Verbal Aspect in Greek

Verbal Aspect

When entering into a discussion concerning Greek verbal aspect, there are two names that come to the forefront, Buist M. Fanning and Stanley Porter. Both men have come to similar conclusions about the morphological meaning behind the Greek verb forms. They state that instead of time being the focus of the Greek verb, instead, kind of action is the focus. What this means is that the Aorist is no longer the 'past tense', the present is no longer the 'present (temporal) tense', instead, their aspectual value expresses kind of action. Because of their convincing argument on the whole, it will be demonstrated in the following that Greek grammaticalizes aspect, specifically kind of action instead of grammaticalizing the traditional category of time. Time still has some place within the Greek verbal system, but it is not the focus of the Greek verb. In order to prove this hypothesis, Porter and Fanning's views on Greek aspect will be summarized. Following the summary, conclusions will be drawn based upon the previous summary section, along with biblical applications of certain key texts.

I. Tenseless verbs

Greek verbs do not primarily grammaticalize time, they primarily grammaticalize aspect. For instance, the present tense does not semantically encode present time but, rather, it would imply an action in process and near proximity. However, time does play a significant have a role in Greek pragmatically. According to Porter, time is implied by certain words that express time based upon their lexical meaning (i.e. now, after, tomorrow, etc). But the morphological additions (sufformatives) to the naked lexical form do not imply time.

A. Aspect Defined

Rodney Decker quotes Porter as he defines how the Greek verbal system functions, and states, "[a]spect, therefore, grammaticalizes how a specific process (P) is viewed by the speaker. Attitude grammaticalizes the speaker's perspective (S) on the point of reference (R). And time is a non-grammaticalized category of temporal reference established on the basis of deixis". Porter separates aspect, attitude (similar to mood) and time as three factors that weigh heavily upon the meaning of a given Greek verb. As is clear here, aspect is distinct from time and attitude. Aspect is only narrowly defined as the process viewed by the speaker. All three together as they are related in a context would constitute Aktionsart.

B. The indicative mood and aspect

The following section explicates aspectual definitions of the six tenses in the indicative mood, to the end that the connection between theory and practice may be made clear. It is vitally important to differentiate aspect from Aktionsart. The former is a view to the process of an action, while the latter is what the action means in relation to its context. Understanding this difference will allow further clarity to the discussion.

The aorist tense is, according to Porter, perfective (not to be confused with the perfect tense) in aspect. Perfective aspect is simple and plain, only defining the action broadly as whole, not pointing to the beginning or end of the action. Thus the aorist tense is not focused upon past time, as is traditionally assumed. But instead it is focused upon an external view of the action. The Aorist views a scene as a snapshot or as a man in a helicopter viewing a parade from far above. He does not worry about the beginning or the end, the details, or any matter of time. But instead he sees the entire parade as a whole. The Aorist tense is only worried about the external picture, and to speak of the Aorist in terms of time or frequency is speak of it in terms of Aktionsart.

In contrast to the perfective aspect, the imperfective aspect views an action as a continuing, vivid, incomplete action. The present and imperfect tense forms are imperfective in terms of aspect in Porter's system. Both the present and imperfect tenses do not indicate time. Rather, the present tense indicates proximity or on-going process of action, while the imperfect tense indicates remoteness or adds extra detail.

Finally, Porter adds a third aspect to the two traditional aspects, perfective aspect and imperfective aspect. He adds the stative aspect, within which the perfect and pluperfect fit into his system. He defines the stative aspect as a "reference to a condition or state that depends upon the process". The stative aspect is suspect at best, because it is usually assumed to have Aktionsart value instead of Aspectual value.

This means that according to Porter there are three aspects in total. They are the perfective, imperfective and stative aspect. The present and imperfect tenses represent the imperfective, the aorist tense is perfective, and the perfect and pluperfect tenses are stative. So where does the future tense fit into this system? In Porter's system, the future tense has a very vague definition. He says that the future tense "is best seen as semantically designating the speaker's expectation [+expectation] that an event is coming about…[it reflects] both attitude and aspectually…[but is] aspectually vague". In the end, Porter does not have the future tense categorized within the indicative mood, but it is presented here for simplicity, and because almost all scholars unanimously categorize the future tense in the indicative mood.

C. Non-Indicative moods

The non-indicative moods which are represented by the optative, imperative and subjunctive moods are projections of a certain point of view. For example, Porter states that the subjunctive mood grammaticalizes "projection with no expectation of fulfillment". The imperative gives direction to an action, while the optative is basically a nuanced subjunctive. Thus the non-indicative moods have representation in this aspectually focuses system. Infinitives and Participles have been traditionally considered tenseless, so there is no substantial difference for these two.

II. Potential problems and disagreements

Up until this point, Porter's views in general about aspect have been summarized, but the following will highlight some potential problems of non time tensed verbal forms and the points of disagreement between Buist M. Fanning and Stanley Porter.

