On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek

On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament GreekAuthor(s): K. L. McKayReviewed work(s):Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 23, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 289-329Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560768 .Accessed: 23/11/2011 00:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560768?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Novum Testamentum, XXIII, 4 (1981)

ON THE PERFECT AND OTHER ASPECTS IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

BY

K. L. McKAY The Australian National University

I. INTRODUCTION

Background

It has long been recognized that the inflexions of the ancient Greek verb, at least until some time after the New Testament documents were written, expressed not only time (past, present, future) but another quality which has been called aspect, Aktionsart, Zeitart, Zeitstufe, and even tense, and which in some way specifies a kind of activity. Some scholars 1) have even gone so far as to assert that this aspect (the label most generally used by classical scholars and by linguists not primarily concerned with NT Greek), was in fact more important than tense, but much confusion has remained because of the tendency of even the most perceptive to continue to discuss its manifestations mainly in terms of time

relationships, whether of the relative time of events or the relative

length or brevity of the events. The purpose of the present paper is to re-examine this problem with special (but not exclusive) reference to the ancient Greek perfect, using as hypothesis a more radically aspectual scheme which I have evolved in my study of Greek texts from Homer to non-literary papyri of the first half of the first millennium AD, during which period, I am convinced, there was no significant change in the aspectual framework of the Greek verb.

My scheme has been set out, in relation to classical Greek, in my Greek Grammar for Students, and, in relation to NT Greek, more

briefly in my paper "Syntax in Exegesis", and the principles I have tried to follow have been explained in my recent paper "On the

1) Especially A. T. ROBERTSON, in A Grammar of the New Testament in the Light of Historical Research: I have used the third edition, New York 1919.

I9

K. L. MCKAY

Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-literary Papyri" 2); but for convenience I present a summary of the main points, with further discussion of details of special relevance to the New Testament.

Aspect 3) Aspect in the ancient Greek verb I have described 4) as a category

system "by which the author (or speaker) shows how he views each event or activity in relation to its context": (a) as an activity in process (imperfective); (b) as a whole action or simple event (aorist); (c) as the state consequent upon an action (perfect); or (d) as intention (future), although this last is to some extent defective or anomalous, but probably less than in any other description of the categories of the Greek verb. In considering aspect it is important to note both its subjective element and its relation to context. In different contexts (or even in different stages of a developing context) the one activity may be differently regarded, and any person's view of a particular activity may be influenced by those unseen contextual factors which are his personal attitude to the external context.

It was not always necessary for a Greek to specify the time category of an activity-this was frequently only implied by the context-but for every finite verb, every infinitive and every participle he used he had to choose an aspect. Sometimes his choice would make little difference to his essential meaning, but at other times it would be critical. It is therefore important to pay most attention to those occasions on which the aspects have more significance, and not to build theories on those with less aspectual significance.

2) K. L. McKAY, Greek Grammar for Students: A concise grammar of classical Attic with special reference to aspect in the verb. Classics A.N.U., Canberra I974 & I977, especially sections 23 ff.; "Syntax in Exegesis", in Tyndale Bulletin 23 (1972), 39-57; "On the Perfect and Other Aspects in the Greek Non-Literary Papyri", Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 27 (I980). Some of the details were presented in my earliest paper in this field, "The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect down to the End of the Second Century AD", B.I.C.S. I2 (I965), I-2I. These four works are referred to hereafter as McK. Gram., McK. Exeg., McK. Pap. and McK. Perf. respectively. I am working on a concise syntax of the verb in NT Greek along the line of McK. Gram. 23 ff.

3) The following three paragraphs are repeated unaltered from McK. Pap. ("Aspect")

4) McK. Gram. 23. I..

290

THE PERFECT IN NEW TESTAMENT GREEK

Of particular relevance to the present study is the relationship between the aorist and the perfect. There is no doubt that in many contexts either of these could be used to convey the essence of what the speaker wished to communicate, but it is wrong to assume that both are indistinguishable: the choice made will indeed convey its own nuance, even though both speaker and hearer recognize that the other alternative could have been chosen without confusing the issue. It is also obvious that in some contexts one of the alternatives is much more appropriate than the other, and it is only if a reasonable proportion of "wrong" choices is found in contexts of this nature that we are justified in assuming a loss of aspectual distinction. In judging all such contexts, of course, it is essential to think in terms of ancient Greek, and not in terms of the natural translation into any other language, including Latin, English and modern Greek.

Morphology and Statistics I have been unable to discover any relationship between variety

or changes in the morphology of the Greek perfect and possible changes in its aspectual meaning 5). Within the context of the New Testament, with its presumed Aramaic speaking writers, it might be expected that any tendency to periphrastic formations would be extended, but the fact is that even in classical Greek literature periphrastic forms of the perfect had become common to the extent that virtually any simple inflexion could be replaced by a participle and a form of elvaL, and some of the simple inflexions had already been almost completely replaced by these periphrases 6). This is not surprising if one recognizes the aspectual value of the perfect as state and the equivalence of its participle to some other adjectival expressions 7). Whereas the association of an imperfective participle with a form of ivoca may be either a purely Greek expression, in which the two forms retain a significant separateness of meaning, or an Aramaic-influenced periphrasis for a simple imperfective form, the association of a perfect participle with a form of eiv=a is to be normally regarded as a periphrastic substitute for an inflexion

5) McK. Perf. pp. I , 17; Exeg. pp. 42-4; Pap. p 24. 6) The main exception was olac, which maintained a full range of simple

inflexions. 7) Cf. the apparent equivalence of xpuxct6v and arx6xpupov with (auy)xexa-

XutLpvov in Mt x 26, Mk iv 22, Lu viii 17 and xii 2.

29I

K. L. MCKAY

of the perfect. John's preference for arltv y?ypocaji|evov as against the

synoptists' y?ypax,r is only a feature of style affecting rhythm and word order, and therefore possibly emphasis and emotional effect, but not the aspectual (or even tense) value of the verb form. In Jn xx 30 f. 'aTLv y?ypoap(.voa and yeypoxraLL must be due to stylistic variation or, perhaps more specifically, rhythm: if the periphrasis were significant it would surely be used for the positive statement of 3I. Occasionally even the more pretentious u6xnpX7ev is used instead of evoaL, as in Ac viii I6, pzPax7TtavvoL n7ipXov, clearly only a periphrastic pluperfect 8).

In Mt xviii 20, o0 yop etalv 86o I 'rpEt:g auwVYtLeVOt elg T-O ep6v 6vo(,ic ... could be taken as where there are two or three assembled in

my name, but can at least as easily be taken as where two or three are assembled ...; and in Mt xxvi 43 ~aOv y&p aci6&v o 6p60aXtol BE ap-- SeoLv, in spite of the separation of the verb forms, can only be taken

as for their eyes were weighed down (were heavy). In Jn xviii i8, qv 8e xlo 6 HipOg? peTZ' 1vT)xV eacTo) xaL 06epatv60L[evo0, Peter was with

them, standing warming himself, the effect of xao between the

participles is to make both of them circumstantial, emphatically echoing etaxnxEcaav ... xc. . a6OeptavovTo of the preceding clause, for the sentence is potentially complete at auxrv: without xoxl 6epuaLv6- uervog it would be most natural to take qv ... a. sXC together (was standing with them), but if this is done with these words added, xca produces an unnatural emphasis on the activity of warming 9).

Statistical arguments have been used by many scholars to support various statements about Greek usage 10), and within broad limits it is indeed necessary to be aware of the difference between what is common, normal, rare or exceptional, but word counts are less important than the individual context in the evaluation of the significance of each form. Some forms have functions which are

rarely needed in certain types of context, but they are no less a part of the language, if they normally occur when such need does arise, than those of which frequent use is made in a wide variety of

8) In Rev xvi io, xal eykve0o i aPoX?L au6roi axoot)JL?v, both yIvero and the participle retain their respective aspectual meanings: SaxoCd60 could have been used to express the same total meaning, although with some loss of emphasis.

9) But cf. Lu xiii 35. 10) Not least J. H. MOULTON, W. F. HOWARD and N. TURNER, A Grammar

of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh I906-63, of which volumes I and 3 are hereafter referred to as MOULTON Prol. and TURNER Gram. respectively.

292


contexts. On the assumption that the perfect was probably less appropriate to narrative than to discourse I began to list the perfects in the NT in three groups, narrative, discourse, and editorial comment, but was soon faced with problems such as the determination of the boundaries between comment and discourse, the appropriate treatment of narrative segments in discourse and of indirect discourse within narrative, whether the first-person narrative in Revelation should count as discourse 11), the proper treatment of repetition in a limited segment, the relative accuracy of various methods of word or space counting in relation to their purpose, and so on 12). I eventually decided that after making due allowance for uncertainty in some of these areas, and for variant readings, I would have results much less useful for the study of either the Greek language or the NT than I was likely to achieve by my main method of examining contexts in detail. After all, even if the statistical fact is that A occurs ten times as often as B, in any particular passage it is still the context that must decide between A and B; and if the context does not make it clear a measure of uncertainty must remain, irrespective of the odds of probability.

11) For a discussion of the perfect in Revelation, see G. MussIES, The Morphology of Koine Greek as used in the Apocalypse of St. John, Leiden 1971, PP. 347-349.

12) For what they are worth, the following are the results as far as I pursued them. I have here combined discourse and comment, in contrast with narrative, and have separated the so-called "present" type (ol8a, aor'7xa, elo0a, xxpocay) from other perfects. The columns are (a) total, (b) number of items included for which a significant v.l. has a different aspect, (c) number of items included which might possibly be counted narr. instead of disc./comm. or vice versa, (d) average per page.

Discourse/Comment Narrative "Present" Other "Present" Other

a b c d a b c d a b c d a b c d Mt 28 o 2 0.28 66 3 2 0.67 8 o o 0.08 I6 3 4 o.I6 Mk I8 I 0 0.28 43 4 2 0.66 14 2 o 0.22 25 3 5 0.38 Lu 21 o o O.I9 III Io o I.OI4 35 4 I 3 6 0.32 Jn 7I I 0.90 175 30 o 2.22 31 4 4 0.39 36 2 7 0.46 Ac 25 o o 0.20 96 o I 0.70 I6 o I 0.13 43 0 9 0.35

The page is not an accurate unit for averaging, but is probably adequate for the margin of doubt in the count. I have, of course, included all perfect forms (tenses, moods, participles, infinitives), but I have not included xetiocL and xc0aOrat.

293

K. L. MCKAY

Method 13)

In spite of the subjective element in aspect, the need for adequate context against which to judge it, and the weakness of wordcount statistics, it is possible to achieve a reasonably objective assessment of the use of the perfect and of other aspects. My method has been to accept as a starting point the basic character of the perfect (and aorist, etc.) as it has been established by others, and, separating this as completely as possible from the effects of translation into another language, to test it on the relevant verb forms, paying particular attention to those contexts in which aspectual differences look as if they might be significant, and being prepared to make some adjustment to one's original hypothesis if such adjustment would reduce the extent of apparent anomaly. As I have already indicated, in contexts to which either of two aspects would be appropriate I regard it as sufficient to note that the one found there is appropriate, and not to dwell on the possible alternative. In all such investigation it is important to have as full an idea of the whole context as is possible, and to recognize where the writer and the intended reader may have shared assumptions which are not clear to the unintended readers of the moder world.

In what follows I give a brief account of the ancient Greek perfect as I have come to understand it, and then illustrate its application to the NT by discussing a selection of examples, some as direct illustrations of my hypothesis, and some because they have been alleged to be anomalous, or even proof of aspectual confusion. The overall result of my investigation may be simply stated: after examining all the perfects in the NT and comparing them with other aspects used in parallel or similar contexts, I have found the great majority entirely appropriate to their respective contexts, whether or not another aspect would also be suitable; and the very few which seemed at first to be anomalous I have, after more careful consideration, found either to be in fact quite in order, or to have insufficiently clear contexts to permit a final judgment.

This result is the more significant because of the Aramaic influence behind the NT documents. I have been assured by Semitic scholars with differing views that on any theory of Semitic aspect it is likely that native Aramaic speakers of the first century AD

13) The first paragraph in this section is repeated unaltered from McK. Pap. ("Method").

