Action in the same graph, the Constative will be a
Perspective; line reduced to a point by perspective. The
Present has generally a durative action-
"linear," we may call it, to keep up the same graphic
Linear Action; illustration--as in ba
ing, basileu
The Perfect action is a variety by itself, denoting what
Perfect Action; began in the past and still continues: thus
from the "point" root weido, "discover,
descry," comes the primitive perfect oi#da, "I discovered (ei#don)
and still enjoy the results," i.e. "I know." The present
stems which show an i-reduplication (i!sthmi, gi
Iterative supposed to have started with an Iterative
Action. action, so that gi
present the succession of moments which are
individually represented by e]geno
the conjugations which are exclusively present. Other con-
jugations are capable of making both present and aorist
1 I venture to accept from a correspondent this new-coined word to represent
the German pumktuell, the English of which is preoccupied.
2 Unity of terminology demands our accepting this word from the German
pioneers, and thus supplementing the stores of the New English, Dictionary.
Otherwise one would prefer the clearer word "summary."
110 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
stems, as e@fhn compared with e@bhn, graste
nature either (a) "punctiliar," (b) durative, or (c) capable of
being both. Thus the root of e]negkei?n, like our bring, is
essentially a "point" word, being classed as "Effective":
accordingly it forms no present stem. That of fefero ,
bear, on the other hand, is essentially durative or "linear",
and therefore forms no aorist stem.1 So with that of e@sti, est,
is, which has no aorist, while e]genono durative present. An example of the third class is e@xw,
which (like our own have) is ambiguous in its action. "I had
your money" may mean either "I received it" (point action)
or "I was in possession of it" (linear action). In Greek
the present stem is regularly durative, "to hold," while e@sxon
is a point word, "I received": thus, e@sxon para> or a]po> sou?
is the normal expression in a papyrus receipt.2 Misappre-
hension of the action-form of e@xw is responsible for most of
the pother about e@xwmen in Rom 51. The durative present
can only mean "let us enjoy the possession of peace" (dikaiw-
qe
and Paul wishes to urge his readers to remember and make
full use of a privilege which they ex hypothesi possess from
the moment of their justification. See p. 247.
Rationale of It is evident that this study of the kind
Defective of action denoted by the verbal root, and the
Verbs. modification of that action produced by the
formation of tense and conjugation stems,
will have considerable influence upon our lexical treatment
of the many verbs in which present and aorist are derived
from different roots. [Oraware ")
is very clearly durative wherever it occurs in the NT; and
1 The new aorist (historically perfect) in the Germanic languages (our bore)
has a constative action.
2 Note also a petition, Par P 22 (ii/B.C.), in which the tenses are
carefully distinguished, as the erasure of an aorist in favour of the imperfect
shows. Two women in the Serapeum at Memphis are complaining of their
mother, who had deserted her husband for another man: kai> tou?to poh
ze ou]k e@sxe to> th?j a]dikhsa sunhrgan
o[ dhlou put on the face of the wrong-doer, but (her para-
mour) began to intrigue with her to destroy (her husband)."
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 111
we are at liberty to say that this root, which is incapable of
forming an aorist, maintains its character in the perfect, "I
have watched, continuously looked upon," while o@pwpa would
be "I have caught sight of." Ei#don "I discovered," and
w@fqhn "I came before the, eyes of," are obviously point-
words, and can form no present. Ei#pon, has a similar dis-
ability, and we remember at once that its congeners (F)e@poj,
vox, Sanskrit vac, etc., describe a single utterance: much the
same is true of e]rre
verbum, and word. On the other hand, leaorist e@leca, is replaced in ordinary language by ei#pon, clearly
denotes speech in progress, and the same feature is very
marked in lo
in post-Homeric times along lines similar to those on which
the Latin sermo was produced from the purely physical verb
sero. One more example we may give, as it leads to our
remaining point. ]Esqi
met ] e]mou?, Mk 1418, is "he who is taking a meal with me."
The root ed is so distinctly durative that it forms no aorist,
but the punctiliar fagei?n (originally "to divide") supplies the
defect. It will be found that fagei?n in the NT is invariably
constative:1 it denotes simply the action of e]sqi
perspective, and not either the beginning or the end of that
Compounds and action. But we find the compound katesqi
Perfective katafagei?n, used to express the completed
Action. act, eating something till it is finished. How
little the preposition's proper meaning affects
the resulting sense is seen by the fact that what in Greek
is katesqidevorare," is in English "eat
up" and in Latin also "comesse." In all the Indo-Germanic
languages, most conspicuously and systematically in the
Slavonic but clearly enough in our own, this function of verb
compounds may be seen. The choice of the preposition which
is to produce this perfective action2 depends upon conditions
1 There is one apparent exception, Rev 1010, where o!te e@fagon au]to< is
"when I had eaten it up." But e@fagon is simply the continuation of
kate
2 One could wish that a term had been chosen which would not have
suggested an echo of the tense-name. "Perfective action" has nothing
whatever to do with the Perfect tense.
