Aspect, Aktionsart, and Abduction: Future Tense in the New Testament 145 what these contextual intrusions are and in what circumstances it will contribute to the expression of ingression85. Although Campbell also notices the complexity of identifying ingression in the Future form86, he considers this lack of uniformity and consistency as irrelevant to the discussion, claiming that what needs to be proven is not certainty of an ingressive interpretation, but a possibility that these examples may be read as ingressive, “even if they do not necessarily demand such a reading”87. The analysis of the verbs of accomplishment falls along the same line of argument and thus is vulnerable to the same problem of inconsistency. O’Brien tries to downplay this by pointing out that the Aorist also demonstrates this same inconsistency, that consummation is not evident in all instances88. However, one has to demonstrate that these verbs of accomplishment exercise the same pattern of inconsistency in both the Future and Aorist in order to call this a valid comparison. Campbell admits that although he considers O’Brien’s method as novel and holding promise89, he also sees the selective and qualified nature of O’Brien’s work as a potential pitfall. He points out that the lack of formal criteria for the inclusion of the class of verbs in question is a major weakness in O’Brien’s work90. Instead of formulating a formal criterion for the inclusion of the classes of verbs or better explaining why certain verbs are not considered, he includes more verbs that are “quite significant in New Testament usage” in his analysis91. Similar to the method proposed by O’Brien, he develops his method according to the premise of Fanning, with an expanded list of verbs, seeking to “observe the Aktionsart created in each usage and comment as to whether such Aktionsarten may be regarded as legitimate expressions of perfective aspect”92. After 85 There is obviously another explanation to it, that the ingression is totally a product of context. See below discussion on semantics and pragmatics. 86 He agrees with Huovila, another unpublished thesis on aspect, that it is intrinsically difficulty to identify ingression but considers it irrelevant to the discussion. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 142, and Kimmo Huovila, “Towards a Theory of Aspectual Nesting for New Testament Greek”, (M.A. Thesis, University of Helsinki; Helsinki 1999) 62. 87 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 142. 88 Campbell considers this as a fair explanation. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 143 and O’Brien, “Future Tense”, 48-9. 89 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 141-2. 90 Campbell points out that the verbs chosen by O’Brien are taken from lists of Aorist verbs in Fanning and Zerwick’s works. O’Brien, “Future Tense,” 27 and Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 143-4. 91 He lists εἰμί, γίνομαι, ἀκούω, ὁράω, βλέπω, θεωρέω, κεῖμαι, καθέξομαι and μένω as examples. See Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 144-51 for examples. 92 Although he claims that the Aktionsart-aspect method of O’Brien is abandon in his study for this point on, but it is hard to determine how his method is different from O’Brien’s. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, 144.