1st Class Conditions and Verbal Aspect in the Greek New Testament

Tyler Vela

Greek Exegesis I Dr. Michael Vanlaningham Fall 2008

1

Much ink has been spilled already concerning the structure and function of conditional statements in the Greek New Testament. From the classical grammarians to the more recent verbal aspect and speech-act theory advocates, our understanding of conditional clauses has undergone some major transformations in recent years and it should be noted that these changes must not be seen as a minor importance in our exegetical studies. There are over 600 conditions in the Greek New Testament which would mean that there is nearly one condition per page of the latest Novum Testamentum Graece. Of those over 600 conditions, more than 300 of them are 1st class conditions.1 The 1st class condition is a major contributing factor to any understanding of the grammar of the New Testament if for no other reason than the sheer volume of its occurrences. In this paper we will seek to discuss that importance of the 1st class condition in the New Testament as well as explore the function, structure, and meaning of this conditional form in comparison with the other conditions employed in Greek grammar. At their core, conditional statements are a representation of contingency: If something A, then something B. If A is fulfilled, then B, because it is contingent on A, will also be fulfilled. The first component of a conditional phrase is the protasis. The protasis is the if clause of the conditional. In the sentence, If you drive without a license, you will get a ticket, the protasis is unable to stand alone as its own complete thought and thus it is grammatically dependent on the next clause. Yet at the same time, the persons driving without a license does not need their receiving a ticket in order to be fulfilled. The protasis, then, is semantically independent. The second clause, the apodasis, is the exact reverse of the protasis in these regards. Consider our previous example of driving without a license. The apodasis can stand as its own complete thought and thus it is grammatically independent. The fulfillment of the apodasis however, is directly linked to the previous action of driving without a license and so while it1

James L. Boyer, First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean? Grace Theological Journal. 2.1 (1981) 76

2

is grammatically independent, it is semantically dependant on the protasis. A comment should be made here that not all conditions will have an explicit protasis or apodasis in the New Testament. One or the other may be omitted and yet implicit by the context or implied within the intent of the speaker. This is abundantly clear by the total lack of a complete 4th class condition in the New Testament. However, can we simply label which clause is the protasis and which is the apodasis and be done? Unfortunately it is not so simple. There are varied opinions about what is necessary in a valid approach to language in general, and conditionals in specific. We will now look at the three major views concerning conditionals. The first approach to conditionals is designated as the Structural approach. This is the most basic of the three because it is intentionally minimalistic. Those who advocate for a structural reading of conditionals will often not differentiate between classes of conditions because they do not see the significance of the mood used in their understanding of the conditions. For the structuralist, conditional statements are merely simple forms of an if/then statement and thus they only seek to find the particle or .2 This view, as a whole, seems to be generally outdated and not held by any current grammarians, yet we will see allusions to it in our treatment of the 1st class condition by such as W.W. Goodwin in his treatment of the 1st class condition, which he labels it as a simple condition. Due to the limited nature of this understanding, and its apparent lack of interest in the mood, tense, and context, the majority of classical grammarians have seen this view as not necessarily wrong, but rather as saying too little about the construction of conditions. To hold strictly to this view would not allow for any distinction between the conditions and thus would curb our ability to rightly exegete the texts in which they are found.

2

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. 1996) 681

3

To counter this minimalistic view of the condition, another school of thought emerged that Wallace calls the Semantic or Universal Grammar view.3 This school, rather than stopping at the structure of the condition, moves further and attempts to find the logical connection between the protasis and the apodasis. Although Goodwin makes use of the structuralist approach he would be better classified here in this Semantic line of thought along with B.L. Gildersleeve, even though they have their profound differences. It seems that most other classical grammarians such as Robertson, Burton, Zerwick, as well as a host of others could be rightly ascribed to this school of thought. In their attempt to find the logical connections between the two clauses, there are three categories of logical connections that have been identified.4 The first is that of causeeffect. In Romans 8:13 Paul says, . Here the impending death is the direct result of living according to the flesh. The protasis is the direct cause of apodasis. The next kind of logical connection is evidence-inference. While this will often be the converse of cause-effect, it cannot be said to always be such. Here the apodasis is not caused by the protasis, but rather can be inferred from it. In Romans 8:17 we read, . While our being children is not the root cause of our being heirs, we can infer from our position as children of God, that we are also heirs to God. Finally, there is the logical connection of equivalence. Here the protasis and the apodasis, rather than flowing directly from one to the other, are shown to be the same entity or event. For an example of this we can turn to James 2:11, ... . Here, the one who commits murder, which is to break the law, is called a

lawbreaker. They are one and the same. Yet at the same time it could also be the case that because they have committed murder, they have then become a lawbreaker. Wallace cautions