112 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
which vary with the meaning of the verbal root. Most of them
are capable of "perfectivising" an imperfective verb, when the
original adverb's local sense has been sufficiently obscured,
We may compare in English the meaning of bring and bring
up, sit and sit down, drive and drive away and drive home,1
knock and knock in and knock down, take and overtake and
take over and betake, carry and carry off and carry through,
work and work out and work off, fiddle and fiddle in (Tenny-
son's "Amphion"), set and set back and set at and overset, see
and see to, write and write off, hear and hear out, break and
to-break (Judg 953 AV), make and make over, wake and wake
up, follow and follow up, come and come on, go and go round,
shine and shine away (= dispel by shining). Among all the
varieties of this list it will be seen that the compounded
adverb in each case perfectivises the simplex, the combination
denoting action which has accomplished a result, while the
simplex denoted action in progress, or else momentary action
to which no special result was assigned. In the above list
are included many exx. in which the local force of the
adverb is very far from being exhausted. Drive in, drive out,
drive off, drive away, and drive home are alike perfective, but
the goals attained are different according to the distinct
sense of the adverbs. In a great many compounds the
local force of the adverb is so strong that it leaves the action
of the verb untouched. The separateness of adverb and
verb in English, as in Homeric Greek, helps the adverb to
retain its force longer than it did in Latin and later
Greek. In both these languages many of the compound
verbs have completely lost consciousness of the meaning
originally borne by the prepositional element, which is
accordingly confined to its perfectivising function. This is
especially the case with com (con) and ex (e) in Latin, as in
consequi " follow out, attain," efficere "work out";2 and with
a]po<,a dia<, kata< and su
(qn^
"flee"), katadiwdown" (diw
1 "Prepositions," when compounded, are still the pure adverbs they were
at the first, so that this accusative noun turned adverb is entirely on all fours
with the rest. 2 See p. 237. [a See p. 247.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 113
katerga= "watch"). An example may be brought in here to
illustrate how this principle works in details of exegesis.
In Lk 829 the true force of the pluperfect, combined with the
vernacular usage of polloi?j xro
that the meaning is "it had long ago obtained and now
kept complete mastery of him." Sunarpa
perfective of a[rpra
but the establishment of a permanent hold. The inter-
pretation of su
its normal adverbial force is no longer at work. It is
however always possible for the dormant su
a glance at this very word in LS will show. "Seize and
carry away" is the common meaning, but in cunarpa
ta>j e]ma>j ei#xon xeHec. 1163) we may recognise
the original together. Probably the actual majority of
compounds with these prepositions are debarred from the
perfective force by the persistency of the local meaning: in
types like diaporeu
position is still very much alive. And though these three
prepositions show the largest proportion of examples, there
are others which on occasion can exhibit the perfectivising
power. Lightfoot's interpretation brings e]piginw
this category. The present simplex, ginw
"to be taking in knowledge." The simplex aorist has point
action, generally effective, meaning "ascertain, realise," but
occasionally (as in Jn. 1725, 2 Tim 219) it is constative: e@gnwn
se gathers into one perspective all the successive moments of
ginw3. ]Epignw?nai, "find out, determine,"
is rather more decisive than the gnw?nai (effective); but in
the present stem it seems to differ from ginw
ing the goal in the picture of the journey there—it tells
of knowledge already gained. Thus 1 Co 1312 would be
paraphrased, "Now I am acquiring knowledge which is only
partial at best: then I shall have learnt my lesson, shall know,
as God in my mortal life knew me." But I confess I lean
more and more to Dean Robinson's doctrine (Ephes. 248 ff.):
the vernacular is rich in e]pi< compounds of the kind he describes.
