Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament 149 on context and lexical telicity. Verbs that are unmarked for telicity may be made telic by adding a telic prefix or combining with other contextual factors108. Thus the verbal complexes that are unmarked for telicity may be interpreted as either imperfective or perfective109, whereas those that are marked for positive telicity are interpreted as perfective. The aspect of the Future thus varies from situation to situation; some situations assert that the action will be taking place in the future, thus imperfective, while some other situations stress the coda of the action, hence perfective110. However, this interpretive flexibility of the Future has long been noticed by others111. Grammarians in the last century have long articulated similar observations112. For instance, Moulton, among others, notices the mixture of usage in the Future and claims that a distinction can be made between, what is called today, durative and punctiliar Aktionsarten in those verbs that a double form exists (e.g. ἔχω)113. Similarly, Burton also contends that the Future may be interpreted as aoristic or progressive not “from the point of view of pure grammar” but on the basis of lexis in context114. Olsen’s approach to the Future is also indebted to Fanning, who articulates succinctly: [The] mixture of usage in the future (punctual or durative sense) appears to indicate not the flexible aspectual meaning of the future but its non- aspectual character. The variation between punctiliar and durative seems to be dependent upon the lexical sense and contextual features, totally apart from an aspectual value for the future115. 108 For example, ἔρχομαι is atelic whereas by adding the telic prefix ἐκ- and εἰσ-, ἐξέρχομαι and εἰσέρχομαι become telic. Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 208, see also Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 151. 109 Although she contends that the telicity unmarked verbs are generally interpreted as imperfective. Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 260. 110 Olsen, Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, 260-3. 111 Campbell also articulates this interpretive flexibility but concluded that this flex- ibility is a product of contextual factor, i.e. by Aktionsart, instead of a feature of the Future aspect. When handling the use of μένω in John 15:10, which is difficult to ascribe an ingres- sive sense but apparently continuous, he contends that it is the continuous Aktionsarten rather than imperfective aspect that is at work, which do not negate an intrinsically perfec- tive understanding of the verb. Thus maintaining his own view that the Future Indicative encodes perfective aspect. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 149-51. However, he does not explicate that how the perfective understanding of the verb is not a product of Aktionsart but should be read aspectually. 112 See the discussion in Porter, Verbal Aspect, 408-9. 113 J.H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Prolegomena (Edinburgh 1908) 148-50, see also Robertson, Grammar, 870-2. 114 E. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (Edinburgh 1973) 31-3. 115 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 120.