The Use of the Aorist Imperative in the Pastoral Epistles 79 Dana and Mantey express the same sentiment, declaring, “The purpose of a prohibition, when expressed by the aorist subjunctive, is to forbid a thing before it has begun... but a prohibition in the present imperative means to forbid the continuance of an act”30. Robertson concurs: the aorist prohibits something “not yet done” while the present forbids “the continuance of an act”31. J. W. Roberts, similarly, argues that the present prohibition “is simply a command not to do something” while at the same time apparently implying a cessation of an activity; the combination of μὴ with the subjunctive “refers to point action in future time” and thus means “don’t begin to do whatever the verb expresses”32. Yet Wallace and others disagree. Wallace specifically criticizes Moulton’s dog story, complaining that “a clue from modern Greek was quickly found to be valid in one text (!) in classical Greek then foisted upon several texts in the NT”33. For Wallace, the issue is not whether or not an action has already started, but rather that the aorist prohibition focuses on the whole action while the present prohibition concerns itself with the “ongoing process”34. McKay agrees: The effect of the aorist is to prohibit or advise against an activity as a totality, whether that activity is shown by the context to be a single action, momentary or extended, or a series of actions, and whether it has already begun or not. The imperfective prohibits or advises against an activity as a process, and according to context can imply do not begin/try to do... do not continue to..., do not habitually...”35 One other, somewhat more unique view on the imperative must be discussed. Recently, S. M. Baugh has suggested that the use of present vs. aorist tenses depends primarily on the lexical meaning inherent in a particular verb. Baugh divides all verbs into “atelic” (“unbounded”) and “telic” (“bounded”) types. The former concerns verbs where “a state of being, a condition, a relationship, or even a certain kind of action that has no natural terminus [is] implied in its being or accomplishment” while the latter never refers to a state but rather concerns “an action which does not have an understood terminus, whether it takes some discernible 30 Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar 301; emphasis theirs. 31 Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament” 852. 32 J. W. Roberts, “The Independent Subjunctive”, ResQ 6 (1962) 100. 33 Wallace, Beyond the Basics 485. 34 Ibid., 717. 35 McKay, “Aspect” 216; emphasis is McKay’s.