The meaning of the Present-stem of these perfec-
tivised roots naturally demands explanation. Since qn^<-
114 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
skein is "to be dying" and a]poqanei?n "to die," what is
there left for a]poqn^
Present Stem rences of this stem in the NT will anticipate
of perfectivised some important points we shall have to make
Verbs under the heading of Tenses. Putting aside
the special use me1 we find
the present stem used as an iterative in 1 Co 1531, and as
frequentative in Heb 78 1023, 1 Co 1522, Rev 1413: the
latter describes action which recurs from time to time with
different individuals, as the iterative describes action repeated
by the same agent.2 In Jn 2123 and 1 Co 1532 it stands
for a future, on which usage see p. 120. Only in Lk 842,
2 Co 69, and Heb 1121 is it strictly durative, replacing the
now obsolete simplex qn^3 The simplex, however,
vanished only because the "linear perfective" expressed its
meaning sufficiently, denoting as it does the whole process
leading up to an attained goal. Katafeu
implies that the refuge is reached, but it depicts the journey
there in a coup d’oeil: katafugei?n is only concerned with the
moment of arrival. A very important example in the NT
is the recurrent oi[ a]pollu
much as a]poktei4
implies the completion of the process of destruction. When
we speak of a "dying" man, we do not absolutely bar the
possibility of a recovery, but our word implies death as the
goal in sight. Similarly in the cry of the Prodigal, lim&?
a]po17, and in that of the disciples in the storm,
sw?son, a]pollu25, we recognise in the perfective
verb the sense of an inevitable doom, under the visible con-
ditions, even though the subsequent story tells us it was
averted. In oi[ a]pollu18 al, strongly durative
though the verb is, we see perfectivity in the fact that the
goal is ideally reached: a complete transformation of its
1 Me(m. e@sesqai); c. aor. six times (Ac 126, Rom 818, Gal 323, Rev 32 (a]poqanei?n) 316
124; also Lk 2036 in D and Marcion).
2 Both will be (. . .), a series of points, on the graph hitherto used.
3 Te
fectivising in a "point-word" like this.
4 Note that in all three the simplex is obsolete, for the same reason in
each case.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 115
subjects is required to bring them out of the ruin implicit
in their state.
Preposition Before passing on, we may note the
not repeated. survival in NT Greek of a classical idiom
by which the preposition in a compound is
omitted, without weakening the sense, when the verb is
repeated. Thus in Euripides, Bacch. 1065, kath?gon, h#gon,
h#gon, answers to the English "pulled down, down, down."
I do not remember seeing this traced in the NT, but in
Rev 1010 (supra, p. 111 n.) e@fagon seems to be the continuation
of kate12 e@labon takes up pare
Rom 154 proegra
nw?ntej 1 Pet 110f., e]ndusa3, and sth?nai Eph 613(?):
— add 1 Co 109, Phil 124f. not, I think, Rom 29f. or Mt 517.19.
The order forbids 1 Co 122. In all these cases we are justified
in treating the simplex as a full equivalent of the compound;
but of course in any given case it may be otherwise explicable.
Growth of "The perfective Aktionsart in Polybius,"
Constative the earliest of the great Koinh< writers, forms
Aorist the subject of an elaborate study by Dr
Eleanor Purdie, in Indog. Forsch. ix. 63-153
(1898). In a later volume, xii. 319-372, II. Meltzer con-
troverts Miss Purdie's results in detail; and an independent
comparison with results derivable from NT Greek shows
that her conclusions may need considerable qualification. Re-
search in this field is, as Brugmann himself observes (Griech.
Gram.3 484), still in its initial stages; but that the Newnham
philologist is on the right lines generally, is held by some
of the best authorities, including Thumb, who thinks her
thesis supported by MGr.a Her contention is that since
Homer the aorist simplex had been progressively taking
the constative colour, at the expense of its earlier punc-
and of tiliar character; and that there is a
"Perfective " growing tendency to use the compounds,
Compounds. especially those with dia<, kata< and suexpress what in the oldest Greek could be
sufficiently indicated by the simplex. To a certain extent
the NT use agrees with that of Polybius. Thus fugei?n is
constative eleven times, "to flee," with no suggestion of the
prolongation of flight (feu
a see p. 247.
