Aspect and Time in the Greek Verb

By Mark Stanton Beatty

At present, there is such a cacophony of theories about aspect and time in the Greek verb so that many, if not most, interpreters of the Bible avoid the subject completely. This is unacceptable for those who believe in inspiration of the Bible which would support the idea that not only each and every word, but also each and every morpheme chosen by the author is inspired by God.

This book will help interpreters understand the details of biblical Greek. Chapter IV contains an overview of my theories of syntax, semantics, and discourse. The rest of the book is an application of those theories to aspect and time primarily in Koine Greek Verbs in the Bible. Additional languages, such as English, Vietnamese, Russian, Modern Greek, and even a little bit of Latin and Hungarian are used to illustrate that my linguistic theories are universally applicable. Because aspect and time has been poorly interpreted or outrightly ignored, this book was written to allow all to ask and answer the question: 
"Why did the biblical author choose this aspect and this time in a particular passage?"

• Language: English
• Publisher: Mark Beatty
• Release date: Mar 28, 2022
• ISBN: 9798201621384

Mark Stanton Beatty

About Active Rest Ministries: A careful reading of the book of Hebrews yields the following  outline:      1-2 Listen to Jesus      3-4 Rest in Jesus      5-10 Pray through Jesus      11-13 Actively follow Jesus In other words, the book of Hebrews is an exhortation to actively rest in Christ. Many, with inadequate theories of syntax, semantics, and discourse, miss this understanding. Active Rest Ministries has the goal of mentoring future Bible teachers and preachers to better understand these  details of the Bible from the original text.       More information can be found at https://www.exegesiscoach.com. About Mark Beatty:       Mark lives in Kaneohe with his wife and children. He taught Greek at the undergraduate and graduate level over a period of 15 years. Mark also worked as an attorney for about 10 years and has been a linguist for about 32 years.   Read more at Mark Beatty’s website, https://www.exegesiscoach.com and https://www.activerest.org.

Book preview

Aspect and Time in the Greek Verb

Also by Mark S. Beatty:

Beatty, M. 2001. The Mechanics and Motivation of Greek Word Order: Applied to the Exegesis of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Arlington: The University of Texas at Arlington.

Beatty, M. 1990. Vietnamese Phrase Structure: an X-bar Approach. Arlington: The University of Texas at Arlington.

Aspect and Time in the Greek Verb and other languages

by

Mark Stanton Beatty

Copyright © 2022 Mark Stanton Beatty

Kaneohe, Hawaii

For every Bible student who has ever wondered, without satisfaction, Why did the original author pick a particular aspect or time in a biblical text?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.

It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Mark Twain

ου δια τουτο πλανασθε, μη ειδοτες τας γραφας ...          Mark 12:24

Table of Contents

I. Overview-Executive Summary

A. Executive Summary

1. Both the methodology and goal of Bible study should be to understand the original author’s intended meaning.

2. The Koine Greek verb allows many morphological changes that are used to communicate many different pieces of meaning.

3. In the indicative mood, morphological changes in the Koine Greek (KG) verb and periphrasis are used to indicate aspect and time.

4. Koine Greek authors chose aspect and time for discourse motivations.

5. A Koine Greek author can express most aspects in the non-indicative moods.

6. How would a Greek Coach approach teaching aspect and time in Koine Greek?

B. Layout of the Chapters

C. Glossary of Key Words

D. Most Common References to Bibles in Various Languages

II. Where to Start/Continue Learning Greek and Why You should not Give Up.

A. A Brief Excursion into How to Learn Koine Greek (KG) Verb Forms (Morphology)

B. Why to Learn the Theories in this Book- to Allow Superior Exegesis

1. Jesus interpreted the Bible based on authorial choice of time.

2. Romans 2 is an apologetic for using a psychologically real linguistic theory in exegesis.

3. The theories herein presented allow asking and answering significant exegetical questions.

4. The theories of Fanning/Wallace, Porter/Campbell will hinder you from understanding the Bible.

C. Greek Aspect Must Be Studied Because Aspect Has Not Been Consistently Translated, and Most Commentaries Have Neglected Aspect and Time.

D. Linguistic Theories Should Represent the Original Writers’ and Original Readers’ Linguistic Knowledge.

E. Preachers, Students, Teachers, and Linguists will Gain Insights.

1. For someone who knows no Greek, this book can provide insight into the English Bible.

2. The theories in this book allows preachers to ask meaningful questions about the time and aspect of the New Testament Greek verbs.

3. When used as a textbook, this book will help students learn, and their teachers teach, Greek aspect and time.

4. This book can be a resource for linguists and Greek grammarians.

5. The theories in this book can be a resource for advanced study of Greek.

F. The Use of a Modern Linguistic Theory Makes the Details of Biblical Greek Assessable to Speakers of Other Languages.

G. Aspect Study must Interface with Syntax, Semantics, and Discourse Study.

III. Description, Similarities, and Deficiencies of Other Systems of Aspect and Time

A. Introduction to Other Theories

B. Jannaris on the Historic Development of Classical to Modern Greek

1. Jannaris agrees with me that Koine Greek has three aspects in three times.

2. Jannaris agrees with me that in the indicative, the aorist, present, and future represent aoristic aspect, the imperfect represents imperfective aspect, and the perfect and pluperfect represent perfective aspect.

3. Jannaris on the Periphrastic Imperfective Future

4. Jannaris agrees with me that periphrasis is used to express the perfective future.

5. Jannaris states that both the pluperfect indicative and various periphrastic forms express past time perfective aspect.