294


would tend, if their knowledge of Greek was less than perfect, to confuse the Greek aorist and perfect aspects as I portray them. In this case it is to be expected that some writers would produce a number of such confusions throughout their work, and others might produce some in those parts of their work in which they quote from Aramaic sources. The paucity of apparent confusion problems in these circumstances suggests that the aspectual framework of Greek remained strong at that time. This is supported by a similar result from my examination of a large sample of Greek papyri ranging over several centuries, some of them written by presumed Coptic speakers who would tend, if anything, to confuse the Greek aspects as much as Aramaic speakers 14).

Textual variants in which differences of aspect occur are, of course, to be treated with reserve until sufficient evidence is available to base judgment on something like certainty. Parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels are worthy of special attention. Because of the occurrence of "translation Greek" in so many parts of the LXX, passages in which it is quoted or alluded to also need to be treated with reserve. The subjective element in the choice of aspect, and the large overlapping areas where either of two aspects can be chosen without detriment to the essential meaning, together lead to the expectation that the distinctive style of an author may include a preference for a particular aspect or for particular combinations of aspects, but such stylistic variations will not necessarily imply change in aspectual values. Above all it is necessary to resist the bondage of the timebased grammar of Latin and modern European languages, and recognize that while the means existed in ancient Greek (mainly through adverbial expressions) to differentiate time levels when they were regarded as significant, the normal morphology of the Greek verb gave little indication in itself of the time relationships involved-whether actions were ingressive or complexive, punctual or durative, simultaneous with or before or after one another. These matters may still be important for the purpose of producing an English (or other) translation, but they were probably of rather less concern to ancient writers and readers than they are to us, and it is ultimately less inaccurate to recognize where the Greek is in fact ambiguous on such details than to impose on its interpretation rules that are foreign to it.

14) McK. Pap., under "Method".

295

K. L. MCKAY

2. EXPOSITION

The Perfect Aspect 15) The ancient Greek perfect expresses the state or condition of the

subject of the verb, as the result of a prior action, but most often with comparatively little reference to that action itself. Probably the verb whose perfect is used most consistently without specific reference to the action by which the perfect state was constituted is olba, which is usually regarded as equivalent to the English present I know 16). The perfect of many other verbs, however, can convey sufficient reference to that action for an adverb (or adverbial phrase) to be added which refers specifically to the action rather than to the perfect state. The perfect indicative, which alone I refer to as the perfect tense, normally describes a state as either present (obtaining at the time of speaking or writing) or timeless (usually or character- istically in force, but not necessarily so in the actual present). The pluperfect tense, which is much less common, mostly describes a state as past, but when used with &v it may have either past, present or timeless reference. The future perfect tense, which is much rarer even than the pluperfect, normally refers to future time. In spite of these tendencies to particular time associations it is always the context, of which the verb tense is only one element, which reveals the time reference. The infinitive and participle, and the rarer subjunctive and imperative, of the perfect have no time reference except what is implied by their context.

There are different realizations of the perfect aspect according to the type of verb. I have found it convenient to distinguish two main types, action and stative 17). The difference between them is most apparent in the imperfective and perfect aspects: in the aorist all verbs express event, action, a point of change. In the imperfective action verbs express a process of doing, while stative verbs express being, having, feeling emotion, etc. In the perfect the state expressed by action verbs is noticeably different from the process expressed by their imperfective: the subject is in a new condition as a result

16) This section is repeated with slight alterations from McK. Pap. ("The Perfect Aspect").

16) See below under "Knowing". 17) This distinction is similar to that of M. S. RUIPEREZ between "trans-

formative" and "non-transformative " verbs, in his Estructura del systema de aspectos y tempos del verbo griego antiguo, Salamanca 1954, but my approach differs somewhat from his.

296

THE PERFECT IN NEW TESTAMANT GREEK

rf having done something, which can, for example, imply that he is esponsible, and so, according to context, guilty of having done it, or worthy of honour for it, or to be regarded as an authority, etc., but it does not normally imply that he is continuing to do it (although it does not necessarily deny such continuation either). The perfect of a stative verb, on the other hand, mostly has in some respects the same basic implication as the imperfective: the state is continuing, but it has either an intensified meaning or an inbuilt reference to the commencement of the state, or both. It can, however, denote a state whose main characteristic is that the imperfective condition no longer persists, and the perfects of some stative verbs are most commonly so used. Some examples of action verbs are -xoeZv, yivs0aeo, yp&acpLv, oXap[vLv, xaXeV,

iTravalM , 18ovwa, 6'SlV; and some of stative verbs are eivoct, ?iXLv,

ayrWcrv, cpLXSLV, poesZaO6a, vLxcv, pIeveV, sometimes xaXhZo0aL, and

possibly yLvIaOcXLv 18).

Knowing (a) Introduction So much has been written about the various Greek verbs which

can be translated by forms of the English verb know that probably nothing really new can be said about them. Nevertheless, in all the observation and presentation of facts, the speculation about their significance and the development of theories, there has rarely been adequate recognition of the implications of verbal aspect in this

18) The division into these categories is not always of great importance, but it must be based on observation of the ancient Greek verb, and not on any modern apparent equivalent. I discuss yLvdaoxLv below: in some senses it is best taken as an action verb, but there may be a sense in which it is stative. In McK. Pap. p. 27 I have shown that the use of both imperfective and perfect of xac,eZaOaL with names suggests that it was felt to be stative, whereas the active xocXeZv was clearly an action verb. In the NT this passive use is common enough in the imperfective (e.g. Lu vii i xaXou[6vyv), but in the perfect it occurs only in Rev xix 13, xxXa)-lc L r6 6vooca ocroi 6 Xo6yoq roi Osou, where the use with 6voao is slightly abnormal for Greek. The aorist x),YOivocL in Lu xv I9 is natural enough if the son regards himself as having now no relationship-name and therefore needing to be given one: cf. Mt xxiii 8, io. Elsewhere in the NT the perfect passive of this verb (Mt xxii 3, 4, 8; Lu xiv 7, 8, 17, 24; Heb ix I5; Rev xix 9), and also the imperfective passive in Heb v 4 and xi 8, where the sense be invited prevails, seems to be an action verb. But irrespective of such apparent problems in establishing these useful categories, the point of overriding importance is that the perfect is a unity, and that the variety of its realizations is produced by the application of its basic nuance to verbs with various lexical features in various contexts.

297

K. L. MCKAY

area, and such as there has been tends to be submerged in the

tendency to work from the English (or other modern language) translation-a tendency the more easily understood in the case of NT Greek because otao, yrvoxco and &'xarqcqlVo were all used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew S8r. My purpose in this section is not to undertake a complete re-examination of the evidence nor to add to lexicographical theory, but to draw attention to some of the details of the operation of aspect in this field (most of which have been noted to some extent by others) in the light of the aspectual hypothesis outlined above, concentrating mainly on o8ac, syvoxao and the other parts of ytv6)XTo.

It is generally recognized that rrtcaTa.aoc and auvit]iu tend towards the English understand (perhaps with different nuances, but in neither case sufficient to avoid an overlap with know), and that

yvcOaxo in its imperfective and aorist forms tends towards recognize, perceive, realize. The difference between yt?vcaxo and olta has been characterized 19) as that between know by observation and know by reflection, and oisa has commonly been classed 20) as one of a small

group of perfects "with present meaning" or "used as a present" (whose pluperfect forms therefore are used "as imperfect"). It is also generally recognized that oitoa is cognate with slaov, which shares with it some elements of meaning in the field of mental

perception but is much more closely linked with the stems 6poc-, Xsr?i- and orn- in the semantic field of visual perception.

Knowing (b) Perfect From the point of view of aspect it is first of all important to

note that however much idiomatic translation into other languages may suggest semantic overlap between o8ao and such imperfective forms as yLvwaxco and ?axtcraaoc, there appears to have been no doubt in the minds of Greeks from the time of Homer to well beyond

19) LIDDELL-SCOTT-JONES, A Greek Lexicon (ed. 9) and G. ABBOTT-SMITH, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT (ed. 3). MOULTON and MILLIGAN (The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, pp. 439 f.) begin their article on o?&a by declaring that its distinction from y?vdcaxco "cannot be pressed in Hel- lenistic Greek", but proceed to give only examples "which suggest full, accurate knowledge", and later insist that in Eph v 5, tare yLvcd)xovToq "the verbs are different".

20) E.g. ARNDT-GINGRICH, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature; A. T. ROBERTSON, op. cit. p. 881; MOULTON Prol. p. 147; TURNER Gram. p. 82.

298


the time of the New Testament that oTac was in every respect a perfect. Even when the early forms such as oiaOoc and aoCaL, having been preserved long enough to appear completely irregular, began to yield to the pressures of analogy, they were replaced by perfect forms (oL8aOC, ot3aaov: the further analogical development of the latter to olaav seems not to have taken place by NT times 21)), and there is no record of an imperfective stem developing to replace it, like arxo and yp-ryopo. As a perfect, oISoc is remarkable in that although it is one of the most commonly used perfects it rarely, if ever, conveys any clear implication of the action by which its state (of knowledge) was established. So it can constitute an incidental reference to common knowledge, as in Mt xx 25, otSOC' or, ot SPXOVT?e Trov OVC&v xoTCxupPL6ouaLv, you know that the gentiles' rulers lord it over them 22). In Jn viii 19, oiu-r E[Uk o'scarX orAE TOiV

7OCtapa exou ?. L E ? . . LT, xaO t6v rxOcepa O ou v r?LT?, you don't know either me or my father: if you did know me you would know my father too, the focus of the context is entirely on the existing state of

knowledge. In Jn xiii i8, 'yco oloa tvaocs ?OXe?~aiv, I know whom I have chosen, it introduces a claim to foreknowledge, any implication of a starting point linked with the act of choice being completely overshadowed by the present and future implication.

While in many respects very similar to otac, eyvcoxa, the perfect of yLvOxGo, normally seems to differ in having an inbuilt reference to the event of acquisition of knowledge. In Jn viii 52, v5v yvcoxapEv

OT-, 8cta6vLov eXZeI, now we know (for sure) that you have a demon, the Jews are seizing on the immediately preceding saying of Jesus as proof of what they suspected, so that their state of knowledge (they say) has just become fully established-but it is now established. At first sight Jn xvi 30, v0v o':iscv , o ? or 0c Tavra, now we know that you know everything, seems to be parallel, for the disciples also have received confirmation of an opinion they had previously held with less certainty, and it may be that here o'tca[tev hints at the event of acquiring knowledge. The context, however, is not

21) OTa8v is found in P. land. 23 (vi/vii cent.), and participle ets6vrs in P. Antin. I98 (vi/vii cent.), but the papyri provide more evidence for the persistence of taocaLv, etc., beyond the NT period. The occasional occurrence of oTSsq from i/ii cent. and of I pers. ol8ov in iv/v cent. also need not concern us. I am grateful to the Rev. Prof. F. T. GIGNAC for this information: further details will appear in his Grammar of the Post-Ptolemaic Papyri, now in preparation.

22) Also Mk x 42.

299

K. L. MCKAY

exactly parallel, for it is not an immediate reaction, but follows a comment on the lack of obscurity in the preceding statement, and viv therefore has less of the effect of a point of transition, and more that of the current position. Of course there is no doubt that ol8cs here has no noticeable reference to acquisition of knowledge, but only to its possession.

It is not in mere stylistic variation that the two verbs occur in Jn viii 55, xocd oux 'yvcxaMT ocrT6v, y?& 8k oist a OeTov. x&v ?7(O t TL oux oTlao aOuTov, ?ao0taL po LLo V 4 euaTr OOXoa olaoc autv xal r6v Xoyov aoTou r o pg. Apart from the fact that eyvxoXs echoes eywcxac- isev of verse 52 (quoted above), it is entirely appropriate that the speaker, claiming the relationship of sonship and denying that his opponents understood the God they claimed as theirs, should use oTa of himself and iyvxocrcz of them. It would have been quite suitable for him to use ota8re, for the negative would maintain most of the contrast, but if he had used 'yvcxoc (except possibly where the negative occurs) it would have reduced his claim of a special kind of knowledge to the level of ordinary acquired knowledge; the choice of eyvc0xaoc- and oZ8a, however, sharpens the contrast by suggesting different levels of possible knowledge as well as knowing and not knowing 23).