A. How is time understood in Greek?

It is built into the human condition to understand events in terms of time, but how is this accomplished in Greek, if the verbal forms do not indicate time? In Porter's system, time is understood in terms of Deixis. Deixis can be almost any contextual factor surrounding the verb. Lyons is quoted in Porter and defines Deixis as,

"the location and identification of persons, objects, events, processes, and activities being talked about, or referred to, in relation to the spatio-temporal context created and sustained by the act of utterance and participation in it, typically, of a single speaker and at least one addressee"

This may seem very technical and vague, but it simply means that time is indicated by context. For example, if one were to relate the conquests of the great Mongolian conqueror Ghengis Khan in Greek, it would be apparent by context that this happened before the speaker's utterance. For if the conquest was happening presently or in the future, how could the speaker relate completed action? Temporal indicators such as "now, tomorrow, yesterday, soon and next month," can also imply time based upon their lexical form. So stating that "Ghengis sacked Yenking 800 years ago in 1206" will indicate past time, based on context and time based lexical forms ("800, year, ago, 1206"). Therefore time can still be understood without the semantic verb forms to intrinsically code for time.

B. The Stative Mood

Porter is novel in his view that there are three moods. This is odd because stativity is generally assumed to have Aktionsart value. It is not essential to understand whether or not there are three rather than two aspects, but it is still odd that Porter takes this position.

C. The Augment

The issue of the augment is nearer to the heart of the issue than the previous two objections. The augment is the preformative attached to the aorist and imperfect tenses. Traditionally it has been understood to indicate past time. But if the morphological verb forms do not indicate time, then what does the augment signify?

Porter defends his conclusions concerning Greek aspect by saying that the augment is not a past time morpheme, as is usually assumed. In his analysis of Homeric Greek, he finds that in simile and gnomic literature that the aorist generally has the augment, although there are multiple exceptions. Additionally, some iterative (past referring) aorists do not have the augment. Further, aorists usually have the augment in speeches with present reference, but preterite (past referring) aorists often do not have the augment. Although the imperfect has representation in many past referring contexts, it still has representation in both present and timeless contexts. This is especially true as it is used in 1^st and 2^nd class conditional sentences. Thus Porter concludes that the augment's main purpose is not to indicate past time, but rather the augment indicates emphasis.

D. Verbs and Time

While Stanley Porter has stolen most of the attention in the previous sections, Fanning is given his say here. Both men are in essential agreement in broad terms with regard to Greek aspect. For them, Greek aspect grammaticalizes the speaker's subjective view of the action, instead of the traditional temporal categories. But Fanning disagrees with Porter, in that he sees some temporal significance in the Greek verbal form. He states that "the linguistic evidence is overwhelming that in the indicative forms the tenses carry a double sense of time and aspect together."

Fanning's synthesis between the tensed focus and aspectual focus of Greek verb forms may be a bit of a stretch. Moises Silva states, "Fanning is, I think, much too generous in his attempt to salvage what he can out of the traditional grammars; while I commend him in the attempt (it needs to be done), the result is a certain instability." Whether Silva's conclusion is true or not has yet to be seen, as there just hasn't been enough time for an extended analysis of the data available.

Fanning in an effort to defend his synthesis between aspect and time believes that while Porter finds present, aorist and perfect tenses used for past, present, future and omnitemporal uses, these examples shouldn't make law. After all, when is it acceptable to use hard cases as a basis for law? Further, he wonders why it is conclusive that the present tense isn't present in time. If one focuses on gnomic and historic present uses, then one will find some awkwardness. But all of these apparent exceptions can be explained. Perhaps Porter has gone too far in trying to make a system without exceptions that he has missed the boat entirely.

In conclusion Porter has gone, perhaps, too far in his system so that he overlooks the obvious (time tensed verbs), Fanning on the other hand may have - in an attempt to synthesize the traditional view of the Greek verb with the new - produced an unstable system. Definitive conclusions will have to wait until more data and scholarship has become available.

III. Conclusion and Application

The debate continues and it is not yet apparent which position will prove the test of time, but the evidence from scripture and other contemporary Greek sources seems convincing. The Greek verbal system does Grammaticalize aspect, although in what way time and kind of action are related is still debated. Practically it seems best to see the tenses as referring to time. For example, the majority of the Aorist and Imperfect tenses do refer to the past, while only rarely do they refer to the present. The future tense itself always refers to the future. So while Porter's theory does seem valid, it doesn't shake the world of Koine Greek, as some might think.

It seems best to understand that there are two aspects, perfective and imperfective. The perfective aspect includes the aorist and future tenses, while the imperfective aspect includes the present, imperfect, perfect and pluperfect. The perfective aspect grammaticalizes completed action, while the imperfective aspect grammaticalizes action in process. In the previous discussion, broad strokes have been made for the purposes of clarity and simplicity, but the individual tenses themselves can have a more detailed semantic definition. The following will explicate the six tenses, then application of this theory to the New Testament will be given.

