Exegesis and Verbal Aspect
From a negative point of view, a good understanding of verbal aspect will enable us to assess and critique some of the scholarly conclusions reached about various Greek passages. New Testament commentaries frequently engage with the Greek text as a matter of course and often build the case for their conclusions using arguments arising from their understanding of Greek verbs.
These conclusions then filter down to classes or sermons heard in church on Sunday. Teachers and pastors consult the commentaries and shape their content around the conclusions reached there. Lectures and sermons affect the understanding of regular people, who take their teachers' or pastors' conclusions to their Bible discussion groups, and before we know it the view that originated in the commentary has become folklore. But what if the original argument was flawed? What if the argument hinged on a misinformed understanding of the Greek verbal system? What if our understanding of biblical texts has been distorted, even just a little, by incorrect handling of Greek verbs?
Do you think such a phenomenon is rare? It's more common than you may think. Understanding Greek verbs matters. It does make a difference, as we will see. From a positive point of view, a good understanding of verbal aspect will enable us to see how narratives are shaped by verbs and to see new possibilities for exegesis that were previously hidden from view. We will be able to describe verbal usage in a manner that is accurate, coherent, and neither too much nor too little. All these things represent a useful advance.
Two Examples: Negative and Positive
In commentaries, classes, and sermons certain tendencies are clearly evident when it comes to the use of some Greek verbs. In this section, I suggest that such tendencies are unhelpful and at times misleading. Consider the following examples:
Negative: Romans 5:6
ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν
ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Some commentators write that because an aorist indicative is used here, Romans 5:6 proves that Christ's death was a once-for-all event, never to be repeated, and therefore Christ could not be reoffered time and time again (as in the Roman Mass).
While I do not want to deny the once-for-all nature of Christ's death (cf. 1 Pet 3:18), the aorist in Romans 5:6 does not prove the point at all. Why not? Because that's not what an aorist indicative means. People who argue such things about this verse base their argument on a faulty understanding of the aorist indicative. A proper understanding of verbal aspect avoids such an error.
Positive: 2 Timothy 4:6–7
Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι, καὶ ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἀναλύσεώς
μου ἐφέστηκεν. τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα ἠγώνισμαι, τὸν δρόμον τετέλεκα,
τὴν πίστιν τετήρηκα·
For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time for my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
These well-known verses witness Paul at the end of his apostolic ministry, speaking as though it is all over. But what if these perfect indicatives were not translated in the traditional manner? What if verbal aspect made it possible to translate these perfect indicatives more like present indicatives: the time is coming; I am fighting the good fight; I am finishing the race; I am keeping the faith? If this were a legitimate reading of the text, its meaning would be somewhat transformed. Paul has not yet reached the end but is still actively engaged in his apostolic work. The study of verbal aspect opens up these kinds of exegetical possibilities that provide fresh insights into a number of texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment