Appendix: Proposal for a Possible New Conception of the Plu/Perfect Forms

[In this appendix to the multi-part “A Somewhat Brief Explanation of Verbal Aspect Theory as it Pertains to Koine (NT) Greek, with Focus on Temporal Reference” we’ll be dispensing with the cumbersome practice of adding “tense-form” to each of the verb names.]

We must continue to ask questions of our methodologies as well as of the text.[102]

The following will be speculative. It may provide a possible way toward a consensus among the various positions on the plu/perfect, or it may prove to have no merit whatsoever. Since this writer lacks the requisite knowledge base to fully test out the following theory, it will not be rigorously argued.[103] The focus here – as in this work as a whole – is on the indicative mood.

Could it be that all the current views on the plu/perfect possess some form of the truth with respect to verbal aspect, yet none capture it in its entirety? That is, is it possible that Fanning is correct that both forms are perfective, Campbell is right that both are imperfective, that Porter and Decker are correct that both forms are a third category altogether, and the traditional view found in most grammars is true in that the plu/perfect are both essentially perfective and imperfective (though some use different terminology)?

Randall Buth, in a blog post late last year[104] – in part recapping a portion of the 2013 SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) meeting in which Porter, Fanning, and Campbell restated their respective views on the perfect – illustrates how the morphology of the perfect emanates diachronically from both aspects.[105] Though apparently adhering to the traditional view including that the perfective (aoristic) portion reflects an anterior event, while the imperfective (present) constitutes ongoing relevance,[106] Buth approaches the theory proposed that will be proposed below:

The Greek perfect is an aspectual category and its morphology reinforces the viewpoint that it is not only an ‘imperfective’ like Campbell, nor is it simply a third aspect category like Porter’s stative, but that it is an aspect that has a perfective element inside it, like Fanning…The perfect is a complex, fused category that includes two ordered parameters that may be labelled {+perfective, +imperfective}. The perfective parameter explains why the perfect includes a complete action.[107]

What if Buth is correct in that the perfect is a “fused category,” consisting of both perfective and imperfective aspects – not that the perfective portion depicts an antecedent verbal action (VA),[108] while the imperfective illustrates ongoing relevance of that VA,[109] but that the two aspects are superimposed one over the other? In other words, rather than two separate VAs in which the imperfective follows the perfective, the perfect is portraying one VA expressed both perfectively and imperfectively simultaneously. Stated yet another way, the expressed viewpoint of the perfect is concurrently perfective and imperfective, as opposed to a sequencing of perfective then imperfective. This is the proposal presented here.

Comrie notes that in Bulgarian, another Proto-Indo-European language, there are the seemingly self-contradictory ‘imperfective aorist’ and ‘perfective imperfect’ forms, each combining both aspects into one.[110] One use of the ‘imperfective aorist’ is, “to indicate an action which is presented as a single whole (whence the Aorist as marker of perfectivity), but with internal complexity (whence the Imperfective as marker of imperfectivity).”[111] In the Bulgarian system it is the tense-form’s aspect that predominates over the added aspectual feature, i.e. with the ‘perfective imperfect’ it is the imperfective aspect of the imperfect that prevails over the perfective aspect.[112] In other words, the imperfective aspect is superimposed over the perfective. Similarly, with the ‘imperfective aorist’ it is the perfective aspect of the aorist which is superimposed over the imperfective aspect.[113] Therefore, the two forms are not redundant, as one has the imperfective dominant, while the other has perfective dominant, thus differentiating the one from the other.[114] In both cases, it seems that the purpose is to emphasize the VA by the use of both aspects.[115]

Is it possible that the Koine Greek perfect and pluperfect resemble the Bulgarian here?[116] Let’s investigate how this might work out after making a few preliminary assumptions.