A. The Indicative Moods

The present tense encodes for proximity and action in process. The imperfect encodes for remoteness and action in process. The perfect tense encodes for near proximity and action in process. The pluperfect encodes for far remoteness and action in process. The aorist encodes for remoteness and completed action. Finally, the future tense encodes for future reference and completed action.

B. The Non-Indicative Moods

The non-indicative moods and the infinitive and participle are similar, with some variety. The imperative encodes for its tense and it gives direction. The subjunctive encodes for its tense and it expresses a potentiality, real or hypothetical. The optative in Koine Greek is like the subjunctive, but with more emphasis. The participle generally agrees in time with its main verb according to context, and encodes it's tense according to the outlines above. The infinitive encodes it's tense according to the outlines above.

C. Textual examples

In the nineteenth chapter of John, while Jesus hung upon the cross, he exclaimed "it is finished" (tete,lestai). If one were to take the traditional semantic meaning of the perfect verb, that this is a past action with present results, then it could be argued (and it has been argued) that Jesus' atonement is so sure that in the past it was already completed, securing a redeemed people group for himself. The results of this pre-atonement, or pre-assurement of the atonement are continuing upon the cross itself. While this may help prove the point of a particular atonement, it clearly isn't the point of the passage.

If one were to understand that the Perfect encodes for near proximity and action in process, it would be clear that Jesus' exclamation implies intensity. If John would have used the aorist tense, for instance, then it would just be a statement of the event, plain and simple. If John would have used the present or imperfect tense it may have added some detail to the narrative. Instead, John used the most intense verb form possible in Greek, to show intensity of the suffering of Christ and the satisfaction of His work on the cross. Any other tense used would not have shown the emotional affect upon the Savior of the world, caused by the work of the cross. Thus the perfect makes better sense on a tenseless paradigm for Greek. Although, surely this doesn't discount that in the past Christ's death was planned (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:28).

In another place in John's gospel, Jesus prays to the Father that he would sanctify (a`gi,ason) his people by God's word, which is true (John 17:17). Traditionally the aorist has been considered past time, and even punctiliar. Some have thought that because the aorist is used here (a`gi,ason) that this is a punctiliar, instantaneous, total sanctification. This is verse does not prove that point, although other parts of scripture may teach that. The aorist is perfective in aspect, and that means it shows a snapshot or a complete action, while encoding for remoteness. This lends itself to narrative nicely. If one were to take this verb as teaching total sanctification, then one would be mistaken. If one were to insist on this view of the aorist, then in verse 15 when Jesus prays to the Father to keep (thrh,shj) His people, it would not be a continuing action; it would be instantaneous. Or, for example, in verse 18, would Jesus' sending (avpe,steila) His people into the world be instantaneous? Both of these examples, while in the same block of text as verse 17, use aorist verbs that are not instantaneous. The point of view grammaticalized is remoteness and completed action, but the verb form itself does not comment anymore. It does not say that the action was past, present, future, durative or instantaneous. It just gives the bare bone outline of the narrative. Thus John 17:17 should not be abused as being a proof text for total or instantaneous sanctification.

The last example given will not be a response against incorrect views of the tenses themselves, instead, it will be an example of how this system works within a simple narrative. Mark 1:4-5 says, "⁴evge,neto VIwa,nnhj Îo`Ð bapti,zwn evn th/ evrh,mw kai. khru,sswn ba,ptisma metanoi,aj eivj a;fesin a`martiw/nÅ
⁵kai. evxeporeu,eto pro.j auvto.n pa/sa h` VIoudai,a cw,ra kai. oi` ~Ierosolumi/tai pa,ntej( kai. evbapti,zonto u`pV auvtou/ evn tw/ VIorda,nh potamw/ evxomologou,menoi ta.j a`marti,aj auvtw/nÅ"Notice how the aorist verb "appeared" (evge,neto) gives a simple outline to the narrative, while the imperfect verbs, "were going out" (evxeporeu,eto) and "were being baptized" (evbapti,zonto) give details to the outline of the narrative. This is because the aorist (in this text) is giving the a outline of the text, while the imperfect is giving details to the narrative. The imperfect is less remote than the aorist, and it emphasis the process of the action since it is imperfective in aspect. Thus it is the best tense to use in contrast with the very basic perfective aspect of the aorist verb. Therefore a tenseless system can even explain why the author uses certain tenses over others in a narrative, and even the meaning behind that choice.

IV. Closing Remarks

The question of how to understand Greek verbal aspect is a hot topic for the evangelical world. But as was demonstrated, even a time tensed framework for understanding the significance of the morphological forms, yields a pragmatically workable system of interpretation. And while the tenseless system appears to be correct, pragmatically it is almost impossible to see the aorist as referring to anything else but past time, except in some exceptional contexts, and likewise with the rest of the tenses. Therefore it is appropriate to understand that Greek grammaticalizes aspect primarily, but one must practice sensitivity with regard to the pragmatic temporal implicature found in almost all contexts in the New Testament.