The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles 75 2.1. Modern Scholarship on the Use of the Imperatives All scholars agree that temporality does not play a role in the imperative mood6, except for the fact that, as H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey note, “as a rule they [the “potential moods”] are relatively futuristic”7. Yet here the line between aspect and aktionsart truly gets blurred. Does the writer have a definite kind of action in mind when he uses a particular tense? In other words, does the use of a present over an aorist mean that the writer wants his listener(s) to continue doing an action? Similarly, does an aorist prohibition substantially differ from a present prohibition? William Heidt represents a more traditional aktionsart approach to the imperative mood. He argues that the aorist imperative represents “point action” and thus denotes intensity. Consequently, a proper understanding of the six aorist imperatives in the Lords Prayer (Matt 6,9-13) would help “infuse a greater spirit of intensity” into the prayer8. By contrast, the present imperative “characterizes the activity under consideration as one which is to be repeated time and time again, a continual process, Oxford 1991); T. S. Foley, Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek: Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice (Linguistic Biblical Studies 1; Leiden, The Netherlands 2009), 58-73 and 125-141; J. Hewson, “Le système verbal du grec ancien: trios distinctions de temps, ou deux?” Glotta 82 (2007) 96-107; K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testa- ment Greek: An Aspectual Approach (Studies in Biblical Greek; New York 1994); S. E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; n.c. 1999); S. E. Porter, Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice (Studies in New Testament Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 1996); F. Stagg, “The Abused Aorist”, JBL 91 (June 1972) 222-231; and D. Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, Mich. 1996) 390-655. The reader should note that some authors seem to confuse the terminology. M. Zerwick, Biblical Greek (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici; adapted from the 4th Latin ed by J. Smith; Rome 1963), for example, continually refers to “aspect” when he seems to mean aktionsart (see esp. 77); R. Funk, A Beginning-Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek (3 vols.; 2nd corrected ed.; Society of Biblical Literature Sources for Biblical Study; Missoula, Mont. 1973) 1, 216-217, basically combines aktionsart with aspect and thus fails to distinguish between the two. Indeed, Fanning (Verbal Aspect 32) is certainly correct when observing that many of the older scholars failed to distinguish between aspect and aktionsart. Oddly enough, both Thorley, “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek,” and K. L. McKay, “Aspect in Imperatival Constructions in New Testament Greek”, NovT 27 (July 1985) 202-226 use completely different terms when discussing the imperatives. Thorley uses “aktionsart” while McKay uses “aspect,” yet they both seem to have similar views in mind and Thorley even references McKay in a positive manner (see Thorley, “Aktionsart in New Testament Greek” 291 and 311). 6 Some, such as Hewson, point to the lack of the augment as a key indicator of the lack of temporal concerns (see “Le système du cgrec ancien”, 98-100). 7 H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: 1927) 177. 8 W. Heidt, “Translating the New Testament Imperatives”, CBQ 13 (July 1951) 253-254.