It seems pretty clear that what is commonly known as the pluperfect exhibits the remoteness feature of the imperfect, which we’ll call remote imperfectivity. Of course, remoteness is not a necessary part of the imperfective aspect, as the present form well illustrates. Therefore, if the Bulgarian schema were to apply to Koine,[117] it seems best to understand the pluperfect as a ‘perfective imperfect’ (PI), with remote imperfectivity the dominant aspectual feature.[118] Hence, borrowing from the Bulgarian model, it superimposes its intrinsic remote imperfectivity over its perfectivity.

But what of the perfect? It appears it could function either as an ‘imperfective aorist’ or a ‘perfective present.’ For now we’ll assume that it’s an ‘imperfective aorist’ (IA) and proceed to argue the case for it, in part because it matches the Bulgarian system; but, more importantly, this seems to provide for the best explanation and outworking of this morphological form, as will be discussed below. Hence, for our purposes here, the IA will be portrayed as superimposing its presumed inherently dominant perfective aspect over its imperfectivity. Since the imperfectivity of the IA is different from that of the PI, we could term it non-remote imperfectivity, or, perhaps better, proximate imperfectivity, in order to distinguish between the two.

Using Isachenko’s parade analogy,[119] we can restate our relative positions on the two forms:

The IA primarily views the VA of the parade in its entirety from the helicopter, yet concurrently views it in progress at street-level of the parade, a proximate imperfective perspective akin to the present. The concurrent perfective and proximate imperfective VA in the IA likely has the effect of semantic emphasis, as compared to single-aspect forms.

The PI primarily views the VA in progress from a remote imperfective perspective, the parade view from the grandstand (a bit more remote from street-level), while simultaneously viewing the VA in its entirety, from start to finish, from the helicopter. The concurrent remote imperfective and perfective VA in the PI likely has the effect of semantic emphasis, as compared to single-aspect forms.

Once again adapting Campbell’s helpful diagrams, graphically the IA and PI could resemble the figures below (these are composites of the diagrams from the third part of this article, with the IA combining the aorist + present graphs, and the PI the aorist + imperfect). The viewpoints in the figures should be understood as ‘looking at’ the VA which resides on T₁ – T₂. This is not intended to depict a ‘time distance’ from or to the T₁ – T₂; the distance between the viewpoints and the timeline is depicting remoteness, or non-remoteness/proximity, from the VA. Both T₁ and T₂ should be understood as adapting to the temporal reference of the specific context. For example, with past temporal reference, both T₁ and T₂ will be in the past, whereas with present temporal reference (and an omnitemporal, or gnomic, implicature), T₁ will represent the past while T₂ will represent the future.

Alternatively, the current position in each figure could be seen is illustrating a present-time perspective, envisioning each viewpoint as a ball on a pendulum with its fixed point directly above it on T₁ – T₂ representing the VA. Swinging to the right (towards T₂) will depict a past-time perspective, while swinging to the left (towards T₁) will exhibit a future-time perspective. In other words, swinging to the right illustrates the viewpoint to the right of the VA, looking ‘back’ at the VA, looking at the past; swinging to the left illustrates the viewpoint to the left of the VA, looking ‘ahead’ to the VA, peering into the future. Of course, by necessity, each individual figure’s two viewpoints will ‘swing’ in tandem, i.e. the perfective and imperfective viewpoints in each individual figure will always be identical in temporal reference (hence the connecting dotted line).

Stated in previous segments and worth repeating here is that remoteness does not necessarily entail past temporal reference. Also, one must bear in mind that perfectivity, the helicopter view, is inherently more remote than imperfectivity. To differentiate from remote imperfectivity, we could call it perfective remoteness, with the understanding that its remoteness feature is amplified as compared to that of the PI (and the imperfect).

To reiterate, as we are proposing here, the IA is predominately a perfective perspective with added proximate imperfectivity (shown above), whereas the PI is superimposing its remote imperfective viewpoint over perfectivity (shown below). Note that the arrows of the respective perfective viewpoints are placed both further left (at T₁) and further right (at T₂) of the imperfective arrows, thus illustrating that perfectivity encompasses both the inception and the termination of the VA while imperfectivity does not.