The same contrast, but with different implications, is to be seen in I Cor viii I-4, .. ? oL8[X?V OTtL 7VTSe Yv&a6LV eXOv ... e. . TLi OX-L

'yvowx'vouL T, OXo yv0. xGoci)o El yvovat E 8? T' &yCXt TOV Oe6V, orTOq YV6CT0CaL VUWt aOTuoU. 7r:pl TjQ (3pCocEax o5v TrCV ?8coXo6ur(xo

osacpev i,L or uSv SG)Xov x v x6oat ...... we know that we all have knowledge ... If anyone thinks he (has learnt and) knows something,

23) In all these passages I see no reason to contrast observation and reflection, but only states of knowledge with and without reference to its acquisition. It would be an overstatement to claim that in Jn viii 55 or elsewhere (e.g. Jn vi 6, 64) ol8a essentially refers to unacquired knowledge: it simply omits reference to acquisition, and in viii 55 by contrast with eyvCxaoC it gains a contextual implication that the kind of knowledge it refers to is less dependent on acquisition. The consequence of this implication is less a linguistic than a theological or philosophical matter. Cf. Jn x I5, where yLtvoaxe and yLvcaxco maintain the mutual recognition theme of verse 14: ability to recognize is the part of full knowledge which is appropriate to this context. In x 4 of8atLv is no doubt used to express knowing rather than recognizing, as an actual state (timeless, not present) rather than a potential process, and in verse 5 the same verb is used in the negative parallel; and there may be significance in the fact that the object here is the voice and not the person.

300


he hasn't learnt as he should learn; but a person who loves God is known by him. Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all ... OX8xzev in I and 4 refers to the same kind of common knowledge (even if only applicable to the writer and his correspondents) as was noted in Mt xx 25: however it was acquired, only its possession is relevant here. 'EyvcoxvaLv 24),

on the other hand, does not refer only to knowledge as possessed, but adds a suggestion of its acquisition, which is then taken up by the aorists ryvo and yv&vao: these refer entirely to an event (or events) of knowing which logically must be the acquisition of knowledge. If e8svaX is read instead of ,yvcoxWvat its difference from the more general significance of o8oap.sv would depend entirely on context, and the change to the aorist gyvo would be harsher: the meaning would still be essentially the same, but it would not come across so neatly and effectively. It would seem that yvcoaLv g'xopv means much the same as eyvcoxoaiv TL, but if the latter had been used eyvcoxsvocL r in the next stage of the argument would have been weakened, as it would have looked like a questioning of an already accepted fact; and in any case Paul may have had special reasons for introducing the noun yvcosq at this significant point rather than only in the second premiss concerning the difference between knowledge and love. As there is no known passive of o8oa it is just conceivable that syvCoarTL was intended to fill that gap, but, in the absence of either a specific indication in the immediate context or a general contextual expectation that the nuance of oisoc as distinct from eyvoxxa is proper to this situation, we can assume that pyvcoaroa has its normal effect, with a nuance, but not a strong assertion, of acquisition added to the dominant statement of possession of knowledge which oi8a and giyvoxa have in common.

In Jn vi 69, xal zJLs XCTe7X 6UX0oiev xal ?yvwxoqa?v 6-r ou s 6 &yLoq IOU 0sou, we have believed and know that you are .. , ola|iev could have been used to express simple possession of knowledge, and its acquisition could have been inferred from the state of

24) The v.l. e[8iva is too weakly attested to vitiate the usefulness of this as a reasonably certain example. On the other hand the text of Jn xiv 7 is too insecure to use as a basis for grammatical doctrine; but once the arguments from my other examples are accepted it may be observed that iyvcxevT and &cv SeiLre make good sense (if you really knew me, as a result of contact with me, you would have firm knowledge of my father), as do the other variants. Moreover the use of ?yv'xxvre or ,yvcbxacr in Jn xiv 7 and afeLTe in Jn viii I9 is quite appropriate to the respective contexts.

30I

K. L. MCKAY

acquired belief in sXlnx[tu5XOaev, but the choice of eyvcxaqUVv more

closely associates the belief and the knowledge by giving them both the same combination of nuances. So too in I Jn iii 6, x?c& 6 oap'cra- vov 0) ecopx xev Our6v ous &yvCoxv oCUTOv, anyone who goes on sinning has not seen him and does not know him, the two verbs are parallel and linked with similar effect, and English idiom can probably most nearly represent the combination by slightly strengthening the event-reference in has not seen (a natural effect of the English perfect in comparison with the ancient Greek perfect) and weakening it in does not know (for has not known/come to know would also strengthen the event-reference).

In I Jn iv I6, xal o[ ?Z. eyv'oxxcFsv xol rs'aTeuxap (v (v.l. 7a6Tu0o- FIv) T-Nv &yox7tv 'v eX?L 6 06oc iv FL'v, and we (have come to) know and believe the love God has for us, it is less the association of the two verbs, for eyvcxaqzsv is in the dominant position, than the context, especially qy&aoxnsv in verse Io, which suggests the appropriateness of incorporating in the statement that we know the acknowledge- ment that we did not always know. No idiomatic English translation can precisely parallel this combination, but we know comes closest to the Greek meaning, for it omits only what is implicit in the context. In Jn xiv 9 also the use of ZYrvCxao; is fully justified by its preceding context: ToaoiUTov Xp6vov pE0' vj6v ?Ei tL xax oux eyvcoxa [Le; have I been so long with you and you still do not know (have not recognized) me?; but not much would be lost if ol8occ had been used instead. Other contextual elements lead to the choice of different verbs in similar clauses in Mt xii 7 and Jn iv o0: in the former, ?L

8 &yv6CX?i? rt 6aL v, "EXeso O6Xco xoal o'u 6uoav, oux av xaTx6aoc'aTC

TobU avaLTLou?, if you knew (had perceived) the meaning of "I prefer mercy to sacrifice" you would not condemn (have condemned) those who have not done wrong, the respondents are shown to have studied but misinterpreted the Law; whereas in the latter, e' -'pSe T'v &opeav toU Oeoi ... G v . , if you knew God's gift ... you would ask . .., the woman is represented as simply ignorant of the significant matter. Here too the replacement of ?yvW)x,TrC by 6.vTs or of l8?Ls by eyvCxKqS would not appear wrong, but the words chosen by the writers add to the evidence that although the difference between oiSa and eyvoxoc is a slight and subtle one they are used in a remarkably consistent pattern. Moreover, the observation that oTSc is a perfect expressing a state of knowledge with un- usually little reference to any perception-event by which that state

302


was established is quite consistent with its evident lack of close association with ,lSov in spite of their both being formed from the same root and both still in common use. It is significant, however, that the ancient Greeks did not take the step of regarding it as a stative imperfective, as implied by grammarians who characterize it as having "present meaning".

Knowing (c) Imperfective In contexts in which it is obvious that the meaning recognize is

at least as appropriate as know the imperfective forms of ylvc6xo are clearly seen to differ from the perfects 'yvoxa and otaoc. Thus in Lu vi 44, 0xccxaTov y?&p aevspov ix TOU 8sLou xXcprcoU yLVoaXETOL, every tree is (can be) recognized from its fruit, the substitution of known for recognized is possible, yet the context makes it clear that is known does not have the established-state force which ZyvcoarocX has in i Cor viii 3 (quoted above), but that a process of recognition or perception is referred to. So too in Mt ix 30, 6OpE p&T yLvcoax&To, see that you don't let anyone know, it is clear that the significance of know is find out, learn. In Heb xiii 23, yLvoxwcaxsrt a8X<p6bv Lv TLOL6Oov ax7oXeXuievov, I want you to know that our brother T. has been released, modern English idiom might prefer you'll be pleased to hear that..., or here's some news for you!. In Phil i I2 also, YLvoxTSLC( v U8 uiS BoubXoLaC. introduces an item of news 25). By contrast to the last two examples Jas i I9, 'Lx &, &sxcpoL ptou ayaOC7TtoL

introduces a reminder of something his respondents already know: don't forget, my beloved brothers 26).

In most contexts, however, if the English verb know is used to translate an imperfective form of yLVCOxo it is all too easy to overlook the difference from the same English word used to translate a form of olcx or the perfect of ylvcDoxo. Sometimes, indeed, the

25) Such formulae, especially yLvcoaxn and yvcoaxelv as 0Xco, are common introductions to news items in papyrus letters. Another group of formulae, such as ypocpco Nva 8elC, seems to be reserved for more formal and emphatic references to the news being offered, sometimes after the item, and sometimes associated with explanations. The imperatives laOl, ta'T?, 'atoaacv are much rarer, and seem to be confined to reminders or to the declaration of an official decision. See McK. Pap. p. 26, and J. L. WHITE, The Form and Function of the Body of the Greek Letter ..., (SBL Dissertation Series 2), Missoula, Montana, I972, pp. 11-I5.

26) Of course, if tare is indicative here (as it may be also in Eph v 5 and Heb xii I7) it is no less a reminder: you are (already) aware ...

303

K. L. MCKAY

coincidence of meaning looks at first sight obvious, as in Jn xxi 17, xVpLs, rIva CD 0 oTQXs, Da yLvVoxLs 6rL cptX6i aC, Lord, you know everything, you know (can see) that I love you, when this is compared with Peter's words in both verses 15 and I6, 6U oZ8aoqs 86t pLXi ae. Even if yIvcax?Ls is introduced as a stylistic variation to avoid a repetition of ol8aoc (although this writer is not normally averse to repeating a word), it does not follow that there is no variation of meaning. As it is, however, this is a cry of protest (eXuxr0;N 6 IIe poc) and xt,vra cT otaas is a more comprehensive declaration than acr ol.8ac 6r 9pLXi aC:

in seeking reassurance that this critical piece of information is included in the knowledge of everything it would be possible either to repeat aU oltScq with added emphasis (you do know, you surely know) or to alter the approach significantly (you must be able to see), and surely it is the latter that we find here 27).

As with the difference between olBo and 'yvoxxo, the difference between yvvaoxo and both these perfects is only occasionally made clear by the most natural translation into English, and is sometimes not at all clear even on close examination of the context, as there are some points at which either aspect is possible without very significant difference in effect. Nevertheless, when one applies the

principles set out above, using the more significant differences as a guide to the more ambiguous passages, one finds that the cumu- lative effect of the evidence is to support the hypothesis of a real aspectual difference.

In I Jn ii 3, xocl ?v 'TOUT) y'vcaxo.Lsv OTYL VXC V oy.Lur6V, ' ?v Tra

evToX&; a'uroi5 TYjp L[sV, and we can recognize that we have achieved

knowledge of him in the fact, if it is so, of our keeping his command- ments, the touchstone of knowledge similar to that in Lu vi 44 is being offered. Similarly recognition rather than full knowledge is the burden of yLv'axsT in I Jn ii 29, 'xv EsTe OTL 8LCXXCL06 (aTLV,

yLV&CaXe?T? 0rt X,L .oo 6 7oOL JV iTV 6XoCLOTUV7]V ? OC'uTOU y.yovv.crL,

if you really know that he is just (righteous), you must recognize (can see) that everyone who acts justly (rightly) is born of him (is his

27) This is even more the case if &ayorc,q and (PLXsZ are also accepted as more than stylistic variants, whether they represent different Aramaic words, expressions or emphases, or indicate that the conversation was in Greek. If iXXo,ov ToiTCov of the first question is more than these do (cf. Peter's boast of Mt xxvi 33, Mk xiv 29), the second is an unqualified Do you love me?, and the third adopts the lesser warmth of the cpLX& with which Peter had each time replied (e7rsv . .. . 6 TpErov meaning the words of his third question were ...) Peter's emotional reaction is all the more understandable.

