Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek

Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek
Author(s): K. L. McKay
Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 34, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 209-228
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1561292
Accessed: 09-11-2018 19:47 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum
Testamentum
This content downloaded from 191.177.56.254 on Fri, 09 Nov 2018 19:47:27 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Novum Testamentum XXXIV, 3 (1992)
TIME AND ASPECT IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK
by
K.L. McKAY
Canberra
The Problem
If it is true, as now appears to be certainly the case, that the infle

ions of the ancient Greek verb signal aspect (as well as voice a
mood) but not time, it is quite likely that those who translate suc
writings as the New Testament into a modern time-based languag
such as English will find passages in which it is difficult to be su
what time referencing in the modern version will most faithfully
represent the intention of the ancient writer. Some passages have
clear time markers, which may be adverbs, or adverbial phrases o
clauses, or some clear indication in the preceding sentences, b
there are many passages in which the time reference is not overt
indicated.
In the past there has been an assumption that, for example, the
present tense denotes present time while the imperfect and aorist
denote past time, but that there are a number of apparent excep-
tions to this general rule which can be grudgingly allowed when the
context demands. But if this assumption is unsound, as I have
argued previously,1 on what principles do we determine the most
appropriate time references, not only for translation, but for under-
standing the text?
The most thorough attempt in recent years to demonstrate the
priority of aspect in the inflexions and use of the ancient Greek verb
K.L. McKay, Greek Grammar for Students: A concise grammar of classical Attic with
special reference to aspect in the verb. Classics A.N.U., Canberra 1974 & 1977, pp. 136-
202, 214-224; "Repeated Action, the Potential and Reality in Ancient Greek",
Antichthon 15 (1981), 36-46; "Aspectual Usage in Timeless Contexts in Ancient
Greek", in A. Rijksbaron, H.A. Mulder & G.C. Wakker (edd.), In the Footsteps
of Raphael Kuhner (Proceedings of the International Colloquium in Commemora-
tion of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Raphael Kiihner's Ausfihrliche
Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, II. Theil: Syntaxe. Amsterdam, 1986), J.C.
Gieben, Amsterdam 1988, 193-208. These three works are referred to hereafter
as McK. Gram., McK. Real., and McK. Tmls. respectively.
210 K. L. McKAY
is a book by Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the

Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood,2 in wh
history of the problem and seeks to apply modern
to it, and to define his categories rigorously to m
of linguistics specialists. I am happy to admit t
have been far less technical, and in some respects
I have only sought to show, for the benefit m
speaking students of Greek, how the peculiarit
Greek may be understood and so reasonably
English. Dr. Porter's book has encouraged m
thorough demonstration of the truths I have p
challenged me to rethink some details on which I
ions intuitively rather than logically. On the othe
see the value of his approach for the theoretical li
cerned that theory can sometimes lose sight of
prefer to retain most of my previous exposition as
ing to the person who learns Greek mainly to und
of the NT.
The purpose of the present article is to question some of P.'s
(= Dr. Porter's) assertions about the time values of some Greek
passages, for it seems to me that in his enthusiasm to overthrow the
old erroneous assumptions he sometimes goes too far, and either
ignores or misapplies the contextual evidence. Thus I have been
challenged to look more closely at the variety of ways in which time
is signalled, and to be more explicit about some of the details. In
what follows I select a number of passages on whose explanation
find myself in disagreement with him, and cite few on which I agree
with him, but this imbalance does not mirror the relativity of my
approval of even the chapters I focus on.
Contextual Ambiguity
First, however, I cite a passage on which P. has the support of

a number of modern versions against the KJV, and which
illustrates the problem of contextual ambiguity: Rom 1 1:7 it[rlet,
2 (Vol. 1 in the series, Studies in Biblical Greek) Peter Lang, New York 1989
After I had submitted this article for publication I received notice of a more recent
book, B. M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, Clarendon Press, du
for publication December 1990, but up to the time of correcting proofs I had not
been able to see it.
TIME AND ASPECT IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK 211
for which a few witnesses have the variant itcenqltt

(p. 197) towards the end of his account of the historic
a reference to the subjective nature of the choic
author, and with such brevity that one can only assu
no reason for discussion: in a parenthesis he quot
lrt7eltT 'IpaoilX and translates it what did Israel seek
quoting OT passages in connection with God's reje
apart from a remnant, and it is quite possible that a
from the present reference of verses 5-6 his T( ouv; s
is turning back to the history of Israel, and that the
7tl7lr7T1t therefore has past reference, along with th
follow; and the variant imperfect may be evidence t
pretation has a long history.
On the other hand, Paul reintroduces the remn
9.6ff.) by citing himself as proof that God has n
rejected Israel; and then by using the example of Elij
that he also is not alone, and in 5-6 he enlarges on th
present remnant. Then with TC ouv; (7) he begins to
the threads of the argument which began at 10.1, or
In 9.31 and 10.2 he has referred to Israel's zeal fo
has demonstrated its misdirection, so that only some
children of faithful Abraham. Now he is looking for
the salvation of the gentiles to prompt a redirection
into the right channel of faith, in order to add to th
remnant.
Therefore it would make good sense if 11.7 could be in

to cover the seeking of the present as well as that of th
one of the regular uses of the present tense (as a realiza
imperfective4 aspect) is, in conjunction with an express
3 This must be a slip for what Israel sought/was seeking, for it is cle
tion. There are many clumsy translations in the book, some of th
P.'s scheme of translation of passages quoted seems to be a more o
word translation, but some need revision to suit their context, an
merely clumsy but impossible English. Notably he seems to think t
English equivalent to the Greek subjunctive involves the auxi
which surely approximates more nearly to the optative.
4 I continue to use the terminology I adopted in McK. Gram. (v
156, 196) and have used in my subsequent articles. I keep mostly to
terms, for convenience, but substitute imperfective for present to des
thus confining present to a tense name. Of course the main purpos
is to make the aspects (imperfective, aorist, perfect and, with som
future) the main categories and the tenses subcategories (e.g. the p
212 K. L. McKAY
either past time or extent of time with past imp

activity begun in the past and continuing on
Lu 15:29 Toaourta i'Trq ouXeu'6 aot, I have been serv
and Jn 8.58 ptpiv 'Appa &i TEveaOcLt iy tti t, I have
before Abraham was born.5 It is true that ther
reference in Rom 11:7, but, with the implicatio
to the history of Israel in mind, it is quite poss
the present tense form tinqrt not as an esp
reference to past seeking but as an all-embracin
The change to the aorist in TneuXv is essentia
from the ongoing seeking to the completeness
the context makes it clear that in English this
terms of pastness: Israel (as a whole) has not achieve
achieved.
I do not put this suggestion forward as a com

the historic present explanation, but as an al
which does more justice to the complexity of P
probably also to the flexibility of Greek syntax
I do find some difficulty with the notion of an
a subordinate clause and not in a narrative pa
advanced far from the position I reached many
the whole I find P.'s account of the historic p
reasonable summary culminating in a conclus
acknowledge the problems while offering the
their solution.
Imperfect: Past, Present, Excluded
The main faults I find in P.'s comments on time reference are

in his accounts of the imperfect and aorist tenses with present tim
reference and the timeless uses of the aorist. In espousing the view
imperfect are the tenses of the imperfective aspect). I also use simple and exclud
for wishes, open and excluded for potential statements, and open and unreal for cond
tional sentences.
5 So also the imperfect is used for an activity continuing up to the past time to
which the current narrative refers: Lu 8:27 Xp6vco [xavo ... tv otxCQ oux jLevev, for
a long time ... he had not been staying at home. Imperfective participles are also so used:
Mk 5:25 YUVi ooat ( = s 'v) tv briast otiiaro 88Eixcx E'Tq, a woman who had been affected
with constant bleeding for twelve years.
6 K.L. McKay, "Further Remarks on the 'Historical' Present and other
Phenomena", Foundations of Language 11 (1974), 247-251, and McK. Gram. 142,
221.
that we should regard "the imperfect as not real

only a secondary or more remote form of
indicative" 7 he summarizes the arguments and t
cites a number of NT examples to illustrate the
tunately I find few of them relevant.
The first of these is Jn 11 :8, in which he transl
now seeking. But immediately before this inci
(10:31-41) a double attempt by the Jews to st
withdrawal across the Jordan as a result; and the
to a recent (but not present) activity is attested
so it is quite possible to translate were just now see
investigations into the imperfect suggest that it
time reference can be clearly inferred only when
an excluded wish or potential expression, or w
emphasis, such as are really seeking,9 and this see
especially reinforced with vuv, so the past refere
ferred.
In Ac 25:22 lpouX63oL7v xat auotO6; ro avOp

translates I myself am wanting..., and comments
cent curiosity" expressed in the words. My ass
1pouX6[lnv means am wanting it does not expr
Rather it is an example of a phenomenon, com
Greek, which does express reticence: either I woul
heard or I wish I could hear/have heard, the form
potential av omitted (quite common even in classi
ter with the excluded wish notion belonging to
infinitive transferred to the governing verb, and
less equivalent to 6cpeXov jxouaa. This is also a be
Phlm 13 (wish I could rather than P.'s want), an
where rquX6.rlvv ... eIvat means I could pray that I
than P.'s I indeedpray to be), slightly milder than
OeX,ov e 7rxtpetvot in Gal 4:20 is not proved to mean
ent by the adverb aprt, for this most naturally goes w
is another excluded wish, supported by the
7 McK. Real. 43. In this article I used examples from cl

from Homer to Aristotle, but most of it remains relevant
8 Cf. Mt 26:65 vuv ixou6oare, you have just heard.
9 McK. Gram. 152, 156-157, 199; McK. Real. 39-40, 42-46. Cf. also 2 Cor
11:1, correctly quoted by P. in the same paragraph (but would that you were patient
would more correctly express the idea).
214 K. L. McKAY
a&opoutait. More significant is the aorist infin

same time reference as otaptvaot, as being
complete change possible: I wish I were now wit
my tone ....
This idiom is so common that the imperfe
EuXoQLat are unlikely to be used in this kind of c
meaning unless a reinforcing particle of som
not a question of an unattainable wish, but
acknowledged as excluded in some way: 0 A
Festus' account of Paul's case and cannot ex
any further formal trial, for Paul has appea
can only suggest his curiosity in the hope tha
something informally; Paul could wish, but co
take a slave belonging to another; whatever hi
people he was too conscious of the uniquen
ment to expect to bear their guilt; and he sees
in the growth of false teaching in Galatia.
P. quotes (p. 210) 2 Cor 12:11 &yCT yap (p
auviaTaro 0at and justifies his translation for I a
mended byyou by "the timeless context of 12:
Greek idiom used here requires almost the o
(being) commended byyou, and the context is m
he alleges. Paul is protesting against the nee
credentials in the face of the belittling att
Corinthians. In 9 he continues with past exper
Lord) said, is perfect rather than aorist to em
of the speaker.'2 Then with xavXiaotyat he ex
which has come out of that experience, and in
present attitude with a timeless [euoxCo. In 11
10 McK. Gram. 156-157.

" See A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testame
Oxford 1963, pp. 58-70. Many commentators have failed to recognize the
ference between invocatio, which applies here, and the later appellatio, which is
like modern appeal systems. P. objects (p. 288) to my explanation, in Nov
XXIII* p. 323, of Ac 26:32 tx?x&xXr'ro, apparently because he has not apprec
this factor of the general unexpressed context: Paul was in the position of ha
appealed and therefore was not subject to trial in a lower court, even if this
likely to result in acquittal. P.'s translation of this sentence (p. 296) as an
(not unreal) conditional seems to make nonsense on any reading of the conte
* K.L. McKay, "On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament
Greek", Nov. T. XXIII (1981) 289-329, hereafter McK. NT Perf.
12 McK. NTPerf 316-317.
to his protest: y&yovoa instead of etil draws attentio

his present being foolish is an acquired state
ilvoarxaaaTe gives the reason for it. As their compel
what he has learnt about and is writing about, th
contextually past reference: it cannot logically
there is nothing to prevent the past reference the
Imperfect in Obligation
In his paragraph on '$Et (p. 211) P. shows similar

context as well as to a well established idiom.13 The context of tocura
8E ?8et notoiaat x&axtvoa PL' a&et-vat in Mt 23:23 is the long list of woes
against the Scribes and Pharisees (23:13-31) in which their faults
are described uniformly with timeless (or omnitemporal)14 present
tenses to indicate their habitual activities, with the single exception
of the aorist a&rixaxre in the sentence immediately preceding in verse
23. Setting aside the more important features of the law contrasts
aspectually and directly with the habitual petty tithing. Now aspec-
tually this sudden introduction of complete action could be simply
a means of emphasis (you completely set aside), with the habitual
notion continuing by implication from the preceding context, and
one might argue that as it turns to a general summary of many of
the criticisms already made, this is natural. On the other hand, the
logic of the reference amounts to pointing out that as their regular
activities (apart from tithing) are so much at variance with the spirit
of the law they must in fact have abandoned it long since. It is prob-
ably true that an ancient Greek speaker would not be fully con-
scious of the time element of this logic, but it is quite likely that he
would not be so oblivious of it that he could not recognize it if ques-
tioned about the precise significance of his statement; but there can
be no doubt that the person translating into English or any other
13 In dealing with conditional sentences (pp. 294ff.) as well as here he seems to

be rejecting the possibility of excluded potential statements using verbs, especially
impersonal verbs, in a secondary indicative form without ov (McK. Gram. 152,
199 and generally in standard grammars). In Mt 26:24 xaoXov fv aurix tl oux
kityvv/0lr ... ixiEvoc P. translates (p. 295) It is better for him if that man was not born.
Now it may be that fv here comes close to signalling really is, but the context makes
it clear that the man had in fact been born, so another remote meaning is required,
the excluded potential in an unreal conditional, It would be goodfor him if that man
had not been born. The other examples in the same paragraph are similarly mis-
interpreted.
14 See under Narrative below.
216 K. L. McKAY
language with a strong time element in its infle

this effect. Now in the '3et sentence our attenti
real obligations. This may be achieved by sum
happened so far (the habitual activities up to
therefore effectively past, so that '8t1 is it was
(ideally) have been necessary; or it may be achie
substitution of the imperfect tense with presen
that g8it is it really is necessary.
The significance of i8Ft in contexts where the
ought is appropriate has traditionally been descri
time or unreality, but once we accept that the i
dary or remote, rather than a temporally past,
to recognize that the evidence is not decisive
other hand, if the temporal implication of er
timeless one might expect imperfective infin
acptEvoat15 (to be keeping the law and not neglec
it is quite likely that the aorist is used for the
mentioned above, and therefore you ought to have p
and not neglected the former is a reasonable
reasonable, translation.
In Lu 15:32 eu<ppoavO0vaot 8 xai Xtaplvat e'Se
necessary might be sustainable if imperfective i
used. The eldest son arrives and finds a party
chides his father for having failed to give him
years of faithful service, and for having done s
the prodigal; and the father defends his actio
stative,'6 and their use in the aorist is therefore
15 The latter is in fact found in some witnesses. I am not clear from his reference
to "several grammarians" accepting "catenative constructions" and his Appen-
dix 10B on this topic whether P. subscribes to the notion that in this kind of linkage
only the finite verb determines aspect, but his noting of the varied aspects of the
infinitives suggests he at least has reservations about this. My view is that the
aspects both of finite verbs and of dependent infinitives are all significant.
16 P. (49, 259 where he misquotes from McK. Gram. 139) seems unhappy with
the idea of relating aspect to the distinction between action and stative verbs, but
even the linguistic theorist must recognize that the meaning of the verb is part of
the context in which aspectual distinctions have their effect. In McK. Gram. 137
I introduce this feature as "a lexical distinction in verb types which is analogous
to aspect, and which causes some variations in the translatable effects of the gram-
matical aspects", and also suggest that it is nearer Aktionsart. See also McK. NT
Perf. 297, 305. It is worth noting that Aristotle in Nic. Eth. 1173a34-b4 (quoted
by P. on p. 85) also appears to recognize the distinction in relation to aspect.
17 McK. Gram. 138.
constative realization is inappropriate while the rejo

tinues), so the father is saying it was necessary (for us) to sta
and his reason is that his son was dead and has come alive;
ing him your brother he also implies that you ought to rejoic
not actually say so. Similarly in Lu 24:26 I'Ee in Jesus' qu
past reference (not timeless as P. claims) for toXuto r
historical events of the past few days just outlined by C
same applies to Ac 1:16, where Peter follows his stateme
it was necessary by referring to Judas' past history18 leading
quotation of Ps 69:26; then turning to Ps 109:8 he loo
by continuing et? ouv ... in 21. P. seems to have over
change from past to present.
The full context also needs to be noted in Heb 9:26, wh
indeed means was necessary, but not in a purely past sens
here is not a time indicator (as viv is in 24), but a ma
reality against the unreality of which LseL is a part. The
9:24 is quite straightforward, but in 25-26 it is com
subordinate clauses: Nor (did he enter) in order to offer himself
... because he had to suffer many times ..., but in fact he
once ....
Unreality is the reason also for l'Set19 in A

some of the elders had come, relying on the el
but the Asian Jews who had made the original
present. There is a slight anacoluthon in 24:19,
to ltviq (which is the subject of epov in 18) serve
OXXou ou'O' tea& Oopu6pou with the real initia
although the two phrases are only balanced
grammatically. Now, having started with
dramatically on to its subject, Paul makes his le
absence of witnesses: who ought to be present if the
against me. The optative is used in the protasis
want to claim outright that there is no basis f
have done by using ilxov), but he does want t
near to that, and the potential optative was i
The "present reference indicated by the clause using the
18 Although 18-19 is no doubt the historian's parenthetic explanation, it com-

pletes the account of Judas and does not change the past reference.
19 Is necessary (P.'s translation on p. 211) or must would do for the variant
reading WEf, which is grammatically possible but dramatically less suitable to the
context.
218 K. L. McKAY
Imperative in v. 20" (P. p. 211) is quite irrelevant

reference of 'Et: having demonstrated that there are n
a trial on the original allegations, Paul challenges t
present (0aurol ouxot) to testify to what they had them
and make it into a cognizable offence. There is no po
oiUot could refer to the absent Asians unless they were
trasted with other absent persons previously mentio
any case the content of the challenge makes it clear that
ring only to those who were present when Lys
Sanhedrin as a consilium for his preliminary enquiry.2l
Again, Rom 1:27 can hardly be "in a timeless conte
Paul is sketching a history of the corruption of mankin
beginning, using the aorist tense for the main stages o
and concluding in 32 with present tenses to show that
tempt of God's law continues. In 27 therefore ?F
expresses the same past reference as the verbs whi
immediate context. Nor do I see how the subjunctive
clause can be taken as "establishing a timeless contex
in 2 Cor 2:3: if tpypaca has present reference, the
reference is present, and if r'ypacac has past reference,
context depending on it; 23 but Mt[u in any case is an ex
tial: so that when I come I may not have painfrom (thosefrom)
to have joy (which I do not at present have).24
Aorist Tense with Present Time Reference
While I accept the possibility of the aorist tense bein

present or future time reference,25 I do not think this
NT as much as P. would like to imagine. I confine my
20 See K.L. McKay, "Style and Significance in the Language o

17", Nov. T. XXVII (1985) 319-333, p. 328.
21 See Sherwin-White, op. cit., p. 54.
22 P. seems to be confusing purpose and relative clauses here. T
in purpose clauses has volitive force, but in relative clauses (usuall
a general sense less easy to characterize. In classical Greek a purpo
retain its subjunctive in historic (secondary) sequence, but a gener
in historic sequence regularly changed to the optative. In Hellen
retention of the subjunctive in purpose clauses was regular, an
general relative clauses was to the indicative.
23 McK. Gram. 145.
24 McK. Gram. 152, 227.
25 McK. Gram. 222-223.
brief comments on some of his examples quoted

none of which I find convincing. In Mt 25:24 'ycvov
explaining what he did after his master's departure
was I realized, so it cannot have present referenc
Fliatr may reasonably be translated into English a
mind (is in the direct speech), but its aspectual force
plete action or event, so that the time reference is lo
(direct has) lost his senses. The same applies to OxitO
andJn 11:14 (has died although English may idiomat
is dead), and EitXOeS inJn 16:30, as well as l)0Xs in
P. correctly translates haveyou come in spite of label
use.27
In Lu 2:30-31 P. stresses vuv, which belongs to &

illogically to translate lBiov see (and lroi[xjcaaa prep
been waiting to see the Messiah before he dies, and
to go because this has happened. True, he saw
moments before, and it is not relevant whether we
him continuing to look as he holds him in his arms
eyes to heaven as he prays: the act of seeing that he
is now complete, so he uses the aorist. The past
incidental in Greek is more significant in English
have seen gives the right mix of past and present r
8:46 -'yvov might well have had present time refere
touched Jesus immediately exclaimed I know, but
case, and the possibility of past reference implied
completeness of 'Fyvov in its context cannot be d
idiomatic English translation we use.28
In John 13:34 xaOc9o~ lat'&rjla u SaS must refer com
example Jesus set in his three-year association with
he seeks to prepare them for his departure, which,
has gone to the authorities, is imminent. A much
present reference could have been made for iBoa
spite of the contrast with the future in 32, but one
the possibility that it has the same past reference a
26 See McK. NT Perf. 308.

27 Cf. the list on p. 226 quoted from J.H. Moulton, Prolegomena, p. 140 (not
134) of aorists translatable as have (done), to which P. appends translations of which
some have too much present reference (e.g. Mt 14:2 nryfpOi is raised [not even risen]
for has risen).
28 For a genuine present use of E'vcov see Lu 16:4, discussed in McK. NT Perf.
308 (and by P. on p. 78).
220 K. L. McKAY
Greek the temporal ambiguity is unimportant

choice must be made.
In Rom 5:11 the aorist IX&3o.ev certainly does not "indicat
present descriptive use" unless Greek aspect is to be understo
only through the vagaries of English paraphrase. Paul could ha
used iXo,uEv, as in 5:1, and as is found in the majority of papyrus
receipts for money,29 but instead of simply stating present posse
sion (we have) he has chosen to put more emphasis on the (pa
event of reconciliation, which has been his subject up to this poin
with an aorist (we received), and to link it to the present situation w
the adverbs vuv, producing we have now received. Neither the idi
of English nor the theological implications should blind us to wha
we find written in the Greek.
In Phlm 7 E'Xov is not likely to mean have, for E'Xo is a stative
verb.30 In so short a personal letter much of the context may be hid-
den from us, but we have a clue in 5, where axouowv indicates that
some communication mentioning Philemon has reached Paul, and
7 is a final reference to what he had heard, so 'aXov is natural: I
had/got much joy (when I heard this). So too in Rev 5:5 gvitxlatv, the
aorist of a stative verb, means has prevailed: P.'s stands victorious
would be either vLxa or vevixrlxv, and does not suit the context of
the book opening event.
Narrative
P. is careful to distinguish between omnitemporal and timeless

reference (pp. 217ff., 233ff.), but the distinction is not important
for the study of aspect. What is far more important is the distinction
between timeless and past narrative contexts, which P. constantly
confuses in his efforts to eliminate pastness from as many contexts
as possible (especially in pp. 235-238). In a paper published too late
for P. to have access to in the preparation of his book I have
explored the effect of aspect in timeless contexts from Homer to the
NT,31 and it is with this background that I make the following
comments.
29 See K.L. McKay, "On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the
Literary Papyri", B.I.C.S. 27 (1980) 23-49, p. 39.
30 Cf. on Lu 15:32 above (and Note 16).
31 McK. Tmls. (see Note 1).
In past narrative the tenses predominantly used ar

imperfect and the aorist, the latter being the unmar
cant) one, used where there is no reason to use so
timeless (including omnitemporal) contexts, which s
something of a narrative character, the predominan
present and the aorist; and if one applies the sa
significance, the present is best taken as the unmar
seems to be residual, and the aorist and other tenses
special significance.32 As the aorist is fairly commo
narrative and timeless contexts, and the tenses of t
future are relatively rare in both, the imperfect and
give the clearest indication, among the tens
distinguishing past and timeless, although each m
other's type of context.
For literary or philosophical purposes one may p
of timelessness which is not concerned with the use
much as with the universality of ideas. In this w
myth or Gospel parable may be regarded as time
level of language both Plato and Jesus sometimes
rative and sometimes timeless forms for their didactic stories.33
The first parable P. quotes (p. 235) is that of the two builders in
Mt 7:24-27, which, referring to "a hypothetical man", he
characterizes as timeless, and so translates its aorists with English
presents. In the Greek this is possible most of the way, but in 25
TsE6[uLXLoTo occurs, and this is not a normal feature of timeless con-
texts. P. paraphrases with the active he has built and labels it "most
heavily marked Perfect". Now the pluperfect is like the imperfect,
the secondary or more remote tense of its aspect, used mostly in
past narrative and excluded potential statements, and possibly
(although I am not aware of an obvious example) like the imperfect
as an emphatic substitute for its primary tense. On balance, there-
fore, I think it more likely that its use here confirms the pastness
of the narrative than that this is a strengthened use of a timeless
perfect.
32 This seems to me to be the main difficulty of applying a strict oppositions

principle to Greek aspect, which involves such sensitivity to context that one has
to expect a variety of norms in the different types of context.
33 p. (pp. 240-243) gives a long account of the timeless myth in Plato, Phaedrus
244-256, but when he notes (p. 241) aorists with past reference established by time
deictic indicators he fails to draw attention to the fact that these are comments
external to the main line of the narrative.
222 K. L. McKAY
This impression is confirmed when the para

an uninterrupted series of aorists, has an im
sentence, which does not give a reason (as the
adds descriptive detail to the final event; this d
of the circumstances in which the imperfect is
present.34
It is worth noting that Luke's version (6:47-49) of this parable
has more grammatical subordination and contains no pluperfect or
imperfect,35 so may readily be taken as timeless, unless I am right
in suspecting that the extra detail in the building process, and the
change to the aorist participle otxosoilooavxt in 49, are more
appropriate to narrative. Of course, to speakers of ancient Greek
the distinction was far less important than it is to modern
translators and literary analysts, and it is impossible to be sure how
significant the occurrence of a pluperfect or an imperfect at the end
of a string of narrative aorists would seem to them.
In briefly dealing with the parable of the sower in Mt 13:3-9, P.
says (p. 235) "the nature of the event described, as well as the
articular 'sower', makes omnitemporal understanding more likely"
(i.e. than timeless). But for temporal analysis the nature of the
event is less important than the nature of its presentation, and the
article in 6 crtepcov can accommodate to virtually any kind of
discourse. The imperfects etXev (5) and 8(8$ou (8) are more likely to
indicate past narrative, which in fiction does not need any "attempt
to establish temporal implicature of the series of events" except
within the story itself. This probable indication of pastness is sup-
ported by the change to the aorist in ToU o repavTcoS at 13:18 to intro-
duce the explanation, and the general timeless (or omnitemporal)
use of the present tense throughout it in 19-23, including X'et in 21
corresponding to &txev in 5. The contrast between story and
explanation is even more noticeable in Mk 4:3-8, 13-20, for the
34 McK. Gram. 152, 156-157, 199; McK. Real. 39-40, 42-46.

35 The ambiguous form ipadcuvev, with parallel aorists before and after it, is
unlikely to have been conceived as imperfect (see my "Syntax in Exegesis", Tyn-
dale Bulletin 23 [1972] 39-57, pp. 56-57). Luke has IyEivero instead of Matthew's
rv, a reinforcing rather than a purely descriptive statement. Of course the aorist
of YitVEacO is regularly used to supply the lack of an aorist of Eivao. P. is reluctant
to recognize yEvirOat as the aorist corresponding to two different imperfectives,
and so declares it aspectually vague (pp. 441ff.)-a concept I find unnecessary.
I can accept the possibility of ambiguity in irYv (McK. Gram. 74, 163-164), as in
various other forms, but aspectual vagueness does not seem to be proved.
story includes at 4 the construction xat ryTveTo w

which is typically found in past narrative, as
imperfects, and the explanation has oi0tv with subj
Lu 8:5-8, 11-15 the contrast between story and
mainly between aorist and present tenses, but orav
once in the explanation. Thus all three Gospels
parable was originally understood and recorded a
In contrast the parable of the treasure in the f
is undoubtedly timeless, as P. says, especially be
decisive action of hiding the treasure the rest of
employs the present tense, and there is only a ge
the main details. Mt 13:45-46, about the pearl me
bly the same, but it does contain an imperfect,
timeless contexts, and must either signal pastness36
emphasis to the n7tava oga which introduces it (cf. o
urgent preparations of 44). If we take it as past nar
normal but the perfect C7i`paxxEv needs explanation
impossible.37
P. is surely wrong in claiming that the parable of
father in Lu 15:11-33 "perhaps more than any other
timeless character of Greek verbs", for he again
matical timelessness with timeless possibilities of ap
whole story. It has all the signs of a particular n
individualizes the three main characters, much of t
in dialogue, it begins38 av9po76S TI< ELXev and there
imperfects in the core narrative, and it is introduced
8F. All these contrast strongly with the two timele
precede it, both introduced by a Tig questio
generalized in style, with the only speech element t
to neighbours to share the joy; both relying alm
present tenses and containing subjunctive clauses wi
which would have been aorist indicative clauses in p
36 An imperfect is so used in a clearly timeless context in Pl

but it has the time marker oroti with it: see McK. Tmls. 204.
37 See McK. NT Perf. 320.
38 The indefinite TrI occurs at the beginning of a timeless p
but that has a completely different context: a&v yfivntra 'ttvt a
by a question (if anyone has ... won't he ...?).
39 As are Eo; ou 6C>l08j in Mt 13:33 and O&re i.XnrpWr1 in
224 K. L. McKAY
Other Aorists, Timeless or Past
Doctrinal passages may not always be cle

reference, and poetic language may add to the o
context the song of Zechariah (Lu 1:68ff.) refer
of prophecy in the coming of the Messiah, f
already in utero, and Elizabeth's words to Mary
they were aware, however vaguely, of the signi
their own son's birth. So whatever the wide
235ff.) of his praise, Zechariah is saying that G
has been fulfilled, and then looking forward to
It is entirely appropriate to translate the aorist
English.
It is true that the visions of Revelation are not easy to follow in
detail, but the aspectual usage in 11: lff. is not quite as confused as
P. suggests (p. 236). The narrative framework continues (.660rl) in
la, but lb-3 is a speech. There follows an explanatory comment in
4, and 5-10 are either a continuation of the comment or a separate
prophecy by John (in accordance with the instruction in 10:11), or
a mixture of both. Then the narrative resumes in 11, following the
prophetic detail rather than resuming the narrative from the point
reached at la.
In dealing with Lu 12:48 P. takes 186091 as a timeless ao