 

In testing this hypothesis we’ll begin with the IA (perfect), since it is much more prevalent in the NT as compared to the PI (pluperfect).

Imperfective Aorist

Colossians 1:17; συνέστηκεν: Most agree that this signifies the continuous holding together of the cosmos by Christ – in other words, imperfective aspect. Taking the traditional understanding of the perfect, what would be the anterior VA in view here?[120] One cannot say it’s the advent of creation (that would be κτίζω from v 16), for this particular verb says nothing about the initial act of creating, but rather sustaining that which has already been created. Applying our theory of the perfect as an IA, this verb is depicting the VA in its entirety, perfectively – an omnitemporal implicature, encompassing the entire temporal realm, from its inception to termination (or to infinity) – while concurrently conveying the VA in its particulars, with its intrinsic proximate imperfectivity. In other words, Paul is communicating that in Christ all things have always been continuously held together, are currently being held together, and will continue to be held together. Admittedly, it’s a bit difficult to translate simultaneous perfectivity and imperfectivity.

John 5:33; ἀπεστάλκατε: This is the first of two perfects in this verse, both of which Campbell opines are difficult to reconcile with Porter’s stative view, asking if this one is reflecting the Jewish leaders as being in “a state of having-sent-to-John-ness?”[121] While this doesn’t necessarily negate Porter’s stance, it does point to a lack of clarity in his rather vague description of this morphological form as constituting “a given (often complex) state of affairs,”[122] as mentioned in the previous segment. This example also seems to create difficulty for the traditional view, as what would be the continuing relevance of the Jewish leaders having sent (messengers) to John (cf. v 35)?[123] Employing our hypothesis here, the IA is illustrating the entire VA of the Jews having sent (messengers) from inception until termination, while simultaneously depicting that they kept sending (messengers). By the context this is evidencing past temporal reference (cf. v 35: ὑμεῖς δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλλιαθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ – and you were willing to rejoice in his light for a time).

John 5:33; μεμαρτύρηκεν: This one is very similar to the immediately preceding. Implementing the IA, the sense would be he has borne witness (perfective) and he was bearing witness (imperfective) – past temporal reference. While some may argue that John’s testimony still had some validity at the time of Jesus’ utterance, this seems more of a pragmatic implicature drawn out from the context rather than a part of the aspectual semantics.

Coming from a different angle on this subject of continued relevancy, the VA in the aorist ἐνίκησεν (has conquered) in Revelation 5:5, for example, certainly has ongoing importance, but this is borne out by the context (pragmatics), not necessarily from the perfective aspect (semantics) of the aorist.[124] Could the same be true for some perfects; i.e. could it be the context providing the continuing relevance rather than the presumed semantics of the perfect? Moreover, keeping the traditional understanding of the perfect in mind, the use of the aorist for νικάω in Rev 5:5 begs the question: Why wasn’t the perfect used here instead of the aorist?

Many have noted that there are a number of perfects which some think are merely aoristic, retaining only the perfective aspect.[125] Revelation 5:7 contains one such example in εἴληφεν (He took). Yet Porter notes that John the Revelator uses the aorist form of this verb in the very next verse,[126] thereby indicating that there must be some sort of aspectual distinction between them.[127] On the surface, “took” would seem to be strictly punctiliar, but, as Comrie notes, a verb commonly considered punctiliar can be construed as having duration, albeit very short duration.[128] More importantly, the fact that λαμβάνω is existing in the NT in the present, to include Revelation (14:9, 14:11, 17:12), indicates it can and is used as an imperfective. Hence, εἴληφεν can work as an IA, concurrently perfective and imperfective. Assuming so, John the Revelator describes the taking of the scroll in its entirety, while also illustrating that action in progress. The effect of the added imperfectivity intrinsic to the IA seemingly would be to heighten the significance of the taking of the scroll.