3 4

Wallace Greek Grammar 681 Ibid. 682-683

4

us that there is often overlap between the three logical connections and so we should not think of them as entirely distinct.5 In addition to their emphasis on the logical connection between the two clauses, semantic grammarians have also attempted to classify conditionals based on a temporal verbal scheme leading to conditional categories such as simple, present general, present contrary to fact, future more vivid, etc.6 As we will see however, a temporal understanding cannot account for a large portion of conditional usages, specifically in the 1st class, and thus is not an adequate system for classification. While the semantic view still holds a grip on a large portion of the Greek grammarians, there is a newer theory on the rise that seems to be adding quite a bit of assistance to our treatment of conditionals. This is called the Speech-Act Theory, or what Wallace also titles the Pragmatic approach.7 While an extensive treatment of this approach is outside of the scope of this paper, we must give this theory a brief assessment because of its increasing influence on Biblical exegesis. We will also see further in our consideration of 1st class conditions that speech-act will be useful in dealing with the various uses of mood and tense in the writers decision on which class of condition to employ. The basic observations of the speech-act theory are that many sentences in language are not statements but rather are exclamations, questions, commands, or expressions of emotions and even sentences that have the grammatical structure of a simple declarative still may not be simple statements.8 An example of this would be a statement like, I bet you ten dollars that the Pistons will win tonight. In these cases the speaker is not making a statement of truth, but rather is performing an illocutionary action.9 When this is applied to the conditionals in the Biblical text, a whole new world of opportunity is opened up in ourIbid. 684 Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffeld, UK: Sheffeld Academic Press, 1992) 254 7 Wallace Greek Grammar 681, 703-704 8 John I. Saeed, Semantics (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2003) 225 9 Gillian Brown and George Yule, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983) 2325 6

5

interpretation. Rather than just attempting to identify the logical connection between the protasis and the apodasis, the speech-act theorist can also attempt to understand the conditional as an action of the author expressing a possible wish, desire, argument, or a whole host of other attitudes. Some, like Richard Young, have taken this even so far as to believe that speech-act has made the discussion of structure nearly obsolete.10 While this may be too extreme of a view, the exegetical value of this approach cannot be ignored. In his article Young gives multiple categories of possible illocutionary acts such as expressing a wish, a rebuke, a lament, a request, an exhortation, or to argue or manipulate some one. He states that this is often done in the interest of courtesy or to soften the harshness that may otherwise be present in a formal statement. We see a good example of a rebuke in the words of Martha in John 11:21: . Martha, presumably out of deference to Jesus, softens her rebuke by stating it indirectly

as a conditional. We further see in statements such as, , that manipulation is clearly the intended action of the speaker. Satan

is not using the 1st class condition in order to make a mere logical argument but rather he is performing an illocutionary act attempting to cunningly persuade Jesus to perform according to his own will apart from the will of the Father. It is clear that the speech-act theory will be of great use to the advancement of Biblical studies. However, Wallace again gives a helpful caution. He states that although we cannot focus only on the structure of conditions, it is equally wrong headed to abandon the structural conventions of the language and seek meaning elsewhere the choice of the first class condition must mean something. The second class would not convey the same meaning, for example.11

...speech act theory yields more meaning results that traditional approaches. Richard A. Young, A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory Grace Theological Journal. 10.1 (1981) 76 11 Wallace Greek Grammar 70410

6

Now that we have seen the three major approaches, we are in a position to decide which is most useful to employ in our exegesis and understanding of the text in general and conditionals in specific. Here Wallace is the most helpful in that he is also most balanced. He essentially holds an all of the above approach where structure, semantics, and speech-acts all play a significant role in our understanding of conditionals. We will see next that after we have identified the structure of the 1st class condition, we can then move on to determine what the logical connection is between the protasis and apodasis, and finally seek to find the illocutionary intent of the speaker. The balanced view that Wallace presents seems most beneficial to our exegesis. Let us turn our attention now to the 1st class condition. What sets apart the 1st class condition from the other conditionals is the use of either particle or followed by an indicative verb in the protasis. The apodasis however, is not restricted to the indicative and can employ the use of any tense in any mood. 12 Due to the fact that it will always begin with an indicative verb, the 1st class condition will be negated by.13 As stated in the introduction, there are over 300 1st class conditions, making this the

most conditional of choice in the New Testament.14 We will begin first by examining some of the erroneous assertions that people have made regarding the 1st class condition before working through how it actually functions in context. First, the 1st class condition is not equivalent to since. Given that the protasis of the 1st class condition is always an indicative verb, and the indicative is commonly assumed to the mood of reality which always makes a clear-cut assertion one way or the other,15 many have concluded that this condition must be an assertion of fulfilled reality and can thus be translated with since. We can see that this may be true in some texts such as in Galatians 3:29, . Here, it would beA.T. Robertson, A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985) 349 13 Porter Idioms of the Greek New Testament 256 14 Boyer First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean? 76. 15 Robertson A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament 34912

7

logical to render this, Since you are Christs, then you are also Abrahams offspring. Nevertheless we will see shortly in our discussion that it would still be preferable to keep the translation as a conditional if/then to retain the rhetorical force, even though the logic of the structure may be upheld with since. This use of since however, frequently does not adequately represent the logic of the 1st class condition. In fact, as Boyer points out, of the over 300 1st class conditions in the New Testament, 36 (12%) of them are obviously false.16 Several excellent examples can be given to prove this. First in Matthew 12:27 Jesus states, Clearly we cannot understand Christ to mean, Since I cast out demons by

Beelzebub To translate this as since would do violence to the text as well as directly contradict Jesus next statement that he in fact casts out demons by the Spirit of God. Also in 1 Corinthians 15:13, Paul states, . It is not possible to render this, Since there is no resurrection Further in

v14 where Paul writes, He could not possibly mean, Since Christ is not raised Clearly this not how the 1st class condition is functioning. Not only are there many verses where the protasis is obviously false but the majority of 1st class conditions, 155 instances (51%), are in fact undetermined as to their fulfillment in reality from the perspective of the speaker. We see in Acts 5:39 Gamaliels assertion that, . This can obviously not mean since

because Gamaliels entire point is that they were not in a position to know whether or not the Christian movement was an act of God or not. Second, the 1st class condition is not simple. Due to the fact, as we have seen, that the 1st class condition does not always refer to fulfilled reality, it must also not be seen as a simple construction only used to make a logical point. Goodwin states, When the protasis simply states

16

Boyer First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean? p76

8

a particular supposition, implying nothing as to the fulfillment of the condition, it has the indicative with .17 Burton, with his temporal understanding of the Greek verbal system, states that the future indicative in the protasis of a 1st class condition is used to state not what will take place on the fulfillment of a future possibility, but merely to affirm a necessary logical consequence of a future event.18 While the future is difficult to detach from a temporal understanding, even under an aspectual theory of Greek verbs,19 the emphasis on the tense being used to affirm a logical necessity betrays Burtons simplistic view of the condition. Under his rendering, not only is the action temporally future but the tense itself is used as part of the simple logical construction of the condition. Here again Wallace brings our attention to the fact that using the tenses to merely indicate the type of logic employed will ultimately lead to no distinctions between the various conditionals.20 Specifically, Wallace is concerned at the loss of distinction between the 1st class condition and its counterpart, the 2nd class condition, which both employ the indicative mood in their protasises. To state that the 1st class is simple because of the logical connection between its clauses is to say too little because all conditionals have a logical connection between their clauses. This simply does not say enough about what makes the 1st class condition distinct from the others. Next, there is a line of reason put forth, primarily by Goodwin, which states that the 1st class condition speaks of specific people, things, or events. In other words, the 1st class condition is the condition of particularity.21 However this does not hold true for more than 60 of the 300+ instances of the 1st class condition which are in fact general.22 This means that about 20% of the time this categorization does not adequately describe the 1st classW.W. Goodwin, Greek Grammar (Boston, MA: Ginn&Co., 1938) 294 Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1900) 103 19 Porter states that the future is neither completely aspectual nor temporal but rather that it is best understood as grammaticalizing a unique semantic feature [+expectation]. Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament With Reference to Tense and Mood. Studies in Biblical Greek 1 (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 1989) 438 20 Wallace, Greek Grammar 691 21 Ibid. 705-706 22 Ibid. 70617 18

9

condition. In fact, every use of the 1st class condition in Revelation is general rather than specific.23 If this really were the condition of particularity, one would expect that John would have at least employed it that way in some, if not most cases. An excellent example where this categorization does not hold true outside of Revelation is found in 1 Corinthians 8:2, ... Here Paul seems to be blatantly general rather than specific.