ignoring the fact that if this does mean is given it should be av
as it is in a relative clause: the aorist indicative more natu
indicates a particular reference to those to whom in fact much
been given. So too in Rom 2:12 oiot ... &v6Oxows 7]iaorpTov refer
who have infact sinned without the law, while in 14 a general statem
is introduced by oxrav ... 7ToL:&)m, and this is followed by a mo
ticular omnitemporal statement introduced by oi'tve tev8Lsxv
..., those who do in fact exhibit, and there is no need here for the a
tense which was appropriate in 12.
P. declares (p. 237) that in Jn 1:18 ouseld lc3paxOv tcXrot
gxETvo? i5yil:aoQo the aorist means makes known because
preceding negative clause excludes an omnitemporal refer
leaving the timeless reference the most plausible", but thi
ignore the context and all possibility of past reference. John
summarizes the historical contrast between Moses and Jesus: i
b860r and IyTvTxo look to events now past, and in 18 the cont
goes even further in declaring that nobody (neither Moses nor
nor Isaiah nor any historical person who had a close encounter
God) has everyet (xncoto, a normal past time marke

therefore in a state to reveal), but ... he did in fact re
is object of both verbs). So too in Ac 28:4 P. ignores th
assumption that the snake bite has already sealed P
so demonstrated the decree of divine justice.
Summary and Conclusion
The above discussions of passages in which tim

interact are designed to illustrate the ways in which
implied in NT Greek even though the verb forms do n
selves signify time. Some of the explanations mus
obvious (even if for the wrong reasons, arising fro
regarding the tenses as temporally based), but P. h
other approaches, and while I sympathize with his aim
he has misapplied them by becoming so obsessed with
wrong reasons that he has paid too little attention
which ultimately is the deciding factor if we are to m
what we find.
The ancient Greek verb had four aspects: imperfective, aorist,

perfect and future (this last being partly anomalous).41 The first
three can be arranged in a series of oppositions for theoretical pur-
poses, but for practical understanding of their effect in any text
there is value in concentrating rather on their individual realiza-
tions (the ways in which they can be translated with minimum
distortion into one's own language-for present purposes,
English). In this approach the imperfective basically represents an
activity as in process (or in progress), the aorist an activity as a
whole action, the perfect a state, usually arising from an action, and
the future an intention (or expectation), all in relation to context.42
40 In teaching Greek and Latin syntax I have often drawn attention to the
dangers of working from a card index (which nowadays may be in the form of a
computer list) without referring back to the whole context. Many of P.'s errors
seem to come from this fault. See also Note 42.
41 P. denies that the future is aspectual and emphasizes rather its modal connec-
tions. He favours treating it as "aspectually vague", "grammaticalizing a unique
semantic feature [+ expectation]" (p. 438). I continue to prefer an explanation
which recognizes that the range of future forms approximates most closely to those
of the three obvious aspects.
42 By stressing oppositions theory rather than context P. also misinterprets
some subjunctive examples, of which one is so confused that it ought to be men-
tioned. In dealing with the importance of aspect in one type of conditional
sentences on p. 310, he quotes 2 Tim 2:5 e&v BE xcai &aOX TxL, Ou tEPXOVOUtCt a&v
226 K. L. McKAY
Every verb form in ancient Greek must have one o

meanings added to its own lexical meaning.
Most verbs can be recognized as having lexically
quality or an action quality, which has some similar
fect or aorist aspect respectively, but is independen
lexical quality has some effect on the way in which
realized in their application to the verbs. The i
paradigms of the aspects are known as tenses, the i
perfect aspects having two tenses each, primary (pr
fect) and secondary (imperfect and pluperfect).
discourse some tenses are usually associated with
values, but it is clear that time is not morpholog
but is determined by context. On the other hand
determined forms are part of the context, so t
dismissed as making no possible contribution to
effects.
In narrative accounts of past events it is clear tha
imperfect are the dominant tenses, with the pluper
used parallel to the imperfect, while the present and
used for special effect (even if some writers use the
so much that it ceases to have much effect). In disc
with present time and in timeless (including om
texts the present, aorist and perfect tenses pred
future may occur, while the imperfect and pluperf
for special effect and, in relation to present ti
activities known to be past. When the time referen
future tense predominates, but the present, the
aorist, the perfect, and sometimes the future perfe
While past narrative has room for present, futu
reference only in speeches and in parenthetic co
and future oriented discourse (including speech
iT vou(lloX &0XraT1, and insists that "the Aorist, the least he

is predominant" and that it serves "the role of projection"-w
he translates the obvious timeless present aoeqavoutaL as a fu
on the two protases as if &aXR were aorist and &0oX^cr imperf
only do by suggesting that the first condition is "regardless of
petition is envisaged". Surely it is more comprehensible to
used &0tX to envisage a real competition (in general, not spec
imperfective to show that the hypothetical stage is being set fo
that envisaged setting he turned to the aorist &0OXQa' for th
his part in the competition in a particular way: If anyone is in a
awarded the prize unless he competes in accordance with its rules.
rative), commonly include past and timeless refe

