 reooepúKovro,ra,i t( Éteorvoiro6o¡rr¡fió vcbq ottoq
this temple was built forty-six years ago
Several grammars list this as a constative aorist, to the effect that it
should be hanslated, "This tempie was built in forly-six years."13
The usual assumption is that voóqrefers to the temple precincts.Jose-
phrs indicates that ihe temple precincts were not completed until AIbi-
nus'procuratorship (c. 62-64G), in which casethe precincts were s'ill
in the processof being built when the statementin Jóhn 2:20was made.
The idea then would be, "This temple has been in the processof being
built for the last forty-sü years." There a¡e severalproblems with this,
however, including the meaning of voóqin John, thé use of the dative's
iemporal referent, and the use of the aorist. The force of the aorist here
Seco@ rci B( éteorv)mostnatwallyrefers to
13E.g., Robertson,Grammar,833;Dana-Mantey, 196 ($180);
Moule, Idiom Book, Il;
Yotng, lntermediateGreek,I23.
1aSeeH. W. Ho elner, ChronologícalAspects
of theLifeof Chrisf(Grand Rapid.s:Zonder-
van,1977)3*43,foradiscussionoitheimplicaúonsot th"dateof thecru.ifir,ion.
Aoristtense(consummatioe
) 561.
, * a pontin tjme, rather tha¡ an extent of time.l7 This would fit well with
u in time] forry-
I ulompletion date of the sarictuary("was built [at a point
1 six years ago").
Lfflm, üere is some difficulty with taking the aorist to speak of an
action that was sfill in process("this temple has been [in the,processof
rty-six,¡ears").The imperfect would be more
lu[eo."
e suggest that the aorist is more naturally
lso, a¡d if this pericope occur¡ed in the fust
; its location in John 2^suggests),then Jesus
'eeyears later, in 33cE."
Rom 1:13;l Cor 4:6;1 Pet3:18'
Cf. alsoMaltT:22;27:20;Acts17:27;27:43;
Josephus also makes this distinction.
16Seediscussionin Hoehner,Chronological Aspects,3S-40.
17The dat. naturally is used for point (seechapter on the dative case),although with
Étoqextent is a viabte option. BAGD ate this text a¡rd Acts 13:20for the dat. ofÉtoqto refer
to extent of time (the orily two referencesin the NT toóroqin the dat. without a prep [Luke
3:1has bv]).They are correct on the latter passage,but |ohn 2:20is questionable.
In the LXX, the dat. of Éro6normally indicates a point in time: Gen 74:4;Exod 27:2;
40:17;Lev19:24,'25:4; Nr¡m 13:22(a strong parallel to John 2:2o-"Hebron was buiit/com-
pieted [aor. éro8oprten][at a point in time] s9v9n¡ears before Zoan"); 1 {TICS 61;22:41;
) Kttgr 78:7á;2Kngs23:23;2 Ch¡on 35:19;Esdr L:20;5:54;Esther 2:1'6;ZMacc73:1;74:4;
Hag 1:15;Dan9:2.
on the side of a dat. of extent, a parallei to John 2:20 is found in 1 Kings 7:38-
(,,solomonwas buiiding [aor.] his own hóuse thirtem yea¡s" [RS-V]).Howwer, the rest of
ü. .\rurr. says,"and he Tinishedhis entire house" (RSVJ.Thus, although this is extent,the
aorist is not'duralveor internal. It is complexive. This is the orily dat. of extent withéroq
in the LXX.
18L. Mo¡ris, The GospelAccordingfo /ohn (NICNT) 200,n. 81, feels that "the applica-
tion of this tenseto an eáilice that wás not to be completed for many years is not easy."
He doesnote the important parallel in 2 Esdras(Ezra)5:L6(onbtóte iloq toOvOvri)xo6opr¡0r1
xui oox lteX.óo6¡¡"hom thát time until now it (the temple) has been (in the processof
being) built, and it is not yet finished"l).
1eFanning, VerbalAsPect,257-58.
20Ttris is the argument of Hoeh¡rer,ChronologicalAspects,38-43. To be sure,he bases
his view on more th"anone verse. His main argument includes many strands of evidence
(95-114).
deny a 30 cr crucifixion date!