Along with Goodwins claim that 1st class conditions were particular, is that they were also the condition of present time. While this may be the primary use of the 1st class condition, it should be noted that there are over 20 occasions where the protasis is in the Future tense such as Luke 11:8: . Here it should also be mentioned that many 1st class conditions may use the Present tense but should be understood as gnomic. We find a timeless present in Matthew 19:17: . We can also locate future referring presents such as in Matthew

8:31: . In addition to these, we find the 1st class condition referring to past events such as in 2 Timothy 2:11: . We will address this further during our discussion of

the impact of verbal aspect on our understanding of the 1st class condition. If the 1st class condition is not a statement about fulfillment in reality, and if it is not a simple logical construction or a particular, present event, then what is it? The common understanding of the 1st class condition is that it is the assumption of a supposition for the sake of argument. The author need not believe that the statement is actually true, but rather simply assume the truth of the statement in order to draw their conclusion or make their point. It is not a statement about reality but a presentation of reality.24 The common example given, as we have seen already, is Jesus conversation with the Pharisees concerning his ability to cast out demons in Matthew 12:27. Here he utilizes the 1st class condition to23 24

Ibid. Ibid. 692

10

challenge the inconsistency of the Pharisees whose own disciples were apparently able to cast out demons also. This tactic is also used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:13, where he states, . Clearly Paul does not

actually believe that there is no resurrection from the dead, but assumes it as true in order to show the logical absurdity that would follow. As stated above, translating this condition as since, even when it may accurately represent the fulfilled condition in some instances, is still not the preferred translation for this condition. The should be consistently translated if so that the semantic force of the condition can be understood. This is where our understanding of speech-act theory is especially helpful. We know that Greek has words for since (such as , , ,, etc.) and therefore we must conclude that the writers made use of and the 1st class

condition for a reason. Vanhoozer states that illocutions can be used as a means to a perlocutionary end.25 In fact, the Bible asserts this very plainly in John 20:31. John states that, . Here John expects that his act of communication will achieve a desired result. This

also seems to be the goal of conditionals. There is great rhetorical power in if26 because the use of the conditional is an invitation into dialogue between the speaker and the listener. If is translated since, the desire for two-way dialogue turns into a one-way address. Wallace gives us several very good examples on this point. One of them is found in Matthew 5:30: . While it is entirely true that we sin with our hands, here, says Wallace, Jesus is not attempting to prescribe a system by which we can keep ourselves pure. If this were the case, all Christians would be bloody and crippled. Rather, Jesus assumes the supposition of the Pharisees, (that it is our external deeds which make us unclean), and brings them to their logical conclusion. The condition then,25 26

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is There Meaning In This Text? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1998) 224 Wallace Greek Grammar 692

11

adds powerful weight to the persuasive rhetorical style of Jesus. Rather than lecturing them on their shallow pietism, he uses this conditional to shift his hearers belief that it is the hands which make us unclean, to the reality that it is our hearts which make us unclean. Thus while our hands may cause us to sin in reality, translating as since would not only diminish the reason Jesus opted to use the 1st class condition, but may even miss the entire point of the condition and institute a new legalism. One last verse should be shown here to prove that there is more to the 1 st class condition than simple logic or even the mere assumption of truth for the sake of argument. We find it in Jesus Gethsemane prayer in Matthew 26:39 where Jesus laments, ' . Strangely enough, the parallel of

this in Mark 14:36 does not employ a conditional at all. Rather it begins with the statement, , and then continues on to the imperative, ' . Clearly Jesus knew that all things are possible with God, and

neither him, nor the Father had said otherwise. Thus it would seem an odd assertion to state that Jesus was assuming someones truth for the sake of argument. Not only that, but Jesus was not trying to convince the Father to let the cup pass from him, so assuming it for the sake of argument would result in the serious theological conundrum of disunity within the Godhead.27 What seems likely is not that Jesus was making an argument of any kind, but rather that he was simply performing the act of expressing lament over what must soon take place. We see then that while the common understanding of 1st class conditions may function in many instances, there are some anomalous verses that do not fall under that classification. Wallace here shows that this is not as unusual as it may seem. There are other

27

Young A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory 31

12

grammatical structures that also function as speech-acts. Jesus quotation of Psalm 22:1 from the cross, though formally a question, was in fact an expression of profound pain.28 We now turn our attention briefly to what will be the most controversial and highly disputed area of this sort of study. Due to the fact that so many grammarians disagree about the meaning of the moods and the way the Greek verbal system operates, there is understandably little agreement as to the reasons why an author would select a certain mood or tense in their conditions. For this reason we must tread cautiously. While the attempt in this section will be to look primarily at the 1st class condition, a comparison with other conditions will be necessary on several occasions. Goodwin believed that one of the functions of mood was the portrayal of what he called vividness to the reader. He stated that the function of the mood in 3rd class condition was future more vivid while in the 4th class condition it was future less vivid.29 In this section we will see that Goodwin is correct is noting that there is a graded degree of vividness in the conditionals. However, this is not due to a function of the mood, but rather of the tense. So how does the mood differentiate between the various classes? Contrary to Goodwin, Gildersleeves understanding of the mood, at least in the cases of the 1st and 2nd class conditions, seems adequate to explain the differences between the two. Unlike Goodwin, Gildersleeve did not see the mood as a mode for vivid or remote portrayal, but rather as the vehicle for a certain portrayal of reality as fulfilled or unfilled. Again, this does not mean that the author was convinced one way or the other as to the reality of the fulfillment, but rather that they were merely presenting a supposition for the purpose of argumentation. Wallace says that the moods in the conditions need to be taken seriously and consistently with how they are used elsewhere.30 For Wallace then, the 1st class condition, because its use of the indicative in the protasis is necessary, is not a presentationWallace Greek Grammar 704, n47 Ibid. 705-706 30 Ibid. 71128 29

13

of a possible reality but rather is the assumption of truth concerning a supposition in order to show the outcome of such a supposition. He states, This is keeping with the force of the indicative. This condition is primarily used as a form of persuasion.31 We can even see this in the previously noted prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane. While Jesus was not attempting to persuade God to let the cup pass, we see that he was making a statement using the supposition if it is possible The inner struggle of Jesus is seen as more genuine when we realize that the possibility to circumvent the cross was a very real temptation for him. This would not have been the case if the 4th class condition of remote possibility had been employed instead.32 Yet there must also surely be overlap in the semantic domains of the various conditions. For example, Matthew 18:8 portrays the Lord as saying the 1 st class condition, , while in the parallel passage in Mark 9:43 frames it as a 3rd class condition, . The precise nature of this overlap is outside of the scope of this paper, but it ought to

be stated that the functions of the moods must be robust enough to be utilized in various conditions where one may expect otherwise. Thus we see that the function of the mood is highly important to the construction of the various conditionals. While there is still much disagreement over what those functions may be, we must be willing to state that the 1st class condition means something that the other conditions do not. Surely this something is the very function of the selected mood. The only other area that has more debate than the moods is the discussion of the role of tense in conditionals. Wallace is only willing to concede in a brief statement on tense, that, conditions are thus linked to time, to some degree.33 While Wallaces temperance on this issue is to be admired, more can be stated in regard to the use of tenses in conditionals, though not very much more. Here it should be mentioned that in all of the 1st classIbid. Ibid. 33 Ibid. 70931 32