304


child) 28). In Ro ii i8, ... . . x yvs)e so s Xphao xoal oxLpia'C Tr&

&acpepovTa xa 'V0ZouEvo ex o TOu v6pou ...,... and are aware of (can get to know) his will, and can make the right choices as you receive instruction from the Law ..., the Jew's knowledge is presented as potential, not complete 29): he has been given God's law, and is under continuing instruction in its provisions, so he should be capable of approving the best way (or of distinguishing between right and wrong ways), but Paul's claim in the rest of the sentence is that there is only an overconfident assertion of knowledge un- matched by performance.

In stressing the translations see, recognize, come to know, and the like, I have given the impression that ylv(axco is an action verb. It is possible, however, that it is really, in terms of Greek, a stative verb whose meaning is something like I am perceptive of. If this is so (and I do not think there is any way of demonstrating it clearly), it would not necessarily affect the idiomatic use of see, etc., to translate it into English, any more than its being an action verb precludes the possibility of sometimes translating it know (although the risk to English readers of confusion on levels of knowledge needs to be borne in mind). In its extended meaning, have sexual inter- course with, as in Mt i 25 and Lu i 34, it must be an action verb 30); and probably in its normal significance of mental perception also the weight of evidence lies most on that side.

In Mt xvi 3, which is attested early enough to be of some linguistic

28) A similar contrast occurs formally in Jn vii 27 (ofoqatv, yLv(Oaxl), and incidentally in Ro vii I5 (yLvaxco), I8 (ol8a). In Ac xxvi 4 f. also LacatL attributes full knowledge (they surely know, must know) while r;poyLvoaxoveqs (representing the imperfect tense) signals the process of learning (for they were formerly able to observe). I have referred to 2 Cor v I6, in which occur oWat8ev, yv(Oxaxev and yLvaxoOie, in McK. Exeg. p. 53.

29) So in Mt xxiv 50 and Lu xii 46, ou yLv)coxeL is he cannot see the signs of, and Lu vii 39 refers to the perceptiveness of the prophet rather than his fund of knowledge. The imperfective signals a process, not an established state, and can represent an activity not only as actually going on, but as tending to go on, beginning or attempting to go on, capable of going on, etc. Some of these nuances could be expressed more emphatically by such verbs as 86uacLcaL or 7,pCo.ca with an infinitive, but the living aspectual force of the imperfective made it unnecessary for these to be weakened to the level of mere auxiliaries, as unemphatic may, can, try, etc., tend to be in English.

30) This meaning appears to come from LXX (Gen iv i, etc.), and as a Semitism could have undergone some type-adaptation. But see Note i8: the borderline between action and stative verbs may not be so fine that yLvcoaxco may not lie right on it. Perhaps further consideration will eventually lead to a firmer definition.

20

305

K. L. MCKAY

value, even if its place in the original text remains doubtful, yLvoaxCTb r & xplveLv, you can discern how to set about judging, the level of knowledge suggested is lower than in Lu xii 56, oxSZre aoxcti[rtv, you know how..., but both are appropriate to the context, and the final choice between them could be entirely subjective. So also in Mk xv Io, eyivoaxev y&p 6t, 8iLQ p6Ovov iTapa- secroxstav (v.1. 7tapitoxav) au,rv ol pXCtepLS, for he could see that it was for envy that the chief priests had handed him over, the variants srytvcoaxv, 8sEL and EyvcoxE are all possible, although registering different nuances. There does, however, seem to be a special suitability in his recognizing the state the priests were in as a result of their action (Itapac8exsLaocv) 31), in comparison with the suggestion in Mt xxvii I8, 8$a y&p o6r 8X& pO6vov Trcpiacoxov 6ro6v, that Pilate already had knowledge of the main facts.

Whatever the lexical relationship between ylvcoaxco and stlcat- [a 32), an aspectual contrast between ol80 and ixacrctax.L makes

good sense in Mk xiv 68, o rt olaoc ore eTcraIzai. Ca6 t Xt ?ys, I neither know nor can understand what you mean, and this gradation suits the development of the variant reading ox ... o68 ... There seems to be no reason to doubt that the usual aspectual nuances apply not only in xiEarToctix but also in auv.t~ 33), vo&, eXrLylVCXo and other similar verbs. The difference between rCLYv(6axo and ycwv(ox is not always clear, but the compound verb has a personal object in a much larger proportion of its occurrences, and on the whole the notion of direction in S7t- seems to add a certain intensity to the mental activity. It is found in all the aspects in the NT, and there seems to be no case for assuming that sCm- has some kind of aspectual effect 34).

31) In indirect discourse in historic sequence the pluperfect can stand for an original perfect tense, as the imperfect can for an original present: the aspect is not changed. See on Ac xix 32 below, p. 323.

82) Cf. Ac xix 15. 33) Such differences as that between the imperfective and aorist impera-

tives in Mt xv io and Mk vii 14 are no problem: either the "undefined" aorist or the imperfective with nuance depending on context (conative, inceptive, parallel with &xo6Sce) could be appropriate, but at the beginning of a speech a gesture, intonation or other unrecorded contextual detail might add significance to what otherwise appears a completely subjective choice.

34) See MOULTON Prol. p. 113, and pp. 325-8 below. In Mt xi 27 atILLVYbxeL occurs twice with person object, and in the parallel Lu x 22 YLV6a(XeL is used with indirect question (minor v.l. gyvo for all three); but in I Cor xiii 12 yLvcoaxo seems to be more tentative than tiLyv6ao[oal (it would be more tentative than the aorist even if simple tyv6a0rlv had been used).

306


Knowing (d) Aorist

Whether yLvcaxo) is an action verb or stative the predominant reference of its aorist is likely to be the acquisition of knowledge as a total event, otherwise undefined; and if it is stative a complexive meaning presenting a complete period (whether long, short or infinitesimal) of knowledge is also possible, but there appears to be no certain example of this 35). The same is, of course, true of other similar verbs if their aorists occur. Most of the aorist forms of these verbs in the NT happen to be indicative, and most of these in- dicatives are in contexts which suggest past reference, but it is important to bear in mind that the aorist aspectual value is the same also for infinitive, imperative and other forms which do not have past reference, and also that the indicative does not necessarily refer to the past.

It is clearly an act of recognition that is signalled by the aorist in Lu xxiv 35, .. g. . yv 06a au rotS v ?Vj xX&aC TOU &Sptou, ... that his identity became clear to them when he broke the bread. In Jn xvi 3, xal Taura 7roi)aoualv 6TL oUX &yvoaov trov tOarTpa ou8 4e4, they will do this because they have not recognized the father or me, the lack of continuing knowledge is vigorously presented as never having even begun 36). Denial of possession of knowledge is followed by an implied denial of its acquisition in I Cor ii 8, %v ou8s1s 7rv ocpX6vrov TOu aLEctvo T70rUT0rU Tyv&OXv SL. ycXp tyvo()0v, o'ux cv Tov XUpLOV Tr-;

86,r aTaroupoaCav, which (wisdom) none of this world's rulers knows (has come to know); for if they had attained knowledge of it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. So also perfect and aorist are used to contrast a time when knowledge was absent with a situation in which it has been acquired, but evidence of its possession is lacking, in Gal iv 8 f., T6oT (JLV oux eC86o?r 0Oe6v EouUXts6acT TOlS ; ro 6(C p

[Li oiCSv 0soe?' vIv 83 yV6VT?' Oe6v, O(&XXov 8e yvcoOyevTeS 6vX Oeou, 7r&t<; ?7rCrTpLa p?TE T7 OC ltV rt ra& &aOv xaol rTCoX aTOTXEZaC . ..; at that time you did not know God and were slaves to what by nature are not gods; but now, after acknowledging God, or rather being acknowledged by him, why are you turning back to the weak and beggarly elements

35) An example of a complexive aorist of a stative verb is B8ouXe6acra in Gal iv 8, quoted below: it refers to the whole period of slavery (which essentially ended with the coming of the knowledge of God), irrespective of its length, relative time or other feature.

36) In I Jn iv 7 f. it is the process of perception that has not begun.

307

K. L. MCKAY

... 37)? The slave in Mt xxv 24 f. uses aorists to suggest that he had panicked: &yvcov ce 6OTl axXpbo el O Cv0pxoo, Oepicov ... , xol pop6rl0c; aTCxX0ov xpu?o . x .. ., I realized (it struck me) that you are a hard man, reaping ...; and I took fright, and went off and hid... 38). His master, on the other hand, lays stress on the basic knowledge he had: 26 ... 7rovnpek oiUX xoa 6ixv]p, j8eiS oiL Oep4tco ..., you lazy, useless slave, you knew that I reap ...

In Lu xviii 34, xal ocurol ou8kv To6tov auvxxav, xal v TO pjLO TOUTO xeXpujVjpvov 7rn' OaUtov, xoa oUx zyLvoaxov T& Xeyo6jVa, and they did not understand any of these things: this saying was hidden from them, and they could not follow what was being said, the narrative event of failure to perceive is followed by a twofold descriptive comment on the situation, employing both a pluperfect and an imperfect tense, so that aorist, perfect and imperfective aspects all contribute in their different ways to make the writer's point. A similar effect is achieved by a different combination in Lu ix 45, ot. 8 yv6ouv T0 pI X T0oTO, xal tv 7apoCxsxaXujLFp.?vov OCrt' OaCrv tva

(1 oct6aoovaot aucro.6, but they were unaware of the meaning of this

saying: it was concealed from them, so that they did not grasp its meaning.

Attainment of knowledge as a total event is also signalled by the aorist indicative in Lu xvi 4, 'yvov -rTCL roTao, I know what to do!, but the time reference is not past, and there is no need to justify it by such notions as "immediate past". The steward has been surprised by his master, and has no contingency plan, for he asks himself (3) T rtoiqacro; what am I to do?, and then the answer strikes him. If we must specify time, it is present (That's the idea!), but the question of time is unlikely to have occurred to the Greek-speaking writer or his early readers 39). More problematical is 2 Tim ii I9, eyvto x6pioo To6v OvrTO muroO5, the Lord knows who belong to him, where a timeless (everpresent) total knowledge would be appropriate, but

37) See also i Cor viii I-4, quoted above (p. 300). In Ro i 21 yv6vcr echoes igpavipcoaev of verse 19.

38) A different approach is adopted by the slave in Lu xix 20 f., first proferring the money and then explaining his fear: tSou I' [Lva .. ., opouto6v yaop e ...

39) See McK. Gram. 24.4.4, A27, 28; Exeg. p. 49. The comparative rarity of this usage in the NT or any other formal document is not surprising, for it is essentially a feature of quick reaction in thought or conversation recorded in direct form, but there are enough clear examples in classical Greek to make this one recognizable.

3o8


may be seen as somewhat different from the usual gnomic use, while any suggestion of pastness (has recognized) raises the question why the aorist should be preferred to a perfect: but it appears to be a quotation, and either it has not been adapted from its original context or this may be one place where the Semitic perfective has been translated clumsily 40). In I Cor xiii 12 xao0cc xoa ts~yVa6Oiv, even as I am known, presents a similar problem, but can be taken as having past reference, I have already been understood, with emphasis on the completeness of the act of being acknowledged rather than the state resulting from it 41).

An example of the infinitive is Ac xvii 20, pouX6p0EO o5v yv&val -tvao OX?L ToaTx sivOa, we want to know (find out) what these things mean: here too the acquisition of knowledge is viewed as a whole, without reference to its progress. The combination of aorist and imperfective subjunctive in Jn x 38, Lvoc yvsre xoc yLv6axXJS, signals an initial acquisition of knowledge followed by a continuing perception of evidence as it arises, but in the context it is not surprising that x7tar?unrT has arisen in some witnesses. There is a certain similarity between the contexts of 'voc yv& in Jn xiv 31 and 'va yLv6ToxY in Jn xvii 23, but it may not be too imaginative to see

enough difference in the decisiveness of the evidence mentioned in each to warrant the specification of a process of recognition in the latter, while the aorist in the former is probably residual (undefined). The context of Lu xxi 20, 6OTr yv&zT. ..., suggests that the aorist is not merely residual but urges complete comprehension: make no mistake about this evidence.

Subject or Object? Most grammarians commenting on the ancient Greek perfect

have tended to accept without question the notion that the state signalled by the perfect could be either that of the subject or that of the object. Wackernagel, followed by Chantraine, recognized that the state of the object was an anomaly, and by regarding the perfect as essentially intransitive saw the development of transitive

40) Even if it struck him as clumsy, however, an ancient Greek would not be so ready as we are to use the yardstick of time relationships in assessing what is wrong with it.

41) Cf. Note 34. If this is a Semitism it must be the writer's Aramaic thought process which produced it, as it is not obviously a quotation.

309

K. L. MCKAY

uses of the perfect as the first step in the confusion between aorist and perfect which eventually led to the complete collapse of the ancient perfect as a separate entity, and the development of the "resultative" perfect, expressing the state of the object, as a significant part of that confusion 42). However true the theory that the perfect was originally more properly intransitive than the aorist, the more relevant facts are that (a) there are already many transitive uses of the perfect in the Homeric poems, (b) the evidence for the spread of transitive perfects and their development of object- state meanings is by no means as clear as has been claimed, and (c) transitivity, in all the aspects, is a much less significant characteristic of the verb in ancient Greek than in Latin. My researches have convinced me that the state signalled by the perfect aspect is properly and always that of the subject: this is necessarily true in the case of intransitive and passive verbs, is logically the only possibility for some transitive uses, and for the remainder yields a meaning that is either as satisfactory in its context as the object- state possibility or preferable to it. As I have pointed out elsewhere 43), the onus of proof that the small proportion of mere possibilities warrants the setting up of a special, and discordant, category lies with those who assert the need for the anomaly.

A few examples will suffice to represent the very large number of

passive and intransitive perfects in the NT: Mt ii 5, oito? y&p

yEypocrroa, for thus it is written (this is the relevant Scripture); Mt ii 20, TEOv0xocav & yp o0L YTOUVT?o qV UXV TV o5 7r8a6ou, for those who were

trying to kill the child are dead; Mt iii 2, qyyLxev yap praacXsiOa Tc v

oupaxvv, the heavenly kingdom is near; Mt v 32, xal o8s &v 0&coXsXu- ,[vuv yacvqr, oxi, oLaa,o whoever marries a divorced woman is com-

mitting adultery; Mt x 6, 7ropeu6eao? a OiXWov xcpo; r 7Tr 6poara '

&7roXXoX6ra otxou 'IapacX, go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel 44); I Cor vii o1, TOZq ae y?symyx6oaLv rapayyXto, my instruc-

42) J. WACKERNAGEL, "Studien zum griechischen Perfectum", Kleine

Schriften, II, Gottingen 1953, IOOO-2I; P. CHANTRAINE, Histoire du parfait grec, Paris 1927. See also McK. Perf. and Pap.

43) McK. Pap. p. 33. 44) According to TURNER Gram., p. 82. &7r6XcoXA "was giving way to

&WoXX6co": but &7ToXu6tLeva here would mean perishing, not lost. On the other hand T69 &7roXcoX6 in Lu xv 4 can be paralleled in Mt xviii 12 by 6 v TCMavLevov, the wandering one, just as he lost one and one wandered away can describe the same event from different viewpoints.

3Io


tions to the married are .. 45); Mt vii 25, T?0cEX(XTo0 y&p nl T,

7Trpoav, for its foundation was established on the rock. Besides these the intransitive examples of olta and &yvcoxa given above are relevant, and the transitive examples also more naturally characterize the subject as knowing than the object as being known, although the latter is a logical corollary of the former. In Lu i 36, xa ?oib 'EXsLarPSer -T auTyyvUv aou xal orr ( oauveuLXncpsv ul6v v y Ypst aCow7, and you know Elizabeth your relative-she too has conceived a son, in her old age, the contextual emphasis is strongly and obviously on the subject of the verb 46); and equally clearly, although with less emphasis, the state of the servants described by the participle 47) is being signalled, and not that of the water, in Jn ii 9, oi 8 Cbxovo[ 8esLav o[ lVTrXix6T?g r6 'acop, but the servants who had drawn the water knew.

Before proceeding to the discussion of examples in which a prima facie case can be made for the state of the object, it may be useful to draw attention to the range of meanings the state of the subject may have as a result of the combination of the lexical meaning of the verb and the rest of the context. Further comment on some of these realizations will be offered later in the present paper, and my comments elsewhere on other examples (not all in the NT) are also relevant 48). Where there is a fairly clear reference to the action by which the state was constituted, there may be an implication of

responsibility, which may suggest guilt, or conversely self-justification. Closely related to this is the implication of authority, with the tendency to emphasize the subject as the agent, even without the use of the appositional pronoun (eyco, ac6To;, etc.). According to context these can all be used to suggest praise or blame. The

45) On the other hand in verse 33 6 yao-a ocq is the man who marries (takes a wife): see McK. Exeg. p. 56 (where in line 22 married is an unfortunate misprint for marries, introduced in the correction of another typesetting error).

46) Here the implication is she is pregnant, but the emphasis on the subject does not depend on such implications. In Mt xxv 24 6 r6 v rdi&Xcvrov etDlyox focuses attention on this man in a way that Xaocov did not do in verse I8 (or i6 or 20). Part of this effect may be in suggesting who had received and was still holding, but I do not think that this is necessarily so.

47) In general it is more convenient to refer to the subject of participles and other non-finite forms, meaning what would be the subject if an equivalent construction with a finite verb were substituted (here ot 6qv'0xxsaovc).

48) McK. Gram. 23.4 and 24.5; Perf. pp. 6-17; Exeg. pp. 47-55; Pap., under "Exposition".

3II

K. L. MCKAY

perfect of a stative verb may signal the continuation of the activity of the imperfective with a certain added intensity-hardened into a state, as it were-or with the addition of reference to its beginning (in which case there tends to be correspondingly less intensity), or it may signal a state beyond the completion of the relevant activity. Thus in Mk v I5 TrOv eo-nx6 rov y Xl&v is the man who had had (but no longer had) the legion 49), whereas in Ro v 2 T)v x7poaocycoynv crixoqtXpv is we got and still have access 50): in both of them a state arising from an event of having or getting is signalled, but the precise nature of the state is partly determined by the rest of the context. In Jn viii 31 -o6 7rsCTareuxTo4aq aour 'Iou&alous are shown by the following discourse to be ex-believers (or at least prone to serious backsliding), whereas in Ac xxi 20 tr&v 76Tc7atsux6OTv are

obviously continuing believers 51), although special efforts may be needed in order not to offend them. In Jn viii 33, o38svi 8WouXruxaouLv rtro'r, we have never been any man's slaves, the negative obscures the possible difference between ex-slaves and having become slaves, but the context makes it plain that the emphasis is on present slave status 52). Whatever formulaic patterns may be observed in the use of certain verbs or certain verb forms, the essence of a perfect is its representation of a state, usually with some implication of a previous action, but without explicit time connotations, and the various realizations of the perfect aspect (which may have stronger time implications) are the result of the reaction between that state and the other factors in its context.

In Jn i 41, 6up7)xao?tv ov Msooaav (and similarly in verse 45), there is undoubtedly a strong implication that the Messiah has been found, and it would have been quite reasonable for Andrew (and similarly Philip) to say eiprtrcc, 6 Msaaoc?; but it was at least equally reasonable for him to put the emphasis the other way: we have found the M., with the implication we are in a position to reveal him to you. In Jn xi 57, 8ecoxlacrav e ol pXLepe ... .. vtrox&a 'v .... the chief priests ... had given instructions that ..., the context of

49) McK. Exeg. p. 48; Gram. A3I (p. 224); Perf. p. I3. Cf. also Jn xi 44 o6 eOvnxIcq, the man who had been dead, and Jn xii i, where some witnesses insert these words.

50) McK. Exeg. pp. 53 f. 51) Cf. Jn vi 69 and I Jn iv i6, both quoted above, and also Ac xix I8,

where some witnesses read mar'u6vTcovv instead of rrNemCrCux6xtov and both may be translated believers.

52) For the ex-slave meaning see McK. Perf. p. I3 (and Note 46).

312


Jesus' presence and the general speculation is completed with a reference to the instructions for his apprehension, expressed in a way that puts the main emphasis on the authors of those instructions: the chief priests were ready. Perhaps less obviously (but after all, the choice of a verb form should add its own nuance even if there is nothing else in the context to underline it) in Jn xi 34 7ou T?O txcTs x6UTO; need not mean only where is he?: it is a turning point in the narrative, for the two sisters have now both met Jesus, and the rest of the mourners have been briefly mentioned, so in preparation for his own action it is not inappropriate for Jesus to put a subtle stress on the limits of their ability with a question that might be clumsily paraphrased What is your solution? What have

you done with him? 53). When the subject of the verb is inanimate it may seem natural

that the emphasis should be on the personal object, but such a balance of priorities is only a part of the grammatical, and even logical, context. When Jesus said r TowTLq crou c6aCoxv 6? in Mt ix 22

(also Mk v 34, Lu viii 48) he was not necessarily stressing either the state of renewed health or the event of its receipt, even though (or partly because) the narrative immediately proceeds with the words xocl &Q60 ? yuv] mrco T-S &poa exsLvyV. The woman had shown a tenaciousness of purpose in doing what she believed would cure her, and in bringing her secret purpose into public attention it was natural enough that Jesus should stress the agency of faith when referring to its resultant cure. So also in Mk x 52 and Lu xviii 42 the same sentence occurs, spoken to a blind man who had persisted in a more public declaration of faith, and its purport may be compared with the answer given in a similar passage, Mt ix 29, xar&

TlrV 7rtLTcVv u ?i&v yevO T 6uiLv, where faith is stressed in a different

way, its prominence increased by the lexical neutrality of the verb 54). In Lu vii 50 again the emphasis on the agency of faith is natural enough after the comments on how different levels of love have issued in action. Although the circumstances are more com- plicated, the same emphasis is appropriate in the other passage in

53) If the question was in Aramaic, so that the verb could as readily be translated QOqxaore, the writer's choice of -TOeCxcar is no less likely to be significant, whether based on eye-witness memory of intonation and gesture, or the result of editorial reconstruction.

54) In making this comparison of similar passages I am neither suggesting complete parallelism nor overlooking Mt xx 29-34.

313

K. L. MCKAY

which this sentence occurs (omitted by a few witnesses), Lu xvii 19, where the gratitude of the Samaritan leper is contrasted with the failure of the nine Jewish to return. In I Cor x 13, xeLpacrai6S b6iC oux dtXynpv 55) eL pmq a&vOpCrLvo;, temptation has not come to you except at a level appropriate to humanity, although the surrounding sentences have personal subjects, temptation is the overall topic of the context, and the emphasis it is given as the subject of a perfect is entirely suitable to that context.

As I have pointed out elsewhere 56), the perfect passive is available if the state of what with an active verb would be the object is in mind, and there were various combinations of verb forms which have been alleged to be periphrases for the perfect, but which really express different nuances with various degrees of similarity to those of the perfect. None of these occurs in the NT: the nearest it comes to them is in Lu xiv I8, X p 7Xap3pT7Ivov, have (consider) me excused, where, of course, the perfect participle has its full aspectual force.

The transitive examples quoted here include those which in the NT seem to me to provide the best case for the existence of a state- of-the-object perfect. There appears to be no compelling need to explain these, or any of the other transitive perfects, other than as expressing the state of the subject, any more than there is in the language of the papyri or elsewhere in ancient Greek, and the most scientific approach would be to adopt the single explanation which covers all the examples rather than assume a different explanation for a minority 57).

Perfect and Aorist

Misunderstanding of the function of the ancient Greek perfect has nowhere been greater than in those contexts in which a certain emphasis on the performance of an action is attached to a perfect form expressing the state of the subject resulting from that action. It is especially important here not to be misled by the exigencies of translation, for very often the special nuance of the perfect can only be translated by a circumlocution which would overload the sentence, and the practical solution is to translate virtually as if an

55) The minor v.l. o0 xaraaocp can hardly be taken seriously. 56) McK. Pap. p. 34. Cf. also Exeg. p. 43; Perf. p. 9; Gram. 23.4.8. 57) See McK. Pap., under "State of the Object".

314


aorist verb form had been used 58). In Jn vii 22, Moujaq aaScoxev uCZv 'vjv rteprTop7v, Moses gave you circumcision, the use of the perfect instead of the aorist is partly explained by the correction immediately following, that in fact circumcision was not originated by Moses. The aorist would have stressed the giving-indeed, in view of the correction it may even have appeared too factual-but the perfect moves the emphasis to the author of the giving, whether as the authority behind it, the person responsible for it, or the one on record as its author 69), in preparation for an argument involving the status of the law of Moses. At verse 19, where Moses is first mentioned in this connection, a6'oxev would be similarly suitable, but not so integral to the argument: it is not surprising that here the textual evidence is divided between aorist and perfect.

In Jn xiii I2, yL?vw xe-, t r7eXot&xa u'v; do you realize what I have done for you?, the action referred to in xr0oitxa is specified as eVv/v in the narrative preceding the question, and as 'vL4a in the explanatory discourse which follows it, and in the clause of comparison in verse 15 I7rotloYa is also properly aorist. Grammatically sxoCTac could have been used in the question (preferably supported by iy), but the perfect is much more effective in preparing for the explanation that the significance of the action lies in the identity of the agent, 6 tacnxocaXoq xocl 6 xuipLo. To some extent at least the nuance is made clear by its contrast with the aorists. The most appropriate point for another perfect would be in verse 15, with 83coxoa, as read by some witnesses, but this might weaken the total effect with slight overemphasis, and probably the less colourful aorist is to be preferred.

To the extent that they are haphazard and ignorantly subjective, aspectual choices of this kind may contribute to the confusion of aorist and perfect as well as to the characterization of an author's style, but, as I have pointed out elsewhere 60), many of the variations which have been alleged as evidence of confusion show signs of careful choice and subtle distinction which would no doubt have

58) Conversely, of course, the English perfect or pluperfect is often the most idiomatic translation of a Greek aorist: the ancient Greek perfect does not correspond closely to the English perfect tenses.

59) Sometimes one of these realizations is obviously the right one for a context, but often, as here, we are reminded that there is a unity in the perfect which transcends any notional division into categories.

0o) McK. Exeg. pp. 52 f. (Ac vii 35; Heb i 5, 13; Mt xxvi 48; Mk xiv 44) For the synoptic parallel see also McK. Perf. p. I5.

315

K. L. MCKAY

been appreciated by readers more aware of aspectual nuances and less dominated by considerations of time. Where the textual evidence is inconclusive, and especially when the distinction to eye and ear between the forms is only slight, as between &88coxa and S'coxa, the limited context of the written word does not always give enough guidance for certainty. For example, in Jn xvii 2-24, each time 6S8cxox occurs (in 8, I4, 22) it seems preferable to asoxoc (and in this all witnesses agree), but a slight variation in the likely pattern of 88toxa in 2, 4, (7), 9, II, (I2), 22, 24, (24), and eSoxac in 2, (6), 6, (8), would not unduly distort the theme of the discourse, especially as the aorist is sufficiently residual to echo more mildly the tone set by the perfect rather than contrast with it in such circumstances 61). Whatever other changes may have been possible, however, it seems certain that the highly emphatic tone of 22 would ensure the choice of the perfect in both first and second persons there.

In Jn xiv 25 f., rocisoc AXkaWXxa u pcv xrp' 0uLZv (eVCOv 8- k eapa-

X7]rTO4 ... XoL,VOQ V acL 8ltaiSL TXvtra xa'l ur0opv'rVL upaL 7rCavro a sitov uL'Zv 'ey', I have told you this while I am still with you, but the Advocate ... he will teach you everything, and will remind you of everything I have told you, the perfect XhXaXxa gives sufficient emphasis to its unexpressed subject for it to balance the extensive description of the subject of the verbs which follow, while at the end of the sentence extov 62) is supported by ?y6. There is also, it is true, a time contrast as a result of the balance of the future tenses in the following clauses against .Lu&vov and the event implicit in XeXoXlxoc, but this would have been much the same if the verb had been XAXocra or XcX&.

In some contexts the perfect suggests authority to support the purpose which follows it, as in Jn xiv 29, xaO v5v ?p7xa U6iZv ... [Ova . . .7LCT?'s6yrT?, I have told you now ... so that ... you may believe 63). In others the suggestion of authority relates the information given to instructions which precede or follow, as in the parallel passages Mt xxiv 25 f., 8sou ICpoLpxa ut. . v o5v ESTXr6V . .., A ??X07T?Y, you see, I have told you beforehand: so if they say

61) Of course part of the balance of the passage is achieved by the aspectual choices in other verbs: e.g. the preference for &xrkareXoca where &ricracXxoc might have been as justifiable as coocxaq.

62) The same observation applies if the v.l. av lrtrc is preferred. 63) So also in xvi I, 4, 6 (XX0aX)xa c).

316


..., don't go out; and Mk xiii 23, uzE4 8ek pXrs'T- cpoepyxXa Ui Lv

rc&vrao, but you be alert: I have told you everything beforehand 64). In

yet others it draws attention to the character as well as the identity of the subject, as in Ro iv 21, ao esYY.XroL auvoT6O xa'rtv xa.l rxoLitat, what he has promised he is also able to do 65); and I Cor vii 15, o' 8seoAXcoxTo 6 2.8?X(p6 ... . v 8e EtpOv] x6xX?xzv 6&Ja 6 06e6, the brother . . . is not bound ...: God has called you in peace.

In Ac iii 12, )tv rt &xtsvt?T? &i t8L 8uvapi ... Te7rooYx6aIv 66)

o6 5 epL7xaTzEv ocut6v; why do you gaze at us as if by our own power ... we have caused him to walk?, the perfect expressing responsibility is in a context implying praise. In the verses which follow Peter might have chosen to use the perfect instead of cocpescoxxre, ?pvacxa0O and &cTsxTstLvar if his accusations had been intended to show up their guilt and bring about their condemnation, but as he is intent rather on winning them over he prefers aorists to state the facts before suggesting ignorance as the cause, and calling for a change of heart. The Jews in Ac xxi 28, on the other hand, are intent on attaching blame to Paul: 'L 8s xac "EXXAvac dacr^yayv si tO i spv pov xl zxolvoxev Iov &ylov T6roov .o.Tov, and also by bringing Greeks into the temple he

is guilty of profaning this holy place. The distinction here between aorist and perfect is that the former details the specific act, and the other both attributes significance to it and labels the agent as responsible 67). The same nuance occurs in the infinitive of indirect statement in the explanation Festus gave to Agrippa in Ac xxv 25, cyd 8s xaTac36p.yv ry8?v Eitov atov Oavarou rVsXXpoCXvc , but I

satisfied myself that he had committed (was guilty of) no capital offence. In Ac xxii 29, 6 XlXtapXoS 8s kcpoOtr xrLyvou OT&, 'PcoqaOS CaIrv xoal oC aUTv j v 8e8xtbq, the tribune's access of fear was because he himself was the one who would have to answer for the binding of a man he now realized was a Roman citizen 68).

64) Probably a similar intention lies behind eltpiXt in Lu xxii 13, where eIrev could have been used, and where temporal factors suit the pluperfect rather than the perfect tense. Cf. Jn xi 13, Ac xx 38 below, p. 322.

65) Cf. the aorist in the more incidental explanatory comment in Heb x 23, rmaT6; yap 6o iaTocyyelXavog: the perfect is quite possible here, but its weight would tend to upset the fine balance of the context.

66) The v.1. rou7o 77eroa6x6xtov involves the same aspect. 67) The notion that the temple is now polluted is incidental: all their

attention is devoted to getting Paul where they can punish him, and they did not say xexolvclrac.

88) As mentioned in McK. Exeg. p. 48, Pilate's 6 yeypoaoc yypcqpa in Jn xix 22 is not to be explained as "resultative" (what is written stays written)

3I7

K. L. MCKAY

Closely related to these realizations of the perfect is that whioh

expresses an activity as significantly on record 69). For example, in Mt xxi 4, T0UTO 8? yiYovYv Eva 7rX1po9f ?T 'eOv 8& 'oi 7rpo1cpou, this happened in fulfilment of what was spoken through the prophet, &ykv,ro would have been adequate grammatically, but the scriptural reference is taken to make the event specially significant, and the perfect emphasizes this attitude. Similarly in Mk xiii 19 ... .0XtSq,

o tO ou y6yov?v TOcUT6 arc' 0PX5 xTLaMc; ... o TOU vVv, tribulation

unparalleled from the beginning of creation to the present, the perfect is not essential to the time reference 70) but it is more emphatic than ?yeve-o would be, suggesting something like the effect of a rhet-

orical reference to "the history of the world" or "the cosmic record". In the catalogue of deeds done by faith in Heb xi 4-38, all but two are expressed by aorist verbs71): .rpo6rv?yxev (4), '[IT?T60Y (5), uXa0slOeS xarOaxe'caev (7), tr-XouaVv ... xao ?iX0Oev (8), etc.; but

the two exceptions are Abraham's offering of Isaac (I7, 7rpooaeV-

voXev), and the first Passover sacrifice (28, xTcsxotxev), both of them

specially significant to the theme of Old Testament sacrifice as a type of the death of Christ which is so prominent in this epistle.

Confusion between perfect and aorist has been alleged when two verbs, one in either aspect, are closely linked. This can happen in two different circumstances. Firstly, the two verbs may amount to parallel descriptions of one action, or closely linked components of one action, so that either aorist or perfect might have been used for both, the former simply recording the event (and leaving the context to show its significance), and the latter strongly drawing attention to the subject's part in the action, the precise significance

nor partly aoristic and modified for euphony, but as two genuine perfects reminding the Jews that they relied on the Procurator's authority for the execution and they could influence that authority no further. He might have said 6 gyp0c0 y?ypo0pa, for the crucial point is in the principal clause, but the repetition of the perfect adds weight to it: I accept responsibility for what I have written. Of course 8 yypcaqTa gypoca would be nonsense.

69) This also is found in classical Greek: see McK. Perf. p. iI.

70) In the parallel Mt xxiv 21 some witnesses have ?yiveso. In the LXX versions of Dan xii i ytyovev (Theodotion) and eyevOrv0Q are found, and the words of Mt, Mk are a reminiscence rather than a quotation.

71) In verse 3 xocanvqp'ract and yvyovivac can, I think, best be taken as was made and still is in existence, and in any case xtaet goes with voou{i3ev. In verse 5 EcprapT0p-stx and oc peaonrxivaL are part of an explanatory comment, but the latter has the "on record" nuance, and the former is lexically weighted in the same direction although its aspect does not need to be explained that way: it is rather was made and remains the subject of testimony.

318


usually being one of the realizations already mentioned; but an intermediate effect is produced by the combination, highlighting one verb as the more significant, but inevitably affecting the other too. An example of this type of linking, Ac xxi 28, has been discussed above, in connection with the notion of culpability, and I have drawn attention to others elsewhere 72).