6. Jannaris states that periphrasis is used to express present time, imperfective aspect.

7. Conclusions about Jannaris: he agrees with me on almost my entire analysis.

C. A.T. Robertson was a Great and Accurate Greek Grammarian.

1. Robertson Represented Cutting Edge Research in 1914.

2. Robertson posits three times each with three aspects.

3. Robertson views the aorist and the present as aoristic.

4. Robertson views the future as aoristic.

5. Robertson maintains the perfective aspect in KG occurred in all three times.

6. Robertson views periphrasis as a means of expressing multiword aspect and time.

D. Burton also maintains that KG used periphrasis to express aspect and time.

1. Burton partially agrees that periphrasis verbs are essential to the KG verb system.

2. Burton errs in following aktionsart theory.

E. The Fanning/Wallace System Focuses on Verbal Meaning

1. The Fanning System is an errant feature system.

2. Contributions of Wallace.

3. General critiques of aktionsart

4. Fanning/Wallace on viewpoint

F. The Porter/Campbell Verbal System Addresses Only Aspect, Not Time.

1. Porter's system lacks time.

2. Decker applied Porter’s theory to the Gospel of Mark.

3. The Campbell system redefines time and is incomplete concerning aspect.

G. The Runge system has a holistic discourse system lacking an autonomous semantic and syntax system.

1. Runge’s lack of an autonomous syntax and semantic system renders him impotent to weed out errors in aspect and time.

2. Runge’s use of prominence for the aorist is fatally confusing.

3. Runge is correct about the imperfect indicative but wrong about the present indicative.

4. Runge uses Porter’s confusing terminology about the perfect and pluperfect indicatives.

5. Runge has too many undefined words that probably mean the same thing, such as emphasis, focus, marked, important, or prominent.

H. The Silva System: Possibly the Best System Since Jannaris and Robertson.

I. Blight’s Analysis of Aspect

1. Blight’s analysis of aoristic verbs

2. Blight’s analysis of imperfective verbs

3. Blight’s analysis of perfective verbs

J. Introductory Grammars Present a Confusing Version of the KG Verb.

1. Introduction to introductory grammars

2. Morris on aspect and time

3. Parker on confused time and aspect

K. Morris Shows Limited Consensus about the Some Aspects.

1. The aorist indicative is undefined/aoristic aspect.

2. The perfect indicative and pluperfect indicative both are finished/perfective aspect.

3. The imperfect indicative is continuous/imperfective aspect.

4. Working hypothesis about aspects.

L. Caragounis on Modern Greek’s Relationship to Koine Greek

1. Caragounis understands joint features of both aspect and time.   

2. Caragounis correctly sees both aspect and time in the aorist indicative.

3. Caragounis’s comments on the imperfect indicative are clear and brilliant.

M. Summary: Conclusions from these other grammars

IV. Summary of the Syntax, Semantics and Discourse Theories Used in this Book

A. Introduction to Theories Used in this Book.

B. An Autonomous Syntax Based on Syntactic Features Best Accounts for The Systematic Syntactic Data of All Languages.

1. Campbell misunderstands autonomous syntax and performance.   

2. Use of autonomous syntax on Vietnamese provides a more insightful analysis then one theory that tries to list sentences by a labeling scheme.

3. The transition to government and binding and minimalism captured the underlying principles of syntax.

4. An autonomous syntax allows the exegete to separate the systematic from the idiosyncratic elements of language.

5. A scientific theory should be analyzed by parsimony and its ability to explain the greater amount of data.

6. The RMP Syntax System works in multiple diverse languages.

C. An Autonomous Theory of Semantics that Interfaces with Discourse and Syntax Can Handle the Empirically Hard Problems.

1. A theory of semantics must explain how diverse people can infer common meanings and how similar people can infer diverse meanings.

2. Campbell's semantic system consists of undefined primitives.

3. Historically, most semantic theories are based on features, prototypes, or frames.

4. The theories of Fanning and Wallace suffer the deficiencies of feature systems.

5. An exemplar inferential semantics can address the empirically hard problems of semantics.

6. Theoretical Excursion: Experiments support the theory that meaning as inferred from exemplars.

7. Conclusion on semantics: People can choose to communicate or mis-communicate.

D. A Cognitive Linguistic Theory Best Accounts for Viewpoint and Other Discourse Level Data.

E. Morphology Is the Construction of Words, and Thus Is Part of the Lexicon.

F. When We Correctly Representing the Linguistics Knowledge of the Original Authors, We Approach the Authorial Intent of the Original Author.

V. The Koine Greek Indicative Mood Has Three Aspects Which Can Be Expressed in Three Times.

A. Questions that a Greek Verbal Aspect-Time System Should Be Able to Ask and Answer.

B. We Need to Categorize Time and Aspect with Unambiguous Terms.

C. Overview of the Indicative Forms of the Three Aspects in Three Times

1. Aoristic aspect can be expressed in three times.

2. Imperfective aspect can be expressed in past, present, and future times.

3. Perfective aspect can be expressed in three times.

D. Examples of Aspect and Time from the Epistle to the Hebrews Show that the Author Can Choose any Aspect in any Time in the Indicative.

1. Aoristic aspect

2. Imperfective aspect

3. Perfective aspect

E. Examination of Koine Greek Future Time in Three Aspects in Hebrews

1. My theory of discourse indicates that authors select time for different reasons than selecting aspect.

2. The future indicative expresses aoristic aspect in future time.

3. Hebrews 11:8 expresses future time in the imperfective aspect.

4. Consider Hebrews 1:14 that has a future time imperfective (continuous) aspect will be inheriting.

5. The selection of the periphrastic structure and the morphological form of the present infinitive is not arbitrary in Hebrews 1:14.

6. Porter on the future time in multiple aspects

7. In Hebrews, the periphrastic form can express future time in perfective aspect.

8. It is a great error not to recognize that Hebrews 1:14 expresses imperfective aspect in future time.

F. Examination of Koine Greek Past Time in Three Aspects

1. In the past time, Koine Greek has three distinct morphological forms that express three different aspects: examples from Hebrews.