framework. To what extent ancient Greek writers were conscious
of the time element as they used aspectually structured verbs we can
never be certain, but it is clear that time was not totally irrelevant
to them, and likely that they were not troubled by some temporal
ambiguities which are problems to us.
Some obvious clues are provided by time markers such as vuv,
8rl l, aptp, sporpov , Tc7 TaEa, OETx CtUo, x otx, o, but some of these
can have different effects according to context: the first three with
an aorist or imperfect tense may mark present time only as the
point against which the effective pastness of the verb is measured,
vuv in some contexts may signal reality rather than time, most
adverbial expressions may be closely associated with a subordinate
verb form, such as an infinitive, rather than the main verb. Usually
more decisive are some temporal clauses: oTE or or'v with an
imperfect or aorist tense usually belongs clearly to past narrative,
while oxav with a subjunctive usually belongs to timeless or future
contexts. A combination of imperfect, pluperfect and aorist tenses
more often than not indicates past narrative unless there is evidence
of unreality in the context; while a combination of present and
aorist tenses (without imperfects or pluperfects) may suggest a
timeless setting, but sometimes the opposition of these two has the
logical effect of distinguishing past and present times in a context
with overall present reference.
It is precisely because so many of these aspectual contrasts in
various contexts produce an obvious temporal contrast that the
assumption has persisted for so long that the tense forms were
dominantly temporal. As I have pointed out elsewhere,43 what is
truly present is most likely to be portrayed by an imperfective verb
in its primary (or present) tense, while what can be regarded as a
complete action is most commonly viewed from a distance. But
present tenses do occur in past narrative with past effect, and
imperfect tenses do occur in present-time contexts with temporally
present effect, so we must look also beyond the verb forms.
Ultimately we need to weigh up the evidence of the whole con-
text, verb forms, time markers, sentence structure, the nature of
the paragraph, the chapter, even the book, and beyond that the
personal, social, political and other assumptions which the writer
43 McK. Gram. 222-223.
228 K. L. McKAY
brought to his task. It is obvious that we sometim

information, and likely that some of our reconstr
accurate, so we need to be sensitive and careful. O
of the context develops best if we read it in order, as
to be read, but there is always a possibility that a sta
comes later will shed light on some earlier detail
achieve an awareness of the whole work.44
Of course there remain uncertainties, and so there is room f
disagreement in interpretation. Nevertheless the increasin
awareness in recent years about the priority of aspect in the ancie
Greek verb should enable us to eliminate some of the errors of the
past and to recognize more dearly the limitations of our knowledge.
As I have made so many detailed criticisms of Dr. Porter's work I
wish to conclude by expressing my gratitude for the encouragement
and stimulation his book has afforded me. While I feel sure he is
wrong in some points and I prefer to disagree with him on other
I accept much of what he has expounded with such thoroughn
and look forward to having it by me as I continue my preparatio
long delayed, but still progressing, of my aspectually based synta
of the verb in NT Greek.45 What I have offered here is, I hop
range of examples and discussions which will help to clarify t
understanding of one problem area of the text of the Ne
Testament.
44 See also my "Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament

Greek", Nov. T. XXVII (1985) 201-226, pp. 202-207.
45 Apart from his more detailed arguments to demonstrate the priority
aspect, and his analysis of aspect in Greek, I have found his discussion of
moods very useful, and his copious lists of examples, even in areas wher
disagree with his use of them, will help to keep me from overlooking import
points. I do not propose to adopt his approach to the Future or to conditio
sentences (where I think I have departed sufficiently from the time-based attitud
of Goodwin, while retaining much of his framework, to feel that I have somet
useful to offer in NT as well as classical Greek). My work should be more mo
in size, and far less technical, for I would like it to be useful to students not m
beyond the elementary stage as well as to experts in NT Greek.

Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek

TIME AND ASPECT IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

If it is true, as now appears to be certainly the case, that the infle

is a book by Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the

First, however, I cite a passage on which P. has the support of

for which a few witnesses have the variant itcenqltt

Therefore it would make good sense if 11.7 could be in

either past time or extent of time with past imp

I do not put this suggestion forward as a com

Imperfect: Past, Present, Excluded

The main faults I find in P.'s comments on time reference are

that we should regard "the imperfect as not real

In Ac 25:22 lpouX63oL7v xat auotO6; ro avOp

7 McK. Real. 43. In this article I used examples from cl

a&opoutait. More significant is the aorist infin

10 McK. Gram. 156-157.

to his protest: y&yovoa instead of etil draws attentio

In his paragraph on '$Et (p. 211) P. shows similar

13 In dealing with conditional sentences (pp. 294ff.) as well as here he seems to

language with a strong time element in its infle

constative realization is inappropriate while the rejo

Unreality is the reason also for l'Set19 in A

18 Although 18-19 is no doubt the historian's parenthetic explanation, it com-

Imperative in v. 20" (P. p. 211) is quite irrelevant

Aorist Tense with Present Time Reference

While I accept the possibility of the aorist tense bein

20 See K.L. McKay, "Style and Significance in the Language o

brief comments on some of his examples quoted

In Lu 2:30-31 P. stresses vuv, which belongs to &

26 See McK. NT Perf. 308.

Greek the temporal ambiguity is unimportant

P. is careful to distinguish between omnitemporal and timeless

In past narrative the tenses predominantly used ar

32 This seems to me to be the main difficulty of applying a strict oppositions

This impression is confirmed when the para

34 McK. Gram. 152, 156-157, 199; McK. Real. 39-40, 42-46.

story includes at 4 the construction xat ryTveTo w

36 An imperfect is so used in a clearly timeless context in Pl

Other Aorists, Timeless or Past

Doctrinal passages may not always be cle

In dealing with Lu 12:48 P. takes 186091 as a timeless ao

God) has everyet (xncoto, a normal past time marke

Summary and Conclusion

The above discussions of passages in which tim

The ancient Greek verb had four aspects: imperfective, aorist,

Every verb form in ancient Greek must have one o

iT vou(lloX &0XraT1, and insists that "the Aorist, the least he

rative), commonly include past and timeless refe

43 McK. Gram. 222-223.

brought to his task. It is obvious that we sometim

44 See also my "Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament

You might also like