2 Cor. 2:13; ἔσχηκα: While providing his own reasons why some seemingly aoristic perfects actually function as ‘true perfects,’[129] Robertson nearly concedes the usage here is a “preterit punctiliar,” i.e. merely aoristic.[130] However, he goes on to reject both the aorist and imperfect as unsuitable for the presumed literary purpose of Paul who “wished to accent the strain of his anxiety up to the time of the arrival of Titus.”[131] Then Robertson hints at our proposal here: “It was durative plus punctiliar.”[132] Our position on the IA works well in this instance (I did not have rest in my spirit), as Paul is conveying his overall discontent perfectively – from inception to termination – while focusing on the state of his feeling of unrest at that time (imperfectivity). Porter renders this I was not in the state of having, i.e. possessing, rest in my spirit.[133]

1 Cor. 15:4; ἐγήγερται: We’re stepping a bit outside our self-imposed parameters by using an example of a perfect middle indicative, as Porter seems to stand alone in his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:4.[134] Even McKay departs from Porter, adhering more closely to the traditional understanding in that though he affirms stativity, McKay asserts that the state continues.[135] Porter, on the other hand, finds the perfect in this context deictically limited by τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ (on the third day):

…Many commentators extrapolate an unhealthy amount of exegetical insight from the Perfect…claiming that it means that Christ was raised and the results of his being raised continues. This may be good theology, but it cannot be argued for solely on the basis of the stative aspect. In this context temporal deixis (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ) specifically limits the temporal implicature to the state of raisedness that was in existence three days after the burial…Cf. 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 14, where this specific state is referred to, twice in conditional sentences…[136]

Yet it would seem possible that τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ is descriptive rather than limiting, i.e. the Apostle Paul is describing the point at which the state of risen-ness began. On the other hand, if Paul is recounting events chronologically, this may provide more credence to Porter’s position.[137] A final resolution is not necessary, as the IA will work in either case. As regards the traditional understanding, the perfective reflects the beginning of the state of risen-ness on the third day and its extending to infinity, with the imperfective ‘looking at’ the state itself up close in its particulars. As to Porter’s perspective, perfectively the IA signifies the beginning and endpoint of the VA as on the third day; its imperfectivity is the same as in the traditional view, though of much shorter duration.

Matthew 4:4 (cf. 6, 7, 10; Luke 4:4, 8, 10); γέγραπται: One more perfect middle was chosen, for, on the surface at least, this particular example does not appear to work with our hypothesis. Imperfectivity is plainly evident, but perfectivity seems to be an anterior event, thus, by appearances, tipping the scales toward the traditional interpretation. Perhaps Buth is correct in that it is due to “the reduced focus on the causative action [ED: perfective VA] in the perfect middle.”[138] But, on the other hand, this is no different from our immediately preceding example in this regard. In keeping with our conception here, it is not that the initial handwriting is in “reduced focus,” just as the actual raising of Jesus is not a reduced focal point in 1 Cor. 15:4. Neither the actual writing nor the initial raising is in view at all, but rather, implied.[139] In both cases it is stativity that is the sole focus. In other words, the inception of the state, signified before the ink was dry, so to speak in this case, and a nanosecond after Christ’s raising in the Corinthians passage, is the beginning point of the perfective VA in the IA, which follows the immediately preceding implied action, and so the lexemes here should be understood as stative rather than dynamic/actional. Hence, the perfective VA for γέγραπται is the entire state of ‘written-ness,’ which, after inception, is unbounded temporally, with the imperfective VA the continuing stativity itself. Thus, it seems best to translate the verb as it stands written, or perhaps something akin to it is on record.

Could it be that, in general, a concurrently perfective and imperfective form such as the IA aspectually transforms dynamic/actional lexemes to stative ones, whether in the passive or active mood? Both verbs in John 5:33 above – sending and bearing witness – are actional lexemes, yet the IA has the effect of converting each into stative verbs, as in the Jews were in a state of continuously sending messengers to John and John was in a state of continuously bearing witness about Jesus.   Συνίστημι in Col 1:17 appears to make a similar lexical transformation. It’s too premature to conclude anything definitive given our limited sampling above, but if it be determined that all dynamic/actional lexemes are converted to stative in the IA (perfect), this would provide explanatory force to Porter’s position on the stative aspect. Moreover, this would provide a more firm foundation to counter those who oppose Porter’s position of stative aspect on the basis that stativity is strictly an Aktionsart function, for this would indicate that stativity is subjectively chosen by the writer in his use of the IA (perfect), no matter the lexeme, which in turn would lead to objectively stative Aktionsarten. To put it succinctly, assuming our analysis from the small sampling above holds true universally, in the IA (perfect) it is the concurrent perfective and imperfective VA providing the means by which the Aktionsart values are necessarily stative.

We’ll see if this resulting stative Aktionsart works out in the PI (pluperfect) in the next section.

While our position is that the form known as the perfect is in actuality an ‘imperfective aorist,’ we’ve not yet addressed why it could not be a ‘perfective present’ instead, though we shall do so forthwith, using the following very brief rationale. It is known that the perfect later took on a strictly ‘aoristic’ meaning before it eventually disappeared altogether.[140] Hence, it seems more logical that the form was a perfective-dominated one, with the imperfective portion somewhat subsidiary, rather than an imperfective-prominent form.[141]

Perfective Imperfect

The PI (pluperfect) is only occasionally used in the NT. In keeping with its relative scarcity, fewer examples will be chosen as compared to the IA. Due to the remote imperfective quality of the imperfect, the PI is intrinsically more remote than the IA. This does not necessarily mean the PI will be reflecting past temporal reference, but in many cases it does so.

John 6:17; ἐγεγόνει: This is the first of two PI forms in this particular verse. It had become dark. Once again, we have a normally dynamic lexeme[142] with stative Aktionsart as a result of the use of the two aspects concurrently. The setting is such that it was in a state of having become dark. Because of the overriding thrust of the imperfect, the inherent meaning of the lexeme, and the presence of ἤδη, there is focus on the arrival of darkness.   Here the imperfective VA is the continuing state of darkness which had just begun. The perfective VA is circumscribing the entire VA to the scene depicted in the boat on the water. There is no antecedent event; the entire VA is encompassed in its perfective imperfectivity.

John 6:17; ἐληλύθει: Έρχομαι is also an inherently dynamic/actional lexeme. Jesus had not yet come – here it appears that, once again, the lexeme is transformed into a stative. The point seems not merely that Jesus had not come down to them on the boat, but more in the sense of Jesus had not come and remained with them on the boat. If this is a correct interpretation, then our hypothesis on lexical transformation of the IA and PI holds in this particular case, as well.

Mark 15:7; πεποιήκεισαν: Here we have another dynamic/actional lexeme. Barabbas had brought about murder, or had committed murder, but the focus is not on the initial action. This is more to make an identification of the insurrectionist as a murderer, as one in a state of having committed murder. The Gospel writer could have just chosen the nominative φονεύς or ἀνθρωποκτόνος (murderer). Could it be that the PI was chosen because it carries more weight, perhaps because of its dual-aspectual character? The imperfective VA is the focus on the past and yet-present (at that time) state, while the perfectivity is circumscribing this state to the time encompassing the point immediately following his committing murder to the then-present.

Luke 4:29; ᾠκοδόμητο: Another verb in the middle voice was chosen to determine if it acts the same as the IA examples above. Οἰκοδομέω, building a house, is another dynamic/actional lexeme, and here it is indeed similar to the middle IAs. Once again, it is not the actual building of the city in view; it is the fact that the city is standing. Hence, the sense here is on which their city stood built. The PI’s imperfectivity is the standing of the city, its perfectivity encompasses the time period just after it was built to the then-present.

John 8:19; ᾔδειτε: This verse was chosen because it contains the same verb used in slightly different ways. If you knew Me, you would also know My Father. The first usage seems akin to what Robinson calls a “polite idiom,”[143] which in English is rendered as past tense for the present, as it is here. The second is also present temporal reference. This is an example of the inherent remote imperfectivity of the imperfect portion of the PI being used in a non-past context.

Conclusion

While recognizing that our sampling is inadequately small and the argumentation insufficiently rigorous, we have posited that the perfect and pluperfect forms may well have been intended as ‘imperfective aorists’ and ‘perfective imperfects,’ respectively, in view of the Bulgarian. Assuming so, these morphological forms encode the verbal action as concurrently – as opposed to sequentially – perfective and imperfective. Employing Isachenko’s parade analogy, this is akin to viewing the parade from the helicopter while simultaneously viewing it at street level – a dual perspective. This simultaneity in these dual-aspectual forms inherently produces a stative implicature. Moreover, it appears that normally dynamic/actional lexemes are transformed to stative verbs by the use of these forms, thus resulting in stative Aktionsart. This supports Porter’s stance of stative aspect regarding these morphological forms, while potentially providing specific methodological bases for Porter’s position.

[102]   Guthrie, “Boats in the Bay,” in Porter, Carson, eds. Linguistics and the New Testament: Critical Junctures, p 25. For the purposes of this appendix I’ve taken Guthrie a bit out of context here, but his larger point is what I’m after: We must be willing to continually ask questions of the methodologies used to extract meaning from the NT texts, and studies in the discipline of linguistics may provide a possible way forward in finding a solution to the disparate opinions on the function of the perfect and pluperfect.

[103]   Perhaps there’s a really good reason why the following theory will not work, eluding me due to lack of expertise. I humbly and sincerely welcome any feedback/criticism.

[104]   Randall Buth, “Getting the Right Handles on the Greek Perfect,” Biblical Language Center website, (November 29, 2013), retrieved from http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/handles-greek-perfect/, as accessed 9/23/14.

[105]   ibid, paragraphs 5-8. Buth notes that both reduplication, a marker of imperfectivity, and a κ from aorists “preserving an archaic feature of Greek morphology” (par 6), signifying perfectivity, are/were present in the perfect.

[106]   Using ἐμήμεκα (translated as “I have vomited”) as an example (“Getting the Right Handles,” para 4), and adding, “[o]ne could use the label ‘stative’ to describe the ongoing relevance, as long as the ‘completeness’ parameter was also included” (para 4), Buth appears to support the traditional view in this context. Elsewhere (“Verbs Perception and Aspect,” in Taylor, Lee, et. al., eds. Biblical Language and Lexicography) he affirms, “…I, like most Greek grammarians, feel that time intersects with aspect in the indicative. However, I would not disagree with those who would point out that an aspect that is (+ perfective, + imperfective) implies a certain temporal sequencing” (p 192 n 30; emphasis added). This is contrary to the findings of Porter and Decker, which indicate that this does not always work out in practice, as summarized in the fourth part of this series. See also footnote 65.

[107]   ibid, par 3-4.

[108]   The term “verbal action” here is meant as a shorthand, collective descriptor, used for either perfective or imperfective aspect, substituted for “event” (for dynamic/actional lexemes in the perfective), “process” (for dynamic/actional lexemes in the imperfective), and “state” (for stative lexemes in the imperfective, and for stative lexemes in the perfective, which are not merely stative, but typically seen as both incepting and terminating), for brevity. See Comrie, Aspect, pp 48-51.

[109]   Even the presumed perfective VA followed by imperfective VA in the traditional view is not applied universally, as the so-called “extensive perfect” (see Robertson, Grammar, pp 895-896), aka “consummative perfect” (see H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1955), pp 202-203) are explained as the converse, reflecting imperfective followed by perfective.

[110]   Comrie, Aspect, pp 23, 31-32

[111]   ibid, p 23

[112]   ibid, p 32

[113]   ibid.

[114]   In addition, the imperfectivity of the ‘imperfective aorist’ is intrinsically more proximate than the imperfectivity of the ‘perfective imperfect.’ Conversely, the imperfectivity of the ‘perfective imperfect’ is more remote than the imperfectivity of the ‘imperfective aorist.’ More on this below.