116 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
plishment (diafugei?n or katafugei?n). (It seems to me clear
that in Heb 1134 we have e@fugon for the beginning of action,
—not the goal of safety attained, but the first and decisive step
away from danger. Similarly in Mt 2333 we should read
"how are ye to flee from the judgement of Gehenna?"—just
as in 37. The thought is not of the inevitableness of God's
punishment, but of the stubbornness of men who will not take
a step to escape it. The perfective therefore would be inap-
propriate.) The papyri decidedly support this differentiation
of simplex and compound. In the same way we find that
diw?cai is always constative in NT, while the perfective
katadiw?cai, "hunt down," occurs once in Mk 136, where
"followed after" (AV and RV) is not exact. ]Erga
is certainly constative in Mt 2516, 3 Jn 5, and Heb 1133: it
surveys in perspective the continuous labour which is so often
expressed by e]rga10, and even 2 Jn. 8, the
same is probably the case: the stress lies on the activity rather
than on its product. This last idea is regularly denoted
by the perfective compound with kata<. Fula
seems always constative, diafula
in Lk 410. Similarly thrh?sai "watch, keep," a continuous
process seen in perspective: sun- and dia-threi?n (present stem
only) denote "watching" which succeeds up to the point of
time contemplated. (See p. 237.) ]Agwni
in the durative present, but katagwni33) is
a good perfective. Fagei?n and katafagei?n differ quite on
Polybian lines (see above). On the other hand, in the
verbs Miss Purdie examines, the NT makes decidedly less
use of the compound than does Polybius; while the non-
constative aorists which she notes as exceptions to the
general tendency are reinforced by others which in Polybius
are seldom such. Thus i]dei?n is comparatively rare in
Polybius: "in several cases the meaning is purely constative,
and those exx. in which a perfective1 meaning must be
admitted bear a very small proportion to the extremely
frequent occurrences of the compound verb in the like
1 That is, "punctiliar": Miss Purdie does not distinguish this from per-
fective proper (with preposition). Brugmann, following Delbruck, has lately
insisted on reserving " perfective " for the compounds. Uniformity of ter-
minology is so important that I have altered the earlier phraseology throughout.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 117
sense " (op. cit. p. 94 f.). In the NT, however, the simplex
i]dei?n is exceedingly common, while the compound (kaqora?n,
Rom 120) only appears once. It is moreover—so far as I can
judge without the labour of a count--as often punctiliar
(ingressive) as constative: Mt 210, "when they caught sight
of the star," will serve as an example, against constative
uses like that in the previous verse, "the star which they
saw." (In numerous cases it would be difficult to dis-
tinguish the one from the other.) Here comes in one of
Meltzer's criticisms, that the historian's strong dislike of
hiatus (cf above, p. 92) accounts for very many of his
preferences for compound verbs. This fact undeniably
damages the case for Polybius himself; but it does not dis-
pose of inferences--less decided, but not unimportant—
which may be drawn from NT Greek and that of the papyri.
We are not surprised to find that the NT has no perfective
compounds of qea
a@rxomai, me9), or mi
(mi
is rather difficult to square with the rule. Its present
simplex is often obviously linear, as in now?n kai> fronw?n, the
standing phrase of a testator beginning a will: the durative
"understand" or "conceive" is the only possible translation
in many NT passages. The aor. in Jn 1240 and Eph 34 may
be the constative of this, or it may be ingressive, "realise."
But it is often difficult to make a real perfective out of the
compound katanoh?sai, which should describe the completion
of a mental process. In some passages, as Lk 2023 ("he
detected their craftiness"), or Ac 731 ("to master the mystery"),
this will do very well; but the durative action is most cer-
tainly represented in the present katanoei?n, except Ac 2730
("noticed one after another"). Maqei?n is sometimes con-
stative, summing up the process of manqa
often purely point action, "ascertain": so in Ac 2327, Gal 32,
and frequently in the papyri. In other places moreover it
describes a fully learnt lesson, and not the process of study.
On Miss Purdie's principle this should be reserved for
katamaqei?n, which occurs in Mt 628: both here and for
katanoh24. 27 the RV retains
the durative "consider." It may however mean "understand,
118 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
take in this fact about." The NT use of tele
widely from that of Polybius, where the perfective compound
(sunt.) greatly predominates: in NT the simplex outnumbers
it fourfold. Moreover the aorist in the NT is always punctiliar
("finish"): only in Gal 516 is the constative "perform” a
possible alternative. ]Orgisqh?nai is another divergent, for
instead of the perfective diorg., "fly into a rage," we six
times have the simplex in the NT, where the constative
aorist "be angry" never occurs.1 Finally we note that
kaqe
down," which is kaqi
A few additions might be made. Thus Lk 1913 has the simplex
pragmateu
v.15 diepragmateu
majority of the dia< compounds retain the full force of the dia<.
Provisional The net result of this comparison may
Results. perhaps be stated thus, provisionally: for
anything like a decisive settlement we must
wait for some xalke
through the papyri and the Koinh< literature with a minuteness
matching Miss Purdie's over her six books of Polybius—a
task for which a year's holiday is a condicio sine qua non.
The growth of the constative aorist was certainly a feature
in the development of later Greek: its consequences will
occupy us when we come to the consideration of the Tenses.
But the disuse of the "point" aorist, ingressive or effective,
and the preference of the perfective compound to express
the same meaning, naturally varied much with the author.
The general tendency may be admitted as proved; the extent
of its working will depend on the personal equation. In the
use of compound verbs, especially, we cannot expect the neglige
style of ordinary conversation, or even the higher degree of
elaboration to which Luke or the auctor ad Hebraeos could rise,
to come near the profusion of a literary man like Polybius.2
Time and Perhaps this brief account of recent re-
Tense. searches, in a field hitherto almost untrodden
by NT scholars, may suffice to prepare the
1 Rev 1118 might mean "were angry," but the ingressive "waxed angry"
(at the accession of the King) suits the context better. 2 See p. 237.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 119
way for the necessary attempt to place on a scientific basis
the use of the tenses, a subject on which many of the most
crucial questions of exegesis depend. It has been made
clear that the notion of (present or past) time is not by any
means the first thing we must think of in dealing with tenses.
For our problems of Aktionsart it is a mere accident that
feu
past: the main point we must settle is the distinction between
feug and fug which is common to all their moods.
The Present :— On the Present stem, as normally denoting
linear or durative action, not much more
need now be said. The reader may be reminded of one idiom
which comes out of the linear idea, the use of words like
pa
perfect. Thus in 2 Co 1219 "have you been thinking all
this time?" or Jn 1527, "you have been with me from the
beginning." So in MGr, e[ch?nta mh?naj s ] a]gapw? (Abbott 222).
The durative present in such cases gathers up past and pre-
sent time into one phrase. It must not be thought, however,
that the durative meaning monopolises the present stem. In
the prehistoric period only certain conjugations had linear
action; and though later analogic processes mostly levelled
the primitive diversity, there are still some survivals of
importance. The punctiliar force is obvious in certain
presents. Burton (MT 9) cites as "aoristic presents" such
words as paragge18, a]fi5 ("are this
moment forgiven,"—contr. a]fi23), Ac 934,
etc. So possibly a]fi4, which has a]fh
its representative in Mt. But here it seems better to
recognise the iterative present—"for we habitually forgive":
this is like the difference between Lk and Mt seen in their
versions of the prayer for daily bread. (Cf also Lk 630.) Blass
(p. 188) adds a]spa
sasqe. It is very possible that in the prehistoric period a
distinct present existed for the strong aorist stem, such as
Giles plausibly traces in a@rxesqai compared with the durative
e@rxesqai.1 The conjecture--which is necessarily unverifiable
1 Manual2 482. The ar is like ra in trapei?n against tre
Greek representative of the original vocalic r.
120 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
—would sufficiently explain this verb's punctiliar action.
But it may indeed be suspected that point and line action
were both originally possible in present and aorist-stem for-
mations which remained without formative prefix or suffix.
On this assumption, analogical levelling was largely responsible
for the durative character which belongs to most of the
special conjugation stems of the present. But this is con-
jectural, and we need only observe that the punctiliar roots
denoting future which appear in the present stem have given
time; rise to the use of the so-called present tense
to denote future time.1 In au@rion a]poqn^<-
skomen (1 Co 1532) we have a verb in which the perfective
prefix has neutralised the inceptive force of the suffix –i
it is only the obsoleteness of the simplex which allows it ever
to borrow a durative action. Ei#mi in Attic is a notable
example of a punctiliar root used for a future in the present
indicative. But though it is generally asserted that this use
of present tense for future originates in the words with
momentary action, this limitation does not appear in the
NT examples, any more than in English. We can say,
"I am going to London to-morrow" just as well as "I go":
and die5, gi2, and other futural
presents that may be paralleled from the vernacular of the
papyri, have no lack of durativity about them. In this stage
of Greek, as in our own language, we may define the futural
present as differing from the future tense mainly in the tone
of assurance which is imparted. That the Present is not
primarily a tense, in the usual acceptation of the term, is
and past time; shown not only by the fact that it can
stand for future time, but by its equally
well-known use as a past. The "Historic" present
is divided by Brugmann (Gr. Gram.3 484 f.) into the
"dramatic" and the "registering" present. The latter
registers a date, with words like gi
I cannot recall a NT example, for Mt 24 is not really
parallel. The former, common in all vernaculars—we have
only to overhear a servant girl's "so she says to me," if we
1 Compare the close connexion between aorist (not present) subjunctive and
the future, which is indeed in its history mainly a specialising of the former.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 121
desiderate proof that the usage is at home among us--is
abundantly represented in the NT.1 From that mine of
statistical wealth, Hawkins's Horae Synopticae, we find that Mk
uses the historic present 151 times, Mt 93 times, Lk 8 times,
with 13 in Ac; also that it is rare in the rest of the NT, ex-
cept in Jn. But it is not true that it was "by no means common
in Hellenistic Greek." Sir John Hawkins himself observes
that it is common in Josephus and in Job: Mr Thackeray
notes 145 exx. in 1 Sam alone--its rarity in LXX was only
inferred from the absence of le
(except in 849) altered Mark's favourite usage means that it
was too familiar for his liking. I have not catalogued the
evidence of the papyri for this phenomenon, but it is common.