14

conditions that are repeated between the synoptic gospels, there is absolutely no variation of tense in the protasis. While, as we saw above, one author may present their version of the conditional as an entirely different class, it is surprising that no variation in tense is found when the 1st condition is used. While this is an interesting fact considering their normal willingness to alter tense usage from the other evangelists, this makes comparative uses of tenses in conditionals within identical contexts nearly impossible. As we saw previously, the 1st class condition may favor the presentation of present reality, yet to state that it is the present condition is an assumption based on a faulty temporal perspective of the Greek verbal system. Porter states, A distinction of conditional clauses along temporal lines on the basis of tense-form cannot be sustained, and again, temporal reference must be determined by context.34 Here, the theory of verbal aspect is surely a better explanation of the role of tenses in conditional statements. This will be shown in a contrast between the preferred tenses used in the 1st and 2nd class conditions because both use the indicative in the protasis to present a supposition of reality as either true or untrue. Campbell is extremely helpful on the use of the Imperfect in the 2nd class condition. He draws attention to the fact that while the 1st class condition attempts to present something as a true supposition and thus logically proximate, the 2nd class condition seeks to present something as an untrue supposition and thus logically remote. This concept of a logically proximate or remote use of the tense fits very well in the idea of real or unreal suppositions. It is also helpful in understanding why the 1st class condition favors Present tense verbs (proximate), while the 2nd class condition favors the Imperfect, Pluperfect, and Aorist tense verbs (remote). Here Campbell states, the proximate tense-forms are never used in unreal conditional sentences, but all three remote tense-forms are.35 Millhouse also adds, concerning the Imperfect in 2nd class conditions, that, the unreal or contrary to factPorter Idioms of the Greek New Testament 258 Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Studies in the Greek of the New Testament 13. (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2007) 23034 35

15

use of the Imperfect can be explained by the concept of remoteness. Instead of temporal remoteness conditional statements are examples of logical remoteness. Instead of then vs. now, the Imperfect represents real vs. unreal.36 Porter also brings our attention to the rarely addressed use of the Perfect tense in the 1st class condition. Here the classical understanding of the Perfect as presenting a past event with on going effects is clearly not as adequate as the Imperfective or Stative aspect of the Perfect. We can see this clearly in passages such as John 11:12, ,and Acts 16:15, . Porter also reminds us

that the only explanation that can comprehensively explain the different tenses used in the 1st class condition, which presents a supposition about reality, is verbal aspect.37 As we have seen, there is a multiplicity of approaches and interpretations concerning the Greek conditional statements and this may be daunting to anyone who would attempt to come to a comprehensive understanding of their usage in the Greek New Testament. In summation of the findings of this paper, as one approaches the conditions it seems vitally important to maintain a normal understanding of the uses of moods, combined with a working knowledge of the verbal aspect of Greek tenses, and a sensitivity to not only the context in which the condition is found, but also to the emotional or illocutionary intent of the speaker. It seems that a healthy balance of these three systems is the best way to proceed in any further study on the Greek conditional clauses.

Roy R. Millhouse, Use of the Imperfect Verb Form in the New Testament: An Investigation into Aspectual and Tense Relationships in Hellenistic Greek. (M.A. Thesis: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1999) 65 37 Porter Idioms of the Greek New Testament 26936

16

Bibliography Boyer, James L. First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean? Grace Theological Journal. 2.1, 1981. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: University Press, 1983. Burton, Ernest De Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1900. Campbell, Constantine R. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, Studies in the Greek of the New Testament 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. ______.Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood, and Narrative Studies in the Greek of the New Testament 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Childs, Brevard. Speech-act Theory and Biblical Inerpretation. Scottish Journal of Theology. 58.4, 2005 Goodwin, W.W. Greek Grammar. Boston: Ginn&Co., 1938. Millhouse, Roy R. Use of the Imperfect Verb Form in the New Testament: An Investigation into Aspectual and Tense Relationships in Hellenistic Greek, M.A. Thesis: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1999. Mouton, James Hope. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. III, Syntax. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffeld: Sheffeld Academic Press, 1992. ______. 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. Roberts, J.W. The Use of Conditional Sentences in the Greek New Testament as Compared with Homeric, Classical and Hellenistic Uses, Ph.D. dissertation: University of Texas, 1955. Robertson, A.T. A Grammar of the Geek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919 ______. A New Short Grammar of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985. Saeed, John I. Semantics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Searle, J.R. The Philosophy of Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Thiselton, Anthony C. Speech-act Theory and the Claim that God Speaks. Socttish Journal of Theology. 50.1, 1997. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There Meaning In This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1998. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996. Young, Richard A. A Classification of Conditional Sentences Based on Speech Act Theory Grace Theological Journal. 10.1, 1981. Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1963.

17