156 Francis G. H. Pang 3.6 Temporality Unlike the debate surrounding the aspect of the Future, the state of the discussion of Future temporality is rather simple. The diversity of aspect proposals is replaced by a dichotomy between Porter (and Decker) on one side and all other interpreters mentioned in this study on the other side. Even McKay, who forcefully dismisses the temporal reference in other tense-forms, contends that the Future is used to express futurity144. A word on the diachronic development of the Future is worth repeating here. As mentioned above, the historical development of the form in the evolution of the Greek language is not a determinative factor of the aspect of a tense-form in a particular period. However, it is treated as a supporting factor and used to elucidate other findings145. The scholars who argue for a temporal interpretation of the Future usually point to the passages in the NT that shows a clear future reference. Campbell argues since most of the Future instances are found within direct discourse, “this broad pattern should not surprise us if a temporal approach to the future form is adopted,…”146. However, as mentioned above, the scholars who argue for a temporal interpretation have to come up with an explanation of the various non-future, non-Indicative uses of the Future in the NT. Although making the claim that the historical development of a tense-form can only act as a supportive role, Campbell points to the diachronic development of the form to explain the non- Indicative use147. His main argument is from Evans’ assertion that the historical development demonstrates that the Future is “simply from expression of future action or situation as a qualified observation to its more confident prediction as a fact”148. Evan’s explanation for the non- temporal usage of the Future is worth recounting here. In response to Porter’s proposal of a non-temporal Future form, Evans attributes three motivating factors for this interpretation149: (1) The Future was growing out of the Subjunctive; (2) the functional overlap with the non-Indicative Moods and; (3) Intrusion into the sphere of linguistics of philosophical questions on the concept of futurity. In response to the first two points, one should also take note that Evans argues for an origin of the Future quite different from others. He 144 McKay, A New Syntax, 52. 145 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 140 and Porter, Verbal Aspect, 403. 146 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 134. 147 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 157, contrast 140. 148 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 39. 149 Evans, Verbal Syntax, 32-9.