A case of special interest in the NT is the use of &6paxa in relation to "xouca and &xqxoo. Some scholars have accepted that seeing is taken as a more important basis for testimony, but others have disputed this 73). In Jn iii 32, 8 c(paoxsv xOL jxouarv, TOUTo FiapTupsZ, he testifies to what he (himself) has seen and heard, the reliability of the witness is being strongly asserted, the verb of seeing comes first and, especially in the circumstances, must be the more significant; and as the two represent parallel rather than overlapping activities, ixouaev is probably to be taken as a residual aorist in a conjunction reduction, carrying on the main thrust of the preceding perfect but in a muted fashion to avoid overemphasis. Much of the same applies to Ac xxii 15, a-n papriuS auO r ... c6v lpaxaS xal 'xouaOS,

you will be his witness ... to what you have seen and heard, where Paul's commissioning as a witness is the topic. A denial of competence as witnesses is the topic in Jn v 37, oisr (pxovv acToi 7rTCXTOTs ax6xoars ouis Et8o? aOuoO ?oXpaOxas, you have neither ever heard his voice nor seen his form, where the absence of even the less significant possibility is signalled by giving initial prominence to hearing, and it is quite appropriate to such emphatic statement to use two perfects, a minor reduction being achieved by the omission of TCCTOTr 74). In I Jn i I-3 the style is rather full and repetitive. There is a progression through 8 axYx6oaSev to 8 copoxxaizev T'oZ Oo{OCXotoq;

FL&)v and then a repetition of the seeing factor in o8 &Oeaai?0sa, then two other aorists, no doubt stressing events as actual (however long they lasted and however many individual actions were included in them), after which xoal copaxaocsev xoc pL.appoJUsv xal a&rayyXXo.Lev repeats the original seeing and links it to testimony and declaration. Then in verse 3 comes 8o scopaxa[v xl axrxx6oasv, rxayyoXXosev xoc ?uZv, in which the original pair, in reverse order and now linked by

72) Mk v I9 and Rev iii 3, in McK. Exeg. pp. 51 f.. 73) E.g. BLASS-DEBRUNNER-FUNK, A Greek Grammar of the NT, 342 (2)

states that Jn iii 32 "puts the chief emphasis on seeing", while TURNER Gram. p. 85 dismisses a similar notion as "utterly fantastic".

74) It may also be of some significance that the sentence proceeds xal r6v X6yov acuo5 oux XZ^re.

3I9

K. L. MCKAY

xao, permit a verb of declaration to follow immediately that of

hearing: a point to be compared with verse 5, ... ayyeXaXtc v ox7x6a osv asc' a Uo, xal &voyyXXoLp.v uZv . ..., as the letter settles down to the message which is its main theme. One could reduce this introduction to a brief and unrepetitive statement with but one or two perfects, but given the author's chosen style one can recognize the suitability of using perfects for both the seeing and the

hearing in the transition from establishing the competence of the witness to the passing on of the message received 75). Two aorists are appropriately found in Ac iv 20, ov auv0IsMa yrap l~s X ?'azsv xoa qxouljaOqZv q XOXZv, where a perfect or two might have added too much provocation to a defiant statement, and also in the more matter-of-fact presentations of Lu ii 20 (i-xouGav xal Elaov), vii 22

(?e8sTr xaol xouacrTs), and Phil iv 9 (Kxouare xoa ?8sEr). Moreover, where only one of these verbs is used the choice of aorist or perfect seems appropriate to context 76).

The other circumstance in which perfect and aorist are found linked

together is the rarer one when of two actions happening in succession one is singled out for more vivid presentation. In Mt xiii 46, supcbv 8e S?VC 7tOXUTplov pyipyapt-V '7XOC\VV (tVtpaXxv (v.1. '7CX7n?v) ' tXVTOC 0'Xo

aXZev xol cy6opacrv auo6v, finding one very valuable pearl he went and sold all he had and bought it, the perfect takes the place of an historic present, vividly portraying the new circumstances as he returns for the purchase 77). There is a similar effect in Rev v 7 78).

75) In English too an "eye-witness" may be expected to testify as much to what he heard directly as to what he saw. In this connection Lu ix 36, OU8evL &i7MYyELXaCV v ,v EXECVto Tami; Y6qEOpaoc o8t&v v : npcxpcv, contains no reference to hearing, although the voice from the cloud was an important part of the experience, and the perfect tense (not pluperfect or aorist) indicates either that they are still witnesses (in contrast to in those days, and irrespective of the possible death of one of them in the interim), or that they are now on record as having seen.

76) In i Jn ii 7, i8, 24 and iii Iri 9xo6acr? is used, but in the strong statements of iii 6 and iv 20 ecopaxv, and for variety in iv 12 Tr0oEaTL. See also Lu i II Cqp0r, 12 6c8v, 22 k&ppaxev. Some other examples are referred to in K. L. MCKAY, "Some Linguistic Points in Marxsen's Resurrection Theory", Expository Times 84 (I973), 331.

77) This is based on the usual assumption that this is a narrative of an event presented as past, rather than a timeless description (which I think more likely). The change of scene effect in past narrative would basically have used a pluperfect, but just as a present may replace an imperfect or aorist in vivid or colloquial narrative so the perfect replaces the pluperfect. Probably there is no suggestion here of the formula used to register a sale in the papyri, in which the vendor declares himself as having sold and therefore

320


Another mode of emphasis on action-performance which has led to allegations of aorist-perfect confusion is when adverbial expressions with temporal implications are attached to a perfect, but it was indeed quite possible in ancient Greek to draw attention thus to the action-event by which the perfect state was constituted without distorting the focus on that state. On one of the most obvious examples of this, I Cor xv 4, 6tL1 'yyepT'a ,r .- pMr )

'rptrT, that he is risen-rose on the third day, I have written elsewhere 79). In Heb ix 26 vuvl 8e &7ax . . . r. 8sc 0T U uLOCr[ OCUrT X C- vepco)Tc, but now he has been revealed once for all through his sacrifice, &arax draws attention to the event, and vuvt to the present state arising from it, the perfect being capable of carrying both; whereas in verse 28 &txaO rpoaeveXOse focuses attention entirely on the event 80). In Jn xv 18, 4i xrpor[ov UipvLO p[?[cda7xv, it has hated me before you, there may be a suggestion of the start of the hatred, but this may equally be taken as an "intensive" perfect in which the continuing state of hatred is by contextual implication an extension from the past (since before it began to hate you), just as is possible with a present tense 81). Such extensions from the past are probably Jn vi 25, ?t6Oc &8J y4yovao (v.11. eXAXu0ca, X0e;s); since when have you been here?, and Mk ix 21, r6aoe Xp6voq acTtv i&

(v.ll. "Co, ~e o5) TovTo yiyovsv au,j; how long has it been since this has been his condition ?

As might be expected, both because of the subjective element in aspectual choice and because of the possibility of Aramaic influence, there are a few verbs whose aspect is not what one might expect. For example, in Lu viii 56 o yeyov6o, what had happened,

having no further claim. If the passage is taken as timeless the aorists simply record total events and the perfect has the change of scene effect without the "historic present" effect: finding . . . he goes and sells all he formerly had ... and buys . . .

78) See McK. Exeg. pp. 54 f.; Perf. pp. i6 f. 79) McK. Perf. p. 12, Exeg. p. 54. That this is unlikely to be the imposition

of a formula seems clear from the normal use of the aorist in NT to refer to the resurrection: see Expository Times 84, p. 330. For temporal reference with the perfect in classical Greek see McK. Gram. 24.5.2.

80) "AXrC. contrasts with t7oXXdcix and xocT' IvLaur6v (25). The same effect occurs in x 1-3.

81) E.g. Jn xv 27 &7r' &pxS p(sT' '?toi &are. Of course, an imperfect tense or other imperfective form can also be so used. The perfect is less common: see McK. Gram. 24.5.I. and Pap., under "Some Temporal and Negative Impli- cations".

21

32I

K. L. MCKAY

seems surprising in the light of the concentration of the preceding narrative on the events of the raising of the girl, although one could

perhaps argue that those events had produced a new situation. With this problem case compare Lu xxiii 47, where so yev6mLsvov is clearly related to the events connected with the death, and Ac xiii I2, where To yeyovo6 refers mainly to the blindness of Elymas. What is impressive, however, is the rarity of the cases which remain a problem when one takes the whole context into consideration and refrains from imposing alien presuppositions.

Less common forms of the Perfect In all the above I have been concerned with the perfect aspect

as a whole, but have quoted mainly from its more commonly occurring forms, the perfect tense (indicative), the infinitive and the participle. Of the less common forms the future perfect, the subjunctive and the imperative are much rarer than the pluperfect. A few examples of these have been quoted in the above sample of perfect usage, but it may be useful to give them some particular attention.

The pluperfect is not used merely to show that one past action preceded another, but always signals a state (usually based on a previous action) which is either past or in some other way remote (e.g. unreal), irrespective of time. In narrative its use is parallel to that of the imperfect in filling in descriptive background to the events, and of course most perfect participles in narrative are replacements for clauses which would have had pluperfect verbs 82).

Any of the realizations of the perfect aspect mentioned above may be found in the pluperfect to the extent permitted by narrative or other circumstances suitable to the pluperfect. Reference has already been made to Mt xxv 26 ~8eS, Lu xviii 34 iv x?xputiievov, Lu ix 45 iv 7oTapaxxexaXutLvov, Mt vii 25 T0e6eLeX(oCo, Jn ii 9 'ea?cv and Jn xi 57 aSea xeLav 83). In Jn xi 13, EppxeCL 8e 6 'It,roi =tpL Tov Oava0Tou ocUToi, Jesus had been referring to his death, the natural alternative would be IXeyev rather than e7rtxv, but the pluperfect hints at the superior knowledge behind the statement; while in Ac xx 38, SOuvcpvoL LXe & ocLai ra ATyr X6yy 4 eptXpE, grieving greatly at what he had said, the natural alternative would be eTrev, but

82) See Note 47. 83) Pp. 308, 3II, 312 above.

322


eLp7xel points to the special significance the speaker had as a result of his statement. Of the three pluperfects in Ac xix 32, jv yop ] ?xX7XGLa (TUyxSUpLvk), XOCa ol 7cXe'Lou oUx 0 jmcLav -Tvo0 'vexac auveXyX6- OeLacv, for the meeting was in confusion, and the majority did not know why they were assembled, the first two are in descriptive narrative, and the last is due to historic sequence in indirect discourse: the more common usage, of course, is to preserve the tense of direct discourse, in this case auveX-yXU0Xcav, the original question being T(vos vexaoC auveXyX60(aev; 84).

In the unreal conditional sentences already quoted above 85), ~s[vT? (tris) and eyvxXrsE in Jn viii 19 and xiv 7 obviously refer to present, not past, lack of knowledge, and so does 8?eLC in Jn iv I0, even if ~t7aocs is taken as having past reference (you would already have asked), which is possible but not necessary; and in Mt xii 7 eyvco)XLTr may have past reference if xaeSoLxaoce is taken to have

past reference, but probably has present reference irrespective of the way the aorist verb is understood 86): the difference is more important to us than to the original writer and readers. Another interesting example is I Jn ii I9, sE y&p g Jp,&V 3 qav, |s[isvIxeCiav av pE0O' ][Jov, for if they were really of our number they would have stayed (and would still remain) with us: the emphasis is on the present situation which would apply if they had chosen to remain.

Finally, in Ac xxvi 32, &aoXeXCAa0Lt tE6v0ro ... ?e p] ~texxX7To Kocrapa, he could have been released (could now be a free man) if he had not appealed to Caesar, the emphasis is not on the making of the appeal, but on his now being subject to the obligations of the appeal 87).

The future perfect likewise signals a state and not the comparative time of two actions. This is clear enough in Mt xvi 19, gacrat 8esEkvov and 'art X?eXu(ivov, and in the plurals of these in Mt xviii I8. In Lu xii 52, EaoVToCL ... rCvTvr CMv &V' o1xcp &JSLeptipZa[LvoL, Tpe? &r:l 8ualv..., five in one house will be divided, three against two..., the alternative possibility, there will be five in one house, divided ..., amounts to only a slight difference of emphasis, contrasting with

84) Cf. Mk xv io and Note 31 above. 85) Above, p. 299, Note 24, p. 302. 86) The implied act of perception is subordinate to the continuing state

of knowledge: contrast gpyvccv in I Cor ii 8, also quoted above (p. 307). 87) Cf. the formal pronouncement, Kcalapa i &ctxxXr)oamL, in xxv 12, acknow-

ledging that he is no longer an ordinary accused; and contrast the simple narrative n:rLxaoXacaivou in xxv 21.

323

K. L. MCKAY

the more specific words that follow in verse 53, LaI?pLa(6TaovTaL,

n7raTp ?Xn uEo ..., they shall fall out with one another, father against son... The only active forms of the future perfect in the NT are in Heb ii 13, o(La 'x ns0notQLc) and viii 11, elSToouaov. Of course the

rarity of the future perfect is due to lack of need for it in most situations: when the need arose, however, the periphrastic formation was easy to mould to the contextual requirements.

The perfect subjunctive also is appropriate to relatively few contexts and always signals not an action but a state. In the NT it occurs mainly in clauses introduced by 'Lva or eav. OLa8 was the only verb which still had non-periphrastic forms for its perfect subjunctive, and these constitute about half of the perfect subjunctive forms in the NT, including ei8sr in I Jn ii 29, quoted above 88). In

Jn iii 27, oi 83vocarcL avOpcoUoS Xoac3vev o08sv &av [p . 8e8o01ivov aUTC, ex T0o oUpavo?, a man cannot receive anything unless it is his

gift from heaven, the contrast between the imperfective infinitive and the perfect subjunctive suggests that the givenness must be complete before the receiving can begin 89). In Jn xvi 24, aME'Te, xOa ?[L +j ao0 , 'tva xapa v J iv i rcsxpcL?V7, ask, and you will receive, so that your joy may be full, the aorist xXkpcoOJ would be needed for the meaning be made full, but of course that action is implicit in the more complete meaning of the perfect 90). In Jas v 15, xav :pocapToia4 c 7C?WoLyxd, Cp)e &O0TSTaL CUT&, and if he is guilty of sin he will be forgiven, it is the state of responsibility rather than the sinful act that is specified. In Lu xiv 8, q xaraxXL0Os ,LS T,Vv

7pr)TOxXLa[Lv, po [ eVTL aoTiJT?p u ( xECxXz 'jvoS it U ' 7~TOU, do not recline in the position of honour, lest (for fear that) a more important person than your have been invited by him (lest another of his guests be more important than you), the perfect makes it clear that the guest-list is complete, even if not all have yet arrived 91).

Of a possible total of six perfect imperatives in the NT, three are 'LTir, know, and could possibly be indicative 92). In Ac xv 29 eppcore, farewell, is the standard greeting at the end of a letter, literally be in a state of strength. In Mk iv 39 nxecpicoo, be in a state of constraint, is a more forceful way of repeating the idea of aoCrca,

88) P. 304. 89) So also in Jn vi 65. 90) So also in i Jn i 4 and 2 Jn 12. 91) D reads WEl for xexXkLevo; Ur' OCUroU of the other mss. 92) Jas i I9 (p. 303), Eph v 5, Heb xii 17 (Note 26).

324


be silent. In Lu xii 35, garcoaocv iv 6 ov at 66cp6sg npLroavaoL, your loins must be girded, it is not the girding but the subsequent condition of preparedness that is commanded.

"Completive" compounds

Many scholars 93) have likened the difference between simple verbs and some of their compounds (e.g. (&to-, toa-, ex-, Vmr-, xaroc-) to that between the imperfective and the aorist or perfect, but most of what has been written has been marred by confusion over

aspectual details. While the label completive is not inappropriate for some of these compounds, it is important to note that all compound verbs, like all simple verbs, are capable of the full range of aspectual exploitation, even though attestation of one or more aspects may be lacking for some of them. Some of the compounds do develop specialized meanings which appear quite different from that of the

simple verb, but most retain enough of the original elements of

meaning to be recognizable. For example, MOULTON refers to xaO0eC[TLv, xaracpayetv, as "used

to express the completed act, eating till it is finished", but fails to note that the meaning down for xxro- is quite appropriate here, even if the idiomatic English equivalent is eat up. In Lu xv 30, 6 xaCopoayd6v oou Tv 3Btov, who has swallowed up your living, it is the aorist which demonstrates the completeness of the action: (pocyv would have done the same, but the meaning who has eaten your living would have been less forceful. In Lu xx 47 ot xacT?0eoua.v

(v.l. ot xraTiaovtes) ra& oxdaocs T&v XP-v,^ who swallow up widows'

houses, differs in the same way from the less expressive aeOLouaLv, eat, although in both of these the imperfective has its full force of

habitually swallow up/ eat (or even try to swallow up/ eat). So in

English there is the same relationship between he is eating it and he is eating it up as between he ate it and he ate it up, although there is less effective difference between the latter pair.

In Ac xvi 27, vozt[rov ex rXSeuyvMol ro6?S $eat6ou?, thinking that the prisoners had escaped, the emphasis of the perfect is on the resultant state (were clean gone). If sxcpuy,Zv had been used the translation would be the same, but the emphasis would be on the event of escape; and if Excpqtyzv, the process of escape would be signalled (were escaping, were trying to escape). If, on the other hand,

S9) E.g. MOULTON Prol. pp. iiI-II8.

325

K. L. MCKAY

xreuyEvoat had been used, had fled would also imply were gone, and might in practice amount to the same thing, although it would not be suggesting the same degree of assured success; and the same differences would apply in different degrees to cpuyetv and cpc6ysv. In Ac xxvii 42, Jit TLL ... 8OIaQy-m, so that none would ... escape, the same difference would be produced by substituting 6yn, and the same aspectual differences would be effected by changing either to the imperfective. The significance of 8ta- here is surely in the contextual need to swim ashore, particularly as the separation nuance is contained in the immediately preceding ixxoXuLtBfrac;, ... dive overboard and..., while the reason for ex- in the escape from prison is obvious.

There is usually a discernible note of separation in obxo- com- pounds too, whether the general effect of the whole compound is completive or not, and it is important not to overlook the differences between the aspects in the compounds as well as the simple verbs. As is generally recognized, in some verbs the implication of &oo- is that detachment from all else produces an intensity of effort in one direction, as in Heb xi 26, &arcBXwBcv, he was looking stead- fastly, Heb xii 2, &CpopCVtrS, looking without side glances, and Phil ii

23, 5 v &cptSco (&rtSco), when I see clearly. The separation element in o&oa,TXXetv is obvious enough. The result of the addition of &ixo- to =WXXeLv (which by itself has very limited use in the NT) is to produce a meaning usually approximating to that of tniMcLv, but sometimes more explicitly send away, the usual force of &aoTcipLeLv

(not found in the NT). Probably &aoaEriXXtv carries a greater weight of formality than X74inXv, so that although they show some signs of complementing each other in a mixed paradigm it is the former which is exclusively used when the perfect aspect is appropriate 94). In all the words for killing, destroying and dying there is an obvious

94) In John they do, in fact, not overlap at all in a total of 60 occurrences: of 7rTiti , pres. indic. I (or 2), fut. indic. 3 (or 2), aor. subj. act. I; aor. participle act. 27; of &0woarXXoX, perf. pass. (various) 4, perf. indic. act. 3 (or to 6), aor. indic. act. 21 (or to I8): of 7 occurrences of &i a'retXMa 6 are in ch. xvii. Whether all this is intentional, or simply the result of individual choices in the various contexts is, of course, much less certain. In the rest of the NT many parallel forms of the two verbs occur, but the perfect of ttrtl7r is not found. Note especially Jn v 36 f., where 6 warep pie &7rato'aXxe

is followed immediately by xal 6 wi4aocq pSe TarerTp: the repetition of the idea itself gives enough emphasis, without repetition of the perfect, and a weaker note helps to give full force to tocpie pn'xev which follows. Is the weaker note merely in the use of the aorist, or also in the use of a weaker verb ?

326


implication of separation, and it may be that in &to0Ovnaxco this was felt most in the imperfective and aorist, describing the process and the event of death, while the perfect was felt to express the state of the dead in a way that did not require such a reminder: but the implicit separation notion did not have to be explicitly stated in any of the forms, and it could be that some folk custom or other quite illogical factor at an early period established the classical and Hellenistic prose paradigm of this verb 95). The development of speech habits from consciously chosen elements to idiomatic patterns with no apparent rational justification is one of the raw facts of language study, and in many cases one can do no more than recognize a line of development as possible. It is not surprising, therefore, although it remains puzzling, that the simple verb Ovncaxc fell out of everyday use but that T2Ovxoc remained, that of the many compounds used by the poets only that with &xTo- was in common use, and that other verbs of related meaning which also favoured the &rmo- compound did not retain the simple verb in the perfect. It seems clear that by the classical period Greek had established a certain tendency to favour compound verbs, and any tendency to use the prefixes unnecessarily would naturally have increased by the Hellenistic period.

I have referred above to the difficulty of distinguishing between yLv6oxo and 7LyLv,ax6x in some contexts, although the notion of direction in tL- can be discerned in an added intensity of meaning in others; and also to the tendency for the compound to favour particular constructions 96). What is important for this paper (and also for any discussion of compound verbs) is that the pattern of aspectual usage remains clearly recognizable in both simple and compound verbs. To the extent that any compound verbs can be seen to have developed a "completive" sense different from the original sense of their components, it may be possible to discern a series of related forms with parallel distinguishing features which in

96) MOULTON'S rhetorical question (Prol. pp. 1I3 f.), "Since Ov+axeLv is to be dying and &rdoOavstv to die, what is there left for oaro0Ovmaxtv ?" is meaning- less, for the simple verb Ovoaxecv is not found either in the NT or in most forms of Greek prose, and its use in verse does not conform to this pattern. On the use of the imperfective of this verb cf. McK. Gram. Ag (p. 217). Of course TURNER'S comment (Gram. p. 82) that the distinction between

iOwvxoc and &7rOtvov "is disappearing" is just part of the doctrina recepta which is based on a Latin approach to aspect.

96) See p. 306 and note 34.

327

K. L. MCKAY

the lexical field resemble those between some of the aspects in syntax, but the two fields remain distinct 97).

Other special cases In dealing with perfect forms I have avoided quoting x0a'0,uc0 and

xzZOmL, both used as perfect-supplements (and at least the former

properly so used), but apparently regarded as imperfective. If they are really imperfective they are stative verbs and the strictly perfect implication of the action which constituted the state discernible in them is parallel to that in ixCo and the classical o'LXo(ocL, whose forms are indisputably imperfective. None of these causes any real difficulty to the hypothesis of this paper, whatever explanation one may devise for their special position. The development of ypnyop) in place of eyp7]yopo and of crnxco alongside of C'rnxao is also parallel to qx&, and no great problem: the fact remains that eanxoa, including its older infinitive and participle forms ia*tvccL and k'a,, still persists strongly in the NT period, and there is no clear tendency for all perfects, or any whole class of perfects, to give way to new imperfective formations. The single occurrence in Jn i I5 of xlxpayev is insignificant in relation to the use of the perfect generally in the NT: it is a survival of what was already a rare and anomalous survival in Homeric times, and the problem it poses is simply why this archaism should be used at this point 98).

3. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, then, if one applies to the New Testament the

theory that the ancient Greek perfect is an aspect expressing the state of the subject of the verb, usually with some implication of a prior action leading to it (ol8a being the most consistent exception to this feature), and that the precise significance of that state depends on the details of the context, one finds a more consistent

97) The term Aktionsart might be more appropriately used for the description of such a series. The (in my view) more significant distinction between stative and action verbs might be incorporated in such a system,

98) Speculation on its origin belongs to the study of the early history, and prehistory, of the language: it, and the few other forms like it, may have originated as intensive perfects of verbs basically expressing a form of emotion, or, of course, there may have been some other system which evolved into the aspectual system of ancient Greek found in the extant records.

328


pattern than might be expected in the light of the presumption that most of the writers came from an Aramaic-speaking background and that much of what is reported would have been spoken originally in Aramaic. Little, if anything, of the detailed evidence that has been adduced is new, but it seems that previous attempts to grapple with the problem have been marred by the tendencies to add to the perceived aspectual basis of the Greek verb the temporal framework of Latin and most modern European languages, and to make too little allowance for the aspectual realizations on the lexical qualities of many verbs. The results of this brief survey, moreover, are completely consonant with those of a similar survey of the Greek of the non-literary papyri of the Ptolemaic and Roman eras, and similar results are found whenever the same kind of analysis is

applied to ancient Greek of any period or category. Perhaps the key features of this approach are the recognition of the subjective nature of aspectual choice, its close relationship to context, and that in many circumstances either of two possibilities may be a valid choice; and above all, whatever other languages may be used for comparison, ancient Greek syntax must be judged in terms of ancient Greek.

329

Documents

On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek