OT in NT (8): Verbal Aspect Notes
For those interested in how verbal aspect figures in this, here are some more general conclusions based on all the cases where the NT cites the LXX and changes the verb form but retains the same lexeme.
Future/Aorist Opposition
Future/aorist oppositions are the most common in such passages. Alongside the aspectual change, a sizeable majority of these have what we might call ‘natural volitional change’. These instances are those where an aorist imperative or aorist subjunctive is substituted with a future indicative, or vice versa. The volitional, intentional, potential, or modal nature of the oblique aorist moods overlaps with the temporal reference of the future indicative. Furthermore, Koine has no future subjunctive or imperative forms. The general conclusion of this set of observations is that this combined aspect- and mood-change is a natural substitution, carrying with it only the addition or subtraction of explicit temporal reference.
This change in how explicit the temporal information is changes the reference frame on a number of occasions.[1] These fall into two general categories: (i) OT past/present to NT future; and (ii) OT future to NT past/present.
In the first case, an OT verse that originally had a contemporary view is cited as explicitly looking to the future. In particular, it is taken to be looking to fulfilment in Jesus. John 2:17 is such a case, where Jesus’ action is aligned with David’s Psalm of the righteous sufferer. The Psalm is cast as looking to the future, fulfilled by the righteous sufferer par excellence in his cleansing of the temple. A variation on this type of change is to interpret the OT text in a wider salvation-historical frame. This is then not a case of aligning Jesus’ actions with the pattern of the Messiah, but of declaring that the eschatological age inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection is the time of fulfilment of God’s promises. Romans 9:33/10:11 and Hebrews 10:16–17 are examples of this latter version of re-interpreting OT texts to point to the present reality in Christ.
Secondly, the reverse case of an OT future form being read as an aorist performs a similar function of highlighting prophetic fulfilment. Here, however, the OT reference was prospective beyond the time of the writer, but the NT author identifies this as now completed. In other words, what the OT text said would come about has now, in Jesus, already happened. Acts 2:31 is a prime example of this: Jesus’ resurrection (and concomitant non-decay) is the very event that David foresaw and wrote about. Romans 11:4 is another instance, where Paul makes summary statements about what for Elijah were future events, commenting on the fulfilment of God’s promises.
Given the frequency of these aorist-future changes, and how little change in overall sense is involved, Campbell’s position on the future verb form appears to have some confirmation here. The future form does act in a comparable manner to the aorist—that is, semantically encoding perfective aspect—but differs in its explicit future temporal reference. The future tense-form is a true tense, with perfective aspect.
Perfective/Imperfective Oppositions
Narrative sections display a good deal of perfective to imperfective alteration, mostly aorist-to-present change. This type of morphological change appears to reflect a heightened application of OT prophecy to contemporary hearers. Note that the overall message is carried by content: this is not a conclusion derived from the verb forms alone. In line with the context, then, certain shifts in viewpoint from perfective to imperfective aspect seem to bring this heightened expectation and reality to the hearers.
The use of Isaiah 6 is a good example. Jesus’ use of the text noting Israel’s response to Isaiah’s ministry are not, in the gospel narratives, universally applicable. As noted above, not all will respond as one in the same way, rather there exists a portion of the people who will hear and see and respond rightly. The disciples see the rejection (and acceptance) of the word of God before their very eyes, hence a change in aspect is warranted. Just as in the aorist/future cases above these instances of alteration reflect a different standpoint in salvation history. Direct relevance and urgent action accompany these narrative viewpoint shifts, reflecting the reality that ‘the kingdom is near’.
The isolated instances of imperfective-to-perfective change are not as puzzling as they initially appear. All cases involve the historical perfect, which functions similarly to the aorist in structuring narrative (and, generally, in referring to an antecedent event). According to Campbell’s theory this change brings a marginal change in prominence, which appears reasonable from some examples considered above but negligible in others. In the end, however, this by no means constitutes a broad enough pattern of usage to say a great deal about the nature of the perfect—a matter of some contention in aspectual studies at the present time.
These two major categories of alteration and re-interpretation by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament may feel like a somewhat laissez faire approach to the scriptural texts. It seems they were not wholly constrained by the exact form of words, being free (at points, at least) to cast their source material into a different context as part of a new discourse. They were concerned with the word of God over and above the words. Before properly assessing this use (and possible abuse) of OT texts, we should remind ourselves of the shortcomings of this study, its scope, and how our conclusions ought to be constrained.
A feasible model
It appears we have confirmation at a number of points for elements of Campbell’s aspectual system. These posts have hardly been a comprehensive study of verbal aspect usage; that being said, having considered LXX texts and others not directly examined in detail by Campbell it appears we can offer some tentative affirmation of his findings.
Firstly, the future tense-form, is a real tense. In all cases I looked at (more than those posted above) this form has explicit temporal reference, alongside its perfective aspect. The common transfer from aorist to future forms supports this understanding of the future.
Further, Campbell’s spatial model of imperfective aspect has quite reasonable explanatory power. The perfective/imperfective and proximate/remote oppositions, when they occur, display the rhetorical power of verb forms that semantically encode spatial values. These instances apply the texts very closely to the hearers, heightening their impact.
On the contentious issue of the nature of the perfect form, there is simply not enough data to make comment.[2] All occurrences are forms of the historical perfect, which under any model of the perfect is a readily accepted usage.
[1] Other instances, of course, have additional deictic markers that show the reference frame has not changed, e.g. Zech 13:7, Matt 26:31, Mark 14:27. ↩
[2] This lack of data is not surprising: in the entire Greek OT perfects make up only 4.2% of the verb forms. The NT figures are not much higher, at 5.6%. ↩