OP 717 may be cited as a document contemporary with the
NT, in which a whole string of presents does duty in nar-
rative. It may be seen alternating with past tenses, as in
the NT: cf the curious document Par P 51 (ii/B.C.), recording
some extremely trivial dreams. Thus a]nu
klai e@rxomai . . . e@legon, etc.
It was indeed a permanent element in prose narrative,
whether colloquial or literary;2 but it seems to have run
much the same course as in English, where the historic
present is not normally used in educated conversation or in
literature as a narrative form. It carries a special effect of
its own, which may be a favourite mannerism of a particular
author, but entirely avoided by others. Applying this prin-
ciple, we conceive that 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
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.
The limits of the historic present are well seen in the fact
that it is absent from Homer, not because it was foreign to
1 An instructive parallel for le
Logia, may be seen in Roman edicts. Thus Syll. 376 Kai?sar (Nero) le
ib. 656 (ii/A.D.—a proconsul); OGIS 665 (49 A. D. ), etc.
2 A peculiar use of the historic present is noticeable in MGr, where it fre-
quently takes up a past tense: thus, o[ Tso pallhka
"drew his sword and calls" (Abbott 44—see also 22, 26, etc.). See p. 139 n.
122 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
the old Achaian dialect, but because of its felt incongruity in
epic style: it is absent from the Nibelungenlied in the same way.
The Moods of the present stem will be treated under their
separate heads later. But there are two uses which should
come in here, as bearing on the kind of action belonging to
Present and the tense-stem. The first concerns the two
Aorist in normal methods of expressing Prohibition in
Prohibitions: classical Greek, which survive in NT Greek,
though less predominant than before. There
is a familiar rule that mh< is used with present imperative
or aorist subjunctive; but the distinction between these,
expounded by Gottfried Hermann long ago, seems to have
been mostly unnoticed till it was rediscovered by Dr
Walter Headlam in CR xvii. 295, who credits Dr Henry
Jackson with supplying the hint. Dr Jackson himself con-
tributes a brief but suggestive note in xviii. 262 f. (June
1904), and Dr Headlam then writes in full upon the subject
in xix. 30-36, citing the dicta of Hermann from which the
doctrine started, and rebutting some objections raised by Mr
H. D. Naylor.a Dr Jackson's words may be cited as linking
the beginning and end of the language-history, and proving
incidentally that the alleged distinction must hold for the NT
language, which lies midway. "Davidson told me that, when
in Modern he was learning modern Greek, he had been
Greek; 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 instances 20E mh< qorubh
begins, and mh> qorubei?te, when it has begun." The
latter means in fact "desist from interrupting," the former
"do not interrupt (in future)." Headlam shows how the
present imperative often calls out the retort, "But I am not
doing so," which the aorist locution never does: it would
require "No, I will not." This is certainly the case in MGr,
where mh< gra
writing, mh> gra
in Papyri; facts for classical and for present-day Greek
may be supplemented from the four volumes
of OP: we need not labour the proof of a canon which
could hardly be invalid for a period lying between periods
a See p. 247.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 123
in which it is known to have been in force. I have
noted in OP six cases of mh< c. aor. subj. referring to
requests made in a letter, which of course cannot be
attended to till the letter arrives. Thus mh> a]melh
mh> a@llwj poih . . . proskrou
ii/A.D.). One other (OP 744, i/B.C.) is worth quoting as a
sample of such requests followed by a reply: ei@rhkaj . . .
o!ti Mh< me e]pila
other hand, we have four cases of mh< c. pres. imper., all clearly
referable to the rule. Tou?to mh> lehad said)— mh<
a]gwnibis) "don't go on worrying" –mh> sklun
e]nph?nai (sic!) "don't bother to give information (??)": in the
last case (295 --i/A.D.) the writer had apparently left school
young, and we can only guess her meaning, but it may
well be "stop troubling." As we shall see, the crux is the
differentia of the present imperative, which is not easy to
illustrate decisively from the papyri. Hb P 56 (iii/B.C.) su> ou$#n
mh> e]no
the only case there—is obscured by hiatus. The prevalence
of reports and accounts in Tb P i. gives little opportunity
for the construction; but in the royal edict Tb P 6 (ii/B.C.),
we find kai> mhqeni> e]pitre
ti tw?n prodedhlwme
the rule is suggested by the words "as we have before
commanded," with which the sentence apparently opens:
a hiatus again causes difficulty. The frequency of these prohi-
and in NT. bitions in NT presents a very marked contrast
to the papyri, but the hortatory character of
the writing accounts for this. The following table gives the
statistics for mh< with the 2nd person:--
c. pres. imp. c. aor. subj.
Mt. 12 29
Mk 8 9
Lk. 27 19
Ac 5 4
Jn and Epp 19 1
Rev 3 5
Paul 47 8
Heb 5 5
Jas 7 2
1 Pet 1 2
------ ------
134 84
124 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
We have included the cases where mh< is preceded by o!ra or
the like. But sometimes this is not (as in the Gospels) a
mere compound prohibition, like our "take care not to . . . “
In Gal 515 "take heed lest" can hardly be classed as a
prohibition at all; while in Mk 144, o!ra mhdeni> ei@p^j, there
is virtual parataxis, o!ra being only a sort of particle adding
emphasis. The analysis of the list raises several suggestive
points. In Mt we note that except 120 and 39 all the
examples are from sayings of Christ, 39 in all, while in
Lk 32 are thus described (36 if we include a citation of
four precepts from the Decalogue). Since Mt has 12 pres.
to 27 aor., but Lk 21 to 11, we see that there was no sort of
uniformity in translating from the Aramaic. There is no
case where Mt and Lk have varied the tense while using
the same word in reporting the same logion;1 but we find
Mt altering Mk in 2423, manifestly for the better, if the
canon is true. In Mk the balance is heavily inclined to
the pres., for 5 out of 9 aor. examples are in the recitation
of the commandments. In Jn there is only one aor., 37,
an exception the more curious in that desine mirari seems
clearly the meaning; but see below. Paul uses the aor.
even less than he appears to do, for Rom 106 is a quotation,
and Col 221 ter virtually such: this leaves only 2 Th 313,
1 Tim 51, 2 Tim 18, with Gal 515, on which see above. Heb
has only two aorists (1035 1225--the latter with ble
apart from a triple quotation 38. 15 47. The very marked
predominance of the mh> poi
except in Mt, and in Rev and 1 Pet so far as they go. In
the NT as a whole the proportion is 61 p.c. to 39, which
does not greatly differ from the 56 to 44 noted in the
Attic Orators by Miller (AJP xiii. 423).
Passages Before we proceed to draw our deduc-
agreeing. tions from the canon thus applied to the NT,
it will be well to present a few of the
passages in which it obviously holds. In the following
places the reply to the mh> poi
"I am not doing so" or "I will stop doing it":--Mk 536
1 D uses kwlu16, where Mt and Mk, as well as the other MSS
in Lk, have the much more appropriate present.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 125
939 and parallels, Lk 713 849 852 (cf Mk ti< klai20
117 1412 2328, Jn 216 514 1921 2017. 27, Ac 1015 189 2010,
Rom 1118. 20 1420, 1 Co 727, 1 Tim 523, Jas 21, 1 Pet 412,
Rev 55. In the following, the mh> poih
with "I will avoid doing so":—Mt 613 109 179, Mk 820
925, Lk 629 104 (contrast the two prohibitions) 148 218,
Ac 760 938 1628 2321, 1 Tim 51, 2 Tim 18, Rev 66 73 101
(following h@mellon gra
Difficulties. It must however be admitted that rather
strong external pressure is needed to force
the rule upon Paul. It is not merely that his usage is very
one-sided. So is that of Jn, and yet (with the doubtful
exception of 1037) every present he uses fits the canon
completely. But does mh> a]me14 require us to
believe that Timothy was "neglecting" his "charism"--
mhdeni> e]piti koinw22, that he was warned
to stop what he was hitherto guilty of? May we not rather
say that mh> a]me
like, a marked durative, with a similar account of mhde>
koinw22 "always
be deliberate in choosing your office-bearers," we see the
iterative1 force of the present coming in; and this we
recognise again in typical passages like Lk 107, Rom 613,
Eph. 426, Heb 139, 2 Jn 10, 1 Jn 41. Then in 1 Co 1439 how
are we to imagine Paul bidding the Corinthians "desist from
forbidding" the exercise of their darling charism? His
mh> kwlu
my previous words you might be inclined to do." In other
words, we have the conative," which is clearly needed also in
such passages as Gal 51. Mh> poi
various mental supplements, and not one only. It is "Stop
doing," or "Do not (from time to time)," or "Do not
(as you are in danger of doing)," or "Do not attempt to do."
We are not justified in excluding, for the purposes of the
present imperative in prohibitions, the various kinds of
action which we find attached to the present stem elsewhere.
1 See below, p. 128. In 1 Co l.c. we might also trace the iterative, if the
meaning is "Do not repress giossolaly, whenever it breaks out." So Dr Findlay.
Dr Abbott (JG 318 ff.) cites Mk 1321 against the "Do not persist" rule; and
Mr Naylor points to the e@ti required in 1 Ti 522.
126 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
But since the simple linear action is by far the commonest
in the present stem, it naturally follows that mh> poi
means "stop doing," though (as Headlam admits, CR
xix. 31) it does not always mean this. To account for
such difficulties on the other side as Jn. 37, we may well
pursue the quotation from the scholar who started us on
this discussion. "Mh> dra
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> frontiOh, never mind!
mh> deiNever fear! mh> qaumaYou mustn’t be surprised."
Why Paul One of my main motives in pursuing
prefers this long discussion has been to solve a
mh> poi
Church History. What are we to infer
when we find Paul bidding his converts mh> mequ
(Eph 518), mh> yeu9), or James changing the
logion of Mt 534. 36 into the suggestive present (512)?
What has been said will make it clear that such commands
were very practical indeed, that the apostles were not
tilting at windmills, but uttering urgent warnings against
sins which were sure to reappear in the Christian com-
munity, or were as yet only imperfectly expelled. The critics
who make so much of lapses among Christian converts of the
first generation in modern missions might have damned Paul's
results with equal reason. Time has shown—time will show.1
Present The second point in which we shall
Participle. anticipate later discussion concerns the uses
of the Participle. Like the rest of the verb,
outside the indicative, it has properly no sense of time
attaching to it: the linear action in a participle, connected
with a finite verb in past or present time, partakes in the time
of its principal. But when the participle is isolated by the
addition of the article, its proper timelessness is free to
come out. This can hardly happen with the aorist, where
point action in such a connexion cannot well exist without
the suggestion of past time: h[ tekou?sa must be rendered
"she who bore a child," not because tekou?sa is past in
1 See p. 238.
THE VERB: TENSES AND MODES OF ACTION. 127
time like e@teke, but because the action is not in progress
and therefore must be past. But h[ ti
in tragedy (cf Gal 427) as a practical synonym of h[ mh
the title of a continuous relationship. Winer (p. 444) gives
a good selection of classical exx.: add from the papyri such
as CPR 24 etc. (ii/A.D.) toi?j gamou?si, "the contracting
parties," who are called oi[ gegamhko
ment, CPR 28 (ii/A.D.). So o[ kle
28, is not "he who
stole" or "he who steals," but simply "the stealer," differing
from o[ kle
associated with the verb klepte
Baptist is called o[ bapti14. 24), "the baptiser," the
phrase is less of a technical term than the noun, but is other-
wise synonymous therewith. An agent-noun almost neces-
sarily connotes linear action: there are only a few exceptions,
like "murderer," "bankrupt," where the title is generally
given in respect of an act committed in the past. Hence
it coincides closely with the action of the present participle,
which with the article (rarely without—see Kuhner-Gerth
i. 266) becomes virtually a noun. We return to the aorist
participle later, and need not say more on the minute part
of its field which might be connected with the subject of
this paragraph. But it must be remarked that the principle
of a timeless present participle needs very careful application,
since alternative explanations are often possible, and grammar
speaks to exegesis here with no decisive voice. In my
Introduction2 (p. 19 9) Mt 2740, o[ katalun nao
destroyer of the temple," was given as an ex. of a participle
turned noun. But the conative force is not to be missed here:
"you would-be destroyer" gives the meaning more exactly.
Another ambiguous case may be quoted from Heb 1014: is
tou>j a[giazome
iterative, "those who from time to time receive sanctification,"
or purely durative, "those who are in process of sanctifica-
tion"? The last, involving a suggestive contrast with the
perfect tetelei ses&me
of Eph 25. 8) of a work which is finished on its Author's
side, but progressively realised by its objects,—brings the
tense into relation with the recurrent of oi[ s&zo
oi[ a]pollu
128 A GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK.
The examples will suffice to teach the importance of
caution.
The Imperfect. We turn to the Imperfect, with which we
enter the sphere of Tense proper, the idea of
past time being definitely brought in by the presence of the
augment. This particle—perhaps a demonstrative base in
its origin, meaning "then" is the only decisive mark of
past or present time that the Indo-Germanic verb possesses,
unless the final -i in primary tenses is rightly conjectured to
have denoted present action in its prehistoric origin. Applied
to the present stem, the augment throws linear action
into the past; applied to the aorist, it does the same for
punctiliar action. The resultant meaning is naturally various.
We may have pictorial narrative, as contrasted with the
summary given by the aorist. Thus the sculptor will some-
times sign his work o[ dei?na e]poi
|