130 Francis G. H. Pang and meanwhile the discussion of aspect has grown in biblical studies5. Although not all of the contributors agree in every detail, these works signal an increase of awareness in this important category. Whereas most of the contributions after the work of Porter and Fanning focus on construction of new theories, much is needed in terms of testing and applying the existing models using data from the New Testament6. Although quite obviously the debate among grammarians on the issue of the Greek verbal system is less likely to end soon, the work to be done for the practitioners is also pertinent if not more urgent. Questions such as how idiolect and style affect aspectual choice and how genre and register affect the use of particular aspect are particularly helpful for the refinement of individual theory7. However, there is some necessary groundwork that needs to be done so that a comparative analysis of various models becomes meaningful and feasible. It is necessary to present various proposals in a comparable and systematic manner in Hebrew Interference (New York 2001), C.R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indication Mood and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 13; New York 2007), C.R. Campbell Verbal Aspect and Non-Inductive Verbs: Further Sound- ings in the Greek of New Testament (Studies in Biblical Greek 15; New York 2008) and the discussion in the first half of S.E. Porter and D.A. Carson, Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics, (JSNTSS, 80; Sheffield 1993) 18-82 and R. Picirilli, “The Meaning of the Tenses”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005) 533-55. One can also find the discussion of aspect in recent grammar (although they may not agree in every aspect), Young calls his application of verbal aspect theory to his grammar a “working hypothesis” in his intermediate grammar, R.A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguis- tic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville, TN 1994) 105-131, particularly 105-7; S.E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (Sheffield 21994) 20-61; and to a lesser extent, W.D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids, MI 22003) 126 and D. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI 1997) 499-512. See also D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids, MI 1996) 65-77. 5 See, for example, the work of D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rap- ids, MI 1991); R.H. Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids, MI 1994); D.J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI 1996); and D.E. Aune, Revelation (WBC 52A-C; Nashville, TN 1997-8). Also forthcoming are the new commentary of Carson on the Johannine epistles (NIGTC) and Porter’s commentary on Romans (New Biblical Commentary), both of which will incorporate verbal aspect theory in their discussion. See the detailed list in A. Naselli, “Introduction to Verbal Aspect”, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007) 28 esp. 30-31. 6 Those who review the state of the discussion in recent years share the same senti- ment. For example, Picrilli contends that when talking about the Greek verb tenses, most grammarians have been looking at the uses on the whole but neglect on the parts as a way to testing the basic theory. R. Picirilli, “The meaning of the Tenses,” 555 and for similar vi- sion, T.V. Evans, “Future Directions for Aspect Studies in Ancient Greek”, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography. Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker (eds. B.A. TAYLOR, ET AL.) (Grand Rapids, MI 2004) 206. 7 The work of Decker is a good example of how this practitioner’s approach to verbal aspect could be done. Decker, Temporal Deixis.