NOTES

¹ See S. E Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood (Studies in Biblical Greek 1; New York: Peter Lang, 1989) and B. W. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
    See also the significant debate between Porter and Fanning and responses chronicled in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics (eds. S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson; JSNTS 80; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993) 18-82. See further the article-length review of Porter’s work by K. L. McKay, "Time and Aspect in New Testament Greek", NovT 34 (1992) 209-28.

² Porter, Verbal Aspect, 88. This is not to suggest that Greek does not or cannot express temporal values. Rather, temporal values are established by various deictic indicators and are not inherent in the aspectual system itself. Cf. ibid., 98-102 for a discussion of various deixis.

³ Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 84.

⁴ Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, ch. 2; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, ch. 1, who note the development of an "incipient" aspect theory.

⁵ The most recent grammar to consistently incorporate a theory of verbal aspect is S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Biblical Languages: Greek 2; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992). For an incorporation of verbal aspect into a commentary format see M. Silva, Philippians (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody, 1988).

⁶ Such an analysis is necessary, for as part of the larger linguistic system each aspect is to be seen in semantic relation to the others. As Porter says, "Analysis of the Greek verbal network shows that each semantic selection must be considered in relation to opposition and choice. The Greek language is not to be considered a series of discrete, disjoint forms but is to be viewed as a coordinated network of verbal semantic choices arranged in coherent systems" (Verbal Aspect, 97). Cf. also J. Lyons, Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977) 234-5.

⁷ H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan, 1957) 174.

⁸ For statistics and classification of the use of the imperative in the NT see J. L. Boyer, "A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study", Grace Theological Journal 8 (1987) 35-54. Boyer estimates that 1357 or 83% of occurrences of the imperatives fall under the category of command or prohibition.

⁹ Cf. Porter, Verbal Aspect, 335-61; Fanning, Verbal Aspect 325-88; K. L. McKay, "Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek", NovT 27 (1985) 201-26.

¹⁰ Porter, Verbal Aspect, 346-7. Cf. also Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 326.

¹¹ The perfect imperative occurs only four times in the Greek NT: Mk 4:39; Acts 15:20; Eph 5:5; Jam 1:19. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 351, 362; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 326; Boyer, "Classification", 41 n. 15. One of the difficulties in describing verbal aspect is that of nomenclature. Noting the difficulties of traditional terminology for describing the Greek aspectual system, Porter substitutes the descriptive labels perfect, imperfect, and stative for the aorist, present, and perfect tenses respectively (Verbal Aspect, 81, 89) as more accurately describing the essential semantic import of the aspectual categories. While recognizing the inherent difficulties, in this paper I will continue to use the traditional terminology, thus referring to the aspects as aorist, present, and perfect.

¹² Drawing on the insights of modern linguistics, by markedness I refer to a linguistic structure that is highlighted for special emphasis or meaning, as opposed to the more normal or unmarked usage. Furthermore, the opposition between the aorist and present aspects is best understood as an equipollent opposition rather than a purely privative one. Thus, both forms are marked for meaning, although not identically weighted, with the present being the more heavily marked, and the aorist the less heavily marked form. See Porter, Verbal Aspect, 89-90, 178-81; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 50-72. For further discussion of marking see Lyons, Semantics, 305-11.

¹³ See McKay, "Aspect", 201-26; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 366-9. For example, with stative verbs the aorist aspect can suggest an inceptive/ingressive sense. In general, Fanning is more sensitive to the various ways in which aspect (semantics) interacts with the context in which it is found (pragmatics), such as the lexical meaning of the word itself, even if he does attempt to salvage too much from traditional grammatical categories.

¹⁴ Porter, Verbal Aspect, 351; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 326; McKay, "Aspect", 203-4, 206-7, 216-17.

¹⁵ This scheme is advocated most clearly by Dana and Mantey who set up a system of classification based on the aorist as commanding urgent, specific action, or prohibiting action not yet begun ("never do a thing"), and the present commanding continuous action, or prohibiting the continuance of an action already begun ("quit doing a thing") (Manual Grammar, 299-302). For other grammars that adopt some form of this "canon" for commands and/or prohibitions see J. H. Moulton, Prolegomena vol. 1 in A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J. H. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906) 122-6; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 851-6; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959) 20-1; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans. R. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961) 172-4; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Grieschisch (ed. F. Rehkopf; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1976) 274-76 (to a lesser degree); N. Turner, Syntax vol. III in A Grammar of New Testament Greek by J. H. Moulton (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 74-5; M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples (Rome: Scripta Pontifici Instituti Biblici, 1963) 78-81; J. Brooks and C. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham: University Press of America, 1979) 118, 127. Cf. also most introductory grammars. However, most of the statements of this assumed rule are accompanied by the admission of numerous "exceptions" to the standard rule, thus calling into question the validity of the rule itself.

