78 Paul Himes The aorist is to be expected for a single definite action (do) when none of the forgoing nuances are to be applied, and can be used for a series of repeated activities when there are contextual indications of iteration and some reason to regard the series as a whole, and generally when there is emphasis on the need for a complete response rather than merely an attempt24. With a slightly different emphasis, secular linguist Hewson sees the aorist imperative as concerned with the action viewed as whole while the “imperfective” imperative (i.e. the present imperative) conveys a sense of incompleteness25. The issue becomes more complex when dealing with prohibitions, however. To begin with, while the imperative mood is used for the present prohibition, an aorist prohibition is rare. Instead, Koine Greek prefers to use μὴ with the aorist subjunctive, a construction which may essentially be treated as a negative imperative26. This imperatival construction does occur at least twice in the Pastoral Epistles27. Secondly, some confusion exists regarding the aspect and/or aktionsart of a prohibition. Moulton, for example, tells the famous story of a modern Greek man who used the present imperative to tell his dog to “stop barking” (i.e. to stop something in progress)28. Other scholars have seemed to follow that basic line of reasoning. Zerwick, for one, believes that “μὴ with the present imperative is used to forbid the continuation of an act, and μὴ with the aorist subjunctive to forbid a future one”29. 24 McKay, “Aspect” 206-207; emphasis is McKay’s. 25 Hewson, “Le système verbal du grec ancient” 100 – “A l’aoriste l’evénement est représenté comme un tout entire, tandis qu’à l’imparfait il y a toujours un element d’inaccompli.” 26 See the J. L. Boyer, “The Classification of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study”, Grace Theological Journal 7 Spring 1986) 6 – “In the NT as in classical Greek these negative commands are almost always in the subjunctive mood when they use the aorist tense.” Boyer also notes that there are a total of eight aorist imperatives that occur with μὴ in the NT. See also McKay, “Aspect” 216. Note that Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar 302, argue that the subjunctive force is still present with μὴ + the aorist subjunctive and that it was not exactly a “substitute” for the imperative, but this seems to go contrary to the consensus of modern scholarship. Note especially Caragounis, The Development of Greek 168, who points out that the subjunctive eventually replaced the imperative, and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, Tenn. 1934) 330, who discusses how “the aorist imperative never won its full way into prohibitions.” 27 This writer directed the Accordance software to look for μὴ within three words of the subjunctive. From there, this writer weeded out all those occurrences that did not constitute a prohibition. 28 Moulton, Grammar 122. 29 Zerwick, Biblical Greek 79.