[115]   This is my own conclusion, based on the fact of each form’s dual-aspectual value. This seems to comport with the traditional view of the perfect and pluperfect.

[116]   It should be noted that Comrie describes the ancient Greek perfect as per the traditional view: “[T]he Perfect, although referring to a past situation, is still treated as a primary (i.e. non-past) tense for the purpose of determining the sequence of tenses” (Aspect, p 53). However, it seems the author is merely ‘reporting,’ i.e. Comrie is only parroting the positions in typical grammars.

[117]   There is one important difference: In the Bulgarian model each of these forms are past tense, for past temporal reference, according to Comrie (Aspect, p 23). As illustrated in previous sections of this article, Porter has demonstrated that the Koine perfect is reflecting both past and non-past contexts, and the pluperfect, though mostly reflecting past temporal reference, is not exclusively so.

[118]   This would not seem to work as an ‘imperfective aorist,’ as we would most likely assume the imperfectivity in such a form would be akin to the present, i.e. it would be non-remote.

[119]   See Porter, VAGNT, p 91

[120]   Robertson (Grammar) claims the verb here “has lost the punctiliar [ED: aoristic VA, perfective aspect] and is only durative” (p 896).

[121]   Campbell, Verbal Aspect, p 171; cf. 169-175. The same specific example is cited in Campbell, Basics, p 49. Campbell’s difficulty here lies in his confusion of Porter’s position of the subjective use of the perfect to connote a “state of affairs,” as opposed to the objective stativity of Aktionsart.

[122]   Porter, Idioms, p 22

[123]   Robertson (Grammar, pp 896-897) calls this a “vivid” historical present perfect, meaning the VA was actually in the past, but conveyed as if present in order to provide emphasis.

[124]   I state “not necessarily” here since perfective aspect may or may not include durativity, as Comrie notes (Aspect, p 22). One example illustrating durativity is found in the aorist of βασιλεύω in 1 Cor. 4:8: ἡμῶν ἐβασιλεύσατε (You have become kings). Porter (VAGNT), apparently with durativity in mind, renders ἐνίκησεν in Rev 5:5 as the present-referring “stands victorious” (p 228). Osborne (Grant R. Osborne, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises Silva ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002)) recognizes a possible present temporal reference here, but ultimately concludes past: “[T]he aorist refers to his life as a victory over the powers of evil (global aorist) or, more likely in this context, to his sacrificial death as the great “victory” over Satan (punctiliar force)” (p 253; parentheses in orig.). At first blush this appears to better fit the context (see ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον in Rev 5:6), agreeing with Thomas (Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary, Kenneth Barker gen. ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1992)): “The purpose of Jesus’ victory is expressed by anoixai (“that He may open”). This is a shade different from calling the opening a result of His victorious redemptive work…The opening of the scroll is best seen as the object or purpose of Jesus’ conquest” (p 388). On the other hand, David Aune (Word Biblical Commentary, 52A: Revelation 1-5, David A. Hubbard & Glenn W. Barker gen. eds. (Dallas, TX: Word, 1997)) observes that the verb νικᾶν here “is used without an object limiting the scope of victory [which] suggests that his victory is unlimited and absolute” (p 349). While Aune translates the aorist has conquered (pp 321, 349), his understanding suggests then-present and perhaps even current-present reference (similar to Porter?). In other words, this means that Aune understands has conquered as an English present perfect to include the then-present, whereas Thomas and Osborne understand has conquered as an English present perfect which only includes the past on up to but excluding the then-present – see footnote 94.

Robertson (Grammar) calls the usage in Rev 5:5 an application of the “effective aorist,” with a focus on the “end of the action” (pp 834-835). But this seems a bit forced, as if he wants to retain the presumed past tense feature of the aorist – “…because of the time-element in the indicative (expressed by the augment and secondary endings),” (p 835) – while somehow providing a present-time application in order to fit the context here.

[125]   See Robertson, Grammar, pp 898-902; McKay, Syntax, p 50; Mathewson, “Rethinking Greek Verb Tenses,” pp 20-22; Wallace, Grammar, pp 578-579; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1955) pp 202-205.

[126]   Porter, VAGNT, pp 264-265; cf. Mathewson (“Rethinking Greek Verb Tenses”) in which the author observes that Rev 5:9 also contains the aorist form of λαμβάνω (p 20). Robertson (Grammar) calls the usage here a “vivid dramatic colloquial historical perfect” (p 899). Dana and Mantey (Manual Grammar, p 204) follow Robertson.

[127]   Robertson (Grammar) notes this: “The mere fact of the use of the aorists and perfects side by side does not prove confusion of the tenses. It rather argues the other way” (p 901).

[128]   Comrie (Aspect, pp 42-43) uses the example of “cough” – not as iterative (a series of coughs), but as a semelfactive (one single cough) – in a situation in which a film of an individual’s single cough is slowed down to where it is revealed as having very brief duration. It seems one may even be able to argue that “kick” can be imperfective, taking into account the individual’s swing of the foot leading up to the actual point of impact, and perhaps even including its follow-through.

[129]   Robertson, Grammar, pp 898-902

[130]   Robertson, Grammar, p 901. Robertson uses “punctiliar” rather loosely in describing perfectivity throughout.

[131]   ibid.

[132]   ibid. Though Robertson opines that the perfect or pluperfect could work here, he ultimately interprets Paul’s usage as a “(historical dramatic) present perfect” (p 901; parenthesis in original).

[133]   Porter, VAGNT, p 258

[134]   This is according to the works surveyed here.

[135]   McKay (New Syntax) asserts: “[T]he event producing the state may be implied strongly enough for the addition of an adverbial attachment which applies particularly to the event: e.g. 1 Cor. 15:4 καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, and that he rose on the third day (and remains risen). The emphasis is still on the state rather than the event, but the flexibility of the language permits the addition of an adverbial phrase which would usually accompany the aorist which might have been used here” (p 32). Cf. pp 40, 50; McKay “The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect,” pp 12-13.

[136]   Porter, VAGNT, p 262

[137]   That is, if verse 4 is seen as the beginning of a chronological series of events describing Christ’s death and resurrection and the ramifications of His atoning work (“Christ died for our sins” in v 3), then we have 1) He was buried, 2) He was raised on the third day, 3) He appeared to Peter, 4) then to the Twelve, etc., which could be construed as limiting ἐγήγερται to Easter.

[138]   Buth, “Getting the Right Handles,” par 10

[139]   McKay (“The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect”) suggests this regarding the Corinthians passage: “But the context is that Christ is risen, a continuing condition which has given rise to a new state of affairs. A more strict grammarian would no doubt have used the aorist at this point and introduced the perfect later, but Paul is less concerned with the respective provinces of aorist and perfect than with his theological purpose: the past facts of death, burial, resurrection and attestation are to him subsidiary to the significance of the fact that Christ continues in the risen state” (p 12; italics in original, bold added for emphasis).

[140]   See, e.g. Rodney J. Decker, Koine Greek Reader: Selections from the New Testament, Septuagint, and Early Christian Writers, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2007), p 236; McKay, “The Use of the Ancient Greek Perfect,” pp 1-2. Perhaps the dual-aspect quality of the form proved too confusing.

[141]   Moreover, with two other imperfectives – namely the present and the imperfect – the decision to use it ‘aoristically,’ rather than imperfectively, makes sense. It would make an interesting study to see if, upon its adoption as a strictly perfective, the ‘perfect’ was used predominantly, or even solely, in one temporal sphere as opposed to another, in order to differentiate it from the aorist, before the ‘perfect’ eventually disappeared.

[142]   Γίνομαι is used to denote a change from one state to another by some sort of process or event. Thus, the verb is dynamic, signifying the act of transition. This differentiates it from, e.g. εἰμί. That it results in a new state does not negate that it is inherently dynamic/actional.

[143] Robertson, Grammar, pp 918-919. See footnote 68 above.