¹⁶ See J. Thorley, "Aktionsart in New Testament Greek: Infinitive and Imperative", NovT 31 (1989) 290-313 who fails to adequately distinguish between aspect and aktionsart.

¹⁷ See esp. the important articles by J. Donovan, "Greek Jussives", Classical Review 9 (1895) 145-9, and "German Opinion on Greek Jussives", Classical Review 9 (1895) 289-93, 342-6, 444-7, and J. P. Louw, "On Greek Prohibitions", Acta Classica 2 (1959) 43-57 who show that the supposed rules simply will not stand since the aorist and present imperative and prohibition can be used in identical contexts. Thus, the difficulty with these assumed rules is that they fail to take into account the difference between the author’s conception of an event (aspect) and the nature of the action itself (Aktionsart). It is disconcerting to find that the major grammars seem to be unaware of these articles, even though one or both of them were available to most of these grammars.

¹⁸ For example, in Rev 1:19 the present prohibition mh\ fobou= could legitimately be translated "stop fearing" due to the response of the seer in the context. For one of the most comprehensive treatments of the aspect in NT Greek imperatives and their realizations in various contexts see McKay, "Aspect". See also McKay’s, "Aspects in the Imperative in Ancient Greek", Antichthon 20 (1986) 41-58.

¹⁹ See the statement of this general rule in Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 172; Turner, Syntax, 74-5; Moule, Idiom Book, 135-6. However, each of these goes on to note several "exceptions" to this so-called rule. Fanning (Verbal Aspect, 325-88) reiterates this general rule, but then notes several instances where aspectual distinctions supercede this general-specific rule, thus demonstrating that the rule is not a hard and fast one.

²⁰ C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 295; E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 159.

²¹ For the diatribal style of Paul cf. S. K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1981) esp. pp. 142-54.

²² P. Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. S. Hafemann; Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994) 89-93; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8 (WBC; Waco: Texas, 1988) 335.

²³ Cranfield, Romans, 316-17.

²⁴ Turner, Syntax, 76. Turner’s entire discussion of the present prohibition is marred by this tendency to translate them with "stop" or "do not continue". Cf. also Dana and Mantey, Manual Grammar, 207, 301-2; Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 172.

²⁵ D. Moo, Romans 1-8 (Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary; Chicago: Moody, 1991) 399. Moo alternatively claims that the present tenses in vv. 12-13a may carry the sense of "now that you understand who you are - dead to sin and alive to God (v. 11) - stop using your abilities and resources in the service of sin" (p. 401). Yet it is not clear that this provides a way out of the difficulty. If I understand Moo correctly it would seem that there would be at least some who would read this injunction who did not previously understand the truth of vv. 1-11 and who were to some degree letting sin reign. But this is the very thing that is not clear in the context, which Moo himself admits (p. 376). Like most other commentators on these vv., it appears that Moo is still laboring under the assumption that present prohibitions presuppose some kind of action already taking place.

²⁶ Boyer, "Classification", 43. Cf. also Louw, "Prohibitions", who draws the following conclusions: "The various contexts in which prohibitions occur, enable us to distinguish three main groups of negative commands: (a) The action to which the prohibition refers is taking place, lasting or frequently repeating. (b) The prohibition is directed to an action which may possibly take place at some future time, i. e. the action is to be prevented. (c) The command simply forbids an action irrespective of the qualifications observed under (a) or (b).... For each of these, both present imperatives and aorist subjunctives can be used" (p. 57).

²⁷ Ibid., 57. This same criticism holds true for Cranfield’s attempt to justify his rendering "stop" because of the author’s desire to "bring to an end sin’s unchallenged, unresisted reign" (Romans, 317). However, this only shifts the difficulty elsewhere since it must still presuppose that there were some who were letting sin reign unchallenged and unresisted at the time of writing.

²⁸ For a statement of this possibility see Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 173.

²⁹ Turner, Syntax, 76.

³⁰ Cranfield, Romans, 305, 318; J. Fitzmyer, Romans (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 446.

³¹ Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 360-1.

³² See the surprising endorsement of this view of the aorist imperative by L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 258. See also Turner, Syntax, 76, whose entire treatment of the aorist tense is marred by this tendency. The well-known article by F. Stagg ("The Abused Aorist", JBL 91 [1972] 222-31) should be sufficient to dispel such notions, although it has not been sufficiently appreciated by modern interpreters.

³³ Turner, Syntax, 75. Cf. also Moulton, Prolegomena, 173.

³⁴ Dunn, Romans, 338. Dunn is correct that the switch from present to aorist tense is deliberate, but he is incorrect in the meaning of the contast that he finds.

³⁵ Moo, Romans, 402. Cf. also H.W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer (THKNT 6; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1972) 113.

³⁶ Porter, Verbal Aspect, 90; idem., Idioms, 22; Stagg, "Abused Aorist"; Robertson, Grammar, 831.

³⁷ See Boyer, "Classification", 45-6. Fanning argues that aorist imperatives in general precepts "underline the urgency of the command... Since the aorist is more normally used in pointed, specific commands for action "to be done now", it carries with it a more forceful rhetorical effect than the present" (Verbal Aspect, 369-70). However, Fanning confuses the aorist aspect with its usage in a particular context, and then carries this effect over into other occurrences without further justification. Furthermore, Fanning fails to account for the "default" nature of the aorist tense as the less heavily marked aspect. Fanning admits that while most grammars argue for the more forceful nature of the aorist tense, seldom do they give a rationale for it (p. 370, n. 46). Yet it is not clear that Fanning has given a convincing rationale for treating the aorist imperative as more forceful or urgent.

³⁸ See n. 12 above.

³⁹ For a similar conclusion see Porter, Verbal Aspect, 357.

⁴⁰ For this understanding of the infinitive clause see Moo, Romans, 400-1.

⁴¹ P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC; Waco: Texas, 1982) 157-8; E. Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 136.

⁴² O’Brien, Colossians, 186.

⁴³ Ibid., 176.

⁴⁴ F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 140 n. 49, who also explains the aorist imperative in Col 3:5 over against the present in Rom 6:11 as a decisive initial act introducing a settled attitude.

⁴⁵ See M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 149; E. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982) 204.

⁴⁶ See O’Brien, Colossians, 176; Lohse, Colossians, 136; P. Pokorny, Colossians: A Commentary (trans. S. Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991) 162 who note this connection, but not in terms of the aorist aspect.

⁴⁷ Cf. Harris, Colossians, 149; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 358-9, 363. Fanning regards several of Paul’s commands in the aorist aspect "as a summary of all that the Christian is called on to do by his new life in Christ: (p. 363). Thus, commands such as these in Col 3:5, 9, 12 are more general in nature, but appear in the aorist aspect. While it would seem that verbal aspect would sufficiently account for this usage of aorists with more general commands (treating the process as a complete whole), Fanning persists in detecting an ingressive notion as a reflection of Paul’s old life/new life theological framework.

⁴⁸ See esp. Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 357-64. See also M. Silva, "A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect", in Biblical Greek, eds. Porter and Carson, 79-81, and Thorley, "Aktionsart".

⁴⁹ This count of aspect distribution is taken from table 5.4 in Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 362.

⁵⁰ Fanning suggests that the reason for this is that the activities depicted by these verbs semantically are ACCOMPLISHMENTS rather than processes (see his discussion of the Vendler-Kenny taxonomy and his own modifications as it relates to the inherent lexical meaning of the verb itself [Ibid., 127-63]). Yet this diachronic information is not as important as the synchronic observation that Paul’s aspectual choice may be somewhat restricted at this point.

⁵¹ Contra Fanning.

⁵² Turner, Syntax, 76.

⁵³ Bruce, Colossians, 146 n. 76. See also O’Brien, Colossians, 188. Harris comments that mh\ yeude/sqe "may prohibit the continuance of an action ("cease to") or a course of action that must be avoided, "keep from..."" (Colossians, 150), but does not tell the reader which option he prefers.

⁵⁴ Boyer, "Classification", 42-5; Louw, "Prohibitions". Robertson correctly concludes that the present prohibition in Col 3:9 forbids a course of action rather than calling for the cessation of an action already in progress (Grammar, 854).

⁵⁵ For a defense of the view that Colossians was written to combat a particular false teaching see O’Brien, Colossians, xxx-xli.

⁵⁶ S. E. Porter builds a plausible case for accepting the present subjunctive reading mh\ yeudh/sqe in v. 9 found in p46 by demonstrating from p. Oxy 744.4 that the present subjunctive could be used for present prohibitions ("P. Oxy 744.4 and Colossians 3,9", Bib 73 [1992] 565-7). Even if this is the correct reading it still does not effect my point about the verbal aspect of the prohibition.

⁵⁷ McKay, "Aspect", 208-9; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 337.

⁵⁸ These participles, then, would either indicate antecedent or simultaneous action in relation to the main verb (Porter, Verbal Aspect, 384-5) and most likely carry a causal force (O’Brien, Colossians, 188-9). Lohse treats these participles imperativally (Colossians, 141-2; cf. also Pokorny, Colossians, 198-9). While this is possible grammatically (see Moulton, Prolegomena, 180-2, 222-5), for understanding them as true participles see O’Brien, Colossians, 188-9 and Harris, Colossians, 151. Cf. also J. I.-N. Aletti, Saint Paul Épitre aux Colossiens (Études Bibliques 20; Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie., 1993) 229.