2. Koine Greek can express past time in three different aspects: examples from Hebrews.

G. Examination of Koine Greek Present Time in Three Aspects

1. Present Time Aoristic Aspect

2. Present time imperfective aspect

3. Present time in perfective aspect

H. The Meaning of Aoristic and the Continuing Abuse of the Aoristic Aspect

1. Introduction

2. The aoristic aspect is an undefined, simple aspect.

VI. The Non-Indicative Moods Have Two or Three Aspects.

A. Overview of Non-Indicative Moods

1. Aspect as viewpoint fails.

2. Aspect is not limited by semantics.

3. Analysis of aspect fails when using a prototype semantic theory.   

B. Aspect in Infinitives

1. Summary of the Greek infinitive

2. Aoristic aspect in the infinitive

3. Perfective aspect in the infinitive

4. Imperfective aspect in the infinitive

5. Summary of Greek infinitives and comparison with other languages

C. Subjunctives, Imperatives, and Optatives

1. Introduction

2. Subjunctives

3. Imperatives

4. Optatives

D. Participles

1. Summary of the Greek participle

2. Participles and syntax

3. Participles and semantics

4. Analysis of selected examples of other theories

E. Analysis of Porter

F. Analysis of Aspect Questions from Hebrews 1.

VII. Importance of Correct Syntax: Periphrasis in Greek Verbal Aspect and Other Languages

A. The Argument Illustrated in English: English has a Mixed System with More Periphrasis and Less Morphology.

B. The KG Verb Contains a Variety of Features like Person and Number, but also Time and Aspect.

C. Greek Grammarians Recognized Periphrasis, but Do Not Include Periphrastic Forms in Their Systems.

1. Many traditional grammarians recognize periphrasis

2. Modern grammarians also acknowledge periphrasis but neglect its importance.

3. Use of periphrasis by the original authors is NOT to compensate for their poor ability in the Greek language.

4. Conclusion about periphrasis

D. Other Languages Use Periphrasis to Express the Features of Time and Aspect.

1. Introduction

2. Modern Greek has more periphrasis than KG.

3. The Classical Greek (CG) verbal system used less periphrasis.

4. The Indo-European (IE) verbal system used even less periphrasis.

5. Conclusion on Greek periphrasis

6. Russian has a mixed system with less periphrasis and more morphology.

7. Vietnamese has no morphological aspect or time.

E. In Theory, Porter, Fanning, Wallace, and Campbell only Partially Disagree with Me.

F. In practice, Porter, Fanning, Wallace, Campbell, and the Majority of the 450 Translations of the New Testament into English Agree with Me.   

G. Conclusions about Periphrasis

VIII. Importance of Correct Semantics: Aktionsart is Not a Psychologically Real Theory of Language.

A. The Theory of Aktionsart Uses Foreign Categories and Confuses These with Semantics, Syntax, and Discourse.

1. Introduction

2. Wallace and Fanning organize data according to various semantic principles.

3. The systems of Fanning, Comrie and Wallace

B. The Theories Used Here are Psychologically Real.

1. The benefit of a theory over the null hypothesis.

2. A psychologically real theory should strive to capture the knowledge of the writer/speaker.

3. A psychologically real morphology would account for how human beings can apply a limited morphological system to an infinite amount of words.

4. A psychologically real syntax theory explains how human beings can produce and understood an infinite number of sentences.

5. A psychologically real semantic theory must explain how human beings produce and understand meaning of words.

6. A psychologically real discourse theory should explain how language users can produce and understand multiple sentences into a unified whole.

C. Hungarian, Russian, English, and Greek have Overt Mechanisms to Communicate Language and Do Not Need Covert Aktionsart.

1. Introduction

2. The Hungarian strategy

3. The Russian strategy

4. The English strategy

5. The Greek strategy

D. The Data Covered by Wallace's Aktionsart Theory Is Better Covered by My Autonomous Syntax, Autonomous Semantics, and Autonomous Discourse Theoretical System.

IX. Importance of Correct Discourse: The Discourse Statistics of Aspect Supports a Three Aspect System.

A. Introduction

B. Statistical Distribution of the Various Aspects in the New Testament

1. General Epistles

2. Pauline Epistles

3. Historical Books (Gospels, Acts, Revelation)

4. Total Number of Verbs in the New Testament

5. Conclusions

C. Exegeting English as an Example of Aspect Choice

D. The Historic Present Explained as Choice of Viewpoint in Discourse.

1. Viewpoint and discourse theory

2. The historic present and other seeming incongruities of time

3. Analysis of the historic present by Runge confuses and does not help analysis.

X. Exegeting Time and Aspect in Hebrews.

A. The Goal of Exegesis, Explaining the Choices of the Author.

B. Introduction of Corpus and Scope

C. Aspect and Time in Hebrews Section 1: Listen to Jesus

1. Paragraph 1, Hebrews 1:1-3

2. Application of the others’ insights to Hebrews 1-2

D. Examples of Exegeting Time in Hebrews

1. Examples of exegeting future from the commentaries

2. Exegeting the present indicative morphology in commentaries   

E. Aspect in Hebrews

1. Discourse structure and exegetic questions for Hebrews

2. Aoristic aspect

3. Imperfective

4. Perfective

F. Exegeting the Greek Participle in Hebrews

1. The participle used in noun phrases

2. Future aoristic participles

G. Exegeting Subjunctives, Imperatives, and Optatives in Hebrews

XI. Analysis of Examples and Counter Examples of Other Grammarians

A. Introduction

B. Porter on Porter

1. Porter on expectation

2. Porter on the future perfect periphrastic in Matthew 16:19

3. Porter’s faulty discourse method is not psychologically real.

4. A mental space theory used as discourse theory is psychologically real. 

C. Decker’s Analysis of Porter Contains Errant Translations and is Self-Contradictory.

1. Overview: Decker/Porter largely based on bad translations from Greek to English.

2. Decker’s/Porter’s translation of Mark 11:27 is unusual.

3. Decker and Porter wrongly argue that John 17:14 supports aorist indicative as present time.

4. Decker and Porter wrongly claim that oida is perfective.

5. Acts 10:45

6. James 5:2

7. Decker and Porter wrongly claim that John 17:22 is perfect aspect used for future time.

D. Decker’s Error: The Present Indicative is Aoristic Aspect and NOT Imperfective Aspect.

E. Reed’s Version of Porter Errs in Treating Aspect as a Prominence Marker, Rather Than to Indicate Mainline and Background Information.   

F. Campbell in Practice: Exegesis of Colossians

1. Campbell’s stated system

2. Campbell’s analysis of Colossians 1:3

3. Campbell’s analysis of Colossians 1:4

4. Campbell’s analysis on Col 1:6

5. Evaluation of the discourse in Col 1:3-8

G. Mathewson Applied Porter to Revelation

1. Problems with John’s Greek

2. Matthewson’s theories

3. Analysis:

H. New Ideas in The Greek Verb Revisited

1. Fanning is bummed that more people have not shown an interest in aspect in the Greek Verb.

2. Fanning’s points of consensus are the essence of his system’s failure.

I. Summary

XII. Conclusions and Methodological Implications.

A. In the Indicative, any Koine Greek Author Could Choose any of Three Aspects in any of Three Times.

B. Any KG Author Could Choose a Variety of Overt Linguistic Structures Rather than the Covert Imaginations of Aktionsart.

C. A Mathematical Portrayal

D. The Scientific and Theological Goals of this Study

E. Review of Principles.

XIII. Bibliography

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Koine Greek Aspectual System

Figure 2: Verbs in the Non-Indicative Moods

Figure 3, 20 most common Russian verbs:

Figure 4, Top 300 Russian Verbs

Figure 5: Morris

Figure 6: Split IP hypothesis

Figure 7: Syntactic Features

Figure 8: Syntactic Symbols

Figure 9: Mechanics of Exemplar Inferential Semantics

Figure 10: Blending for Shep the dog

Figure 11 Semantics of the Dog

Figure 12: The Smirnov Test on Dogs

Figure 13: The Discouraged Attorney

Figure 14: Koine Greek Aspectual System for Indicatives

Figure 15: Aorist Active Indicative

Figure 16: Present Active Indicative

Figure 17: Future Active Indicative

Figure 18: Imperfect Active Indicative

Figure 19: Pluperfect Active Indicative

Figure 20: Perfect Active Indicative

Figure 21: Other Moods

Figure 22: Aoristic Aspect

Figure 23: Imperfective Aspect

Figure 24: Perfective Aspect

Figure 25: Vietnamese Example

Figure 26: Russian Example

Figure 27: Non Indicative Moods

Figure 28: Vietnamese and Russian

Figure 29: English Example

Figure 30: Wallace’s Table

Figure 31: Russian System

Figure 32: Russian Example

Figure 33: Vietnamese Example

Figure 34: Porter's Aspectual System

Figure 35: Fanning's Aspectual System

Figure 36: Campbell's Aspectual System

Figure 37: The English Time and Aspectual System

Figure 38: Syntax of a Prepositional Phrase

Figure 39: Hungarian Example

Figure 40: Russian Example with Movement Verbs

Figure 41: English Multiword Examples against Aktionsart

Figure 42: Greek Examples

Figure 43: Number of verbs in General Epistles

Figure 44: Percentages in General Epistles

Figure 45: Numbers in Pauline Epistles

Figure 46: Percentages of Pauline Epistles

Figure 47: Numbers of Verbs in Historical Books

Figure 48: Percentages of Verbs in Historical Books

Figure 49: Total Number of Verbs in the New Testament

Figure 50: Hemmingway Example

Figure 51: Past, Present, and Future Example

Figure 52: Distribution of Indicatives in Hebrews 1-2

Figure 53: Future Aoristic Examples

Figure 54: Three Mental Spaces from Aspect in Matt 16:19

Figure 55: Reed’s Prominence Theory

Figure 56: Matthewson’s Version of Porter

Figure 57: Matthewson’s Theory of Grounding

Figure 58: 16 Aorist Indicatives in Revelation

Figure 59: Present Indicative Verbs in Revelation

Figure 60: Perfect Indicative Verb in Revelation

Figure 61: Imperfect Indicative Verbs in Revelation

Figure 62: Beatty’s Equation of Explanation

Figure 63: Theory of Porter and McKay

Scripture References

1 Cor 14.9........................................308

1 Cor 14:9...............................205, 308, 309

1 Cor 15:25.......................................217

1 Cor 6:10........................................238

1 Cor 6:9.........................................238

1 John 1:4.........................................277

1 John 1:6.........................................274

1 John 1:9.........................................275

1 John 2:1.........................................275

1 John 2:19.......................................248

1 John 3:22.......................................275

1 Peter 1:24........................................85

1 Peter 1:6........................................215

1 Thes 3:4...................................213, 234

1 Thes 4:1........................................217

1 Tim 3:15........................................218

2 Cor 12:1........................................217

2 Cor 2:3.........................................217

2 Cor 5:11........................................220

2 John 12.........................................277

2 Maccabees 14:41................................214

2 Peter 1:12..................................213, 292

2 Peter 1:19-21....................................238

2 Peter 1:21.......................................119

2 Peter 3:11.......................................218

2 Thes 3:7........................................217

2 Tim 1:5..........................................52

2 Tim 2:2.........................................205

2 Tim 2:24........................................218

2 Tim 2:6.........................................218

2 Tim 3:16-17................................119, 238

2 Tim 4:3.........................................205

2 Tim 4:6.........................................116

2 Tim 4:6-7.......................................116

2 Tim 4:8.........................................117

Acts 1:21.........................................215

Acts 10:45........................................405

Acts 12:6....................................206, 212

Acts 15:5.........................................216

Acts 16:27...............................206, 207, 212

Acts 16:30........................................217

Acts 17:18........................................287

Acts 17:27........................................286

Acts 17:31........................................212

Acts 19:36........................................217

Acts 2:8...........................................92

Acts 20:35........................................217

Acts 20:38........................................212

Acts 21:27........................................212

Acts 22:16........................................213

Acts 23:3.........................................212

Acts 24:19........................................217

Acts 25:20........................................344

Acts 26:23........................................212

Acts 27:21........................................217

Acts 27:33........................................212

Acts 3:12..........................................92

Acts 5:29.........................................216

Acts 5:35.........................................212

Acts 5:41....................................293, 294

Col 1:3.............................420, 421, 424, 425

Col 1:3-8.....................................427, 428

Col 1:4...........................................424

Col 1:6...........................................426

Col 2:1...........................................116

Col 4:12..........................................421

Col 4:6...........................................217

Eph 2:1...........................................231

Eph 2:2...........................................231

Eph 2:4...........................................231

Eph 2:5...........................................230

Exodus 3:6.........................................40

Exodus 4:10......................................214

Gal 6:11...........................................85

Genesis 10-11.....................................187

Genesis 11:7....................................31, 32

Heb 1............................................189

Heb 1:1.................................297, 370, 385

Heb 1:11.....................................233, 249

Heb 1:12.........................................233

Heb 1:13................................284, 384, 387

Heb 1:1-3..........................................51

Heb 1:14......................................passim

Heb 1:1a.........................................364

Heb 1:1b.........................................364

Heb 1:2...........................................365

Heb 1:3........................................passim

Heb 1:4.................................252, 297, 383

Heb 1:5......................................233, 383

Heb 1:6......................................284, 387

Heb 1:7...........................................296

Heb 10:15........................................267

Heb 10:27........................................383

Heb 10:32....................................285, 378

Heb 10:34........................................252

Heb 10:4.........................................252

Heb 11:10........................................247

Heb 11:15........................................247

Heb 11:16........................................234

Heb 11:17........................................247

Heb 11:26........................................247

Heb 11:3.........................................267

Heb 11:5.....................................247, 267

Heb 11:8................................213, 234, 383

Heb 1-2......................................379, 381

Heb 12:10........................................247

Heb 12:12........................................284

Heb 12:13........................................285

Heb 12:14........................................285

Heb 12:17....................................237, 292

Heb 12:20........................................247

Heb 12:25........................................285

Heb 12:3.........................................284

Heb 12:5.........................................285

Heb 12:9.........................................247

Heb 13:1.........................................285

Heb 13:16........................................285

Heb 13:17........................................285

Heb 13:18....................................285, 383

Heb 13:2.........................................285

Heb 13:21........................................387

Heb 13:22....................................285, 379

Heb 13:23........................................285

Heb 13:24........................................284

Heb 13:3.........................................285

Heb 13:7.........................................285

Heb 2............................................367

Heb 2:1........................................passim

Heb 2:10.........................................264

Heb 2:11.........................................269

Heb 2:12.....................................233, 384

Heb 2:13...........................232, 309, 380, 384

Heb 2:15.........................................269

Heb 2:16.....................................376, 377

Heb 2:17................................265, 269, 380

Heb 2:18................................265, 381, 384

Heb 2:24.........................................384

Heb 2:3......................................233, 269

Heb 2:5...........................................381

Heb 2:8......................................264, 384

Heb 2:9-10........................................243

Heb 3:1...........................................284

Heb 3:12.........................................284

Heb 3:13.........................................285

Heb 3:5...........................................387

Heb 4:1...........................................265

Heb 4:8...........................................244

Heb 5:8...........................................292

Heb 6:13.........................................244

Heb 7:24-26......................................245

Heb 7:4...........................................285

Heb 7:5...........................................292

Heb 8:11.........................................284

Heb 8:12.........................................205

Heb 8:4...........................................285

Heb 8:5...........................................383

Heb 8:7...........................................246

Heb 9:1...........................................247

Heb 9:25.........................................378

Heb 9:26.........................................218

Heb 9:5...........................................251

Heb 9:6.................................266, 377, 378

Heb 9:8......................................265, 266

Isaiah 15:7........................................214

Isaiah 59:5........................................214

James 5:2.........................................406

Job 3:8...........................................214

John 1:29.........................................201

John 1:39..........................................33

John 1:41.........................................202

John 1:42..........................................85

John 1:43.........................................193

John 1:51....................................202, 225

John 11:51........................................212

John 12:33........................................212

John 14:13........................................195

John 14:22........................................212

John 17:14........................................403

John 17:15-17.....................................406

John 17:22........................................406

John 17:3.........................................276

John 18:32........................................212

John 2:20....................................196, 197

John 21:20-21.....................................357

John 3:12.........................................197

John 3:23.........................................201

John 3:30....................................202, 216

John 4:20.........................................216

John 4:24.........................................216

John 4:47.........................................211

John 5:2......................................354, 356

John 5:25.........................................197

John 6:15.........................................211

John 6:51.........................................196

John 6:6..........................................211

John 6:71.........................................211

John 7:35....................................196, 212

John 7:39....................................203, 212

John 9:4..........................................216

Luke 1:62.........................................220

Luke 10:1.........................................211

Luke 10:25........................................237

Luke 11:22........................................118

Luke 11:24........................................262

Luke 12:52-3......................................309

Luke 13:33........................................216

Luke 18:1.........................................216

Luke 18:18........................................237

Luke 19:11........................................211

Luke 19:4.........................................211

Luke 2:26.........................................230

Luke 2:48.........................................193

Luke 2:49.........................................215

Luke 21:17........................................204

Luke 21:24........................................204

Luke 22:69........................................205

Luke 22:7.........................................216

Luke 5:10.........................................204

Luke 6:34.........................................220

Luke 7:2..........................................211

Luke 7:37.........................................110

Luke 7:47...............................395, 396, 397

Luke 8:27..........................................74

Luke 9:31.........................................211

Luke 9:44.........................................211

Mark 1:33.........................................132

Mark 1:34.........................................132

Mark 1:35.........................................129

Mark 1:37..........................................92

Mark 11:27.......................................402

Mark 12:27............................40, 45, 135, 238

Mark 12:38.......................................220

Mark 13:13.......................................204

Mark 13:24.......................................308

Mark 13:25...................................204, 308

Mark 2:5.....................................407, 409

Mark 5:18-19......................................133

Mark 6:14.........................................134

Mark 7:30.........................................134

Mark 8:34.........................................220

Mark 9:1..........................................215

Matt 10:22........................................203

Matt 12:46........................................248

Matt 12:7.........................................248

Matt 13:2.........................................248

Matt 13:35........................................292

Matt 13:52........................................292

Matt 16:17........................................392

Matt 16:18........................................393

Matt 16:18-19.....................................397

Matt 16:18a.......................................392

Matt 16:18b.......................................392

Matt 16:19.....................................passim

Matt 16:21........................................344

Matt 16:27........................................208

Matt 17:12........................................208

Matt 17:22........................................208

Matt 18:18..........................204, 205, 225, 309

Matt 18:19........................................394

Matt 19:20........................................238

Matt 2:13.........................................208

Matt 20:22........................................209

Matt 21:27........................................405

Matt 24:43........................................248

Matt 24:6....................................209, 213

Matt 24:9.........................................204

Matt 25:26........................................248

Matt 27:15........................................248

Matt 27:17........................................248

Matt 27:18........................................248

Matt 5:18....................................119, 238

Matt 5:5..........................................238

Matt 6:5..........................................292

Matt 7:25.........................................248

Phil 3:4...........................................292

Rev 1:19.....................................207, 213

Rev 10:4..........................................213

Rev 12:4..........................................207

Rev 2:10..........................................213

Rev 21:7..........................................238

Rev 3:16..........................................207

Rev 3:2......................................207, 213

Rev 5.............................................432

Rev 5:1......................................438, 441

Rev 5:11-14.......................................443

Rev 5:12.....................................439, 440

Rev 5:12-13.......................................438

Rev 5:13..........................................439

Rev 5:14..........................................438

Rev 5:2.................................438, 440, 441

Rev 5:3......................................440, 441

Rev 5:3,4.........................................438

Rev 5:4...........................................440

Rev 5:4,..........................................442

Rev 5:5......................................440, 442

Rev 5:6......................................439, 442

Rev 5:6-7.........................................433

Rev 5:7.................................437, 439, 442

Rev 5:8......................................439, 442

Rev 5:9.................................439, 440, 442

Rom 1:27.........................................215

Rom 12:3.........................................217

Rom 16:22........................................119

Rom 2.............................................33

Rom 4:24.........................................213

Rom 7:7..........................................247

Rom 8:13....................................213, 234

Rom 8:18.........................................206

Rom 8:26.........................................215

Rom 9:1...........................................92

Rom. 6:1.........................................276

Titus 1:11....................................215, 218

I.  Overview-Executive Summary

A.

Executive Summary

Studying Greek for the purpose of Bible Study should be much easier than it is. I suggest, argue, and putatively prove that my linguistic approach to biblical Greek clears up confusion and errors. I suggest, argue, and hopefully prove that the existing systems put forth by Porter/Campbell and Fanning/Wallace are replete with grave errors which greatly hinder understanding the nuances of the Bible.

At the center of my linguistic theory is the idea that the linguistic theories of Porter/Campbell and Fanning/Wallace not only do not work on ancient forms of Greek, but also do not work on their own native languages like English. In other words, the language they use in their own arguments, argue that their linguistic theories are wrong. On the contrary, the linguistic theories used in this book work not only on ancient forms of Greek, but on all languages, past, present, and future.  

An Executive Summary in a business setting is an overview of the entire business plan. Whether one calls this section an executive summary, an overview, or an introduction, the purpose is the same, to briefly set forth the final conclusions and some of the reasons for those conclusions. Most of the arguments, examples and other supporting details can be found in the remainder of the book.

1.  Both the methodology and goal of Bible study should be to understand the original author’s intended meaning.

Atechnical word for Bible study is exegesis which is from the Greek word εξηγησις, the morphological parts of which can mean to lead out. Exegesis, therefore, can be defined as drawing out the meaning of the original author. One’s theory of language produces the methodology used in this Bible Study/exegesis. Whether the methodology of someone studying the Bible is called exegesis or Bible study methods makes little difference. What makes a significance difference is whether the methodology is consistent and produces good results. By consistent I mean the same methodology is used for all data, and the methodology is not changed because one might not like the exegetical outcome, or the methodology is not changed because the methodology fails to account for the data. To change one’s method with that data, where either the method does not work or the method produces results that one does not like, is inconsistent and perhaps dishonest. By produce good results I mean that the methodology can explain most or all the data, not just a small portion of the data. If you are interested in why the original authors chose one form over another form of the Greek verb, this book is for you. Furthermore, if you are interested in a consistent linguistic theory that works well on English, and putatively all other languages as well as 2000-year-old Koine Greek, then this book is for you.

The original language of the New Testament is Koine Greek (KB). The biggest payoff of studying the Bible in Greek is being able to identify those details chosen by the original author which are not readily translated or which most commentaries have missed. The details of Verbal Aspect are often missed by commentators and translations. Knowing Greek allows one to identify aoristic, imperfective, and perfective verbs, and allows one to identify past, present, and future verbs, and provides the platform to ask:

Why did the author choose this aspect and time for this verb in this context?

Notice, however, that this same question can be asked about an author’s choice in any language. In fact, if one has a linguistic system that cannot ask and answer such questions for a variety of languages, then that linguistic system is insufficient. Part of being consistent when applying your theory is to apply one’s theory to all data. I suggest one of the serious deficiencies of most Greek Grammarians is that their linguistic theories do not work on their own native language, much less on an ancient language which they do not know as a native speaker.

In other words, Porter should explain why Greek verbs do not express time, but English verbs do express time, even though both verb systems use a combination of morphology and periphrastic structures to indicate both aspect and time. Perhaps an easier, but more devastating, question for Porter is why he thinks Koine Greek verbs do not express time, but Modern Greek verbs do.

In another example, Wallace commits many pages to labelling Greek morphology, phrases, and sentences, but I have never seen him commit any of his publications to labelling English morphology, phrases, or sentences. If labeling morphological structures is so valuable, why doesn’t he label English morphological structures? How does Wallace expect us to understand his writings about Greek if he does not label the English words that he used to describe Greek?

2.  The Koine Greek verb allows many morphological changes that are used to communicate many different pieces of meaning.

Now for a brief overview of the Greek verb, which can have hundreds of different forms. [1] Changes of word forms is called morphology. The Greek verb changes morphologically to express a variety of things such as mood, person, number, aspect, time, and for some forms, gender, and case. The first distinction in verbs is mood which includes: indicative, subjunctive, optative, imperative, participle and infinitive.

The indicative mood is often described as statements of perceived facts, "This is that. The subjunctive mood is described as possibility, This might be that. The optative is a wish, I wish this was that. The imperative is a command, Make this into that. The participle is a verbal adjective, This, acting like that, . . . The infinitive is a verbal noun, To act . . ."

Notice in the above English examples that many moods require more than one word. In this book, as well as in the writing of many other authors, using more than one word for a verb is called periphrasis. In Koine Greek, most of the two- or three-word English forms are expressed in one word that has various complexities of morphology. Some of the verbs in Koine Greek, however, use two words. Modern Greek, the direct descendant of Koine Greek, is more like English in that more verbal constructs use more than one word.

Some semantic concepts are used in some languages by the syntax as syntactic features. In Greek, these syntactic features include person, number, case, and gender. Other languages use some of these, like the English third person singular verb matching the noun in person and number ("I study versus He studies). Some languages have different features like Vietnamese has the feature of animacy where the classifier (which I interpret syntactically as a determiner) must match the noun (con chó = animate the dog). If syntactic features do not match in a sentence, then that sentence is ill-formed or ungrammatical." Ill-formed sentences are not part of a language, but at most, a jumble of words with no cohesive meaning.  

The verb in the indicative, subjunctive, optative, and imperative moods have the syntactic features of person (I, you, he) and number (I, we). These morphological forms express the subject and thus a separate subject is not needed. If a separate subject is expressed, it must match the person and number of the verb. Furthermore, Greek verbs require their subject or object to match in case, so that the subject is generally in the nominative case and the object is generally in the accusative case. Greek prepositions also have case requirements for the nouns which they govern. Another name for matching is feature checking. The subjects of syntactic features, feature checking, and well-formedness belongs to the realm of syntax. Syntax is the mechanics of how words form into phrases and sentences.

3.  In the indicative mood, morphological changes in the Koine Greek (KG) verb and periphrasis are used to indicate aspect and time.

Aspect is different from the mechanics of syntax. An author can never make a syntactically ill-formed sentence by choosing the wrong aspect or time. Often, one cannot even discern why an author of a Koine Greek text choses an aspect or time unless one is looking at a chunk of language bigger than a sentence. Thus, the reason an author of a Koine Greek text chose an aspect or time is a discourse question. By discourse, I mean the section cohesively containing multiple sentences, multiple paragraphs, multiple sections, or even higher chunks of language. The aspect and time meaning of a verbal form, however, is a question of semantics.

Thus, to delve into the study of aspect and time, one needs satisfactory theories of syntax, of semantics, and of discourse. Also, one needs to understand the interaction between the theories of syntax, of semantics, and of discourse. Much of the inadequacies of Fanning/Wallace is because they have one theory to cover both syntax and semantics and have little interaction with any discourse theory. Much of the disappointments of Porter/Campbell’s theory is because they have no syntax theory, an inadequate theory of semantics, and an overworked but inadequate theory of discourse.

Aspect is often described as kind of action and often KG is considered to have three aspects: aoristic, imperfective, and perfective. I suggest that a better description of aspect is kind of action in relationship to other actions. Reviewing the literature, I think that the definition of kind of action can lead us, and has led us in the wrong direction of focusing on the semantics of the verb, what some have called aktionsart. I think rather we need to define aspect in KG as having discourse purpose.

But not all languages have discourse aspect. Some languages have what we can call semantic aspect, like Russian and Polish. Greek, and languages like English, have discourse aspect. Failing to distinguish these two different uses of aspect is a fatal flaw of any analytic system of KG aspect and time. 

Aoristic aspect in KG is simple or unspecified action. The aoristic aspect is found in the aorist indicative, present indicative, and future indicative morphological forms. 87.8% of the indicative verbs in the New Testament are aoristic aspect.[2] Aoristic can be considered the default aspect and is selected by the author when no specific kind of action is to be indicated. Aoristic verbs, especially in the indicative mood, are not dependent on other verbs. In other words, the aoristic verbs can stand alone and not raise the question, how is this related to other verbs? If one is defining aspect by discourse purpose, the aoristic aspect would be the independent discourse use of the verb. The independent discourse use is often acting as the mainline verbs of the discourse.

One long standing question involves the difference between one-word forms for verbs and periphrastic forms for verbs. The simplest observation is that periphrastic forms have more information. Part of having more information is that periphrastic verbs also can function as a mainline verb of a discourse while communicating imperfective or perfective aspect. One-word morphological forms, like the KG perfect indicative and imperfect indicative, cannot be the mainline verb. Perfect indicatives express finished background information to a mainline aoristic verb. Imperfect indicatives provide cotemporary background information to a mainline aoristic verb. One-word perfect and imperfect verbs cannot function as mainline verbs. Periphrastic verbs, however, can function as mainline verbs.   

The morphological forms usually called aorist indicative, present indicative, and future indicative verbs are aoristic which means simple or undefined aspect. This conclusion conflicts with several prominent grammatical approaches like Porter/Campbell and Fanning/Wallace. My aoristic analysis will be the subject for later discussion in this book. For now, however, I will suggest that in practice Bible translators agree with me and disagree with my colleagues in some 98% of translated verbs. Thus, my theories are not the ones leading to new or strange results. My colleagues have the burden to prove that hundreds of translators over the past thousand plus years have been wrong.

Notice that the traditional naming of the morphological forms is uneven. The aorist indicative is aoristic aspect in past time. The present indicative is aoristic aspect in present time. The future indicative is aoristic aspect in future time. Thus, one of these morphological forms is traditionally named after the aspect and the other two are traditionally named after the time of the verb. Such traditional names have confused the study of the Greek verb for centuries.

The other two aspects in KG are the continuous (imperfective) aspect and the finished (perfective) aspect. The continuous (imperfective) aspect is communicated by the imperfect morphological form for past time and various two-word (periphrastic) forms for the present and future time. The discourse use of the imperfective aspect is action of a verb occurring simultaneously with another verb.

The finished (perfective) aspect is communicated by the perfect morphological form in the present time and mostly by various two-word (periphrastic) forms in the past and future times. There is also a past time perfective aspect one word form called the pluperfect. Prior to KG version of Greek, there was also a future time, one word form called the future perfect. The discourse purpose of the perfective verbs is to communicate the action of a verb which is finished and relevant to another verb in the context.

In the study of aspect and time, the most profitable questions are why the author selected one aspect over another, and why the author selected one time over the other. I suggest that the answer why an author chose the imperfective or perfective aspect in the indicative has little to do with an innate nature of the action of the verb, as Fanning/Wallace claim. Rather, perhaps the entire reasons why an author chose the imperfective aspect or perfective aspect, is because that author wanted to communicate that one thing was happening simultaneous to another action or before another action. In other words, the general answer why the author chose the imperfective aspect and/or the perfective aspect is that the author wanted to express something that takes more than one verb.

The indicative mood of the KG verbal system has three aspects (aoristic, imperfective, and perfective), each of which can occur in past, present, or future time. This framework suggests that whenever the question, Why was this aspect chosen? is asked, the answer will never be, The available system of aspect forced to author to choose the aspect. Likewise, an author can choose the time of the verb for the author’s discourse purpose, never because, that is the only time available in the desired aspect. Such wrong conclusions are the logical outcome of Fanning/Wallace whose systems have only one future time indicative and two present time indicatives. Also, the Porter/Campbell system mostly considers time as not existing in the indicative verb, so if they chose to follow their theories, it is meaningless to ask, Why did the author choose this time for this verb?  A strange thing about Porter and his followers, however, is that they occasionally abandon their theories of no time and talk about time in the KG verb.

These other linguistic systems cannot clearly ask why, for any context, a given author chose a specific time or a specific aspect. I consider this a serious deficiency of those systems.

As a threshold requirement for any aspect and time theory, if that theory cannot identify indicative verbs with aoristic aspect and predict that all indicative verbs with aoristic aspect are the default aspect, then that system cannot ask the significant exegetical questions about the New Testament Greek text. Some theories, like those of Porter/Campbell, cannot recognize that the future indicative and present indicative are aoristic aspects in future or present time, respectively. Some systems consider the present indicative as imperfective (continuous)—even though almost all translations contradict this conclusion. Likewise, some systems consider the future indicative as some sort of special aspect that only occurs in future time. Such systems will never allow the exegete to accurately ask why the author chose any certain aspect or any certain time.

The system of the KG indicative verb proposed in this book, with its semantic features of both time and aspect, is displayed in Figure 1.  I suggest the native speaker of Koine Greek had the following productive knowledge about aspect and time of the Greek verb: 

Figure 1: Koine Greek Aspectual System

Graphical user interface Description automatically generated with low confidence

Morphology includes changes in the word by adding various prefixes and/or suffixes. I use periphrasis to simply mean that more than one word is used to express the category. Productive knowledge means that the original writers of the New Testament were able to select any of the three aspects in any of the three times. Furthermore, the original biblical authors, being great communicators and inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose aspect and time intentionally and skillfully to communicate important details about what they wrote. Skillful selection by the authors means that asking questions about aspect and time will lead to valuable insights into the text.

A review of the actual practice in Bible translations, commentaries, and illustrations in Greek grammars show that, as a practical matter, the system presented in this book is the prevalent system. Unfortunately, except for occasional mention, most commentators neglect verbal aspect and verbal time and glean few, if any, insights from authorial choices of aspect and time in the text.

Another reason I think the theories I outline in this book are superior to others, is because they can be applied consistently across all languages. Theories promoted by Porter/Campbell, Fanning/Wallace and others are incomplete and have little profit if applied to other languages. By incomplete, I mean those other theories can only address a small portion of one language. By little profit I mean that the theories will not help someone understand other languages like Vietnamese, Russian, English, or even Modern Greek.

To prove me wrong is simple. These other grammarians could illustrate the value of their theories by analyzing a commonly familiar language like English.[3] If this works, then we can be more hopeful that they understand the basic principles by which all languages function. I think, however, these other grammarians have missed the fact that languages have many similarities. In the final analysis, I think that neither the Porter/Campbell approach nor the Fanning/Wallace approach has a theory of the KG language that is transferable to analyzing other languages. I think both camps merely have a system that helps them organize some of their observations about Koine Greek. Just organizing observations, however, is a far cry from explanation, which is the goal of all divisions of science.

4.  Koine Greek authors chose aspect and time for discourse motivations.

But now let us move on and discuss how discourse study fits into my proposed system of aspect and time in the KG verb. By discourse, I mean how sentences combine into paragraphs and how paragraphs combine into larger units that we might call sections, chapters, books, or a collection of books (like the 66 books in the Christian Bible).

In the indicative mood, any Koine Greek writer can choose any aspect (kind of action or relative action) in any time. In Bible study (exegesis), therefore, time and aspect are independent choices made for independent reasons. The one studying the Bible (an exegete), must ask both why the author selected that certain time and, as an independent question, why the author selected that certain aspect.

The answer to why an author selected a given aspect is always tailor made to the context. By context I mean the related pieces of the discourse structure. The general answer to aspect selection in the indicative mood is that the author selected the aoristic (simple) aspect for no reason other than the author, in order to communicate and idea or story, had to put the verb in some morphological form and indicate some aspect. In contrast, the author selects the continual (imperfective) aspect or the finished (perfective) aspect because that author wanted to communicate an action ongoing simultaneously with the main verb or finished prior to the main verb, respectively. The main verb is in the aoristic aspect.

The answer to why an author selected past, present, or future time is also answered from the larger context. One must ask two questions: First, is the viewpoint of the narrator before, contemporary, or after the main verb? Second, was the action under discussion before, at the same time, or after the action of the main verb. To hopefully communicate the idea of time choice better, consider the following possibilities of using present time to narrate past events or using present time to narrate future events.

If the narrator is describing the action as it happens, then the present time morphology is used. Notice that the time of narrator here is irrelevant. It does not matter if the described action is past, present, or future, but rather what viewpoint is taken by the narrator. Consider that when writing or reading literature, time travel is possible. An author writing in KG, and in many other languages, if not all languages, can describe a past action as if watching it happen before the narrator’s eyes. Such an action would be described in present time morphology even though the action happened prior to the time of writing. This discourse strategy of describing a past event in the present morphology, is often called the historic present by many grammarians.  

Missing this time travel is the biggest error in most of those trying to explain the historic present, such as in Decker, R. J. (2001). Also see XI.C for more on Decker; see XI.B for more on Porter; and see III.G. for more on Runge.

The strategy of time travel also works with future time. For example, in the book of Revelations, the future events are described in present time morphology because the narrator, who is John the author, is seeing future events as if happening in the present before his eyes. Missing this future time travel is the biggest error in Mathewson’s treatment of time in the book of Revelation.[4] (See XI.G for further treatment). In other words, it is possibly a misguided question to ask why the author did not describe future events in the future verb morphology. In the Revelation, John the author, traveled to the future so was seeing future things in present time. On reflection, this assures us that John was an eyewitness to the things that he saw in the future. Thus, we can hold these future things with the same credibility as John’s experience with Christ Jesus, of whom John was also an eyewitness. (See 1 John 1:1-4.)

In the indicative mood, the aoristic aspect is the default aspect; the imperfective aspect is for verbs happening while aoristic main verb occurs; the perfective aspect is for a verb that finished prior to and in some relationship with the aoristic main verb. For the indicative, the general explanation of why an aspect was chosen is to show the relationship of multi-verb events. Specifically, the reason why a group of non-indicative verbs were chosen is an interpretive decision based on discourse reasons. Discourse deals with levels higher than the sentence, such as paragraphs, sections, chapters, and books. 

In the