(i.) Present and future tenses. -- The text wavers frequently between the present and the future. But these changes are not arbitrary.⁽¹⁾ The context must be carefully studied in each case. Thus in certain contexts the future is rightly used, since the context is obviously prophetic: cf. 7^16sqq. ouv teina,sousin e;ti ouvde. diyh,sousin e;ti( ktl) These words occur at the close of a vision where all the verbs dealing with the actual vision are rightly given in the present or past. Similarly in 14¹⁰ 17^14sq. we have pure prophecies. In other cases where we have the pres. instead of the future or the past, this may be due to a Hebraism; for the Hebrew imperfect may, according to the context, be rendered either as a past, present, or future: cf. 9^{8sqq. 17-20} 13^11sqq. The translator is often at fault in the LXX, and a writer whose thoughts naturally shaped themselves in Hebrew could hardly escape rendering the Hebrew imperf. in his thoughts by a Greek present: cf. 5¹⁰ basileu,ousin. At times, however, when the present takes the place of the past, the change may have been made deliberately with a view to dramatic vividness.

(b) e;rcomai does not come under these considerations. The Seer uses the pres. of this verb as a pres. or a future. In fact he never uses the future except in compounds, i.e., 3²⁰ eivseleuso,mai, 20⁸ evxeleu,setai. He is, therefore, perfectly acquainted with the form of the future of the simple verb, but he avoids it. J uses it once, 14²³, and both the above-mentioned compounds in 10⁹. In 14³ he connects it with a future pa,lin e;rcomai kai. taralh,myomai.

(c) Again the future is used alike in dependent and independent {cxxiv}clauses where it has a frequentative sense, and is in such case best rendered, as in 49-10 o[tan dw,sousin ) ) ) do,xan ) ) ) pesou/ntai. But in this passage the futures on the basis of Hebraic idiom could be rendered by a past, and thus the text would state what the Seer actually saw in this vision and not recount a general practice.

(b) But the place of the past imperf. (or historic present) is frequently taken by the (imperfect or perfect) participle: e;cwn (for ei=cen, or possibly in one or more cases for e;cei), 1¹⁶ 4^7.8 6^2.5 10² 12² 21^12.14: evkporeuome,nh, 1¹⁶: kaqh,menoj, 4²: kaio,menai, 4⁵: peribeblhme,noj, 19¹³. This use of the participle for a finite verb is frequent in late Hebrew (very frequent in Aramaic, customary in Syriac), and its displacement of the past imperf. in our author is no doubt due largely to Hebraic influences.

(iv.) Greek Aorist and its rendering into English. -- Since the Greek and English aorists do not altogether correspond, it is of great importance to determine the points wherein they differ. Weymouth (On the Rendering of the Greek aorist and perfect into English, 1890) has gone elaborately into the subject. See also Moulton, Gr. 135 sqq., whose conclusions I have for the most part accepted. On the use of the aor. as a perfect in J, see Abbott, Gr. 323 sqq.
     The past aorist⁽²⁾ in English does not always correspond to the Greek aorist. The Greek aorist has three uses. (a) When this aorist is used as the historical tense in pure narrative, the English past aor. is the right rendering. (b) The Greek aor. {cxxv}can be timeless or refer to an indefinite time: cf. 2⁴avfh/kaj, J 15⁶evblh,qh. Here the Greek must be rendered by the pres. perf. in English; for this perfect, besides connoting the continuance of a completed action -- its usual meaning, can refer outside the pure narrative, to an indefinite past, and be practically timeless. (c) The Greek aor. can refer to an event that has just happened, and must also in this sense be rendered by the English pres. perfect, 1¹⁹ a] ei=dej -- "what thou hast seen."
     I will here append a list of the passages where the aor. should be rendered by the English pres. perfect.⁽³⁾ Opinions will, of course, differ as to whether certain aorists come under (b) or (c). The following passages fall naturally under (b), where the aor. is practically timeless. 1⁶ kai. evpoi,hsen, "and hath made us": 2⁴: 2²⁴ e;gnwsan = "have recognized" = "know": 3⁴ ouvk evmo,lunan, "have not defiled": 3⁸ evth,rhsaj ) ) ) kai. ouvk hvrnh,sw, "hast kept . . . and hast not denied": 3¹⁰ evth,rhsaj: 5^9.10 hvgo,rasaj ) ) ) evpoi,hsaj: 7¹⁴ e;plunan ) ) ) evleu,kanan: 11¹⁸ wvrgi,sqhsan: 14⁴ hvgora,sqhsan: 14⁸ 18² e;pesen e;pesen ) ) ) evge,neto, "has fallen, has fallen . . . has become." But these last three words could be explained under (c), though the fact that Rome has become the abode of unclean birds shows that the burning of it is far back in the past. Similarly 17² evpo,rneusan ) ) ) evmequ,sqhsan, 17¹² ou;pw e;labon, 17¹⁷ e;dwken: evkollh,qhsan and evmnhmo,neuse in 18⁵, 18⁶ avpe,dwken ) ) ) evke,rasen( 18⁷ evdo,xasen ) ) ) evstrhni,asen, 18¹⁴ avph/lqen ) ) ) avpwleto. Under (c) when the aor. refers to events that have just happened and must be rendered by the English pres. perf., come the following passages: 1¹⁹ a] ei=desj, "which thou hast (just) seen": 2²¹ e;dwka ) ) ) kai. ouvk hvqe,lhsen⁽⁴⁾ = "I have given . . . but she has refused": 11² evdo,qh: 11^15.17 evge,neto ) ) ) evbasi,leusaj: 11¹⁸ h=lqen, which recurs in the same sense in 14^7.15 18¹⁰ 19⁷: 12¹⁰ evge,neto ) ) ) evblh,qh: 12¹² kate,bh: [14¹⁵ evxhra,nqh]: 14¹⁸ h;kmasan: 16⁵ e;krinaj: 18^16.19 mia/| w[ra| hvrhmw,qh: 18²⁰ e;krinen: 19² e;krinen ) ) ) evxedi,khsen: 19^7.8 h`toi,masen ) ) ) evdo,qh: 22¹⁶ e;pemya.

(v.) Greek Perfects and their rendering into English. -- Blass (Gr. 200) and Moulton (Gr. 143, 145) admit the occurrence of pres. perfects as aorists in our author. There are only two verbs, ei;lhfa and ei;rhka, which are so used. The former appears to be so used in 5⁷ 8⁵, though the R.V. takes it as = a present, and Robertson (Gr. 899) defends it in both cases as a "dramatic colloquial historical perfect." But the context is certainly in {cxxvi} favour of the aorist sense,⁽⁵⁾ and the same perfect (Thackeray, Gr. 24) occurs in this sense in Dan lxx. 4^30b. As regards ei;rhka in 7¹⁴ 19³, no doubt as to the aoristic sense can be entertained.

(vi.) Aorists used by our author and his sources. (a) Of i[sthmi⁽⁶⁾ our author uses evsta,qhn, 8³ 12¹⁸, whereas e;sthn is used in his sources, 11¹¹ 18¹⁷. (b) Again our author uses evqauma,sqhn, 13³ = "I wondered" (as a middle: always passive in o , except in one doubtful instance -- Thackeray, Gr. 240 n.), whereas evqau,masa is used with the same meaning in source 17^6.7 as in J and generally in Greek. (c) Our author uses hvnoi,ghn in connection with the temple, 11¹⁹ 15⁵, and hvnoi,cqhn in connection with the books, 20^{12 (bis)} (as in Dan 7¹⁰o , q ,). Since Matthew and Luke in Acts use both forms in connection with the same subjects, no safe inference is possible here.

(vii.) Imperative. -- The aor. imper. occurs about 40 times in our author: the present 20 times, nine of these in chaps. 1-3. The aor. imper. is sharper and more urgent than the present, and while the latter "is used in general precepts (even to individuals) on conduct and action," the former is used "in injunctions about action in individual cases" (Blass, Gr. 194). Hence we may distinguish 3¹¹kra,tei o] e;ceij and 2²⁵o] e;cete krath,sate in connection with their contexts.
     With negatives, mh, with the pres. forbids an action already begun: 1¹⁷ 2¹⁰mh. fobou/, 5⁵mh. klai/e, while mh, with the aor. subj. or imper. forbids an action not yet begun:⁽⁷⁾ 6⁶ to.n oi=non mh. avdikh,sh|j, 7³ mh. avdikh,shte th.n gh/n, 10⁴ sfra,gison ) ) ) kai. mh. auvta. gra,yh|j, 11² 22¹⁰. Thus our author's usage agrees at once with the classical and later usage (cf. Moulton, Gr. 124 sqq.: W. Headlam, Class. Review, xvii. 295). But in J this usage is not observed. Thus in 3⁷ we find mh. qauma,sh|j occurs when we should expect mh. qau,maze, as is clear from 3⁴, and in 10³⁷ he uses mh. pisteu,ete where the context would lead us to expect mh. pisteu,shte. In all other cases mh, with the imper. is rightly used in J. See Moulton, Gr. 125 sq.

(viii.) Infinitives. -- (a) Our author generally uses the aor. inf. save in the case of certain verbs. Thus ble,pein is never found {cxxvii} in the aor., even in the indicative. In 22⁸ we should read e;blepon with A. In the rest of the N.T. it occurs once in the aor. imper., Acts 3⁴. stre,fein occurs in 11⁶ (source). katabai,nein, 13¹³. After me,llein the pres. follows inf. regularly (10 times) except in 3^2.16 12⁴. In J the pres. inf. follows without exception. The usual construction in classical Greek is me,llein with the fut. inf.

(b) On the infinitive = a finite verb in a conditional clause and also in the principal sentence, see 13¹⁰ n., and below, p. cxlvi.

(c) On the infin. with the art. = a finite verb, see 12⁷ n. and also below, p. cxlvi. These three cases are pure Hebraisms.

(d) The infinitive follows a;xioj, 5^2.4.9.12, where J 1²⁷ puts i[na cum. subj.

(x.) The omission of the copula in principal or relative sentences does not call for consideration here, as it is of constant occurrence throughout the N.T. The omission of the copula after ivdou, (= hNEhi) is encouraged through Hebrew precedent. Cf. Blass, Gr. 74; Robertson, 395 sq.
 

NOTES
1. Chap. 11 seems to be very confused. In the introduction to that chapter (vol. i. 269-273) we have seen that it is a source used by our author for a special purpose. No unity of time appears to be observed in it. The role of the prophet is sometimes uppermost, sometimes that of the seer. This disorder, which is most probably due to the fact that our author is using traditional materials, will be obvious from the following resume. In the vision of Jerusalem and the Temple the seer receives a prophecy, 11^1-3, that Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot (path,sousin) for 3^1/2 years, and that the two witnesses shall prophesy during this period. The scene then shifts apparently to the actual period of the witnesses, 11^4-6; but the present evkporeu,etai( katesqi,ei, etc., can be taken as futures. In 11^7-8 the text uses future verbs and foretells the death of the witnesses. In 11^9-10 it reverts again to the present, describing the events that follow on their death save in pe,myousin, 11¹⁰ (but the presents here also are practically future). Finally, in 11^11-13 the text changes into the past, and represents the reception of the witnesses into heaven as a past event. But herein the pasts can represent vividly the prophetic future. [See Driver, Tenses, § 14 (g), 81; Is 9^1-5.] Hence 11^3-13 is a prophecy rather than a vision. The past verbs in 20^9-10a are to be similarly explained. Futures occur before and after them. But in 20^9-10 it is only the author's familiarity with Hebraic usage that leads to this usage of the perfect, whereas 11^1-13 is translated from a source.
2. The ordinary nomenclature of English tenses is very misleading. Perfect and imperfect relate to a state of action and not to time at all: similarly also does aorist. Hence we can have a present aorist. "I smite," the pres. imperfect "I am smiting," the pres. perf. "I have smitten." Similarly we have past aorists -- "I smote," past imperf. " I was smiting," past perf. (= pluperf.) "I had smitten." The Greek has corresponding tenses for the most part. Pres. aor. lu,w (cf. paragge,llw, Acts 16¹⁸: avfi,omen, Luke 11⁴), pres. impf. lu,w, pres. perf. le,luka: past aor. e;lusa, past impf. e;luon, past perf. evlelu,kein.
3. The R.V. has freely acknowledged this meaning of the aor. in the N.T. (in Matthew 65 times), but not so frequently in our author as it should be. Nor is it always clear on what principle the Revisers recognize, or refuse to recognize, this use.
4. The failure to recognize this use of the aorist here led to the change of hvqe,lhsen into qe,lei.
5. The use of ei;lhfa as an aorist is certainly strange, seeing that our author uses e;labon in 5⁸ 10¹⁰ 17¹² (source) 20⁴; aor. subj. 3¹¹ 18⁴ (source); aor. imper. 10^8.9 22¹⁷; aor. inf. 4¹¹ 5^9.12 6⁴.
6. The pres. perf. of this verb, e;sthka ("I have taken my stand"), is used as a pres. imperf. (hence = "I am standing") in 3²⁰, and in like manner the past. perf. eivsth,kein is used by our author as a past imperf. in 7¹¹; but in 12⁴ (a source) we find e;sthken from sth,kw in the same sense. Some editors, however, read e[sthke here (cf. su,rei in the preceding clause).
7. This is the general rule; but it needs qualification: cf. Moulton, 125. Some scholars maintain that the above distinction is a growth, which "beginning in classical times was nearly crystallized in N.T. Greek." Cf. Moulton, 247.

Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson